Someone has scrawled “AA 2015” on one of the stones of Britain’s third largest stone circle, Orkney’s Ring of Brogdar.
.
A spokesman for Historic Scotland said “Fortunately incidents such as this are rare, and we continue to work with the local community to educate people on the significance of these prehistoric sites.” All very well, but it’s a fair bet it was a visitor not a local and the locals probably need no educating on the subject. In any case, Historic Scotland and it’s predecessor bodies have been “educating” the public since 1885 and it doesn’t seem to have got through to the likes of Andy Alexander or whatever the little toe-rag’s name is. So you have to wonder if more could be done beyond vague promises to educate people – certainly at the “Hollywood” sites where the sheer numbers of visitors increases the statistical likelihood of attacks. (The Nine Ladies stone circle has recently suffered similar vandalism).
“Punishment” is a form of education that shouldn’t be neglected. In Britain if you’re caught you can theoretically get up to 5 years in jail but of course no-one ever gets much more than a fine. Even bulldozing a circle at Priddy resulted in a non-custodial sentence. Abroad, though, if people are caught damaging particularly precious monuments the penalties can be much more severe. Last year a Russian who carved a letter K on the Colosseum in Rome (which is less than half the age of the Ring of Brogdar) was fined £15,800 and a couple of years ago a man was jailed for 18 months for urinating against the Alamo (a monument that’s one twentieth of the age of the Ring of Brogdar!)
The Heritage Journal 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
21/09/2015 at 09:40
Joel Sperry
Not sure I am happy with the loaded assumption in this article. The first is that it was a man that did this – could equally have been a woman. Secondly the term little tie rag is a massively loaded term- the implication is that it is some one young (possibly a teenager in a hoody) and probably ‘lower class’ – the chances are this is not the case it is more lilt someone middle class in there mid twenties.
21/09/2015 at 14:11
heritageaction
Hang on a minute, you berate us for (allegedly) implying it’s someone male, young and “lower class” and then you offer the view it was probably someone middle class in their mid twenties!
Why are we to be criticised and you aren’t?!
21/09/2015 at 19:04
menhir
There are a lot of assumptions without evidence in the article. Also,why should the age of a monument define its value and therefore its status? I wholly agree with the ethos of the article but not its journalistic style which needs to be more evidence and fact based and less ‘personally affronted’ .
22/09/2015 at 05:21
heritageaction
“Needs to be more evidence and fact based”. Hardly. Someone vandalised the stone. Fact.
As for needing to be less personally affronted it will be a cold night in Hell before that happens at Heritage Action. It would be a good thing if a few million people were equally affronted.
22/09/2015 at 15:36
Robin G
I think people are on about the speculation who did it etc and not the actual damage which is shameful 😦 . Who knows who did it, what ‘class’ they were from or their age. All we do know is someone did it, nothing more.
22/09/2015 at 16:08
heritageaction
Exactly!