|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » When Silbury is tunnelled |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
May 30, 2005, 23:46
|
||
|
Nigel wrote... >When Silbury is tunnelled and Thornborough is quarried I'm sure you (refering to smallblueplanet) and your dedicated passionate friends will rationalise it and move on...< Some of you will know by now that I'm a conservator (have been for nearly forty years) and I've watched with sadness as the debate over the future of Silbury has raged this way and that on these pages and elsewhere. Perhaps, as a conservator, I should have said something before now but to be honest I know next to nothing about the conservation of ancient monuments. However, there are certain rules in conservation (the most important of which is a bit like the Hippocratic Oath) that must be observed and must never, <i>never</i> be broken or compromised; it is from the platform of that rule that I offer the following. The first and most important rule in conservation is the one that says that any treatment to an object, whether that object be an oil painting, a marble statue, a castle or a temple, must take nothing away from the original and must be <i>completely</i> reversible. In the case of Silbury, the idea of cutting a new tunnel, or changing anything that would destroy part of its original structure, is completely and utterly unacceptable from a conservation standpoint. I repeat, completely and utterly unacceptable. There is no way around that rule and those of you who are fighting against the bureaucratic incompetence of those who should know better must quote it at each an every opportunity. Further, for what it's worth, you are not standing alone; behind you are the thousands of members of the International Institute for Conservation of Historic Works who are scattered across the globe and who are working day and night to save mankind's cultural heritage from loss and destruction. There are also the hundreds of conservators belonging to the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation and other similar conservation bodies both here and abroad; I doubt if a single member of any of those bodies would condone the cutting of a new tunnel at Silbury - not a single member. I'm afraid I do not know enough about the politics behind the decisions being made about the future of Silbury and in a way I do not need to know. All I need is for someone from English Heritage, Heritage Action or any other body to furnish me with indisputable evidence that there are definite plans to contravene this first rule of conservation and I promise I will pull out every stop that I know of to prevent that miscarriage of conservation taking place. Meanwhile, may I add that I have the utmost respect for everyone, both here and elsewhere, who is passionate about the future of Silbury, Thornborough and other places under threat. But may I also add that we do nothing at all to help save those places by squabbling amongst ourselves. Littlestone Fellow of the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artist Works.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
May 31, 2005, 09:05
|
||
Out of interest (not a wind up whatever others may think) which bits of Silbury would you and wouldn't you conserve though? Afterall the Atkinson and other tunnel are now part of its history. Or are you looking to put it into "aspic"?
|
|||
|
VenerableBottyBurp 675 posts |
May 31, 2005, 12:03
|
||
|
Whilst the Atkinson tunnel still exists today in that it is partly full of in-filled chalk plus roof falls plus voids, EH were quite specific in that if the tunnel was dug out that it would be made larger and the outer layer of that tunnel would have to be removed. Once re-dug, this would be a new tunnel on the route of the Atkinson and 1849 tunnels, there would be no ground on which Atkinson walked and no wall he touched, not as if anyone as far as I know want to commemorate his connection with Silbury as it has proved both disastrous and wasted. There would be no Atkinson or 1849 tunnel as such, and the only way either tunnel would be preserved is if the hill is either left alone or the voids are grouted. To answer Littlestone's point - which of the methods proposed by EH would preserve the most amount of original Silbury and its subsequent history ? And the answer is that if you formed a league with the expected results, bottom [by a large margin based on amount lost] would be the proposal that is being pushed by a faction within EH that want to re-dig the tunnels to "right the wrongs of archaeology over the centuries". Appearing mid-table would be grouting based on far fewer own-goals, but this method rightly in my opinion is on a back burner in popularity with the peer group because of the perceived amount of damage this will inflict on the flanks with uncertain success. However, and I take my lead here from a learned Prof. working on behalf of EH on this project, grouting should at no time be dismissed unless another option becomes the obvious solution. Lastly, to do nothing would obviously come top of this league. The worst scenario [which is not envisaged], is that the voids could work their way to the surface. A small amount of surface area would obviously be disturbed, but this is not projected as massive in % terms and can be no wider than the tunnel area - or at least it would be so insignificant outside this as not to be measurable. Alteration would also take place to material in-between where the voids are now - and the surface area. This material would not necessarily be lost [as the material in the re-tunnelling would be lost when chiselled out then used as backfill - or not if the tunnel remains open], but this material would have moved and any context if that is relevant would be lost at least in part. HOWEVER, having said all that it is more complex than that as Prof. Bell and others believe they should go in and retrieve data from the centre [there is petrified Neolithic ground preserved at the centre - perhaps the only area to be so preserved unless Marlborough is proved prehistoric], whilst this can be done as Atkinson's recording was inadequate and his records are both poor and few. To summarise as I understand it: whilst the re-dig is being promoted as the answer this will cause the most upheaval and there is no guarantee there will not be future disasters or indeed that this will not also leave voids which is one of the reasons the tunnel remaining open for future archaeos arose. But Martin Bell and others believe that the material at the centre of the hill will deteriorate and disappear (as air and water has got to it) unless they re-dig and get at it to preserve it - it will be lost. This group oppose grouting as the water required would wash away or contaminate the material they seek to preserve. So it is not the preservation of the Atkinson tunnel that is in question, but the preservation of Silbury as a structure as it remains today and in the future, or what lies beneath it ? Sadly, from the conversations I have had it appears a done deal and they are merely preparing the ground by slanting the proposed solution in favour of the re-dig in order to have the best chance of getting the huge sum required to carry it out. The heading of this thread is therefore correct - it isn't if but "when Silbury is tunnelled" ! VBB
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 31, 2005, 12:22
|
||
|
Littlestone, thank you for that. Ironically, your bete noire, "irreversibility", was one of the reasons EH rejected grouting at an early stage, whereas they have expressed no such objections to tunnelling! It's a sad fact that all options are going to be irreversible. However, your yardstick is still perfectly valid: a small amount of irreversible intervention is preferable to a large amount. On the basis of what's so far been published, that entirely rules out tunnelling in favour of either grouting or leaving it alone. It'll need some remarkable paperwork to prove otherwise. You ask: are there "definite plans" to tunnel? All I can do is say that's how the wind seems to be blowing – and to point you to the evidence: the widespread published enthusiasm for the research opportunities that tunnelling alone would bring, the assertion that EH has a "moral duty" to re-tunnel in order to correct Atkinson's omissions and the fact that the Committee has plainly said tunnelling is "preferable". Is this enough for "the hundreds of conservators belonging to the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation" to start to raise their voices publicly? My feeling is that it is now, not when a plan is formalised, that their voices are most needed and effective. The matter is still open for debate and will be much harder to influence later. I feel the same way about archaeologists in general. I'm sure vast numbers of them will stand up and be counted in public when the time comes, and know that many are already supportive privately, but isn't it now that the alarm bells should be rung?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 31, 2005, 12:36
|
||
|
To add to what you've said so clearly,VBB - VBB, to add to what you say: So far as preserving or learning about the two tunnels is concerned, the ICOMOS/Burra principle is relevant, since it would be what would need to be invoked: "The traces of additions, alterations and earlier treatments to the fabric of a place are evidence of its history and uses. These will often be a major part of its significance. Conservation action should assist and not impede their understanding. " To my mind, the application of this principle is a matter of judgement and balance, and boils down to case-by-case common sense. Perhaps Littlestone will elucidate how its equivalent is applied in his own field. But in the case of the Atkinson tunnel we have a fifty year old partly collapsed badly executed and poorly documented tunnel constructed in connection with a telly programme, in the heart of a 4,500 year old Neolithic mound. Whilst the Burra principle makes good sense in the case of the successive alterations to an Elizabethan Manor House, it makes little sense in relation to this tunnel. That alone ought to be a conclusive argument against spending money we don't have on it, I would have thought. But if one then adds the fact that it seems it can only be studied or preserved at the expense of vast additional losses to the original Neolithic archaeology then it becomes an absolute non-starter. Better to rip up the conservation manual, avoid philosophical navel-gazing and listen to what the untutored public, the true owners of the monument, will say: "don't be so ruddy daft." If that's not persuasive, consider what our great grandchildren will say: "So you caused huge damage to the original, so you could leave us with knowledge of a twentieth century tunnel, did you?" If the tunnel goes ahead on the basis of wanting to learn about or preserve twentieth century meddling it will be on the basis of grotesque misinterpretation of internationally recognised conservation principles. But that's already perfectly well known, of course.
|
|||
PeterH 1180 posts |
May 31, 2005, 12:46
|
||
|
Littlestone's contribution is outstanding and should be trumpeted as loudly as possible from the heights! But alas - are archaelogists conservators? English Heritage should be but.. Someone will no doubt shout at me and correct my assumption, but it has always struck me that archaeologists' top priorities are the search for knowledge and the consequent enhancement of their reputations. Many sites have been and continue to be destroyed by excavation - fair enough when rescue digs are required. Who is going to get career plaudits by preserving Silbury Hill? Who is going to get acclaim by burrowing further into the hill and gaining fresh insight into its construction and maybe, just maybe something that tells us what it actually is. The old timers stormed in looking for treasure and burials. Today, their counterparts are not so very different - they seek a different kind of treasure. Conservation? What's that? Burrow, investigate, record, publish and then move on to the next one.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
May 31, 2005, 12:57
|
||
|
With regard to the inner mound and Professor Bell's concern that grouting will destroy it, it's not as simple as that (or indeed as certain). Perhaps I can simply cut and paste HA's original comments concerning the suggested respective collateral losses from grouting and tunnelling: "A potential future loss of 13% of the 'Silbury 1' primary (inner) deposit is suggested, [i.e from grouting] and this is indeed a shocking prospect. Converseley, the quoting of a potential future loss of 0.44% of 'Silbury 2 and 3' [i.e. from tunnelling] self-evidently seems far less concerning. Yet is it? Should these figures be presented as percentages, when there are vast differences in the sizes of the respective areas of the hill? Had the potential losses been presented in simple volume terms, the reader might have gained a quite different perspective. Based on these percentages, the potential loss to 'Silbury 1' is 38 cubic metres. Whereas to 'Silbury 2 and 3' it is 1715 cubic metres! Needless to say, the latter may involve surface disfigurement. English Heritage's interpretative comment, that the percentage figures show the impact "will be most significant on the poorly understood inner mound (Silbury 1), where biological preservation is exceptional" is questionable at the least, yet on the percentage basis provided this fact would escape many readers. We believe that only if every relevant factor is highlighted can the wider community reach a rounded view of the issues. Thus, if we were acting as advocates for Silbury 2 and 3, we would point out that, so far as we know, the importance of the biological deposits in Silbury 1 was not mentioned or included as a factor in the planned programme until September 2003. By then, many interventions into them had been made and there are currently two plastic-lined boreholes into them. So the concerns that grouting may destabilise biological deposits by "introduction of air into otherwise well-sealed anaerobic environments" should be seen against this, not in isolation. We must stress once again, we aren't taking sides. Grouting may not be the answer and may involve an unacceptable number of new boreholes – who yet knows? We simply say that everything must be given an equal public airing. The perfect preservation of the whole of the 'inner' biological deposits themselves may or may not be the proper main priority. We would strongly maintain that an ambition to study them certainly isn't. Only an open discussion of all the issues in a balanced fashion is likely to lead to a decision in which all can have confidence." (To summarise: tell people the facts, plain and simple)
|
|||
Pilgrim 597 posts |
May 31, 2005, 13:05
|
||
|
Littlestone, A fine piece of writing, and one that gives me hope that the poor bloody hill will have some representation, and thus cause for optimism. As PeterH says: "archaeologists' top priorities are the search for knowledge and the consequent enhancement of their reputations." The only way for an academic to justify themselves is in the production of papers - end product to testify that they have been doing the work they were paid for (usually via the public purse!), and thus are bound to have a stilted view of what is best in a given situation. I am - as Nigelswift so eloquently states, one of the "untutored public, the true owners of the monument" and I believe that people like yourself and organisations like Heritage Action are to be applauded and supported wholeheartedly. This is me, saying to English Heritage: "Don't be so ruddy daft." Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
cameltoe 8 posts |
May 31, 2005, 18:31
|
||
|
Yeah. Whatever... |
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
May 31, 2005, 21:41
|
||
|
Dear Julian You may not read this post but I thought I'd write it anyway... just in case. There's no doubt in my mind that you are as concerned about Silbury as most of us here. Having said that, you might feel, as some of us also feel, that there's so much information, misinformation, suggestions, proposals and counter proposals about Silbury's future that a kind of inertia sets in and you almost hope someone else will sort it out. Perhaps someone else <i>will</i> sort it out but I've got a horrible feeling that they wont, and this wonderful enigmatic structure we call Silbury will crumble and fall before its time. So, and I'm really trying to keep this short and simple, what do we do? I was making my usual cup of coffee about 10:30 this morning when I picked up a news report about Bob Geldof's forthcoming <b>Live 8 Concert</b>. Bob is reported as saying... "Once more into the breach. What started 20 years ago is coming to a political point in a few weeks. There is more than a chance that the boys and girls with guitars finally get to tilt the world on its axis. What we do in the next five weeks is seriously, properly, historically, politically important." I stirred my coffee, took a sip, smiled and thought of Silbury. What we do for Silbury in the next few weeks or months is indeed seriously, properly, and historically important and, if Bob can do it for <i>his</i> cause, we can do it for ours. So, how about a <b>Concert to Save Silbury</b>? Plenty of music, a few guest speakers, a poetry reading perhaps, all mixed in with the ideas that others will certainly have. I may be able to pull in a few luminaries from the world of conservation if you can organize a venue. What about it? Let's 'tilt the world our way' for a change and see if we can't save this Old Lady of the Downs for a little while longer. Sincerely Littlestone
|
| Pages: 19 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
