|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit in danger |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Mar 03, 2013, 11:42
Mar 03, 2013, 11:40
|
||
We don’t know that it has stood for millennia in it present form, nor can you argue that, “...portal tombs with their extreme sloping capstones or massive capstones perched on three points and also sloping...” are any less stable than a horizontal capstone on four points. In fact, without any formal training in structural engineering, I'd hazard to say that the former is probably more stable than the latter, certainly easier to build and, to return to aesthetics, far more pleasing to the eye :-)
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 12:05
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: We don’t know that it has stood for millennia in it present form, nor can you argue that, “...portal tombs with their extreme sloping capstones or massive capstones perched on three points and also sloping...” are any less stable than a horizontal capstone on four points. In fact, without any formal training in structural engineering, I'd hazard to say that the former is probably more stable than the latter, certainly easier to build and, to return to aesthetics, far more pleasing to the eye :-) There's no evidence to suggest that Trethevy has been modified structurally , apart form the removal of cairn material .The burden of proof would be on anyone who would suggest otherwise . The obvious playing about with stability is a major component of the monuments aesthetic and the builders didn't go for the easy option . Sloping and massive capstones are the main reason for collapse . I don''t see how a sloping capstone is any easier to set or more stable than level one . If the builders wanted stability and a common sense approach they would not have built portal tombs at all .
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Mar 03, 2013, 12:08
Mar 03, 2013, 12:07
|
||
|
Well, I’ll keep an open mind on whether it's stood in its present form for millennia but, based on Sanctuary’s observations there, I’m 95% sure that it hasn’t. In fact the more I look at it (and I confess I haven’t been there) the more it looks like a folly and something constructed by someone who didn’t know the faintest about dolmens – how they should look and how best to keep them standing. The jury’s out but I really do recommend anyone who’s interested in Trethevy and its long-term prospects to look at Sanctuary's DVD (and book when it comes out).
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 12:18
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: It would feel like a big deal if you were one of the pounders. I guess 3D laser scanning would show if it happened. 3D laser scanning will certainly show Mulfra,Zennor and Trethevy Quoits to be worked, what a great idea.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Mar 03, 2013, 12:40
Mar 03, 2013, 12:25
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: "If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again would you dad!" That's the point ,it's not what you would do , or anyone else , modern or otherwise , it's what was done . It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb . This is right, I believe the builders even had capstones that rocked just like the logan stones that inspired them in the first place, George is right and common sense doesn't come into it, it was all about what impressed the most or/and was defying nature the most, eg madly sloping stones or ones that even rocked, those Irish ones [like Aghnacliff Portal Tomb - http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2015/aghnacliff.html] with it's 3 stones on one side supporting the capstone certainly defy logic.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 12:32
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Well, I’ll keep an open mind on whether it's stood in its present form for millennia but, based on Sanctuary’s observations there, I’m 95% sure that it hasn’t. In fact the more I look at it (and I confess I haven’t been there) the more it looks like a folly and something constructed by someone who didn’t know the faintest about dolmens – how they should look and how best to keep them standing. The jury’s out but I really do recommend anyone who’s interested in Trethevy and its long-term prospects to look at Sanctuary's DVD (and book when it comes out). It looks exactly like a portal dolmen . Again, that's the point they are meant to look like follies or at least the Neolithic equivalent , not some utilitarian megalithic box where a few deposits were interred . What is odd is the cat flap and hole in the capstone . They are slightly anamolous . Why has there been no mention of the padstone ?another common feature , you don't see it in too many pics .
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 12:52
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Well, I’ll keep an open mind on whether it's stood in its present form for millennia but, based on Sanctuary’s observations there, I’m 95% sure that it hasn’t. In fact the more I look at it (and I confess I haven’t been there) the more it looks like a folly and something constructed by someone who didn’t know the faintest about dolmens – how they should look and how best to keep them standing. The jury’s out but I really do recommend anyone who’s interested in Trethevy and its long-term prospects to look at Sanctuary's DVD (and book when it comes out). The sub title to said book is The Rise and Near Fall of a Neolithic Cornish Portal Dolman. I believe very strongly that 4 of the eight stones are now out of position, a situation that arose due to the capstone slipping to the side of the main orthostat when a major joint failed. I further believe I know how the joint failed but not when. It could have been right from the onset but much more likely in more 'modern' times otherwise the structure would have collapsed long ago. Everything I say is logical and I am very proud of myself for working it out and being able to show it in actual and model form. None of it is ground-breaking, just common sense which doesn't seem to have been applied here before but I will let others judge me once they have read what I have to say. I will welcome all serious comments and questions once the book has been read so will leave it there for now if you don't mind. Cheers Roy
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 13:13
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Littlestone wrote: Well, I’ll keep an open mind on whether it's stood in its present form for millennia but, based on Sanctuary’s observations there, I’m 95% sure that it hasn’t. In fact the more I look at it (and I confess I haven’t been there) the more it looks like a folly and something constructed by someone who didn’t know the faintest about dolmens – how they should look and how best to keep them standing. The jury’s out but I really do recommend anyone who’s interested in Trethevy and its long-term prospects to look at Sanctuary's DVD (and book when it comes out). It looks exactly like a portal dolmen . Again, that's the point they are meant to look like follies or at least the Neolithic equivalent , not some utilitarian megalithic box where a few deposits were interred . What is odd is the cat flap and hole in the capstone . They are slightly anamolous . Why has there been no mention of the padstone ?another common feature , you don't see it in too many pics . Not knowing too much about the subject, but having seen quite a few photo's of portal dolmens, it look like just about any of the others to my eye. Is there any reason to believe that this one is different?
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 15:59
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb . Surely you’re not suggesting the (original) builders would choose a less stable construction over a more stable one? We’re talking about a people who knew their materials and understood the properties and limitations of those materials inside out. The fact that the structures have survived so long is proof positive of that. If anyone doubts Sanctuary's findings at Trethevy they should watch his latest DVD. Youtube link ?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 16:08
|
||
|
harestonesdown wrote: Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb . Surely you’re not suggesting the (original) builders would choose a less stable construction over a more stable one? We’re talking about a people who knew their materials and understood the properties and limitations of those materials inside out. The fact that the structures have survived so long is proof positive of that. If anyone doubts Sanctuary's findings at Trethevy they should watch his latest DVD. Youtube link ? Frayed knot Geoff. Nobody would need to buy the book if I did that. I said earlier it wasn't for sale. Still good though :-)
|
| Pages: 44 – [ Previous | 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
