|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Climbing on Standing Stones |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 23:29
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: drewbhoy wrote: Shampoo, what is that? It's what southern softies put on their heeds, and pretend their hair isn't falling out. We only put the sham on ours it's you boys north of the border that use the poo :-)
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 23:32
|
||
|
GLADMAN wrote: Honestly, the very idea that the act of climbing upon a cairn.... yes, a pile of shattered rock upon a mountain top... can cause damage is laughable. Do some people actually have any concept of what conditions these constructions have to endure? As I've taken Goff's boot in vain, it's only fair to add this: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/102332/carnedd_lwyd_tyrrau_mawr_cadair_idris.html
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 28, 2012, 23:35
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: GLADMAN wrote: Honestly, the very idea that the act of climbing upon a cairn.... yes, a pile of shattered rock upon a mountain top... can cause damage is laughable. Do some people actually have any concept of what conditions these constructions have to endure? As I've taken Goff's boot in vain, it's only fair to add this: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/102332/carnedd_lwyd_tyrrau_mawr_cadair_idris.html I like a nice water feature me :-)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Feb 29, 2012, 03:38
Feb 29, 2012, 03:52
|
||
|
"I am feeling distinctly that access for the public is being viewed as generally bad, as it might lead us all into temptation unless the access is under supervision of a trained professional. Which goes agaisnt what I believe this website is all about. Can someone point out what specific damage is being caused to sites by people like me and Postie, Drew, Gladman, Tiompan and the countless others who post contributions to this site are doing by our actions? Then we'll ask the Eds to set about decommissioning the website." Once again that seems to be a misrepresentation, I can't see where anyone has said or implied anything like that. The simple bottom line is most people on TMA and most people who like megaliths take a dim view of people climbing on monuments like the Devil's Den as they think it gives out a very bad signal. They certainly don't think it's big or clever or indicative of noble research at the controversial cutting edge of science and are particularly unlikely to be convinced otherwise if the person doing it goes on about Wessex archaeologists being academically illiterate in identifying cupmarks! Send Tompian to the Devil's Den, I say! There'll be no problem.
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 04:45
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: if the person doing it goes on about Wessex archaeologists being academically illiterate in identifying cupmarks! I'll ask you again, who said that. ?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 08:04
|
||
|
jonnyj wrote: nigelswift wrote: You're right of course, in the scheme of things climbing is of minimal significance compared with the other agents of damage. But I don't think "other things cause far more damage" is a good reason not to talk about a particular problem (I've heard metal detectorists hide behind that claim a zillion times) and this thread is about the particular issue of climbing after all. In any case, it's more significant than the damage it actually does and IMO as enthusiasts we have a duty to frown on it. If we don't react against it then who will? Every year we have EH allowing (yes, allowing) the world to see drunks climbing Stonehenge. It's a shame if TMA of all places reinforces their subliminal message that it doesn't really matter. As you say, "Does this mean we should all go and climb up the nearest standing stone to look for cupmarks? Probably not".... then let's say so, not to the self-certifiers that do it but to the public who could do with getting the right message not the one from that lot or EH. Nigel, i don't think anyone is defending climbing every stone you visit to inspect it for RA, take the Avebury stones for example, there's no need to, do your research first and generally find someone's already given such stones a thorough going over, Professor Terence Meaden for example. I understand in the case of the DD that there were no photographs of the top of the "capstone" hence validity in climbing it. I don't believe there is validity in climbing the DD at all. I'm not a professional photographer like you are just a keen amateur, but even I've worked out that if you want an aerial shot of a capstone you can use a pole. I do and it saves all the hassle and controversy.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 08:04
|
||
|
jonnyj wrote: nigelswift wrote: You're right of course, in the scheme of things climbing is of minimal significance compared with the other agents of damage. But I don't think "other things cause far more damage" is a good reason not to talk about a particular problem (I've heard metal detectorists hide behind that claim a zillion times) and this thread is about the particular issue of climbing after all. In any case, it's more significant than the damage it actually does and IMO as enthusiasts we have a duty to frown on it. If we don't react against it then who will? Every year we have EH allowing (yes, allowing) the world to see drunks climbing Stonehenge. It's a shame if TMA of all places reinforces their subliminal message that it doesn't really matter. As you say, "Does this mean we should all go and climb up the nearest standing stone to look for cupmarks? Probably not".... then let's say so, not to the self-certifiers that do it but to the public who could do with getting the right message not the one from that lot or EH. Nigel, i don't think anyone is defending climbing every stone you visit to inspect it for RA, take the Avebury stones for example, there's no need to, do your research first and generally find someone's already given such stones a thorough going over, Professor Terence Meaden for example. I understand in the case of the DD that there were no photographs of the top of the "capstone" hence validity in climbing it. I don't believe there is validity in climbing the DD at all. I'm not a professional photographer like you are just a keen amateur, but even I've worked out that if you want an aerial shot of a capstone you can use a pole. I do and it saves all the hassle and controversy.
|
|||
|
tonyh27 22 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 09:25
|
||
|
It does occur to me that if we are to address the problems of possible misuse of monuments then we should maybe be turning our attention firstly to the places where there is clear and obvious damage.. At Avebury I see no damage to the stones by the act of climbing, hugging leaning on or kissing, but there are clear signs of damage on the Devils Seat due to people sitting on it. The area which is 'sat on' has quite a shine to it now and the ground below the 'sitting' area has been 'compacted and eroded.. The Banks have taken some damage as well and when you concider that this is constructed in the same manner as Silbury I'm concerned that it sends the wrong message. It goes without saying that WKLB is suffering damage because of people walking on it's top but so is 'Adam's Grave'. I know because I saw it the last time I walked along it..
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 09:42
|
||
|
tonyh27 wrote: It does occur to me that if we are to address the problems of possible misuse of monuments then we should maybe be turning our attention firstly to the places where there is clear and obvious damage.. At Avebury I see no damage to the stones by the act of climbing, hugging leaning on or kissing, but there are clear signs of damage on the Devils Seat due to people sitting on it. The area which is 'sat on' has quite a shine to it now and the ground below the 'sitting' area has been 'compacted and eroded.. The Banks have taken some damage as well and when you concider that this is constructed in the same manner as Silbury I'm concerned that it sends the wrong message. It goes without saying that WKLB is suffering damage because of people walking on it's top but so is 'Adam's Grave'. I know because I saw it the last time I walked along it.. I agree with you there Tony.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 09:42
|
||
|
tonyh27 wrote: It does occur to me that if we are to address the problems of possible misuse of monuments then we should maybe be turning our attention firstly to the places where there is clear and obvious damage.. At Avebury I see no damage to the stones by the act of climbing, hugging leaning on or kissing, but there are clear signs of damage on the Devils Seat due to people sitting on it. The area which is 'sat on' has quite a shine to it now and the ground below the 'sitting' area has been 'compacted and eroded.. The Banks have taken some damage as well and when you concider that this is constructed in the same manner as Silbury I'm concerned that it sends the wrong message. It goes without saying that WKLB is suffering damage because of people walking on it's top but so is 'Adam's Grave'. I know because I saw it the last time I walked along it.. I agree with you there Tony.
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 22 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
