[Stones] So, is this what some think of our heritage?

[Ric]

architecture is art - stone circles are architecture -
equally, they are art, i feel, because they have been
*designed*: Avebury is a specacular example of
neolithic design on a truly breathtaking scale, and it
has endured for over 4000 years, despite several
protracted attempts to destroy it, historically

but perhaps we should give the art debate - which has
its place - a breather, and think about how to
galvanise the Establishment into restoring Avebury?

as i'm sure the List is aware, Keiller semi-restored
neolithic Avebury over 60 years ago, but his work was
brought to a stop by the 39-45 war, after which time
both Keiller's health and fortune - which he had
mostly ploughed into Avebury - were in steep decline.

very little has happened at neolithic Avebury since
Keiller transferred it to NT in the mid 40's

but things DO happen there, well within the area of
the 'Avebury World Heritage Site' ~ most recently,
someone was granted permission to build an entire
house within metres of the presumed course of the
Beckhampton Avenue, which i for one opposed ...

this is unfair: Mike Pitts struggles for years to
raise a solitary fallen stone from the Great Circle,
and is refused permission; someone else puts in a
planning proposal to build a house, replete with
subterranean foundations, cables and so forth - in the
middle of a WHS - and gets the go-ahead!

the hypocrisy of this situation needs to be made
public: i can show you a field between Avebury and the
Sanctuary site, where standing stones from the West
Kennet Avenue, lie prone where they were left by road
builders - toppled, half-hidden in hedgerows and
grasses, part of our neolithic heritage neglected and
abandoned to oblivion, in the midst of a World
Heritage Site!

words fail - perhaps it is time for action?

R



--- littlestone <littlestone at supanet.com> wrote:

> Ric wrote:
> 
> "...but the concept of 'art' exists now, and is as
> likely as 'heritage' to influence public and
> official opinion..."
> 
> Well, the concept of modern Druidism exists now -
> but that neither validates nor links modern Druids
> to the builders of Stonehenge. If we were to follow
> your logic Ric we might have rock bands playing at
> Stonehenge with an equal degree of 'legitimacy'.
> Sorry, but if we're to resurrect Avebury (as I think
> we should) let's do it from the platform of
> historical and archaeological evidence - not from
> the platform of some fleeting artistic whim.>