Vandalism at Welsh cave site.

[NigR]

But, if he had not continously flaunted the guidelines thus leading to the requirement to have posts approved, the problem would not have arisen in the first place.

Like I said, Paul - that's fair enough. But tell me, is this 'requirement' in place forever or will there come a point whereby it is deemed that he has 'served his time' and can be treated like everybody else?

 

[ChrisJC]

Mick, the rock art world is quite a small one and I know virtually all the workers in this field in the UK. I can tell you that every single one of them would be disgusted at this slur. If you like, I can introduce you to some of them and you can explain just how you came to this conclusion to what would be, I can assure you, a most attentive audience.

Well that's allright then. I'm pleased you know virtually everybody in the field that well. It's lucky that it's only in other academic fields that people suffer from emotions (jealousy / dishonesty / bitterness) and behave accordingly. 

Chris.

 

[graham]

(jealousy / dishonesty / bitterness)

All those. But none of them would consider damaging what all of them see as priceless.

 

[Mrs Trellis]

(Puts caving helmet on) Imvho the whole thing has been done @rse-about-face. Do all the work, including the dating, before any announcement. One problem is the BBC film gave enough to identify the location to those of a mind to vandalise. Why not just show the art? Did the archaeologists view the BBC piece? Just as I sometimes fail to "lock up" because I wouldn't dream of burgling or car-theft I daresay the academics couldn't imagine anyone wishing to damage such a priceless work. Archaeologists have over the years from Schliemann rushed prematurely into the existing media for a variety of reasons from natural excitement to base commercialism. Ironically one of the better-handled discoveries was the Tamworth hoard.

One point about gating. If a gate suddenly appears on a previously ungated cave that gives the game away immediately.

Fwiw I think Graham was intemperate with the "idiot" comment and I feel has transferred his anger at the vandalism to someone who disagreed with him. The poster above isn't an idiot.  Graham should gracefully apologise whilst reserving his right to disagree in temperate language.
(/retires to a safe distance)

 

[Peter Burgess]

Not knowing the nature of the vandalism makes it more difficult to understand the motivation.

For example, if someone has tried to remove a block of the wall with the carving on it one would think it was a "collector", much like rare fossils get chipped out of rock exposures. Although inexcusable, such actions are more easily understandable than simple destruction.

 

[graham]

The blame here lies in two places; with the 'person' who did the damage and with CADW who both failed to see the need for protection and controlled the release of information. That the latter was done badly is exemplified by the fact that the original press release went out the day before the dating results were available. That is just plain silly.

I refuse, however, to apologise to anyone who cast doubt on the integrity or professionalism of the archaeologists involved in the study. To say, as was said, that this might have been done in order to get the site - and other sites - gated is a slur and is the thing that really should be apologised for.

Yes, too much was said and shown on the BBC, but on the one hand there is no chance that anyone had any editorial control on this outside the BBC and on the other, please do not forget that by the time this was shown the cat was already out of the bag. The damage had already been done.

 

[shortscotsman]

I agree we should reserve most of our anger for the people who damaged the artwork. 


However,  I don't think academics are automatically immune from critisism. 
Saying that,  I don't buy conspiracy theories- I think f***-up  is more likely.


The chief archeologist  ``writes and presents for the BBC and independent television and radio''  [from his home page] .
I'm surprised he didn't understood the dangers of the BBC articles.  I would have thought it part of "professionalism"
to do so.

..the main thing is that people learn from this -  i.e.keep things properly secret  or properly protected. The first step to learning is admitting you made a mistake

 

[crickleymal]

I refuse, however, to apologise to anyone who cast doubt on the integrity or professionalism of the archaeologists involved in the study. To say, as was said, that this might have been done in order to get the site - and other sites - gated is a slur and is the thing that really should be apologised for.

Oh for heaven's sake. Nobody said it was them, it was just suggested that it could have been a motive for the vandalism. I don't personally agree with that theory but don't find it necessary to be unpleasant when disagreeing with someone. I can think of at least one more reason for gating a cave which has nothing to do with conservation and all to do with human motivation.

 

[paul]

[gmod]Can I ask everyone to refer to This Forum's Acceptable Use Policy and consider these before posting anything else, especially with regard to:

What is a bannable offence?
I think we all know what is and what isn't acceptable on this forum but for the benefits of new or recent users.

Trolling and malicious hijacking of topics.
Personal insults/attacks/threats - we're all adults, keep it civil.
Arguing with moderator's decisions on the public forum. Feel free to contact the mod team if you disagree with a decision but do it privately. If you're banned then use the email contact form.

[/gmod]

 

[NigR]

One problem is the BBC film gave enough to identify the location to those of a mind to vandalise. Why not just show the art?

A good question.

The BBC Wales clip is 1 minute 43 seconds long.

This can be broken down as follows:

13 seconds - Intro looking back to Presenter from inside cave with easily recognisable entrance in background the entire time.

7 seconds - Inside cave with closeup of cave wall (no identifying features).

10 seconds - Still photographs of carving (no identifying features).

20 seconds - Interview with discoverer of carving inside cave (no identifying features).

22 seconds - Presenter talking just inside cave entrance, camera looking into cave with clearly identifiable marks in background.

14 seconds - Cut back to interview of discoverer of carving inside cave (no identifying features).

17 seconds - Panning shots across entrance vestibule showing rest of archaeological team in action, again clearly showing identifiable marks in background along with daylight streaming in via another entrance.

So, in total, roughly 50% of the clip (52 out of 103 seconds) is helping to identify the location of the cave. Sloppy editing or well designed planning? Or (possibly) even deliberate misinformation? (In which case they've done a very good job!).

Graham is quite correct in pointing out that the damage had already been done prior to the latest BBC news clips being shown but surely that should make it even more important to conceal the location of the cave until more effective protective measures could be put in place? Or is the damage that has already been caused so great that it does not matter if any more occurs? If that is (sadly) the case then there doesn't seem much point talking about gating it now, does there?

One point about gating. If a gate suddenly appears on a previously ungated cave that gives the game away immediately.

A good point, but it would have been possible to easily place a gate or grill a little way inside the cave rather than at the entrance. Yes, this would alert anyone who may have been looking for the art that they were in the right place but (as has been stated elsewhere - take a look at the link I posted earlier) there was enough info in the initial press release to do that anyway.

 
I don't buy conspiracy theories - I think f***-up  is more likely.

But conspiracy theories are much more fun!

 

[whitelackington]

Perhaps if we could be told a little more of the nature of the cave engraving damage we might be able to hone in on a possible motive.

 

[Alex]

I think people are reading FAR too much into this, the BBC showed what it did innocently probably not expecting some mindless vandal to bother wrecking the place.

The mentality of the person who did it?

My guess, is that it was merely one of those people who do silly things when people are being interviewed to get attention. As it had been on TV what better way did they think. Unfortunately In this case the persons cry for attention was more permanent. Was there initials scratched there?

Gating it, not sure what good that would do, they would probably just sell the darn thing in a scrap yard. 

Conspiracy's eh? I bet some of you think that 911 was done by America and we never landed on the moon? Thats another aspect of human nature I don't understand the need to see conspiracys everywhere. Did you know elvis is living on mars after being abducted by an angry Martian who was found in an un-gated cave (So he could escape).

P.s. I have no issue with gates persay provided the keys are easily accessible to cavers from a caving hut and you do not have to wait months for it. Maybe thats because everyone I cave with is useless in planning ahead and the weather makes planning ahead rather pointless anyway.

 

[NigR]

I think people are reading FAR too much into this, the BBC showed what it did innocently probably not expecting some mindless vandal to bother wrecking the place.

Just to emphasise (again) - the initial damage was caused prior to the BBC film clip being aired. However, by screening it when they did (before any protective measures could be put in place) and, more importantly, by showing precisely what they did (effectively pinpointing the location of the cave), the danger of a repeat (or even copycat) attack has been substantially increased. This makes no sense to me whatsoever. (Unless, of course, the cave they filmed in was not really the actual cave where the art is situated - then it makes a great deal of sense. But that would be a conspiracy theory so it can't possibly be true can it?). If you watch the clip again you will see that the editing is very tight indeed - a great deal of information is imparted in a very short space of time and nothing is wasted. Believe me, the media are very good at what they do.

Did you know elvis is living on mars after being abducted by an angry Martian who was found in an un-gated cave (So he could escape).

Hey, come on, Alex! No need to tell everyone the real reason why we don't want gates on caves!

Can I ask everyone to refer to This Forum's Acceptable Use Policy and consider these before posting anything else, especially with regard to:

What is a bannable offence?
I think we all know what is and what isn't acceptable on this forum but for the benefits of new or recent users.

Trolling and malicious hijacking of topics.
Personal insults/attacks/threats - we're all adults, keep it civil.
Arguing with moderator's decisions on the public forum. Feel free to contact the mod team if you disagree with a decision but do it privately. If you're banned then use the email contact form.

Does this mean Graham will get banned for insulting Alkapton (calling him an idiot in public)?

 

[Elaine]

First thing is a private message from the moderators asking for calm etc. We are not going to know when people get these messages.

Although it is possible the discoverer did the damage, or one of his jealous colleagues, it isn't likely is it? Usually this sort of thing not done by intelligent and educated people.

 

[NigR]

First thing is a private message from the moderators asking for calm etc. We are not going to know when people get these messages.

So he'll have to call him an idiot again before he gets banned? Oh well, I'm sure that can be arranged!

Although it is possible the discoverer did the damage, or one of his jealous colleagues, it isn't likely is it? Usually this sort of thing is not done by intelligent and educated people.

Yes, I do agree that both of those scenarios are unlikely. However, having now visited the purported site of the carving myself (two days in a row, in fact) I need to mull things over for a while in order to try and reach a more considered opinion.

 

[dunc]

Usually this sort of thing not done by intelligent and educated people.

I beg to differ, they are just as capable as anyone else.

 

[Elaine]

I do agree, but that is why I said 'usually'. I shouldn't speculate as I don't know the nature of the vandalism. 'CFC rule ok' spray painted on it would be different to what Peter suggested, which was if it looked like someone had tried to pinch a bit of it.

 

[whitelackington]

I feel that professional jealousy by an academic is very unlikely as the utter shame of being found out would finish them.
However "Mindless Vandalism" is just as unlikely.
There must be motive in this crime.
What do the archaeologists think happened?

 

[NigR]

Not knowing the nature of the vandalism makes it more difficult to understand the motivation.

For example, if someone has tried to remove a block of the wall with the carving on it one would think it was a "collector", much like rare fossils get chipped out of rock exposures. Although inexcusable, such actions are more easily understandable than simple destruction.

I shouldn't speculate as I don't know the nature of the vandalism. 'CFC rule OK' spray painted on it would be different to what Peter suggested, which was if it looked like someone had tried to pinch a bit of it.

Was there initials scratched there?

Perhaps if we could be told a little more of the nature of the cave engraving damage we might be able to hone in on a possible motive.

Regarding the nature of the damage caused, I regret I am unable to shed much light on this as I have yet to successfully locate the engraving itself. The BBC Wales Presenter says that "Mud had been smeared over the etchings and someone had scraped away at the surface" and this is the most detailed description I have been able to come across up to now. If someone who has actually witnessed the vandalism could further enlighten us then I would be most interested to hear their description and assessment.

The blame here lies in two places; with the 'person' who did the damage and with CADW who both failed to see the need for protection and controlled the release of information.

So was it CADW who controlled the release of the following information?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg/tmdj/2011/00000004/00000002/art00003

Doesn't look like it to me.

(Just click on the PDF button to view or download the article.)

Quote : Ingentaconnect from Publishing Technology distributes your content to over 25 million individual users a month.

So there you go - another 25 million potential vandals (plus however many people are capable of conducting a simple internet search)!

(It is interesting that this is dated July, well before the latest BBC News clips, and that this is the ONLY article available for free!).

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Hi Nig,

How hard was it to find that article ? It does rather give the game away, not only a photo but a grid reference!!,  but I was wondering what degree of expertise did you require to get to that page.



Ah, I've answered my own question, google the following, and it's in the top 10

gower reindeer marks paleolithic


Robin