thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:04
|
Thanks Roy.
The sources I referred to earlier in the thread indicated that the backstone was "up" in 1824 but fallen by 1850. So if the fallen stone isn't the backstone, the original backstone must have been taken away at some point after 1824, leaving only the other stone that's still there inside the chamber.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:06
|
|
tiompan wrote:
Come off it George, those are gaps above a stone not purposely cut windows like at Trethevy.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:07
|
I'm talking about the big stone that can be seen between the two facade slabs, not the (broken) backstone of the big chamber.
The one I mean is in the centre of your picture here:
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/114210/zennor_quoit.html
It's the same height as the supporters either side.
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:10
|
|
Fucking hell Roy, sorry for saying you should start a thread for your book, i know some would be funny but i didn't think i'd sense jealousy from people, you've done nothing wrong at all, it's a great chat but some people seem to want to spoil it, and i don't want any spoilers before i get mine:OP
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:10
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Thanks Roy.
The sources I referred to earlier in the thread indicated that the backstone was "up" in 1824 but fallen by 1850. So if the fallen stone isn't the backstone, the original backstone must have been taken away at some point after 1824, leaving only the other stone that's still there inside the chamber.
No nothing has been removed that formed the structure (as far as I know anyway) Alken. They say there used to be a stone that was rolled up to the entrance as and when but there's no sign of that now.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:10
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote:
Come off it George, those are gaps above a stone not purposely cut windows like at Trethevy.
Haroldstown is no different from Trethevy there are plenty other stones with that same look , it is as likely to be choice from quarried stones rather than worked .
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:11
|
|
But if *nothing* has been removed, then the fallen stone in the chamber must be the backstone, surely?
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:13
|
|
bladup wrote: Fucking hell Roy, sorry for saying you should start a thread for your book, i know some would be funny but i didn't think i'd sense jealousy from people, you've done nothing wrong at all, it's a great chat but some people seem to want to spoil it, and i don't want any spoilers before i get mine:OP
No worries Paul, I don't believe Alken meant it like that. I won't say anymore because you're right, I will spoil it for those putting their hands in their pocket :-)
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:14
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: But if *nothing* has been removed, then the fallen stone in the chamber must be the backstone, surely?
Nope...not in my book anyway. I've just said what it is anyway IMO.
|
tiompan
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:15
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: I'm not offended, but if you don't want to discuss the points, then this isn't a discussion!
I'm not so sure it is a discussion . I have made quite a few points lately complete with examplars haven't been rude etc , but they have been ignored .
What by me George? What were they only I thought I'd replied to all as best I can.
You have been busy ,no problem . here's one copied .
What matters is the quality of that evidence and the fact that is must be extraordianry to support the extraordinary claims .
Thinking along the lines of it being a jigasaw puzzle may not be helpful . It's not about coming up with the most efficient use of building blocks as seen from the perspective of the 21st c .
You could spend forever rearranging the component parts of monuments to suit a particualr aesthetic or the way they " should have been ".
Take Gaulstown http://www.themodernantiquaria[...]ite/1374/gaulstown.html(scroll to 6 th pic ) it has an unsupporting angled sidestone that is angled in the wrong direction to be of any use in the case of collapse does that make it wrong or suggest that there has been a re-arrangenment ?
|
