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
4647 posts

Re: Similarities elsewhere?
Apr 01, 2013, 19:12
tiompan wrote:
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 .

I don't see it as a problem George. You have no idea what the builders wanted anymore than you say I don't, but I have concentrated on Trethevy and not swapped from quoit to quoit. Nothing is the same that's why they are called variants. I just happen to believe that my interpretation of Threthevy is correct. Others can judge me when they see what I have writtten and how I came around to it.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index