nigelswift
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 18:49
|
|
Well I'm really not able to get inside Julian's brain but I do know for instance that Mike Parker Pearson launched a scathing attack on the damage of this tunnel at his talk to WANHS a fortnight ago and the The Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (membership list online) issued a very strong report to the WHS Steering Group of its concerns so there are plenty of people he could have been thinking of.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Edited Feb 20, 2017, 18:57
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 18:55
|
I think quite a number of professional archaeologists have gone record saying the current proposal should be rejected.
There has been an awful lot of online discussion among the archaeology community and most of what I've read hasn't been positive. There's a wide range of opinions though, some object to the particular route, length, siting of entrances etc and some to the whole idea of digging any tunnel.
I'm sure a cursory look at social media sites will provide you with particular names if you want them.
[edited for typos]
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 19:00
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote:
I'm sure a cursory look at social media sites will provide you with particular names if you want them.
Well yes I thought that from the start but sometimes when you suspect you're being wound up it's worth just riding with it. ;)
|
Lefturn
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 19:02
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I think quite a number of professional archaeologists have gone record saying the current proposal should be rejected.
There has been an awful lot of online discussion among the archaeology community and most of what I've hasn't been positive. There's a wide range of opinions though, some object to the particular route, length, siting of entrances etc and some to the whole idea of digging any tunnel.
I'm sure a cursory look at social media sites will proxide you with particular names if you want them.
Following this for the RSPB I think you will find miles of difference between what might have been postured before and after the announcement of the details. If anyone thinks any independent professional archaeologist anywhere is going to back a proposal to put a portal on the threshold of Bush Barrow and four lanes of tarmac alongside Prophet's barrows then they are clearly attention seeking and not worth engaging with.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 19:10
|
|
:)
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 19:12
|
|
Yes, I think you're probably right there. The only difference is in the particular objections they might each raise.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 19:21
|
|
It's called The Great Divide - there's those who have various concerns and then there are those who have to toe the line!
|
jonmor
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 20:03
|
Perhaps surprisingly, I'm not trying to wind you up, just trying to assess whether or not experts who are not professional archaeologists would, or even could, make any effective contribution to the archaeological arguments in the consultation.
If I've understood, the known archaeologists in Julian's camp are Mike PP, who is said to have mentioned it in a talk, and a research group who have issued a very strong report to a WHS Steering Group. There may be other professional archaeologists who have not said anything as yet.
|
tjj
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 20:03
|
|
Lefturn wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: I think quite a number of professional archaeologists have gone record saying the current proposal should be rejected.
There has been an awful lot of online discussion among the archaeology community and most of what I've hasn't been positive. There's a wide range of opinions though, some object to the particular route, length, siting of entrances etc and some to the whole idea of digging any tunnel.
I'm sure a cursory look at social media sites will proxide you with particular names if you want them.
Following this for the RSPB I think you will find miles of difference between what might have been postured before and after the announcement of the details. If anyone thinks any independent professional archaeologist anywhere is going to back a proposal to put a portal on the threshold of Bush Barrow and four lanes of tarmac alongside Prophet's barrows then they are clearly attention seeking and not worth engaging with.
Thanks for your input - I thought Julian Richard's longer youtube film gave a clear, jargon free view of the problems the current tunnel proposals would present - the clincher being the close proximity to the iconic Bush Barrow.
The only well known archaeologist I am aware of (who is not directly employed by NT or EH) speaking in favour of the tunnel proposal is Mike Pitts - he has possibly changed his mind, haven't seen anything from him for a while.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Julian Richards gives his view on the tunnel
Feb 20, 2017, 20:16
|
Look, why don't you ring him and ask who he meant? He's very affable.
As June said, the only archaeo not employed by the terrible trio who is pro-tunnel is Mike Pitts (and he has a very long record of supporting EH) so you may be sure the objections will be given a very thorough airing.
On the other hand, Brexit is happening despite expert opinion if you know what I mean. There's a road to be built and votes to be got.
|
