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: I've got it !
Mar 10, 2013, 13:59
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:


Roy , I foresee problems if there is no proof and “obvious “ is only subjective .
I get the impression that you will suggest that one stone (I know you said earlier that four were moved but one is enough to illustrate the hypothetical problem ) was moved from it's original position to replace another dislodged ? stone and in turn be replaced by another . It cannot be obvious which of the original stones was moved as you don't know and cannot know without evidence that it was ever there .If it had a distinctive profile which matched an excavated socket you could then prove it but there is no basis for believing a particular stone was anywhere without proof you can only suggest it and from there continue on to the movement of the other , equally problematical three . The basic problem is that to produce what is obvious to you , you have to have an ideal model of the original that without proof derived from excavation only exists in your head and which you cannot prove ever existed .


I've already given you proof that the flankers are not below ground level George, here it is again...
https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/StoneSeatings?authkey=Gv1sRgCOvKj8r8ib6fDw#5853697744855595762
I know you are a perfectionist and rightly so in these matters, but speculation based on what you can see and provide evidence for is perfectly acceptable and how we progress. Much as I admire your knowledge I couldn't operate like that and keep finding ways to disprove other peoples work continually without even seeing it first hand and because it doesn't fit into a previous way of doing things. I've done some good work at Trethevy which I'm very pleased with.
I'm finished with this now and pleased that it was discussed fully in a civil manner. I'll give a link to the books website when ready.


Whether the side stones are below ground or not has nothing to do with my point of you not being able to know what stones ,if any , were moved without any evidence . I didn't believe what you were suggesting was speculation on your behalf because of some of your earlier comments .If you do accept it as speculation then that is different from how I perceived your approach but doesn't change any argument against that speculation .The reason I disagreed was not because of anything to do with not fitting " into a previous way of doing things." , it was because I saw problems and would expect anyone to do the same to me if I speculated on something . Of course , just because we disagree doesn't mean that we shouldn't be civil
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index