=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Log In to post a reply
225 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
CianMcLiam
CianMcLiam
1067 posts

Edited Jun 26, 2007, 20:49
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
Jun 26, 2007, 20:48
Mustard wrote:

Littlestone wrote:
litter is something that shouldn't be where it is.
And the definition of "shouldn't" is clearly subjective. Some people clearly feel that offerings "should" be at stone circles, thus negating your definition of litter.


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.

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. 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', just leave as little trace of our interference as humanly possible.
In reply to:
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mustard)		 Replies:
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Littlestone)
Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mustard)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index