Trethevy Quoit 11
Image by postman

I'm sure "wood" is the missing dimension and the key to greater understanding of loads of megalithic sites, especially ones that might have been in regular use - but tombs? Having taken such trouble to make them last forever, would they have used an impermanent material?

I believe yes, yes, yes the missing wooden parts are what make a lot of the portal tombs look like they have stones the wrong way round, they're not it was for split logs to lay against, all these were monuments of wood and stones and nearly all excavations turns up wooden postholes somewhere, we KNOW they used wood loads but for some reason it gets ignored for the stone we can still see, i know this because i can feel where the wood was as it's energy leaves a trace over all this time, you could say i can still "see/feel it" in some strange way, anyway all these stuctures had loads of wood in there designs, and it was easily replaced at places that where in use over long periods of time, it's the wood that's gone and forgotten, you all know it's true:0p

nigelswift wrote:
I'm sure "wood" is the missing dimension and the key to greater understanding of loads of megalithic sites, especially ones that might have been in regular use - but tombs? Having taken such trouble to make them last forever, would they have used an impermanent material?
They may on occasion have used timber as you would say for an arch template Nigel. Once the construct had been formed they removed it.