|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Trethevy Quoit » Trethevy Quoit...Cornwall's Megalithic Masterpiece |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:04
|
||
|
The 1824 report says the capstone was resting on 5 uprights, so presumably the backstone (whether original or not) was one of them. It still seems that the current set-up could be reached by shifts and falls over millennia (partly while under cover/semi-cover of a mound). Then you don't need a theory of major re-arrangement to get the shape we have now.
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:05
|
||
It's just the aesthetics really for me and the over laping with the stone next to it, and hardly anyone takes a photo from that side as it just doesn't look good/right, you must admit there's hardly any photo's of that side, just one really clear one on here for example, it looks wrong, and the way the capstone rests perfectly on the sidestone behind is odd as it not even meant to is it?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:09
|
||
That's very true, none supporting stones could have fell over time and being moved about, one big job would like you said have probably been known about, I didn't think Roy was saying one big change, just that things fell when the capstone slipped, was that reported - when it slipped?
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:14
|
||
Yeah the lads showing you, now look at stonefree's photo 6 down on the left of the photo's, it just doesn't look right and that's the only photo of that side, so no one really thinks that side looks very aesthetic, and on plans it overlaps with the stone behind which is odd as well.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:15
|
||
|
Doesn't seem to have been, but by 1850 the capstone was no longer supported by 5 uprights, so it seems likely to have been some time between 1824 and 1850. But. I've no idea what angle the capstone was at in 1824.
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:17
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: harestonesdown wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Trethvy is the easily the closest to Zennor including an ante chamber stone , the one with the padstone . It's not an anti-chamber stone, it's part of the main structure. LOOK at the top of it and the straight upright edge. Why is not an ante-chamber stone ? it doesn't have to be separated from the main structure . It doesn't belong there George. It has been 'borrowed' from the main structure and being used as a buttress. We've been here before. The anti-chamber idea is a myth at Trethevy. Stones are not where they should be. That is only what you believe Roy , others think differently . If it were a buttress why remove it from the structure when it would make more sense to leave it and bring in a buttress from outside and set it like a buttress rather than at the angle the ante chmber is found . There are precedents for ante chamber stones including one nearby , where are the precedents for buttresses ? Others only think differently George because they have not researched the quoit correctly. I know it sounds an outrageous claim but its true. I'm not giving everything away, why should I? I repeat yet again. Take a long hard look at the 'buttress' stone. It belongs elsewhere. Put it back where it came from and you have no ante-chamber/porch whatever all the old boys said we had. We hadn't. You ask 'Where are the precedents for buttresses'? Everywhere when a structure begins to collapse. When Paul gets his book he'll probably tell you. Mind you he'll spoil it for everyone else then :-) Roy you haven't responded to question about why the builders would use a stone already part of the structure to use as a buttress when it would make sense to use something from outside and why doesn't it look like a buttress ? The precedent was the use of a buttress at a portal tomb ,we already have the precedents for ante chmber stones . How does one research a quoit "correctly " ? "it belongs elsewhere " is incredibly subjective you could say that about any stone , it doesn't mean that it came from elsewhere in the structure I can only repeat why I have already told others George. Everything is explained in the book. It comes from the structure believe me. Beg, borrow or steal the book and find out :-) Off to bed. Good to discuss. Night all. Roy , asked as they were mentioned in passing but not responded to .if you think they are giving too much away , fair enough . “How does one research a quoit "correctly " ? Where did the term variant Portal tomb come from ? .Where is the precedent for a buttress at a portal tomb ? No I don't believe the ante chamber stone was ever a side stone . This will be my last post on Trethevy for the time being George as I'm being chastised for revealing things before people have had time to read the book:-( A Variant Portal Dolmen is one where the portal (doorway/Window) can appear in different locations i.e. front, rear, side etc hence the variant. People seem to call them all sorts, variant being just one name. Check this out: http://www.megalithics.com/england/trevethy/trevmain.htm I've already explained about the buttress at Trethevy George. If it wasn't there the quoit would be on the ground now as the front closure is already 21.75 out of the perpendicular, a huge amount considering it is only 10'-3" tall. It is not there to form a porch and there is no evidence whatsoever to show there ever was a facade or anything else to the front of the tomb. If there is please show it to me without quoting 'what was likely'. As for the 'ante-chamber stone' never being a side stone, you are in for a shock :-) Jump on a train and meet me down here George to get a much better picture. Right that's me done for a while. Roy , I don't think the answer to “researching a quoit correctly “ will be giving anything away ,will it ? The term variant as used by megalthics is describing a monument that has exactly what you claim Trethevy lacks ,an antechamber e.g. “A feature of Cornish portal tombs is that they sometimes have flanking stones which project across the front of the chamber, creating a small partially enclosed space before the front closure stone. Trevethy was constructed in this way, although only one flanking stone remains today. “ The question was “Where is the precedent for a buttress at a portal tomb ? “ that wasn't been explained or likely to be a spoiler either . I don't need to get down ,I know what you are going to say , i.e. four stones that were previously used in the structure are now found in different places in the the structure The idea being based on a 21 st C approach to the shape of the materials used in what is believed to be a re-arranged structure . By rearranging the components a box with a snug capstone can be created unlike a portal tomb and with no evidence to support the idea apart from “look what you can do with the components “ . It's playing about lego style , look at Gaulstown again you could do exactly the same thing there , swap the stones around and create a proper tomb .But that's not what the builders did or wanted and as I have said from the start the basic problem is that you can't prove the backstone was not the backstone (never mind proving the movement of structural stones to other points of the monument and also explaining why they were moved instead of the more sensible approach of using others from outwith the monument ) and quite simply that backstone falling explains everything . I totally understand where you're coming from on this George and generally i'd agree, but having seen Roys model it would be quite an coincidence that the pieces fit so perfectly when re-arranged if it's just a load of hot air. For me it's far more believable than the theory that several hundred men dragged the bluestones from Wales, which is something widely believed. Though of course my opinion doesn't make anythjing "fact". :) I don't think it is that unlikely when you have seven stones to play about with . Apart from the all the problems with the idea and lack of evidence what you finish up with is simply a snug box with a capstone which is not what you find as a typical portal tomb design . Well it's not for me to discuss the finer points for obvious reasons, but if people can give validity to the human transport theory of the bluestones and the (imo) bollocks that MPP spouts then why not this which in my opinion is wholly more believable as Roy presents it. Yes i may end up with egg on my face, but on this occasion it's a risk i'm happy to take till someone blows it outta the water. :)
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Apr 02, 2013, 19:23
Apr 02, 2013, 19:21
|
||
Chun's pretty much a box though George and is a portal tomb [one of the portals still stand, it's small but it's there and the others there but over], it's also one of the most intact anywhere so has that on it's side, it's strange at Trethevy that all the stones but one stand on the ground [not in it], why do you think that is?
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:23
|
||
|
This one shows the two overlapping stones you mean (I think!) http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/95720/trethevy_quoit.html
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:26
|
||
You'd think it would have been recorded/reported wouldn't you? and do you find it strange that all but one of the stones at Trethevy stand on the ground not in it? this always seems very wrong to me when i'm there.
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Apr 02, 2013, 19:26
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: Do you mean the one the little boy is leaning on here? http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/130/trethevy_quoit.html They should all be painted with big numbers, to help our forum. They are, in the book. Don’t you think it’s time to get a copy, read Mr S’ observations and then take it from there? And rightly or wrongly that's the problem here, not enough info for those who haven't had a preview to go on. Not that i'm suggesting they'd have a change of mind furnished with the detail.
|
| Pages: 40 – [ Previous | 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 25 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
