Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

MattFalle

kingstongraham said:

Actually, maybe somewhere in the middle east would pay more for Stonehenge.

Maybe they'd buy the Elgin marbles too. How much do you reckon we could get for them?

just make up a number and put it on the side of a bus....

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Dorset_Boy

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Can we send them Stonehenge? Then build a decent road.

They could just upgrade the A30 instead. Pretty stupid decision to make the A303 the main trunk road.

???? Do you realise how difficult that would be given how many towns and villages the A30 goes through?
There is absolutely no reason why the A303 could not be upgraded from the top of the Amesbury hill to the roundabout after Stongehenge. The A360 rounabout was rebuilt only a few years ago to pblock off the old road to Stonehenge from the A303.
To complete the final piece of the jigsaw would then only require a bypass of one small village (Winterbourne Stoke).

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Can we send them Stonehenge? Then build a decent road.

They could just upgrade the A30 instead. Pretty stupid decision to make the A303 the main trunk road.

???? Do you realise how difficult that would be given how many towns and villages the A30 goes through?
There is absolutely no reason why the A303 could not be upgraded from the top of the Amesbury hill to the roundabout after Stongehenge. The A360 rounabout was rebuilt only a few years ago to pblock off the old road to Stonehenge from the A303.
To complete the final piece of the jigsaw would then only require a bypass of one small village (Winterbourne Stoke).

I wasn't being that serious. But it wasn't that long ago that both roads were roughly equivalent. The decision was taken to make the A303 into the trunk road with all the associated bypasses and widening. They could have chosen the A30 instead.

Agree that now the solution is not that difficult and certainly doesn't need the bonkers tunnel.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape. And they didn't move the entire hill.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

rick_chasey

In the British museum?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

In the British museum?

Best do it before a tourist takes it home. 😉
Finders keepers.

kingstongraham

Good thinking.

kingstongraham

Unless there's space in the Parthenon. I don't know the relative sizes.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

They come as a set. That's like suggesting moving just the dome of St Paul's. Would avoid all that nonsense about protected views. There's no need to move anything.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Unless there's space in the Parthenon. I don't know the relative sizes.

Clearly.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

They come as a set. That's like suggesting moving just the dome of St Paul's. Would avoid all that nonsense about protected views. There's no need to move anything.

That doesn't seem to have been the British Museum approach.

briantrumpet

That's quite the assertion to make...

rick_chasey

He's not doing Cambridge Uni much for the rep for their history department.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

They come as a set. That's like suggesting moving just the dome of St Paul's. Would avoid all that nonsense about protected views. There's no need to move anything.

That doesn't seem to have been the British Museum approach.

Quite. Hence it being pretty indefensible to hang on to stuff.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

Until 60 years ago they were lying on the ground and were rebuiltusing concrete so moving them again would result in no loss of integrity

briantrumpet

Maybe the better analogy would be Trigger's broom being used in Open All Hours.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

Until 60 years ago they were lying on the ground and were rebuiltusing concrete so moving them again would result in no loss of integrity

Is this like your Abu Simbel claim i.e. made up?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

Until 60 years ago they were lying on the ground and were rebuiltusing concrete so moving them again would result in no loss of integrity

Is this like your Abu Simbel claim i.e. made up?

Sorry, I thought I posted a picture of a crane rebuilding Stonehenge.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/excavation-restoration-stonehenge-1950s-60s/#:~:text=The restoration project,had lain for 161 years.




I have been to Abu Simbel and did not scuba dive deep into the waters of Lake Nasser

The salvage of the Abu Simbel temples began in 1964 by a multinational team of archeologists, engineers and skilled heavy equipment operators working together under the UNESCO banner; it cost some US$40 million at the time (equal to $300 million in 2017 dollars). Between 1964 and 1968, the entire site was carefully cut into large blocks (up to 30 tons, averaging 20 tons), dismantled, lifted and reassembled in a new location 65 metres higher and 200 metres back from the river, in one of the greatest challenges of archaeological engineering in history.[7

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

Until 60 years ago they were lying on the ground and were rebuiltusing concrete so moving them again would result in no loss of integrity

Is this like your Abu Simbel claim i.e. made up?

Sorry, I thought I posted a picture of a crane rebuilding Stonehenge.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/excavation-restoration-stonehenge-1950s-60s/#:~:text=The restoration project,had lain for 161 years.




I have been to Abu Simbel and did not scuba dive deep into the waters of Lake Nasser

The salvage of the Abu Simbel temples began in 1964 by a multinational team of archeologists, engineers and skilled heavy equipment operators working together under the UNESCO banner; it cost some US$40 million at the time (equal to $300 million in 2017 dollars). Between 1964 and 1968, the entire site was carefully cut into large blocks (up to 30 tons, averaging 20 tons), dismantled, lifted and reassembled in a new location 65 metres higher and 200 metres back from the river, in one of the greatest challenges of archaeological engineering in history.[7

So they didn't move the entire hill. They moved the statues further up the same hill. Similarly standing up one fallen stone is not rebuilding the whole henge. You can see the majority of the stones standing in 19th century photos.

As it happens, under current archaeological practice, they would probably have left Abu Simbel to be flooded.

kingstongraham

Could have gone the Chichen Itza route and just started from scratch.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

I'm intrigued by the Stonehenge animosity. Bad childhood experience?

Stonehenge is fine, but these things don't need to stay where they are for ever.

Sure, let's move the road.

Moving 2,600 hectares of landscape seems somewhat impractical.

Abu Simbel is often referred to as the eighth wonder of the world yet the entire hill it was built into was moved

A hill that is smaller than the Stonehenge landscape.

Why take the landscape? Just the stones and put them in a museum.

Until 60 years ago they were lying on the ground and were rebuiltusing concrete so moving them again would result in no loss of integrity

Is this like your Abu Simbel claim i.e. made up?

Sorry, I thought I posted a picture of a crane rebuilding Stonehenge.
https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/excavation-restoration-stonehenge-1950s-60s/#:~:text=The restoration project,had lain for 161 years.




I have been to Abu Simbel and did not scuba dive deep into the waters of Lake Nasser

The salvage of the Abu Simbel temples began in 1964 by a multinational team of archeologists, engineers and skilled heavy equipment operators working together under the UNESCO banner; it cost some US$40 million at the time (equal to $300 million in 2017 dollars). Between 1964 and 1968, the entire site was carefully cut into large blocks (up to 30 tons, averaging 20 tons), dismantled, lifted and reassembled in a new location 65 metres higher and 200 metres back from the river, in one of the greatest challenges of archaeological engineering in history.[7

So they didn't move the entire hill. They moved the statues further up the same hill. Similarly standing up one fallen stone is not rebuilding the whole henge. You can see the majority of the stones standing in 19th century photos.

As it happens, under current archaeological practice, they would probably have left Abu Simbel to be flooded.

The hill is more of a mound and the statues sit at the entrance to a temple carved into the hill, so yes they did move the entire hill.

It is difficult to describe and most photos do not capture it but this comes close

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

Could have gone the Chichen Itza route and just started from scratch.

are you saying that it was built recently or that the current structure replaced something a thousand years ago.

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

Could have gone the Chichen Itza route and just started from scratch.

are you saying that it was built recently or that the current structure replaced something a thousand years ago.

It was basically built in the last 100 years to look like what someone guessed might have been there before. It's why it looks so impressively well preserved.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

Could have gone the Chichen Itza route and just started from scratch.

are you saying that it was built recently or that the current structure replaced something a thousand years ago.

It was basically built in the last 100 years to look like what someone guessed might have been there before. It's why it looks so impressively well preserved.

A lot older than the great wall of China then.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Could have gone the Chichen Itza route and just started from scratch.

May as well add rides and people dressed as a giant anthropomorphic mouse.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

Could have gone the Chichen Itza route and just started from scratch.

May as well add rides and people dressed as a giant anthropomorphic mouse.

Now you're talking, you can then put them all in the same place, and cut down on carbon emissions.

(I wasn't massively impressed by Chichen Itza.)