Jump to content

Caches at Archaeological Sites

megalithic

By megalithic
in United Kingdom and Ireland

Followers 6

Recommended Posts

megalithic

megalithic

Posted
Posted

Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site?

 

The guidelines clearly don't allow this:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

A few examples:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=454797

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=456349

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=275762

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d3-c302004091fd

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-21a28c69fc7d

 

Is anyone going to do anything about this?

Thanks

Andy

Link to comment
NickPick

NickPick

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry, what's the problem with caches placed near archaeological sites? It's not as if they're placed at the top of the stones or require you to climb over the stone age wall and dig around is it?

 

A quick look at some of the caches you've highlighted, and it seems that they're all placed sensibly away from the ancient site (which the public are allowed to visit). One is under a scots pine, the other in a bush, and another across the moat, over the bank and down some steps to the ditch. I couldn't understand the last one as it was all in german.

Edited by NickPick
Link to comment
Lactodorum

Lactodorum

Posted
Posted

Is anyone going to do anything about this?

That'd be a "no", then. :)

In this case there is no need to do anything. The caches are not IN ancient sites but are designed to encourage people to visit. If the caches wre hidden IN the stones/Megaliths or whatever then that would be different. We had this discussion 3 years ago with various people and the situation since then has demonstrated that cachers are most definitely very responsible people. I know of only a handful of cases where caches were placed in "forbidden" places and those wre rapidly dealt with.

Link to comment
Geo-Kate

+Geo-Kate

Posted
Posted

Looking at the person's profile I see that;

 

1. They have neither found or hidden any caches. Why are they here?

 

2. The (vast) majority of their posts are unfounded complaints about caches near ancient stones.

 

3. One cache they complained about went MIA shortly after their complaint was ignored. Coincidence?

 

I think somebody justs wants to antagonise and cause friction. Better off ignored than worked up about.

Link to comment
The Bolas Heathens

+The Bolas Heathens

Posted
Posted

We've done the 4th cache mentioned above and it's just not an issue. The cache is situated some way away from the archaeological site and would cause no harm to the site in any way whatsoever.

 

If a cache was right in the middle of the site and perhaps could result in a cacher disturbing the site when searching for the cache then I could understand the problem but the one we did was in no way like this and was situated on land the public are very much encouraged to come and explore.

Link to comment
alistair_uk

alistair_uk

Posted
Posted

Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site?

 

Is anyone going to do anything about this?

Thanks

Andy

As stated there appears not to be a problem with these caches, and I am more than happy with the explanation given, but I will add that I think you have done the correct thing in highlighting the potential problem. Unless someone highlights a problem then no one will do anything because they did not know something needed doing.

Link to comment
naffita

+naffita

Posted
Posted

Megalithic joined us some time ago when there was a great furore over caches that were near ancient sites, and more to the point, the suggestion that these were great places to set a number of caches. There were a number of posts from his friends on themodernantiquarian site. Megalith was ( is? ) one of the less radical members and was one of the few sane voices from that site.

I guess he has no finds because he has no direct interest in geocaching, but has a look at us now and then to see what we are up to. His interest is ancient sites and understandably does not want them being over-run.

Having said that, as far as I know, there are no caches actually on or in ancient sites, and we are as much entitled to visit the area as any other member of the public.

Link to comment
Pharisee

+Pharisee

Posted
Posted (edited)

Megalithic joined us some time ago when there was a great furore over caches that were near ancient sites, and more to the point, the suggestion that these were great places to set a number of caches. There were a number of posts from his friends on themodernantiquarian site. Megalith was ( is? ) one of the less radical members and was one of the few sane voices from that site.

I guess he has no finds because he has no direct interest in geocaching, but has a look at us now and then to see what we are up to. His interest is ancient sites and understandably does not want them being over-run.

Having said that, as far as I know, there are no caches actually on or in ancient sites, and we are as much entitled to visit the area as any other member of the public.

 

You beat me to it!! I remember Megalith from the Mod Ants and remember him as being one of those that calmed down what was becoming a... well let's just say it was a bit heated. He spoke with reason and a lot of sense. If the caches he points out (they're not ones I'm familiar with) are in any way detrimental to the monuments concerned then I'm sure our reviewers will take the appropriate action.

 

feed_troll.jpg

 

Totally uncalled for and serves absolutely no purpose.

 

[edited cos I can't spell!!]

Edited by Pharisee
Link to comment
Hi-Tek

+Hi-Tek

Posted
Posted

Megalithic joined us some time ago when there was a great furore over caches that were near ancient sites, and more to the point, the suggestion that these were great places to set a number of caches. There were a number of posts from his friends on themodernantiquarian site. Megalith was ( is? ) one of the less radical members and was one of the few sane voices from that site.

I guess he has no finds because he has no direct interest in geocaching, but has a look at us now and then to see what we are up to. His interest is ancient sites and understandably does not want them being over-run.

Having said that, as far as I know, there are no caches actually on or in ancient sites, and we are as much entitled to visit the area as any other member of the public.

 

Ah, deja-vue (again) :)

Link to comment
currykev

+currykev

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site?

 

 

There's a cache near the Colosseum in Rome! Imagine how many people will now turn up and spoil the peace at this beautiful archaeoligical site! :laughing:

On a more serious note...I'm sure our cache pages are also perused by other "sensitive" associations and official bodies to check that there aren't any possible conflicts with cache placement.Would they not contact GC.com or GC UK in a professional manner,rather than post a spurious thread on the forum.The answer is of course they would!...So my reply to magalithic is for him/her/they to either go through the correct channels or s*d off.

 

Edited to state that this is the opinion of a private individual and does not reflect the opinions of GC.com

Edited by currykev
Link to comment
Donmoore

+Donmoore

Posted
Posted

I think megalithic is afraid of some no nowt cacher finding something while out caching i.e some kind of fossil or bone or what ever those kinds of folk crawl about on their hands and knees with a toothbrush look for.

Would not look good that some group paying millions a year for research find nothing and then the common man finds something of great interest.

Link to comment
NickandAliandEliza

+NickandAliandEliza

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think megalithic is afraid of some no nowt cacher finding something while out caching i.e some kind of fossil or bone or what ever those kinds of folk crawl about on their hands and knees with a toothbrush look for.

Would not look good that some group paying millions a year for research find nothing and then the common man finds something of great interest.

 

What is your basis for thinking his motive is this, rather than a concern about the monuments being damaged?

 

Maybe the original post was a bit abrupt, but there is nothing on the cache pages that says you wouldn't have to go rooting around the stones to find the caches. As a significant amount of posts on here are clearly by the 'I do as I please' brigade, I'm not really surprised that people with other interests get concerned.

 

So my reply to magalithic is for him/her/they to either go through the correct channels or s*d off.

 

Nice turn of phrase and will do a lot to build bridges........

 

PS........he/she/they have been members of this forum since Jan 2003 - take a look at their other postings before questioning motives

Edited by Nick & Ali
Link to comment
Donmoore

+Donmoore

Posted
Posted

I think megalithic is afraid of some no nowt cacher finding something while out caching i.e some kind of fossil or bone or what ever those kinds of folk crawl about on their hands and knees with a toothbrush look for.

Would not look good that some group paying millions a year for research find nothing and then the common man finds something of great interest.

 

What is your basis for thinking his motive is this, rather than a concern about the monuments being damaged?

 

Maybe the original post was a bit abrupt, but there is nothing on the cache pages that says you wouldn't have to go rooting around the stones to find the caches. As a significant amount of posts on here are clearly by the 'I do as I please' brigade, I'm not really surprised that people with other interests get concerned.

 

 

Probably the same basis that they used in assuming that the cachers will be damaging the areas in question even though as we have shown that the caches are placed under trees bushes and the like. So my basis? Totatlly unfounded.

Link to comment
Birdman-of-liskatraz

+Birdman-of-liskatraz

Posted
Posted

It's a perfectly valid concern and should be addressed.

 

I can think of caches that are within archalogical features... not close by but either attached to or hidden within them.

 

I guess that as the sites are managed by English Heritage/The National Trust that permission has been given and these bodies accept that the presence of a cache will cause no damage to the monuments.

Link to comment
The Golem

+The Golem

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't know if anyone else has done this but I looked at the link on Megalithic's profile and then searched for any references to Geocaching - here's what I've found so far....

 

I haven't read every thread yet, I'm just working through them - would anyone care to have a look through themselves... :laughing:

 

Geocaching references

 

Edited to add: I have a cache at Castlerigg Stone Circle, in the ten months since it was placed it's received about 120 visits, I performed a maintenance visit this week and found that there is little or no impact from these visits. I placed the cache within the field where the stones lie but a respectful distance from them. I don't know the exact visitor numbers but tens of thousands of "normal" people visit every year and trample the ground all around the site, I think the impact of a few hundred cachers over the next few years will be so slight as to be irrelevant.

Edited by The Golem
Link to comment
Alice Band

+Alice Band

Posted
Posted

I've been prodded to respond here as I am an archaeologist and have worked for English Heritage.

 

I have been to archaeological sites with caches and every one of those caches were placed in a sensible, safe and above all non-damaging/historical part of the site. Permission is always sought from the site owners who are very aware of foot traffic to sites. One cacher every few days or weeks or so is nothing compared to the 1000's daily who are eroding such sites as West Kennet Long Barrow which IMHO should be closed off to the public to give it a chance to recover from much rabbit and public damage.

 

As I once said to the Pagan Federation at a conference many years ago, an archaeological monument is forever, not just a Solstice, and in my experience cachers tend to respect such sites much more than the average member of the public does.

 

I personally have no problem with caches placed near sites, nor do the professional staff I have spoken to at various sites. Moreover, some welcome caches to increase visitor numbers which is sadly lacking at some monuments and possibly increase much needed revenue.

 

Its a different matter however if the cache owner moved stones/damaged the monument to hide it. To date no one has done this but if they did they would have me to answer to :laughing:

Link to comment
lakeuk

lakeuk

Posted
Posted

I don't know if anyone else has done this but I looked at the link on Megalithic's profile and then searched for any references to Geocaching - here's what I've found so far....

 

I haven't read every thread yet, I'm just working through them - would anyone care to have a look through themselves... :laughing:

 

 

I've had a scan through his previous thread and the majority are advertising his site which I've not taken the pleasure in visiting, his other threads are on the same lines as this on which I believe are an alternative advert for his site since his rant has no basis considering the high likely hood he's not visited any of the caches he's quoting - didn't work with me

Link to comment
currykev

+currykev

Posted
Posted

I don't know if anyone else has done this but I looked at the link on Megalithic's profile and then searched for any references to Geocaching - here's what I've found so far....

 

I haven't read every thread yet, I'm just working through them - would anyone care to have a look through themselves... :laughing:

 

 

I've had a scan through his previous thread and the majority are advertising his site which I've not taken the pleasure in visiting, his other threads are on the same lines as this on which I believe are an alternative advert for his site since his rant has no basis considering the high likely hood he's not visited any of the caches he's quoting - didn't work with me

 

Maybe someone could direct vistors to megalithic's site to GC.com :laughing:

PS..I stick by my earlier turn of phrase! :unsure:

Link to comment
The Golem

+The Golem

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's quite a good web site actually - there are loads of excellent sites just ripe for placing caches that I never knew about until this thread was started - I've found around 100 just in Cumbria.

 

Thanks for the link to your site, if you're stuck for somewhere to hide a cache why not take a look folks - there's bound to be one near you, they even supply a handy grid reference... :laughing:

Edited by The Golem
Link to comment
currykev

+currykev

Posted
Posted

Here

 

There's a search box in the top right corner - I just entered Cumbria and it came up with over a hundred potential new cache sites - it's fantastic! :unsure:

 

I'd be too scared too. :ph34r: There might be a posse of Archaeoligical Outlaws waiting with large stones. :laughing: Or even worse...the Pope's 21st Century Catholic Crusaders. :laughing:

PS...couldn't really do an off topic thread regarding today's comments by the Pope. :unsure:

Link to comment
megalithic

megalithic

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Ah, you always make me so welcome, it's touching <_<

 

Do I have to quote from your own guidelines which say

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

"Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

<snip>

* Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

"

 

I didn't write these rules did I? I have raised the point that this does not seem to be happening. If people think there are caches in and around a monument there is a chance things may be disturbed by people looking in nooks and crannies etc. 99% of these sites have never been excavated, the point being that no one knows what might be there to be disturbed.

 

I had a discussion with a few of the more senior members here a couple of years ago and what they came up with as a reasonable compromise was for caches not to be put within 100m of ancient/archaeological sites (apart from virtual caches of course which could be the site itself)

 

Thank you to those who have made kind comments about our web site, and I encourage you to visit the sites we list. To repeat, whether you agree with them or not, I'm merely pointing out the guidelines of geocaching.com.

Andy

Edited by megalithic
Link to comment
purple_pineapple

+purple_pineapple

Posted
Posted

 

"Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

<snip>

* Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

"

 

Perfectly reasonable sentiments, I'm sure everyone will agree. However, the guideline you quoted clearly states on, which, AFAIK, none of these caches are.

 

I have to say, the 100 m radius agreement is not one I'd ever heard of, so not sure who it was agreed by! Bt looking at some of the caches above, there are public roads considerably closer than 100 m, and I'm sure they're doing more damage than some cachers....

 

As has been said, it is perfectly fine to be concerned about historical monuments, but I'm sure you'll find that so are almost all cachers!

 

Dave

Link to comment
jerryo

+jerryo

Posted
Posted

If people think there are caches in and around a monument there is a chance things may be disturbed by people looking in nooks and crannies etc.

The point really is that anyone looking for a cache that's acceptably (as policed by the moderators) "near" the area won't "think" there's a cache in the ruins at all. Most of us use GPS to tell us where the cache is to within a few feet and all the ones in such areas that I’ve done have been well away from potential problems. The concern would be relevant if there were caches badly located but it isn’t as there aren’t.

Link to comment
Lactodorum

Lactodorum

Posted
Posted

Do I have to quote from your own guidelines which say.........etc.

No thank you, I am aware of the guidelines. By now you should have seen that the caches you quote are not actually placed in the monuments. There is no problem and no guidelines have been breached.

 

If however we are informed of any cache which DOES breach a guideline, including the "Ancient Monument" one we will take action. By all means if you have concerns about a particular cache please feel free to contact any of the reviewers through our profile or by leaving a "Needs Archived" note on the cache in question.

 

As others have said, your website is very good and I will no doubt be using it when planning local walks.

Link to comment
Firth of Forth

+Firth of Forth

Posted
Posted

Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site?

 

The guidelines clearly don't allow this:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

A few examples:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=454797

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=456349

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=275762

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d3-c302004091fd

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-21a28c69fc7d

 

Is anyone going to do anything about this?

Thanks

Andy

 

You didn't read the cache pages carefully enough. As far as the one placed by Jack Aubrey and myself is concerned, the cache page makes it entirely clear that the stone has been moved and now sits on a public path. The cache is beside the stone and not attached to it or to anything which is associated with the stone. If you visit a cache site and have concerns about a cache's placement, fair enough to raise those with the approvers. To object, in a rather abrupt tone, without discrimination is really not helpful.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 6
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...