Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Your first link is missing the "t" right at the beginning sanctuary.

If the Borlase drawing is inaccurate we are gubbed .If it is accurate then what you have a is a typical tripod portal dolmen i.e. the pointed backstone supporting the capstone either relatively flat or angle upwards from that stone e.g. ,http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/1055/legananny.html
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/116/llechydrybedd.html
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/117/pentre_ifan.html

The addition of side stones aren't necessary for support hence the sloping side doesn't matter ,although they do allow for ingress if the cairn is high enough .Trethevy ,rear of Poulnabrone have them . As for "Why would people with not a lot of free time on their hands find or fashion tapered stones and then balance a 10 ton capstone on what in comparison is a needle? " Who said they didn't have a lot of free time ? and even if they didn't ,we don't have a clue why they built these things , it's hardly utilitarian .If you want to dispose of of a few bones or lithics there are easier ways to go about doing it .If some sort of answer is needed then fwiw conspicuous construction , showing off .

If you consider it MAY have been a tripod portal dolmen George, then I assume you consider the other two supporting 'legs' are the two side flankers, is that correct? So based on that possibility, are you then suggesting that the front central closure stone along with the two front 'facade' slabs are a later addition?

Sorry Roy , I was unclear . I trying to say that the sloping side stones are are unnecessary for supporting the capstone (as seen at sites that don't have them and have no evidence for them ) their function is creating a cist like structure, and the slope (also found at other sites ) does not interfere with their function apart from allowing ingress . When a capstone does slip it conveniently fits over the angle of the slope making it appear that was their function . I imagine they are contemporary with the all the other components .

Back in 04 Clive Williams (sorry don't know the gentleman) added this to the Fieldnotes on TMA. Sadly there were no replies.
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/user/5103

What he says is exactly what I have returned from Zennor Quoit asking myself.
Quote:
How has the quoit changed in appearance since it was built?
Are Borlase's sketch and Craig Weatherhill's drawing in Cornovia anything like the original?
Why would people with not a lot of free time on their hands find or fashion tapered stones and then balance a 10 ton capstone on what in comparison is a needle?
Why take on a huge amount of work to get an inferior end product?
Where is the back support, the stone in-situ is to short to put the capstone any where near level.
What filled the gaps between a level capstone and the tapered side stones?
Besides the capstone sinking into the ground somewhat and maybe shifting to the north I feel the quoit is as the builders wanted it.

As you may recall I have been carrying out a great deal of research on Trethevy Quoit near where I live in East Cornwall, so was very interested in seeing Zennor Quoit for the first time and observing how it had collapsed and the capstone apparently fallen. Admittedly after only a short visit and a short inspection, I am left asking the same questions as Clive asked. Before starting this thread I checked on TMA what field notes had been entered and came across Clive's contribution so I didn’t feel quite so alone in my thoughts.

I know it is not seen as being the thing to go against the claims of archaeos/antiquaries by amateurs, but does anyone know if Borlase's drawings of the quoit were fanciful and how he felt it once was, or as it really was at the time he was there? The whole thing looks ‘wrong’ to me as all the available evidence, other than Borlase’s drawing and another one, don’t match up to the claims. I make no apology for repeating Clive’s words in essence as it will mean you don’t have to keep looking back to read what he asked.

Firstly, those who have seen the quoit will need no telling that the stones are immense! I didn’t actually measure them but will be doing that when I return in a couple of week’s time as I intend to make this my next project.
The two facing side flankers appear to be around 13/14ft wide and slope down from the top front to bottom rear. It would have taken a considerable time to achieve this and was obviously done for a special purpose, but what?
Borlase claims that the whole structure was covered but how can that be if the capstone was once level and stuck up on the flimsiest looking of stones that he draws, leaving the sloping area above the side flankers wide open to the ingress of cairn material? This doesn’t ring true and makes the effort put into shaping the side stones a nonsense.
Looking inside the burial chamber which is about 4ft wide by 6ft in length you can’t help but notice the short backstone which is leaning inward somewhat. But more than that, once raised upright would marry in nicely with the capstone if slid back up into its original position because it would be equal in height to the side flankers at that point.
My first impression is that I agree with Clive that other than the capstone slipping both downward and sideways, the quoit is exactly how it should be….a box chamber sealed in by a sloping capstone that would have almost certainly rested on the ground at its lowest end. It could now be covered by a cairn, maybe just to the rear tailing off to the front for access as and when but with no ingress of cairn material because it is now a sealed unit.
I have my ideas about Thethevy and strangely enough it also concerns sloping stones that are possible not suiting their purpose either! And that is also a subject of a Borlase drawing which for some reason does not show the claimed fallen ‘backstone’ which has been omitted from the drawing even though quite plain to see. That’s why I asked if he’s drawings of Zennor that looks like the Starship Enterprise in Star Trek were fanciful? If he left something obvious out of one, could he not add something to another just as easily!https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/ZennorQuoit#

If it's as simple as that George why the slopes on the side if they are not neccessary? It would be far easier to just erect a line of thinner tall stones to create a cist instead of hauling something that weighs several tons (in this instant) and then work on them to create a slope surely. I still think the slopes are there to perform a function but that's just me.

Because you find the same thing at sites where the capstone hasn't collapsed (and quite a few monoliths ,Stenness etc ) , maybe it is for access from the side , also found at other sites . It's not about simplicity ,necessity or utility , they wouldn't go to all that bother in the first place .The hauling problem applies to any of the components you don't really need any of them , it's all for visual impact .