Sanctuary wrote:
I would be pretty certain, and say so it said Tome, that the banked area would have extended out much further to form an exclusion zone of sorts around it. This would have been a pretty 'holy' place where I doubt you could have simply strolled up to and poked around like we do today.
The present size of the bank, and its now more vertical sides, really do suggest that any slippage, or further erosion there, might result in the whole lot coming down. Two questions: on a scale of 1-10 how likely do you think a collapse might be? Based on your studies of the stones and their positions how likely do you think one or more of them might shatter in a collapse?
Reply | with quote | Posted by Littlestone 28th February 2013ce 22:55 |
Trethevy Quoit in danger (Sanctuary, Feb 27, 2013, 18:29)- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (tjj, Feb 27, 2013, 19:01)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Squid Tempest, Feb 27, 2013, 19:16)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (thesweetcheat, Feb 27, 2013, 19:33)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Littlestone, Feb 28, 2013, 10:36)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger/Nigel (Sanctuary, Mar 05, 2013, 13:58)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger/Dymond Ground Plan (Sanctuary, Mar 06, 2013, 10:18)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (The Heritage Trust, Mar 08, 2013, 15:57)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (harestonesdown, Mar 08, 2013, 16:12)
- OT (juamei, Mar 08, 2013, 17:51)
- Re: OT (nigelswift, Mar 08, 2013, 17:58)
- Re: OT (juamei, Mar 08, 2013, 18:03)
- Re: OT (harestonesdown, Mar 08, 2013, 17:59)
- Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (bladup, Mar 08, 2013, 16:29)
|
|