|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » The Bosham Stone |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 19, 2013, 18:23
|
||
|
VBB wrote: We have been through all this on here at least once: Must have missed the pervious thread(s) on this – do you have links to them Mr B?
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Feb 19, 2013, 19:26
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: VBB wrote: We have been through all this on here at least once: Must have missed the pervious thread(s) on this – do you have links to them Mr B? Couldn't find it, for pc probs I would search again... sorry! Have checked with 2 others, both recalled the upset but not when.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Edited Feb 19, 2013, 20:00
Feb 19, 2013, 19:57
|
||
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Feb 19, 2013, 19:58
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: megalith6 wrote: harestonesdown wrote: megalith6 wrote: With regard to the possible symbolic pairing of the avenue stones - Aubrey Burl, ‘Prehistoric Avebury’ (2002) page 76: Alexander Keiller and Stuart Piggott had noted that “along the rows of the [West Kennet] avenue ... the ... long thin pillar and a broader diamond [shape perhaps] ... denoting male and female symbols ... a fertility cult ... one of the first objective interpretations of what Avebury might have been used for”. Not having read it i wasn't aware of that, not that it gives the theory any more validity in my mind using the current standing stones of the WKA. All the more reason to find and re-erect the missing ones then. :) Yes indeed, there was a dreadful missed opportunity a few years ago when a team undertook a dig for the missing avenue in the middle of a field behind West Kennet Farm. Why on earth did they not start their dig from where the current avenue ends with a 90% certainty of finding socket holes or even buried megaliths? The dig was almost predictably inconclusive the last I heard. Ric The 2002 excavation team was unlikely to get permission to dig at the where the current avenue ends ,particularly after having had a major excavation at Beckhampton and as Peter Ucko had earlier geofizzed that area resulting in adding another 120 m to it's length . The site chosen for the dig was where the Ucko survey was most inconclusive and also where there was the possibility of confirming the site of buried sarsen reported by Crawford .
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Feb 23, 2013, 13:57
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Littlestone wrote: VBB wrote: We have been through all this on here at least once: Must have missed the pervious thread(s) on this – do you have links to them Mr B? Couldn't find it, for pc probs I would search again... sorry! Have checked with 2 others, both recalled the upset but not when. Possibly the ‘upset’ was elsewhere and not on TMA – at least I can’t find mention of it in any of the 218 topics on TMA’s Avebury Forum (though I may have missed it, or it may have been posted on another TMA thread). Hardly seems like ‘an old chestnut’ though (as far as TMA contributors are concerned) as the story, or at least the details, seem to have been unknown to more than just a few here. Some interesting stuff in those early threads. These abstracts from Richard Hayward’s Avebury WHS: Poor state of preservation thread of 2001 (slightly edited for typos) may be of interest - VBB wrote: I would like to bring to everyone's attention the following which I have just read in the latest journal of the Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society (Wiltshire Heritage). At Avebury there has recently been completed an Archaeology Field Monument Condition and Management Survey within the Avebury World Heritage Site. The aim was: "to review the physical condition and vulnerability of all 289 recorded monuments within the WHS and to identify a framework of appropriate management options. A two-stage approach was adopted. This comprised a desk study review of existing documents followed by a rapid field assessment of all identified monuments." The survey produced some interesting if rather depressing figures. It suggested that only 16% of the monuments within the WHS were well preserved, and that 40% no longer survived as above ground earthworks. It was noted that the majority (67%) of the monuments were displaying some evidence of deterioration or continued vulnerability to either land use or visitor pressure. The survey examined the various types of damage which were affecting the monuments. This suggested that 51% were being actively plough damaged, 7% were being damaged by burrowing animals, 12% by vegetation or tree damage and only 5% by visitor erosion. Eleven new sites were Identified." *(Copyright WANHS) The report has been deposited with English Heritage. I wonder what English Heritage will do to prevent further damage to the World Heritage Site at Avebury? It seams to me that over the last few years very little has been done to prevent any further damage. Perhaps now is the time to ban all ploughing and other agricultural activity which has resulted in 51% of monuments being damaged? “It was noted that the majority (67%) of the monuments were displaying some evidence of deterioration or continued vulnerability to either land use or visitor pressure. The survey examined the various types of damage which were affecting the monuments. This suggested that 51% were being actively plough damaged, 7% were being damaged by burrowing animals, 12% by vegetation or tree damage and only 5% by visitor erosion.” !!!
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Feb 23, 2013, 19:13
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: VBB wrote: Littlestone wrote: VBB wrote: We have been through all this on here at least once: Must have missed the pervious thread(s) on this – do you have links to them Mr B? Couldn't find it, for pc probs I would search again... sorry! Have checked with 2 others, both recalled the upset but not when. Possibly the ‘upset’ was elsewhere and not on TMA – at least I can’t find mention of it in any of the 218 topics on TMA’s Avebury Forum (though I may have missed it, or it may have been posted on another TMA thread). Hardly seems like ‘an old chestnut’ though (as far as TMA contributors are concerned) as the story, or at least the details, seem to have been unknown to more than just a few here. Some interesting stuff in those early threads. These abstracts from Richard Hayward’s Avebury WHS: Poor state of preservation thread of 2001 (slightly edited for typos) may be of interest - VBB wrote: I would like to bring to everyone's attention the following which I have just read in the latest journal of the Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society (Wiltshire Heritage). At Avebury there has recently been completed an Archaeology Field Monument Condition and Management Survey within the Avebury World Heritage Site. The aim was: "to review the physical condition and vulnerability of all 289 recorded monuments within the WHS and to identify a framework of appropriate management options. A two-stage approach was adopted. This comprised a desk study review of existing documents followed by a rapid field assessment of all identified monuments." The survey produced some interesting if rather depressing figures. It suggested that only 16% of the monuments within the WHS were well preserved, and that 40% no longer survived as above ground earthworks. It was noted that the majority (67%) of the monuments were displaying some evidence of deterioration or continued vulnerability to either land use or visitor pressure. The survey examined the various types of damage which were affecting the monuments. This suggested that 51% were being actively plough damaged, 7% were being damaged by burrowing animals, 12% by vegetation or tree damage and only 5% by visitor erosion. Eleven new sites were Identified." *(Copyright WANHS) The report has been deposited with English Heritage. I wonder what English Heritage will do to prevent further damage to the World Heritage Site at Avebury? It seams to me that over the last few years very little has been done to prevent any further damage. Perhaps now is the time to ban all ploughing and other agricultural activity which has resulted in 51% of monuments being damaged? “It was noted that the majority (67%) of the monuments were displaying some evidence of deterioration or continued vulnerability to either land use or visitor pressure. The survey examined the various types of damage which were affecting the monuments. This suggested that 51% were being actively plough damaged, 7% were being damaged by burrowing animals, 12% by vegetation or tree damage and only 5% by visitor erosion.” !!! I know that callow youth (well, something like that...). Was talking to two others about this earlier in the week, they both remember the exchanges as being on here - perhaps it wasn't titled Bosham but within some other thread? Anyway, for what it is worth one of two people that saw the stone has commented on the portal, that just about sums it up as I recall it.
|
|||
|
megalith6 46 posts |
Mar 13, 2013, 01:25
|
||
|
harestonesdown wrote: Have EH been informed of this. ? I wrote a couple of emails, and had replies as follow:- Thank you for your email of 15th February. I have forwarded the details to our South West office for their information. Thank you very much for taking the time to contact us. Should you have any questions, please contact our Customer Services Department on [email protected] or 0870 333 1181. Yours sincerely Customer Services .......................... 18 Feb Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will discuss the matter with my colleague in English Heritage. The West Kennet Avenue is a scheduled monument and as such is protected by law. As you probably know there are however a number of naturally occurring sarsens in the World Heritage Site which are not protected in same way. Once again thank you very much for your email and your interest in the protection of the World Heritage Site. Kind Regards, Avebury World Heritage Site Officer Landscape and Design Economy & Regeneration Wiltshire Council ........................ I replied to the last mail suggesting that the majority of megalithic Avebury was probably derived from naturally occurring sarsens in the World Heritage Site, so I couldn't really see how some stones were given protection and others less so? But I received no further emails from either EH or Wiltshire Council. Where West Kennet meets the road to Marlborough the A4 is strewn with some quite large sarsens, rising up to Overton Hill and the Sanctuary. I don't know if any of these stones are survivors of the megalithic avenue, some of them certainly look as if they might be. I am unaware if any surveys have been carried out to try and determine if any of these supine stones are in fact part of the Avebury complex. If they are, then they are lying unprotected in ditches and beneath hedges. For all I know some of these stones may have actually disappeared since I last passed that way - if so - perhaps one of them might actually turn out to be the Bosham Stone? http://www.avebury-web.co.uk/wk_avenue/IMAG014.JPG http://www.avebury-web.co.uk/wk_avenue.html
|
|||
|
harestonesdown 1067 posts |
Mar 13, 2013, 01:37
|
||
|
megalith6 wrote: Thankfully i doubt they'd have gone to that much bother to source a stone given there's so many so much easier to cart off. :| Good on you for pursuing this though, and i hope the heritage societies that post on here are following up their initial interest in a full explanation too. ?
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Mar 13, 2013, 11:31
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: "There were beings waiting to communicate from a higher level" EH? (No, I don't mean eh?) MENCAP more like it!! Sanctuary, are you for real with comments like this?
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Mar 13, 2013, 17:07
|
||
|
"Where West Kennet meets the road to Marlborough the A4 is strewn with some quite large sarsens, rising up to Overton Hill and the Sanctuary. I don't know if any of these stones are survivors of the megalithic avenue, some of them certainly look as if they might be". They most certainly are and are known about so you'd hope they'd be protected, I've seen 4 that look like they're still in their original positions as well, walls been built though standing stones is a funny one because on one hand it's horrible but on the other the wall can protect them from been taken, i'd love to see them freed from that wall at some point though, good on you for caring.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
