Littlestone
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 14:12
|
|
tomwatts wrote: Wouldn't altering Silbury Hill from an ancient monument, to a research facility, require planning permission etc.?
Fer god's sake Tom don't give 'em ideas like that ;-)
|
fitzcoraldo
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 14:31
|
Leaving equipment inside of the hill to remotely monitor its condition and confirm the effectiveness of the repairs seems perfectly resonable to me.
cheers
fitz
|
tomwatts
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 19:08
|
|
I'd prefer it if they just packed it solid with pure chalk, and then left it alone.
|
Littlestone
|
Edited Nov 23, 2007, 22:15
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 20:32
|
|
tomwatts wrote: I'd prefer it if they just packed it solid with pure chalk, and then left it alone.
Leaving it alone looks unlikely. Skanska (and English Heritage) will want to know that their work at Silbury has been successful - hence the need for the geo-electrical cable. Archaeologists will want to know that they can gain access to the heart of Silbury at some future date via Rovver-type probes (hence the size of the newly-cut trench). What is unacceptable (from a conservation point of view) is that the new trench, involving the removal of x cubic metres of untouched Neolithic building material, has been cut into the structure without public consultation or public approval.
|
tjj
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 20:38
|
Hi Fitz,
I have been somewhat perplexed by this thread and having made a small, probably not helpful contribution, last weekend I decided to keep out of it, especially when 'falling chalk' was being discussed as it would seem that back-filling the voids as speedily as possible with the minimum risk to life and limb was the order of the day and that English Heritage were getting on with it - in spite of adverse conditions.
What was not at all clear from the last English Heritage Update is why they are laying the cable along the floor of the main tunnel. I understand from reading other contributions that the cardinal rule of conservation is to restore the monument (mound in this case) to as close as possible to its original state. Having conceded the point over the time capsule issue then it doesn't seem to make sense for EH to be laying cables inside Silbury. I assumed there must be a very good reason e.g. monitoring future structural instability but it would be helpful if EH spelt out their reasons - perhaps they have and I missed it.
If anyone else can clarify this question (why?) I would appreciate it.
Regards
tjj (june)
|
tjj
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 20:45
|
Seems while I was asking my question (why?), you were answering it.
Thanks for that Littlestone.
|
Etton
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 21:39
|
Littlestone: Thanks for the link to the update - god knows how I missed it! I must have just skimmed over the picture when reading. It looks like the cable goes underneath the original ground surface (from the earlier diagram), which would mean it's not actually in the hill and Neolithic material but underneath it in hitherto undisturbed natural layers, but then I seem to recall the diagram shows the tunnels going up and down all over the place so maybe I'm wrong? It does look like a wide trench but I have no idea what geo-cabley things require for size!
I have to admit I'm a fence-sitter at the moment, but it's good to see people so passionate about sites like this.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 23:02
|
|
I assumed there must be a very good reason e.g. monitoring future structural instability but it would be helpful if EH spelt out their reasons - perhaps they have and I missed it.
English Heritage states that its reasons for burying a cable beneath the floor of the tunnel is so that electrical measurements can be made once it is backfilled. I actually agree with fits when he says. "Leaving equipment inside of the hill to remotely monitor its condition and confirm the effectiveness of the repairs seems perfectly reasonable...."
From a conservation point of view however English Heritage have yet again contravened accepted principles; the first of those involves the cutting of a new trench and the removal of a considerable amount of original Neolithic building material (it shouldn't be too difficult to calculate how much original material has been removed as it's just a question of calculating the size of the trench measuring [say 2 foot square to be generous] by the length of the tunnel - anyone up for doing that :-) What is disturbing is that A) No warning or consultation with the public on the rights or wrongs of removing that amount of original material was done. B) No report has been issued by English Heritage on what has happened to the original Neolithic building material removed to cut the trench and C) why it was necessary to cut the trench in the first place? Couldn't the cable have been laid along the floor of the existing Atkinson/BBC tunnel? There are other conservation questions relating to the question of reversibility (ie, can the cable, or anything else left within the structure, be safely and completely removed at a later date?).
It is this sort of cavalier attitude by English Heritage that casts a shadow on the good work they undoubtedly do elsewhere, and it is an attitude which is totally unnecessary. Is it really so difficult for English Heritage to publish on their Silbury Updates website, regularly, what is going on at the site and the reasons for it?
|
Etton
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 23:24
|
|
Oh I agree that there should have been more info about it before it was done. It's a pretty big thing to chuck in, especially as originally it seemed to be all about returning it to it's original condition, but yeah I guess monitoring it is a requirement if the voids are that big. My only point is that if the trench is in the floor of the current tunnel, then it's mostly in natural material, not original Neolithic building material, because the current tunnel floor is beneath the original Neolithic ground surface which the hill is built on top of. I think..
|
Littlestone
|
Re: To the Heart of the Matter
Nov 23, 2007, 23:38
|
|
My only point is that if the trench is in the floor of the current tunnel, then it's mostly in natural material, not original Neolithic building material, because the current tunnel floor is beneath the original Neolithic ground surface which the hill is built on top of. I think..
Doesn't look that way to me - in fact EH's diagrams show it to be above ground level and their photos show it to be very white - both indicating Neolithic building material not 'natural material'. Perhaps you have other information to the contrary?
|
