|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Buried stones at Avebury. |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
akas555 26 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 12:30
|
||
I bought a little booklet about Avebury and in it it mentions that there are several stones still buried, does anyone know if this is true? If so, as many of the stones we now see were previously buried and then reinstated why haven't the rest been too? are there any archaeological reasons why not? I'd love to see Avebury closer to what is was originally intended to be.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 13:11
|
||
|
I bought a little booklet about Avebury and in it it mentions that there are several stones still buried, does anyone know if this is true? If so, as many of the stones we now see were previously buried and then reinstated why haven't the rest been too? are there any archaeological reasons why not? Hi akas555. PeteG and others are more informed than me to answer in detail the first part of your question. Whether or not to resurrect the buried stones is something of a hot potato and has been discussed here and on other forums before (there's actually an identical discussion going on at present over on the Stones Mailing List). The following is something I posted on the Stones List yesterday in reply to a post by another contributor - hope it answers the second bit of your question. "Giles wrote - >The Avebury stones would have to be dug up and are on a different scale of magnitude to most stone circles, but surely re-erecting them is really just the next step in the restoration process that has already taken place at the site?< I agree, but politics, finance and some archaeologists do not. Evidently there is also opposition from some Avebury residents to the idea of resurrecting the buried stones because it is seen by some there that 'more stones' would attract 'more visitors'. Another argument for not resurrecting the buried Avebury stones (made, I believe, by Mike Pitts and other archaeologists for whom I otherwise have great respect) is the argument that asks to which stage do you restore Avebury? To the stage just before the stones were buried or much further back in time? This is one of the craziest arguments for not restoring (I use the word restore here not conserve) that I know because - One of the problems with any sort of restoration is judging how much to actually restore. It's now generally agreed by most restorers/conservators that if one is not sure what has been lost one leaves the missing area(s) blank - that can be a missing nose on a statue or a missing area in a painting or whatever. In the case of the buried Avebury stones those missing elements are not lost at all - they are buried - and probably buried very close to where they once stood! There is absolutely no cultural reason (though evidently there are plenty of financial and political ones) why the buried stones at Avebury should not now be restored to their original positions."
|
|||
ryaner 679 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 15:01
|
||
|
One of the problems with any sort of restoration is judging how much to actually restore. It's now generally agreed by most restorers/conservators that if one is not sure what has been lost one leaves the missing area(s) blank - that can be a missing nose on a statue or a missing area in a painting or whatever. In the case of the buried Avebury stones those missing elements are not lost at all - they are buried - and probably buried very close to where they once stood! Hi, as someone new to this, I'm slowly developing an understanding of these issues. I got involved in the recent forum topic about PeteG's project for the 'new' 'old' Stonehenge. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=34550&offset=25 Seems I may have put some people off with my smart-arse comment about Disco-henge. However, it was meant as a kinda warning about what has been done over here in the name of restoration/conservation/archaeology. (I know Pete's project doesn't intend to restore anything and is a completely new site.) The Newgrange 'restoration' is an interpretation of what they surmised from the limited evidence found. Ditto Knowth, a site I'm only getting to study now. I have very vague memories of a visit to Newgrange when I was a child. It was an overgrown mound in the middle of a field with easy access. Now – Discogrange, with visits mediated by guides. The word that stands out in your quote above Littlestone is probably, i.e. "probably buried very close to where they once stood". On a probability, would it be right to restore the buried stones given that, to quote you again "It's now generally agreed by most restorers/conservators that if one is not sure what has been lost one leaves the missing area(s) blank"? I'm not meaning to be trenchant here. As I said above, I'm learning and developing my own ideas and understanding. My own 'local' tomb, Seefin passage tomb, http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/1253 could do with a bit of restoration. I'd like to see the chamber cleared and roof repaired. It wouldn't be able to be 100% accurate, but would maybe improve our understanding of the place and conserve this monument by protecting it from the elements. However, I'm ambivalent about this, given what may result from officialdom's surmisings. In the end, is it better sometimes to let bygones be bygones? Andy
|
|||
Pete G 3506 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 15:04
|
||
|
akas555 wrote: does anyone know if this is true? Yes it is true. Half of the circle remains unexcavated and there are known buried stones found by AC Smith in the 1800's and again recently by Mike Papworth of the NT using geofiz. I have seen 4 stones of the Beckhampton avenue uncovered then reburied in recent years and know of another pair found by geofiz last year. I saw one stone on the Kennet avenue uncovered and also reburied. Colin Snell has discovered as many as 20 buried stones continuing the kennet avenue and even has a 3D model of one of them. akas555 wrote: If so, as many of the stones we now see were previously buried and then reinstated why haven't the rest been too? are there any archaeological reasons why not? Money! Mike Pitts tried to get stone 78 erected but the BBC have pulled out so there is no money for the project. The BBC don't want to be seen to be involved with a high profile event at Avebury while the Silbury situation is still to be resolved as they don't want to remind people that the BBC are responsible for the state of the Atkinson fiaso at Silbury in the 1960's.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 15:31
|
||
|
On a probability, would it be right to restore the buried stones given that, to quote you again "It's now generally agreed by most restorers/conservators that if one is not sure what has been lost one leaves the missing area(s) blank"? Good point ryaner. Once again there are others here who know more about the location and number of the buried stones (and how close they are to their original positions) than me but my understanding is that there are maybe 15-20 known stones buried in the Avenues and Circle and that they are pretty close to their original positions. Politics and finances aside I don't think it would be too difficult (or contravening accepted restoration/conservation ethics) to re-erect some of them - perhaps starting with the easiest and tackling the more difficult ones when more understanding and experience of the task has been achieved.
|
|||
doktoratomik 379 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 16:04
|
||
|
I'm all for it. Would those who're opposed to it rather that stonehenge, wayland's smithy and half of dartmoor were returned to their pre-restoration state? We'd have some pretty sorry heritage if they were! (although I have to say, I think I actually prefer the pre-restoration stonehenge!)
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 16:26
|
||
|
although I have to say, I think I actually prefer the pre-restoration Stonehenge!) I know what you mean dok but there's a subtle difference between a restored Stonehenge and a restored Avebury. Stonehenge is an attractive ruin in its own right, and as such has inspired artists and poets for hundreds of years; Avebury has not, and there is no artistic argument that supports leaving Avebury in such a ruinous state, especially when so many of its stones are lying just below the turf.
|
|||
|
akas555 26 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 16:29
|
||
My own opinion is that because many of the stones there have been reinstated anyway, restoring the rest would not damage the integrity of the site, but rather ameliorate it. I understand the need to draw a line at which point the restoration would stop, but if it's just reinstating the stones lying under the ground and not (e.g). knocking down buildings to piece together broken stones, then I think a happy medium can be found.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 16:58
|
||
|
there is no artistic argument that supports leaving Avebury in such a ruinous state No, but there's an archaeological one that suggests if its going to be done it should be done only slowly. The concept of "preservation in situ" was partly developed as a response to the fact that techniques are improving logarithmically. What you did yesterday can be seen as having produced less information than you could have if you had waited until today. So if you do it today, will it be seen as irresponsible tomorrow? If you'd got your way in the sixties, the way you'd done it would now be seen as crude vandalism. Every intervention into Silbury there has ever been is now seen that way. If you do it all today, because you'd just love to see it restored (as would I), are you being selfish and greedy, depriving the future of knowledge, much as we gobble petrol, merely because we feel like it? It's a paradox. Isn't the decent thing to erect just one or two now and have another think in 100 years? A compromise between the interests of us and those of our Gt grandchildren. An archaeological sampling exercise, destructive but not wholly. And its not just the stones. The original sockets contain a lot of info. Putting sarsens in them will deprive the future of the chance to learn more from them than we can. This is exactly what has happened at Stonehenge. The profiles of the holes there tell a story about e.g. which side the stones were put in and in what sequence, but the story is incomplete. The sockets that might have revealed the rest of the story are full of concrete and the info. is lost forever.... We have a restored Stonhenge to look at but we destroyed part of it in the process.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 29, 2006, 17:12
|
||
I think it was Josh Pollard who said when questioned about restoring Avebury to its original glory - "Which period? The Mesolithic?"
|
| Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
