Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Trethevy Quoit »
Trethevy Quoit...Cornwall's Megalithic Masterpiece
Log In to post a reply

391 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
5758 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 13:47
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
nigelswift wrote:

If you: well, pointing out SH is unique in order to illustrate that lack of precedents don't invalidate your theory is a totally valid thing to say.

A lack of precedents doesn't necessarily invalidate a theory but when that precedent also involves negating the most obvious and simpler explanation it does make it much less likely .

But the 'obvious and simpler explanation' is only valid if the other evidence against has been rejected first George. Reading the book for yoursel will tell you what it is before dismissing it.

What type evidence can there be to prove that the obvious backstone was not the backstone ? That problem is further exacerbated by then suggesting that the explanation involves accepting a feature that is unique .
The obvious and simple explanation involves one event that has been noted elsewhere , the alternatives involve more than one event ,and in this case features that are unprecedented .There is no reason that a complicated series of events didn't take place but the problem is providing evidence for them and also evidence to disprove the most obvious explanation .

Exactly what evidence have you got to prove that the claimed backstone WAS the real backstone George. Have you seen it in place, has anyone? I've explained why I don't believe it was and actually shown an alternative. I think the ball is in your court with respect to prove your case.

The backstone being in place is the most obvious and economic explanation ,if anyone believes it wasn't , the onus is on them to prove that it wasn't . Simply believing, is not enough .

Haaaaaaa neatly side-stepped :-)


You said 'simply believing, is not enough'. You 'believe' it is is a backstone but have no concrete proof that it is. I on the other hand have actually shown an alternative scenario, you have shown nothing other than what is 'likely'.
If the fallen stone was the backstone then the Capstone would be some 19" higher than it is now to the rear and only being supported by it and the front closure.
So you are not taking into account that the current rear support side flanker to the north-west that is still in place just happened to have EXACTLY the correct angle with keying points to its top edge just in case the supposed rear backstone fell? Do you not think that was a huge coincidence? And one of the stones now out of place is identical to it with keying points and was most likely to have been its opposite number before it all shifted?

The likely scenario involves one event , the backstone fell, and there are precedents .
If the backstone was in it's original position it would support the capstone leaving the sidestones free , a typical situation in portal tombs in fact many portal tombs don't even have side stones ,whether as a result of removal because they were non supporting and thus easy to nick or just not used doesn't matter , it shows that they were not necessary for supporting the capstone whatever their angle .
Nearby Zennor has a side stone with an angle that fits exactly with the collapsed capstone , that was clearly not it's function as we know the capstone was supported by a backstone and the sloping angle of the sidestone had no supporting role . The angle of a non supporting sidestone in relation to a capstone is not much of an argument for it ever being considered as a future support in the case of collapse but when just part of a far more complex sequence of events and re-arrangement it is much more difficult to prove .
The alternative scenario involves a far more complex sequence of events including a major feature that has no precedent , to support extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence is a bit trite but useful particularly when one simple event explains all and there is no evidence to show that it didn't happen and the evidence for the extraordinary sequence is based on beliefs on a 21st C take on how a monument should look .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index