greywether
|
Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 13:30
|
I have deleted the images and detailed information for the rock art sites in the Whitehill area. The rocks are very close to an urban area in an open access country park.
I've not seen any evidence of damage in the several visits I have made but, sadly, the posting of details on here must increase the likelihood that it will happen.
What particularly prompted this change of mind was a visit last week when I came across one of the decorated rocks I had not previously seen. It was a very simple but, to me, particularly pleasant design. Out of the way but otherwise open to the elements.
I debated for a few days whether I should add this to the earlier posts. But it seemed wrong to keep it anonymous while mentioning the others. The logical thing to do was to delete the lot.
This was never going to be a highly visited site by TMA-ers. If anyone does want more detail or a tour, email me.
What a pity you need to consider things like this :-(
|
Kammer
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 14:10
|
|
Why not post 'em without grid references?
|
StoneLifter
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 14:49
|
|
I am in exactly the same mind about sites in southwest Northumberland and in north Bolton. There's no protection for them in place.
|
juamei
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 15:45
|
|
With a note saying you'll provide further info on request?
|
Kammer
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 20:19
|
I had a similar problem with one of our local stones which was just a bit too portable.
In that particular case the stone had some large neighbours, so I got Holy to create a new group for me for all of them to sit in. Although the endangered stone has no grid reference, it is grouped with some that do, so an approximate geographical area is implicit.
Not so easy to apply if all the stones in question are potentially endangered though.
K x
|
greywether
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 21:21
|
I think that could work.
The one entry I have left remaining on the Whitehill site is for a rock that is already covered for protection and the grid reference is for that rock.
So I could add back some of the images for the other rocks to that entry but make it clear that they belong to non-grid-referenced sites.
Sound like a good compromise between making the images available but not the locations.
Thanks.
|
Kammer
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 22:26
|
In case it's of use, here's where I did it...
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/4078
K x
|
Hob
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Apr 26, 2005, 22:31
|
It's worked so far for a similarly threatened carved stone down here (from GW's perspective) in Tyneside.
The stone is still safe, and a couple of interested folk have been in contact via e-mail to ak for directions.
Good thinking Mr K.
|
ShadowStorm
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Aug 14, 2005, 08:16
|
Hi.
I visited the Whitehill sites yesterday, and one particular site for the first time since i took photos of the stones in the 1970s. Although some modern damage exists, it is still possible to get a feel for the place.
The hilltop site was very overgrown, though, and it took us much searching before we found the outcrop.
What worried me more than modern name-carving was the effect that fire had on some of the exposed stone. One stone by the footpath showed evidence of a fire and cracking. It is a sad indictment on modern man that some people still don't realise what others have known for centuries, and indeed what our stone age ancestors knew - that fire can split rock.
We are Pagan, and treat the sites with proper reverence. A pity others can't do the same.
|
rocknicker
|
Re: Withdrawal of information
Aug 14, 2005, 09:20
|
hear hear!
happens a lot unfortunately...
http://www.heritageaction.org/?page=heritagealerts_throckleybanktop
|
