Re: Re: ‘Dutch Billys’
. . . . but the houses in question are not altered. They’re originals.
Of course these houses were altered. You can’t have 19th century brickwork on the front and early-to-mid 18th century brickwork on the back [as at 32 Thomas St., 120 Cork St. and, it looks like, 17 Arran Quay too] without acknowledging that the houses were altered.
You’re refusing to concede that even though two of the prime examples at Thomas Street and Cork Street do not appear on Rocque, 1756
That’s actually bullshit.
Rocque shows both streetscapes fully developed at the locations corresponding to those two houses. Continuing to argue that they’re not the same houses on the basis of discrepancies in Rocque’s detail, when we’ve already seen hundreds of examples of discrepancies in exactly the same level of detail, is becoming worrying.
Look at Weavers Square:
as depicted by Rocque
as depicted by the Ordnance Survey
as existed in reality.
Actually I believe that someone did alter that third house, but just the fenestration on the front, they didn’t come along after Rocque had gone down the street and rebuild the house square to match the other two :rolleyes:
From the Irish Times, April 16 2002:
You’re quoting from a newspaper article with the heading:
DUBLIN DIG SHOWS ACCURACY OF MAP OF 17TH CENTURY
. . . . . when refering to a map dated 1756?
Margaret Gowen, Franc Myles, . . . . you know these people are archaeologist don’t you?
Look what happened when you assumed 42 Manor Street was a twin gabled house – conservation architects working on the building conclusively demonstrated that the parapet had always been flat.
. . . . you might want to read back on that that one.
Now that you mention it, weren’t we promised photographs of the lunette windows that ‘conclusively demonstrated that the parapet had always been flat’ . . . but with curly bits at the ends?