|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit » Who's going to be there this weekend? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Horsedrawn 55 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 11:33
|
||
|
Perhaps, now the stones have been numbered we could avoid confusion by using these numbers? The Stone you refer to, Stone 9, the little one, nipped between Stones 1,2 +3 has not been inserted by someone for the reason you suggest. It has been there since day one, and forms part of the 'just stiff frame' that supports the whole structure, enabling the stresses to carry to the ground. I am very interested to note that you think Stone 2 has moved, but even more interested in what you say about its variation from the perpendicular and how you measured it. I have measured nothing at Trethevy, except a day or two in search of the Megalithic Yard as light relief. The Quoit has never been properly surveyed, and no archeology has been done, unless of course one counts archeoastronomy in which case a lot has been done and continues. All good stuff. Thanks. David Kane.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 12:36
|
||
|
Horsedrawn wrote: Perhaps, now the stones have been numbered we could avoid confusion by using these numbers? The Stone you refer to, Stone 9, the little one, nipped between Stones 1,2 +3 has not been inserted by someone for the reason you suggest. It has been there since day one, and forms part of the 'just stiff frame' that supports the whole structure, enabling the stresses to carry to the ground. I am very interested to note that you think Stone 2 has moved, but even more interested in what you say about its variation from the perpendicular and how you measured it. I have measured nothing at Trethevy, except a day or two in search of the Megalithic Yard as light relief. The Quoit has never been properly surveyed, and no archeology has been done, unless of course one counts archeoastronomy in which case a lot has been done and continues. All good stuff. Thanks. David Kane. David, with respect, you seem to be sweeping everyone elses ideas aside in favour of your own. You have no possible way of knowing that Stone 9 as you have labelled it was part of the original build. It could have been lodged there at any time and looks just like an addition to get over a problem that is occuring, not an original feature. If the original plan was to support the front closure stone with the station stone (the free standing one) then it would have been and leant against it without the need for a 'wedge' between them. That smacks of poor workmanship which I doubt very much. And I don't think stone 2, the front closure stone, has moved, it has! I've spent a lifetime using levels and plumb bobs (bombs) as part of my profession and I know how to use them. It is obvious to the eye that certain orthostats are not into the ground but I'm not sure about the front closure stone at all. A structure such as this would normally have a 'mainstay' which everything else is built around to 'firm it up' so I suspect (without having proof) that it is firmly bedded in. Have you excavated around its base to see it that is so?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 14:24
|
||
Don't tell him Pike!
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 14:31
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Don't tell him Pike! It's my eldest son they call Pikey. He's big enough to place that capstone on all on his own!!:D
|
|||
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 16:04
|
||
If it's moving then please be careful underneath the capstone. It would be dreadful if someone got squashed from this board in a freak rock drummer-type accident. Better to suffer frostbite star gazing than to risk the thing coming down like twenty tonnes of bricks.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 16:56
|
||
|
StoneGloves wrote: If it's moving then please be careful underneath the capstone. It would be dreadful if someone got squashed from this board in a freak rock drummer-type accident. Better to suffer frostbite star gazing than to risk the thing coming down like twenty tonnes of bricks. I will be contacting the Cornwall County Archaeology department on Tuesday morning to have a word. I don't wish to be an alarmist but facts are facts and I would feel terrible if the unthinkable were to happen and some poor kids died because I had been negligent in not reporting it. When I was filming there a couple of days ago there were two local kids climbing on the 'fallen' stone which leans against the itself leaning front closure stone and never gave it a thought then. And this morning 4 German tourists turned up for a flying visit and for the 'family album' three climbed onto the same stone while the fourth took the photo. I only took my first reading a year ago and have no idea if it was built with a lean or not, but the fact is, it has moved out a further half inch during that time. I have no idea if the local archaeo's check up on these things and the very last thing I want is for H & S to get involved because you know what that'll mean...closure! Does anyone on here have any experience in this type of structure? I know you have to have something stabilised somehere to work from before the remaining structure can be assembled and I'm assuming it's the front closure stone but there seems to be remarkably little known here. It is very cleverly put together as the overlapping side stones lock each other in place by just the rear ones being anchored above by the capstone and the front one prevented from falling inward by the front closure stone. The bank to the exterior holding the bottoms in place. My intention is to publish something eventually but I don't want it to involve any guesswork or quirky thinking. It is, as already been said, a remarkable piece of work carried out by our amazing ancestors but I would like to get to the bottom of its build first and whether everything is where it should be before concerning myself with anything else. Cheers, Roy
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 17:35
|
||
|
When I was filming there a couple of days ago there were two local kids climbing on the 'fallen' stone... And this morning 4 German tourists turned up for a flying visit and for the 'family album' three climbed onto the same stone while the fourth took the photo. That is why many here have campaigned for years against climbing on monuments Roy. You see it all the time at Avebury – I’ve even seen people climbing up the Cove stones, one of which also developed a dangerous tilt a few years ago and had to be pulled back into the perpendicular. The message is simple – Do not climb on monuments, doing so damages them and may result in serious injury! Good on you for planning to contact Cornwall County Archaeology Department on Tuesday!
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Apr 24, 2011, 19:12
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: When I was filming there a couple of days ago there were two local kids climbing on the 'fallen' stone... And this morning 4 German tourists turned up for a flying visit and for the 'family album' three climbed onto the same stone while the fourth took the photo. That is why many here have campaigned for years against climbing on monuments Roy. You see it all the time at Avebury – I’ve even seen people climbing up the Cove stones, one of which also developed a dangerous tilt a few years ago and had to be pulled back into the perpendicular. The message is simple – Do not climb on monuments, doing so damages them and may result in serious injury! Good on you for planning to contact Cornwall County Archaeology Department on Tuesday! Thanks LS..guess I'd better get my work finished there mighty quick though!!:D
|
|||
|
Horsedrawn 55 posts |
Apr 25, 2011, 11:07
|
||
|
Excavate? Surely you jest. Its not my job to dig around ancient monuments. I am not an archeologist. What you suggest is vandalism; and I am surprised. Your understanding of the engineering at the quoit is faulty. There is an excellent way of showing that Stone 9 has been in place since the thing was built, and that is it still plays its part in the equilibrium of the structure.You undermine your credibilty with what might be good ideas by only recently spotting something that has been there all along and the subject of intensive study. The structural theory behind this monument is no longer in doubt, and if you have been there many times and now say you only noticed Stone 9 recently then your ideas are not really of any consequence to the present inquiry. I thank you, however , for your interest. All grist to the mill. David Kane.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Apr 25, 2011, 12:01
|
||
|
Horsedrawn wrote: Excavate? Surely you jest. Its not my job to dig around ancient monuments. I am not an archeologist. What you suggest is vandalism; and I am surprised. Your understanding of the engineering at the quoit is faulty. There is an excellent way of showing that Stone 9 has been in place since the thing was built, and that is it still plays its part in the equilibrium of the structure.You undermine your credibilty with what might be good ideas by only recently spotting something that has been there all along and the subject of intensive study. The structural theory behind this monument is no longer in doubt, and if you have been there many times and now say you only noticed Stone 9 recently then your ideas are not really of any consequence to the present inquiry. I thank you, however , for your interest. All grist to the mill. David Kane. I'm sorry but the arrogant and patronising way you come over on this forum is breathtaking and seemingly without bounds. i was being cynical of course when I asked if you'd excavated to prove that the front closure stone was not earthbound as you consider it not to be. This is not obvious (to me) so an exploritory pilot hole would have to be dug to prove this point either way. Do try to read what others are saying and consider other views rather than your own. You have dismissed all other points of view thus far and have proven none of your claims you initially opened with and I am not the first person to tell you this. Of course I have seen the 'packing stone' many times before, one can hardly take photographs without seeing it so please don't try to score points with a rather silly argument. Like you I am researching Trethevy with a view to publishing but take my own route to get there which is based on what I can see for myself and not guess at. My only interest is in its construction and main purpose which is as a burial chamber and beyond not a Pandora's box of tricks. It would be best if you go down your own route which seems a bit airy-fairy to me to be quite honest and I will stick to mine. Good luck with your research and publication which I'm sure will be interesting to read, but I leave it there without further comment.
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
