nigelswift wrote:
but at a pretty nondescript part of the hillside.....
Always assuming there wasn't a post or a very small surface marker boulder back then. If there was it would be an immensely impressive spectacle. Who to say there weren't such things at loads of sites?
Would it be vandalistic to add such things at various sites now, in a bid for immortality? What would one be called? Vandal? Artist? Megaprankster?
The main point is that the feaures that are often considered to be important ,the ones that the punters are drawn to , are not the points where the events are seen to take place .
The points on the horizon where the events are seen to take place ,may have had markers , although personally I doubt it .
One thing is for sure , once the point sinks in and punters start to look for markers in the right place , they will find them , there is no shortage of " very small surface marker boulders " on the side of most featureless hillsides ,that will be pronounced as being different enough to be a genuine prehistoric marker or "observation point " .
Go and place them , and if the punters buy it , what's new ?
Tom Keating , Mark Thomas and situationism in general is fine by me .
