|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Trethevy Quoit Forum | Start a topic | Search |
391 messages | Select a forum: |
| Not if there was another stone on the opposite side, then you'd have two stones framing/flanking a small antechamber, the same as at Zennor. Rather than the front stone being moved to form a buttress, why can't it simply always have been where it is, paired with another on the opposite side? Zennor provides a nearby and comparable precedent for that. The main issue I have with what is being suggested is that the source in 1824 referred to the backstone being in place and supporting the capstone, but it had fallen by 1850. The most realistic/likely explanation appears therefore to be that the leaning stone in the chamber is the fallen backstone. This single event (the fall of the backstone) explains the acute lean of the capstone, which slid backwards as it lost its rear support. http://ancient-cornwall.wikidot.com/hiac:trethevy-quoit Whereas Roy's theory would mean that at some time between 1824 and 1840, someone took the backstone from where it had fallen and propped it up at the front of the tomb as a buttress? (I assume that is what the front stone is supposed to be, the moved backstone?). And that the stone in the chamber was always there, forming an odd diagonal divide that was not mentioned before the fall of the backstone, despite this being quite a strange configuration (unprecedented elsewhere?). You could of course dismiss this as being unremarked upon simply because of poor recording. I can't really see why more obvious/simple explanations are being dismissed so readily, before producing a much more complex sequence of events involving several stones being moved. Reply | with quote |  2nd April 2013ce 18:21 In reply to: Re: Similarities elsewhere? (bladup) |
Messages in this topic: |
|