Simon Wilson
New member
Can anything left in a cave be considered to be an artifact? On what grounds could that happen? Does age alone make something an artifact?
What should be brought out?
- Thread starter Simon Wilson
- Start date
rhychydwr1
Active member
As a biologist I would be reluctant to remove any organic material as it might contain cave animals.
Simon Wilson
New member
rhychydwr1 said:
So if there is an old abandoned caver's bivouac with mouldy food remains, rotting woolen clothing, cotton/feather sleeping bags and canvas bags it should all be left as it is?
graham
New member
Simon Wilson said:
That point is rather more moot than you might think, Simon.
I can certainly think of an instance of a cave which was held to be rather polluted by farmyard waste was a short distance upstream of a a stream cave that held a noted population of cavernicoles. OK, maybe the stuff should not have been there in the first place but once it has had an influence on its surroundings, the effects of removal can be as profound as the effects of leaving it.
As with all questions of conservation, it depends what you want to achieve.
Simon Wilson
New member
I don't understand how removing it can be anything other than beneficial but I know very little about cave biology. Someone would have to explain it.
Anyway, let me give a more specific question.
When we re-climbed into Lost Pot a few years ago we found an old battered helmet at the scene of Jim Newton's near-fatal accident. I found that interesting and left it just as it was. There are also other things discarded at the time of the rescue. Should they be removed?
http://caving-library.org.uk/catalogue/BCL/code/php/library.php?action=search&lib=&type=any&search=title&search_string=Part%203%20-%20An%20horrific%20accident%20in%20Lost%20Pot&title=Part%203%20-%20An%20horrific%20accident%20in%20Lost%20Pot&orig=Jim%20Newton
Anyway, let me give a more specific question.
When we re-climbed into Lost Pot a few years ago we found an old battered helmet at the scene of Jim Newton's near-fatal accident. I found that interesting and left it just as it was. There are also other things discarded at the time of the rescue. Should they be removed?
http://caving-library.org.uk/catalogue/BCL/code/php/library.php?action=search&lib=&type=any&search=title&search_string=Part%203%20-%20An%20horrific%20accident%20in%20Lost%20Pot&title=Part%203%20-%20An%20horrific%20accident%20in%20Lost%20Pot&orig=Jim%20Newton
graham
New member
The simple answer is that I don't know. I don't know the site, I don't know the items and I don't know, therefore, what the effects of removal might be.
I would always approach such issues on a case by case basis and my first thought would always be "What are we trying to achieve here?"
Another 'for instance' In one cave I know, there is a fixed aid that some consider unsightly and would wish removed, possibly to be replaced by a handline fixed to a bolt which would, they think, be rather more discreet. However, it is almost certainly the case that removal of the aid would result in significantly more abrasion, wear and tear, of the calcite surface beneath.
I would always approach such issues on a case by case basis and my first thought would always be "What are we trying to achieve here?"
Another 'for instance' In one cave I know, there is a fixed aid that some consider unsightly and would wish removed, possibly to be replaced by a handline fixed to a bolt which would, they think, be rather more discreet. However, it is almost certainly the case that removal of the aid would result in significantly more abrasion, wear and tear, of the calcite surface beneath.
rhychydwr1
Active member
Simon Wilson said:
Yes.
Bottlebank
New member
And potentially
perhaps should have been left where it was?
I know many archaeological digs take place on old rubbish dumps - are we also depriving archaeologists of the future by cleaning things up?
Many mining artifacts are only a few decades old.
perhaps should have been left where it was?
I know many archaeological digs take place on old rubbish dumps - are we also depriving archaeologists of the future by cleaning things up?
Many mining artifacts are only a few decades old.
JasonC
Well-known member
droid said:
I'd still take my hat off to anyone who dragged a decomposing sheep out of a cave, no matter how much other cave life it was home to.
I think Simon's comment that the helmet was interesting is relevant. Discarded batteries, old sandwiches, tatty bits of rope are rarely interesting, nor for my money are woodlice, but other things might be. A matter of opinion, of course....
(btw, your post was apostrophised perfectly, although 'neccessary' has an unnecessary 'c' )
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
Bottlebank said:
This is a very useful thread: the niceties of cave conservation have always confused me but now it's becoming clearer.
When I dragged those 2 ammo boxes of REAL crap out of White River, Peak/Speedwell, last year I was committing an act of vandalism, not an act of cave conservation.
The hundreds (thousands?) of cavers who had left them there over nearly 2 decades had recognised their growing importance as artifacts.
Sorry folks, all I can say in my defence is that it was well-intentioned.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
This is an interesting topic - clearly there may often be an element of doubt about whether any particular items should be removed or not. To try and summarise the various comments made to this effect, it seems that reasons for NOT removing something may be:
1. you can't immediately be sure it's not required as part of someone's project.
2. you may be adversely affecting a potential archaeological resource.
3. you may adversely affect the biological value of the cave.
So, if there is this doubt, it follows that the slogan being bandied about ("If in doubt, bring it out") is potentially damaging. Really, nothing should be interfered with unless you're absolutely certain that removal is the right thing to do.
Perhaps a more meaningful ethos might be "If in doubt - find out, before bringing anything out". This would be the only truly responsible approach. (I suspect it's more in alignment with the fine print in legislation on SSSIs as well.)
I make no apology for once again expressing my broad support for this initiative - but I think the original slogan should be abandoned as it's far too simplistic and may cause more problems than it aims to solve.
1. you can't immediately be sure it's not required as part of someone's project.
2. you may be adversely affecting a potential archaeological resource.
3. you may adversely affect the biological value of the cave.
So, if there is this doubt, it follows that the slogan being bandied about ("If in doubt, bring it out") is potentially damaging. Really, nothing should be interfered with unless you're absolutely certain that removal is the right thing to do.
Perhaps a more meaningful ethos might be "If in doubt - find out, before bringing anything out". This would be the only truly responsible approach. (I suspect it's more in alignment with the fine print in legislation on SSSIs as well.)
I make no apology for once again expressing my broad support for this initiative - but I think the original slogan should be abandoned as it's far too simplistic and may cause more problems than it aims to solve.
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
graham said:
For years there were 2 ammo boxes up in White River, opposite the entrance to Watt Passage.
The word in local caving circles was that they contained crap.
When we took the lids off we found plastic bags which seemed to contain stuff of the correct consistency.
Dragging the first along Watt Passage went without incident.
The second one leaked. Only a bit, but enough for the nature of the contents to be obvious to me and others.
graham
New member
Chocolate fireguard said:
Ok that makes a lot more sense. It makes perfect sense that you took these things out. The ecological niche that i referred to was clearly inside the boxes and separate from the cave passage. You knew that they'd been there for a considerable time. No-one would, I think, argue that a couple of boxes in a fairly recently discovered section of cave constituted something of archaeological significance ammo cans ghardly indicate prior entry by T'owd Man. The purpose of a sealed box of this nature is to prevent its contents interacting with the environment and the contents were quite obviously not going to be of use anywhere else in the cave even before your conclusion as to what they were became fully apparent. Shame that one of the cans leaked, possibly bringing them out whilst wrapped in something else would have been preferable but almost anything can be done better in hindsight.
Nope, no problem with this one.
Peter Burgess
New member
Old crap underground is interesting. What appears to be centuries old quarrymen's droppings in an old underground quarry, on closer inspection, seem to contain things like remains of insects and small mammals. Quarrymen used to eat some weird stuff! But in 200 years time will anybody want to know what the average caver used to eat back in the old days?
