Ancient sites: Protect or Use?

close
more_vert
CianMcLiam C
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.

L Littlestone
Littlestone Jun 26, 2007 18:28:55
Replying to CianMcLiam

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.
Brilliant! And brings us neatly back to English Heritage's nauseating idea of a 21st century time capsule buried in Silbury (just after they've finished 'conserving' it).

M Mustard
Mustard Jun 26, 2007 19:10:35
Replying to CianMcLiam

CianMcLiam wrote:
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?
Even that involves a tacit imposition of a subjective belief set on other visitors though. I would suggest that the simplest approach would be for everyone to show some consideration the beliefs of others, and to avoid behaving in a way that unreasonably impacts upon other people's enjoyment of a site. Not leaving non-biodegradable offerings would seem a reasonable expectation, as would the notion that people who do leave offerings should clear up the gathered detritus occasionally. Equally, a tolerance of some respectfully placed, non-destructive offerings would seem like a reasonable level of reciprocation. A little tolerance on both sides would go a long way.

PS. I'm not a leaver of offerings or a follower of neo-pagan mysticism.

T tuesday
tuesday Jun 26, 2007 19:51:40
Replying to CianMcLiam

CianMcLiam wrote:
...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.
Wise Words. But the Neolithics were very messy weren't they? I don't think our notions of cleanliness being next to godliness really applied to them. And look at some of their offerings - a kid with an axe through its head, lots and lots of dead animals etc.

What's much more interesting than litter is that feeling of the need to do / make / leave something. I know that feeling. If you aren't conventionally religous there aren't many ways to do that now. Still, it's probably best to take it with you - I mean otherwise it's just some narcisistic idea that the the place is 'yours'.

That of course is impossible at Avebury and Silbury these days - With all these cameras and stuff about, I'd be absolutley terrified of dropping something - in case it got reported here!