Re: Buried stones at Avebury. | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

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.

doktoratomik Jun 29, 2006 16:04:51

Replying to Littlestone

I'm all for it. Would those who're opposed to it rather that stonehenge, wayland's smithy and half of dartmoor were returned to their pre-restoration state? We'd have some pretty sorry heritage if they were!

(although I have to say, I think I actually prefer the pre-restoration stonehenge!)

akas555 Jun 29, 2006 16:29:58

Replying to Littlestone

My own opinion is that because many of the stones there have been reinstated anyway, restoring the rest would not damage the integrity of the site, but rather ameliorate it. I understand the need to draw a line at which point the restoration would stop, but if it's just reinstating the stones lying under the ground and not (e.g). knocking down buildings to piece together broken stones, then I think a happy medium can be found.