Featured Title:
Redhead, the new thriller by Ian Cook 'a compulsive read' |
 |
| Rocks & Rows, Sailing Routes across the Atlantic and the Copper Trade |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 133 guests and 5 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Forum: Stones Forum
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
Respond to: Selling off the stones
|
| Review your Reply |
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2007-08-23 10:34
Hi All,
I absolutely concur.
I suppose I was being a tad mischievous, hoping that some of the reductionist adherents may come in.
I thought it might be a interesting investigation of the natural conclusion to a reductionist stance.
Thanks for the posts
MM
|
James
Joined:
13-11-2002
Messages: 80
from High Desert
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-23 01:26
Greetings!
We could take pictures of, well, everything-then burn everything that is burnable, eat everything that is edible, drink everything that is drinkable, sell everything that is sellable.
We could get rid of all that "stuff" stored in Museums, then rent the space out.
Get rid of the "stuff" in Churches and Temples and play bingo there"oyah, they already do that!"
Let`s get more Realistic, and do away with everything that won`t go into a hard drive-then we could be happy on our email list.
Living in our Cubicle, fed on our own waste.
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 6999
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-22 19:51
If we're going to make a purely economic argument, could I suggest that selling off the National Trust properties and the contents of the National Gallery would be a far more effective way of raising cash than a few stones.
In comparison prehistoric sites have little cash value and need little maintenance apart from the odd haircut so are in comparison great value for money!
|
Jimit
Joined:
31-05-2002
Messages: 289
from winchester
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-22 18:54
Although the archaeologist is here talking about the wilful destruction of sites near Tara, I think that he talks a lot of sense regarding the general preservation of the whole landscape around ritual sites.
Jim
"
by Dr Ron Hicks
http://tarawatch.org/?page_id=471
It seems to me that certain issues important for understanding the
opposition archaeologists and other scholars have displayed toward the
M3 highway project have not really been clearly explained in the debate
so far. From what I have read in the newspapers, it is apparent that
the public, and perhaps even those in the government, have a rather
limited and out-of-date conception of just what archaeology is all
about. This is probably the fault of archaeologists, for we do tend to
be rather too involved in talking to each other rather than
communicating as we should with the public, who in the end provide most
of the support for our work.
Consequently, I will try here to clarify 1) the objectives of
archaeology, 2) the reason for our concern with “landscape” rather than
just sites, and 3) what is today considered good archaeological
practice. If I succeed, it will also clarify the vehemence of our
objections to the planned highway routing.
Many seem to think that the goal of archaeology is to retrieve
artifacts, and the more spectacular the artifact, the better. This is
simply not the case. An artifact in and of itself has little value for
archaeology, although it may make for an interesting museum display.
What is of utmost importance is information. For archaeology, this
comes in four major types of data that must be recovered and analyzed:
artifacts (things–usually portable–made or modified by humans),
features (modifications to the site itself–monuments, pits, hearths,
post-moulds, etc.), ecofacts (floral and faunal material ranging from
pollen to charcoal to animal bones that provide evidence of the local
environment, human use of it, and the date of that use), and, probably
most important of all, context (the relationships among all of the
other sorts of data and between the site itself and the surrounding
landscape).
What are archaeologists trying to do with these data? Four broad
objectives are now widely recognized. The first, and oldest, is that
archaeologists are expected to reconstruct culture history (the
sequence and chronology of cultures). Once one knows what culture
belongs where in time (and geographically), the next step is to
reconstruct that culture–their way of life–as fully as possible. That
will then allow us to gain some understanding of the culture process
(i.e., why things were done as they were and why they changed, or
didn’t). Finally, and most difficult of all but certainly vital for a
sacred site such as Tara, we must try to gain some understanding of the
way the people of the past thought about their world (their religion,
cosmology, ideology, iconography, and so on).
From the last of the types of data listed above, context, you should
begin to suspect the reason for our concern with the landscape beyond
the site. While archaeologists used to focus solely on sites, over the
past few decades they have come to realize that sites do not exist in
isolation and that their creators did not think of their world
primarily in terms of their house or village. People do not simply
occupy a structure, a farmstead, or a village; these have meaning only
within the larger landscape.
Significant places in a prehistoric landscape may actually be natural
features that contain no evidence for human activity. For example, a
hilltop–and plenty of those besides Tara and Skreen are mentioned in
Irish myth–may be seen as the dwelling place of a god. Ritual
complexes, of which Tara is the premier example from later Irish
prehistory, typically cover an area of several square kilometers within
which are found a cluster of monuments recognized as being of a ritual
or ceremonial nature–passage tumuli, earthen enclosures, and so on–as
well as a variety of lesser elements that are nonetheless important. To
the people of the past, they would have been seen as a unit. The
complex surrounding Newgrange, for instance, covers approximately 16
square kilometers. That at Tara undoubtedly includes Rath Maeve, whose
far edge lies 1.6 km to the south, and the Riverstown enclosure and
linear banks lying nearly 2 km to the west and northwest. The northern
and eastern limits are less clear, which of course means we have less
information in precisely the area to be affected by the proposed
highway. In my own professional opinion, it is nonetheless highly
likely that the complex incorporated elements at least 2 km to the
north and east, such as Rath Lugh. To the east the closest prominent
feature that might have marked a boundary to the district is, in fact,
the Hill of Skreen, some 3.4 km away, well within the likely limits for
such complexes. The presence on that height of an early monastic site
is another indication that it is likely to have been a pre-Christian
sacred site and thus part of the complex.
To turn to the issue of methodology, the use of 22-tonne mechanical
excavators in stripping topsoil to expose archaeological features is,
at best, highly questionable. Stripping the topsoil is acceptable only
if there is strong reason to believe that any deposits in that layer
have been thoroughly disturbed–through long-term plowing, etc.–and even
then it is not a good idea because experimental work has shown that
plowing tends not to move things very far, meaning that one can still
learn from the material in the topsoil. If such stripping is done,
great care must be taken not to disturb deposits below that depth–which
is difficult given the damage the earth-moving equipment itself is
likely to do just by virtue of its weight, particularly the large
machines they are using. In any case, a representative sample of the
removed soil should be screened to determine what, if any, artifactual
or other data it may contain.
Furthermore, while rapidly removing recent historical deposits to get
to the “real archaeology” underneath was considered acceptable to many
three or four decades ago, it certainly is not now. There is just as
much to be learned from those layers as from older ones, because
documents and the history books are very selective in what they record.
Carrying out an archaeological excavation is comparable to performing
medical experiments on animals. One often has to destroy the subject to
recover the data. Archaeology is by its very nature highly destructive.
And any data not recovered in the process are lost forever. As a
result, modern archaeologists dig only when essential and typically
only in a limited portion of a site–no more than is necessary to answer
the particular research questions that are of interest at the moment.
Not only data bearing on those questions but also all other
recognizable data must be collected and recorded.
The reason for this limited approach to excavation–and increasingly
heavy reliance on remote sensing–is that we have learned over the past
century or so that our ability to recover information continually
improves. What appeared to be useless material to an excavator a
hundred years ago, fit only for the spoil heap, we now know to have
contained information vital to our understanding of the sites. A simple
example would be charcoal. Who in 1907 would have thought that a few
grams of charcoal held the key to dating a site? What early
investigators of caves in France took to be waste flakes from tool
production, we now know to have been utilized as tools themselves in
many cases. Edge-wear analysis using high-powered microscopes simply
did not exist. Nor could we recover DNA of the animals or plants being
processed from residue in the pores of the stones, as is often the case
now.
Unfortunately, highway projects such as the M3 do not allow us to
preserve parts of the sites for future excavators. And the additional
information the sites undoubtedly contain will not be recovered because
we do not yet know what to record, recover, or preserve, so it is
permanently lost. The thirty-eight sites that are said to lie in the
path of the highway through the Gabhra Valley represent a very large
potential loss of information about the Tara complex. The much touted
“preservation by record” is an illusion.
I hope the above comments provide a bit more context. If any readers
have questions or require additional clarification, I can be reached at
rhicks@... or Ronald Hicks, Department of Anthropology, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana 47306, USA.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
International Expert Report Calls for Preservation of "Unique"
Lismullin Amphitheatre
NRA assessment contradicted
An international archaeological expert has issued an independent report
which contradicts many NRA findings and recommendations regarding the
newly discovered national monument in Lismullin, and calls for full
preservation of the "unique" national monument.
The report, entitled 'On the Significance of Lismullin' "
|
woode
Joined:
19-07-2005
Messages: 11
from Tifton, Georgia, USA
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-22 17:48
Mick,
If their significance is indeed only aesthetic (and I don't think that's true), then why keep them? Why bother maintaining the Mona Lisa, either? Why worry with keeping anything that exists only to delight the senses? Why bother painting your house a pleasing color, or wearing your favorite shirt? Wouldn't it be cheaper to live in a plain box, or for everyone to just wear the same gray clothes? Think of all the money we'd save and could put to better use!
If we keep things only because of their utility, then why bother maintaining forests and animal habitat? We only use them on vacation or holiday, anyway, right? And if people are dying of hunger or cancer or anything else, might one argue that they've outlived their usefulness?
Pulling down and selling the stones for "a fortune" implies that you and your friend realize they do have some value far beyond their intrinsic worth as "just stones". And, as a rationalist, one would understand that simply being pleasing to the eye is a kind of value, and questioning it's value is not necessary.
[ This message was edited by: woode on 2007-08-22 17:58 ]
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5526
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-22 16:12
The stones that are recorded throughout this site, were placed where thay now are by someone.
Before that they were possibly lying around randomly , deposited by natural forces, or they were in situ where they were made by the creative forces.
The position taken by the stones looks nothing out of the ordinary, though some offer excellent vantage points for siting overland and for watching the track of the heavenly bodies.
If as an example Avebury was flattened, the embankment used to fill the ditch, then the stones could be cut up into usable sizes and houses built over where they now occupy.
Then you would have a larger village , that would support the school they have just shut, you would of course need to build affordable houses ( whatever they are?) for people to carry out what they do now in such ( you need to investigate such , to know what they are doing )
Would that be an improvement?
Silbury hill could become a ski slope( built in jumps from where collapse has been created )
You could build a burger fast food outlet where the sanctuary is, you could keep the name.
But, what you will never ever do is move the reason why they were placed where they are.
Unless the reason for going to such extrordinary lengths is recognised, I vote for leaving them totally alone, and preserve them , with best practise, if they are found to be detremental to ourselves, then call up the JCBs, but they may be why we are here , why we advanced so rapidly, I think most people sense this, but they can't visualise what they sense.
kevin
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1332
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-22 15:51
Quote:
|
On 2007-08-22 13:48, karloff wrote:
As for research, most megalithic monuments have had little or often no archaeological investigation ... |
|
As true for sites in the Western hemisphere. Not only do costs and lack of resources prevent modern archeaological examination, but there is an appreciation that a dig should not attempt a "complete" excavation, because it results in a "complete" destruction - with nothing for future methods of examination to see.
From the point of view of aesthetic value, all the reputable recent digs I've seen on US sites end with a reconstruction of the contour of the ground excavated with shifted fill from the excavation - or clean foreign fill, generally with sub-surface markers planted to indicate the "edge" of the dig. Historic parks are even "recreating" contours that existed prior to an earlier destruction in order to recreate the ambiance of an entire site.
The exception is "salvage" digs - where the site has been "sold" in one way or the other, and a rush job occurs to examine the site and find artifacts before the area is paved and we're the proud consumers at a new Walmart.
The sad fact is that the "stones" are already being "sold" around the world, including some of the ones that "belong" to the public.
|
BERNARDQUATERMASS
Joined:
19-03-2006
Messages: 653
from Oldham, Lancashire
OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2007-08-22 14:53
This is the best example I know of a stone having a unique place in the world:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=1386
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-22 13:48
Quote:
|
On 2007-08-22 13:00, MuddyMick wrote:
Hi all,
This is small question arising from ramblings and ponderings with a close friend.
If one was to believe that the stones have no secrets or significance in the metaphysical sense and therefore are just stones that "don't do anything" would I it be correct in suggesting that their archeo/historic significance has been researched quite thoroughly, if this is the case then their only merit is in the aesthetic sense.
I am sure we could map every single mm of their surface etc and relate it to the co ordinates in the landscape etc thereby having (maybe a cgi) model for future generations to ponder over.
We could sell off the stones (I bet we would get a fortune) and with the money (suggestions maybe helpful) save lots of forests (to maintain natural species habitat ) in the u.k or alleviate hunger for a year in some third world country..........put it to cancer research etc etc.
As rationalists such questions must be asked!
RegardsMM
[ This message was edited by: MuddyMick on 2007-08-22 13:14 ]
|
|
Hi Muddy
The stones have an intrinsic cultural value when in their setting which, you could argue, disappears once those stones have been removed from their context. A stone circle for example is interesting because the structure as a whole is an artefact. The stones themselves are integral components of the site/artefact but it is by the act of placing them in a circle that cultural heritage was created. If those stones were dug up and all shipped to different parts of the planet they would no longer be part of a stone circle and as such would be "just stones".
A comparison could be if you brought a house for 200 K, knocked it down and collected all the materials together e.g.. bricks, wood etc you would end with a pile of material worth less than a tenth of the price of the house.
It is the site itself which is valuable (in terms of cultural/academic and as shown by this forum spiritual value). As for research, most megalithic monuments have had little or often no archaeological investigation and so are unspoilt time capsules representing past people's behaviour/beliefs and even as an archaeologist I don't want to dig too many as often the process of excavation results in destruction of archaeological features and I'd rather dig fully a few examples and preserve the rest so that we can all experience them.
If you want a hypothetical case where in the future archaeologists have measured every aspect of a megalithic sites, destroying the real site has still taken the actual artefact away and so has lessened our cultural heritage. Using the building analogy again its all well and fine looking at a photograph of a cathedral from which no doubt you could get an academic appreciation of the architecture etc but visiting one is a very different experience where the psychology of the design effects the nature of your perceptions..
I'm never happy with the concept of selling off our shared cultural heritage particularly irreplaceable antiquities so rationally, its the site and its setting which has the value as well as academic potential not necessarily the stones themselves (although they are integral to the site).
Nice thread MM
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2007-08-22 13:00
Hi all,
This is small question arising from ramblings and ponderings with a close friend.
If one was to believe that the stones have no secrets or significance in the metaphysical sense and therefore are just stones that "don't do anything" would I it be correct in suggesting that their archeo/historic significance has been researched quite thoroughly, if this is the case then their only merit is in the aesthetic sense.
I am sure we could map every single mm of their surface etc and relate it to the co ordinates in the landscape etc thereby having (maybe a cgi) model for future generations to ponder over.
We could sell off the stones (I bet we would get a fortune) and with the money (suggestions maybe helpful) save lots of forests (to maintain natural species habitat ) in the u.k or alleviate hunger for a year in some third world country..........put it to cancer research etc etc.
As rationalists such questions must be asked!
RegardsMM
[ This message was edited by: MuddyMick on 2007-08-22 13:14 ]
| |
|
Main News