17 replies to this topic

[tyrebagger]

Nigel, on 22 October 2006, 9:27, said:

Not sure what poor old Stukeley is being accused of (apart from a few porkies) - he was the opposite of a vandal and we owe him much

The virtual invention of the modern druids & links to stone circles ;-)

I'm just reading Pigotts biography and WS was a top man-I'd have liked to have a pint and talked stones with him at the height of his travels.

[Nigel]

tyrebagger, on 22 October 2006, 13:48, said:

The virtual invention of the modern druids & links to stone circles ;-)

Well yes, that was a big deliberate porkie I'll give you that. But fairly harmless I suppose.

As a matter of fact, he was impelled by a wish to connect the circles with Christianity via a proto christian early religion so if people wish to accept what he said they should maybe be carrying crosses into the circles....  

[Nigel]

Kevin, just to clarify -

"Heritage action and others on this site will do no harm to the circle, they are commited to protect."
Darn right.

"They will view any alteration to the status quo of any sites as damage"
Well, we recognise that restoration, sometimes, is appropriate if carried out with wide support, by a statutorily authorised body and in accordance with currently accepted conservation principles.
But anything other than that and particularly a unilateral alteration to the status quo of any site, based upon a personal perspective about the nature of the site - no!

It ain't rocket science. The sites are blank canvases and people are free to interpret them how they like - but they aren't free to paint their own interpretation onto them any more than they are free to paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa!