goffik
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 14:45
|
I, personally, quite like the stone signs, and think it's nice that someone is so openly looking out for these places. It's quite reassuring. Our last visit to Men-An-Tol and the Nine Maidens was an absolute treat - I've never seen those places in such good nick! I keep meaning to write a fieldnote about it (and possibly still will). They are a credit to heritage protection, and the message should be spread far and wide...
With regards offerings... Well, we've been here before, quite a few times on this forum, and my personal belief is that people should leave the site, as the aforementioned signs state, as we found them. No offerings. Although I'm never offended by the odd flower or 2 (as long as they've not been picked from the site in the first place! Which I've seen before. Kind of defeats the object of an offering if you ask me!) And - now I know some people disagree, while others will agree - I will always, whenever possible, remove offending articles from a site and dispose of them in the appropriate manner so the next person can enjoy it.
I think that's me! :o)
G x
|
Mustard
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 14:48
|
|
What's the harm with biodegradable offerings though? I can see the objection to plastics or anything that might linger and disturb future archaeology, but if it's just a corn doll or something......
|
ocifant
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 14:56
|
Easy answer: numbers.
A popular site in Cornwall for instance can have dozens of visitors in a day. If each leaves just one biodegradable bloom, with a week or so there would be a small compost heap on site.
*Someone* has to clear it up in this situation, so why not the people that want to leave the stuff there in the first place?
CASPN organise workgroups to clear sites from time to time (rota on their website), which includes cutting back undergrowth, ensuring access routes are clear as well as clearing out the 'tat'.
|
goffik
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 15:01
|
Yes indeed! And my argument is that whoever left it will be none the wiser for it! The item was left as an offering, and was accepted as an offering.
It's not cleared away with malice, but with care... :o)
G x
|
Mustard
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 15:01
|
|
ocifant wrote: Easy answer: numbers.
A popular site in Cornwall for instance can have dozens of visitors in a day. If each leaves just one biodegradable bloom, with a week or so there would be a small compost heap on site.
But in reality, that's not very likely. And it's not an argument against offerings... it's an argument against volumes. You might as well say "we should have no people at an ancient site in case millions visit and erode it".
|
goffik
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 15:07
|
Owp! Here we go again! ;o)
Nice looking site, by the way!
http://www.isleofalbion.co.uk/
G x
|
Mustard
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 15:15
|
|
goffik wrote: Owp! Here we go again! ;o)
Don't you just love it? :D
I think it's an issue that becomes too easily entrenched between pro and anti camps. I think it's a little more complex and deserves a little bit more than a reactionary response. Not sure how we can accept millions of tourists traipsing through Avebury and then moan about a couple of pagans leaving some flowers at Scorhill.
goffik wrote:
Ta muchly. Third incarnation and finally starting to look presentable. The next one.... oooooh.... just you wait!
|
ocifant
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 16:06
|
|
Mustard wrote: I think it's a little more complex and deserves a little bit more than a reactionary response.
Ooh! It's been more years than I care to remember since I was called reactionary :-)
I agree that it's a complex issue. It can be broken down into smaller, easily digestible chunks though, and that can start with: no litter.
Tomaeto/Tomarto - litter/offerings.
|
Mustard
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 16:10
|
|
ocifant wrote:
Ooh! It's been more years than I care to remember since I was called reactionary :-)
Sorry, didn't mean your comments in particular. Just speaking generally.
ocifant wrote: I agree that it's a complex issue. It can be broken down into smaller, easily digestible chunks though, and that can start with: no litter.
Depends how you define litter. ;)
Tomaeto/Tomarto - litter/leaves ;)
|
CianMcLiam
|
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 16:57
|
Why leave something there though at all, what's the pain in leaving a place just as it was found and where's the gain in leaving detritus behind?
Cant be any harder to carry something home after bringing it there in the first place, plus you leave with the glowing feeling of not getting on the nerves of subsequent visitors.
I believe there are people out there in the ether who find all the romanticism and panglossian caricatures of the old ancestors a bit nauseating in the first place. They would argue that it's as apporpriate as future followers of the Smorgasbord Trinity Cult leaving boiled sheep ears on the ruins of Old Trafford. In Newgrange, for example, they do not allow ceremonies even, as to do so may imply that people of a certain persuasion today have more of a claim to the site than anyone else when such a continuity simply does not exist.
|
