|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Grrr... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Jul 20, 2010, 21:12
Jul 20, 2010, 20:08
|
||
|
In a last ditch attempt to save Silbury from collapse, English Heritage undertook a ‘conservation’ project during 2007-2008 to stabilise the structure and remove the detritus of previous tunnelling. Sadly, not only has much of this detritus been left within the structure, but parts of the original monument (eg the sarsen stones pictured below)* seem not to have been returned to their original position within Silbury Hill. The present location of these stones, the meaning of which has attracted some speculation, remains unknown. If that were not bad enough, English Heritage has introduced even more detritus into the monument in the form of thousands of plastic sacks filled with chalk rubble; these sacks were used to form partitions within the Atikinson/BBC tunnel so that the area behind each partition could be backfilled with a chalk slurry. One is force to ask why plastic sacking was used instead of blocks of chalk closer in composition the mound itself. We have no idea at present how long the life span of these sacks is nor whether they pose any long-term hazard to the monument as they break down. Perhaps English Heritage would care to comment here (or on the Heritage Journal) on their decision to use plastic sacking rather than chalk blocks – a decision which seems so at odds with accepted conservation principles. * Photos here - http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/sacking-at-silbury/
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 20:09
|
||
| Nah, I'm not planning to take Flouncy Lane mainly because Crawl Back Alley is so humiliating. I was merely thinking I have probably contributed all I wish and can to this delightful couple of threads. | |||
|
megadread 1202 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 20:14
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: In a last ditch attempt to save Silbury from collapse, English Heritage undertook a ‘conservation’ project during 2007-2008 to stabilise the structure and remove the detritus of previous tunnelling. Sadly, not only has much of this detritus been left within the structure, but parts of the original monument (eg the sarsen stones pictured below)* seem not to have been returned to their original position within Silbury Hill. The present location of these stones, the meaning of which has attracted some speculation, remains unknown. If that were not bad enough, English Heritage has introduced even more detritus into the monument in the form of thousands of plastic sacks filled with chalk rubble; these sacks were used to form partitions within the Atikinson/BBC tunnel so that the area behind each partition could be backfilled with a chalk slurry. One is force to ask why plastic sacking was used instead of blocks of chalk closer in composition the mound itself. We have no idea at present how long the life span of these sacks is nor whether they pose any long-term hazard to the monument as they break down. Perhaps English Heritage would care to comment here (or on the Heritage Journal) on their decision to use plastic sacking rather than chalk blocks – a decision which seems so at odds with accepted conservation principles. * Photos here - http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/sacking-at-silbury/ Mental innit. ! Ah well, at least they didn't allow that bloody awful "time capsule" to be placed within the hill, that could have caused untold damage. ; )
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 20:36
|
||
|
Hear hear! Couldn't agree more. That *was* a fucking stupid idea, wasn't it? Well said. :) G x
|
|||
|
megadread 1202 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 20:39
|
||
|
goffik wrote: Hear hear! Couldn't agree more. That *was* a fucking stupid idea, wasn't it? Well said. :) G x Language. ! Children may find this thread by the search terms "Silbury" and "time capsule". Tut tut.
|
|||
baza 1308 posts |
Edited Jul 20, 2010, 21:46
Jul 20, 2010, 20:45
|
||
|
If you look here: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/ then you'll see this: "Please note: These forums can occasionally contain strong language, and may be unsuitable for minors." This is Julian Cope's site, for fucksake, so please don't tut tut. :o)
|
|||
|
megadread 1202 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 20:48
|
||
|
baza wrote: If you look here: http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/ then you'll see this: "Please note: These forums can occasionally contain strong language, and may be unsuitable for minors." This is Julian Cope's site, for fucksake, so please don't tut tut. :o) Bloody potty mouths. : )
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 21:12
|
||
|
megadread wrote: goffik wrote: Hear hear! Couldn't agree more. That *was* a fucking stupid idea, wasn't it? Well said. :) G x Language. ! Children may find this thread by the search terms "Silbury" and "time capsule". Tut tut. Never mind about the kids, what about me. Son of a Vicar and pure as driven snow. Father used to say to me...'Son, if you're not in bed by 10 o'clock...come on home!!!
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 21:20
|
||
|
... that could have caused untold damage. Untold damage comes in various forms Mr m. Guess it's when that which you hold important is somehow 'desecrated'. Like many, I'm just happy to look at Silbury from various places in the area, but that happiness would somehow have been 'interfered with' knowing that this generation of 'custodians' had not only failed to restore the monument to its former state but had somehow arrived at the conclusion that a 21st century 'time capsule' was appropriate within a prehistoric monument. By all means bury a time capsule near Silbury... but in it!? I do not think so, and it really does beg the question whether English Heritage really knew what they were advocating with the idea of a 21st century Silbury time capsule - and by extension, what they continue to both do and allow at other places (not least Stonehenge) under their jurisdiction.
|
|||
Hob 4033 posts |
Jul 20, 2010, 21:37
|
||
|
I think it'd be really unlikely anyone would get done just for trespass, as it's a civil offence, not a criminal one, so the onus is on the landowner to press a civil case. Usually this wouldn't be worth the risk unless it's a persistent repeated trespass and the wonderfully titled 'Injunctive relief' is sought. So if some crazy type were to repeatedly climb Silbury on a regular basis, there would be legal methods to lay out an injunction. But I reckon EH could get somewhere with it on the grounds of potential damage to a SAM. The EH Silbury signs do indicate that climbing might cause damage, so in a far-fetched example, anyone trespassing with a metal detector would be fair game to be charged with an actual criminal offence rather than just trespass.
|
| Pages: 20 – [ Previous | 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
