|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Grrr... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 09:30
|
||
|
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). Thanks. Wasn't trying to pimp my page though :S
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 09:31
|
||
|
I think we all take your point exactly about mass invasion of the hill but it's unlikely to happen... You're missing the point, you don't need a 'mass invasion' for things (animate or inanimate) to deteriorate to the point of no return (though for the umpteenth time the 'mass invasion' of Stonehenge at solstice time is indefensible). One person a day walking round the Avebury bank will cause as much damage in three months as a hundred people in a single afternoon - it's accumulative! If you doubt that take a look at the ongoing closure of certain sections of the Avebury bank for months at a time so that they can recover. One first sweep of the plough at the base of a barrow followed by more, one too many footsteps at Saihō-ji, one too many songbirds, one too many of anything because one too many clowns think that their little act of vandalism won't make any difference - it does. Don't do it - period.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 09:46
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: (though for the umpteenth time the 'mass invasion' of Stonehenge at solstice time is indefensible). For the umpteenth time, oh no it isn't. As far as Silbury Hill goes, I'd discourage anyone from climbing it - period. Your individual visit is unlikely to do any damage, but it's questionable how stable the monument is, and on that basis alone it's common sense to discourage others from traipsing up and down.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 09:58
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: I think we all take your point exactly about mass invasion of the hill but it's unlikely to happen... You're missing the point, you don't need a 'mass invasion' for things (animate or inanimate) to deteriorate to the point of no return (though for the umpteenth time the 'mass invasion' of Stonehenge at solstice time is indefensible). One person a day walking round the Avebury bank will cause as much damage in three months as a hundred people in a single afternoon - it's accumulative! If you doubt that take a look at the ongoing closure of certain sections of the Avebury bank for months at a time so that they can recover. One first sweep of the plough at the base of a barrow followed by more, one too many footsteps at Saihō-ji, one too many songbirds, one too many of anything because one too many clowns think that their little act of vandalism won't make any difference - it does. Don't do it - period. Okay so let's all sit at home and do nothing then! The instant you encroach onto a site anywhere you can say you are causing damage but I think with respect you are over-stating your case Littlestone. None of us on this list would contemplate purposely causing carnage on any site as we are (errrrrr) responsible people. Thank goodness JP does visit sites such as Avebury in numbers as we need to educate young people more so today than ever before. Yes the bank wears thin in places but that's not the end of the world is it as it will recover as you state yourself if left for a period of time. If ever there was a mass invasion then I'm sure steps would be taken to permanently rectify that as in the case of St Catherines Hill mentioned in another post. We are all with you on this but let's just get things into perspective. Walking amongst the antiquities as we are allowed today in most places is a priviledge we all wish to keep and certainly don't wish to go down the Stonehenge road of excluding us from the main goodies where the real vibes are to be found. Common sense will prevail never fear.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 10:13
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: We are all with you on this but let's just get things into perspective. Exactly this.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 10:57
|
||
|
Your comment that, "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." seems to contradict your follow-up comment that, "None of us on this list would contemplate purposely causing carnage on any site as we are (errrrrr) responsible people." You can't have it both ways. More importantly, if the sign at Silbury says... The steep, slippery and irregular surfaces make it unsafe to allow public access and such access would damage the protected grassland and archaeology of the monument. Please do not climb the monument ...why would anyone think they have the right to climb it for 'research' or, " ...for a view around the country side." No it isn't alright, and it isn't alright to prance around on the Stonehenge lintels at any time, or to pretend to be king of the castle here. It isn't alright ever - that's my view as a conservator. Period.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 11:09
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: You can't have it both ways. More importantly, if the sign at Silbury says... The steep, slippery and irregular surfaces make it unsafe to allow public access and such access would damage the protected grassland and archaeology of the monument. Please do not climb the monument ...why would anyone think they have the right to climb it for 'research' or, " ...for a view around the country side." No it isn't alright, and it isn't alright to prance around on the Stonehenge lintels at any time, or to pretend to be king of the castle here. It isn't alright ever - that's my view as a conservator. Period. I take it you include archo's in your list of people 'not having the right to climb it for research purposes' then? I think you've gone OTT on this matter Littlestone so am out of it period as well.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 11:28
|
||
|
I'm quite sure that if you put a decent case to EH for doing some research they'd let you up Silbury so why not ask rather than ignoring the signs on the grounds that "archaeos go up so we can"? I've yet to hear amidst this talk of "over the top" any logical justification for defying the signs at Silbury and the law at Stonehenge. Any offers?
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 11:44
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I've yet to hear amidst this talk of "over the top" any logical justification for defying the signs at Silbury and the law at Stonehenge. Any offers? Can't speak for anyone else, but I've already said that I don't think people should be climbing Silbury. However, it's the general attitude and approach that I assume is being referred to as "over the top". We're all ultimately on the same side though, eh?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 19, 2010, 11:47
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Can't speak for anyone else, but I've already said that I don't think people should be climbing Silbury. However, it's the general attitude and approach that I assume is being referred to as "over the top". We're all ultimately on the same side though, eh? Correct
|
| Pages: 20 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
