=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Trethevy Quoit »
A clean slate? (or should that be granite?)
Log In to post a reply
156 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: A clean slate? (or should that be granite?)
May 07, 2011, 10:28
stonefree wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
StoneGloves wrote:
Yes, that last photograph supports what I was suggesting was the method that was used to place the cap. The shallow socket would have located the big stone as it was swung around. A monumental feat. Nice to see the workings out. It's certainly moving...


This is the last pic I will show as to 'reveal all' just defeats the object of writing about it with a view to publishing. Here is a clearer view (and I have better ones) showing the knib again. We are on the same wavelength here SG as that is my belief also. If a shallow socket as described was made and the knib used as an aid to line up the capstone, then that would explain why the capstone at that point has broken away underneath as clearly seen from underneath the 'hole'. This would have happened as the sheer weight of the cap began to slip. No mystery attached, pure old-fashioned common sense!

http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/16/16/85/69/s8002311.jpg


Interesting pics Roy . Tatjana Kytmannow makes the interesting point that Trethevy and Harristown are the only surviving portal tombs with with very high portal stones that have not collapsed .


I was trying not to go to deeply into it at this stage George because of publication but to be honest I was getting fed up with this misbelief that it had never moved. You've seen some of the other stuff I have which I feel backs up my belief...in fact I don't why I say it's a belief, IT HAS MOVED and I know because of my own measurements it has moved again since last year. Since the day the 'mortice' was torn off from under the capstone it has allowed it to move and the closure move out. In time it will go the same way as the others.



So what is this other stuff you feel backs up your belief that it has moved? You mention a 'mortice' - is this just something you think there may have been or do you have anything to back it up? Our own findings seem to have been ridiculed by one or two of you so far, so how about you now give us an opportunity to demonstrate our ability to listen respectfully to what others have to say?
I must point out that it appears we may be approaching this subject from almost diametrically opposed positions, because we're working with what is still there, whilst you seem to be working with what no longer is. However, that certainly doesn't discount the possibility that somewhere inbetween there may be things common to both arguments.


With respect, you came into this making claims and encouraged comment. A few people did exactly that but you totally disregarded their opinions in a most discourteous way I felt so decided not to discuss this further with you. I have not changed my mind. I came into this making it clear that I was going to publish my findings when my research is complete and have never sought anything as this is your thread. I have no intention of giving anything further away to someone who as you correctly say is diametrically opposed to my views and to the views of other well informed members, so you will have to wait for publication I'm afraid. I hope others following this thread will understand my position and why I will not discuss it further either on this forum or elswhere and mean no disrespect to any of you as I hope you are well aware.
In reply to:
Re: A clean slate? (or should that be granite?) (stonefree)		 Replies:
Re: A clean slate? (or should that be granite?) (stonefree)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index