Re: Tara - is that all? | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

BrigantesNation Jul 22, 2005 10:11:52

Replying to Wiggy

What I mean is - the Stonehenge complex is largesly a prograssive development over a considerable time - if (big if) the dating is correct, it was not until pretty late in the Neolithic that Stonehenge got its mega monuments. The original henge at Stonehenge for example was 90m.

The point that I'm trying to make is that (1) we do not know enough about Tara to go around making assumptions about the impact of a massive development that is clearly within the ritual landscape of the Tara complex (for example the road passes between one of the Raths identified by 4W as a possible settlelment site and Tara). (2) Stonehenge is not a cultural icon because we have any certain knowledge of its relative importance compared with other monuments but it is a cultural icon and it is afforded a great deal more protection that Tara, which I would suggest is acheiving a similar iconic state.

Hope that reads ok - I'm not good at constructing long sentences!

Wiggy Jul 22, 2005 11:12:45

Replying to BrigantesNation

I take your point, but that could be seen as an argument for its importance I suppose.

nigelswift Jul 22, 2005 11:32:24

Replying to BrigantesNation

"but it is a cultural icon and it is afforded a great deal more protection that Tara"

Weeeell, that might have been sort of true last week in that in the case of Stonehenge they were going to bury the road at least, but this week??? Burying the road by a deep bore tunnel is too expensive it seems. So what's left, apart from carrying on with the congestion? Reverting to cheapo, immensely damaging cut-and-cover tunnelling?

Which monument would have been best protected then? I wonder if the timing of the Stonehenge re-think is entirely unconnected with Tara? And let's face it, this isn't a rethink, this is a signal that the best three options are too expensive so only the worst one is on the table.

Tara — is that all?