|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger 433 messages | Select a forum: |
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: It's the small stone between the the ante-chamber stone and the doorstone Are you referring to the packing stone at the top of the 'buttress' George? Yes Except I wouldn't describe it as a buttress . Not originally no. If it was a buttress why the padstone and why isn't at more functional acute angle to actually act like a buttress ? The more obvious simpler explanation is that it is what it appears to be , an ante chamber stone . You've missed two important points George. Look at the top of the 'buttress' and it will tell you why a padstone was required between it and the closure stone. Secondly, the closure is 21.75" out of upright pushing the 'buttress' stone into a steeper angle than it originally was. No disrespect intended to everyone following this discussion but I'm deffo leaving it now as I've given all the clues I want to give. It was fun for me working it out as I freed my mind of what I'd been fed in the past. Won't be long now before you'll all know and can judge me on it. Once again there is a simple explanation for the padstone it's a buffer , often found in portal tombs . If the ante chamber stone was a buttress it would have started life at a more effective angle , the suggestion is that they got it wrong in their original choice of angle . Reply | with quote |  9th March 2013ce 09:26 In reply to: Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Sanctuary) |
Messages in this topic: |
|