Most of the one million visitors who visit Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain every year believe they are looking at untouched 4,000-year-old remains. But virtually every stone was re-erected, straightened or embedded in concrete between 1901 and 1964, says a British doctoral student.
鈥淲hat we have been looking at is a 20th-century landscape, reminiscent of what Stonehenge might have looked like thousands of years ago,鈥� says Brian Edwards, a student at the University of the West of England in Bristol.
Stonehenge isn鈥檛 the only ancient site to have been transformed in recent years, he says. 鈥淓ven many of the local people in Avebury weren鈥檛 aware that a lot of the stones were put up in the 1930s,鈥� he told 快猫短视频.
Advertisement
The major reconstructions that took place at Stonehenge and Avebury early last century couldn鈥檛 be repeated at a major site today, thinks Edwards. 鈥淏ut it probably is happening in small museums and heritage centres up and down the country,鈥� he says.
English Heritage says it is now considering covering the Stonehenge alteration programme in detail in the next edition of its official guidebook to the site. A decision not to include the work in official guides was taken in the 1960s, says Dave Batchelor, English Heritage鈥檚 senior archaeologist.
The first restoration project took place in 1901. A leaning stone was straightened and set in concrete, to prevent it falling.
More drastic renovations were carried out in the 1920s. Under the direction of Colonel William Hawley, a member of the Stonehenge Society, six stones were moved and re-erected.
Cranes were used to reposition three more stones in 1958. One giant fallen lintel, or cross stone, was replaced. Then in 1964, four stones were repositioned to prevent them falling.
The 1920s 鈥榬estoration鈥� was the most 鈥渧igorous鈥�, says Christopher Chippindale of the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 鈥淭he work in the 1920s under Colonel William Crawley is a sad story,鈥� he says.
Edwards thinks the public needs to be told 鈥� or reminded 鈥� about restorations to buildings or sites considered by many people to be pristine.
鈥淲e have an obligation to be honest and talk about the whole history of a site,鈥� he says. 鈥淚n quite a number of cases, there is a huge difference between what historians know and what the public consciousness is about those sites.鈥�
In many cases, the line between what can be considered essential restoration work, and significant rebuilding, is unclear, says Edwards. 鈥淭here is always the question of how far do you go?鈥�