[Stones] Longman of Wilmington Abuse

[Andy Norfolk]

littlestone wrote: 
> Think it was Nigel above who said this is about respect. It certainly 
> is, it's about respect for the site from a conservation point of view, 
> and it's about respect for the site from a 'religious' point of view.
OK, but the archaeological trust which owns and manages the site, who 
presumably know rather a lot about its potential vulnerability to 
damage, approved the activity which they would not have done if they 
thought it would be damaging. It still seems to me that this stunt is 
most unlikely to have caused any significant damage to the site. I have 
seen no evidence to the contrary. Is there any?

This fuss is not it, seems to me, really about actual or possible damage 
to the archaeological integrity of the site.

What is is really about is as I've said that a pair of bumptious tv 
personalities have dared to do something at this site which some may see 
as disrespectful. Why is that? I'll ask the question again - if this had 
been done by radical feminists "reclaiming" the site as the Lng Goddess 
would there have been the same fuss?

I don't personally have much argument with people doing things at 
ancient sites provided that they do not cause any actual damage, or 
prompt others into causing damage. I don't think that the Long Man has 
been damaged, nor do I think that if people go and lie about on ancient 
sites, with appropriate care, to make temporary art works it will cause 
any damage.

Andy N



 


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000754-4, 06/07/2007
Tested on: 11/07/2007 11:05:59
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com