[Stones] Silbury time capsule

[Andy Norfolk]

NIGELSWIFT at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 28/07/2007 08:46:44 GMT Standard Time, 
> andy.norfolk at connectfree.co.uk writes:
>
>     > however the damage was done when the lintel was _inserted_. 
>     Careful
>     > removal now by expert conservators/engineers would cause little
>     or no
>     > further damage.
>     You don't know that!
>
> Its a reasonable speculation though isn't it? Its near the surface and 
> the lintel and the uprights and the door are serving no structural 
> purpose other than supporting each other. If they disappeared all that 
> would be left would be the shape of them - which was created using 
> spades and diggers in 1968. The whole tunnel is to be filled with 
> chalk, and the slumped areas, so why not fill those shapes up at the 
> same time. We'd then be pre-1968 entirely, which is where we're aiming 
> for.
I agree that this is a relatively trivial matter when the entire hill 
appears to be in danger. I may well have been wrong that Littlestone 
doesn't know that removing the lintel would cause further damage - he 
may be a structural engineer in his day job for all I know. I don't know 
either whether or not that the lintel supports any of the chalk above 
it. To me this is what a lintel does - in contemporary building 
terminology it is a member which supports a wall above a door or window 
opening and is not just part of a door frame. If we are merely talking 
about removing a door frame that's a  different matter.

I am however interested in the principles behind restoration and how far 
some people on this list might want to go an applying them. After some 
recent events perhaps this one will be topical... It is said that the 
Cerne Abbas Giant's willy used to be shorter and that during one 
recutting they extended it to include what had previously been his 
navel. Should he be reduced in stature to the original, and therefore 
more authentic, form?

What is the authentic form of any monument? All we know of most of them 
is what seems to be frequently a ruined state, sometimes with evidence 
of modification in ancient times, but in all cases with changes as a 
result of wind and weather over centuries. Which is the moment in time 
at which  a monument was at its best and most authentic? How can we 
judge this? After how much time do changes to monuments become part of 
its history? Should we regard Phase I of Stonehenge as being the 
definitive form of the monument because it was earliest, or should we 
assume that its apparently unfinished final ancient phase was its 
definitive form as most people do? Are the restored forms of West Kennet 
Long Barrow or Knossos, for example, now so well known that they have 
become the definitive forms of these monuments?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but it does seem that in 
some cases relatively recent changes have become an important and 
intrinsic part of some monuments.

Andy N



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000759-1, 24/07/2007
Tested on: 28/07/2007 10:04:56
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com