|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Last Site Ever |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 1836 posts |
Sep 08, 2010, 19:34
|
||
|
Megalithics wrote: Reading the "last ever site thread" got us thinking. If money, practicality, planning permission, and sundry bureaucracy were no problem, as stoney folk, what would your ideal final resting place be? Bear in mind there is no pressure to be (pre)historically correct, so structures used for communities, such as Chambered Longbarrows, are fair game for single person or family use. So what would it be? a simple cist under a modest cairn on a dramatic hillside, or a gargantuan amorican passage grave with extra stone circle, hyper-enigmatic rock art and multi astronomical alignments? Decisions, decisions..... Mine is still the Sanctuary at Avebury. Nothing to see there now of course except the wonderfully atmospheric Silbury hill emerging out of the morning mist. My grave will be simple...a small hole dug where my ashes and a few doffodil bulbs will be placed. This is no fantasy as I already have it arranged.
|
|||
|
Megalithics 179 posts |
Sep 08, 2010, 20:23
|
||
|
Reading the "last ever site thread" got us thinking. If money, practicality, planning permission, and sundry bureaucracy were no problem, as stoney folk, what would your ideal final resting place be? Bear in mind there is no pressure to be (pre)historically correct, so structures used for communities, such as Chambered Longbarrows, are fair game for single person or family use. So what would it be? a simple cist under a modest cairn on a dramatic hillside, or a gargantuan amorican passage grave with extra stone circle, hyper-enigmatic rock art and multi astronomical alignments? Decisions, decisions.....
|
|||
|
Megalithics 179 posts |
Sep 08, 2010, 20:44
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Mine is still the Sanctuary at Avebury. Nothing to see there now of course except the wonderfully atmospheric Silbury hill emerging out of the morning mist. My grave will be simple...a small hole dug where my ashes and a few doffodil bulbs will be placed. This is no fantasy as I already have it arranged. Although re-use of previous monuments is a time honoured tradition, we were actually thinking of new build here. Maggie & Keith
|
|||
handofdave 3426 posts |
Sep 08, 2010, 21:45
|
||
|
I want at least one standing stone somewhere. Not too much to ask, I think.
|
|||
tjj 1763 posts |
Sep 08, 2010, 22:08
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I want at least one standing stone somewhere. Not too much to ask, I think. That shouldn't be a problem, the cemeteries are full of them. Here's to life while we have it - and birdsong at the break of day.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 5530 posts |
Edited Sep 09, 2010, 07:13
Sep 09, 2010, 06:09
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Mine is still the Sanctuary at Avebury. Nothing to see there now of course except the wonderfully atmospheric Silbury hill emerging out of the morning mist. My grave will be simple...a small hole dug where my ashes and a few doffodil bulbs will be placed. This is no fantasy as I already have it arranged. Funnily enough Mr Sanctuary, I'm on record on this site as saying I wanted to be sprinkled on the Ridgeway just up from there, within sight of Silbury, so we'd be neighbours! But I've since recanted, and maybe you should too for the very reasons Goff gave so perfectly on another thread for why he doesn't climb Silbury: "I'm with Aubrey Burl when he says "...Silbury Hill [The Sanctuary] should be seen but not climbed [buried in]". My reasoning is that I believe we should lead by example. If I thought it was OK for ME to climb it [be buried in it], it's suggesting I think it's OK for EVERYBODY to climb it [be buried in it]- which, obviously, it really isn't! Can you imagine the state of it if the millions of people who visit the area each year climbed it [were buried in it]? ;)
|
|||
|
CARL 139 posts |
Sep 09, 2010, 06:17
|
||
Without wishing to sound too depressing I have given this a bit of thought and I am thinking about my ashes in a hole within the Garth Barrows overlooking Cardiff. That way I can keep an eye on things!
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 1836 posts |
Sep 09, 2010, 07:28
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Funnily enough Mr Sanctuary, I'm on record on this site as saying I wanted to be sprinkled on the Ridgeway just up from there, within sight of Silbury, so we'd be neighbours! But I've since recanted, and maybe you should too for the very reasons Goff gave so perfectly on another thread for why he doesn't climb Silbury: ;) There's one very importing thing you're forgetting Nigel. The Sanctuary has been dug up extensively by Maud and again not so evasively by Mike. Nothing that will ever be done for me there i.e. a small hole to drop my ashes in then filled back in, is going to alter or damage an original ground surface that was ripped apart so badly. Or does it mean that an archo can dig to his/her hearts content but not us mere mortals? And bugger being buried on the Ridgway with all those 4x4's ripping me apart...I can see why you've changed your mind lololol. That apart I have my own reasons for wanting to be buried at the Sanctuary. If it were untouched soil I would be very respectful of it and would have made arangements to be buried adjacent to it but that is no longer the case these days, far from it. With regard to SH, well I respect Goff's views as much as I respect anyone elses but again would point out as I did once before..ALL the major damage done to the hill has been created by archo's not JP. I'm with Geoff on this as I believe there may be a possibility that the hill was meant to be climbed. The hardened chalk path that used to be there (still visible in places) was carefully observed over the years and to the best of my knowledge remained intact and caused no damage because it was compacted so well. Again as I have previously pointed out, Atkinson made a special note that the hill had remained in exactly the same condition for over 4,000 years as far as he could determine and was a credit to the skills applied by our ancestors. Silbury has always been a popular place to visit and climb by tourists but never attracted the 'millions' mentioned feeling the need to climb it. These days because people are being 'forced' to sneak in the back way, yes, damage could be being done to the surface. I'm afraid it's another case of interfering with a well tried and tested method that caused no damage to one where it is creating it. If TV companies and archo's are to be allowed to climb the hill as and when, then maybe the old path that we were well used to could be reinstated, maintained and people charged to walk up it. To repeat, I am fully appreciative of other peoples point of views and hope that they will be just as appreciative of mine without either side taking offence.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 5530 posts |
Edited Sep 09, 2010, 08:57
Sep 09, 2010, 07:48
|
||
|
"There's one very importing thing you're forgetting Nigel. The Sanctuary has been dug up extensively by Maud and again not so evasively by Mike. Nothing that will ever be done for me there i.e. a small hole to drop my ashes in then filled back in, is going to alter or damage an original ground surface that was ripped apart so badly." Or does it mean that an archo can dig to his/her hearts content but not us mere mortals? I've heard those sort of claims a million times from metal detectorists. In truth, just as their claim that detecting on disturbed ploughsoil isn't harmless is mistaken so you can't possibly know or claim that The Sanctuary has been so interfered with that it is now impossible to do anything to it's surface layers that won't carry the risk of information loss. Two things - (a.) context can be horizontal as well as vertical and (b.) stuff rises to the surface and what was once deep may now be shallow..... To press Goff's point again (which is at the heart of everyone's impact on ancient sites), just one internment is probably of minimal effect but logically you are saying that you have a right therefore a thousand people have a right, and that would be definitely damaging to the site, something which I'm sure you wouldn't want to contribute to.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 1836 posts |
Sep 09, 2010, 07:58
|
||
|
[quote="nigelswift"][i]"To press Goff's point again (which is at the heart of everyone's impact on ancient sites), just one internment is probably of minimal effect but logically you are saying that you have a right therefore a thousand people have a right, and that would be definitely damaging to the site, something which I'm sure you wouldn't want to contribute to. What if that site was a burial site in its own right Nigel, would we then be offending people if we chose to be buried there like many before us?
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page