I've rescued the entire thread from the old server, admins feel free to tidy up or repost in sections:
by Anonymous on Wednesday, 06 April 2011
Trethevy Quoit
I think one very important point to make here is that we start our observations and investigation with Zero assumptions. If we were to believe that we know anything for certain about this amazing structure then we potentially blind ourselves to other truths (even tentative conclusions can quickly solidify into dogma and become self-imposed barriers to further understanding). Having said that, perhaps there is just one assumption we should allow... that the builders, or architects, of this device were very aware of exactly what they were doing and why! To assume otherwise would be to strip away any real reason for further investigation, and whilst countless others may have subjected it to their scrutiny, I doubt whether anyone has looked close enough, hard enough and long enough to enable the bigger picture to emerge.
We also bring quite a diverse set of skills and knowledge to the investigation, as well as our open minds, and it already appears that this approach is yielding results (or at least observations and theories) hitherto unrecognised!
Royston E Naylor (colleague of David Kane)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, 06 April 2011
Ground plans are pretty useless. The structure is studied in three dimensions; something the archeologists have been slow to learn. You will have to be more specific about the capstone. What exactly do you want to know?
by TheCaptain on Friday, 08 April 2011
Without knowing exactly what you are measuring, it would seem to suggest that you are making the enormous assumption that the stones have not moved at all in the thousands of years they have stood. Something which I would think is extremely unlikely.
Re: Trethevy Quoit by Anonymous on Friday, 08 April 2011
Come and look.
by Anonymous on Wednesday, 06 April 2011
At present Trethevy Quoit is the subject of an astroarchaeological survey being carried out by Horsedrawn Pictures. A ten year study has intensified over the last two years and the company has moved itself to Cornwall to establish a more permanent presence on site to study the usages of this 6000 yea old Solar Construct.
Preliminary findings indicate that the structure is a very accurate solar time keeper, in respect of the way light and shade play upon its inside and outside. Equinoctical and solstical alignments have been found of great accuracy. some enigmatic 'carvings' have also been found which are at present the subject of close study. Many other things have been found; not least a capability to directly observe the sun through apertures in the structure.
The study of the Optical Dynamics of this Solar Construct is ongoing. For further details:- [email protected]
Re: Trethevy Quoit by tiompan on Wednesday, 06 April 2011
It is usually assumed that portal dolmens had a covering cairn ,there is a survival rate of 50 % , and Trethevy does has evidence for one in the immediate surroundings . Wouldn't that have had an impact on any solar "observations " ?
George
Re: Trethevy Quoit by Anonymous on Wednesday, 06 April 2011
That Trethevy quoit was once covered by a mound is indeed an assumption. The presenr inquiry, of necessity due to its astronomical nature, also proceeds on an assumption; that the structure, when in use , was not covered, and further, that it has never been covered. In any case, it must have been free standing before it was covered if it ever was. The discoveries we have made so far are so astounding in terms of solar accuracy that we are in no doubt that its usage as a free standing openwork Solar Structure is proven, and we proceed on that basis.
Re: Trethevy Quoit by tiompan on Wednesday, 06 April 2011
The assumption that Trethevy had a cairn/mound is one based on archaeological evidence from other portal tombs and what is to be seen at the site today . Prior to the placement of the capstone the portal ,back and doorstones would have been freestanding but the cairn would likely have supplied support for the orthostats and provided a ramp for the erection of the capstone . Putative astronomical alignments are not a basis for deciding on the possible architecture of a monument or has been suggested in other cases , dating .
George
Re: Trethevy Quoit by Anonymous on Thursday, 07 April 2011
Hello George,
We do not proceed on what is likely or 'would have been', we proceed on the evidence that is there. It would be very good to date the structure from its astronomy but at this early stage it has not been attempted. No archeology of any kind has been done at Trethevy, however so any date however putative, would at least be a date where at the moment there is none. We came in search of 'alignments' here ten years ago and found none, except perhaps the Feb/May alignment identified by Norman Lockyer in 1905, which seems to hold true. It is, however the pattern of light and shadow that the monument plays upon itself, both inside and out, that commands our attention. That's roughly it, although there is a wealth of evidence for other usages, not least the direct observation of the Solar disc.
We are preparing to shoot our documentary and will be on site most of the summer.
Dave Kane
Re: Trethevy Quoit by tiompan on Thursday, 07 April 2011
I agree David , we can only work on what is there but we shouldn’t ignore taphonomy , degradation , secondary use etc .In the case of a recumbent stone circle with only one flanker it is reasonable to work from the supposition there may have originally been two . Also it hasn’t stopped astroarchaeologists suggesting orientations at sites that no longer have anything visible for sightlines e.g. Woodhenge .
Dating any monument from it’s putative astronomical alignments should not be a consideration particularly when we have no idea of the level of accuracy or even whether the monument was intended for such a use , not that it would make much difference in this case if the suggested orientations are solar .
I aware of Lockyer’s mentions of the Hurlers etc in SOABSMAC but not Trevethy , could you point me to the ref please ?
Have you looked for the same patterns at other local quoits ?
George
Re: Trethevy Quoit by Anonymous on Thursday, 07 April 2011
Lockyer gives little information, especially how and where his results were obtained. He says he sent Captain Henderson here in 1905, in the wind and rain. There is no evidence that he ever visited Trethevy, and indeed elsewhere he apologises for leaving surveying work to others. The alignment he mentions seems to mean the way the quoit is 'pointing', that is towards the SW, but there is little symmetry in this structure and he is vague as to method. We suspect Zennor Quoit may have had a similar solar usage for it bears a strong resemblance to Trethevy, but we have not surveyed it. A keen student is going there with bicycle, camera etc. in June to start elementary fieldwork preparatory to a general study. Lockyer's papers are in the care of Exeter University.
Re: Trethevy Quoit by tiompan on Thursday, 07 April 2011
Thanks . Do you have the an azimuth for the capstone ? I never trust plans , the only one I have suggests it is approx 294 degrees .
George
Re: Trethevy Quoit by Anonymous on Friday, 08 April 2011
. Ground plans are pretty useless. The structure is studied in three dimensions; something the archeologists have been slow to learn. You will have to be more specific about the capstone. What exactly do you want to know?
Re: Trethevy Quoit
by Anonymous on Wednesday, 06 April 2011
Are we not 5 days too late for this?
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road