|
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?
|
