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
Mustard
1043 posts

Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use?
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.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index