|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit in danger |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 01:36
|
||
|
bladup wrote: 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. Haha, that is truly mental. (finally going through the whole thread) :)
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 02:59
|
||
|
Playing around with the flankers and the capstones points of contact with them i guess it's pretty fair to say (and quite obvious imo) that it's gonna eventually slip off to the SW. Until you look closely you couldn't imagine the minimal contact it has with stone 4, basically the only thing keeping it from going. :O http://oi50.tinypic.com/241s1mx.jpg Other thoughts: If the fallen stone was supportive, and given it's height, that'd make it and the closure stone the only supports ? I'm finding more questions than answers, but i'm not sure if what i'm coming up with is just pure bollocks because i'm looking so hard for something. :/ Btw Roy, do you consider the slope/angle on stone 4 significant ?
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 06:44
|
||
|
harestonesdown wrote: Playing around with the flankers and the capstones points of contact with them i guess it's pretty fair to say (and quite obvious imo) that it's gonna eventually slip off to the SW. Until you look closely you couldn't imagine the minimal contact it has with stone 4, basically the only thing keeping it from going. :O http://oi50.tinypic.com/241s1mx.jpg Other thoughts: If the fallen stone was supportive, and given it's height, that'd make it and the closure stone the only supports ? I'm finding more questions than answers, but i'm not sure if what i'm coming up with is just pure bollocks because i'm looking so hard for something. :/ Btw Roy, do you consider the slope/angle on stone 4 significant ? Well done Geoff you're starting to think about it instead of believing everything our peers have concluded. I gave you all a clue a couple of days ago that you must implement. Four stones are out of position! The 'slope' on stone 4 is not significant but consider its height and the last sentence! George and I discussed the fallen stone/closure stone/capstone combination a few days back and showed that if the fallen stone was indeed the backstone then the initial structure would have taken the shape of a trilithon. It wasn't and it didn't. And yes, you are at a disadvantage because you cant just sit and look at it like I could/can 'in the flesh' so to speak.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 08:45
|
||
|
harestonesdown wrote: bladup wrote: 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. Haha, that is truly mental. (finally going through the whole thread) :) That's what Portal Tombs are about , not producing an above ground cist .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 08:47
|
||
|
As close an overlay as i can manage, the most obvious thing to me is the difference in your stone 6. http://i47.tinypic.com/f2u1oz.jpg Night Roy.[/quote] With the fallen "Back stone" as a supporting stone. Apologies for the out of scale capstone. (Wine o clock, hic) http://i45.tinypic.com/2i1jnys.jpg Also why is there a Moi in profile guarding the entrance ? :P[/quote] That looks like a portal dolmen .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 08:51
|
||
|
harestonesdown wrote: Other thoughts: If the fallen stone was supportive, and given it's height, that'd make it and the closure stone the only supports ? I'm finding more questions than answers, but i'm not sure if what i'm coming up with is just pure bollocks because i'm looking so hard for something. :/ ? Fairly typical , the side stones , when they are present are often not supporting . No need to look so hard , it's quite simple , the back stone fell .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 08:56
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Other thoughts: If the fallen stone was supportive, and given it's height, that'd make it and the closure stone the only supports ? I'm finding more questions than answers, but i'm not sure if what i'm coming up with is just pure bollocks because i'm looking so hard for something. :/ ? Fairly typical , the side stones , when they are present are often not supporting . No need to look so hard , it's quite simple , the back stone fell . Keep looking Geoff :-)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 08:57
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: It's the small stone between the the ante-chamber stone and the doorstone Are you referring to the packing stone at the top of the 'buttress' George? Yes Except I wouldn't describe it as a buttress . Not originally no. If it was a buttress why the padstone and why isn't at more functional acute angle to actually act like a buttress ? The more obvious simpler explanation is that it is what it appears to be , an ante chamber stone .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 09:15
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: It's the small stone between the the ante-chamber stone and the doorstone Are you referring to the packing stone at the top of the 'buttress' George? Yes Except I wouldn't describe it as a buttress . Not originally no. If it was a buttress why the padstone and why isn't at more functional acute angle to actually act like a buttress ? The more obvious simpler explanation is that it is what it appears to be , an ante chamber stone . You've missed two important points George. Look at the top of the 'buttress' and it will tell you why a padstone was required between it and the closure stone. Secondly, the closure is 21.75" out of upright pushing the 'buttress' stone into a steeper angle than it originally was. No disrespect intended to everyone following this discussion but I'm deffo leaving it now as I've given all the clues I want to give. It was fun for me working it out as I freed my mind of what I'd been fed in the past. Won't be long now before you'll all know and can judge me on it.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 09, 2013, 09:17
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Playing around with the flankers and the capstones points of contact with them i guess it's pretty fair to say (and quite obvious imo) that it's gonna eventually slip off to the SW. Until you look closely you couldn't imagine the minimal contact it has with stone 4, basically the only thing keeping it from going. :O http://oi50.tinypic.com/241s1mx.jpg Other thoughts: If the fallen stone was supportive, and given it's height, that'd make it and the closure stone the only supports ? I'm finding more questions than answers, but i'm not sure if what i'm coming up with is just pure bollocks because i'm looking so hard for something. :/ Btw Roy, do you consider the slope/angle on stone 4 significant ? Four stones are out of position! What ? That involves an incredible amount of unlikely playing about with components of which there is no evidence elsewhere of anything similar , compared with the simple explanation of a one off event which has been noted elsewhere i.e. the collpase of a backstone . The evidence to support that is going to have to be pretty overwhelming .
|
| Pages: 44 – [ Previous | 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 32 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
