[Bell Historians] Yesterday's CCC conference

[Arcubus]

charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Too many big assumptions:

*	My experience is that ringers do care about bells.

*	Many ringers too have an interest in ringing history of which
bell archaeology is a part. Perhaps you're confusing archaeology and
history?

*	By alienating and dismissing the views of ringers, who you think
don't know or care, you're not helping this cause. In fact it's playing
into the hands of conservationists and bureaucracy.

Mark



Mark Regan
Arcubus
64 London Road
Worcester
WR5 2DY
0797 1573688 
www.arcubus.com


-----Original Message-----
From: David Bryant [mailto:david at b...] 
Sent: 05 November 2003 11:44
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Yesterday's CCC conference


> One thing that this shows is that a National Bell Register is 
> desperately needed, and ways of organising (& funding) this need to be

> explored. The CCCBR have made it clear they don't want to be involved 
> in it, it needs
some
> group to own it, hopefully the CCC will look into possibilities.

Doesn't this highlight one glaring problem with bell history? Namely
that, unlike clocks, monumental brasses, or other church fitments, there
is no formal society dedicated to their study. In many ways this isn't a
problem, but if we were a formal society rather than a loosely organised
group of individuals sharing a common interest then perhaps we would
have more clout when it came to deciding conservation policies. As a
bell historian with a degree in archaeology, I obviously think
conservation is a good idea, but within sensible limits. If it means
that a ring of bells will end up in an unringaable state, or badly out
of tune, then, in my view, the conservationist lobby has failed.

I know we've discussed the matter before, but what do people feel about
forming a society of bell historians. I'm probably in as good a position
as anyone to start the groundwork, for example by contacting other
societies such as the AHS and seeking their experiences as regards
forming and maintaining a society. I think the study of bells has
suffered from the fact that, unlike clocks and monuments, it has a body
attached to it (ringers) who by and large don't care about bells. Yes, I
know that most bell historians are ringers, but they are a minority in
the exercise. In the view of probably the majority of ringers, if the
bell goes round and it goes bong then that's fine!

What do people think?

David



This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To
unsubscribe from the list send an email to
bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

Web: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bellhistorians/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20031105/8cb4532c/attachment.html>