|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge and its Environs Forum | Start a topic | Search |
13 messages | Select a forum: |
| have a read of http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-371979,00.html here's a bit of what I found interesting: "Stonehenge should resume the appearance of its last incarnation in 1600BC. The fallen stones should be re-erected and the gaps filled with new ones. Ever since it was first explored in the 17th century, it has been bashed and repaired. In 1958 a policy was adopted that stones which had fallen since the 18th century would be re-erected but earlier falls would be left “as a survival of damage in ancient times”. Stonehenge was in effect rendered a sculpture, an antique rock garden, designed by professional whim. English Heritage takes pride in the fact that, during restoration, “no new stones have been brought in” and that “this is the monument that was erected by prehistoric man ... and is not an imaginative reconstruction”. I disagree. Reconstruction at Stonehenge would require no act of imagination, just of stonemasonry. The outline and proportions of all the stones are known, as are the original quarries. What is imaginative reconstruction is its recreation as a ruin dated to a certain point, 1958, in 20th-century time. The present ruin could always be reinstated by a future generation if it chose. But Stonehenge would recover its architectural symmetry and astronomical coherence. It would be once more a henge, and not a tumbled pile of stones. We restore many old structures. When Hampton Court, York Minster and Windsor Castle were ruined, we did not stabilise “as found”. We restored them fit to purpose. Likewise the Victorians restored half the medieval churches of England, usually with scholarship, sometimes with zeal. Had they not done so, we would now be gazing at myriad mounds of ecclesiastical rubble. " *** So, what do you reckon? Would you want more reconstruction? after all it is true that it was very f-ed about with last century what with all the concrete bases and everything, and perhaps we are just preserving it as it was when all that ceased. We do know what it's supposed to look like (don't we?) It's easy to feel the instant 'scoffing' reaction - but when you think about it, is there any sense in these ideas? Or would it just be the final disneyfication of the site: would all those american tourists even notice the difference. Reply | with quote |  2nd August 2002ce 10:20 |
Messages in this topic: |
|
Top of page