Vandals in sandals?

close
more_vert
FourWinds F
FourWinds Sep 16, 2005 14:24:41
Replying to tuesday

Was it Josh Pollard that when saked about restoring Avebury said, "To what period? The mesolithic?"

Many monuments are multi-phase. Which phase do you restore to?

If a standing stone fell a long time ago, who is to say that its 'destruction' wasn't a phase in its cycle. Under the same argument though you could say that re-erecting it is just another phase! As would the restoration of Avebury or whereever.

I suppose any work on a monument should not be seen or pushed as restoration (unless the period is precisely displayed and made clear), but as today's contribution to the monument. Certainly, Stonehenge could be rebuilt with newly cut stone and it would still mean the same to the majority of the hoards that visit it if it's still in the guide books! It's no longer a monument and has become a moneyment!

L Littlestone
Littlestone Sep 16, 2005 23:25:37
Replying to FourWinds

>Many monuments are multi-phase. Which phase do you restore to?<

Agreed, deciding on the phase is not easy. You also have to make a clear distinction between 'restoration' and 'conservation'. Restorers might try to restore something to what they think an object or structure once looked like (eg sticking new arms on the Venus de Milo) when it's obvious that that can be open to awful misinterpretation. Some mad restorer might think she's scratching her bum for example (the Venus de Milo that is not the restorer :-). Conservators would tend to say, "Look, the arms are gone, we'll probably never know what position they were in, but we <i>can</i> save the rest of the statue from falling apart."

The difference between restoration and conservation is that the former works from a premise that we know what the original looked like (pretty well) while the latter is really only concerned with preventing what remains of the original from further degradation.

The difference between conservation and restoration gets kinda interesting when, for example, buried stones are discovered at Beckhampton; presumably the stones there are more or less in their 'original' position so what's stopping them from being re-erected? Aesthetic considerations? Maybe. Financial/agricultural/political considerations? Probably.

The, "Which phase do you restore to?" is the easy bit - the financial/agricultural/political considerations are the harder ones to resolve.

T The Eternal
The Eternal Sep 16, 2005 23:38:22
Replying to FourWinds

FourWinds,
I think it's obvious that the 20th Century restorations of Avebury and Stonehenge weren't done for money, it's just that the charge to get in (to Stonehenge) occured after. At least (as claimed) the charge by English Heritage is non-profit-making. Well, lets just accept that for now, because that's not the purpose of this post.
If restoration is the be all and end all of things, how come very little has gone on since the 1930s? I think it's unfortunate that the restoration occured before the archaeological techniques were as good as they are today. No doubt in 100 years time someone else will say the same about digs in our time. At least we can appreciate some sites post-restoration.
What pisses me off is the mentality of the previous generations to try and destroy these anciant sites in the name of religion. The Christian religion preaches tolerance, but that same religion was intolerant towards pagan sites.
Cheers,
TE.