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, 16:46
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
[quote="tiompan
It's the sequence that is unecessary ,if something had gone wrong and it was attempted to fix it then why involve four structural stones when all that would have been needed was to introduce an external stone ?[/quote]

Ha, if only it had been that easy. If out of the blue the structure was in danger of imminent collapse, would you have time to wander off to the moor somewhere to find a suitable stone then drag it back and work on it until it fitted? I don't think so, but what if one of the other stones could be used if it had become dislodged and could be used as a matter of great urgency without threatening the monument further. What would you choose?


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 .


They're almost certainly worked tor stones, worked not quarried though, you never know though, When you're at Zennor the tor's fairly close though, and we could pick stones now that could build a lovely portal tomb, you would surely only quarry if you didn't have the outcrops of stone to hand, i'm sure he's right about the french work just not Zennor.


What he is saying though , is that they did quarry for the Zennor stones , rather than use the rounded tor stones .
As with axes , just because the local stone is good quality and accessible doesn't mean that inferior imported items won't be chosen in preference . Maybe the quarrying itself was imporatnt or the tors were not appropriate .


It's hard to tell the difference between a fully worked stone from the outcrops and a quarried stone, even if you had one side worked and the other exposed for 100's of 1000's of years they could still be either, and at the end of the day i can see the tors and there isn't any quarries there little or big, you can see where stones have been lifted from the outcrops and you can see blast holes where the stones have been taken in more recent times but no quarrying at all, this is just Zennor though George, i don't doubt the other work.


I don't know , only reporting what the man Mens says . If one side was the exposed side then that is you all you need for the diagnosis .The quarrying needn't have been at the tors but from bedrock as in the welsh examples , although he didn't say that .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index