|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Climbing on Standing Stones |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
tonyh27 22 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 09:57
|
||
|
Apologies for spelling or grammar mistakes.. Left School at fifteen.. Invited me to leave they did. Apparently they couldn't teach me anymore !! Consider
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 10:12
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "I am feeling distinctly that access for the public is being viewed as generally bad, as it might lead us all into temptation unless the access is under supervision of a trained professional. Which goes agaisnt what I believe this website is all about. Can someone point out what specific damage is being caused to sites by people like me and Postie, Drew, Gladman, Tiompan and the countless others who post contributions to this site are doing by our actions? Then we'll ask the Eds to set about decommissioning the website." Once again that seems to be a misrepresentation, I can't see where anyone has said or implied anything like that. I pointed out the relevant posts in the first part of my previous post. If I've misinterpreted the writer's meaning, then fair enough. But I've explained why I've read those posts in that way. There are a number of posts in which our actions in visiting sites and taking photographs, for example while standing on an upland cairn, or "near" to a cupmark, have been stated to be sending out the wrong signals to "the public" (whoever they might be). Gladman has already articulated the need for sites to be interacted with, enthused about and celebrated, and that a good way forward is to educate people to understand better what they're looking at, then they're less likely to damage or destroy through ignorance at least. There has still been no reply that has demononstrated why or how the actions of taking a picture like Goff's or photgraphing an upland cairn from atop its mound are wrong. No one has explained the harm or damage that they perceive such actions to be causing. Instead we have had some comments about "sending out bad signals", and the awfulness of "the public" visiting sites with their kids because all they want is a backdrop for their pictures. I have asked for clarification of what the problem is that is being envisaged here, but so far all I have is an assertion that I have misinterpreted these posts.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 10:55
|
||
|
"Instead we have had some comments about "sending out bad signals"" Well I'm sorry but it does and that's the crux. The statutory guardians and most enthusiasts think (with good reason) that promoting (by example) a culture of widespread climbing on monuments leads to damage to lichens and a general lowering of respect and an increase in damage and vandalism to ancient sites and their surroundings. Anyhow, that's what I (and loads of people) see as plain, inarguable common sense but if others wish to see it otherwise so be it. Good luck with the rest of the thread.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 11:15
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: "Instead we have had some comments about "sending out bad signals"" Well I'm sorry but it does and that's the crux. The statutory guardians and most enthusiasts think (with good reason) that promoting (by example) a culture of widespread climbing on monuments leads to damage to lichens and a general lowering of respect and an increase in damage and vandalism to ancient sites and their surroundings. Anyhow, that's what I (and loads of people) see as plain, inarguable common sense but if others wish to see it otherwise so be it. Good luck with the rest of the thread. "Plain inarguable common sense" is still not explaining what's wrong with Goff's picture, or climbing on an upland cairn to photograph it. Damage to lichens - at last, something tangible. I can go along with that, where there are lichens. Didn't see many in Goff's picture though. I also do not see how recording and publishing information and pictures of sites, rock art, etc is going to lead to a "general lowering of respect and an increase in damage and vandalism", if anything it should do the opposite. Education and information are most likely to increase respect and reduce damage. If you read the thread on the climbing site that The Eternal linked earlier, the majority of the people involved said "well I wouldn't have done that if I'd realised what was there", which seems to me to be education and information leading to a better outcome and less likelihood of a similar incident (dry tooling on a rock art site) occurring again. As I mentioned elsewhere, the statutory guardians allow people to climb on Stonehenge at certain times of the year. I'm not saying that they're right or wrong in this, but you indicate that they know best. Presumably they are exercising their own expertise and risk assessment skills to decide what the potential for damage to the stones is and therefore whether it is safe to allow. I wouldn't think they would allow this at all (no matter what pressure certain "religious" groups placed them under) if they genuinely believed there was a serious risk of damage.
|
|||
drewbhoy 2557 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 13:11
|
||
Ahem.................Pledge, please!!!
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 13:29
|
||
|
drewbhoy wrote: Ahem.................Pledge, please!!! Only if you Pledge to keep posting Drew! Where have you been hiding out you Scottish retrobate? Not negotiating to purchase Rangers are you :-) Roy (running for cover!!)
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 15:30
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Good luck with the rest of the thread. Well that's a convenient way of copping out of answering any questions put to you isn't it. !
|
|||
|
tonyh27 22 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 15:37
|
||
|
I would never condone the random climbing of stones, but the talk of damage to lichens always interests me.. I wonder about the touching of the stones with bare hands- oils and acids can't be good for lichen can they? The hugging and general embracing of stones must also impact on lichen as well I would have thought. Same goes for sitting on and leaning against stones and yet the lichen are thriving or at least appear to be. Is it possible that they are a lot more resilient than we think.. How long did they take to recover from the paint attack - Does anybody know?
|
|||
|
jonnyj 28 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 15:42
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: jonnyj wrote: 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. I don't believe there is validity in climbing the DD at all. I'm not a professional photographer like you are just a keen amateur, but even I've worked out that if you want an aerial shot of a capstone you can use a pole. I do and it saves all the hassle and controversy. I don't know where you get the idea but i'm far from being a "professional photographer" Sanctuary, just someone who loves the ancient history of our isles. I sincerely believe climbing the DD was justified in this case, and as far as i understand it there were 6 people tops there that day, so comparing it to climbing the Avebury stones in front of several tens or even hundreds of people isn't valid in my eyes, i very much doubt any of those present that day would do that. Also, as many RA aficionados will tell you, there's no substitute for the human eye, look through any ancient sites forum and you'll soon find that RA "experts" are loathe to give any firm opinion without seeing the piece first hand, a photograph is no substitute i'm afraid.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Feb 29, 2012, 17:14
|
||
|
jonnyj wrote: Sanctuary wrote: jonnyj wrote: 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. I don't believe there is validity in climbing the DD at all. I'm not a professional photographer like you are just a keen amateur, but even I've worked out that if you want an aerial shot of a capstone you can use a pole. I do and it saves all the hassle and controversy. I don't know where you get the idea but i'm far from being a "professional photographer" Sanctuary, just someone who loves the ancient history of our isles. I sincerely believe climbing the DD was justified in this case, and as far as i understand it there were 6 people tops there that day, so comparing it to climbing the Avebury stones in front of several tens or even hundreds of people isn't valid in my eyes, i very much doubt any of those present that day would do that. Also, as many RA aficionados will tell you, there's no substitute for the human eye, look through any ancient sites forum and you'll soon find that RA "experts" are loathe to give any firm opinion without seeing the piece first hand, a photograph is no substitute i'm afraid. Of course a photo is no substitute but still no excuse to climb the DD IMO. You could have used a pole like I do if you only wanted confirmation then reported your find and if somebody wished to view it first hand then they are at liberty to arrange to do it in a more respectful way. It took me long enough to conform but conform I now have and I believe a better person for it.
|
| Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
