Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Trethevy Quoit in danger
Log In to post a reply

433 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
4676 posts

Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger/Dymond Ground Plan
Mar 06, 2013, 13:00
tiompan wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Just been comparing C.W.Dymond's 1877 ground plan to that of John Barnatts 1982 version. It is interesting that CW not only shows the ground plan layout but the 'lean' on the stones as well, indicated by the dotted lines. You will note on the far south-west stone on the left he shows said dotted lines as being away from the adjacent stone as well, where today they are touching. Of course the problem with this is that it doesn't show the 'middle' between the top and bottom where is actually touches so hopefully, if John Barnatt replies to my email he may be able to clear that up...certainly in his drawing some 105 years later anyway.

Roy, do you have a note of the heights for the westernmost side stones ?

George, the two most westerly support flankers are 8'-3" on the northern side and 7'-0" on the southern taken from the internal base level. There is a 15" difference in their height obviously. The prostrate stone is 8'-8" long/tall.
I've had to take thse measurements from the scale model as I can't find my original notes taken when I met the EH guy there last year at the moment! I remember them anyway so they are correct. The catflap stone is 10'-3" tall off the same base level.
As you will know the other flankers fall short of the Capstone.

PS. The northernly flanker measurement is taken from its highest point and the other from its central point so the overall difference is not 15" of course!

Thanks Roy .

If the prostrate stone was the backstone ,when erect it could have taken pressure off stone 4 and possibly stone 3 and possibly produced a relatively common portal dolmen appearance where the side stones are not there for structural support . ?

If the prostrate stone was a backstone George it wouldn't have touched anything other than the main eastern orthostat which it rested on. It would have been a trilithon with added flankers. The front flankers would have rested against the main orthostat as they do now and underlap the rear flankers which would have required banking to their base (as now) to stop them falling outwards. A pretty weak structure I would have thought considering the flankers are not earthfast. As it is, at least the rear flankers are secured in place both top and bottom by the banking and the pressure of the capstone pushing down on them and the overlapping stopping the other two from falling either way! Much more effective.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index