Carn Pica forum 2 room
Image by thesweetcheat
Carn Pica

Not sure about this

close
more_vert
NightGirl N
NightGirl Jul 22, 2009 22:27:46
Replying to Littlestone

There was talk about restoring the Beckhampton Avenue, but when asked about this, one of the points raised was: "Which Beckhampton Avenue do we re-build"? There was no one, defined version, its construction was fluid, and added to, until it fell into disrepair.
So maybe to think of a Cairn as "complete, and not to be changed, restored, damaged, added to, subtracted from" is missing the point. At what point was the Cairn finished? At what point is adding to it over? How big was it when it was finished? When the people who first started the mound had died? Did their children and other generations add to it? Do they only have the right to add stones or is it a tradition to carry on adding to it? Have people been adding to it constantly over the centuries?
We always like to think of monuments being "finished", but if history has told us anything, it's that these sites have been used, added to, depleted, restored, destroyed again, restored again, over and over.
It is all fluid, always constantly changing. Only this generation thinks about "preserving" the monuments, "Saving" the monuments. Perhaps inadvertantly, destroying (the essence of) the monuments.

M megadread
megadread Jul 22, 2009 22:34:30
Replying to NightGirl

Here's a good old cairn story, concerning the one at Brown edge on the Sheffield / Derbyshire border.
Bit off topic but go's to show how the history of cairns can be clouded.
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-1345.html

T tjj
tjj Jul 23, 2009 07:46:22
Replying to NightGirl

NightGirl wrote:
There was talk about restoring the Beckhampton Avenue, but when asked about this, one of the points raised was: "Which Beckhampton Avenue do we re-build"? There was no one, defined version, its construction was fluid, and added to, until it fell into disrepair.
So maybe to think of a Cairn as "complete, and not to be changed, restored, damaged, added to, subtracted from" is missing the point. At what point was the Cairn finished? At what point is adding to it over? How big was it when it was finished? When the people who first started the mound had died? Did their children and other generations add to it? Do they only have the right to add stones or is it a tradition to carry on adding to it? Have people been adding to it constantly over the centuries?
We always like to think of monuments being "finished", but if history has told us anything, it's that these sites have been used, added to, depleted, restored, destroyed again, restored again, over and over.
It is all fluid, always constantly changing. Only this generation thinks about "preserving" the monuments, "Saving" the monuments. Perhaps inadvertantly, destroying (the essence of) the monuments.
This is one of those threads that is wonderfully informative as well as fascinating. Gladman and Tiompan sound like the experts on the subject but I do like this post very much. You make a good point Nightgirl - and Avebury is a good example of changing uses of ancient monuments.

Yesterday on the walk with the curator of the Alexander Keiller Museum,
she showed us where Bronze Age burials had taken place at the base of some of the stones on the West Kennet Avenue, so Bronze Age people utilised the stones for probably different purposes than the Neolithic people who erected them. The bones were removed by Alexander Keiller who dug them up when re-erecting the stones (they are now in the museum).

In fact much of Avebury as we experience today is the vision of Alexander Keiller who had the money and the means to restore it.

T tonyh
tonyh Jul 23, 2009 14:28:42
Replying to NightGirl

NightGirl wrote:
There was talk about restoring the Beckhampton Avenue, but when asked about this, one of the points raised was: "Which Beckhampton Avenue do we re-build"? There was no one, defined version, its construction was fluid, and added to, until it fell into disrepair.
So maybe to think of a Cairn as "complete, and not to be changed, restored, damaged, added to, subtracted from" is missing the point. At what point was the Cairn finished? At what point is adding to it over? How big was it when it was finished? When the people who first started the mound had died? Did their children and other generations add to it? Do they only have the right to add stones or is it a tradition to carry on adding to it? Have people been adding to it constantly over the centuries?
We always like to think of monuments being "finished", but if history has told us anything, it's that these sites have been used, added to, depleted, restored, destroyed again, restored again, over and over.
It is all fluid, always constantly changing. Only this generation thinks about "preserving" the monuments, "Saving" the monuments. Perhaps inadvertantly, destroying (the essence of) the monuments.
I reckon your right NG..

If a gang of workmen dismantled Stonehenge today and re-erected it in a different manner, there would be an uproar...

Vandalism !

And yet that is what happened in the past..

Only now, we call it the stages of Stonehenge

Tony

L Littlestone
Littlestone Jul 27, 2009 11:06:04
Replying to NightGirl

"Which Beckhampton Avenue do we re-build"?
Hi NightGirl.

The question of 'to which period' or, 'how much' do we restore something is a question asked by conservators and restorers all over the world on a daily basis. Surprisingly (and disregarding any financial constraints) it usually comes down to two things - common sense and the record of how an object or site was before it was damaged or dramatically changed.

The argument for the conservation and restoration of the Avebury Henge is outlined here if you're interested - http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/aveburys-restoration-and-the-stukeley-line/