I'm not sure I would want them re-erected.

It's a monument to time and the processes of history as it is.

If the stones were toppled during the a period in history then perhaps their current position is a witness to that age that is distant to us now as well.

Surely re-erecting stones then puts you on a continuum with refabricating an abstract past like newgrange, that then in turn becomes definitely tinged by the decades of intervention.

I mean there is something to be said for using the imagination, seeing all the layers and imagining others. Would people want banks scraped back of turf as well?

When something is in a landscape and has been a part of the landscape for millennia I really do think there's something to be said for being using the eyes and the imagination and letting somewhere tell its stories on its own terms without potentially destructive interventions.

I may have this wrong as well, but isn't there a possibility the arbor low stones toppled of their own accord? I remember reading somewhere they weren't that deeply dug into the ground.

What do others think?