|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Alexander Keiller's Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:07
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I was only pulling your leg, and his. Although he did draw the Sanctuary as egg shaped so I'm entitled to be wary of him. I'm actually a big fan of his and I think the reason so little of the B Ave has been found is that the stones were placed on not in the ground. Ditto WKA maybe. Having said that, I'm not the myseryguts you're portraying me as, I'm merely reacting as mainstream archaeologists would, so my conscience is mighty clear. Try writing to any of them. I bet you they'll sound as negative as me. Here's some more negativity. If I drove to Avebury from Malboro and arrived at the World's second greatest WHS and the first thing I saw was a modern mock up of a stone circle and a modern mock up of an Avenue, all Las Vegas-like, I'd think it was a right dive! If the stones of the BH avenue were placed on the surface then that means they were obviously brought there...so why not take them away when they were no longer wanted...why bury them? The BH Cove stones were earthfast and the socket of a missing one was discovered so why do you think they were possible set on the surface? I don't consider 9 more stones discovered aside from Eve as a 'little amount' discovered in the avenue with another 6 detected possibly from other structures. Yes I know you're a fan of William as I am and was delighted when he was proven to be right. He sounds quite a character! There's nothing wrong with negativity as long as it is coupled in with a little hope which seems to be missing. This was a Complex that was built to be seen and 'used' not allowed to remain buried and almost forgotten about IMO. Just a few more snapshots of the more complete picture shouldn't be too much to ask for surely. And it doesn't have to look like Vegas. Jeez if Neolithic man could make a good fist of what he did I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to come up with something sensible and in keeping with what they left behind for us.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Jan 25, 2013, 09:18
Jan 25, 2013, 09:13
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: The WKA is well established and adequately drawn by Aubrey at the Sanctuary end, we now know the course of the middle section at least of the BH avenue so why not re-erect a couple of stones there to indicate it and do the same, if we can detect some buried stones at the Sanctuary end that is, to again help join up the dots and give a fuller picture. Why do you see that as being a bad thing? Absolutely. Those who argue against re-erection from the standpoint of ‘mainstream archaeology’ is a little like saying only economists should be in charge of welfare issues or only surgeons should run hospitals – that’s a very one-sided view of very complex situations (of which Avebury is one) and ignores the wishes and concerns of other interested parties. No-one wants to see archaeology damaged but the wishes of mainstream archaeology are not the only factors at play here.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:15
|
||
|
And it doesn't have to look like Vegas. You do Vegas a disservice. Vegas could and would produce a Sanctuary stone circle and Avenue just as good as yours, but they wouldn't be THE stones, they'd be other ones and I don't think that's appropriate for Avebury. The place is just too classy to be tarted up in that way. It wouldn't enhance the rest it would devalue it by association. IMO.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:28
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: And it doesn't have to look like Vegas. You do Vegas a disservice. Vegas could and would produce a Sanctuary stone circle and Avenue just as good as yours, but they wouldn't be THE stones, they'd be other ones and I don't think that's appropriate for Avebury. The place is just too classy to be tarted up in that way. It wouldn't enhance the rest it would devalue it by association. IMO. I was referring to 'snapsots' Nigel and using rediscovered original stones not entire circles or avenues which isn't going to happen. See it as being similar to Hadrians wall where along its broken route you get those snapshots keeping you in the picture of what it looked like and its entire route.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:34
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Here's some more negativity. If I drove to Avebury from Malboro and arrived at the World's second greatest WHS and the first thing I saw was a modern mock up of a stone circle and a modern mock up of an Avenue, all Las Vegas-like, I'd think it was a right dive! If the stones of the BH avenue were placed on the surface then that means they were obviously brought there...so why not take them away when they were no longer wanted...why bury them? The BH Cove stones were earthfast and the socket of a missing one was discovered so why do you think they were possible set on the surface? I don't consider 9 more stones discovered aside from Eve as a 'little amount' discovered in the avenue with another 6 detected possibly from other structures. Yes I know you're a fan of William as I am and was delighted when he was proven to be right. He sounds quite a character! There's nothing wrong with negativity as long as it is coupled in with a little hope which seems to be missing. [/quote] The use of terms like negativity or narrow mindedness in relation to an opposing view is not helpful . Machiavellian lingo is for politicians . For those who would happily see new housing developments in Avebury , it's negative ,close minded , old fashioned views , that are opposing the bright new future for the youth out of the county . It cuts both ways .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:42
|
||
Ah well, that's different. Snapshots based on re-erecting actual buried stones, is actually a form of "sampling" and there's no profound Archaeological principle problem with that. On that basis archaeologists would have more sympathy with the idea (not because they're archaeologists but because they would see it as not breaching profound principles. These things are hardly a matter of saying everyone has a right to say what happens, more a case of everyone has a right to say what happens without tearing up the rule book. If that's not the case then the Big Bother viewers might well vote overwhelmingly to have the lot up tomorrow).
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:43
|
||
Is anyone else having the same problem as I am with the posts. When I click on a received post then go back to retrieve another, the previous one is still highlighted leaving me with dozens of highlighted posts to have to scroll through before finding a new one. Grrrrrr
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:46
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Is anyone else having the same problem as I am with the posts. When I click on a received post then go back to retrieve another, the previous one is still highlighted leaving me with dozens of highlighted posts to have to scroll through before finding a new one. Grrrrrr Not here . Oooops there goes another red one .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:52
|
||
|
I'm very used to being called narrow minded, negative and a block to progress by detectorists for my opposition to their right to take stuff for themselves and the Head of PAS says my problem is I "won't get on the train to Liaisonville". Too right I won't. It's all water off a duck's back!
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jan 25, 2013, 09:54
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: The use of terms like negativity or narrow mindedness in relation to an opposing view is not helpful . I’m afraid I disagree; those terms are not only helpful but necessary when people persistently, and doggedly, fail to see the merits of an opposing point of view :-)
|
| Pages: 77 – [ Previous | 1 … 56 57 58 59 60 61 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
