I bought a little booklet about Avebury and in it it mentions that there are several stones still buried, does anyone know if this is true? If so, as many of the stones we now see were previously buried and then reinstated why haven't the rest been too? are there any archaeological reasons why not? I'd love to see Avebury closer to what is was originally intended to be.
close
L

I bought a little booklet about Avebury and in it it mentions that there are several stones still buried, does anyone know if this is true? If so, as many of the stones we now see were previously buried and then reinstated why haven't the rest been too? are there any archaeological reasons why not?
Hi akas555.PeteG and others are more informed than me to answer in detail the first part of your question.
Whether or not to resurrect the buried stones is something of a hot potato and has been discussed here and on other forums before (there's actually an identical discussion going on at present over on the Stones Mailing List). The following is something I posted on the Stones List yesterday in reply to a post by another contributor - hope it answers the second bit of your question.
"Giles wrote -
>The Avebury stones would have to be dug up and are on a different scale of magnitude to most stone circles, but surely re-erecting them is really just the next step in the restoration process that has already taken place at the site?<
I agree, but politics, finance and some archaeologists do not. Evidently there is also opposition from some Avebury residents to the idea of resurrecting the buried stones because it is seen by some there that 'more stones' would attract 'more visitors'. Another argument for not resurrecting the buried Avebury stones (made, I believe, by Mike Pitts and other archaeologists for whom I otherwise have great respect) is the argument that asks to which stage do you restore Avebury? To the stage just before the stones were buried or much further back in time? This is one of the craziest arguments for not restoring (I use the word restore here not conserve) that I know because -
One of the problems with any sort of restoration is judging how much to actually restore. It's now generally agreed by most restorers/conservators that if one is not sure what has been lost one leaves the missing area(s) blank - that can be a missing nose on a statue or a missing area in a painting or whatever. In the case of the buried Avebury stones those missing elements are not lost at all - they are buried - and probably buried very close to where they once stood!
There is absolutely no cultural reason (though evidently there are plenty of financial and political ones) why the buried stones at Avebury should not now be restored to their original positions."
P

akas555 wrote:
does anyone know if this is true?
Yes it is true.Half of the circle remains unexcavated and there are known buried stones found by AC Smith in the 1800's and again recently by Mike Papworth of the NT using geofiz.
I have seen 4 stones of the Beckhampton avenue uncovered then reburied in recent years and know of another pair found by geofiz last year. I saw one stone on the Kennet avenue uncovered and also reburied.
Colin Snell has discovered as many as 20 buried stones continuing the kennet avenue and even has a 3D model of one of them.
akas555 wrote:
If so, as many of the stones we now see were previously buried and then reinstated why haven't the rest been too? are there any archaeological reasons why not?
Money!Mike Pitts tried to get stone 78 erected but the BBC have pulled out so there is no money for the project.
The BBC don't want to be seen to be involved with a high profile event at Avebury while the Silbury situation is still to be resolved as they don't want to remind people that the BBC are responsible for the state of the Atkinson fiaso at Silbury in the 1960's.
F

I think it was Josh Pollard who said when questioned about restoring Avebury to its original glory - "Which period? The Mesolithic?"
B
Perhaps the better question is why "restore" (to whatever period) at all? What's to be learned about how our ancestors--if indeed these stone pushers WERE in any sense our ancestors--lived, or thought; or about how our own culture developed and why by rerecting the stones? The more I look at these old things, the more I doubt their informative value.
It's probably MORE informative--about our culture--to have pushed in our faces just how ignorantly destructive our known, demonstrable cultural ancestors were. How about some little signs posted over all the buried ones: "Some ignorant clods either allowed this stone to fall down or pushed it over and now no one wants to pay to put it back up"?