close
more_vert

Isn't the decent thing to erect just one or two now and have another think in 100 years?
With respect Nigel, no. The responsible* thing is to re-erect those stones that can be (confidently) re-erected without further delay and, in so doing, learn how the more difficult ones can be properly restored to their original positions - not within a timeframe of 100 years but more reasonably within a timeframe of, say, 15 to 20 years .

I agree with you that, "The original sockets contain a lot of info." Retrieving that information basically involves the same approach as re-erecting the stones.

* I define 'responsible' in this context as the restoration of our heritage in the shortest possible time.

*
Retrieving information (and splitting hairs) ; the fragment of bluestone was lost from the top of Silbury Hill, due presumably to carelessness, this could have been a vital piece of information in establishing relationships between types of stones used at Stonehenge and dates, therefore it is prudent to be very careful when re-erecting the stones at Avebury that the information recorded from the sockets is the best - could you guarantee that....
new technology in whatever field is coming along all the time. The visuality(or artistic spirit lifting) of the stones maybe comes second to the knowledge acquired. Think how frustrated we all are about Silbury Hill and Stonehenge because of inadequate archaeology..

*quotes; got completely muddled when there seems to be double quotes in the text, think I shall use cut and paste!