The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   General Discussion Forum Start a topic | Search
The Modern Antiquarian
Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger
433 messages
Select a forum:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:

I know what you are saying . Most side stones don't form an ideal sealed box . .


They certainly don't if they aren't in the correct place! (tic)

Ahem...note the trimming :-)


Only the "in correct place " from a particualr 21st C view , not the original builders view . They avoided that box , to the extent the box not only had clear intentional gaps , sometimes it didn't even have any sides .


Do you think Mulfra was open one side or like Chun?


If it was just the backstone that collapsed 18th C? and nothing else was removed then it looks like there would have been plenty room .


Because of Zennors drawing i looked at mulfra in that way, everyone thinks it was a sealed box just like chun when it could in princible be a mix between chun and Zennor, and the collapsed stone maybe wasn't sealing a box but further away like other places, it all works on site.


That's what I imagine . I have never heard anyone suggest it had the type of "box " Chun has .


Reply | with quote
tiompan
Posted by tiompan
8th March 2013ce
20:14

In reply to:

Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (bladup)

Messages in this topic: