Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Trethevy Quoit in danger
Log In to post a reply

433 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Just messing.
Mar 09, 2013, 14:46
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:


Surely there would be an indication of small movement prior to the big one , certainly enough to find a replacement . If one of the stones had become dislodged then wouldn't it make more sense to fix that first ? If there was a problem , using stones from the structure doesn't make sense either . BTW Emmanulle Mens reckons that the stones at Sperris ,Zennor and Trethevy were quarried rather than using the rounded slabs from the tors .


I can't speak for Sperris as I've not seen it but like Zennor it has tor formations right there at hand as well as other outcrops with straight edges which could 'easily' be cut to shape so I don't know George. Trethevy has got at least four worked stones although the experts say only the closure is. I would call that one more 'dressed' rather than worked if you know what I mean!


It's an interesting suggestion , and Mens knows what he is talking about . It ties in with a similar suggestions about Pentre Ifan and other Welsh portal tombs where it has been suggested (by those who are not as qualified as Mens ) that the capstones were lifted straight up from where quarried . There are pits below these capstones but no direct evidence that is where they were sourced from .I should add that Mens doesn't suggest that any of the Cornish capstones were lifted straight from the quarrying site .


When you are at Zennor you don't really consider where the stones come from because there are so many around. Levering them off the tor constructs must have been favourite though because you could see pretty well see what you were getting from the onset. One presumes that as long as they were of a suitable size to cover the structure it didn't really matter how big they were. I would think that Zennor's lid was definitely off a tor as it is so big and much more of a problem I would have thought dig out. Interesting though.


What Mens does is source menhirs ,orthostats etc not just petrologically but from the physical appearance of a block i.e. most quarried blocks will have one surface that has been extracted from underlying bedrock and another that has been exposed a fresh face and a weathered face , there is also a element of convexity on the convexity on the weathered side . This would be far more apparent in the case of material extracted from a tor .Long term exposed faces (as opposed to just millenia old in the case of recelatively recently exposed examples used as megaliths ) also have traces of micromodeles a result of wind ,rain ,heat , ice ,salt and vegetaion which are another indicator . He has been doing this for year , most importantly at Carnac where he has pinpointed where particular menhirs have been extracted from particualr parts of outcrops .He specifically mentioned Zennor and I think in the absence of anything more definite it deserves note even if it may not seem the obvious choice . So often the decisions concerning non -utilitarian monuments from the period were not the most obvious or easiest .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index