|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit in danger |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 09:44
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: The knobbles, as you called them, would be artificial. if that can be established as a fact it will be interesting as the amount of effort involved in reducing the whole surface in order to leave the nobbles standing proud is pretty great. Not as great as with the Stonehenge tenons but still pretty hard. When we all visit a new site for the first time such as Trethevy/Zennor/anywhere we only really 'overview' it don't we. It's only when you make return visits that you begin to notice things you didn't notice before or just accepted because that's what the guide book or information board tells you what exactly you are supposedly looking at. I've mentioned this before but it wasn't like that for my eldest son who has no interest whatoever in ancient monuments or for stones in general for that matter. When I dragged him out to the quoit to help me take measurements he made the statement that I had been wanting to make for months but was reluctant to because this is a serious subject and one that is only normally put into print by professional people. "If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again would you dad!" He was SO right and that is why it is the Intro to my Work. A totally uninterested 27 year-old spotted that immediately yet all the 'names' never did...or at least never owned up to it for fear of ridicule!
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 09:49
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: "If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again would you dad!" That's the point ,it's not what you would do , or anyone else , modern or otherwise , it's what was done . It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 10:07
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: That's the point ,it's not what you would do , or anyone else , modern or otherwise , it's what was done . It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb . Well of course, if you assume that belief and tradition rather than efficiency and practicality were the things driving the form of construction then there is little to be learned from looking at how the thing is put together. As you say it just "is".
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 10:21
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb . Surely you’re not suggesting the (original) builders would choose a less stable construction over a more stable one? We’re talking about a people who knew their materials and understood the properties and limitations of those materials inside out. The fact that the structures have survived so long is proof positive of that. If anyone doubts Sanctuary's findings at Trethevy they should watch his latest DVD.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 10:28
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb . Surely you’re not suggesting the (original) builders would choose a less stable construction over a more stable one? We’re talking about a people who knew their materials and understood the properties and limitations of those materials inside out. The fact that the structures have survived so long is proof positive of that. If anyone doubts Sanctuary's findings at Trethevy they should watch his latest DVD. The comment had nothing to do with the stability of the structure but was in relation to how the portal tombs were not necessarily built with the aesthetics of moderns .
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 10:43
|
||
But we’re not talking about ‘the aesthetics of moderns’ we’re talking about sound construction techniques - are we not?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 10:50
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: But we’re not talking about ‘the aesthetics of moderns’ we’re talking about sound construction techniques - are we not? Sound construction techniques was not the point of my comment . It was in reference to the earlier comment which I quoted ""If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again would you dad!"
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 10:51
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: It's not an exercise in common sense building , it's a portal tomb . Surely you’re not suggesting the (original) builders would choose a less stable construction over a more stable one? We’re talking about a people who knew their materials and understood the properties and limitations of those materials inside out. The fact that the structures have survived so long is proof positive of that. If anyone doubts Sanctuary's findings at Trethevy they should watch his latest DVD. Thank you kindly LS. I should perhaps point out that the DVD is purely an amateur one and the latest of many previous ones and not on sale. Trethevy is one of those places that you can go to on a perfectly calm day yet still get windrush spoiling parts of what you have recorded if you don't have an external muffled mic. I am trying to rectify that situation however by getting a pal who is a professional photographer to shoot one for me although he keeps telling me to learn to put a voice track to the one I already have. Gulp!
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 11:01
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sound construction techniques was not the point of my comment . It was in reference to the earlier comment which I quoted ""If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again would you dad!" We may be talking at cross purposes. I read Sanctuary's comment that, "If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again..." as meaning that given the option of putting the pieces on the ground back together again you’d put them back corrrectly – correctly here meaning as they originally were and, by implication, in the most stable way. We might add that aesthetics does not preclude stability (or vice versa) in fact it might be argued that both, when correctly applied, go hand-in-hand to produce something which is both beautiful and stable.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 03, 2013, 11:23
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: Sound construction techniques was not the point of my comment . It was in reference to the earlier comment which I quoted ""If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again would you dad!" We may be talking at cross purposes. I read Sanctuary's comment that, "If you had all those pieces laid out on the ground you'd never put them back together like that again..." as meaning that given the option of putting the pieces on the ground back together again you’d put them back corrrectly – correctly here meaning as they originally were and, by implication, in the most stable way. We might add that aesthetics does not preclude stability (or vice versa) in fact it might be argued that both, when correctly applied, go hand-in-hand to produce something which is both beautiful and stable. Quite . Trethevy has stood for millenia whether or not it is presently on the point of collapse is has nothing to do with the fact that the most parsimonious description of it's original structure is what has been suggested for some time i.e. the backstone collapsed and the northern ante -chamber stone was removed . The only other likely structural change from the original build was removal of cairn material . Roy does not accept this view . If your only concern is stability then you don't build fancy monuments like portal tombs with their extreme sloping capstones , or massive capstones perched on three points and also sloping . That the builders managed to do produce stability and an example of conspicuous architectural extravagance is to their credit but many, hardly surprisingly , eventually collapsed . We could use the materials at Trethevy to build more efficient stable structures similar to a portal tomb but the point is that is not what the builders did , they built Trethevy the way they wanted it , not from a sensible modern viewpoint and there is no evidence to suggest that their original build was modified to make the structure any more or less stable .
|
| Pages: 44 – [ Previous | 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
