Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Climbing on Standing Stones
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 16 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Resonox
604 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 19, 2012, 07:40
The Eternal wrote:
Unfortunately, climbing on ancient stones has taken on an even worse twist. Some prat has decided to dry-tool on Copt Howe. This is the site of the rock-art on the boulders in Great Langdale. Dry-tooling involves climbing ice-free rocks with ice-axes and crampons. Apparently, the rocks have been damaged, but not the rock-art - yet.

There's been a bit of an argumentative "debate" on the UK Climbing website, for which I've added the link below:-

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=494113


Strange how the ones who are pro...complain that there are insufficient other places to practice their hobby....except for "cold shitty quarries"...maybe they should get centrally heated indoor venues or better still do it on their Wiis. I note that one poster claimed that this practice had been going on since the stones were erected. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a set of iron age crampons :0o
GLADMAN
928 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 19, 2012, 23:05
Resonox wrote:
Strange how the ones who are pro...complain that there are insufficient other places to practice their hobby....except for "cold shitty quarries"...maybe they should get centrally heated indoor venues or better still do it on their Wiis. I note that one poster claimed that this practice had been going on since the stones were erected. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a set of iron age crampons :0o


If such egotistical people really want to indulge in such activities, may I suggest The Cuillin? Or is that a bit too dangerous? Bugger off and leave Copt Howe to people with brains/consideration for the landscape.
jonnyj
28 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 20, 2012, 01:43
nigelswift wrote:
jonnyj wrote:
In general i agree with you, but also it depends why you're climbing on the stones, and who is.
I understand that day, from what i've read, you had with you what could be classed as the 3 foremost experts on rock art in their respective areas. ?

Inquisitive jovial sorts who's laugh in the face of conventionality.


It seems that is suggesting it's OK to climb on the stones if you're an expert in rock art elsewhere and/or a jovial sort who laughs in the face of conventionality.

I disagree about the "unconventional and jovial" justification, it just means people that don't care what others think. As for the expert bit, have these marks been accepted as man-made by anyone other than this group? Maybe they got it wrong, and they're natural? One of them said - "the majority of Wessex archaeologists are academically illiterate when it comes to identifying such carvings". Sounds like "Wessex archaeos don't agree they are man-made" to me!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oHXiJp9bLF8J:megalithix.wordpress.com/category/england/wiltshire/page/2/+%22devil%27s+den%22+%22cup+marks%22&cd=22&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk


I'd certainly hope they don't care what others think, go at it with a clear and open mind without looking to any sort of "peer" for justification or a pat on the back, that's the very thing that is holding modern archaeological theories and interpretation back.

Archaeo's never take a positive light on anything, unless they're the discoverer and there's something in it for them.
I could point you in the direction of newly discovered sites/ra that the area's archaeo's refuse even to visit. !
Resonox
604 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 20, 2012, 07:33
GLADMAN wrote:

If such egotistical people really want to indulge in such activities, may I suggest The Cuillin? Or is that a bit too dangerous? Bugger off and leave Copt Howe to people with brains/consideration for the landscape.

"Brains/consideration" and a bit of respect for their heritage too, might I add.
nigelswift
8101 posts

Edited Feb 20, 2012, 07:01
Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 20, 2012, 07:57
jonnyj wrote:
I'd certainly hope they don't care what others think


Sure, if that refers to not caring what others think about archaeological theories. But not caring what others think about climbing stones is another thing altogether.

Incidentally, you mentioned "none of said above people show anything but complete respect for the Avebury area stones on any other occasion" (which I assume means they don't normally advocate anyone climbing on the Avebury area monuments) so I'm curious why they felt it was justified in their case on this one occasion?
tjj
tjj
3604 posts

Edited Feb 20, 2012, 21:45
Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 20, 2012, 09:27
nigelswift wrote:
jonnyj wrote:
I'd certainly hope they don't care what others think


Sure, if that refers to not caring what others think about archaeological theories. But not caring what others think about climbing stones is another thing altogether.

Incidentally, you mentioned "none of said above people show anything but complete respect for the Avebury area stones on any other occasion" (which I assume means they don't normally advocate anyone climbing on the Avebury area monuments) so I'm curious why they felt it was justified in their case on this one occasion?


My stance on these latest posts is to let sleeping dogs lie. All other issues aside I recall it was a memorable day. I had no intention of pin pointing any particular group of people or individuals. Jonnyj (whoever she/he is) has already said 'why' they examined the cap stone and absolutely no damage was done - we are talking about massive sarsen stones after all.
VBB
558 posts

Mixed messages or a fundamental respect?
Feb 20, 2012, 10:36
Mixed messages or a fundamental respect for monuments?

The modern world doesn’t want war monuments disrespected by the theft of metal plaques or urinating by drunks or being swung from by protesters, yet doesn’t object to a BBC Countryfile stunt that foists a hardboard poppy on the Fovant Badges for a day’s filming?

Painting a green Mohican on a modern metal statue of Churchill is not acceptable, and yet making over a centuries old chalk monument is when it is for Red Nose Day, or a TV fashion stunt by Trinny and sidekick, or a car advertisement?

Utilising the Westbury White Horse for Peter Cook’s and Dudley Moore’s Not Only But Also is acceptable but not the Uffington White Horse for TV’s Big Brother?

The modern world doesn’t want the lichens on Avebury stones destroyed by paint again, yet destruction by climbing is okay?

The modern world would allow new traditions to develop such as solstice gatherers clambering on Stonehenge lintels, but not contemporary protesters such as F4J?

The modern world doesn’t want foreign materials or seeds imported to Silbury Hill by officialdom, but doesn’t do anything about educating re the importation by lay climbers that are destroying vulnerable archaeology just below the surface?

The authorities can dig up Avebury to put in facilities for tourist information, and we expect contractors to know they mustn’t just dig up the same street to fix an electric cable fault?

From imported wooden staircases at Avebury henge to the sale of sarsen on e-bay, the modern world is awash with mixed messages about monuments. Either we come up with and adopt a voluntary code in relation to ancient monuments and encourage everyone to universally adopt it and kids to grow up with it for the sake of respect and understanding, or we will simply have to face up to the regular disasters and vandalism that plagues our heritage.
goffik
goffik
3922 posts

Re: Mixed messages or a fundamental respect?
Feb 20, 2012, 10:56
As ever, VBB - very, VERY well said. :)

G x
nigelswift
8101 posts

Edited Feb 20, 2012, 10:45
Re: Mixed messages or a fundamental respect?
Feb 20, 2012, 11:25
"come up with and adopt a voluntary code in relation to ancient monuments and encourage everyone to universally adopt it and kids to grow up with it for the sake of respect and understanding"

Oh! You mean rules whereby people don't climb on stones simply out of respect for the wishes of others and where egotists don't think it doesn't apply to them for some reason and where people who query people that do it aren't told to let sleeping dogs lie? Could it happen?

(PS VBB, that's a fantastic bit of writing. Moses himself couldn't have made a better case for keeping off monuments. It's as compelling as the Leave Only Footprints mantra. Maybe it should be published more widely elsewhere?)
VBB
558 posts

Re: Mixed messages or a fundamental respect?
Feb 20, 2012, 12:56
We all kniow the shortcomings of other initiatives of this sort, and why the heritage machine guardianship and policing isn't ideal, but funnily enough the Highway Code and Countryside Code are not just for the public - it is the same for everyone.
Similarly any monument code should be sent to the BBC and other TV companies as well as EH and NT and they should be put in a position where they want to sign up adopt and implement it.
This is not about what I think should be the code, unless everyone contributes to the detail it simply won't become workable.
Pages: 36 – [ Previous | 16 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index