The Bosham Stone

close
more_vert
megalith6 M
megalith6 Feb 17, 2013 20:10:44
Replying to Littlestone

Hi there,

Thanks to Littlestone for this important thread.

I've just checked with an online pdf and "West Kennet" which is mentioned at the Bosham page is indeed well within the Avebury WHS, thus the removal of this stone - if unauthorised - would surely constitute a violation of the Heritage Site. Secondly, there are other properties at this location but if the removal occurred within the grounds of West Kennet Farm this is a Grade II listed building and the removal of a sarsen stone from it would presumably need to be authorised by English Heritage or at the very least Wiltshire County Council, was this done? Thirdly, West Kennet (Kennett the older spelling, so either is ok) is on a direct line of the presumed course of the megalithic avenue so this would not just be any old piece of sarsen lying so close to a prehistoric feature. Even if it were incidental it ought to remain 'in situ' just in case it represents a missing part of the wrecked avenue jig saw puzzle.

For the WHS plan:

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/whs-avebury-whs-leaflet.pdf

With regard to the possible symbolic pairing of the avenue stones - Aubrey Burl, ‘Prehistoric Avebury’ (2002) page 76: Alexander Keiller and Stuart Piggott had noted that “along the rows of the [West Kennet] avenue ... the ... long thin pillar and a broader diamond [shape perhaps] ... denoting male and female symbols ... a fertility cult ... one of the first objective interpretations of what Avebury might have been used for”.

The fact is that now in the light of the alleged Bosham Stone incident I think that no fallen or buried stone at Avebury is safe and all the known buried stones (quite a few) should be carefully and scientifically raised where they can be visually accounted for and remain unmolested and relatively safe.

Bests,

Ric

H harestonesdown
harestonesdown Feb 17, 2013 20:17:33
Replying to megalith6

megalith6 wrote:
With regard to the possible symbolic pairing of the avenue stones - Aubrey Burl, ‘Prehistoric Avebury’ (2002) page 76: Alexander Keiller and Stuart Piggott had noted that “along the rows of the [West Kennet] avenue ... the ... long thin pillar and a broader diamond [shape perhaps] ... denoting male and female symbols ... a fertility cult ... one of the first objective interpretations of what Avebury might have been used for”.

Bests,

Ric

Not having read it i wasn't aware of that, not that it gives the theory any more validity in my mind using the current standing stones of the WKA. All the more reason to find and re-erect the missing ones then. :)

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Feb 17, 2013 20:46:22
Replying to megalith6

Thanks for this Ric.

I suspect the Grade II listing is unlikely to be relevant, unless the stone was part of the building or a recognised (i.e. recognised by the listing body) part of the landscaping.

I must admit, having read this thread, I don't know what restrictions being within the WHS boundary has on things like removing a sarsen stone, if it's just part of the natural drift (and at the moment it's not clear whether that's all it was). Are we assuming the sarsen (whatever its status) was on the land of the people who "supplied" it? Or did they take it from someone else's land?

Stupid people though, surely they should have gone to Cornwall if they wanted granite? I reckon one of those big stones at Trethevy would have been just the job.

L Littlestone
Littlestone Feb 18, 2013 12:09:19
Replying to megalith6

megalith6 wrote:
I've just checked with an online pdf and "West Kennet" which is mentioned at the Bosham page is indeed well within the Avebury WHS, thus the removal of this stone - if unauthorised - would surely constitute a violation of the Heritage Site.
Thanks for the info Ric.

It really does go to show that even stones within the WHS are not as safe from ‘removal’ as some might think.