|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Boscawen-Un Forum | Start a topic | Search |
44 messages | Select a forum: |
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: [ If we knew the results of the 19th century excavations, the details of any plans/illustrations before or at that date then we might be able to talk with more certainty. As I said, i'm not doing any 'research' but as you are it would be great if you could supply some solid info to show on what basis you are refuting the claims in the paragraph of Barnatt/Herring I copied in. I would have thought that was obvious! They could see today what I could see as nothing has changed since, so if you doubt me you should be doubting them as well. eh? we've already done this bit Sanctuary. the sentence begins "When the circle itself was erected.." The person who wrote that isn't here on the forum discussing it. However, you are, and you refuted it so I was merely asking you to show on what basis. You said that you've looked at google earth and the stones don't line up, but that's not what we are discussing. The question is on what basis do you refute the sentence that starts "When the circle itself was first erected.." And I asked you after you said the circle had been reconstructed...'How many of the stones does your research show were re-erected when this reconstruction took place only Borlase says in 1754 18 of the 19 were still standing?'. Not doing any research yourself is no excuse for not replying to the question. Answering that will likely or not tell you if the circle was still pretty much as it was on first build. If it was then my aerial view is totally valid as is TSC's post. If it was a complete mess then the opposite applies although if someone is going to the trouble of re-erecting a few stones it will be pretty obvious to a trained eye where they were originally positioned. In this case it would appear to be 12ft apart with the exception of the 'cairn' uprights. And I told you - I don't know. I'm not the one researching the site or refuting anything. You are. I simply asked you on what basis you are refuting the statement. But now it seems you want me to find the answer for you. Heres your answer Sanctuary : The stone circle was first recorded by Camden in 1582. When Borlase recorded it in the mid-18th century one stone had fallen and by Cotton's plan of 1826 a further two had fallen. The stone circle was restored in 1862 when the three stones were re-erected http://list.english-heritage.o[...]/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1006678 So, with this knowledge handed to you, do you still refute the earlier statement? Correct. Were any of the fallen stones either the quartz one, either of the cairn stones or the 'centre' stone? If not then the circle was how it was built as regard stone hole positions, therefore the line through the said stones were not as they claim which is where you came in and the main issue. Time to move on I think. One last time, on what basis are you still refuting the possibility that the statement is correct? Thank goodness for that:-) I have answered you question perfectly adequately and have now moved on. You haven't answered adequately at all, once again you avoid answering the question and it's painfully clear why. It's a waste of everybody's time to enter into a discussion on here and then when logic and reasoning reveal a fault in your argument, just close the subject off and refuse to continue. You can continue to laugh at Burl (one of the greatest writers on the prehistory of NW Europe) and tell us we should all 'get out there more' and correct his and other archaeologists mistakes (!), but sometimes it pays to check the detail first. :-) Reply | with quote | Posted by Sanctuary 9th September 2014ce 09:46 In reply to: Re: axe carvings (Evergreen Dazed) |
Messages in this topic: |
|