Talk:Mount's Bay

Removed edits

I have removed the following:

Geologists believe that a forest may have existed here before the most recent sea level rise. This correlates with the Cornish name of St Michael's Mount, Carrack Looz en Cooz = 'carrek'(rock)+ 'los'(grey)+ 'cos'(wood) — literally, "the grey rock in the wood".

The remains of the trees can still be seen at low tide after storms and have been dated to 4000 - 6000 years ago. Jowaninpensans (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This statement can easily be checked from a Cornish dictionary; the dictionaries that put 'k' before 'a','o', or 'u', are in fact not our Cornish but Breton!unsigned comment added by 217.35.102.102 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because it was put in front of a reference I had put in and part of the sentence duplicated what was already there. Jowaninpensans (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

How reliable are these dates? These dates would not confirm that Mounts bay was inundated soon after that, to any logically minded person.

The dates are carbon dated. Furthermore there is concensus amongst Oceanographers that sea levels reached their present levels about 6,000 years ago. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is hardly a reliable source for sea level rises. You need to sign your comments, not put your comments in front of mine and then make it looks as if that is what I wrote. Use four " ~ ".Jowaninpensans (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reference to St. Michael's Mount as Ictis is very dubious and contravenes other facts about Mounts Bay.

The Fortunate Islands

Bowley, R. L., (2004) The Fortunate Islands – The Story of the Isles of Scilly. St Mary's: Bowley Publications Ltd.

The above book about the Isles of Scilly is being used as a reference for a 1014 inundation of Mount's Bay and the formation of Loe Bar, supposedly as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. According to my edition of The Fortunate Islands the A-S Chronicle is recorded thus:

... it is recorded that on 11th November, 1014, 'the sea-tide ran up so very high and did much harm as no one remembered that it ever before did'.

There is no mention of Mount's Bay and I personally would not interpret that as causing the formation of Loe Bar or Mount's Bay itself! Jowaninpensans (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a little confusion in that edition, because the date in my older edition gives 11th November, 1099, followed by precisely the same quotation that, as you quite rightly state, does not confirm the basis for Mounts Bay inundation, nor of the fact that Loe Bar was subsequently formed. However, my edition that goes back to the 1970s is by E. L. Bowley and clearly states that in 1014, (in a site elsewhere the date is fixed as the 28th September, but is not mentioned here) the land around St. Michaels Mount was inundated and many people drowned. This equates with the discovery of hazeltree leaves and hazelnuts there.</ref> 'The Drowned Landscape' by Charles Thomas. It also accounts for the modern name of 'Iron Gates' for a hillock about five metres under the sea as the furthest out to sea rise above the normal 10 metre depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.102.102 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I also have a 7th edition by R L Bowley, and in that editon in no way can you interpret what you seem to be interpreting. If it is not in the later editions, that to me, would indicate that it is no longer the concensus. The Fortunate Islands is being used as a reference for the formation of Loe Bar in other articles! Jowaninpensans (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And I don't see how that ...equates with the discovery of hazeltrees leaves and hazelnuts there. Jowaninpensans (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

According to this translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle there are, either tsunami or storm surges in the years 1014 and 1099. I cannot see how interpretations can be made on how these events affected Mount's Bay, Loe Bar, the River Cober, Helston or anywhere else. Jowaninpensans (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Age of Loe Bar deposits

I have removed User 217.35.102.102 edits (19 June 2014) because there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what the age of the deposits actually means. What was added is not in the original reference and furthermore the added information was not referenced. Was it made up?

The deposits at Loe Bar have been tentatively dated as Eocene. That does not mean that the Bar was formed then, this is the date that the actual deposits were laid down. They were later eroded, washed down the English Channel and ended up in their present position sometime after the last ice-age; which is all in the reference. I do not know of any actual date on which this all happened and I doubt if anyone does because as far as I am aware no one has done the research. I see that, instead of having an actual year for the formation of the Bar we now have a different century and we seem to have moved on from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle!

It would be good if you could actually discuss these matters on the talk page (by writing below and not amongst what I have written), because your story keeps changing. Jowaninpensans (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

217.35.102.102 (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Andrew217.35.102.102 (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Many thanks for clarifying that the above reference does not imply that the Bar was deposited during Eocene period - I must also correct my interpretation to others. It is a known fact that the sea level rose considerably during the 13th century. By the early 14th century according to a Helston history guide the trout in the pool were considerably larger than freshwater trout, but had a link in appearance, although manifested features of sea trout. Therefore there is some evidence of them being washed up during the formation of the Bar. The Loe Bar being formed during the 13th century has absolutely nothing in common with Mounts Bay being inundated on the 28th September 1014. Further tsunamis and the Long Shore Drift as the Geomorphologists correctly state produced the formation of the Bar. I believe in the credibility of trees four to six thousand years old, because this equates with the finding of a tree (amongst others) tested as up to three or more thousand years old, about thirty feet under the brick building that belongs to the new cattle market area. Unfortunately, the names of hills - now under the sea in Mounts Bay, beyond Cudden Point; namely: 'Mount Amopus', the 'Great Row' and, with the exception of 'Carn Mallows' are all post Anglo-Saxon names, and have not been transferred from a 1950's Red Ward Lock guide to Ordnance surveys. Equating with these references is a map that a man had of mediaeval Mounts Bay depicted just one arm of the sea entering it.(User talk:Andrew Gray talk)

• What is your reference for your "fact" that the sea level rose considerably during the 13th century? And a known fact to whom?
• I don't understand how the size of trout can be an indication of the formation of Loe Bar
• the Geological Conservation Review does not mention tsunamis or longshore drift in the formation of the bar. Longshore drift helps to maintain the bar
• I have never heard of the names you mention in Mount's Bay, and would really want to read the information for myself and not your interpretation. Could fishermen have been aware of features under the sea, such as rocky outcrops and given them names. Afterall they wouldn't want to loose their nets or lines.
• medieval maps are not renown for their accuracy! Jowaninpensans (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock holmes

Hi, I know nothing of editing wiki pages but I was just reading The adventure of the devil’s foot and i wanted to learn more about mount’s bay because that’s where Sherlock stays in that story and noticed that there’s no mention of the story in the article, if this is purposeful and people don’t think it’s relevant or necessary that’s fair but I thought i’d mention it if it was, so someone could change it if they wanted to.

Sorry if this isn’t written well, one of the many reasons I don’t think my attempt at editing the article would be up to snuff.

Thanks. DaMastaOPasta (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)