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
4684 posts

Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger
Mar 08, 2013, 23:06
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:

But I think it occupies the same position and function as it did originally .

I don't. Look at it VERY, VERY carefully. I have an advantage over you as I can look at it closely all round and observe its shape. Look at its profile in Dymond's ground plan. That's all I'm saying but all will be revealed soon.

If the Dymond plan is different from what we see today that has no bearing on the original morphology . it only means that the plan is wrong or things have changed since .
The problem is finding evidence to show that the ante-chamber stone was not in the position that is today and also in the Dymond plan .
We have just seen how something that is there , i.e. the padstone , was missed out of one plan , if that is all we had to go on there would be a case for suggesting that it was introduced after the plan which we know to be wrong .

Not at all George as you are reading one of the plans incorrectly. John Barnatt's shows the ground plan ONLY whereas Dymonds shows both the ground plan AND the the lean of the stones indicated by the dotted lines which includes the packing boulder which wouldn't show at ground level. In that respect it is better that JB's. Here it is:-

Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index