Carn Pica forum 2 room
Image by thesweetcheat
close
more_vert

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

Whoah...... there are some great points being raised here by NG. When do you draw the line under a sites period of active use in terms of serving the human spiritual condition? I know I get a profound feeling of being that much closer to that abstract notion of 'Mother Nature' or whatever - not to mention feeling more of a part of 'humanity' - whenever I plonk myself down within a 'circle or haul my frame up to a summit, so it's still relevant for me - whether I'm deluding myself or not. So I guess NG's right and it never really ends. Speaking from experience I've seen a lot of what you could term 'religious' activity at many a site.

Some circle sites remain full on places to be even when there's hardly anything - or nothing - remaining to be seen. Perhaps the founding act was truly enough? And at the other end of the scale would anyone credibly argue that sites such as, say Grey Whethers, Strichen, or even Knowth are any less 'real' for being reconstructed so you can actually experience them more or less as they would have been. Other, untouched sites may be quieter, more atmospheric, but are they better? Dunno. Guess it's gonna take a lot of thinking to work this one out.

Interesting that there may be less of a tradition of summit burial in Scotland? Only been to about 20 tops, so can't really comment. Guess I need more fieldwork. England, too.