|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit » Trethevy Quoit...Cornwall's Megalithic Masterpiece |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:16
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: I'm not really sure this is like what is being suggested for Trethevy. Nobody ever mentions that window, well they have now That "window " is typical of many portal tombs some of which I have highlighted in the past Haroldstown 1st pic http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/890/haroldstown.html Drumanone: http://www.megalithics.com/ireland/drumnone/drummain.htm 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 . We'll have to agree to disagree there George.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:22
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: 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. If it helps , so we are all singing from the same plan /hymn sheet that central stone is usually referred to as the doorstone . Same as at Trethevy .
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:23
|
||
Thanks Tiompan.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:25
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: 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 ? Trethevy was a precision built tomb George. All angles were cut and the only three with no angles showing is the one that got damaged when the lid slipped, the front closure and the original backstone which is rounded. You should be able to work it all out from that. The Gaulstown one you show is like comparing a Rolls Royce with a mini. Trethevy is a real gem and special. Right, dog exercise time. Had a great afternoon watching United getting trashed by the blues and answering questions and all in a good manner (with the odd exception!!)
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:28
|
||
There's been a misunderstanding, the main capstone would have been on those big sidestones and maybe the middle one and the [supposed] destroyed backstone, but if you read what i first wrote you'll see i meant something was clearly placed on top of the chamber sidestones and the chamber backstone therefore sealing the chamber but under the main capstone, it's very hard to explain but so easy to see, try reading what i said again, i'm sure if you could see what i'm saying you'd see it straight away, I'd have love to have showed Roy before this new book because it could have helped him in regard to trethevy as they are very similar, to me Zennor proves that stones have been moved at Trethevy.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:35
|
||
|
OK, looks like we've been talking at cross-purposes. So if you thought I meant a different stone to the one in your picture as separating the chamber from the antechamber, which one did you mean? I assumed you meant that (what you describe as the "head" in your picture) was the one you lean against, sorry. Also, on that basis are you referring to something other than the eastern antechamber as the "little" chamber? Do you mean the space under the capstone at the western end?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:46
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: OK, looks like we've been talking at cross-purposes. So if you thought I meant a different stone to the one in your picture as separating the chamber from the antechamber, which one did you mean? I assumed you meant that (what you describe as the "head" in your picture) was the one you lean against, sorry. Also, on that basis are you referring to something other than the eastern antechamber as the "little" chamber? Do you mean the space under the capstone at the western end? Yes that and the main chamber sidestones have been shaped to hold stones on top and would have sealed the 2 chambers [the covering "stones" could even have been wooden], as the main capstone doesn't cover them in the old drawing, as it's to high, it's the components that made me see all this, if you can understand what i'm saying i don't expect you to believe it here and now but if you get what i'm saying you'll see it clearly on site because it's so clear, simple and genus by the builders, this all came from looking at the place after believing in the old drawing, which i'd never done, when i did it was revelation after revelation [and that's thanks to Mr Currie].
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:49
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 ? Trethevy was a precision built tomb George. All angles were cut and the only three with no angles showing is the one that got damaged when the lid slipped, the front closure and the original backstone which is rounded. You should be able to work it all out from that. The Gaulstown one you show is like comparing a Rolls Royce with a mini. Trethevy is a real gem and special. Right, dog exercise time. Had a great afternoon watching United getting trashed by the blues and answering questions and all in a good manner (with the odd exception!!) You have missed the point about Gaulstown ,if you took the components apart you could make new monument more suited to whatever design you might imagine it to have been , all the angles are there but in the "wrong " order but obviously that is the way the builders intended it to be , not a "precision built tomb " I think that is the problem Roy , you have used the materials from a portal tomb to create what you would like it to be rather than accept what the builders wanted . It's not a meccano monument or jigsaw puzzle with the bits in the wrong places ,it's another portal tomb that has suffered a bit of a collapse , the backstone fell into the body of the monument . Another example of a "precision built tomb " would be good but as Trethevy is the only one and only after much rearranging I find that equally as unconvincing as any potential evidence for the rearranging .
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 18:50
|
||
|
I'm still not quite there. Is your layout, from west to east: 1. Little chamber 2. Big chamber 3. Ante-chamber Or are you saying the extra chambers are to the sides (north and/or south) of the big chamber?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Apr 01, 2013, 19:04
|
||
Yes and all 3 would be covered on top, the Anti chamber by the big main capstone, the middle big one would have a stone [or wood] on top and be resting on the angled backstone [that's why it's at that angle] and the little back chamber would also be covered, and if the whole thing had walling up to the main capstone it would make another big space above the 2 inner chambers, the anti chamber would have been open though and is the place at a lot of chambers that shows signs of ritual and fire, i'd just like you to know enough that you could see it next time your there, it's wonderfully simple and all the shapes on the stones suddenly make total sense, this is something that happened to me and Roy at the same time but at different places, i took what i've learnt there and made a lot more sense of mulfra as well, trouble is money been tight makes Cornwall further away i suppose, do you plan getting down this year?
|
| Pages: 40 – [ Previous | 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
