Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

Mustard

1043 posts

Re: Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk?

Jul 20, 2010, 08:29

Littlestone wrote:

People are allowed to touch the stones during these visits. If we're suggesting that any and all contact is an issue due to the cumulative effect, then it's perfectly reasonable to draw a parallel.

I'm not sure that it is allowed actually, but if it is then it should be stopped, for the same reasons I've outlined elsewhere.

So, if we're being consistent, would that not also imply that touching other standing stones is also a bad thing? Ergo, to follow the logic of your argument, they should ALL be fenced off and unsupervised access prevented?

Littlestone wrote:

...my assertion is REASONABLE. There is no grounds for suspecting that a couple of people every few years climbing onto a 20 ton sarsen threatens to bring it toppling to the ground.

I think that assertion is both unreasonable and illogical. A couple of cars going over a structurally weak bridge every day might not bring it down right away but sure as beans are beans one car, one day, will bringing it down.[/quote]
And of course, nobody stops cars driving on bridges, because the "damage" is so slow that it's easily mitigated by on-going maintenance. So there is no danger of collapse. ;)

Littlestone wrote:

By the way, I may have missed it among all the other posts but I can't seem to find your answer to my question that, " If you can see another risk from one million tourists per year kept well away from the stones themselves please enlighten the board as to what that might be. ( http://themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=58526&message=

[/quote]
Yeah, I did respond. It's buried somewhere in the thread. :s

In reply to:
Re: Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk? (Littlestone)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk?	Log In to post a reply

102 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded