12th October 2009, 02:24 PM
I would agree with Jennie, I am also torn about these dolmens. They extend along the wall (visible in the photo) for quite a long way from the original and I am supprised that this has only just come up as they extended for a long way back in the 90s when i first saw them. Who knows how old the first ones were, they could already be a bona fide archaeological monument in themselves.
How old do they have to be before they are worthy of study in themselves? I would imagine they are taking the stone from the immediate surroundings as the Burren is covered with small fragments of limestone.
On a similar topic what about the Wainright cains? on a number of specific sites in his walking guide books in the Lakeland fells he advises that fellow travellers pick up a stone and add it to the pile he started on the top of the hill. Are these late post medieval destruction of the natural environment or something worth of preservation in itself?
Should they be removed and fines imposed for creating more? Or should they be protected as an historical feature (not retorical, i really don't know)
Richard
How old do they have to be before they are worthy of study in themselves? I would imagine they are taking the stone from the immediate surroundings as the Burren is covered with small fragments of limestone.
On a similar topic what about the Wainright cains? on a number of specific sites in his walking guide books in the Lakeland fells he advises that fellow travellers pick up a stone and add it to the pile he started on the top of the hill. Are these late post medieval destruction of the natural environment or something worth of preservation in itself?
Should they be removed and fines imposed for creating more? Or should they be protected as an historical feature (not retorical, i really don't know)
Richard