https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/story-how-stone-hadrians-wall-was-plundered-during-medieval-era-2524316?fbclid=IwAR1yvCrYmavdcRD0i-Yy8MYJHDFIZoHx3V0ZBLORLS-Hra58eqoY7hcowbY
always been fascinated with Hadrian's wall and of course the answer is simple. My impractical nostalgic side wishes that no robbing had taken place at all...
Quote from: Holly on Apr 07, 2020, 08:18 AMMy impractical nostalgic side wishes that no robbing had taken place at all...
"Ulfberht, shouldn't we be quarrying new stone for this 'ere abbey? Not knocking down this 'ere old Roman monument?"
"Nay, Berhtulf; 'tis the environmentally responsible thing to do, to re-use and re-cycle."
Quote from: Duncan Head on Apr 07, 2020, 08:31 AM
Quote from: Holly on Apr 07, 2020, 08:18 AMMy impractical nostalgic side wishes that no robbing had taken place at all...
"Ulfberht, shouldn't we be quarrying new stone for this 'ere abbey? Not knocking down this 'ere old Roman monument?"
"Nay, Berhtulf; 'tis the environmentally responsible thing to do, to re-use and re-cycle."
very good....that did make me chuckle ;D
I remember reading an 18th century antiquary commenting about farmers from Furness travelling to the Roman fort on Hardknott to haul away dressed stone by the cart load.
A lot of the older farms round here have a lot of sandstone from Furness Abbey in them
The 18th C seems to have been the worst time for the destruction of ancient monuments - think of Avebury. Though maybe it's that the 18th C was the first time antiquaries were around to notice and complain.
Like I said, an unpractical wishy washy part of me is sad for the removal of stone from this and other monuments. On a related topic, how do people feel about reconstructive archaeology?
Quote from: Holly on Apr 07, 2020, 12:31 PM
Like I said, an unpractical wishy washy part of me is sad for the removal of stone from this and other monuments. On a related topic, how do people feel about reconstructive archaeology?
Do you mean building replicas as opposed to restoration of originals?
Quote from: Erpingham on Apr 07, 2020, 12:42 PM
Quote from: Holly on Apr 07, 2020, 12:31 PM
Like I said, an unpractical wishy washy part of me is sad for the removal of stone from this and other monuments. On a related topic, how do people feel about reconstructive archaeology?
Do you mean building replicas as opposed to restoration of originals?
both in reality. Obviously some ruins still have spoil heaps where they fell with the ravages of time, others have had the stones removed and so more likely reconstructive would be the best option
There is a 3rd option which has found some favour in France especially of restoration using modern materials in a modern style, so it is clear what is restored. Not sure I like it but it is striking. Let me see if I can find a link
Quote from: RichT on Apr 07, 2020, 10:30 AM
The 18th C seems to have been the worst time for the destruction of ancient monuments - think of Avebury. Though maybe it's that the 18th C was the first time antiquaries were around to notice and complain.
Rich
I suspect it appears the worse because it is the best documented. There are a number of Norman churches and castles that rob from the Romans, and there are dozens of English churches and other buildings that have reused monastic stonework robbed out in the 16th Century.
The French have , of course, a classic example of replica building at Guédelon (https://www.guedelon.fr/en/introduction_75.html)
Quote
On a related topic, how do people feel about reconstructive archaeology?
I'd say there are three types:
- 'off site reconstructions', building a replica in order to learn about building techniques etc and to show what it looked like (like Guédelon)
- 'repairs and reconstitutions', standing up fallen pillars, rebuilding fallen walls etc. I noticed a lot of this sort of thing going on in Greece last year.
- 'on site reconstructions', building modern replicas on the site of (and obliterating the remains of) old sites eg Stoa of Attalus in Athens, or Knossos
I'm a big fan of the first. The second is OK in very small doses but I think is in danger of being overdone. I'm against the third (though I do like the Stoa of Attalus).
We might add to the typology original buildings which have been reassembled on new sites (often to prevent them being destroyed). I have enjoyed the Weald and Downland museum for example, with its entirely spurious early modern village (one of whose buildings, I was surprised to find, originates a few miles down the road from me). Likewise the Welsh National Museum version.
Some reconstructions I like more than others. The Great Hall at Stirling castle is lovely and gives such a better feel for a palace than just leaving it in its run down state. And some Victorian restorations give a better feel for the place than a ruin (e.g. Bamborough). Even something like Castel Coch, which must be 90+% reconstruction, gives you a feel for the physical space of a small castle than just the foundations it was built on.
local to me, I know that Chepstow castle was built in part from building materials from Caerwent (Venta Silurum). The keep has a nice layer of roofing tiles amongst other things in the walls