Personally I say put the stones back up, as long as they can be proven to have been standing in the first place.

I undertsand the argument that the toppling of the stones (if that happened) in the dark ages is also a historical event and part of the monument's history being worthy of preservation.

But I feel this is far outweighed by the benefits, we've already lost so many of these rare and unique monuments that I believe they are worthy of reconstruction if done as accurately as possible.

Also our reconstruction of the stones would be a valid part of the monuments history as much as their toppling surely?

What are we actually achieveing by leaving them as testament to their pushing over? But we can gain a monument as it was intended to look like by it's builders via reconstruction.

Do we not repair the Priddy henge because its recently vandalism is an event in time which has shaped what we see today?

Look at the Devil's Quoits in Oxfordshire, we now have another impressive henge monument whcih we knew stood on the exact spot until it's destruction fairly recently; this site now has the potential to inspire and educate new visitors.

If reconstruction is now seen as bad form as it ignores the affects of time throughout a monuments history do we 'de-construct' the numerous reconstructions of the 18th & 19th centuries?

Re topple the reconstructed Avebury stones perhaps?