=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
Log In to post a reply
141 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
6214 posts

Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
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
In reply to:
What's acceptable when interacting with sites? (summerlands)		 Replies:
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites? (summerlands)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index