|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit » A clean slate? (or should that be granite?) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
May 07, 2011, 10:14
|
||
Yes, I found a ceremonially deposited hammerstone once, buried point upward in what-was-then peaty topsoil, near to a cupmarked stone and a possible stone circle. By handling the hammerstone - it's recorded - I've been able to infer a great deal about the stone monument makers. It was a hammerstone that was used to dress and shape the stones, when they were altered. Phenomenal strength and endurance would have been needed for the simplest of operations. Arthritis would have been early and painful!
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
May 07, 2011, 10:28
|
||
|
stonefree wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: StoneGloves wrote: Yes, that last photograph supports what I was suggesting was the method that was used to place the cap. The shallow socket would have located the big stone as it was swung around. A monumental feat. Nice to see the workings out. It's certainly moving... This is the last pic I will show as to 'reveal all' just defeats the object of writing about it with a view to publishing. Here is a clearer view (and I have better ones) showing the knib again. We are on the same wavelength here SG as that is my belief also. If a shallow socket as described was made and the knib used as an aid to line up the capstone, then that would explain why the capstone at that point has broken away underneath as clearly seen from underneath the 'hole'. This would have happened as the sheer weight of the cap began to slip. No mystery attached, pure old-fashioned common sense! http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/16/16/85/69/s8002311.jpg Interesting pics Roy . Tatjana Kytmannow makes the interesting point that Trethevy and Harristown are the only surviving portal tombs with with very high portal stones that have not collapsed . I was trying not to go to deeply into it at this stage George because of publication but to be honest I was getting fed up with this misbelief that it had never moved. You've seen some of the other stuff I have which I feel backs up my belief...in fact I don't why I say it's a belief, IT HAS MOVED and I know because of my own measurements it has moved again since last year. Since the day the 'mortice' was torn off from under the capstone it has allowed it to move and the closure move out. In time it will go the same way as the others. So what is this other stuff you feel backs up your belief that it has moved? You mention a 'mortice' - is this just something you think there may have been or do you have anything to back it up? Our own findings seem to have been ridiculed by one or two of you so far, so how about you now give us an opportunity to demonstrate our ability to listen respectfully to what others have to say? I must point out that it appears we may be approaching this subject from almost diametrically opposed positions, because we're working with what is still there, whilst you seem to be working with what no longer is. However, that certainly doesn't discount the possibility that somewhere inbetween there may be things common to both arguments. With respect, you came into this making claims and encouraged comment. A few people did exactly that but you totally disregarded their opinions in a most discourteous way I felt so decided not to discuss this further with you. I have not changed my mind. I came into this making it clear that I was going to publish my findings when my research is complete and have never sought anything as this is your thread. I have no intention of giving anything further away to someone who as you correctly say is diametrically opposed to my views and to the views of other well informed members, so you will have to wait for publication I'm afraid. I hope others following this thread will understand my position and why I will not discuss it further either on this forum or elswhere and mean no disrespect to any of you as I hope you are well aware.
|
|||
|
stonefree 68 posts |
May 07, 2011, 11:01
|
||
|
That's such a shame Sanctuary, I offered yet another opportunity for us all to stop the pointless rivalry and realise we are actually all on the same team. The fact that we are diametrically opposed in our approaches just means that we are covering more ground in our attempts to discover the truth, a bit like the Channel tunnel was dug from both sides and met in the middle. We already have a manuscript of well over a hundred pages, still growing, as well as several thousand high resolution photographs, but we're more than willing to share our findings, simply because we're not just motivated by sales potential for our publication, but in discovering more of the truth about the Quoit and giving our ancestors the credit they deserve! You're welcome to change your mind at any point when you begin to see the scope and quality, as well as quantity, of our research!
|
|||
|
stonefree 68 posts |
May 07, 2011, 11:23
|
||
|
Huge sloping weights will stabilise on the smallest of projections if the downward thrust is forcefull enough.[/quote] Exactly so, and with such a huge mass of granite, once in position it would be unlikely to move so much as a few millimetres without a similar force being applied!
|
|||
|
stonefree 68 posts |
May 07, 2011, 11:31
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: StoneGloves wrote: Yes. In one of your photographs there is what appears to be a dinge in the underside of the capstone. Toward the mid-line, form the aperture. When I look at other pictures the lump and the round depression seem on completely different planes. But after looking at the two links that Tiompan posted, to other dolmens, then it seems obvious which upright pointed stone has been used to support the capstone and to provide a pivot. I guess our ancestors were predominantly right-handed, as we are, and that would be the easiest direction to shift it into place (anticlockwise). I need to read some online material about these structures, but am presently researching prehistoric gold-working techniques. (Dem hair rings!) It looks as if both pointed and flat stones are used for portal ,side back and doorstones with no obvious pattern that I could see . Although it is not do with handedness it may be of interest that Ms Kytmannow writes " there is no indication of any emphasis of a more dominant right side of portal tombs ......The heights range from 0.5m to 3.5m on the right and and from 0.6to 4.4m on the left although the 4.4 example is out of it's socket and would have probaly stood at 3.5 . The laerrgest still up0right is at harristown 3.6 and 3.5 respectively ." http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2305/kilmogue.html The side stones at Trethevy are cleverly positioned and overlapped. The capstone is supported at three points, on the closure orthostat and the two rear flankers and between them secure the other two flankers. So what you have is the rear flankers secured by the capstone and the front flankers underlapping them and prevented from falling in by the closure stone which they lay against. They have no connection with the capstone whatsoever. Very clever. It is this 'lack of contact points' that actually prevents the capstone from sliding off as the downforce on those three points is much greater that if it was multipley(sp) seated. This is exactly what we're saying, too. The fallen stone 7 did not result in collapse simply because it was never supporting the capstone - it hasn't moved because the sheer mass of the capstone on so few support points creates a huge downward force, making it incredibly stable!
|
|||
|
The Eternal 924 posts |
May 07, 2011, 23:33
|
||
|
stonefree wrote: Our plan was to share some of our findings in a forum of like-minded people who already had an interest,...............So, gentlemen, what say we start again with a clean slate? Yup, I'm all for that, matey. Regards, TE.
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
