Avebury forum 222 room
Image by Chance
Avebury

Alexander Keiller's Avebury

close
more_vert
Mustard M
Mustard Jan 21, 2013 14:36:12
Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:
VBB wrote:
Hence, I don't understand why anyone wants to do anything to change the site beyond preserving what we can.
Hmmm...

Obviously those who moved Abu Simbel to higher ground, restored Angkor Wat and Borobudur had a rather wider vision for preserving and promoting their heritage sites.

There's plenty of ancient sites that would be little more than collapsed piles of rubble if they hadn't been restored. I don't honestly have much time for the "preservation for the sake of preservation" mentality. These places are living, breathing pieces of history that change with the generations. They are not - and nor should they be - sterile time capsules. Obviously, where restoration work is destructive, it's relative merits need careful assessment. But when it comes to stones at Avebury, buried in medieval times, being returned to their correct positions alongside their neighbours.... I really struggle to see the remotest objection.

By way of a practical and recent example to illustrate the point, does anyone really feel that a muddy piece of churned up ground was preferable to this?

http://www.isleofalbion.co.uk/sites/131/the_devil%27s_quoit.php

B bladup
bladup Jan 21, 2013 14:41:42
Replying to Mustard

Mustard wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
VBB wrote:
Hence, I don't understand why anyone wants to do anything to change the site beyond preserving what we can.
Hmmm...

Obviously those who moved Abu Simbel to higher ground, restored Angkor Wat and Borobudur had a rather wider vision for preserving and promoting their heritage sites.

There's plenty of ancient sites that would be little more than collapsed piles of rubble if they hadn't been restored. I don't honestly have much time for the "preservation for the sake of preservation" mentality. These places are living, breathing pieces of history that change with the generations. They are not - and nor should they be - sterile time capsules. Obviously, where restoration work is destructive, it's relative merits need careful assessment. But when it comes to stones at Avebury, buried in medieval times, being returned to their correct positions alongside their neighbours.... I really struggle to see the remotest objection.

By way of a practical and recent example to illustrate the point, does anyone really feel that a muddy piece of churned up ground was preferable to this?

http://www.isleofalbion.co.uk/sites/131/the_devil%27s_quoit.php

Restore, restore, restore [properly] and let all the places live again, the time is soon upon us.

V VBB
VBB Jan 21, 2013 14:42:56
Replying to Mustard

Mustard wrote:
But when it comes to stones at Avebury, buried in medieval times, being returned to their correct positions alongside their neighbours.... I really struggle to see the remotest objection.
What do you mean by 'correct' and why by definition are other positions somehow wrong?

Really chaps, Littlestone, Sanctuary, all - you have yet to outline what it is you would like to see, why, and how...?

L Littlestone
Littlestone Jan 21, 2013 15:11:19
Replying to Mustard

Mustard wrote:
By way of a practical and recent example to illustrate the point, does anyone really feel that a muddy piece of churned up ground was preferable to this?

http://www.isleofalbion.co.uk/sites/131/the_devil%27s_quoit.php

No more than the Staffordshire Hoard should have been left in its own muddy piece of churned up ground. Thankfully, the Hoard is now safe and not only giving the world a glimpse into the wonders of Anglo-Saxon craftsmanship but also filling in yet another gap in our understanding of that period.

We could apply the same argument to this discussion.