Horsedrawn wrote:
Perhaps, now the stones have been numbered we could avoid confusion by using these numbers? The Stone you refer to, Stone 9, the little one, nipped between Stones 1,2 +3 has not been inserted by someone for the reason you suggest. It has been there since day one, and forms part of the 'just stiff frame' that supports the whole structure, enabling the stresses to carry to the ground. I am very interested to note that you think Stone 2 has moved, but even more interested in what you say about its variation from the perpendicular and how you measured it. I have measured nothing at Trethevy, except a day or two in search of the Megalithic Yard as light relief. The Quoit has never been properly surveyed, and no archeology has been done, unless of course one counts archeoastronomy in which case a lot has been done and continues. All good stuff. Thanks.
David, with respect, you seem to be sweeping everyone elses ideas aside in favour of your own. You have no possible way of knowing that Stone 9 as you have labelled it was part of the original build. It could have been lodged there at any time and looks just like an addition to get over a problem that is occuring, not an original feature. If the original plan was to support the front closure stone with the station stone (the free standing one) then it would have been and leant against it without the need for a 'wedge' between them. That smacks of poor workmanship which I doubt very much.David Kane.
And I don't think stone 2, the front closure stone, has moved, it has! I've spent a lifetime using levels and plumb bobs (bombs) as part of my profession and I know how to use them.
It is obvious to the eye that certain orthostats are not into the ground but I'm not sure about the front closure stone at all. A structure such as this would normally have a 'mainstay' which everything else is built around to 'firm it up' so I suspect (without having proof) that it is firmly bedded in. Have you excavated around its base to see it that is so?
