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
1060 posts

Re: I've got it !
Mar 09, 2013, 21:25
Sanctuary wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
bladup wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
bladup wrote:
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 know you want to wait for the book but do you mind me asking when the moving of stones was undertaken, Prehistory or more recently? I have no reason for asking just interested and because of you're book i understand if you don't want to say, the prehistry one works best for me because if it was more recently we'd most probably know about it, most big lifts are since the industrial revolution, the prehistory model could work in two ways - the first build quickly fell, so they decided to build it differently next time or they just didn't like it or something was in their minds just plain wrong, there's a chance that at a lot of these places they moved stones around that weren't supporting anything, do you know of anywhere the none supporting sidestones were moved around at all George?

I've no exact idea date-wise Paul but it would have been while still in use so possible up to the middle BA. Again there is a clue to that but I'm not saying.

Prehistory works for me, things must have fell and things must have then been put back up differently to make sure it didn't just fall in the same way again or just changed because it wasn't liked or somebody just wanted it "their" way, do you think the stone in the chamber was the backstone of the rebuild? that's the only problem i have - that the stone in the chamber was the backstone of the structure as it is now, i'm certainly open minded about it all been moved around in prehistory, as there is lots of evidence that stones were moved around in prehistory [i just don't know whether it's true for portal dolmans].

My evidence will show that the prostrate stone was part of the original build but not the backstone. It was near it though!!!!

I'm truly lost now lol.
I can see 3 & 6 maybe being opposing (Rear?) flankers due to their shape but no matter how i play with the others (bar using 2 & 5 as forward flankers) i can't make head nor tail of it. 4 looks like it could have been supportive (back stone?) due to it's flat top, but it has the keying point which wouldn't have been needed in that scenario.

I'll concede i haven't got a clue and will just have to wait till you reveal all i guess.

I would tell you but you'll tell the others :-)
Stone four is not flat-topped Geoff, its more pointed. You're getting warmer though!

Well i see 4 has a very slight angle to it rather than being totally flat but it is slight isn't it, then there's your keying point so i can only assume you see that as a flanker also ? Beyond that i think i've given up now.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index