|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Alexander Keiller's Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 12:29
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: I wonder how many of us, given the opportunity, would jump at the opportunity to be directly involved in the re-erecting of the stones to keep the cost down. That's a no-brainer as well surely isn't it! Bring it on! If money’s the problem then one solution (suggested before) is that individual stones could be re-erected through sponsorship or bequests, starting perhaps with the recumbent stones within the Henge itself. Some might find that distasteful but personally I wouldn’t mind seeing a small, discreet plaque at the base of each re-erected stone with the sponsor’s name on it – eg This stone was re-erected through the generous aid of ... The concrete markers by the way are Art Deco. Not particularly inspiring but A) reflecting Keiller's interests at the time and B) not attempting to restore a stone that has actually been lost. That’s how modern rules of conservation work so pretty darn good for the time. There were some Art Deco features on Bonds Garage (formerly Rawlins' Garage) by the way before it was so brutally demolished.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 12:31
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Top drawer LS. I wonder how many of us, given the opportunity, would jump at the opportunity to be directly involved in the re-erecting of the stones to keep the cost down. That's a no-brainer as well surely isn't it! Bring it on! And its got to be done in our life-time has it? 'We' have be involved, 'we' have to be the witnesses. Surely that's just ego - no disrespect to anyone (good post LS, well argued). I don't think anyone mentioned when it had to be done June as the discussion is centreing on whether it should be done or not. But it would be natural to hope that it would be done in our lifetimes wouldn't it?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 12:41
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Do we know how much it cost to complete the work carried out in the Beckhampton Avenue after the geophysical surveys were carried out in 1997 Nigel? I don't, but as you know they revealed some of the stones but then filled the holes in again, presumably because erecting them would have incurred massive extra research costs. My fantasy was to dig them up with a JCB and erect them, leaving the mother of all decisions for them. Would they leave them up or re-bury them? Would TMAers have formed a human chain round them?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 12:49
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: I don't think anyone mentioned when it had to be done June as the discussion is centreing on whether it should be done or not. But it would be natural to hope that it would be done in our lifetimes wouldn't it? Natural, yes, but since the future would do the job better, and retrieve more knowledge, and destroy less, if we're TRULY dedicated to the place we should maybe hold back? I'm not a saint, I'd love to see it as much as you but that thought would probably hold me back. It's why I said one stone, not all. A compromise between us and the future. Which is standard archaeological practice. You only dig up a bit and leave the rest for others.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 12:54
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Sanctuary wrote: I don't think anyone mentioned when it had to be done June as the discussion is centreing on whether it should be done or not. But it would be natural to hope that it would be done in our lifetimes wouldn't it? Natural, yes, but since the future would do the job better, and retrieve more knowledge, and destroy less, if we're TRULY dedicated to the place we should maybe hold back? I'm not a saint, I'd love to see it as much as you but that thought would probably hold me back. It's why I said one stone, not all. A compromise between us and the future. Which is standard archaeological practice. You only dig up a bit and leave the rest for others. Hold on a mo. They know where the buried stones are, they will find the stone holes no problem, what future knowledge is required to re-erect them and what will be destroyed?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 13:05
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Hold on a mo. They know where the buried stones are, they will find the stone holes no problem, what future knowledge is required to re-erect them and what will be destroyed? Knowledge. More in the thirties than now, less in the future than now.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 13:34
|
||
|
At the moment, it is possible that we don't even know what knowledge could be lost. Don't you think? Like how Stukeley couldn't have even imagined using geophys techniques? Or even something more visible like dead beetles to infer the environment? And in the future, there could be all sorts of tiny traces that we could pick up using whatever space-age techniques, that archaeologists of today haven't even dreamt up yet. so it'd be a shame to lose all sorts of clues and information, just for the sake of satisfying our current-day aesthetics of wanting to see the stones up. do you not agree?
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Jan 20, 2013, 14:36
Jan 20, 2013, 13:54
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: At the moment, it is possible that we don't even know what knowledge could be lost. Don't you think? Like how Stukeley couldn't have even imagined using geophys techniques? Or even something more visible like dead beetles to infer the environment? And in the future, there could be all sorts of tiny traces that we could pick up using whatever space-age techniques, that archaeologists of today haven't even dreamt up yet. We had a similar discussion some years ago over East Kennet Long Barrow Rhiannon. I think one of the points I made back then was that we don’t arrive in the future with just one step from the present. As with most disciplines it’s a progression, and we need to go through a sequence of events to get from here to there. Put another way, we need to learn through investigative research (and the mistakes as well as the successes that incurs) before we can get to that magical place in the future where we can see inside something without taking it apart. As has been pointed out elsewhere however, we don’t need to take everything apart in one go now but, not doing (investigating) anything is just as bad as trying to do everything in one go. There are also ‘special cases’ and I think Avebury is one of them. Seahenge was another, so too was Sutton Hoo.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 13:58
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: At the moment, it is possible that we don't even know what knowledge could be lost. Don't you think? Like how Stukeley couldn't have even imagined using geophys techniques? Or even something more visible like dead beetles to infer the environment? And in the future, there could be all sorts of tiny traces that we could pick up using whatever space-age techniques, that archaeologists of today haven't even dreamt up yet. so it'd be a shame to lose all sorts of clues and information, just for the sake of satisfying our current-day aesthetics of wanting to see the stones up. do you not agree? I'm sure that there would be plenty of opportunity in the future to find exactly the same things adjacent to any work carried out without having to worry unduly. Following your line of thought we can always argue that for ever more even more sophisticated equipment will be invented until eventually the whole shebang will have returned to nature before we actually did anything! Sympathetic excavation and the storing of samples all the way through the works would satisfy future research I'm sure.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 15:11
|
||
I agree, you learn through gradual improvements and discoveries into the future, but you don't have to use something as unique as avebury as your guinea pig? You do stuff in the lab, or you use a ploughed down round barrow or something about to be built on, if you're going to do something that destroys the very thing you're looking at. If you come up with non-destructive techniques it doesn't matter where you're practising / developing them. But if you're going to use destructive techniques (ie hoiking stones out of the ground) then you're not going to be able to use non-destructive methods afterwards, because there's nothing left to use them on.
|
| Pages: 77 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
