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

353 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
5293 posts

Re: Climbing on Standing Stones
Feb 29, 2012, 21:55
"empty talk about respect but no substance about why.."

come come surely it's about the fact that these places have been there longer than any one of us, that they represent something bigger than individuals, that they represent (well more than represent, they are actually) this country's past, built by the ancestors of many of the people that live in this country today, maybe my ancestors or your ancestors. That we can choose to leave those structures as intact as we can, rather than dig into them or flatten them or plough them or steal the bones out of them or whatever indignities so many of them have suffered in the past. So then they might exist for our own descendents to look at 100s or 1000s of years hence. Is it not about accepting that the whim of an individual to satisfy their immediate desire to (say) climb up Silbury should actually be subordinate to the Greater Good of looking after the hill for the future?

Actually I think quite a few people have said that sort of thing.

(and don't think I'm being all sanctimonious, I wouldn't climb Silbury or carve my name on a standing stone, but I've sat on stones and walked along long barrows, patted rock art and stood on round barrows. But it doesn't have to be a black and white thing to make it not worth drawing a line?)
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index