thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:49
|
|
Supporting the capstone at its eastern end, judging by what can be seen in Borlase's drawing. Admittedly, it's not completely clear from the engraving whether that stone is in contact with the capstone, but it seems more likely than not, since it's the same height as the supporters on either side.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:50
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote:
I'm not really sure this is like what is being suggested for Trethevy.
Last bit. There was a backstone but not the fallen stone. It was where a backstone should be and the 'fallen' stone leant quite high up against the inner face of the front closure stone and diagonally down and behind the base of the real backstone where it lodged to stop it sliding down. If you observe outside of the quoit to the south side you will observe the 'window' or entrance to the upper chamber with the same slope to it's 'cill' as the diagonal division. Nobody ever mentions that window, well they have now :-)That's all I'm saying. I keep saying to buy the book, jeepers it's cheap enough, but would like to thank all those that already ordered it although only a couple are from here. I'm very very pleased with the response for a book that only came out last thursday and over Easter.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:53
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Oh sorry, I thought this was a discussion about Trethevy Quoit.
Bit of a limited discussion if any alternative suggestion is met with "buy the book to find out my answer". If you'd rather the thread was just a "plug", there's probably not much more to add here.
Don't be like that. If you knew all the answers then there would be no point to buying it. Give me a break! I'll say no more if it offends.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:54
|
|
So, just so I'm clear, you're saying the backstone fell in 1830/40, then was removed from site. And that the fallen stone inside the chamber is actually a different stone (that was there all along)?
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:55
|
|
I'm not offended, but if you don't want to discuss the points, then this isn't a discussion!
|
tiompan
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 17:57
|
|
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
|
tiompan
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:00
|
|
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 .
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:01
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: So, just so I'm clear, you're saying the backstone fell in 1830/40, then was removed from site. And that the fallen stone inside the chamber is actually a different stone (that was there all along)?
No, I'm not saying that. I have no idea when the original backstone fell datewise. All the stones present (8) are still the originals just some in different positions. No more have been involved (as far as I am aware. Intriguing isn't it.
Next time you're down in Cornwall Alken I'll visit the quoit with you as it's easy to explain on site.
|
bladup
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:02
|
|
Are you saying that the stone that i say seperates the 2 chambers [or the backstone of the big chamber] touched the capstone, if you are - it never did or could as it's far to short and is nothing like the old drawing [maybe george could explain this to you better than i could], that's the thing it's down the road and i've spent lot's of time there and if you're saying that you've clearly forgotten the place, now if you can work out what was resting on that said stone, and something certainly was you'd be on to something, i can't explain it any better than i did, like i said it's simple and genus by the builders, and is so clear on site.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 18:02
|
|
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.
|
