Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Buried stones at Avebury.
Log In to post a reply

21 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
BuckyE
468 posts

Re: Buried stones at Avebury.
Jul 02, 2006, 16:02
Littlestone wrote:
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?


No problem...
"...Coventry Cathedral..." There are reliable pictures and descriptions of it. It is possible to reconstruct, WITHOUT LOSING ANY INFORMATION, its look. But such a reconstruction, or conservation, won't give us a particularly great idea of the thinking behind its building and decoration.

"...Dresden..." An historical place that grew from a way of life applied over centuries. Reconstructing it to any given period would be an excercise in art, not in informational archaeology. As such, it would be pretty, but informatively of little value.

"...the Globe Theatre..." To the degree we might have information on how it was used, building a new one could be a nice non-destructive (of other archaeological information) demonstration for folks of what a particular historical activity was like. (Also assuming the performances there were accurate period pieces.) Note however that the knowledge gained (people being able to experience "living history") presupposes a good understanding of what it looked like and how it was used. The mere reconstruction of it isn't particularly helpful. So, what do we know about Avebury the way we know about the Theater? Not a d*mn thing.

"...the Sutton Hoo helmet..." Useless. The original should have been left as was, and a model constructed.

"...Pompeii..." A perfect example! The original excavations were destructive vandalism, much like Nigel's example of what's been done to Silbury. Given that the city is immense, excavating a portion of it per generation of scholars could allow for more and more informative techniques to be applied. It should be noted, though, that excavating has exposed the frescoes to the destructive elements of climate, much the same way Catal Huyuck was destroyed. Having it uncovered is fun, and a certain amount of information can be gleaned from getting a good statitistical survey of the types of buildings, amenities, etc.

But, in a few decades, all that information will be gotten with improved, nondestructive techniques. And in the meantime, most of the most beautiful aspects of the place have been either destroyed or taken out of context and made unavailable to the public. Have you been to the museum in Naples lately? Most of it is semi-permanently closed due to lack of funds. Interesting, eh?

[An even better example would be Ostia Antica, which survived millenia under overburden, and whose elements are now being wrecked by vandals and thieves and plants. Read about it.]

"...the Mayan pyramids..." Very good example. Chichen Itza has been "reconstructed" out of whole cloth. The consensus is now that the buildings to be seen may look little or nothing like the originals. How informative is that?

"...perhaps even the Twin Towers?." What possible gain could there be to reconstructing those? Other than profits for developers?

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index