Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Tidying up offerings
Log In to post a reply

304 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
8111 posts

Edited Jun 05, 2010, 18:00
Re: Tidying up offerings
Jun 05, 2010, 17:52
BuckyE wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
How are the few that have managed to survive going to be protected against this Yahoo behavior? I ask very seriously.

BTW as I understand the States protection extends ONLY to Federal Land. If you have a Native American site on your private land you can quarry it for stuff to put on EBay. That's bad innit? Oh no, hang on, that's Britain as well. Except here we also give you a £3.3 million reward for finding the REALLY good stuff, that belongs to us already!

There are a mishmosh of laws. Yes, Federal protection applies only to Federal lands and Native reservations. But there are many states with protection laws that apply to private lands. What kind of enforcement is actually applied I don't know. I assume little, but not none.

And thanks to all who have replied with kind words. I apologize for thread hijacking! So here's a warning: if I've highjacked, read no further. This will be my last little rant.

To me, the problems of protection, whether from random Yahoos, hardworking farmers, big business or even government seem to be to be all of a piece, albeit--as you point out--on a spectrum of damage from probably inconsequential to disastrous.

So while it may seem to be one thing to be gracious and respect the freedoms of offerers, or those who wish the sites to be untrammeled and natural; and another to protest governments running roads through them, to me the "crimes" are basically the same thing.

It's a question of the thin end of the wedge. Where is the universally agreeable line between photography, drumming, (eventually dead) flowers, (rotting) fruit, tea lights, dolls' heads, litter, elimination, farming, protesters' purple spray paint, Banksy, much needed transportation systems, etc. etc. Isn't that what this thread is about? Where's "the" line?

All I'm saying is that in true fairness to all, there really isn't one. And that the attempt to draw it is the red herring that leads inexorably from one to the next. Quite likely I seem like Alexander and the knot. And quite likely my own feelings that all modern views about the purposes or nature of the old stones are modern impositions leads me to be able to be crass about those views and therefore irritating. So here's the end to it! Thank you all for being so nice.

I utterly and totally agree. Offerings (apart from a few flowers) have to be seen as the inconsequential end of a spectrum of much worse processes that constitute accelerating (and largely uncaring and certainly irreversible) mass historicide on an unprecedented scale (despite the fact the study of history and it's protection is also on an unprecedented scale which makes the public, the poor saps, think things are OK), one of the unique footprints of our age along with envirocide... As you say, it is not possible to draw a line between unacceptable and "oh let's not bother to interfere with their personal and religious freedoms" since we can never find a consensus on where the line is (as this thread shows) and some will always feel they can step over it to a generally unacceptable degree (as this thread proves). Beware "freedoms" in megalithland, they always lead to damage! The ASLaN Charter oughta have said "Leave no footprints but stamp on everything! ;)


So sorry, you ain't crass or irritating, you speak truth from beyond the Western ocean. Can we use some of/all of your words in a Heritage Action article?
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index