|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Climbing on Standing Stones |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 00:20
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I could kiss you (but you might take offence). I would just like to record that I practically stood up and cheered this post. I warned you about the Buckfast SC. Seriously, official bodies can only do so much with limited resources, and many would see the protection of ancient monuments for future generations as being way down the list of priorities. Perhaps EH etc have no choice but to take the pragmatic view, husband resources and focus upon those sites which give the most 'value' to the general punter.... Stonehenge gets flattened, everybody mourns... so work to actively and conspiciously protect it, hopefully educating visitors a little to the fact that there are many, many other sites which need to be treated with similar respect. Cattle virtually destroy the environs of Tordarroch? Who realises, who even has the chance to care. Unless someone highlights it, talks to the landowner, reports it? To my mind this is where TMA comes in. Members have a forum here to highlight what they've seen locally, or on their holidays, stuff EH are most probably not aware of. We can work in league with EH, be their eyes and ears. I first began posting here because I was sick and tired of meeting people who would say 'but hasn't every mountain got a cairn. So what? Only piles of stones built by walkers'. There you go. I fully agree that restrictions need to be adhered to where appropriate. I've never climbed Silbury, for example... I wanted to punch the lights out of several blokes climbing the central Tursachan stones... but there is no issue at all with climbing upon upland cairns.... in fact any material potentially dislodged back into the void left by their desecration can only help stability. Some - but by no means all - land owners have got away with trashing monuments on their land for years. I guess it's up to us to remind them they have a moral responsibility to protect and conserve. If not we need to ensure are on hand to report back so the appropriate action can be taken.
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 07:11
|
||
|
I still find it hard to accept the disparity between..those deemed suitable candidates to climb on stones and those not.....Standing stones have no doubt been removed and(broken up) and used as building materials for more centuries than we'd care to admit. I'm not agreeing with my next statement BTW..just pointing it out...If a farmer considers that to remove stones use them as building blocks for animal shelter, scratching/gate posts on his property is OK because it is his land and by default the stones are his (and probabl;y there is some legal right??) we can't do anything(legal) about it and are we even justified in trying to do anything about it? Are listed monuments the property of the farmer ,the government/public or EH despite their location? Can we just wander over fields which lack "right of way" to investigate without permission, bearing in mind we might disturb newly planted crops at best and mothering animalsat worst...and if we have a dog with us (even on a leash), in the case of the latter .can the farmer discharge a firearm? Tell me, I don't know. We can't do anything about robbed /ploughed out circles, barrows or stones which were "done in" centuries ago hopefully we can do something to prevent any further destruction today...but to claim we can validate climbing on monuments because no-one has taken a picture of the top of it is akin to saying, lets dig into every barrow, tumulus or cairn because no-one has ever taken pictures of the stones inside or digging up standing stones and toppling them over to get pictures of the base. This IMO is the domain of "professionals" whether we agree or not..because they supposedly have the manpower to set them back in situ and "officially" record their findings. Personally still find it a tricky debate probably because of the moral and legal grey areas caused by years(centuries) of ignorance..but given our awareness today there must be a definitive solution...we need to bang our collective heads together and present a united case for some kind of legislation/code to promote getting this solution in place.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Mar 01, 2012, 07:28
Mar 01, 2012, 07:54
|
||
|
Scheduled monuments belong to the landowner but they are legally protected so no-one, including the owner, can damage them. 70% of land is also now subject to DEFRA Stewardship schemes whereby the landowner gets paid loads of money to ensure natural and archaeological assets are protected and loses the payments if he doesn't. If you climb on top of standing stones on land that's subject to such a scheme the farmer may not be prepared to listen to the "research" excuse. On the other hand, if you do it right and ask him and Defra in advance they'll probably agree. Simple really. As for getting a full consensus on a Code, that's going to be impossible, as this thread shows. On the other hand, I bet 99.99% of people would say climbing the Devil's Den is a no-no so a pretty serviceable and well supported code IS perfectly possible. Indeed, one of the suggested clauses covers DD quite well - Act with respect towards the feelings and enjoyment of other visitors.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 08:50
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Scheduled monuments belong to the landowner but they are legally protected so no-one, including the owner, can damage them. 70% of land is also now subject to DEFRA Stewardship schemes whereby the landowner gets paid loads of money to ensure natural and archaeological assets are protected and loses the payments if he doesn't. If you climb on top of standing stones on land that's subject to such a scheme the farmer may not be prepared to listen to the "research" excuse. On the other hand, if you do it right and ask him and Defra in advance they'll probably agree. Simple really. As for getting a full consensus on a Code, that's going to be impossible, as this thread shows. On the other hand, I bet 99.99% of people would say climbing the Devil's Den is a no-no so a pretty serviceable and well supported code IS perfectly possible. Indeed, one of the suggested clauses covers DD quite well - Act with respect towards the feelings and enjoyment of other visitors. Codes are fine if you can uphold the objectives but other than the flagship sites who is going to overseee the forgotten and remote ones? Yobs and louts won't give a toss and you take your life in your hands addressing some of them when surrounded by their often tanked-up mates. It would only carry the weight of a Code of Conduct such as 'No spitting on this bus' in effect as you'll never stop anyone from doing it unless the penalties are so severe that it frightens the life out of them...and that won't happen will it!! As my old dad you to say God bless him...'Bring back the birch'!
|
|||
|
tonyh27 22 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 09:20
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Scheduled monuments belong to the landowner but they are legally protected so no-one, including the owner, can damage them. 70% of land is also now subject to DEFRA Stewardship schemes whereby the landowner gets paid loads of money to ensure natural and archaeological assets are protected and loses the payments if he doesn't. If you climb on top of standing stones on land that's subject to such a scheme the farmer may not be prepared to listen to the "research" excuse. On the other hand, if you do it right and ask him and Defra in advance they'll probably agree. Simple really. As for getting a full consensus on a Code, that's going to be impossible, as this thread shows. On the other hand, I bet 99.99% of people would say climbing the Devil's Den is a no-no so a pretty serviceable and well supported code IS perfectly possible. Indeed, one of the suggested clauses covers DD quite well - Act with respect towards the feelings and enjoyment of other visitors. That clause will work very well for me.. It will stop people damaging the Devils seat. Damaging the banks. Keep people out of WKLB and give me better photo opportunities wherever I go.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 09:33
|
||
|
I have a question and this seems the logical place to ask it. Are the DEFRA schemes the same as the Countryside Stewardship Schemes. I ask this because many of them are expiring in 2012-2013 and won't be renewed - eleven in the north Wilts area*. New Town Farm near Alton Barnes/Lockeridge seems to be the one with access to sites of archaeological interest. *Information obtained from Natural England's website.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 09:41
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: Scheduled monuments belong to the landowner but they are legally protected so no-one, including the owner, can damage them. 70% of land is also now subject to DEFRA Stewardship schemes whereby the landowner gets paid loads of money to ensure natural and archaeological assets are protected and loses the payments if he doesn't. If you climb on top of standing stones on land that's subject to such a scheme the farmer may not be prepared to listen to the "research" excuse. On the other hand, if you do it right and ask him and Defra in advance they'll probably agree. Simple really. As for getting a full consensus on a Code, that's going to be impossible, as this thread shows. On the other hand, I bet 99.99% of people would say climbing the Devil's Den is a no-no so a pretty serviceable and well supported code IS perfectly possible. Indeed, one of the suggested clauses covers DD quite well - Act with respect towards the feelings and enjoyment of other visitors. Codes are fine if you can uphold the objectives but other than the flagship sites who is going to overseee the forgotten and remote ones? Yobs and louts won't give a toss and you take your life in your hands addressing some of them when surrounded by their often tanked-up mates. It would only carry the weight of a Code of Conduct such as 'No spitting on this bus' in effect as you'll never stop anyone from doing it unless the penalties are so severe that it frightens the life out of them...and that won't happen will it!! As my old dad you to say God bless him...'Bring back the birch'! This thread can continue to avoid the obvious or can accept that people will readily uphold a code of respect once they know simply what is expected of them. Queen Victoria taught the nation thereafter how to respect something that has passed, despite appearing during the Boer War the wake of the Great War led generations of people to honour newly created memorials to ordinary soldiers they didn't know that died in wars elsewhere, but they still struggle to come to terms with engaging with ancient monuments. Without guidance people fail to close gates in the countryside and drop litter, and similarly fail to respect ancient monuments. Only afterwards, on learning more, might they stop and think they could have approached it in a more respectful way. That is what the code cuts to! The problem with stoneheads is that through the particular nature of their individual experience and personal approach they continually focus on differences between us all, rather than what binds us. Yes some of us would never climb Silbury or a stone just to get a photograph, yes there are those among us for which that photograph is all; but none of us want to see monuments damaged by people that just act as they do with everything else and fail to respect it. Adopting a code and getting behind it irrespective is what will work.
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 10:13
|
||
|
VBB wrote: This thread can continue to avoid the obvious or can accept that people will readily uphold a code of respect once they know simply what is expected of them. Queen Victoria taught the nation thereafter how to respect something that has passed, despite appearing during the Boer War the wake of the Great War led generations of people to honour newly created memorials to ordinary soldiers they didn't know that died in wars elsewhere, but they still struggle to come to terms with engaging with ancient monuments. Without guidance people fail to close gates in the countryside and drop litter, and similarly fail to respect ancient monuments. Only afterwards, on learning more, might they stop and think they could have approached it in a more respectful way. That is what the code cuts to! The problem with stoneheads is that through the particular nature of their individual experience and personal approach they continually focus on differences between us all, rather than what binds us. Yes some of us would never climb Silbury or a stone just to get a photograph, yes there are those among us for which that photograph is all; but none of us want to see monuments damaged by people that just act as they do with everything else and fail to respect it. Adopting a code and getting behind it irrespective is what will work. Nailed. As usual. Good work, that man! :) G x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 10:26
|
||
|
"Nailed. As usual. Good work, that man!" Yep. It's all about wanting an agreement. Yes, citing eroding earthworks by walking on them or using the Devil's seat could be used to say no agreement can be drafted tobe clear and consistent but of course those things are accepted by common consent whereas climbing DD is not accepted by common consent so the "don't offend the feelings of others" clause nicely sorts things out. If you know the vast majority of people would not want you to, don't do it. What could be clearer, more democratic or more workable than that? Isn't that how we all live our lives anyway, or ought to?
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Mar 01, 2012, 10:39
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "Nailed. As usual. Good work, that man!" Yep. It's all about wanting an agreement. Yes, citing eroding earthworks by walking on them or using the Devil's seat could be used to say no agreement can be drafted tobe clear and consistent but of course those things are accepted by common consent whereas climbing DD is not accepted by common consent so the "don't offend the feelings of others" clause nicely sorts things out. If you know the vast majority of people would not want you to, don't do it. What could be clearer, more democratic or more workable than that? Isn't that how we all live our lives anyway, or ought to? This will sound a contradiction but Gladman and jj are the ones that have bottled the essence of what is needed. The only way we can protect undiscovered and out of the way monuments is to instill in the general public that something that can appear to be just a stone or a bump in a field may be important and needs to be treated as such, so if someone is messing around with it and you as a member of the public come across it then contact someone that will know and can investigate what the stone/bump is and lets all keep an eye on it. If I see someone approaching a stone with a camera and a map, my alarm doesn't ring as it would do if it was a hammer a spade or a pot of paint.
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 27 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
