|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » What's acceptable when interacting with sites? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
summerlands 192 posts |
May 16, 2011, 19:50
|
||
|
Bit of an open question I realise, but one I was thinking on... What’s the consensus on touching / climbing / decorating / leaving offerings on monuments? I know we shouldn't uncover rock art, chalk it to make it more visible, climb on standing stones, take stones from or add to cairns, and graffiti is damaging to the surface of stone and is properly annoying... but if you had to draw up a list of rules for interacting with sites what would it be? And what are the reasons for each 'rule'? I always wonder about keeping to wear marks in the turf when visiting places - then wonder if I’m better spreading the erosion? I seem to remember reading years ago about leaving coin offerings being chemically damaging? I know people aren’t keen on offerings left at sites at all, but Is that mostly an aesthetic thing - or is there some greater reason? One reason I'm asking is my kids were sitting all over cairn curb stones not long back, and whilst I wasn't worried about them being unstable, I found myself saying 'no don't play horses on the stones....' and then struggling to put forward a coherent reason ..because you may damage the lichen...ermmm'. So I'd like to get it straight :-) Also I was wondering from a work point of view - how damaging could clambering all over cairn stones be to photograph them, or, say, covering part of a stone standing stone perhaps in leaves using it as part of a land art installation, or temporarily draping yarn on a stone to create an effect and photograph it, then remove it? All things that have fleeted through my mind as ideas but I’ve not been able to decide the risks involved… Just examples
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:16
|
||
|
You seem to have covered most aspects Nicki, there is also this charter which is basic common sense http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/charter.htm I have noticed that English Heritage are also putting something on their information boards about prohibiting unauthorised metal detecting at sites they are responsible for. Its easy to forget about issues such as erosion which is a big problem at Avebury and on West Kennet Long Barrow as people always walk on the banks and to the end of the long barrow.
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:17
|
||
|
You're inviting a whole heap of "tat" related posts here, aren't you? :-D I very much doubt you will get genuine consensus on this one Nicki. I never leave anything at a site (I try to take rubbish away, if it's small and portable). I don't like "offerings" at all, it's just rubbish to my mind. I must admit this is pretty much one of my two areas of zero tolerance when it comes to sites. Not so concerned about plant-life (flowers) taken from nearby - but even then only if they're not rare or likely to be endangered by being picked!! I don't think touching the stones is really going to cause any major issues, unless there's delicate carvings involved. Even though the repeated touching of a stone is going to smooth it eventually, perhaps that's part of why they're there - at least in the case of stones that were erected to be seen and exposed to the elements. Maybe it is different in some cases - limestone is easily eroded and much of the limestone used in monuments was not meant to be "on show" - eg if covered with a mound. You're not going to damage granite by touching it with your hands though. The climbing is a weird one. I wouldn't dream of climbing on a standing stone, and probably not onto a capstone of a chambered tomb, if it was "balanced": this is probably just about not wanting the thing to collapse! But I quite happily climb onto the back of an earthen barrow, even though this is as/more likely to cause damage than the equivalent action on a stone tomb would. Don't mess with the cairn - that's my other no-tolerance thing. F***ing walkers mess up any semblance of structure in the upland cairns, and it's really unnecessary. Need shelter? Bring a hat/coat/tent. Erosion is best kept to a small area. So if you're on a path that's eroding away through use, you should stay on the eroded bit if possible. That way repairs may be possible to the area that's worst affected. Not sure that this really applies to bits of sites though (hillfort or henge banks) - maybe you should avoid the eroded area completely? The problem with any "rules" is that we're in danger of treating these places like museum pieces rather than living, breathing monuments. I don't want the places to be roped-off, or in a box/visitor centre situation. So the best way to avoid that happening is to not mess them about when you visit. That way no-one will need to fence them off. I also think that sites should be restored, where the material is still on site and it is obvious what goes/went where. Not that this is really what your post is about, unless you're VERY strong. :-D
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:19
|
||
It's a bit of a Schrodinger's cat situation , if the rock art has never been discovered you don't know it is rock art until it is uncovered .
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:21
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: It's a bit of a Schrodinger's cat situation , if the rock art has never been discovered you don't know it is rock art until it is uncovered . Ha ha! Theoretical rock art, nice concept.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:24
|
||
|
summerlands wrote: ... say, covering part of a stone standing stone perhaps in leaves using it as part of a land art installation, or temporarily draping yarn on a stone to create an effect and photograph it, then remove it? ... or a small knitted monkey?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:27
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: tiompan wrote: It's a bit of a Schrodinger's cat situation , if the rock art has never been discovered you don't know it is rock art until it is uncovered . Ha ha! Theoretical rock art, nice concept. Wasn't there something in the news recently about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle becoming a bit more certain or did I dream it ?
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:33
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: tiompan wrote: It's a bit of a Schrodinger's cat situation , if the rock art has never been discovered you don't know it is rock art until it is uncovered . Ha ha! Theoretical rock art, nice concept. Wasn't there something in the news recently about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle becoming a bit more certain or did I dream it ? Excellent, I hope you didn't dream it (although if you did, you have far more high-quality dreams than I do).
|
|||
drewbhoy 2557 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:50
|
||
I thought that was a sock puppet!
|
|||
|
summerlands 192 posts |
May 16, 2011, 20:53
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: You're inviting a whole heap of "tat" related posts here, aren't you? :-D I very much doubt you will get genuine consensus on this one Nicki. I fear I may be... and I fear I may be LOL! :-D Very interesting on erosion - that clears that one up then! :-) BTW I should say I don't think there could be any definitive 'rule book' and I do totally get the 'musueum exhibit' thing, I was feeling a bit like that at some parts of Kilmartin area recently (even though I wasn’t made to feel that way, as such). I guess I'm just interested as to what people do or don't and why :-) I’m in awe of professionals who take on restoration - to me it always looks like the worlds most evil Ikea flatpack…but with no instructions whatsoever! I’d be tortured all my life by the what if’s LOL!
|
| Pages: 15 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
