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
5758 posts

Re: I've got it !
Mar 09, 2013, 19:50
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:

Don't let him put you off Geoff, you're getting SLIGHTLY closer :-)
At least you're having a go!

Well it's pretty easy to see in regards to stones 3 & 6, which would see one stone of your four relocated, but other than a huge messing with the stones i can't see anything else. I have to agree with George stone 2 was a back stone though, i just can't see what else it could have functioned as.

It doesn't make any difference but you have stone 3 and 6 the wrong way around. Stone 2 is not the backstone and I'll repeat what I said the other day...on first build this was not an open tomb other than the access into it.

But surely the point isn't to treat each stone as if it is a piece of lego and see what can be made out of the components of a monumnent .

I didn't have to George because I know how it originally looked and what has happened a piece at a time to alter it. Everything is staring you in the face and I've offered key clues but you are not grasping them because you are fixed on what is known to have gone before. That's fair enough because I didn't just get it overnight until the penny dropped. I feel a bit rotten about not revealing all yet but you won't be disappointed I promise you.

I haven't attempted to try out the various combinations of side stones etc .
I'm just wating patiently for the evidence Roy .
Providing evidence to show that the backstone wasn't a backstone I believe would be very difficult , and the other stuff I couldn't possibly imagine being even possible without excavation and even then I would find it hard to believe .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index