|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Alexander Keiller's Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2013, 23:54
Jan 21, 2013, 23:52
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Harryshill wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Harryshill wrote: Sanctuary wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Harryshill wrote: harestonesdown wrote: Harryshill wrote: Lol. Your stalling. Raising the stones won't protect them and you know it I know it wont, though i'm of the view they wouldn't need protecting. Let's say a buried piece of sarsen would last 10 million years, though it'd never be seen, a re-erected piece lasts 9 million years and is enjoyed by a countless number of people, is that a good trade off ? imo yes. One of the 'factual' reasons for raising the stones at Avebury was that it would help protect the stones both from what, weathering? and theft This I believe is factual 'bull shite' Well i guess i should let others answer that as they aren't my reasons for wanting re-erection. The one and only reason for raising the stones should be to put them back in the setting where they once stood and as intended by our Neolithic ancestors. Avebury is not Avebury as intended without them! Simples! The people that built Avebury walked away from it. Finished, done with, moved on. Ah i see, so we should scrap the last remaining spitfires too then. ? Spitfires? what the hell have spitfires got to do with anything. The people that built Avebury gave it up, took a walk, whatever. Factual. So I'm told. The stones are better protected if they are erected. Lets see some evendence for that. Why not use spitfires as an example, they no longer serve any real purpose, they're just historical relics, though ones people take a huge interest in, similar to the Avebury monuments. As for evidence i can't give any, as i've already explained that's not my angle on it, i just want them back up to compliment what is already there. I would say to complete as best we can what is already there (having to accept that many others are now lost forever). Most of the East side of Avebury is there to be restored [they reckon it may be graded and the stones smaller in the North East, i'm not sure though], some of the beckhampton avenue and a little bit of the west kennet avenue in the hedge by the A4 needs sorting out [3 stones stood out a mile a few weeks ago, in the summer you can barely see them], all would improve the place loads.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 08:48
|
||
|
Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it. Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it. In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 09:00
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it. Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it. In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame. Good try. So you think you speak for all archaeos Nigel? I bet if most were asked to oversee the re-raising of all the stones they couldn't agree fast enough. Same applies to the EKLB as you brought it into the discussion. 'Most' archaeos never get a shot of making a name for themselves and if the project was offered to them they'd jump at the chance I suspect. It didn't stop them 'destroying the archaeology' when they dug for and exposed the stones in the BH avenue did it because it was not destroyed but thoroughly investigated as the work progressed. How come they didn't feel bad about digging there? But that's just my view.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 09:20
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it. Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it. In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame. Good try. So you think you speak for all archaeos Nigel? I bet if most were asked to oversee the re-raising of all the stones they couldn't agree fast enough. Same applies to the EKLB as you brought it into the discussion. 'Most' archaeos never get a shot of making a name for themselves and if the project was offered to them they'd jump at the chance I suspect. It didn't stop them 'destroying the archaeology' when they dug for and exposed the stones in the BH avenue did it because it was not destroyed but thoroughly investigated as the work progressed. How come they didn't feel bad about digging there? But that's just my view. Hi Sanctuary, A small point but well worth making is that 'amateurs' have often discovered and contributed to the knowledge of the science of archaeology. Not forgetting that archaeology needs a lot of manpower to excavate sites, (okay forget Time Team and its mechanical diggers); the contribution to our knowledge by small history societies and individuals in voluntary capacities should also be acknowledged. The presumption that archaeology would be better in the future, is, after all only a desired wish at the moment, presumably soil analysis could be better in the future but read any archaeological report and they are very thorough even today.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Jan 22, 2013, 09:27
Jan 22, 2013, 09:23
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it. Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it. In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame. Nigel, thank you for your measured post - although we haven't always seen eye to eye I agree with you on this. No one is saying 'never' only 'not now' - leave it for future generations to decide and trust that past mistakes made around Avebury and Silbury will be a reference point for them.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 09:24
|
||
|
"Good try" It's not a try it's my honest opinion, based on my understanding of the things that rule professional archaeologists like the Conventions, EH's guidance and the IfA code. But I'll leave it there thanks.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 09:27
|
||
|
moss wrote: Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: Although most of us can see Avebury is “better” thanks to Keiller, despite his mistakes, that doesn't necessarily mean “more” would bring a lot more benefits than he already bestowed. It's important to be sure that it would because the one certainty is that further excavation tomorrow would involve a conscious decision to destroy part of the archaeological record whereas doing it in the future would destroy less of it. Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings, and that's a lesson Archaeology has learned the hard way but very thoroughly over time and is committed to now (though detectorists aren't) – to the extent that 99% of excavation takes place only in advance of development and loss of the asset and the remaining 1% , for research, usually involves only sampling a few percent and leaving as much as possible for the future. To the extent that, other than maybe 1 or 2 stones, EH would certainly not agree to a grand project and most archaeologists wouldn't agree to take part in it. In the light of that, TMA calls for not one but lots of unthreatened stones to be dug up look a bit out of line with modern archaeological thinking and maybe gives the archaeological establishment the chance to look down on amateurs, which is a shame. Good try. So you think you speak for all archaeos Nigel? I bet if most were asked to oversee the re-raising of all the stones they couldn't agree fast enough. Same applies to the EKLB as you brought it into the discussion. 'Most' archaeos never get a shot of making a name for themselves and if the project was offered to them they'd jump at the chance I suspect. It didn't stop them 'destroying the archaeology' when they dug for and exposed the stones in the BH avenue did it because it was not destroyed but thoroughly investigated as the work progressed. How come they didn't feel bad about digging there? But that's just my view. Hi Sanctuary, A small point but well worth making is that 'amateurs' have often discovered and contributed to the knowledge of the science of archaeology. Not forgetting that archaeology needs a lot of manpower to excavate sites, (okay forget Time Team and its mechanical diggers); the contribution to our knowledge by small history societies and individuals in voluntary capacities should also be acknowledged. The presumption that archaeology would be better in the future, is, after all only a desired wish at the moment, presumably soil analysis could be better in the future but read any archaeological report and they are very thorough even today. Hi Moss, totally agree. Amateurs contribute a great deal through their sheer enthusiasm and unchained declarations of what they 'believe' could be going on, mainly from something not considered important today...observation. It is not their fault that they are not privy to the equipment and testing available to the professional boys but their contribution as you say in the actual excavating is beyond question.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 09:28
|
||
Thank you. The bottom line is that EH will never agree to other than a small intervention for precisely the reasons you and I have cited.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 09:30
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Buried archaeology is not like artefacts, the act of renovation destroys some of it's essence, which is the potential to recover immeasurable amounts of knowledge from it and it's surroundings I can understand that argument where artefacts have gradually decayed in situ, with no interference. But when we're talking about stones that have been buried in holes dug many centuries after their erection, it's difficult to imagine what remains to be found that modern archaeology isn't capable of retrieving. To help me understand your argument, could you offer an example of the sort of thing you feel might be destroyed or lost to future generations of archaeologists as a result of re-erection?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 22, 2013, 09:34
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "Good try" It's not a try it's my honest opinion, based on my understanding of the things that rule professional archaeologists like the Conventions, EH's guidance and the IfA code. But I'll leave it there thanks. Mine was an honest opinion as well Nigel. I didn't see many people complaining and mentioning Conventions, EH guidance and the IFA code when they dug for the stones in the BH avenue. I can only recall the cheers and appreciation that Stukeley was right after all.
|
| Pages: 77 – [ Previous | 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
