It should always be a case by case thing but I personally haven't got any big problems with including peoples responses to ancient sites along side the sites themselves.
Case by case absolutely. I think there are/were plans to put a time capsule (might have been called a casket actually) behind one of the new blocks at York Minster - can't remember what was going in it though. But if it contained the names of the masons who cut the new stones, or one or two of their chisels etc., that would be a little piece of history from the present to the future. It also ties in with what you said above, "I suppose it's all about how you view and interact with sites. My personal opinion is that these monuments are not dead, their histories are still being written."
There's a difference between leaving a few masons tools at York Minster, though, and leaving inappropriate objects actually in Silbury. At York Minster the masons, carpenters etc are engaged in a creative/conservation exercise to preserve the structure. At Silbury, the leaving of a time capsule is nothing more than an English Heritage media exercise, while leaving the Atkinson/BBC door and lintel in place is simply continuing the unprofessional practices of the recent past.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by Littlestone
15th August 2007ce
17:15 |
|
Head To Head 
Re: Absurdity of time capsules (fitzcoraldo)