Peter Burgess
New member
Good idea, but its not quite the same as seeing the 'real' thing.
http://www.wcms.org.uk/cgi-bin/wcmsgallery.pl?imgno=75
http://www.wcms.org.uk/cgi-bin/wcmsgallery.pl?imgno=76
Removing Graffiti
- Thread starter Peter Burgess
- Start date
Good idea, but its not quite the same as seeing the 'real' thing.
http://www.wcms.org.uk/cgi-bin/wcmsgallery.pl?imgno=75
http://www.wcms.org.uk/cgi-bin/wcmsgallery.pl?imgno=76
gus horsley
New member
I don't think it's feasible to restore graffiti and most people don't bother to keep photographic records of the more obscure stuff. Therefore it's going to be lost forever. I've never been tempted to remove graffiti unless it has been at the request of the landowner, ie Llygad Llwchwr, where I did weekly cleanups and the owners inspected the cave. It was fairly obvious what had appeared during the course of a week. It was also fairly obvious on the occasion that someone had peed in a pool - that took some cleaning up.
Brains
Well-known member
I suppose such ephemera will always be rather transient in a surface location, but are preserved by being out of the way of the weather in a hole in the ground. Most in my opinion would seem to be worthless scrawl, but then so is a lot of so called art or literature. I would not advocate book burning, nor the making of Tracy Emin's bed, and would defer to the opinion of others as to the merits of such things.
The wrappers of Mars Bars etc I will remove, waymarking cairns of no merit I will scatter, carving on the wall I can do nothing with, and mud on formations I would try and wash away. Fresh scrawl of bored modern visitors would likewise be eradicated if possible.
Does that make me a vandal or a cave conserver?
The wrappers of Mars Bars etc I will remove, waymarking cairns of no merit I will scatter, carving on the wall I can do nothing with, and mud on formations I would try and wash away. Fresh scrawl of bored modern visitors would likewise be eradicated if possible.
Does that make me a vandal or a cave conserver?
Peter Burgess
New member
a cave conserver, no doubt in my mind.
These idle pencil marks that I posted up are (sorry, were) actually meaningless initials from casual visitors. They are (sorry were), however, the only evidence we have of visitors into these ancient workings following a monumental storm in 1911 which washed open three old workings. The evidence of the flood is everywhere - silt, demolished drystone walls, huge boulders tossed around like playthings - this graffiti identifies one of the three entrances that were temporarily opened.
More recently I think I have identified chalk arrows drawn on the walls by these early explorers, and a couple more associated names. If this is the case, then it is possible to follow in the footsteps of those early venturers, and see how far into the system they penetrated.
spelling
These idle pencil marks that I posted up are (sorry, were) actually meaningless initials from casual visitors. They are (sorry were), however, the only evidence we have of visitors into these ancient workings following a monumental storm in 1911 which washed open three old workings. The evidence of the flood is everywhere - silt, demolished drystone walls, huge boulders tossed around like playthings - this graffiti identifies one of the three entrances that were temporarily opened.
More recently I think I have identified chalk arrows drawn on the walls by these early explorers, and a couple more associated names. If this is the case, then it is possible to follow in the footsteps of those early venturers, and see how far into the system they penetrated.
spelling
cap n chris
Well-known member
Brains said:
Definitely a conserver. Good on you.
Peter Burgess
New member
You have a point. But does that mean we should not restore old buildings and the like, especially listed properties of historical importance, because the end result is less than genuine? Not that there's any comparison between some idle scribble and Westminster Abbey, you understand.
kay
Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
One view would be that, as long as there is a record of the marks and their whereabouts sufficient to be able to make the interpretation you have described, it doesn't matter whether the marks are still in situ. This would, I suppose, be the rationale behind rescue archaeology, that provided you record exactly what has been found, it's OK that it is now all lost beneath the new motorway. (The same applies to all archaeology to a degree since it is impossible to dig without some disturbance)
The counter argument would be that our archeological techniques are improving - what we can interpret from the evidence may only be a fraction of what a future generation could find out. So if you went with this view, it would be important to leave the pencil or chalk marks in situ in case a later generation was able to use them to interpret, not only how far people penetrated, but how tall they were, what they wear wearing, and what they planned to have for dinner : :wink:
Peter Burgess
New member
I hope you are not suggesting that one option is to record all the marks for posterity and then deliberately remove them! The lost inscriptions, it could be argued, were removed accidentally.
kay
Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
It's why we only do minimal restoration, isn't it? Just enough to stop further deterioration. The Roman gatehouse at the Newcastle end of Hadrians Wall, reconstructed to full height, gave me a much better understanding than any amount of tramping around Housesteads. I know the reasons why not, but is doesn't stop part of me hankering for a reconstructed Stonehenge in all its glory, or a reconstructed Roman ampitheatre at Caerleon.
kay
Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
Why not? Talking more generally, suppose it seemed the marks were attracting further graffiti? Suppose it's not marks, but debris of historical interest? It's common practice to remove artefacts for safe keeping elsewhere, although arguably they should be conserved in situ.
veering off sideways - i can remember reading an article about cave creatures - I think it was in the context of research on nutritional needs of such, and the chap was finding even minimal inputs (one breadcrumb) were overwhelming to a group of ogarnisms evolved to live on virtually nothing. Can we be sure they wouldn't be affected by the graphite in the pencil marks (OK ... the cleaning would probably be even worse :wink: )
Of course, get too hung up on this and we'll stop caving altogether!
Peter Burgess
New member
You are joking I hope! I recall a recent TV program on the Historic Royal Palaces, where the inscriptions of condemned prisoners in the Tower of London were being replicated to allow visitors to touch them, and the originals wre being protected from further deterioration. Someone out there at least values historical graffiti.
[spelling]
D
Dep
Guest
I think that to attempt to re-draw the graffiti - however good your results, will not cut it. This will never be more than a modern copy and therefore of dubious value.
In attempting to re-create the graffiti you could actually do more damage. Just because you cannot see it with your own eyes does not mean that all traces have gone. (OK, in this particular case I believe the wall has been wire-brushed so it is totally gone, but in general I think this is true.)
There is a way to have your cake and eat it though...
Since you have good pictures why not print them out, put some text on the back explaining the situation - and significance - and laminate it.
Leave it leaning against the wall for any visitor to see. No one will mistake it for rubbish, everyone will understand what it is, and hopefully people will learn more from this.
It will cost bugger all to do - have no permanent impact on the site and will avoid you being lynched
by those members of your club who think that drawing over the top of it, however well intentioned, would be sacrilege.
paul
Moderator
Dep said:
For what its worth, I was involved in publishing a record of the "Miners' Toast" and associated grafitti in Peak Cavern/Speedwell. This included everything that was present at the time regardless of age.
The idea of re-creating removed grafitti is not the same as restoration of an object such as a historic building, ancient monument, vintage vehicle or whatever, where replacement of worn out, damaged or lost material is done in order to prevent further damage or to restore to former condition where the amount of material replaced was a small part of the whole. A wholesale replacement may have some value in understanding and appreciation but is hardly the same as the original object. As with the story of "my grandfather's axe" where grandfather claims he has "had this axe for over 50 years" and has "only had to replace the handle three times and the head twice". Being able to see a faithful facsimile of Lascaux Cave in France, created nearby to the original in order to protect the original, is hardly the same as seeing the original pre-historic drawings.
Graffiti in itself if it is to be preserved is beacuse of age, or some historic record or because it was written by somebody of note. Once it has been removed any replacement would be the same as replacing a destroyed Mona Lisa with a modern copy. The intrinsic worth of the graffiti can never be replaced.
On a different note: If you visit Cumberland Cavern/Wapping Mine near Matlock Bath, one chamber's ceiling is covered with a huge amount of scrawls in soot, densely packed and covering many square metres. Any single item is probably worthless (being along the lines of "kilroy was here" and written by regular visitors in the 70's who used the area for partying, etc.), but when you see the complete ceiling it seems almost as if it was some sort of huge work of art. I wouldn't be bothered really of it were scrubbed off, but then as long as it is there, it does seem interesting.
Peter Burgess
New member
Dep wrote:
Personally, I think an A4 laminated sheet stuck on the wall or lying on the floor nearby would be as obstrusive as yards of red and white tape.
I shall take the approach that I have seen it, I have a photo of it, and hard luck to anyone else who is curious to know what it used to say. My only reason for replicating the inscription is for the benefit of others, not for my own personal gratification. Go look at our website if you really are interested.
Personally, I think an A4 laminated sheet stuck on the wall or lying on the floor nearby would be as obstrusive as yards of red and white tape.
I shall take the approach that I have seen it, I have a photo of it, and hard luck to anyone else who is curious to know what it used to say. My only reason for replicating the inscription is for the benefit of others, not for my own personal gratification. Go look at our website if you really are interested.
graham
New member
Peter Burgess said:
The point about the laminated sheet is that it does not do additional harm to the environment.
On the other hand attempting to replicate the pencil work would be very damaging. AS Dep notes, there may well be traces left that future archaeological techniques might be able to glean information from. If you add more pencil marks you might make that job impossible.
graham
New member
It is important to take these things on a case-by-case basis. I have had the good fortune to visit a great many of the French Palaeolithic decorated caves in the company of the guys whose job it is to care for them.
In Niaux, in the Pyrennes, I once asked whether they had any plans to remove more modern graffitti. I was told that in that case the answer was "No". The reason being that, even without the prehistoric material there was a significant amount of historic information preserved there.
On the other hand, in Rouffignac in Perigord, the owner has invested a considerable sum of money in having an Art restoration expert clean later graffitti which overlays parts of the prehistoric material (a situation not found in Niaux). In my (subjective) view this work has improved the overall aesthetic appearance considerably without affecting the ability to study the material. I should also note that this work has been carried out not just in the areas seen by the public but in areas well away from the show cave. The work in the Salon Rouge is particularly impressive.
In Niaux, in the Pyrennes, I once asked whether they had any plans to remove more modern graffitti. I was told that in that case the answer was "No". The reason being that, even without the prehistoric material there was a significant amount of historic information preserved there.
On the other hand, in Rouffignac in Perigord, the owner has invested a considerable sum of money in having an Art restoration expert clean later graffitti which overlays parts of the prehistoric material (a situation not found in Niaux). In my (subjective) view this work has improved the overall aesthetic appearance considerably without affecting the ability to study the material. I should also note that this work has been carried out not just in the areas seen by the public but in areas well away from the show cave. The work in the Salon Rouge is particularly impressive.
Similar threads
