[Stones] Silbury time capsule

[Andy Norfolk]

littlestone wrote:
> People hold differing views on whether the Atkinson entrance structure 
> should be left or taken away, and there is a conservation-based 
> argument for both positions. Our original plan was to transport the 
> door to the Alexander Keiller museum in Avebury and to retain the 
> concrete lintel /in situ/, but grassed over. We have revisited this 
> plan and still feel that this is the approach that we will take, 
> unless of course the concrete portal structure has to be removed for 
> Health & Safety reasons.
>  
> Sorry, English Heritage, wrong again (and your assertion that there is 
> a conservation-based argument for both positions is complete and 
> utter nonsense). The same conservation arguments that were applied 
> against your time capsule idea in Silbury are equally valid for, and 
> will be applied to, any attempt to leave the Atkinson door or lintel 
> in place. As Lord Avebury has already said, "Placing a foreign object 
> in the monument offends conservation principles, as well as the 
> spiritual beliefs of some people."
>  
> The Atkinson door and lintel must be removed in order to conform to 
> accepted principles of conservation. Full stop.
Surely the question should be whether or not removing the concrete 
lintel would cause more damage than leaving it in situ. I'd be surprised 
if it wasn't less damaging to leave it where it is and grass it over as 
has been suggested.

Being too purist about such things would open a huge can of worms. 
Should West Kennet be taken apart again to remove the glass bricks, 
should the concrete be taken away from the bases of stones at 
Stonehenge, should Newgrange be dismantled to take out the concrete, etc?

Andy N


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-1, 13/07/2007
Tested on: 21/07/2007 11:47:25
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com