There is a controversy about the preservation of the Stonehenge site that seems so obvious to me that I must not quite understand one side (of at least three) of it.
"Since 1991, 51 proposals have been considered for improving the A303 in the area and to remove it from the Stonehenge site." So, as I recently just wrote, there's your first problem right there. Everyone agrees it needs to be fixed, no one agrees on what the fit should look like.
There is the opinion of the archaeologists looking long term. There is the opinion of the people who live in the area, for whom these roads are "the route that I take to work," or to shopping, or to check in on Gramps every day. I think I get both of these. The former says "there is not just one site, there is an array of sites in the area, and they are irreplaceable. Take the course, no matter how expensive and inconvenient, that maximises flexibility for learning about the people who lived in these places over thousands of years. The latter group takes the position that history and prehistory are just fine, but we live here right now. Why should the lives of the living matter less than the lives of the dead? As an excellent example of this, many decisions were made during WWII about where to place military bases or how to move troops or materiel across the landscape. That seems distant, unimportant and unnecessary now. Yet at the time it was very legitimate arguement "We aren't going to even have a nation, and our conquerors are going to destroy everything of our history. So don't tell me how important this pile of stones or pots or bones is. They are only important in the context of everyone living in peace and sending the daughters of rich parents to Oxbridge to study this. Other Englishmen, though less important in your eyes, don't much care about the details. They want their England to survive for another generation for their children. Stonehenge nice, but England better. And why is this costing two billion pounds when the original estimate was one-tenth that? This group seldom articulates its position well, and therefore gets made fun of as boors who don't care about science or history or Quality Things in general.
They therefore get thrown in with what we might call the shallow conservationists, whose position is not much defensible at all, but often have strong feelings, an ability to conjure, and some influence. They want things to look like Merrie Olde England, dammit, and be able to march right up and see Stonehenge whenever they damn well please without interference from government or uni people with their (possibly anti-England and anti-traditional) ideas. They want thatched roofs and canal boats and you can't even get a pint of Watney's Red Barrel anymore. We actually do know this sort in every country in the world. In America one version is the people who want the old traditional hymns that are actually 100-200 years old, no more, no less, because that just seems holy to them. (Look, I like a lot of those hymns and sing them with gusto, but you have to know what you're saying before spouting off.) Traditional means grandparent. There are versions in every town. This gets humorous only when you are something of an outsider, noticing that traditional foods for Passover means Egypt only for the purely ceremonial parts, but mostly means Delancey Street. If you are actually inside on one side of the controversy it's not so funny.
Satire and sendups are funnier when they are meant affectionately (see my posts on earlier Keillor vs later Keillor. The first two tell you much, no need to scrape the barrel in my other posts.), and I don't think Pete's intentions are kindly here. Yet I think Arlo's are, so we will give the song a pass.
Anyway, Stonehenge is ground zero for that sort of argument in England, with more archaeologists per capita than elsewhere, more non-archaeolgoists opinionated about the topic, and more protected sites, leading to more people living and driving in and amongst them. And being Stonehenge, there is a full contingent of people getting exercised about fanciful history or what should be true, but isn't, in science and archaeology. So there is debate about the proposed Tunnel under Stonehenge. There. Are. Protests.
If you put the visitor center bang up against the stone circle then lots of people can bus out there, go to the gift shop, and see the stones easily. But then when you stand back to contemplate the ancient site...it's got a visitor center in it. Same for nice roadways going by. As for the tunnel, people are worried that it will destroy future archaeology. Well, but the immediate site has been worked over quite a bit and we aren't likely to find gripping new things. The new things, like the discovery of Durrington Walls, came about because a road was being built. Archaeologists are much more interested in the less-explored areas in the wider area, especially to the west of Stonehenge.
Taking the entirety of the ritually-used landscape, suspicion is growing that Avebury may turn out to be the bigger deal and tell us more going forward. (We are very pro-Avebury around here.) The shallow conservationist position is based on the idea that there are very few important things out there and they are deeply endangered, so we have to basically Not Touch Anything. Yet if we have learned anything in the last hundred years it is that there are lots of new things being discovered all the time that we have barely studied at all. Most of the discoveries arise because of construction - of roads, golf courses, shopping districts, apartments. The Amesbury Archer was discovered because they were building a school.
4 comments:
And you have the do-it-yourself pagans, prominently pictured in the National Geographic article this month, whose claims I haven't bothered to take seriously enough to read.
Edward Abbey had a long and similar set of arguments about National Parks, which he thought should not include roads in their interiors. Yes it enables a lot more people to see it; but having a lot more people there detracts from the beauty of a wilderness, increases pollution and litter, destruction of the very thing we wanted to preserve, etc. This is in his work Desert Solitaire.
I generally side with the ones who want to preserve it for study, but the war example is an interesting case. The Parthenon was apparently in pretty good shape until it was used as an ammo dump by the Ottoman Turks, which resulted in a lot of the damage we who only knew it from photos assumed was from the ravages of time.
@ Grim - I am embarrassed to note that I did not make that connection, thinking in terms of historical and prehistorical sites rather than any American wilderness equivalents. Yet of course the New World does not have any 600K year-old Denisovans. Even its ancient, prehistoric peoples only go back 15K years. We have geology and pretend wilderness, which was actually not virgin forest and untouched environments, but the results of heavily managed landscapes. The Native Americans, after all, were no 1960s hippies trying to live in balance with nature, but regular folks like ourselves, trying to figure out what the environment would give them and scrape out a living.
Is it depressing or humorous that your Scots-Irish hill people would see eye-to-eye with Cree, Iroquois, Mississippian natives 10K years ago than their current descendants attending elite universities would? Don't everyone trip over each other answering that.
Is it depressing or humorous that your Scots-Irish hill people would see eye-to-eye with Cree, Iroquois, Mississippian natives 10K years ago than their current descendants attending elite universities would?
Whether you decide to take it as depressing or humorous, I shall take it as a compliment.
Post a Comment