Vandalism at Welsh cave site.

[graham]

I am alarmed to learn that the cave in Wales where Palaeolithic art has recently been discovered has already been the target of vandalism - targeting the art. This despite the fact that the actual location has not yet been made public.

I'd like the proponents of 'open access for all' to explain why they think that this cave shouldn't be better protected than it currently is.

 

[estelle]

I'm guessing it's this one that the BBC have also kept secret! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-14272126 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14721056  :-\

 

[graham]

I'm guessing it's this one that the BBC have also kept secret! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-14272126 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14721056  :-\

Yup. I am told that the appropriate authority did not feel that any protection is necessary. Well, they were wrong, weren't they!

 

[shortscotsman]

I was very disappointed to hear that vandalism had occurred.


I guess one lesson is that you can't give hints to the location of something like this on the BBC and expect to also keep it secret: the original report had enough info for me to have a good guess at where it might be. 

 

[Alkapton]

I am gutted about what has happened.  I guess I know the cave involved even though I've never been on the Gower, but I know about the caves there, and the BBC showed the enterence to the cave shot from within the cave, I think that is enougth for me to figure which it is.

I am also aware of the one other place in the UK where there is cave art.  In both cases even if I knew the art was there, without a huge arrow on the cave wall I'd have a hard time finding it.  It's just scratches, very hard to see without the right lighting and without knowing in advance where to look and what to look for.  My point being that whoever is responsible for the vandalism cannot be just some intoxicated kid who gets in a cave.    This is deliberate and done by someone who not only knows the cave but exactly what to look for and who has advance knowledge of where to look.    What is the possible motivation?    It can only be to get the cave gated.    But not only that cave.    Other caves in the area are going to be found to contain cave art and now they all need gateing to preserve the art even before its found.

Poor Mel Davies will be turning in his grave.   

 

[graham]

What is the possible motivation?    It can only be to get the cave gated.

Precisely what sort of idiot are you?

 

[Peter Burgess]

A polite one?

 

[Alkapton]

What sort of idiot am I?

The sort that is completely unable to understand why someone would deliberately vandalise not only what is probably the oldest known example of cave art in the UK, but only the second example to be found.

In order to locate the art the vandal mus have knowledge, a great deal of knowlege.  Ancient scratches in limestone are not easy to find or identify - thats why its taken so long to find this example in the first place.  To go to the trouble that this vandal has gone to suggests there is some motivation other than mere opertunist defacement of art.

I cannot think of any 'rational' reason other than an attempt to get the cave gated (and if that is the case the vandal has probably suceeded).  Of course the vandal might not be rational, but I am still convinced this is someone with {inside} knowledge.
   

 

[graham]

What sort of idiot am I?

The sort that is completely unable to understand why someone would deliberately vandalise not only what is probably the oldest known example of cave art in the UK, but only the second example to be found.

Because that is what vandals do. Shall I take you to another cave art site where the vandals cut through the gate in order to splash paint all over the walls? Fortunately they missed the engraving. It has now been cleaned off, by a caver.

In order to locate the art the vandal mus have knowledge, a great deal of knowledge.  Ancient scratches in limestone are not easy to find or identify - that's why its taken so long to find this example in the first place.  To go to the trouble that this vandal has gone to suggests there is some motivation other than mere opportunist defacement of art.

A great deal of knowledge was not needed. It is actually a piece of piss to work out where this site is. The clues are all there, though naturally I am not going to share them here.

I cannot think of any 'rational' reason other than an attempt to get the cave gated (and if that is the case the vandal has probably succeeded).  Of course the vandal might not be rational, but I am still convinced this is someone with {inside} knowledge. 

I know the majority of the team involved in this work. Tell me which one you think it was and I'll let him know. What happens then won't be my responsibility.

Please, why would anyone damage something in order to get it protected? You simply make no sense.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I believe that some people can invoke a line of twisted logic to justify the things they do. Obviously I have no way of knowing whether this is the case here, however. To idenitify a possible motive, however unlikely, doesn't make someone an idiot.

 

[crickleymal]

In order to locate the art the vandal mus have knowledge, a great deal of knowledge.  Ancient scratches in limestone are not easy to find or identify - that's why its taken so long to find this example in the first place.  To go to the trouble that this vandal has gone to suggests there is some motivation other than mere opportunist defacement of art.

A great deal of knowledge was not needed. It is actually a piece of piss to work out where this site is. The clues are all there, though naturally I am not going to share them here.

I don't think that's what he was saying. As I read it Alkapton was saying that you needed to know where the art was in the cave. Doesn't make him an idiot either

 

[RobinGriffiths]

If this has been an open cave, and the art has only just been discovered/recognised, it can't have been particularly obvious, so I can see where he's coming from with his point, although not necessarily the implied conclusion.


Robin

 

[Alkapton]

I think this cave has been well known for a good few years.  Mel Davies did a lot of work in the 60's and 70's in the area.    Yes what I mean is that the ancient scratches that form the art are damn hard to see - that is why they don't get found - you can be shure Mel looked but even he could not see such subtle markings.    Unless someone has put a big arrow pointing at the scratches then someone with no knowledge of cave art is never going to find them.

My 'implied' conclusion may seem paranoid, it might even seem offensive but I can't help thinking its not idiotic and has some merit worth concideration. 

If the other site you mention is Creswell Crags then that is bad, maybe there is a nutter with some grudge against prehistoric art on the loose.    I find out about the vandalism on the local news and its upset me.  I cannot understand this in terms 'normal' vandalism its too 'specialist'

 

[Peter Burgess]

Vandalism can have a personal motivation i.e. to destroy or damage something that you know is of value to someone you have a serious personal emnity with, can give a perverted sense of control over that person. Once again, there is no way of knowing whether this is the case here.

 

[graham]

It is clear that the engraving was targeted. It is clear, therefore that whoever targeted it thought they could find it. It should also be clear that if you know something exists it is a lot easier to find it than if you don't. It does not have to be an 'inside job'; saying that it was is close to libellous of the people concerned with the study.

Where I seriously question Alkapton is

I cannot think of any 'rational' reason other than an attempt to get the cave gated

As that makes really rather ridiculous presumptions. I have given another example of targeted vandalism at a similar site that was gated before it became public knowledge. yet no-one, apart from me, has yet challenged Alkapton's conclusion. Alkapton implies that those who would gate caves to protect them would also damage them. This is just plain silly especially when there are so many more people out there eager to do the dirty work themselves.

It seems to imply that the motive behind gating is something other than protection. I am personally offended by that implication.

 

[cap n chris]

Would this be a correct understanding of the suggestion:

i.e. to use an analogy of a caver finding a pretty cave and, to ensure the cave was gated to protect the formations, took it upon themselves to vandalise the formations on purpose just to prove that the cave was at risk and hence requires a gate?

If this is what was meant then surely it is gobsmacking.

 

[NigR]

It should also be clear that if you know something exists it is a lot easier to find it than if you don't.

I agree. So why did the people who found it make it public in the first place?

What is the possible motivation?  It can only be to get the cave gated. But not only that cave. Other caves in the area are going to be found to contain cave art and now they all need gateing to preserve the art even before it's found.

As a result of which nobody other than those who have access to the caves (presumably those who have gated them) will ever have the opportunity to discover any further art (should it exist). A nice private preserve for years to come.

 

[graham]

I agree. So why did the people who found it make it public in the first place?

Because that's what archaeologists do. They share their discoveries with the rest of us.

As a result of which nobody other than those who have access to the caves (presumably those who have gated them) will ever have the opportunity to discover any further art (should it exist). A nice private preserve for years to come.

I do not know of a single cave with this sort of stuff in the UK, France or Spain where access has not been made available to other researchers. The only (current) exceptions to that rule are Lascaux and Altamira both of which are closed to everybody owing to problems that arose through access being too open. Many sites have various restrictions on them for conservation reasons,but even the most restricted are accessible. Restrictions at Chauvet, for example, forbid anyone from stepping off the stainless steel walkway that has been built to protect the floor. But that applies to the study team as well as other visitors and I have been there on exactly the same terms as the researchers.

Your nasty little insinuation does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Andyj23UK]

I'd like the proponents of 'open access for all' to explain why they think that this cave shouldn't be better protected than it currently is.

what protection do you propose ?

your later post illustrates that a gate can be cut open by a equiped idiot

Shall I take you to another cave art site where the vandals cut through the gate in order to splash paint all over the walls

its a serious question - how would you actully protect a cave ?

 

[cap n chris]

Protection is not absolute (nor can it be) but this does not serve as a rational reason to cease engaging in it. You can protect your cash by keeping it in a safe; the safe can be broken into but your money is definitely better protected than leaving it bundled on your mantelpiece. Seems logical to me.

Examples of cave art are undoubtedly and unarguably protected in a gated cave versus an ungated one. Just depends how you define protected, surely.