You have an ancient monument. Do you a) preserve it, or b) build a road through it?

[cloudsinvenice]

If you're a government body in Northern Ireland,  this question may have a surprising answer.

I had a big, rambly, ranty post about how the Roads Service is destroying a medieval archaeological site of rare extent, preservation and value. About how despite its existence being well documented (mapped since the 19th century! listed! known!), the decision was made to build a road through it to facilitate Fermanagh's hosting of the G8 conference. About how often Northern Ireland's heritage and tourist sectors between them drop the ball at valuing, preserving and promoting the ancient Irish heritage which fascinates the rest of the world. But I'd rather you hear from people with cooler heads, greater eloquence, and expertise in the field of archaeology. To kick off, here's today's news:

"'No-go zone' imposed around Enniskillen crannog" - BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19053339
Staggeringly, archaeologists haven't just had to fight the Roads Service on this - no, they've had opposition from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. You know, the umbrella body which contains the heritage service? And you can read about the social media campaign to preserve the site, along with a fantastic evocation of its archaeological value, here:

Saving Northern Ireland's Noble Bog - Archaeology.org
http://www.archaeology.org/issues/81-1303/trenches/531-northern-ireland-bog-crannog

For a revealing perspective on the deeper problems within Northern Irish commercial archaeology, let's hear from Robert M. Chapple, the archaeologist who got fired for alerting the media and public to this nonsense:

Empire of Dirt: time to call time on commercial archaeology in Northern Ireland?
http://rmchapple.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/empire-of-dirt-time-to-call-time-on.html
He wrote this two weeks ago, and I'd guess his prediction about not being consulted has come true - he certainly wasn't mentioned by name in this morning's Good Morning Ulster coverage of what he rightly calls the crannog fiasco. 

I admire him both for his shedding light on a wretched state of affairs AND the fact that he works in quotes from Conan the Barbarian, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Die Hard and Watchmen. Clearly, he is of our people.

--------------

I know I owe you guys replies to comments on my last post - I'm on the run at the moment, but just had to get the above off my chest...

Comments

[blitzwing]

I'm almost always on the side of the preservationists. Keeping rare potential sources of information about the past is more important than roads that may be unused and unmaintained even a half a century from now.

[cloudsinvenice]

Particularly when the general strategy around public transport is so bad - the rail network's very limited and there's been times when they've dragged their heels over improving that when it would arguably have made more economic sense than building yet another road!

zlwtxMUPFeGWizBOfzw

[(Anonymous)]

John, I've always been an adiermr of your work, your creative ability and expression, and your blunt and unapologetic perception of the world and people around you... there's more, but I already sound like a filthy suck-up.At any rate, I realize your post was criticism about the Mr. Fox movie (and honestly everyone I saw the movie with who wasn't high all shared your sentiments), but after spending more than a decade falling in and out of the furry scene myself, I've wanted to hear direct comment from someone who is on the other side of the fence. It, sadly, took me a while to see the subculture (if you want to call it that) for what it was, at least in its immature context. A group of self-assuring social rejects who live their life grasping at a fantasy that will never exist... whether it's sexual or not, and everyone knows that shit is out there within short grasp, this is a group of people so socially awkward that they can't even have a normal conversation with another human being. Disney, WB, HB, all the staple animation companies, comic books, children's stories, and even Ren & Stimpy have all been the major catalyst for this fan base, regardless of how much they may say otherwise. They've been spoon-fed talking animals since they were young, and they can't live without it.Like a couple other people in your blog comments, I could post examples of people in the fanbase who actually have notable artistic talent or who are productive and contributing members of society, but that's pointless. I'm pretty sure that Becky Dreistadt girl you talked about in the past even has a page on a commonplace furry web gallery... But I've always been curious about how you, Don Bluth, Pete Laird, Rob Paulsen... ANYONE remotely involved with any part ofthe professional side of something that is nothing more than what IT is... how you all perceive and deal with these people who have so violently and illicitly violated and obscured all the creative work, talent, and endeavors that went into their initial creation. People say Ren & Stimpy is twisted, but what you have done with the series is tame in comparison to the obsession that has festered for decades with these people...I'm sorry, I'm rambling painfully. But in all honesty, I would love to see at least one single blog entry from you on the whole topic. The history of it from your perspective and your experience in the industry (because lord knows this furry stuff has been around long before The Internet), your take on the style of approach or execution (from the cutesy crap, to the crazy technical photo-realistic stuff, to the stuff borne from genuine appeal of and appreciation for Traditional Animation, to even the typical badly drawn pencil or Wacom diarrhea)... I'm curious about how you feel toward furries' obsession with categorizing and associating anything and everything with an animal into their vague umbrella. You didn't draw Ren & Stimpy screaming "You're the pitcher, I'm the catcher" because you have some kind of fetish desire to see two cartoon animals having gay sex, you did it because it's funny, ridiculous, recognizable, and contextually appropriate to that particular moment/idea/atmosphere in the twelve and a half minute story you were telling. The guys at WB (Jones, Freleng, I don't know who specifically, don't kill me) didn't draw Bugs Bunny crossdressing because they got a chubby off of it, they did it because it was funny... and Bugs is a manipulative prick.Or who knows, you might just draw a page full of dog genitals and say "You people are retarded. Stop it."