Re: Trevethy Quoit | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Trethevy Quoit 11

Image by thesweetcheat

Trevethy Quoit

more_vert

tiompan Apr 21, 2011 17:23:18

Replying to stonefree

stonefree wrote:

I concur. I am an enthusiatic, passionate, intuitive and open-minded explorer of the unknown, but rather ignorant in matters of astronomy, archaeology and the neolithic era. However, I do believe there to be an excessive amount of doggedly sticking to the nomenclature of 'tombs' when there seems to be no evidence whatsoever to support such a description other than a vague similarity to other 'tombs'. Likewise the claims of this structure having been either covered or constructed using a mound or cairn, either to make the tomb claims sound more feasible or to facilitate positioning of the capstone and orthostats.

That is quite different from what you said earlier i.e. “The assumption that this is a 'Portal Tomb' is equally illogical, being based on pure speculation, just because of slight similarities to other structures!”

As a monumental type , Portal Tombs , which Trethevy is obviously one as it bears all the hall marks and they are clearly not “slight similarities to other structures “ . As I mentioned earlier “Have a look at any reasonable description of the characteristics of a portal tomb and you will find that Trethevy is a perfectly logical ideal candidate in it's morphology as well as belonging to the iconic monument type of Cornwall .” points , which you didn’t respond to .
Due to the architecture these monuments have been easily disturbed particularly from animals and humans who have taken the internal deposits and external cairn material .
Many have survived disturbance and those that have show that human bone inhumed and cremated was a common deposit ,e.g. Poulnabrone had a minimum of 26 interred individuals . Of the nearby monuments of the same type , Zennor had bone deposits and Borlase had a drawing of an obvious mound ,Sperris had cremations , Mulfra vestiges of a mound .

Stone circles are not always circular , Hill Forts are not necessarily defensive , Rock Art is not necessarily “art “ if Portal Tombs are not tombs they are pretty close but more importantly that is what they called . It may not be ideal but it is a more appropriate and descriptive than “Solar construct “ .

stonefree Apr 21, 2011 21:17:57

Replying to tiompan

I respectfully refer you to my esteemed colleague David Kane ('horsedrawn' in this forum) who will hopefully be able to convince you better than myself. He has been studying this quoit (and many other ancient sites) for over a decade and is more fully conversant with the specific scientific principles and nomenclature in this field of work. I do hope you'll come to recognise what we're doing here and perhaps get on board!

Horsedrawn Apr 21, 2011 22:24:25

Replying to tiompan

Oh blimey! Firstly, how welcome this debate is.
I dispute nothing about the history of archeology and its nomenclature. Without it we would be in a sorry state. I came equipped with the archeology and added the astronomy. What has happened is that the thing has revealed itself as some sort of observatory/planetarium/sundial/town hall clock (hence 'Solar Construct') of some sophistication, and continues to do so. The evidence gathered so far is compelling. I do not come on here making these claims lightly, but we have to start somewhere, and it would seem that some interest has been raised.
I am grateful. I feel as if I have laid an egg. I cannot and do not dismiss the archeology, but the whole idea of tombs does begin to become less relevant, though never out of mind, I assure you. I dismiss nothing. I am fascinated to hear what anybody has to say about the thing. When these effects first started to be noticed I did not believe any of it. I was applying Professor North's 'General Method', looking for alignments etc. and doing positional astronomy, all of which I have done at many places, and of necessity has to be done, when other possible usages began to reveal themselves. Since then I have become convinced, and stand back in wonderment at what we have found. It is not my job to convince others, necessarily, but I will try, in the interest of advancing knowledge of the wonderful astronomical and engineering skills of the people who built it. It still works. It tracks the sunrise at the solstices, the equinoxes, and the transit of the sun at noon. It can be used to observe the solar corona, and it tracks winter and equinoctical sunsets, and that's not all. Now, as I say, for a long while I simply could not believe what I was seeing and we are a long long way from where we began. Trethevy Quoit has started to speak; and it speaks in the language of mathematics. Newgrange is called the 'oldest astronomically aligned' structure in the world. Perhaps no longer. I stick to what I say. The evidence now is overwhelming.
Merry Christmas

David Kane