Buried stones at Avebury.

close
more_vert
ryaner R
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

L Littlestone
Littlestone Jun 29, 2006 15:31:30
Replying to ryaner

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"?
Good point ryaner.

Once again there are others here who know more about the location and number of the buried stones (and how close they are to their original positions) than me but my understanding is that there are maybe 15-20 known stones buried in the Avenues and Circle and that they are pretty close to their original positions. Politics and finances aside I don't think it would be too difficult (or contravening accepted restoration/conservation ethics) to re-erect some of them - perhaps starting with the easiest and tackling the more difficult ones when more understanding and experience of the task has been achieved.