Before to answer to you on your point, hereunder is a post to Harry Wolf to expose the geological question raising about Malta ruts: About 90% of them run on the most recent limestone layer, the Coralline, whereas they are only a few on older and softer limestone layer, namely Globigerina.
Malta geology and cart ruts distribution correspondence
And after, please see my answer to Jon to clarify my views and state of mind:
Answer to Jon Ellison
To me, even if I am not opposed to the theory of very, very old imprints on soft clay that turn out solid afterwards, I don't think it can apply to the case of Malta, although they must also be old, before catastrophes in the Mediterranean, may be contemporary of Atlantis, not impossible to me. Considering that more wet paleo climate may have helped the wear of tracks, I am thinking here to Robert Soch claims about the water erosion of Gizah Sphinx.
Now, to answer your question:

Quote
Tsurugi question:
That said, your observations of quarry features around rut "hubs" is very interesting. Question: is there anything you noticed that definitely makes the quarry features and the ruts contemporary?

I cannot say definitely, not being a geologist, nor a quarry expert. But being an engineer familiar with technical and production questions, Clapham Junction looked to me a very old (stones wear, ground erosion) and well organised quarry. In the beginning it seems just to be a mess with random "cart ruts". And little by little you begin to understand the overall pattern, but it comes gradually.
On the sides of the ruts areas are clear patches of rock extraction patterns, but they don't lie beside ruts and maybe are younger than ruts. Maybe Punic, Greek, Roman.
But in the end I realized that in several ruts areas we were walking on man-made artificially levelled parallel strips of rocky terrain, all flat (and inclined), all of same limited height and width.
The idea of cutting benches became pregnant. And then I realized that they were all crossed by parallel cart ruts, and the crossing angle was constant. It seem to me that cutting benches were following geological sedimentary layers to optimize rock quality, whereas ruts direction was defined to optimize a constant tracks slope.
No evidence of course. I visited this site more as a tourist than as a specialist, I did not check every square inch of terrain, I missed a lot of zones. In addition, I confess I should have had accurate maps, google earth prints and a compass, or a GPS. Unfortunately, as a good tourist, I only had my camera, and a limited sight at man's height.
Definitely, this site should be mapped to professionaly check if it was a quarry with tracks, yes or no.




Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 27-Nov-17 11:16 by Mike D.