Trethevy Quoit forum 11 room
Image by stonefree
Trethevy Quoit

Trevethy Quoit

close
more_vert
Sanctuary S
Sanctuary Apr 22, 2011 09:03:24
Replying to Mr Hamhead

Mr Hamhead wrote:
As for it's construction and the lack of soil around the bottom of the stones. Could this not be the result of 6000 years of 'archaeologists' digging and scratching at it? If it still stands now did it need very much more in the way of foundations originally?

It would be great to make a wooden model of all the stones and then rearrange them to see if it makes any difference. I don't see how it could...we would still have two uprights much taller than the other four....and unless the capstone was originally at 90 degrees to what it is now then it still would not balance.

Somewhere in this meandering list of postings there was a comment that the stones stand on bedrock. If this is the case....was the Quoit originally situated on a bare hillside or are we back to the theory that the surrounding ground, earth and stone has been taken away?

I can't recall where I read it now Mr H but someone came up with the idea that the stones had been dropped into previously dug holes down to the bedrock, the capstone placed on the top and then the soil removed and used to create the oval bank 130ft x 60ft spoken of by Thomas but now ploughed out. Henwood 2007 says that the greater depth of earth in this location facilitated the construction of the ramp and covering mound and this would not have been available on the shallower soil of the granite uplands.

My current project (which I mentioned the last time we were discussing Trethevy on the forum) is doing exactly what you are suggesting only in card form. I am drawing out each orthostat to scale as best I can as time allows and making an allowance for the depth into the soil, then will be mixing and matching them to see what I come up with. I'm not holding my breath but it looks promising (to me anyway!!). Without a shadow of a doubt though the fallen stone is the 'ni**er in the woodpile' in all of this. If it was not part of the original structure then what is it doing there? Your idea that it fell in when the capstone was erected is good but I can't see how they would not have supported it internally to prevent that from happening in the first place. On saying that it's not exactly something that you can just pick up and toss inside afterwards is it either!!

I would imagine that it still stands because once it was up the soil internally and externally was removed to the more or less level it is now which is enough to station it. It has to be stationed solidly because I can't see how the capstone can be 'balanced' because of its sheer weight forcing it not only downwards but endways! If the capstone was smooth-bottomed it would have slipped off by now but it isn't and that's something else I am looking at closely. I've said it before but what a little gem we have in Cornwall.

H Horsedrawn
Horsedrawn Apr 22, 2011 09:44:09
Replying to Sanctuary

What a good idea! To make a model of the quoit, a 3 dimensional model, has long been on my back burner. It is thrilling that someone else is doing this. I very much look forward to seeing the results. Any competent modelmaker can make an accurate scale model but they want lots of money to do it.
There is much discussion of the construction of the monument, but it seems to focus on how the thing was put up, not why it stays up.
It is poised, chocked up, upon the bedrock in perfect equilibrium. A just stiff frame supports the capstone, which rests on 4 tiny points of contact, and its weight is carried to the ground where it alights, as a bird. This structural integrity has enabled it to stand for so long, even surviving the pushing in of Stone 7. Quite apart from any astronomical considerations, and regardless of any possible sequence of construction, this is a staggering feat of engineering, deserving of a place in the history of Architecture; the art of building. We are forced to ask the question; is this a building? If so then form follows function. The sophistication of the structural theory behind allied to the sophistication of astronomical usage built into it lead me to the understanding that this was not built by witless savages as a tomb. Tomb it may well have been. Buried it may well have been, doubtless ploughed and ravaged, but it was built as an instrument for purposes of astronomy, and it still works.
A scale model, the larger the better, would be invaluable to us all.

David Kane.