Stonehenge rebuilt

Ramrod · 05-12-2005, 18:40

Quote:

From 1901 to 1964, the majority of the stone circle was restored in a series of makeovers which have left it, in the words of one archaeologist, as 'a product of the 20th century heritage industry'. But the information is markedly absent from the guidebooks and info-phones used by tourists at the site. Coming in the wake of the news that the nearby Avebury stone circle was almost totally rebuilt in the 1920s, the revelation about Stonehenge has caused embarrassment among archaelogists. English Heritage, the guardian of the monument, is to rewrite the official guide, which dismisses the Henge's recent history in a few words. Dave Batchelor, English Heritage's senior archaeologist said he would personally rewrite the official guide. 'The detail was dropped in the Sixties', he admitted. 'But times have changed and we now believe this is an important piece of the Stonehenge story and must be told'.

Link I didn't know this

05-12-2005, 19:30

I knew they had been rebuilt.

I just feell utterly disgusted that they want to destroy our heritage.
Rebuilt or not, it is still the oldest stone circle in the UK and probably the world.
Its still part of our history its still ancient and its still in the same place.

**** em is all I can say.

Graham · 05-12-2005, 19:46

I don't see what the big deal is.

Yes, it's been restored, just as many Cathedrals and other such constructions have been restored.

But is there anything to suggest that it's been changed or modified or that it's not true to the original?

No.

So, what's the big deal?

patrickp · 05-12-2005, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

I don't see what the big deal is.

Yes, it's been restored, just as many Cathedrals and other such constructions have been restored.

But is there anything to suggest that it's been changed or modified or that it's not true to the original?

No.

So, what's the big deal?

Exactly. Personally, I think the real significance of Stonehenge is not the physical construction, but the fact that it demonstrates that, 4000 years ago, at a time when we are told the inhabitants of England were primitive savages, these primitive savages knew which day was the longest day of the year. That's a pretty sophisticated piece of astronomical knowledge.

philip.j.fry · 05-12-2005, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

I just feell utterly disgusted that they want to destroy our heritage.

Who's doing what? All EH are doing is to add informaion about the restoration to the tourist information.

Ramrod · 05-12-2005, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

I don't see what the big deal is.

Yes, it's been restored, just as many Cathedrals and other such constructions have been restored.

But they are restored sympathetically. In this case it would appear that they put the stones up how and where they thought they should be.

Quote:

But is there anything to suggest that it's been changed or modified or that it's not true to the original?

No.

But then you may as well take any ancient monument that you find and just rearrange it how you see fit....

I just don't think it's right (and neither do the archeologists any more it seems)

**Maggy J** · 05-12-2005, 23:46

So you do realise that The Victory is not strictly The Victory anymore...It's been so extensively repaired across the last 200 years there's barely a part that's original.However we regard it as the original do we not?And yet if it hadn't been repaired it would have been a disgrace and a shame to let such a monument and a piece of our history to rot away.

So are they going to pull Stonehenge down to leave it in the condition it was?Or are they going to remove the parts that were added to all the historical monuments across the world to make them safe?

At least it's not like the Elgin Marbles which were REMOVED.It would be a different story if they had taken the stones away and rebuilt and stuck them in a museum.

There is a watch belonging to Nelson and Admiral Lamb in the Portsmouth Dockyard museum that my stepfather repaired and got to work by lathing new parts for them..should he have not done so?

Graham · 06-12-2005, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

I don't see what the big deal is.

Yes, it's been restored, just as many Cathedrals and other such constructions have been restored.

But they are restored sympathetically. In this case it would appear that they put the stones up how and where they thought they should be.

I doubt very much that the stones had moved much from their original locations...!

Quote:

But is there anything to suggest that it's been changed or modified or that it's not true to the original?

No.

But then you may as well take any ancient monument that you find and just rearrange it how you see fit....

I just don't think it's right (and neither do the archeologists any more it seems)

Nobody's talking about "rearranging' it and, as I said, there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that it's been changed or isn't true to the original.

As to the archaeologists, techniques change over the years. I have little doubt that any modern archaeologist would have a fit if anyone started behaving like some of the Victorian amateurs did ie just digging big holes and seeing what they could find, instead of looking at a site in context.