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: I've got it !
Mar 10, 2013, 13:36
tiompan wrote:

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 .

I've already given you proof that the flankers are not below ground level George, here it is again...
I know you are a perfectionist and rightly so in these matters, but speculation based on what you can see and provide evidence for is perfectly acceptable and how we progress. Much as I admire your knowledge I couldn't operate like that and keep finding ways to disprove other peoples work continually without even seeing it first hand and because it doesn't fit into a previous way of doing things. I've done some good work at Trethevy which I'm very pleased with.
I'm finished with this now and pleased that it was discussed fully in a civil manner. I'll give a link to the books website when ready.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index