Arbor Low stone circle - raising of the stones to their original upright position.

Arbor Low 11

Image by Ratty

Arbor Low stone circle — raising of the stones to their original upright position.

simondawson Apr 10, 2013 14:00:22

Dear All,

I seek your views and support regarding the raising of all the stones in this circle to their original upright position.

These stones were allegedly 'pushed over' in the Dark Ages as those responsible were concerned regarding the stone circles use by the original builders as a Pagan site.

My view is that the stones should be placed back into their upright position as a mark of respect to the original builders of the circle.

Clearly, with 'modern technology' this would not be too troublesome.

i also see this as an opportunity for a carbon dating excercise of the soil underneath the flattened stones to determine the exact date of when the stones were 'pushed over' and also to allow the stone circle to be appreciated in it's original glory.

Your views on this would be appreciated.............

regards,

SD.

dissolving Apr 10, 2013 14:11:20

Replying to simondawson

I'm not sure I would want them re-erected.

It's a monument to time and the processes of history as it is.

If the stones were toppled during the a period in history then perhaps their current position is a witness to that age that is distant to us now as well.

Surely re-erecting stones then puts you on a continuum with refabricating an abstract past like newgrange, that then in turn becomes definitely tinged by the decades of intervention.

I mean there is something to be said for using the imagination, seeing all the layers and imagining others. Would people want banks scraped back of turf as well?

When something is in a landscape and has been a part of the landscape for millennia I really do think there's something to be said for being using the eyes and the imagination and letting somewhere tell its stories on its own terms without potentially destructive interventions.

I may have this wrong as well, but isn't there a possibility the arbor low stones toppled of their own accord? I remember reading somewhere they weren't that deeply dug into the ground.

What do others think?

hedgedruid Apr 10, 2013 17:51:06

Replying to simondawson

Perhaps an initial investigation to try and find out when or if the stones were pushed over . When we know when/if then we can revisit the idea ?

ocifant Apr 11, 2013 06:53:04

Replying to simondawson

Ignoring the desirability or otherwise of such a scheme, which lottery jackpot winner were you intending to approach to pay for it all?

Just wondering ;-)

CARL Apr 11, 2013 07:14:24

Replying to simondawson

I have never been to this site although as it happens I will be making a visit at the end of next month.

So without having seen the circle my initial reaction would be to re-errect the stones. After all, the builders (for whatever reason) decided to build a stone circle. I can't imagine they would mind it being put back up as a tribute to their skills / beliefs etc?

In my opinion any fallen stones / tobs etc which have fallen over time should be re-errected as long as it is done in an appropritate way.
i.e. you can be sure how the stones originally stood / safe to do so etc.

ryaner Apr 24, 2013 13:52:45

Replying to simondawson

There's an article called Destructions, Re-erections and Re-creations by J.N. Graham Ritchie in the book From Sickles to Circles, published by Tempus that deals with this subject. It's mainly about Scottish sites, Balbirnie, Stones of Stenness, Balfarg, etc, but is relevant to this debate. I think the book is remaindered so may be available cheap.

Gwass Apr 24, 2013 15:39:34

Replying to simondawson

Personally I say put the stones back up, as long as they can be proven to have been standing in the first place.

I undertsand the argument that the toppling of the stones (if that happened) in the dark ages is also a historical event and part of the monument's history being worthy of preservation.

But I feel this is far outweighed by the benefits, we've already lost so many of these rare and unique monuments that I believe they are worthy of reconstruction if done as accurately as possible.

Also our reconstruction of the stones would be a valid part of the monuments history as much as their toppling surely?

What are we actually achieveing by leaving them as testament to their pushing over? But we can gain a monument as it was intended to look like by it's builders via reconstruction.

Do we not repair the Priddy henge because its recently vandalism is an event in time which has shaped what we see today?

Look at the Devil's Quoits in Oxfordshire, we now have another impressive henge monument whcih we knew stood on the exact spot until it's destruction fairly recently; this site now has the potential to inspire and educate new visitors.

If reconstruction is now seen as bad form as it ignores the affects of time throughout a monuments history do we 'de-construct' the numerous reconstructions of the 18th & 19th centuries?

Re topple the reconstructed Avebury stones perhaps?

Spaceship mark Apr 25, 2013 14:58:09

Replying to simondawson

Go to the site, walk around it, take it in, take your time, find a vantage point then, without closing your eyes, stare hard and imagine it as was. Imagine as hard as you can.

I find this a perfectly satifactory way to dea with ruined sites, ever since I mentally re-erected the Grand Menhir Brise in Locmariaquer.

My wife thinks I can see ghosts too, but to be honest its just a good imagination.