|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Grrr... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 05:08
|
||
|
megadread wrote: Mustard wrote: and my contributions to my own website What website is that then. ? Megalithis orientated. ? Can i have a link to take a butchers. ? Has a link been posted?...I'd like to browse as well.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 05:40
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: megadread wrote: Mustard wrote: and my contributions to my own website What website is that then. ? Megalithis orientated. ? Can i have a link to take a butchers. ? Has a link been posted?...I'd like to browse as well. Isle of Albion was listed on the Blogs and websites of possible interest thread in January this year (and an excellent website it is too).
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 05:43
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Resonox wrote: megadread wrote: Mustard wrote: and my contributions to my own website What website is that then. ? Megalithis orientated. ? Can i have a link to take a butchers. ? Has a link been posted?...I'd like to browse as well. Isle of Albion was listed on the Blogs and websites of possible interest thread in January this year (and an excellent website it is too). TY
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Jul 19, 2010, 07:10
Jul 19, 2010, 05:55
|
||
|
Mosh wrote: Climbed on Stonehenge at night as well......I had permission. Had I not, I would have done it anyway. You had permission? That's interesting, as climbing on the stones is specifically prohibited by Parliament except for officers, servants or agents of EH, so which were you and what had they asked you to do?
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 05:59
|
||
|
Steady on Mustard - using words like ' belligerently misrepresenting' and 'zealous' are hardly conducive to creating an atmosphere of harmony on this board. While one-liners like, "And guess what? Stonehenge didn't fall over." ( http://themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=58526&message=741866 ) hardly give the impression that you are that concerned about the long term conservation of Stonehenge.
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 06:42
|
||
|
Late to the party as usual! So - where are we? Are we now allowed to go climbing up Silbury and clamber all over Stonehenge? Excellent! Now I can sate my desire to sit and/or stand on things! Not really. I don't understand the mentality of the desire to climb things. Is it because you're not supposed to? Is it like sticking 2 fingers up at the guardians of the site that request that you don't do it? A sort of "Hey, man - these things belong to *all* of us, therefore I'm going to help myself!"? If it *were* only one person doing it, once, then the damage would probably be non-existant. But if you multiply that by the amount of visitors to these places each year, then of course "wear and tear" will occur! I use that phrase lightly, but if you look at the visitor numbers for Stonehenge and Silbury, and imagine every single one of those people wanting to climb, I don't think you need to be *that* clever to work out that it'll cause damage! St Catherine's Hill, in Winchester - a gorgeous hillfort with a mizmaze at the top (and, sadly, the M3 motorway gouged through the adjoining hill, but that's another thread, I guess!) - has so many visitors that, after decades/centuries, a path was formed by god knows how many people using the same route. The corrosion became so bad that a wooden stairway was constructed up the side! It has the benefit of conserving the rest of the hill, but it's not really that attractive. Silbury, with a million (is that a fair estimate? Totally plucked from nowhere so may be well off!) visitors a year, would soon become criss-crossed with paths and worn areas if everyone decided they wanted to climb up! And Stonehenge - although the stones are, as is the nature of stone, quite hard, surely you've seen the effect of decades/centuries of wear and tear on stone? Go visit a castle or summat and have a look at any original stairway or other much-used surface area. So *well done* and a pat on the head to those that *have* climbed the hill/stones. Have a biscuit. G x
|
|||
|
goffik 3926 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 06:52
|
||
|
Although, that said, these conversations do have a tendency to go round in circles and keep cropping up, but I suppose here, the issue is that there's a website that's actively saying it's alright to climb Silbury. Does anyone think the website should be advocating this? I doubt it. So there we go: it *isn't* alright to climb Silbury! As for the comments on the site - welcome to the internet! A few individuals post similar concerns - it ain't bullying or harrassment! Just lost of likeminded people disagreeing with a website's content. It happens. The internet, when used correctly, can unite people, and - you never know - make a difference! It may well just be a naive comment on behalf of the website's owners - in which case I'm sure they'll happily stand corrected and change their text. In which case - point proven! :) G x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Jul 19, 2010, 08:32
Jul 19, 2010, 07:31
|
||
|
Superb, 5-star posting Goff ! (But dangnabbit, I've visited Silbury hundreds of times and still haven't qualified for a biscuit!)
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 08:32
|
||
|
goffik wrote: Not really. I don't understand the mentality of the desire to climb things. Is it because you're not supposed to? Is it like sticking 2 fingers up at the guardians of the site that request that you don't do it? A sort of "Hey, man - these things belong to *all* of us, therefore I'm going to help myself!"? G x I guess for a lot of people it's to get a view from the top of Silbury Goff, myself included. When you research and wonder why something was built, like Silbury for instance, you feel it may help that research by climbing to the top to see what it was that may have encouraged the builders to build it in that location. Nobody seems to say anything when archo's climb to the top or when camera crews scale it with all their equipment to make TV documentaries so why not interested people? I think we all take your point exactly about mass invasion of the hill but it's unlikely to happen unless they decide one day to open up a Tesco on the top and take over the car park...now there's a thought!!
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 09:13
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Steady on Mustard - using words like ' belligerently misrepresenting' and 'zealous' are hardly conducive to creating an atmosphere of harmony on this board. But sadly accurate. You can't insult someone, then accuse them of creating disharmony when they respond to the insult. It's a simple request.... please don't misrepresent my views. I'm quite happy to discuss things that I DO believe. Littlestone wrote: While one-liners like, "And guess what? Stonehenge didn't fall over." ( http://themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=58526&message=741866 ) hardly give the impression that you are that concerned about the long term conservation of Stonehenge. Not at all. I prefer to base my concern on calm reasoning rather than scaremongering is all. Again, we're all interested in the same thing, so it would be nice if there was a little appreciation of that fact. Disagree with my opinions by all means, but please don't question the sincerity of my concern for our ancient monuments. It's entirely unnecessary and uncalled for.
|
| Pages: 20 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
