thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 15:22
|
I'm struggling with this thread (even without the diversions). Presumably the hole could have been:
(a) always there and used in some way in the original construction
(b) always there but not relevant to the original construction
(c) made later and used in a putative re-structuring of the site
(d) made later and nothing whatever to do with any later re-construction?
Is the hole important? If the hole is important, I would have thought it would be essential to evaluate whether it was made with metal tools or otherwise.
Also, I have to agree with Tiompan that more likely explanations (e.g. that the structure is largely as it always was, including a single chamber, and that some bits have subsequently slipped or fallen down) would need to be properly discounted before less likely explanations were seriously considered.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 15:32
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote:
Also, I have to agree with Tiompan that more likely explanations (e.g. that the structure is largely as it always was, including a single chamber, and that some bits have subsequently slipped or fallen down) would need to be properly discounted before less likely explanations were seriously considered.
Then you need to read the book Alken. There is too much evidence to show that it is not like it originally was. It's a jigsaw puzzle with some pieces out of place. On initial build all the side stones were supportive. It was a proper 'sealed' chamber unlike it is now with the exception of the two entrances and the broken piece off one of the front flankers caused when the capstone slipped no doubt.
Only a full excavation will prove who is right or wrong (presumably) but when is that likely to happen...never!
|
tiompan
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 15:51
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: [quote="thesweetcheat"]
There is too much evidence to show that it is not like it originally was. It's a jigsaw puzzle with some pieces out of place. On initial build all the side stones were supportive. It was a proper 'sealed' chamber unlike it is now with the exception of the two entrances and the broken piece off one of the front flankers caused when the capstone slipped no doubt.
Only a full excavation will prove who is right or wrong (presumably) but when is that likely to happen...never!
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.themodernantiquarian.com/site/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 ?
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 15:54
|
No, I'm not suggesting it's exactly as it originally was. It seems perfectly likely that the chamber was sealed, but that could be achieved without a major re-structuring/moving of all the pieces.
What I'm suggesting is that the current structure could have been arrived at by various pieces slipping or falling, rather than by the whole thing being re-built "wrongly".
I assume that large parts of the structure (if not all) would have been covered in a mound? In which case, pieces could shift and move over time underneath, while being kept from collapse by the weight of the earth. (See for example Hetty Pegler's Tump for a chambered barrow where the internal structures gradually weakened and shifted while being kept generally in place by the mound).
It seems more likely to me at least that the current arrangement simply reflects 1000s of years of movement, worsened by the protecting mound disappearing, etc, than a wholesale re-build in a different, "wrong" configuration.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 16:08
|
Incidentally, you've probably seen this:
http://ancient-cornwall.wikidot.com/hiac:trethevy-quoit
"The backstone is likely to have collapsed sometime prior to 1850, when it was described by S R Pattison in that year's Report of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, and Cyrus Redding's 1842 description of the quoit makes no mention of the fallen stone. Both Redding and Stockdale, who described the quoit in 1824, assert that the 11 ton capstone was in contact with five of the uprights whereas it now rests on only three, as it did when William Copeland Borlase described it in 1872. It is unfortunate that none of the three views of the monument featured in Redding's book show the rear of the chamber."
If this is so, there was appear to have been a partial collapse in the 1830s or 40s. It seems unlikely that a report that specifically mentions that the capstone was supported by 5 uprights (in 1824) would have been so wrong. In that case, the backstone was upright at that date.
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 16:30
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: juamei wrote: So, I've read my copy of the book (thankyou Roy)...
The jigsaw puzzle certainly makes sense. I may have missed it but I didn't see any mention as to when the rearrangement would have been made, I presume in the neolithic?
Also, I am unaware of any other quoit or tomb with a diagonal dividing stone. Are there any still standing examples?
Hi Juamei,
When re-arranged is an unknown I'm afraid. I believe it comes down to the hole in the Capstone because when that was pummelled through it was the likely cause of the Capstone slipping. Due to the positioning of the buttress that was offset from the opening it suggests it was still in use after the slippage otherwise it would have been placed centrally for maximum benefit.
No other diagonal dividing stones that I am aware of in this country although there are far more cromlechs that have been destroyed or are no longer with us than are still here. Funnily enough there is only one stone circle with lintols as well! Always something new to consider eh :-)
Zennor's stone dividing the 2 chambers is diagonal, and it's by far the closest type to trethevy that's extant.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 16:54
|
|
bladup wrote: Zennor's stone dividing the 2 chambers is diagonal, and it's by far the closest type to trethevy that's extant.
Zennor only has one chamber, unless you mean the little antechamber behind the facade slabs. The blocking stone between the chamber and antechamber is leaning slightly backwards, that's true.
Zennor also had a supporting backstone, like Trethevy.
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:02
|
|
Zennor down the road has 2 chambers.
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:16
|
|
Yes Zennor has 2 chambers, I sit in and like them both, they both "feel" very different, the littlest one is really comfy because of the leaning stone that separates the chambers has a great angle to sit and lean against, in fact i'd go as far to say the angle is perfect to send your head into a very quick trance state, i don't think this is by chance, i've spent hours in it that seem like minutes.
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:22
|
|
The hole is consistent with others granite stones where the hole is caused by water, it doesn't mean it was made by water, just that it could certainly be made by nature.
|
