Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Modern not antiquarian
Log In to post a reply

280 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
4676 posts

Re: Modern not antiquarian
Aug 05, 2012, 09:05
texlahoma wrote:
tjj wrote:
texlahoma wrote:
tjj wrote:
texlahoma wrote:
bladup wrote:
I built one once and got nicked and fined [it's in my avatar], so you've gone one better than me, we didn't use diggers though, you all should have done it properly and the satisfaction would have been even greater, well done though, and what a strange reason for it been built.

We thought about that a lot, doing it the ancient way though, or at least the current interpretation of what that might have been. Our professional and expert advice swung it though... "Believe me, if the ancients had JCBs they would've used them"

I have some sympathy with Bladup's point of view, especially given his own was had a destruction order place on it. Hesitated to comment as a) I like what I know about you and b) it would be easy to just sound like a killjoy. I didn't like the commercialised 'perfume' aspect of the end result and thought the people going around sniffing the stones looked a bit gullible.

The question in my mind was how do you 'date' these contemporary stone circles for the future (given that one day the internet will probably disappear along with all the data held therein). I discussed it with a friend yesterday, whose views I respect, and who thinks 'new' stone circles are great. There is one at Pilton near Glastonbury and a few in the gardens of the wealthy around Wiltshire (Alton Barnes and East Kennett). On the issue of 'dating', my friend thought the builders would perhaps bury a coin near one of the stones. Was 'dating' considered in this case ... I may have missed it.

That's a very good point about the dating, our approach to that was a time capsual, the solstice date and a few items from Simon including a piece done by the artist Steve Krakow (Plastic Crimewave) with the back story.
It is a really special place to visit despite the fact it is so modern, I'd love to show you the circle sometime.

Thanks for answering my question in a courteous and unpatronising manner - there are many modern stone circles and so long as there are clear indicators of when and why they were built I don't see a problem. It looks as though newly quarried stone was used in your circle but often circles are erected with existing 'old' stones like sarsens and it isn't always obvious that they are modern. I am thinking specifically of the stone circle in the
Betjeman Millennium Park.
There are plenty of notices and engraved stones around the park to indicate that this is a memorial to a 20th century poet, so no confusion.

All the best

The circle Is going to be used by a registered charity, trust now along various other facilities nearby. They provide an essential and comprehensive program for a number of groups, focussing mainly on severely handicapped people but also with a focus on people socially disadvantaged in some way.
The stones were from Suttles quarry but not quarried especially, they were already there waiting for us along with other off cuts. Julian Ruchards very kindly came along to the quarry to help chose the stones and also visit the site to suggest their positioning.
All things considered it felt better to do it this way, and to leave a monument for others to enjoy than to defend on an ancient circle in Dorset with all the concerns that come with large groups in these places. Im personally very protective of many of these sites and wouldn't want to see and damages to land or littering or whatever due to anything I'm involved with.

I think it an excellent idea and way of educating others into the stone circle phenomonom especially if it involves socially disadvantaged people. My first thoughts on reading your initial post was that is was for purely financial gain so I'm glad the thread was responded to by so many people as to its future use and has been expanded upon...with the exception of the foul-mouthed posts of course which are totally unnacceptable and totally unneccessary.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index