Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? | Forum

Mustard Jun 26, 2007 15:15:00

Replying to goffik

goffik wrote:

Owp! Here we go again! ;o)

Don't you just love it? :D

I think it's an issue that becomes too easily entrenched between pro and anti camps. I think it's a little more complex and deserves a little bit more than a reactionary response. Not sure how we can accept millions of tourists traipsing through Avebury and then moan about a couple of pagans leaving some flowers at Scorhill.

goffik wrote:

Nice looking site, by the way!
http://www.isleofalbion.co.uk/

Ta muchly. Third incarnation and finally starting to look presentable. The next one.... oooooh.... just you wait!

ocifant Jun 26, 2007 16:06:45

Replying to Mustard

Mustard wrote:

I think it's a little more complex and deserves a little bit more than a reactionary response.

Ooh! It's been more years than I care to remember since I was called reactionary :-)

I agree that it's a complex issue. It can be broken down into smaller, easily digestible chunks though, and that can start with: no litter.

Tomaeto/Tomarto - litter/offerings.

CianMcLiam Jun 26, 2007 16:57:49

Replying to Mustard

Why leave something there though at all, what's the pain in leaving a place just as it was found and where's the gain in leaving detritus behind?

Cant be any harder to carry something home after bringing it there in the first place, plus you leave with the glowing feeling of not getting on the nerves of subsequent visitors.

I believe there are people out there in the ether who find all the romanticism and panglossian caricatures of the old ancestors a bit nauseating in the first place. They would argue that it's as apporpriate as future followers of the Smorgasbord Trinity Cult leaving boiled sheep ears on the ruins of Old Trafford. In Newgrange, for example, they do not allow ceremonies even, as to do so may imply that people of a certain persuasion today have more of a claim to the site than anyone else when such a continuity simply does not exist.