harestonesdown wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Trethvy is the easily the closest to Zennor including an ante chamber stone , the one with the padstone .
It's not an anti-chamber stone, it's part of the main structure. LOOK at the top of it and the straight upright edge.The precedent was the use of a buttress at a portal tomb ,we already have the precedents for ante chmber stones .
How does one research a quoit "correctly " ?
"it belongs elsewhere " is incredibly subjective you could say that about any stone , it doesn't mean that it came from elsewhere in the structure
Off to bed. Good to discuss. Night all.
No I don't believe the ante chamber stone was ever a side stone .
A Variant Portal Dolmen is one where the portal (doorway/Window) can appear in different locations i.e. front, rear, side etc hence the variant. People seem to call them all sorts, variant being just one name. Check this out:
http://www.megalithics.com/england/trevethy/trevmain.htm
I've already explained about the buttress at Trethevy George. If it wasn't there the quoit would be on the ground now as the front closure is already 21.75 out of the perpendicular, a huge amount considering it is only 10'-3" tall. It is not there to form a porch and there is no evidence whatsoever to show there ever was a facade or anything else to the front of the tomb. If there is please show it to me without quoting 'what was likely'.
As for the 'ante-chamber stone' never being a side stone, you are in for a shock :-)
Jump on a train and meet me down here George to get a much better picture.
Right that's me done for a while.
The term variant as used by megalthics is describing a monument that has exactly what you claim Trethevy lacks ,an antechamber e.g. “A feature of Cornish portal tombs is that they sometimes have flanking stones which project across the front of the chamber, creating a small partially enclosed space before the front closure stone. Trevethy was constructed in this way, although only one flanking stone remains today. “
The question was “Where is the precedent for a buttress at a portal tomb ? “ that wasn't been explained or likely to be a spoiler either .
I don't need to get down ,I know what you are going to say , i.e. four stones that were previously used in the structure are now found in different places in the the structure The idea being based on a 21 st C approach to the shape of the materials used in what is believed to be a re-arranged structure . By rearranging the components a box with a snug capstone can be created unlike a portal tomb and with no evidence to support the idea apart from “look what you can do with the components “ . It's playing about lego style , look at Gaulstown again you could do exactly the same thing there , swap the stones around and create a proper tomb .But that's not what the builders did or wanted and as I have said from the start the basic problem is that you can't prove the backstone was not the backstone (never mind proving the movement of structural stones to other points of the monument and also explaining why they were moved instead of the more sensible approach of using others from outwith the monument ) and quite simply that backstone falling explains everything .
