close

Okay this is slightly out of prehistory, but a part of Offa's Dyke has just been vandalised by some stupid (new) owner, very similar to Priddy circles.
Very much a Scheduled Ancient site. It's the Daily Mail news but very good photos from them.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395236/Offas-Dyke-Travellers-flatten-50-yards-8th-century-monument-bulldozer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

moss wrote:
Okay this is slightly out of prehistory, but a part of Offa's Dyke has just been vandalised by some stupid (new) owner, very similar to Priddy circles.
Very much a Scheduled Ancient site. It's the Daily Mail news but very good photos from them.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395236/Offas-Dyke-Travellers-flatten-50-yards-8th-century-monument-bulldozer.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Makes me mad this apparent total disregard for our heritage. Does anyone outside of stoneheads care? Seems not.

Unbelievable.

The sad thing is that this section is just about the most northerly extant section of the dyke, north of here (as far as the Gop) there are only fragmentary remains. Terrible news.

"Danny" who has lived there "all his life" must either be a complete and utter moron to be unaware of the dyke, or more likely too selfish to care less.

Now this has sunk in a bit, I realise that the news has actually really upset me, it's stupid feeling proprietorial about a 1,000 year old earthwork that I've only fleetingly walked along, but it feels like a little bit of my past has been cut out. Stupid I know. But not as stupid as this thoughtless, selfish, irredeemable action.

"Destroy the inconvenience first, worry later" seems to be the attitude behind this and Priddy.

As to his ignorance of the dyke, there are enough pointers to its existence, both on the ground and on any map you care to look at, that it doesn't hold any real credibility. And it also would require not only him not to know, but also the seller not to know what he was selling or at least not mention it - presumably in the knowledge that a building was intended for the piece of land in question. So they may both be culpable.