Kammer
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 29, 2006, 19:16
|
|
He was only Joshin'.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 29, 2006, 19:43
|
|
Isn't the decent thing to erect just one or two now and have another think in 100 years?
With respect Nigel, no. The responsible* thing is to re-erect those stones that can be (confidently) re-erected without further delay and, in so doing, learn how the more difficult ones can be properly restored to their original positions - not within a timeframe of 100 years but more reasonably within a timeframe of, say, 15 to 20 years .
I agree with you that, "The original sockets contain a lot of info." Retrieving that information basically involves the same approach as re-erecting the stones.
* I define 'responsible' in this context as the restoration of our heritage in the shortest possible time.
|
BuckyE
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 29, 2006, 22:51
|
Perhaps the better question is why "restore" (to whatever period) at all? What's to be learned about how our ancestors--if indeed these stone pushers WERE in any sense our ancestors--lived, or thought; or about how our own culture developed and why by rerecting the stones? The more I look at these old things, the more I doubt their informative value.
It's probably MORE informative--about our culture--to have pushed in our faces just how ignorantly destructive our known, demonstrable cultural ancestors were. How about some little signs posted over all the buried ones: "Some ignorant clods either allowed this stone to fall down or pushed it over and now no one wants to pay to put it back up"?
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 30, 2006, 06:26
|
|
Perhaps the better question is why "restore" (to whatever period) at all? What's to be learned about how our ancestors... lived, or thought...?" Some ignorant clods either allowed this... to fall down or pushed it over and now no one wants to pay to put it back up"?
Perhaps you would also like to apply that philosophy to Coventry Cathedral, Dresden, the Globe Theatre, the Sutton Hoo helmet, Pompeii, the Mayan pyramids... perhaps even the Twin Towers?
|
moss
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 30, 2006, 06:27
|
*
Retrieving information (and splitting hairs) ; the fragment of bluestone was lost from the top of Silbury Hill, due presumably to carelessness, this could have been a vital piece of information in establishing relationships between types of stones used at Stonehenge and dates, therefore it is prudent to be very careful when re-erecting the stones at Avebury that the information recorded from the sockets is the best - could you guarantee that....
new technology in whatever field is coming along all the time. The visuality(or artistic spirit lifting) of the stones maybe comes second to the knowledge acquired. Think how frustrated we all are about Silbury Hill and Stonehenge because of inadequate archaeology..
*quotes; got completely muddled when there seems to be double quotes in the text, think I shall use cut and paste!
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 30, 2006, 06:37
|
|
...new technology in whatever field is coming along all the time.
I've argued this point before, moss. We do not get from point B in the future from point A in the past by magic. Advances in archaeology, conservation, medicine or whatever are made by the stumbling (often incompetent from our point of view) attempts of pioneers. I agree with you however that it is always wise to be prudent but we will not get anywhere by doing nothing.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 30, 2006, 06:58
|
I'm with Moss on this. Excavation is destructive and these days, under Valletta, its only done if the archaeology is threatened. I realise there's a case for "restoration" of Avebury but in this case, unlike some, restoration can't be divorced from excavation so we have to tread very carefully.
"I define 'responsible' in this context as the restoration of our heritage in the shortest possible time".
Pourquoi? Where's the threat? What's the hurry?
(I feel very mean to myself about this as I'd love to see the full set up, and it would probably give more pleasure to more people than saving the knowledge for a few future archaeos. But when it came to it, with the diggers poised, I think i'd wimp out of saying Go!)
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 30, 2006, 07:25
|
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this Nigel :-)
I'm very pro-excavation/restoration/conservation but this thread is probably not the place to argue why in any great detail (and anyway, I've done some of it before under the East Kennet Long Barrow thread and somewhere else with Peter Herring on Sutton Hoo.
As for being in a hurry (re: the Avebury stones), 15-20 years does not seem unduly hasty to get started (and I'd like to see a couple of newly erected stones in Avebury while I still have the wits and the will to get there ;-)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 30, 2006, 08:00
|
and I'd like to see a couple of newly erected stones in Avebury while I still have the wits and the will to get there
I agree wholeheartedly with that, so we're not that far apart.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jun 30, 2006, 08:06
|
|
;-)
|
