The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Avebury Forum Start a topic | Search
Avebury
Re: In summary...
761 messages
Select a forum:
Sanctuary wrote:
VBB wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
Seems like most of us would like to see at least some re-erection (noting that at least one person doesn’t want to see any re-erection and others would like to see a total re-erection). So (correct me if I’m wrong) some excavation/re-erection (think there are a few stones that could be re-erected without much if any excavation by the way) is OK with most of us.

Trouble is, as with other threads, we discuss issues and then do little or nothing to implement what we think should be implemented...


Problem is LS what can people do ? how many people post here now? ten, maybe twelve ? what impact can us regular Joe's have, very little in reality, imo. I'd be up for giving it a go but i don't know the ins and outs, and people here are so fragmented now any process would quickly fall down anyway, again imo. So where next. ?


Presumably any approach could be made under the Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC). Excavation can be applied for by anyone I am informed but usually requires a full project design, justification for the works and experience before considering granting SMC. We would need a 'name' archaeo on board I guess.


Well that's clearly not my department, i'm lost with a pen, my "skills" centre around landscaping, and you can't write with a shovel. :)


Not long ago Mike Pitts, who himself stated opposition to wholesale restoration that would turn prehistoric Avebury into a 21st century construct, presented a case for the raising of a single small horizontal stone that remained above ground that had featured upright in a Stukeley drawing. This project was comprehensively and carefully researched, which as Rhiannon correctly pointed out is a stated requirement for any such application, it also had the encouraging support of a village meeting on a show of hands and had been received with great interest when presented to peers - it was refused consent despite being fully funded. Ultimately then, if a widely respected archaeologist fails to get permission who has funding knows all the players & presents a thoroughly researched case to restore a single stone the historic position of which is accepted, then half a dozen restoration enthusiasts on tma ...


If by popular consent and with funds available and was looked upon favourably then it is a disgrace that it was refused.



Not sure 'popular consent' can be attributed, but Mike certainly put a lot of effort into persuading those whom I for one thought would most likely be against attracting attention. It may be online somewhere!


Reply | with quote
VBB
Posted by VBB
22nd January 2013ce
19:30

In reply to:

Re: In summary... (Sanctuary)

1 reply:

Re: In summary... (Sanctuary)

Messages in this topic: