Avebury forum 222 room
Image by photobabe
Avebury

Alexander Keiller's Avebury

close
more_vert
VBB V
VBB Jan 24, 2013 10:11:11
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
Now we're getting to thew nitty gritty.
"Ruskin stated that restoration was 'a Lie from beginning to end'"

BUT all but dry purists are grateful to Keiller for his big lies.... BUT he did enough. It's the second best WHS on the planet, it impresses, it gives at least an approximation of it's true self. More lies (with the risk of mistakes, loss of info and future regrets) are simply not needed. "Avebury Complete" would not be a better Avebury yet it WOULD be a bigger lie.

Fair enough. What Ruskin said:

‘Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end. You may make a model of a building as you may of a corpse, and your model may have the shell of the old walls within it as your cast might have the skeleton, with what advantage I neither see nor care: but the old building is destroyed, and that more totally and mercilessly than if it had sunk into a heap of dust, or melted into a mass of clay: more has been gleaned out of desolated Nineveh than ever will be out of re-built Milan. But, it is said, there may come a necessity for restoration! Granted. Look the necessity full in the face, and understand it on its own terms. It is a necessity for destruction. Accept it as such, pull the building down, throw its stones into neglected corners, make ballast of them, or mortar, if you will; but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in their place.’

M Mustard
Mustard Jan 24, 2013 10:18:00
Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:
‘Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end. You may make a model of a building as you may of a corpse, and your model may have the shell of the old walls within it as your cast might have the skeleton, with what advantage I neither see nor care: but the old building is destroyed, and that more totally and mercilessly than if it had sunk into a heap of dust, or melted into a mass of clay: more has been gleaned out of desolated Nineveh than ever will be out of re-built Milan. But, it is said, there may come a necessity for restoration! Granted. Look the necessity full in the face, and understand it on its own terms. It is a necessity for destruction. Accept it as such, pull the building down, throw its stones into neglected corners, make ballast of them, or mortar, if you will; but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in their place.’
This is true in some regards - rebuilding a ruined abbey, replacing missing stones with approximations - but it wouldn't be so relevant to re-erecting fallen or buried stones in their original positions, if those positions can be reliably identified.

I don't think it's a black and white issue. Every situation is different and needs assessing on its merits, and everyone will have different feelings depending on the circumstance. The key is to respect that while we all hold different views, we all hold those views because we love these sites.

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Jan 24, 2013 11:11:12
Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
Now we're getting to thew nitty gritty.
"Ruskin stated that restoration was 'a Lie from beginning to end'"

BUT all but dry purists are grateful to Keiller for his big lies.... BUT he did enough. It's the second best WHS on the planet, it impresses, it gives at least an approximation of it's true self. More lies (with the risk of mistakes, loss of info and future regrets) are simply not needed. "Avebury Complete" would not be a better Avebury yet it WOULD be a bigger lie.

Fair enough. What Ruskin said:

‘Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end. You may make a model of a building as you may of a corpse, and your model may have the shell of the old walls within it as your cast might have the skeleton, with what advantage I neither see nor care: but the old building is destroyed, and that more totally and mercilessly than if it had sunk into a heap of dust, or melted into a mass of clay: more has been gleaned out of desolated Nineveh than ever will be out of re-built Milan. But, it is said, there may come a necessity for restoration! Granted. Look the necessity full in the face, and understand it on its own terms. It is a necessity for destruction. Accept it as such, pull the building down, throw its stones into neglected corners, make ballast of them, or mortar, if you will; but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in their place.’

But it's only a lie surely if you don't make it clear that it is a total reconstruction based on what we believe was once there and with new materials.

L Littlestone
Littlestone Jan 24, 2013 13:32:17
Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:
What Ruskin said:

‘Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end. You may make a model of a building as you may of a corpse, and your model may have the shell of the old walls within it as your cast might have the skeleton, with what advantage I neither see nor care: but the old building is destroyed, and that more totally and mercilessly than if it had sunk into a heap of dust, or melted into a mass of clay: more has been gleaned out of desolated Nineveh than ever will be out of re-built Milan. But, it is said, there may come a necessity for restoration! Granted. Look the necessity full in the face, and understand it on its own terms. It is a necessity for destruction. Accept it as such, pull the building down, throw its stones into neglected corners, make ballast of them, or mortar, if you will; but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in their place.’

I’ll get back to you on that after I’ve finished restoring, conserving and preserving the three Japanese paintings I’ve been working on for the last four years ;-)

L Littlestone
Littlestone Jan 24, 2013 16:07:05
Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:
What Ruskin said:

‘Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end. You may make a model of a building as you may of a corpse, and your model may have the shell of the old walls within it as your cast might have the skeleton, with what advantage I neither see nor care: but the old building is destroyed, and that more totally and mercilessly than if it had sunk into a heap of dust, or melted into a mass of clay: more has been gleaned out of desolated Nineveh than ever will be out of re-built Milan. But, it is said, there may come a necessity for restoration! Granted. Look the necessity full in the face, and understand it on its own terms. It is a necessity for destruction. Accept it as such, pull the building down, throw its stones into neglected corners, make ballast of them, or mortar, if you will; but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in their place.’

I’m not entirely sure what Ruskin has to do with this; he died 50 years before the concept of conservation (as we now understand it) was even around – and that didn’t really take shape until the publication of Plenderleith and Werner’s ground-breaking book The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art: Treatment, Repair and Restoration in 1956. Ruskin was a Victorian art critic, not a restorer and, certainly not a conservator. Ruskin’s views that you site have little or no relevance to present day conservation/restoration practices – either in general or the re-erection of the Avebury Henge in particular.

Avebury is a special case, so special that I’m not even sure we can use the words conservation or restoration to describe what some of us would like to see take place there. Perhaps the one word that is the most applicable is re-erection. That is certainly not ‘setting up a Lie in their place’ but legitimately re-erecting the megaliths in their (as near as damn it) original position. I’m not saying it should be done in one go but I am saying (with the proper care and attention) that it is an objective worth striving for.

Thanks Mr S for initating this thread – it’s certainly brought the issue to the fore again.