climbing of sacred hills

close
more_vert
Mustard M
Mustard Jul 12, 2013 11:20:51
Replying to Rhiannon

Rhiannon wrote:
The original post was about Uluru, I'd wanted to hear views on that rather than Silbury - we should infer you'd climb Uluru because you're not a local Aborigine and you don't share their religion? Though they've specifically and politely requested you refrain? I've been suggesting people should have respect for the Aborigine's wishes and not climb it. Also, if we have to get on to property rights, the rock is actually theirs, so they should surely have a say over what happens on it?
Touches upon some deep philosophical questions. Why should a polite request to refrain from doing something be sufficient to deter you from doing something that's not causing any harm? What if a bunch of pagans started hanging out at Avebury politely requesting that people turn around and leave because they regard it as sacred?

Ownership is another awkward concept. I don't really believe that anyone can "own" the landscape. Looked at objectively, it's a ridiculous concept. I accept the need for property laws in the context of a modern civilisation, but equally I don't regard property ownership as definitive. If Dartmoor was in private hands, I would certainly ignore any landed gentry telling me that I wasn't allowed to visit Scorhill.

Ultimately, there's no simple solution or single way of looking at this, beyond a degree of common courtesy. I think it's common courtesy to show some consideration towards aboriginal peoples, but equally I think it's basic courtesy for aboriginal peoples to share the landscape with people who behave respectfully while visiting.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Jul 12, 2013 12:37:28
Replying to Mustard

In the context of Silbury religion and politeness aren't the issue, in fact they are diverting attention from it.

The statutory guardians have come to the conclusion that both the archaeology and the ecology are at risk and have consequently requested people not to climb. That's all. So from my point of view I think people ought to comply - unless they can conclusively show the statutory guardians are wrong.

With Silbury being the only 360 degree consistent slope SSSI in the country, filled voids still migrating upwards daily and primary archaeology only inches below the surface I don't think anyone will do that any time soon. So they should keep off.