|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit » A clean slate? (or should that be granite?) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
stonefree 68 posts |
May 02, 2011, 09:12
|
||
|
Our plan was to share some of our findings in a forum of like-minded people who already had an interest, and hopefully some experience, in the subject matter. We hoped to dispel the myth that this structure was intended as nothing more than a tomb by showing that there was a far greater intelligence behind both the positioning and the construction. If we had just been using this as a marketing strategy 'to draw people in' so we could sell them an as-yet unpublished book, perhaps we would have chosen a slightly bigger target audience than the small handfull of people on here? Perhaps we were slightly naiive in thinking that people would be as amazed as we have been to discover the sublime nature of this 'Solar Observatory' and wish to support us in finding out more about it using a wide range of techniques, from simple test digging to using more advanced techniques such as ground penetrating radar etc. To be fair, I think we expected a certain amount of healthy scepticism, but hoped that the questions we would inevitably be asked would help us to better formulate our answers and present our evidence. Unfortunately there have been too few questions asked, and some of those were so far removed from our course of enquiry that we were caught off balance, whereupon one or two seem to have jumped to the conclusion that we have nothing of interest to say and are fair game for a bit of derision. I'll hold my hands up and admit that I am guilty of rising to the bait and allowing myself to get caught up in this silly game of overt posturing, but I've been trying ever since to find some common ground for this important subject to be discussed without the need for egos getting bruised! So, gentlemen, what say we start again with a clean slate?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 02, 2011, 09:24
|
||
FFS, that's not a clean slate it's a paste of the posting from the old thread, containing sideswipes at people here. Wish I hadn't said it was a bosting idea now. :(
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
May 02, 2011, 10:00
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: FFS, that's not a clean slate it's a paste of the posting from the old thread, containing sideswipes at people here. Wish I hadn't said it was a bosting idea now. :( Hmmm... I’m beginning to smell socks (again).
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
May 02, 2011, 10:43
|
||
|
stonefree wrote: Our plan was to share some of our findings in a forum of like-minded people who already had an interest, and hopefully some experience, in the subject matter. We hoped to dispel the myth that this structure was intended as nothing more than a tomb by showing that there was a far greater intelligence behind both the positioning and the construction. Can I jump in again here and ask if you consider it a tomb at all.. or that a tomb is just part of it? If just part of it, then what role do your findings play with regard to the remains that would have been in the chamber or intended to be in the chamber? I think those are a couple of sensible questions that shouldn't create much of a problem answering.
|
|||
|
stonefree 68 posts |
May 02, 2011, 11:12
|
||
It was simply the easiest way of starting again, using the last post of the previous thread.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Edited May 02, 2011, 12:45
May 02, 2011, 11:19
|
||
|
Also, do you think all structures like this have got similar non-tomb intentions? So if you went to, say, St Lythans (only because that's somewhere I've been) that to me looks superficially similar, would you expect to find the same clues to support your Trevethy theories? That would help your argument would it not. You'll have to excuse me for not knowing exactly what clues you're talking about because the other thread got a bit too muddy. I think you mentioned some photos you'd taken of how the light fell on particular parts of the stone. And how the stones were aligned with.. Specifics, that's what'll convince people a bit more. And comparisons with other places?
|
|||
|
stonefree 68 posts |
May 02, 2011, 11:48
|
||
|
[/quote] Can I jump in again here and ask if you consider it a tomb at all.. or that a tomb is just part of it? If just part of it, then what role do your findings play with regard to the remains that would have been in the chamber or intended to be in the chamber? I think those are a couple of sensible questions that shouldn't create much of a problem answering.[/quote] Whether or not the quoit was ever used as a tomb is not of any specific relevance to our research at this point. It may well become relevant at some later stage, when and if we are able to conduct archeological surveys underneath the fallen stone 7. Our ongoing investigations and observations with regard to Solar, Lunar and Stellar alignments, and to the optical dynamics of light and shade on nearly all of the surfaces, both inner and outer, would almost certainly preclude the likelihood of the quoit having been constructed 'primarily' for funereal purposes. This would have necessitated open aspects of the structure being covered to prevent incursions and this would also have rendered the entire structure unuseable for the purposes we propose.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 02, 2011, 11:52
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: Also, do you think all structures like this have got similar non-tomb intentions? So if you went to, say, St Lythans (only because that's somewhere I've been) that to me looks superficially similar, would you expect to find the same clues to support your Trevethy theories? That would help your argument would it not. You'll have to excuse me for not knowing exactly what clues you're talking about because the other thread got a bit too muddy. I think you mentioned some photos you'd taken of how the light fell on particular parts of the stone. And how the stones were aligned with.. Specifics, that's what'll convince people a bit more. And comparisons with other places? This was suggested before but what is also important is to see if the same method provides the same results at an unrelated type of structure i.e. a control .Lanyon Quoit is ideal as it is exactly the same type of structure but has been rebuilt therefore any similar finds would have no relation to the original intention of the builders and could be a cause of the method of investigation i.e. look hard enough in your living room and you may well get the same results .
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 02, 2011, 11:56
|
||
so, have you been to other similar-looking places and observed the same sorts of things? Because surely it could help your argument either way. If nowhere else shows these alignments and so on, then Trethevy seems special. And if other places do show the same sorts of things - surely that's even better. If there's that many clues pointing towards supporting your theory at Trethevy, wouldn't you in fact expect similar clues at other sites??
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 02, 2011, 11:57
|
||
excellent.
|
| Pages: 16 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
