Featured Title:
Stones Playing Cards, great gift idea |
 |
| Solving Stonehenge, the new key to an ancient enigma |
 |
| 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, 118 guests and 2 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Stones Forum >> Cleaned stones or Lichen covered?
|
 |
| Author |
Cleaned stones or Lichen covered? |
mithra
Joined:
27-06-2006
Messages: 562
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 19-09-2006 at 21:40
Know this subject has been voiced a little before but I wondered what the general census of opinion was.
Should Standing Stones/Stone Circles be cleaned of any lichen/moss/pollutant - therefore brought back to the beauty of the original rock type? Mithra.
 Profile
 Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5547
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-09-2006 at 21:50
Mithra , that is very apt , as you said you were going out to grass?
Salopian has taken his bat and ball and left the playing field, which is a shame?, but I believe he is a member of a society to do with such things as lichens?
You would really feel his wrath if you started cleaning rocks of their coverings?
If there was a reason for cleaning them?, and this was demonstratable, and if it was benificial, then perhaps clean them, I for one consider that origonally they would have been kept very clean , but what do I know?
Kevin
Welcome back by the way.
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-09-2006 at 22:03
If they could be cleaned without damage, perhaps. As this isn't possible with current technology - No!
(Gerald Ponting has reported the results of sandblasting the Callanish stones in the 1970s. They were surrounded by tiny scattered slivers of stone that had been blasted off)
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-09-2006 at 23:56
For me, the lichens and the patina of age speak of the ages that have passed since they were placed. They help to give the visitor a sense of the centuries and millennia that have passed since their placement. Seeing them, we look deep into the well of time. Stripping the stones of that beauty would be like using a facelift and botox and a whole lot of makeup on the face of a beautiful and graceful old woman. The glyphs made by earth and time are no less meaningful than those made by people of the distant past if you look at them in a certain way.
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-09-2006 at 00:50
A quick response without really thinking, but here goes.
During my travels of France last year, I saw lots of menhirs which were obviously extremely well shaped and probably polished originally. Many thousands of man hours must have been spent shaping and smoothing them. Lots of these stones then had carvings made on them.
The weather over the intervening thousands of years has dulled the finish, but many are still unmistakeably meant to be clean and shiny. And much of the stone has been eroded by the weather, but still carvings remain to be seen when conditions are right.
I am not saying all were meant to be clean and shiny, as many - perhaps most - are just crude stones. But some were obviously meant to be clean, smooth and polished. Try Kerloas and Kergadiou in Brittany, or Epoigny in Bourgogne (sorry, not got round to posting photos yet), or Ginestous in Hérault, just a few stones which geographically cover a vast area.
Then of course all the statue menhirs in the Tarn and Aveyron regions, such as Dame de St Sernin.....
And not to mention the one I missed to the south east of Nantes somewhere (I forget exactly). 5 metres plus tall with a carved serpent from tip to ground which can still be seen in the evening sun.......
But I wouldn't suggest that we should polish them up again today. Too much extra damage would be done. Perhaps make a nice new shiny replica ?
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-09-2006 at 04:19
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-19 22:03, Andy B wrote:
If they could be cleaned without damage, perhaps. As this isn't possible with current technology - No!
(Gerald Ponting has reported the results of sandblasting the Callanish stones in the 1970s. They were surrounded by tiny scattered slivers of stone that had been blasted off)
|
|
To clean or not to clean? that is the question Lichens can and do eat into the stone, especially limestone and cause the surface to crumble. On the other hand cleaning them exposes them to the weather. which is the lesser of the two evils? sandblasting is a bit drastic isn't it? i should have thought a non cirrosive herbicide would be preferable. Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
mithra
Joined:
27-06-2006
Messages: 562
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-09-2006 at 13:04
On 2006-09-19 22:03, Andy B wrote:
''If they could be cleaned without damage, perhaps. As this isn't possible with current technology - No!''
Things have moved on from just sand-blasting.
A few years ago I had the oldest stone wall on my house cleaned of all the Biological growths (collective term for Algal growths, bacteria, fungi, lichens and mosses) as they were causing stone rot and making the stone porous and crumbly.
I cannot remember, without getting out the paperwork, exactly what kind of chemical or biocide they used, but it didn't appear to cause any damage to the stonework.
They then used a treatment which not only sealed the porous surface but also hardened it and prevented any further damage/growth of Algae, lichens etc. This treatment is completely invisible and the old stonework looks lovely.
I suppose it may be personal taste but I think that old stone buildings/churches look far better for being cleaned as do the few old gravestones which have been treated so that the inscriptions are protected and can be seen.....rather than obliterated and damaged by these biological growths. I think they can look aesthetically disfiguring.
Also these 'growths' are generally plentiful elsewhere on rocks/stones/drystone walling.
As Roy says the softer stones like Sandstone/limestone is particularly vulnerable to decay from these biological growths - which perhaps should be noted.
Perhaps just the Stones which had a man smoothed surface and those which have carvings should be put back/kept in their original state? (And further treatment with a preservative to prevent decay)
I accept the point that these growths increase the look of the extreme age of these Stone Circles but they do make alot of the stones look the same i.e. difficult to establish the type of rock it is underneath. E.g. Castlerigg stones are predominately a local dark metamorphic slate, which must have looked quite amazing in it's virgin state, but could be anything looking at the surfaces today.
Kevin, thanks for the welcome back. Sorry Salopian has gone....but we'll try to struggle on!
Mithra.
[ This message was edited by: mithra on 2006-09-20 15:45 ]
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-09-2006 at 13:22
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-20 13:04, mithra wrote:
On 2006-09-19 22:03, Andy B wrote:
I cannot remember, without getting out the paperwork, exactly what kind of chemical or biocide they used, but it didn't appear to cause any damage to the stonework.
They then used a treatment which not only sealed the porous surface but also hardened it and prevented any further damage/growth of Algae, lichens etc. This treatment is completely invisible and the old stonework looks lovely.
Mithra.
|
|
I think the chemical may be PEG, I think poly-ethylene glycol. it has a lot of uses. used here to preserve Dutch artefacts from shipwrecks, Timber from ships and iron cannons which soon disintegrate without treatment.
Incidently these wrecks are part of our ancient history. if interested google for Batavia, wreck 1629. Vergulde Draek (Gilt dragon 1656) Zuytdorp 1712? Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
mithra
Joined:
27-06-2006
Messages: 562
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-09-2006 at 13:33
Thanks for that Roy. Interesting, I'll look up the wrecks. Mithra
Profile
Reply
|
AngieLake
Joined:
12-03-2004
Messages: 550
from Newton Abbot, Devon
OFF-Line
|  Posted 24-09-2006 at 02:06
[quote]
On 2006-09-19 23:56, Aluta wrote:
For me, the lichens and the patina of age speak of the ages that have passed since they were placed. They help to give the visitor a sense of the centuries and millennia that have passed since their placement. Seeing them, we look deep into the well of time. Stripping the stones of that beauty would be like using a facelift and botox and a whole lot of makeup on the face of a beautiful and graceful old woman. The glyphs made by earth and time are no less meaningful than those made by people of the distant past if you look at them in a certain way.
I think Aluta put this most eloquently, and after seeing some beautifully 'fluffy' ancient stones in Cornwall this week my first reaction was to agree with her. However, I can understand the concern of those who want to preserve any carvings, or want to stall any deterioration of the composition of the stone. Luckily, here in the SW, most are strong, hardy granite!
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5547
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-09-2006 at 23:15
Mithra,
I feel it is a shame more people haven't the courage to say what they feel about this subject?
I consider the stones should be cleaned with a suitable chemical, it should not in any way harm the stones, and if possible should coat them against further damage.
The lichen are well looked after on gravestones etc.
The bottom line though is:-
Unless we work out the origonal design reason for errecting the sites, well, what use are they?
This is how the vast majority of people think, so they couldn't care less about them, so they damage them or kick them over for a laugh, basically you are pissing in the wind trying to protect them unless?
You can show them to be valuable, and needed,
I believe they are, so I say preserve them now.
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
BERNARDQUATERMASS
Joined:
19-03-2006
Messages: 653
from Oldham, Lancashire
OFF-Line
|  Posted 27-09-2006 at 10:35
How do....... I do not think that it's a good idea to start coating stones with chemicals. No-one can know the long term effects on the environment in general, or the stones in particular. These things always seem to have a sting in the tail. For all we know they could turn purple in a couple of hundred years.
Profile
Reply
|
Rich32
Joined:
23-08-2003
Messages: 258
from West Yorks
 ON-Line
| Posted 27-09-2006 at 18:26
A couple of weeks ago I was at a Northumberland & Durham Rock Art Project meeting & this was discussed from a rock-art point of view. Its long been a concern about what effected rock art the most, given that some panels were rapidly eroding. English Heritage commissioned a study (can’t remember which Uni) to assess what impact things like water, lichen, algae & turf had on sandstone, which is the most commonly carved rock type.
This study found water to cause the most erosion, as it broke down the calcite (I think it was anyway), whereas, lichen & turf coverage offered most protection because it drew water away from the stone. Chemical treatment was thought ill-advised, because of the unknown long term impact.
I should stress, that this study was just carried out on sandstone (millstone grit) & other types of rock will react differently depending on their composition, lichen on limestone being the prime example.
The advice given was; don’t touch unless you have to, don’t remove anything (unless its animal crap), don’t use things like brushes…… just take non evasive photographs (probably without flash  )
Profile
Reply
|
Salopian
Joined:
12-06-2006
Messages: 241
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2006 at 11:01
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-27 18:26, Rich32 wrote:
whereas, lichen & turf coverage offered most protection because it drew water away from the stone...........The advice given was; don’t touch unless you have to, don’t remove anything |
|
Correct.
Rather than going into detail I can do no better than recommending this link http://www.ravenfamily.org/sam/pag/site_dam.html
Standing on stones, burying crystals at them or putting it about that lichen is damaging to them and should be removed are all based upon individual claims to have knowledge of their purpose that the rest of us don’t.
Individual fantasies unaccompanied by proof don't matter at all unless they lead to real-world damage. Then they DO and I don't think they should be left unchallenged by the rest of us.
Leave the stones alone. Don't climb on them. Don't bury crystals at them. Don't give others the idea that removing lichens is OK. Your opinions, being minority ones, give you NO right to act in a way contrary to this.
Profile
Reply
|
Salopian
Joined:
12-06-2006
Messages: 241
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2006 at 10:27
[quote]
On 2006-10-16 23:58, cropredy wrote:
Welcome back,
Sir Salopian, on your trusty steed.
I admire your resolve to protect the stones.
Depends though if you are correct?
No Kevin I'm not coming back - see Andy's posting.
And yes, I feel I AM correct. Whatever harm is caused to stones by a person acting with certainty will still remain when they and their certainty have long been forgotten. So its best to keep off them and cause no harm whatsoever. As you never tire of telling us, previous certainties have been shown up as delusions so present ones may also be.
Certainties harm megalithic forums temporarily. I don't think they should be allowed to harm megaliths permanently. I have nowt else to say.
[ This message was edited by: Salopian on 2006-10-17 10:29 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2006 at 11:19
Referring just to the stones/lichens question--and although we may think it unlikely--we have no proof that upon finishing a circle the builders didn't stand back and say, "Lovely, but it'll be even lovelier when it's healed and its stone skin has grown back" or "when it has developed a fine patina and acquired some lichens of foliose and crustose forms, perhaps some Phaeophyscia or [I]Parmelia sulcata[I] . . ." or, well, something roughly to that effect.
There's also the question of rare and protected lichens. Any removal project would have to include close inspection by a lichen expert to ensure that the action would not destroy or endanger any species. The stones as they are placed often create unique environments.
Some folks would suggest we ask the stone people and find out what they'd prefer.
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2006 at 13:35
I have 'cleaned up' this thread to remove all the slanging matches as it is a valuable thread to keep alive.
I'm not going to do this again.
Flatcap is now barred from this forum. It appears he was trying to clean up and remove his comments rather than deliberately 'bump' the thread.
If you want to argue with him please go and do it in the 'Mysteries' forum below. However I suggest you leave him be.
In the meantime let's get this 'Stones' forum back on topic and going again...
Thanks everyone
Profile
Email
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1709
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-10-2006 at 19:04
I'm sure I read somewhere of evidence that stones were originally painted. I'll have to look this up.
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-10-2006 at 13:39
Quote:
|
On 2006-10-21 19:04, sem wrote:
I'm sure I read somewhere of evidence that stones were originally painted. I'll have to look this up.
|
|
haven't heard this one before, but if so I think that the paint could only be water based ochre or crude whitewash made from chalk, which would have washed off eons ago. might still be evidence in the soil around the stones. Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-10-2006 at 13:50
At the wonderful C.A.I.R.N. centre in Vendée they have some stones which are painted with various designs. I dont know what evidence thay have for them being painted though, but I am sure there must be something.
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News