|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Avebury Forum | Start a topic | Search |
103 messages | Select a forum: |
| Thankyou for agreeing. I was beginning to think I was going mad about this, it seems so obvious. I wasn't aware that anything had been done at the Sanctuary, but I agree with BG that the NT set up isn't likely to provide a radical lead. Maybe the Mike Pitts approach is the way to go - the impetus came from him, not them. Perhaps the only chance is for (a.) the theoretical case to be made and (b.) a detailed fully-financed proposal to be put to them, leaving them to exercise their proper overall function to approve and oversee the scheme as guardians of the archaeology and the spirit of place. I'm afraid I see this whole thing in rather simplistic terms. Avebury's Big Thing, and it's spirit, is stones placed upright in the neolithic. We know where the stones are and where the holes are so lets put them where they belong. We might not do it quite right but we'll do it approximately right, like Keiller did, and the place will be better for it. Buried stones add nothing and leaving them in situ is a sort of academic navel-gazing. This isn't Egypt, where they need protection from erosion. If they're up then they'll last just as long, virtually forever, and we can have the benefit of seeing them. What exactly is the problem with digging them up? Have I missed something here? Reply | with quote |  4th December 2003ce 10:31 In reply to: Re: New 'low profile' Moth (FourWinds) |
Messages in this topic: |
|