Buried stones at Avebury.

close
more_vert
Littlestone L
Littlestone Jun 29, 2006 13:11:02
Replying to akas555

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."

R ryaner
ryaner Jun 29, 2006 15:01:56
Replying to Littlestone

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!
Hi,

as someone new to this, I'm slowly developing an understanding of these issues. I got involved in the recent forum topic about PeteG's project for the 'new' 'old' Stonehenge.

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=34550&offset=25

Seems I may have put some people off with my smart-arse comment about Disco-henge. However, it was meant as a kinda warning about what has been done over here in the name of restoration/conservation/archaeology. (I know Pete's project doesn't intend to restore anything and is a completely new site.) The Newgrange 'restoration' is an interpretation of what they surmised from the limited evidence found. Ditto Knowth, a site I'm only getting to study now. I have very vague memories of a visit to Newgrange when I was a child. It was an overgrown mound in the middle of a field with easy access. Now – Discogrange, with visits mediated by guides.

The word that stands out in your quote above Littlestone is probably, i.e. "probably buried very close to where they once stood". On a probability, would it be right to restore the buried stones given that, to quote you again "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"?

I'm not meaning to be trenchant here. As I said above, I'm learning and developing my own ideas and understanding. My own 'local' tomb, Seefin passage tomb,

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/1253

could do with a bit of restoration. I'd like to see the chamber cleared and roof repaired. It wouldn't be able to be 100% accurate, but would maybe improve our understanding of the place and conserve this monument by protecting it from the elements. However, I'm ambivalent about this, given what may result from officialdom's surmisings. In the end, is it better sometimes to let bygones be bygones?

Andy