|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stone circle etiquette |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Feb 26, 2015, 21:25
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I don't disagree, well not much :) Language does evolve, it has to in order to provide words for new concepts and ideas. But I do have a bit of an aversion to words that have a specific and accepted meaning being applied to contexts that they weren't meant for. Business language is riddled with hideous examples of words taken from their proper use and misapplied - examples I've come across recently include "ecosystem" (I don't work in a rainforest), "drilling down" (or on an oil rig), "deliver" (or in a pizza shop), "granular" (or a sugar refinery), I'm sure everyone has similar bollocks to put up with. But really this is semantics, I think we both find something about these sites that calls to something inside that isn't easily defined, so if you call that "sacred" so be it. I'm interested though in the point that the Man from the Ministry who put the railings up may not be on the side of the righteous. The decision to put railings up was doubtless not motivated by some kind of inner spiritual force, but nevertheless would presumably still be motivated by a desire to "care about the well being and survival of our prehistoric heritage". The Stonehenge debate in another thread touches on this - what do we mean by preserving wellbeing and survival? Is prevention of damage more or less worthy than allowing the monument to be "used", whatever that might mean to different users? I think this is probably at the heart of a lot of the discussions we have on here (particularly the periodic Silbury ones), because it's probably the most difficult aspect of heritage conservation. Interest and understanding of these places comes from access and time spent, not from peering over barriers or from passing cars, but access brings damage and erosion and also brings conflict between different users who want different things from their experience (which is where this thread came in). It's a tough one. We'll have to disagree about language, then. But then that's what prevents stagnation, after all... keeps things moving. My view was given credence when I chanced upon a young German doctor climbing Sgurr Alasdair some years back - Heinz Albert-Becker, I think his name was. I happened to mention (tongue in cheek, of course) that being a scientist was a natural vocation for a technical German, so why the great command of English? Seems he loved English because it is so organic, loved the fact that a word can mean several different things dependent upon location, context, intonation. German is precise, English is the language of poets. Perhaps that's why Karl Bartos programmed the Kraftwerk robot vocal to say 'Yeah, baby!' The debate "access versus conservation" will probably never be resolved. Guess it's just not important enough for the vast majority of people, particularly so when you're an unemployed builder with a family to support. In such instances you can see why the wellfare of ancient heritage doesn't feature high upon agendas. For the most part, however, I'd suggest ignorance and apathy are the culprits for the current stasis. My view, for what it's worth, is that any method of 'conservation' that fundamentally limits or, in some cases - as with the Ministry of Works' appalling prison bars - utterly destroys the ability of human beings to interact with monuments, by definition negates any attempt at deciphering what their inherent meaning may have been. The whole point? For me, monuments where access is excluded/restricted might as well not exist, like the masterpiece of art locked away in a millionaire's private collection. In short they become irrelevant piles of old stones. Albeit nice and tidy. With signs to keep the ungodly off the grass so punters can enjoy a nicely packaged 'prehistoric experience', perhaps?
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6218 posts |
Feb 26, 2015, 22:06
|
||
|
Some people might suggest that the language of poets is Welsh :) GLADMAN wrote: ..... My view, for what it's worth, is that any method of 'conservation' that fundamentally limits or, in some cases - as with the Ministry of Works' appalling prison bars - utterly destroys the ability of human beings to interact with monuments, by definition negates any attempt at deciphering what their inherent meaning may have been. The whole point? For me, monuments where access is excluded/restricted might as well not exist, like the masterpiece of art locked away in a millionaire's private collection. In short they become irrelevant piles of old stones. Albeit nice and tidy. With signs to keep the ungodly off the grass so punters can enjoy a nicely packaged 'prehistoric experience', perhaps? Yes, I agree that no-one likes their access to be restricted - it's basically the only reason I've still never been to Stonehenge despite being an EH member. But equally you can't have unrestricted access but then say that it's only really allowed to those who understand (however you define that) the monuments or follow some unwritten code of etiquette. Unlimited and unrestricted access - at its most benign - must include the casual tourists and the commercially minded photographers, every bit as much as the obsessive stoneheads. Otherwise it just becomes elitist. In any case, the packaged "prehistoric experience" might very well be the first site that leads someone to investigate further and take a greater interest. Many of the State-managed sites are very welcoming places, because you know there's no access issues or irritated landowner to worry about. Capel Garmon, Bryn Celli Ddu, Maiden Castle, Balnuaran of Clava, there's bags of charm and atmosphere at all of them, despite their relative "tidiness". Most people who get obsessed with these places probably started off with a managed or maintained show site (Arbor Low for me) whereas a grubby ploughed-down barrow in a muddy field may spark little or no interest in seeing more. "Interaction" is even thornier. Human interaction with monuments can mean almost anything. It can be, in effect become "do what thou will shall be the whole of the law". So the rebuilding of cairns into shelters, the lighting of fires in circles, the tealights, the oil, the offerings tat, all of that is interaction and a lot of people will tell you there's nothing "wrong" with any of it.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Feb 27, 2015, 06:13
Feb 27, 2015, 05:38
|
||
|
The thing about there being worse/more important things going on elsewhere if of course true and permanently pricks my conscience. I guess the only defence is that trying to make things better in a small way in your own back yard isn't actually wrong. Parochial but worthwhile. As for the access/conservation issue, yes they are mutually exclusive and mutually destructive so letting either have full dominance makes no sense. So it has to be a compromise, depending on circumstances. Access where the damage is limited, restrictions where it's significant. On that basis, 35,000 slightly tipsy revellers crowded into a small space in the dark is pretty insane. Fewer people, more supervision, less damage...
|
|||
Markoid 1621 posts |
Edited Feb 27, 2015, 10:02
Feb 27, 2015, 09:46
|
||
|
The stones I've seen have been pretty visual and tactile friendly and with very few people around. I don't see the problem. Stonehenge may be a different issue however. I just think you should be able to walk wherever you want and do whatever you want, within the law of course. Stupid religions told us not to do that. And we should shout back!
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Feb 28, 2015, 00:31
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: ...As for the access/conservation issue, yes they are mutually exclusive and mutually destructive so letting either have full dominance makes no sense. So it has to be a compromise, depending on circumstances. Access where the damage is limited, restrictions where it's significant..... Agree with that. In my opinion access should be managed according to the circumstances prevalent at individual sites.... a 'one size fits all policy' will, naturally, merely antagonise every interested party. We need that precious local knowledge to strike that balance. The authorities need to know their charges. For example any hill walkers amongst us will know that, although a car park is essential to cater for punters wanting to climb Snowdon from Pen-y-Pass, building the same beneath, say, Aran Fawddwy would be a waste of tax payers money. Superb mountain, but doesn't get the traffic. I'm well aware I'm an antisocial bastard to all - but the clearly curious- at prehistoric sites. Doesn't mean I think I'm 'better' than them, just that I don't know the appropriate riposte, what to say (without being rude). Lacking that 'connection'. In other words people who visit sites others hold to be very important - when they do not - need to realise that getting annoyed because someone is buggering up your photo opportunities for the folks back home is not really on. We need to talk to each other. Consider if I walked into a church, a mosque, a synagogue... and said ... architecture's great... but, let's face it. Everything you believe is bollocks, so go away and let me take a picture for my mum....
|
|||
|
Markoid 1621 posts |
Feb 28, 2015, 01:30
|
||
I've seen the pyramids in Egypt. And one of the best memories ever recorded. The stones will be there forever. Long past you and me!
|
|||
|
scubi63 463 posts |
Feb 28, 2015, 08:09
|
||
|
Being old and local enough to remember Avebury when it was less popular than it is today, I have seen the way that popularity has affected the monument. When it was less managed with no big tourist car park, I could cycle over to the the unkempt stones and sit or wonder among them in relative isolation with the odd visitor passing through. Today the tourists and day visitors arrive in their hundreds swarming half the circle (where the stones are) the majority of which are well behaved if not fully aware of what they are looking at. Most just see it as a photo opportunity or somewhere to take the kids to burn their energy. A few will be disrespectful and entice injury and possibly damage by climbing on the stone (and yes I still tell them to get off). However I rarely visit the circle during these times as I feel the place has lost the peace and solitude I enjoyed and I can no longer set up and take pictures without little Johnny tearing through the shot every two minutes. Instead I visit the less well known part of the complex or other less known places throughout the area. These places are just as interesting, look more natural and in the most part, are visitor free. Even when there are visitors they tend to be those with an interest and understanding of the monument and show the respect they deserve. I never mind these people even if they get in the way of my latest next photo. I often just wander around the place thinking or my next shot or taking in the place a little more than I probably would normally. So my thoughts are let the tourists and day visitors go to the well managed premium sites, pay their overly inflated entrance fees or buy memorabilia from the visitors shop, but keep the Devils Den's, Lugbury's, and Lanhill's to those of us who know they are there and can be bothered to make the effort to visit and respect the sites and anybody else who visits.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 28, 2015, 08:26
|
||
|
I get a bit tired of reading people doing a Monty Python about Stonehenge. "I remember when you could go there any time and have a ten course picnic and there'd be no-one within a hundred miles" etc etc. That was then, this is now, millions of people want to see it and that situation needs to be coped with. Places like Devil's Den will always be available for those who want somewhere quieter. And even Avebury, early morning - and I've been there on Xmas day (quite appropriate as I understand Jesus may have been born there...) and it's nice and quiet. As for the "sitting there versus someone wanting to take a photograph" tension, again the only practical and fair solution is time-share. One lot should wait a while and the other lot should only sit there for a while. It ought to be an unwritten rule and most people see it like that. Personally, I see "offerings" as suitable for time-share too, but that might cause a row here so pretend I haven't said it.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
