|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Ancient sites: Protect or Use? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 21:05
|
||
|
CianMcLiam wrote: Some people thought Salman Rushdie should have died for writing a book, others thought that because Saddam was a ruthless murdering son-of-a-bitch that that was all you had to consider when deciding whether to invade and kill thousands of people who most certainly were not ruthless murdering sons-of-bitches, absolutely no concept of price for the payoff entered their little heads. Not quite in the same league as leaving a corn-dolly at a stone circle, is it? A better analogy might be that some people feel it's OK to restore stone circles while others don't..... CianMcLiam wrote: These sites are so old and have survived through so much that the most persuasive argument for people actually interested in ancient sites is that what 'should' and 'should not' be done at these sites is no business of any individual or group in their own self interest. I agree with that entirely. But that doesn't mean that debate should be stifled. CianMcLiam wrote: The best respect you can pay to a site is to leave it as if you'd never even been there. There's nothing subjective about the idea of 'preservation' I agree with that to a point, although I do feel that there's a wider debate surrounding the notion of preservation. However, I would certainly agree that there's no justification for leaving anything at a site if it compromises its archaeological integrity. I'm not convinced that the odd flower or two really does that.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 21:19
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: CianMcLiam wrote: ancient sites is that what 'should' and 'should not' be done at these sites is no business of any individual or group in their own self interest. However, I would certainly agree that there's no justification for leaving anything at a site if it compromises its archaeological integrity. I'm not convinced that the odd flower or two really does that. I would have hoped the archaeological integrity bit goes without saying , the rest is a matter of respect for others ,behave as if it was a strangers home you were visiting and you won't go far wrong . That includes making a noise or playing music .
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 21:25
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Mustard wrote: CianMcLiam wrote: ancient sites is that what 'should' and 'should not' be done at these sites is no business of any individual or group in their own self interest. However, I would certainly agree that there's no justification for leaving anything at a site if it compromises its archaeological integrity. I'm not convinced that the odd flower or two really does that. I would have hoped the archaeological integrity bit goes without saying , the rest is a matter of respect for others ,behave as if it was a strangers home you were visiting and you won't go far wrong . That includes making a noise or playing music . But it's not a stranger's home. It's a public space. Some people get annoyed with people playing music, I get annoyed with tourists standing in front of my camera. Should tourists be banned because they're spoiling my enjoyment? The issue really isn't that black and white....
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 21:42
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: tiompan wrote: [quote="Mustard"][quote="CianMcLiam"]ancient s I would have hoped the archaeological integrity bit goes without saying , the rest is a matter of respect for others ,behave as if it was a strangers home you were visiting and you won't go far wrong . That includes making a noise or playing music . But it's not a stranger's home. It's a public space. Some people get annoyed with people playing music, I get annoyed with tourists standing in front of my camera. Should tourists be banned because they're spoiling my enjoyment? The issue really isn't that black and white.... It was a suggestion in how you may behave in that public space if it's crowded don't get shirty the others are in the same boat as you .
|
|||
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Edited Jun 26, 2007, 21:51
Jun 26, 2007, 21:48
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Not quite in the same league as leaving a corn-dolly at a stone circle, is it? A better analogy might be that some people feel it's OK to restore stone circles while others don't..... No, it's not in the same league of course but it shows that even in high cost situations we're often willing to ignore consequences of actions in situations where everyone loses, even if both sides feel something 'should' be done it doesn't make either position right, and having a position doesn't make action valid in itself. Maybe we should start applying that to things we have influence over and it may lay the foundations for some semblence of principle seeping upwards. Mustard wrote: I agree with that entirely. But that doesn't mean that debate should be stifled. All for debate, doesn't leave any trace except a few ticks off my monthly upload/download quota! Mustard wrote: I agree with that to a point, although I do feel that there's a wider debate surrounding the notion of preservation. However, I would certainly agree that there's no justification for leaving anything at a site if it compromises its archaeological integrity. I'm not convinced that the odd flower or two really does that. The problem is, as other have said, when one person leaves flowers others arrive and think that's the done thing and the way to show respect, proceeding to leave candles, coins, batteries, clip-on covers for mobile phones, ribbons in poxy colours, animal skulls, burnt wood and earth etc. etc. Anyone that's been to more than two or three Irish sites will have come across most if not all of the above. I know I have, and you end up with beautiful, delicate sites like Lissyviggeen being closed to even the conscientious visitor. That's a really sad loss all for the price of a few tacky ribbons, broken bottles and a never ending assortment of tat. Last time I visited Grange stone circle there was a pile of coins and tat placed on the stones, while I was there a group of tourists arrived and one started saying 'Isn't that charming.. Frank, do you have any quaters on you??'
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 22:37
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Mustard wrote: tiompan wrote: [quote="Mustard"][quote="CianMcLiam"]ancient s I would have hoped the archaeological integrity bit goes without saying , the rest is a matter of respect for others ,behave as if it was a strangers home you were visiting and you won't go far wrong . That includes making a noise or playing music . But it's not a stranger's home. It's a public space. Some people get annoyed with people playing music, I get annoyed with tourists standing in front of my camera. Should tourists be banned because they're spoiling my enjoyment? The issue really isn't that black and white.... It was a suggestion in how you may behave in that public space if it's crowded don't get shirty the others are in the same boat as you . Bloody hell. The internet's a strange place, innit? I thought I was trying to have an amicable discussion about some interesting concepts - not getting shirty. The speed with which people look to take offence never ceases to amaze me!
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 22:46
|
||
|
CianMcLiam wrote: No, it's not in the same league of course but it shows that even in high cost situations we're often willing to ignore consequences of actions in situations where everyone loses, even if both sides feel something 'should' be done it doesn't make either position right, and having a position doesn't make action valid in itself. I agree. But I think that arguing that "nothing" should be left at ancient sites creates an impression of an extremist and intolerant approach (rightly or wrongly), which in turn alienates the very people that you need to reach out to in order to promote considerate and low-impact behaviour. CianMcLiam wrote: The problem is, as other have said, when one person leaves flowers others arrive and think that's the done thing and the way to show respect, proceeding to leave candles, coins, batteries, clip-on covers for mobile phones, ribbons in poxy colours, animal skulls, burnt wood and earth etc. etc. But you can't hold one group of people accountable if their actions inadvertently encourage idiots. That's like blaming the Quakers for gay people getting beaten to death on the street - Quakers promote Christianity, Christianity breeds bigots, ergo Quakers should desist from promoting Christianity. Sorry, but while I understand and sympathise with your point, it's somewhat of a circular argument. Frankly, you could quite reasonably argue that TMA does more to perpetuate destructive behaviour just by making directions to site so widely and easily available. Would you argue that TMA should go off-line in case it encourages idiots to find and damage ancient sites? It's not that I don't see where you're coming from. I think there's a case to be made for your point of view, but I think there's equally a case to be made for those who wish to leave non-destructive offerings. There are valid points on both sides of the discussion, and it's always productive to try and consider the grey areas of the debate without believing everything to be simple black and white. In my humble opinion, of course ;)
|
|||
|
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 23:12
|
||
|
I don't think asking people to leave places as they find it is being intolerant or extremist, it works bloody well in the toilets at work :) It shouldn't have to be pointed out that you don't need arguments for leaving a place exactly as you found it, it doesn't have good points and bad points, it's just a basic principle of a being with conscience and the ability to reason that the next person would much rather find a site in the condition brought on by time, as built by whomever thousands of years ago and not lacking in any way for modern 'enhancements' or tokens. If anything many people would find it a bizarre attempt at empathy with the completely unknown, even an alienating attempt to monopolise the right to enjoy and 'use' a shared heritage.
|
|||
Paulus 769 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 23:14
|
||
|
Hi Mirla - Mirla wrote: These signs are ugly lumps of stone with bold writing warning people that they will be prosecuted if they are found to be damaging these sites.....in their opinion "damaging" includes -Lighting fires (Understandable-i agree) -Dropping litter (I agree) -Camping (depending on the respect of the campers) But the next one i find stupid... -No leaving offerings of any kind!!!!! It's a bittova weird one this - with local variations in attitude and application. Since megaliths have become "in" and increasingly popular on the tourist bandwagon (much more damaging than any biogredable offerings), such issues are increasingly pertinent. My very first visit to Twelve Apostles (Ilkley Moor) for summer solstice as a teenager found just a handful of people there - the most interesting being an old chap who was very well educated and obviously quite wealthy. He'd been visiting the Apostles each solstice for a few decades and was brought here when small by his parents who used to come here for the same occasion. Then, as now, a fire was made in the circle to celebrate the longest day. After a few years the Stonehenge festival was banned and, as a result, many folk started checking out sites in their own locale up and down the country. As a result, numbers at the Apostles and many other sites increased ten-fold within a year or two. But these 'old folk' who'd been coming to their local sites for a long time slowly stopped coming: the newcomers approaching these old places with differing psychologies pushed the old folk away, so to speak. I've come across this at various megalithic sites from Yorkshire northwards. And now, with the huge increase of tourists who visit these sites, we're told by the newcomers that we can't have fires, we can't leave offerings (never left any misself), cos others know better and wanna make it nice n' clean for everyone else. Odd thing is, these places were actually quiet and undisturbed until folk started making 'em "more accessible", etc. Seems like some people don't seem to be able to make the link between 'more people = more mess.' The simple issue of biodegrable offerings is, simply, yet another part of modern cultural psychology wanting Nature to be as clean and sterile as the houses people live in. (y' know the sorts: they have weird judgements on 'good' weather, 'bad' weather - instead of simply seeing all types as various cloaks of the same thing) The issue of offerings itself relates simply to the animistic principle of 'spirit of place'; which is thankfully still very much alive in a number of countries where we find similar things left for trees, wells, rocks, etc (India's crawling with such examples, way-away from the tourist spots). One final comment (to those who might not like my attitude on this issue): on various occasions when I've encountered people leaving crap at sites (always the tourist-types), they receive a very loud and direct order to pick up their shit before I stick it somewhere quite personal. It never fails to work! Cheers - Paul PS - I'm knackered & drunk so this probably doesn't make much sense. Sorry...
|
|||
|
Paulus 769 posts |
Jun 26, 2007, 23:16
|
||
|
Just remembered this: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/47411/images/st_helens_well_rudgate.html What do folk think of this?
|
| Pages: 23 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
