Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Avebury »
Alexander Keiller's Avebury
Log In to post a reply

761 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: The Stukeley Line
Jan 20, 2013, 12:03
Littlestone wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
The re-erecting of the stones at Avebury is a no brainer. The stone sockets are easily found these days and it would be the easiest of jobs to complete. Its a nonsense for them to suggest that digging them up would result in their demise by nature. Those sarcens were probably originally buried anyway and are still here after many thousands of years.It all comes down to money as usual and excuses not for doing it IMO.
Stone circles were meant to be 'used' and be seen, not fallen, lost and uncared for.


Yup.

In 1991 Michelangelo’s David sculpture had one of its toes intentionally vandalised, fortunately we had all the pieces of the toe and a photographic record before the sculpture was damaged; we also knew when it was damaged, how it was done and exactly where the toe belonged on David’s foot. No problem, the toe was repaired and the statue restored to its former state.

Ditto the Avebury stones. It does no good whatsoever for a stone to lay visible and prostrate while livestock and irresponsible visitors to Avebury climb all over it, deposit detritus in its crevices and allow the elements to weather it in a way that is totally at odds with the designs of the Henge builders. Further, the Avebury stones that are buried are in no safer a condition if left there than if they were re-erected and visible – and may even be in a more perilous condition in that state from agricultural activity (or even theft). The argument for leaving the Avebury stones buried or fallen is a spurious one (either from an archaeological point of view or a conservation and cultural one). If these stones were Roman statues they would not lay fallen or buried for long; they would be excavated, restored, conserved and put on display – yet these massive, megalithic artefacts from our distance past, selected with care and hauled considerable distances, are allowed to remain fallen or buried at Avebury. Why? The argument against the re-erection of the Avebury stones on archaeological, conservation or cultural grounds has no merit in it whatsoever. So what about the often wheeled-out anti-restoration argument of, ”To which period of Avebury should these fallen/buried stones be restored?” Those who advance this argument usually have in mind the pre-historic appearance of Avebury, but that reference point is an arbitrary one. If we were to follow the logic of that argument we could also apply it to the Avebury Cove and how it looked before one of the stones was repositioned a few years ago. Also, no-one can seriously suggest that doing away with the eyesore that was once the Cove garage, with its wind turbine and surrounding rubbish, and restoring the Cove to what it was before the garage was built was not the right and proper course of action. In other words, the argument against the restoration and the re-erection off the Avebury stones to at least what they looked like within recorded history is nonsensical.

So, if the argument for the re-erection of the fallen and buried Avebury stones (from a conservation and cultural point of view) is shown to be the correct one do we have a point of reference from which to proceed? Fortunately we do, we have both a detailed and accurate record of how the Avebury Henge looked in the 1720s and how it looked just a few years later after so many of its stones were broken up or lay fallen or buried. Like David’s toe we have not only a point in time from which we can work out a restoration policy we also have a detailed and accurate record to accompany it – we have the Stukeley Line.

William Stukeley (1687-1765) was the first person to study and illustrate Avebury accurately and in detail. His 1720?s illustrations and Groundplot map of the Avebury Henge are an astonishing testament to his powers of observation and the meticulous way he went about recording Avebury before it was so brutally vandalised a few years later. Stukeley was powerless to stop the destruction of so many stones that had once formed the proud Avebury Henge but in 1743 his studies at Avebury came to fruition with the publication of his, Abury, A Temple of the British Druids, With Some Others Described. Stukeley may be forgiven for thinking that there was a connection between Avebury and the Druids; our debt to him lies not in his beliefs but in the more than twenty detailed illustrations he made of Avebury and the surrounding area (including Silbury and West Kennet Long Barrow). These illustrations stand as an accurate pictorial record of how Avebury looked at the beginning of the 18th century and it is to these illustrations that we can, and should, refer when considering the restoration of the Avebury Henge.

The Stukeley Line is a clear one drawn in the sands of Avebury’s long history and there is no better one. We, as Avebury’s present cultural custodians, would be failing in our duty not to restore Avebury to something of its former glory based on Stukeley’s meticulous record of the place. A duty that transcends local politics, archaeological aspirations or financial constraints and gives back to the international community a place truly worthy of the title World Heritage Site.


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!
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index