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 10, 2013, 11:41
Sanctuary wrote:

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.

I can't imagine excavating will reveal much George as all but the closer stone are above ground. It may be banked on the outside but not to the inner. Anyway it wouldn't be neccessary to prove what's happened in my opinion as it is obvious when pointed out.

Roy , I foresee problems if there is no proof and “obvious “ is only subjective .
I get the impression that you will suggest that one stone (I know you said earlier that four were moved but one is enough to illustrate the hypothetical problem ) was moved from it's original position to replace another dislodged ? stone and in turn be replaced by another . It cannot be obvious which of the original stones was moved as you don't know and cannot know without evidence that it was ever there .If it had a distinctive profile which matched an excavated socket you could then prove it but there is no basis for believing a particular stone was anywhere without proof you can only suggest it and from there continue on to the movement of the other , equally problematical three . The basic problem is that to produce what is obvious to you , you have to have an ideal model of the original that without proof derived from excavation only exists in your head and which you cannot prove ever existed .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index