|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Climbing on Standing Stones |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
goffik 3926 posts |
Feb 26, 2012, 09:20
|
||
|
Some excellent point raised, Resonox. I think it's fair to take into consideration that your average Joe (or Josephine, before anyone says owt) doesn't even consider that their actions could possibly cause any damage. Of course - as has been discussed many times - it's unlikely one person WILL cause any damage, but multiply that by a million (number plucked from the ether) people all with the same thought, and erosion/damage is bound to occur. And one person giving themselves permission to do so then has to accept that ANYONE can give themselves permission to do so, and therein lays the issue. And this is why the code of conduct would be such a great idea. At least then people will know WHY they shouldn't be climbing the monuments, and if they persist, then hopefully others who are aware of the code would intervene. At the very least, there'd be no excuses for those who consider photo opportunities of people jumping around on them is a good thing. G x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 26, 2012, 11:26
|
||
|
Self-certification is actually anarchy, innit? Anyhow you two make a strong case for a Code and I don't think any of us (except anarchists) would think it wasn't a good and beneficial idea. BUT (IMO) it's useless unless it's short and snappy and unless the relevant bodies embrace it and publicise it at sites.
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Feb 26, 2012, 12:47
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Self-certification is actually anarchy, innit? Anyhow you two make a strong case for a Code and I don't think any of us (except anarchists) would think it wasn't a good and beneficial idea. BUT (IMO) it's useless unless it's short and snappy and unless the relevant bodies embrace it and publicise it at sites. I know people who claim to embrace "anarchy" as a chosen lifestyle......but heaven forfend their (GOVERNMENT) benefits ever get stopped. I suppose the modern definition of anarchy is ..to neither work nor want yet maintain an air of moodiness against authority.
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Feb 26, 2012, 14:31
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: I suppose (just to contrdict myself) if any excuse can be said to be just cause...I'd probably lean to the "recording of markings"....but if this was genuine...could it be arranged so that some form of unobtrusive access be arranged under licence....I don't really know how feasible puitting up scaffolding, taking pictures off of ladders...or even some kind of cherry-picker hoist would be....others more expert in this field (NPI) might have more ideas. And so nothing would be done, because the unfeasible cost would prohibit it (unless it's at - yawn - Stonehenge, or maybe Avebury). There are tens of thousands of prehistoric monuments in these islands, slowly being eroded by farming, trees and vegetation, rabbits and badgers, or bulldozed away to build more roads and more houses. The proportion that the "guardians", if you want to call them that, actually can afford to visit, investigate or even give a toss about is very very very very VERY small. One of the reasons I find TMA (the site) so compelling is because it acts as huge encouragement to Get Off Your Arse and go and see these places. I know that the large visitor numbers that the "show" sites get bring their own problems, many of which are highlighted in this thread and others. But for the vast number of monuments - and I really do mean the vast majority, like 98% - no-one but us (and similar amateur enthusiasts) is bothered. These sites will disappear, unvisited, unrecorded and unprotected. A large number of posts and threads on this website stem from discussions about the things that Stukeley, Aubrey, Borlase, etc recorded that are now gone forever. If someone doesn't record stuff now, in another 200 years there will be a whole load of similar lamenting. And cost (and lack of manpower) means that the professional bodies can't/won't do it. You only have to look at many of Gladman's pictures of the lesser-known hillforts of the southeast, full of dumped rubbish and with banks eroded, or a lot of the cairns and circles that Drew has photographed, surrounded by rusty wire and damaged by afforestation. These places are being destroyed, inch by inch and incrementally. Entropy increases, after all. Then there's Priddy, where a large chunk of 4,000 year old earthwork was destroyed in a matter of hours. These are vulnerable sites that need to be recorded while they're still here. Does this mean we should all go and climb up the nearest standing stone to look for cupmarks? Probably not. But I think we are in danger here of over-inflating the danger and damage than can actually be caused by such an act, when put up against the factual, irrevocable and much greater damage that has - and still is - being caused to monuments (many of them scheduled) by landowners and users who plough them down, plant trees on them, dump rubbish in them, or even wilfully destroy them.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Feb 26, 2012, 14:58
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: ...strangely enough I can't find a "paying due respect" crowd to add to this list...is this perhaps why it is a hot topic? "Respect" is an odd thing though isn't it, because it's so subjective. And it needs to work two ways, even though in order for that to happen both parties must understand what the other party means by "respect" themself. For example, one June we walked to Boscawen-Un from St Buryan along some very muddy and overgrown footpaths (and I go bitten on the bum by a goose, but that's not strictly relevant). It was a bit of an arduous trek, for such a relatively short distance, and it took a long time and much effort. By the time we got to circle we were quite tired and glad to get there. As we came to the gate, we realised that there was a large party (about a dozen) people sitting inside the circle. There was also another couple, not part of the group, sitting in the long grass inside the field but not in the circle itself. It turned out the group were practising some kind of "ceremony". They were sitting inside the circle, leaning against the stones. Finger cymbals were in evidence, and possibly the odd bongo drum. The group were of mixed age, between 35-65 I would say. Not wishing to disturb them, we went and sat in the long grass at the edge of the enclosure and had a snack, etc. The other couple were obviously doing the same (i.e. waiting to see the circle, but not wishing to interrupt the group). We sat there for a while. And the "ceremony" went on for about an hour. The other couple had got up by this point, taken some pictures on the fringes of the circle, perhaps of stones not being sat against. And then they went, clearly a bit sad to have not been able to get into the circle. Another couple came, I think they were German. Then a lone man. All waited for the group to finish. Anyway, at length the "ceremony" finished. I freely admit I was impatient by now, but we carried on waiting. The group obviously knew that various people had come and gone whilst they were there. They also knew there were still people there now. But instead of leaving the circle at the end to allow the others (who had all waited quietly and patiently) to have access to the stones, they then decided to carry on sitting there and started talking about various thing, work, kids etc. They clearly had no intention of leaving any time soon. We gave up and left the circle, heading towards the road to the north. I was annoyed, I'll admit. As we got to the road, we noticed a mini-bus parked in the layby, which they had obviously all come in. This increased my irritation, as we had made the effort to walk to the site from some distance and couldn't get to see the stones, while they just drove up and effectvely prevented anyone else from having access. Now, they didn't climb on the stones. They didn't damage the stones. They probably believed that their "ritual" was no doubt the kind of thing that druids used to practice there and that they were carrying on a millenia-old tradition. But did they show any respect for any of the other visitors? No, they did not. Even though the others accorded respect and patience to them. Would the proposed code have any effect on them? I seriously doubt it, because they don't believe themsleves to be offending it. Would they have been offended if the other visitors had walked into the middle of their gathering, talking loudly and taking pictures? You bet they would.
|
|||
|
postman 848 posts |
Feb 26, 2012, 15:07
|
||
|
Absolutely could'nt agree more mate. I don't have the eloquence to put my feelings down in print as well some but, I know for sure that sitting, standing or climbing on a stone is in no way more important than getting out and seeing these places for yourself photographing it and letting others know where it is and what it's like. The massive monuments of Wiltshire whilst hugely impressive are only 0.0000001 percent of the whole, Silbury will never get worn down by walking up it, if a stone falls whilst some dick is climbing on it tough shit. A little common sense is all it takes.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 08:59
|
||
|
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.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 12:01
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: ... 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. No, I agree with that and in any case discussion is a healthy thing. Really my point was that there is also a good case to record these sites, in the face of the ongoing and continual destruction caused by those other agents. Photography allows a much greater ease and range of recording than was available to Stukeley who saw the destruction of the Sanctuary for example. How great would it be to have photos showing what was actually there? In respect of the fact that this thread is about a particular issue (i.e. climbing on stones specifically), I note that some concerns about people visiting sites for "photo opputinuties" have been raised in the hillforts clearance thread as well. It seems to me that this practice (visiting sites to take pictures) is being frowned upon in a wider context than just just standing stones.
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 27, 2012, 15:17
|
||
|
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.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Feb 27, 2012, 14:48
Feb 27, 2012, 15:47
|
||
|
jonnyj wrote: I understand in the case of the DD that there were no photographs of the top of the "capstone" hence validity in climbing it. Well IMO (and various others in this thread) telling the guardians, getting their opinion and permission and agreeing a method with them and not acting on the basis of the claim that most Wessex archaeos are illiterate about rock art would have had much more "validity"! I think I'd back EH to have access to more genuine expertise on the subject than anyone else so....
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
