|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » The Fylingdales Stone » Fire reveals moor's stone legacy |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 21:05
|
||
I'm with you on this one Nigel - this bloke sounds like a meglamaniac, and not even vaguely steeped in knowledge of prehistory. One of his previous projects was working on the Defence of Britain Project - saving pillboxes for the Nation!
|
|||
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 21:18
|
||
|
Speaking as someone who lives not too far away from this stone I'm really glad that they are leaving it in it's setting rather than digging it out and sticking it in some museum. If the stone was removed it would lose all of its context. Aren't there enough dusty old rocks in our museums? Don't forget that they've laser scanned the stone and so can create extremely accurate copies both physically and electronically. As for pill boxes, what's your problem with them? aren't examples of our wartime coastal defences worthy of preservation or are the two world wars not part of our heritage?
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 21:37
|
||
|
Well aren't you the lucky one living near it.....what about the rest of us? Here's a couple of emails from Britarch - "As the person responsible for the laser scanning of the stone it's exceptionally fragile due to the action of the fire on the moor. If a single person were to attempt a rubbing of the stone, there's a good chance the carved surfaces would detach and be lost forever. Alistair Carty Technical Director Archaeoptics Ltd. > Alistair, > > Surely, a good art conservator should be able to stabilize the surface enough > for its safe transport to somewhere that it could reside under glass? Even if > the state of technology is not advanced enought to tell us more about it now, > it should be preserved for the future when that situation might change. > > It seems that burying it again it such a fragile state will condemn the > surface to fragmentation through water action and changes in ground > temperature. > > Do you know if a larger image will be made public? > > Cheers, > > John Surely if this article is so fragile then redepositing it to the soil will in itself be destructive before the soil water and animal actions take a hold. Is this political correctness gone completely insane? BA artefacts are rare enough and the fact that this as come to light all be it out of context etc that we should use this to further our knowledge of this little understood period in our history. Rob " Oh and the comment about pillboxes was meant to highlight Redfern's (potential) lack of knowledge of prehistory. But you've seen it haven't you?
|
|||
|
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 22:09
|
||
|
Sure we could dig up every single panel of rock art and put them in museums but rock art is not just about the carvings themselves, it is also about the landscape and the setting - context. Surely archaeology has moved away from artifact obsession Would you sanction the excavation and removal of a standing stone to be exhibited in a museum? Long Meg has some lovely carving, why not rip her out of the ground, I'm sure all those thousands of hands that touch her spirals every year can't be doing her any good? There are over 10,000 burial monuments on the North York Moors, most have been dug and most of the artifacts now languishing in non-North Yorkshire museums, many unlabelled with their context lost. I take it you'd be happy to travel to Whitby or Scarbrough museum to visit this stone or would you prefer to have it somewhere closer to where you live? Why don't you come up here and check out the beautiful stones they already have in their collections, better still get yourself out onto the moors and see rock art in situ, I'll happily be your guide and I guarantee you will not be disappointed. Why do you need to have the actual rock in a museum, what is wrong with an accurate copy? This stone has survived 3 or 4 millennia in the lovely moorland peat and this is not the first fire to effect the moor.
|
|||
|
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 22:17
|
||
|
They've done it before http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2426
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 22:34
|
||
|
I too was puzzled by EH's decision to rebury the stone. Though I sympathize with the sentiment that things should, as far as possible, be left where they 'belong' that is not quite the issue here. The issue is the safety and conservation of what seems to be a rather delicate and possibly unique artefact. If, by leaving the artefact in situ, it means its loss (either from natural degradation, theft or vandalisim) then the artefact should not be left there. Perhaps it is a question of degree. Anything that is susceptible to natural degradation, theft or vandalisim is vulnerable by its very nature - but some things are more vulnerable than others.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 22:35
|
||
|
.....that was because the rock was earthfast....it was buried to protect it from weathering. http://www.shef.ac.uk/~geap/rart.htm "Several examples of "rock art" are known from Gardom's Edge. A stone bearing cup and ring marks was discovered during an early excavation of a large cairn. This can now be seen in Sheffield City Museum in Weston Park. A second stone with cup and ring marks remains on the moor. The most remarkable example was identified by a team led by Leslie Butcher in the early 1960's. The design consists of a series of cup and ring marks together with a small "spiral" and two circles that enclose multiple cup marks. These were carved on a large earthfast boulder situated on a natural lynchet that follows the line of a periglacial feature."
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 22:43
|
||
|
"Why do you need to have the actual rock in a museum, what is wrong with an accurate copy? This stone has survived 3 or 4 millennia in the lovely moorland peat and this is not the first fire to effect the moor." Its condition is at risk....but as for "a copy being as good as an original", well the art market would seem to disagree - as do I. And the guy who authorised its reburial (I presume their was no democratic decision taken?) was quoted as worrying that he might one day see it for sale on eBay. How do you know it's creator didn't make it to be viewed and admired, why should it be buried under peat?
|
|||
|
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Dec 21, 2004, 23:41
|
||
|
"well the art market would seem to disagree - as do I. And the guy who authorised its reburial (I presume their was no democratic decision taken?) was quoted as worrying that he might one day see it for sale on eBay". There are many of examples of reburied rock art and rock art that is deliberately left unexposed. You presume there was no democratic decision made but you don't know this. I presume that this was a team decision and involved the NYM National Park Archaeologist, who is a conservator by trade (or so I've been told). "How do you know it's creator didn't make it to be viewed and admired, why should it be buried under peat?" Because it was part of the kerb of a cairn and was inward facing. I can see good and bad in both sides of this discussion and maybe my responses are not the most rational but quite frankly I'm sick of our local archaeology having the 'best bits' cherry-picked and carted off to some museum where it's context becomes completely lost. Sure it's a beautiful stone but once it's removed you lose is the dramatic landscape setting, the views over the sea and the moorland, the relationship between this cairn and the other nearby burial monuments, the trackways and rivers, the very things that may have inspired the artist. Things which could hopefully instill something deeper in anyone who sees this stone and possibly give them some insight into why the stone is where it is rather than just view it as a lovely artifact.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 22, 2004, 06:44
|
||
|
Well, I've heard the pros and cons about reburying, and am sure both are appropriate in different cases, but I'm left with the feeling that in this particular case the con case is the one for me. What really does it for me is how would an outsider view it - say a Martian: "So you've found this important relic of you're culture and you're hiding it, but then once every couple of hundred years you'll allow one of your professors to dig it up and apply his latest analytical tools to it, so in the next millenium just 5 human beings will have laid eyes on it? Hmmm.. And was this the decision of you all?" In truth, it's the decision making process that bugs me most. I'm sure those in charge know more than me, but they don't own the thing more than me or have more educated gut feelings than me. Would a little bit of public debate been so damaging to the stone?
|
| Pages: 22 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
