I'm not sure my own particular behaviour is central, that isn't really what I was getting at although I used myself as an example about Silbury.

I think the underlying issue's the same though. If people sit down and discuss the issues, and decide in a logical way that there's a risk that a precious site will be damaged because of the footfall of lots of people, then you have to stop large numbers of people stepping on the site.

If that means the general public can't wander around Skara Brae, Stonehenge, Silbury, then that's how it is.

And we are the general public. Even though some of us might like to think we're extra special and the rules don't apply to us.

OF COURSE I'd like to sit in Skara Brae, put my cup of tea on the sideboard, snuggle down in one of the beds, imagine myself back in the stone age and listen to the wind howling outside Etc- who bloody wouldn't, especially weird people that have a particular obsession with all things prehistoric?

But it's irrelevant, because the rule is no one is allowed to do that. It's not quite the same thing as sneaking into the ruined abbey at Canterbury after hours (as I did many years ago) because that's somewhere that everyone is allowed to trudge round during the day.

The question is, am I more special than everyone else, do I have some special right to bend the rules that apply to everyone else for the good of the site? What's more important in the long run, the welfare of the site or me satisfying my impulse?

(It sounds like I like rules, I don't particularly, but I think we're talking about rules as in societal consensus. The people looking after Silbury, Skara Brae, Stonehenge, you'd like to think they are people who have the sites' protection at heart, and they're experienced / educated people who have been hired for their expertise. So if they decide we shouldn't trample all over Silbury etc, in this case I'm willing to believe that it's quite a good decision)