|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Avebury » Alexander Keiller's Avebury |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:32
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Mustard wrote: Harry hasn't offered one rational argument to support his opinion. Quite. Would you like to prove that leaving the stones underground is detrimental? Seems to be a big part of your case.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:35
|
||
|
Seems like disagreeing, leaves you open to insults. Can't see how that helps you achieve your case.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:46
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Mustard wrote: tjj wrote: Littlestone wrote: The difference here (at Avebury) is that the stones are not on foreign soil but, for the most part, are in or on the soil where they originally stood. Those who oppose their re-erection are actually doing so for very narrow-minded reasons - not for the greater good of the monument itself, its better understanding and appreciation on the world stage and, ultimately, its marker in history and its place in human endeavour. Here we go again ... where do you get off calling people 'narrow minded' because they have a different view to you. There are lots of valid reasons for leaving the status quo at Avebury as it is ... for now anyway. As well you know (or should anyway). To be fair, June, Harry hasn't offered one rational argument to support his opinion. That's his right, but it certainly gives the APPEARANCE of narrow-mindedness. And that's not a criticism, because we can ALL be narrow-minded at times, surely? :) Perhaps Harry is not quite as articulate on forum as you and others. I refer you to Rhiannon's posts for reasons 'why not' - at this point in time anyway. Makes sense to me. If you want to call me narrow-minded too then go ahead, you know nothing about me except possibly hearsay. I am disappointed to see you condoning such forum strategies. I'm disappointed to see you turn a discussion into an argument. It seems like it's impossible to have a civilised discussion on here without people assuming that you're insulting them/attacking them/mocking them. I give up. G'night.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 22:46
|
||
|
I don't believe digging up the stones improves their life span. I don't believe that it i would make Avebury a better place to the majority of people. I do believe forcing me to say this is both unnecessary and pointless. The fact I don't agree with digging up more stones should be accepted as that. I don't agree. At no time have I said that anybody else's view is wrong or unacceptable and have said, if you believe otherwise, well thats fine. I don't agree. Thank you for your reasonable debate.
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Jan 20, 2013, 23:48
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: No. I don't have any rational reason for digging up any more stones. I think it works as it is. I don't want to rebuild Avebury, Stonehenge, Corfe Castle or any of the other 'ruins'. They are fine as they are. I see nothing unreasonable about that. If people wish the opposite then thats fine. But I don't. I'm happy with the status quo. I think that it actually come down to that. Some will wish it rebuild, and some wont. some will fight to make it happen and some wont. I doubt very much that this conversation has any great effect on that result at all. It's a Yes or No situation as far as I can, see and I say no. The reason for getting them back up that keeps coming into my mind is that the age of the holes dug to topple the stones and the reason why the prehistoric archaeology has been destroyed [which lets us put them back up] will one day themselves be seen as an important part of the Avebury story and the holes seen as archaeology themselves, eg you can't have the stones to stand back up because it's part of this bit of Aveburys story, I say get them back up before this happens, but i do understand the other side as well because Avebury has an interesting story in modern times, it's basically a history of England in microcosm.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Jan 21, 2013, 05:35
Jan 21, 2013, 02:26
|
||
|
bladup wrote: the reason why the prehistoric archaeology has been destroyed [which lets us put them back up] will one day themselves be seen as an important part of the Avebury story and the holes seen as archaeology themselves That has already happened. The burning pits at Beckhampton were subject to detailed archaeological investigation. Everything that has happened is seen as part of the story, including erosion, vandalism and all of Keiller's work, mistakes and all. So restoring one part and not the rest is hard to justify. It also has to be asked, if changes are deliberately made, for how long will they stay? It's a certainty that the future will see what is done as partly mistaken, and call for corrections - at which point Trigger will have yet another new broom with even less valid connection to the original.) Add to all that the "knowledge loss" thing and the fact that there's no "rescue archaeology" element and people have a perfectly respectable set of reasons for opposing re-erection, ones that are acknowledged by EH, UNESCO and all the international conventions. So they're certainly not to be dismissed as narrow-minded - they're exactly the reverse actually.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 21, 2013, 07:50
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: the reason why the prehistoric archaeology has been destroyed [which lets us put them back up] will one day themselves be seen as an important part of the Avebury story and the holes seen as archaeology themselves That has already happened. The burning pits at Beckhampton were subject to detailed archaeological investigation. Everything that has happened is seen as part of the story, including erosion, vandalism and all of Keiller's work, mistakes and all. So restoring one part and not the rest is hard to justify. It also has to be asked, if changes are deliberately made, for how long will they stay? It's a certainty that the future will see what is done as partly mistaken, and call for corrections - at which point Trigger will have yet another new broom with even less valid connection to the original.) Add to all that the "knowledge loss" thing and the fact that there's no "rescue archaeology" element and people have a perfectly respectable set of reasons for opposing re-erection, ones that are acknowledged by EH, UNESCO and all the international conventions. So they're certainly not to be dismissed as narrow-minded - they're exactly the reverse actually. If Avebury was a 'living' monument and still in day to day use, then it would have been repaired/upkept as and when just like you would have your own property repaired and maintained. If your garden wall collapsed then you would have it rebuilt as a matter of course. I see no reason why Avebury should not be rebuilt using the original stones where detected at all. We believe we 'know' what it probably originally looked like, both by the works of Stukeley and the fact that modern-day technology is allowing us to trace its outline. We know that it had two Avenues and Keiller has already reinstated one in parts. We now know that Stukeley wasn't imagining things when he described the Beckhampton Avenue and its initial route and stones have now been plotted and many stones identified. We of course know of the Great Circle and the ditch and bank and where many of the stones are that are now missing from the setting and we can all appreciate that it would have looked simply spectacular on first build. Couple it all in with other monuments in the area such as Silbury Hill and we have a landscape which is not matched by anything else in the UK. We have gone to great lengths and expense over the years excavating all of the main components of this complex and are now ideally placed to re-erect the stones where discovered and to keep on looking for those that haven't, such as the Sanctuary end of the WKA. To not do so to my mind is to see all that time and expense wasted and a near pointess exercise. We all have our views and I respect all of them and don't need people to explain themselves to me if they differ to mine. I just happen to think that every single stone rediscovered and proven to have a space allocated to it should be re-erected seeing we have already gone to the trouble of finding them. The monument(s) look spectacular now, just imagine it in its near entirety. It would be interesting to hear a wider range of views from others on this forum.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 21, 2013, 08:00
|
||
|
"I just happen to think that every single stone rediscovered and proven to have a space allocated to it should be re-erected seeing we have already gone to the trouble of finding them. The monument(s) look spectacular now, just imagine it in its near entirety." Does the same go for Stonehenge?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 21, 2013, 08:05
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "I just happen to think that every single stone rediscovered and proven to have a space allocated to it should be re-erected seeing we have already gone to the trouble of finding them. The monument(s) look spectacular now, just imagine it in its near entirety." Does the same go for Stonehenge? Everywhere as every site is important, not just the iconic ones.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Jan 21, 2013, 09:15
|
||
|
Well my first impulse would be to say yes to the re-erection of stones, my second cautionary impulse would be for two archaeologists, for and against, on this forum explaining the method of excavation and what they wanted to find. I think 'final phase' is the ultimate goal, just read that it was approximately 600 years of evolution before Avebury arrived at three stone circles and avenues, and let's not forget the 'Obelisk' that dominated the scene. dating explains all but I'm not sure that it would be possible to date the phases. In the end Avebury needs to be seen as a whole ritual complex developing over time, education boards can always explain the nitty-gritty. So fundamentally I would raise the stones and then let us walk down the avenues with reverence, never quite knowing the whole story but allowing the imagination to flow...
|
| Pages: 77 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
