|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » When Silbury is tunnelled |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
VenerableBottyBurp 675 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 11:54
|
||
|
I was - am - trying to ensure there is some narrowed focus on the issues - I didn't mean you personally, but what is being attempted so that everyone who reads this will understand. VBB :-)
|
|||
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 12:15
|
||
|
Hello, VenerableBottyBurp, I know what I would like, and that is to restore the poor bloody hill back to the same condition as it was when I first saw it aged 4 (1963!!!): I don't think that we need to submit every bit of prehistory to archaeological investigation in order to benefit from it - and we certainly don't need to eradicate the natural setting of these artifacts in pursuit of more gravel for more roads and the furtherance of EH's archaeo's reputations etc! Placing Silbury in a public agenda dominated by celebrity (both "real" and aspirant) and political spin isn't going to be easy, and making it important to a significant percentage of the population is going to be nigh on impossible, so the only way to get any sort of action moving is via open debate on the issue in forums such as this - that way, we can all be pulling in the same direction, forming a game plan etc. What with Littlestone's qualifications, Nigelswifts know-how, BrigantesNation's knowledge and Goffik's mates field, we are heading in the right direction already! Now, if we could just get M'lud Yatesbury to stick his fourpeneth worth in, we might approach critical mass and help get Littlestone's stone rolling! Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 12:56
|
||
|
You're dead right, VBB. Clarity is all. Would that "conservation principles" could provide all the necessary safeguards, but I'm not sure they can fully - there are conflicting issues of conservation principle emerging at Silbury so the project is still open to individual interpretation. In big issues involving big judgements there's only one appropriate arbiter: the public. Coincidentally, they're the very people who have been excluded from the project for five long years! For the implications of that, see my schoolfriend's words. Accordingly, if we want clarity and focus and something that it would require a contortionist to criticize, I'd suggest something like this: ____________________ A tunnel would be emotionally, spiritually, historically and aesthetically repellent. Accordingly, it must be shown beyond reasonable argument that it is the least worst option for the good of the monument and the decision must be on the basis of the public's full comprehension and wholehearted assent. ____________________
|
|||
Kammer 3083 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 13:13
|
||
What is this part of the thread actually about? I'm very confused. Aren't we supposed to be talking about Silbury Hill?
|
|||
|
VenerableBottyBurp 675 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 14:15
|
||
|
Hi Pilgrim, Sadly you have picked a bad year for Silbury - in 1963 the unseen hole in the top -which was not only there then of course, but drawing material down the shaft and creating a dip that in that year was refilled and grassed over by the MoW who kept no record of what they did ! They thought the damage was due to animals so they covered the surface of the whole top of Silbury in chicken wire. This produced two problems one of which was that electronic equipment introduced in 1968 could not be used on the surface as the wire cocked up the signals so at the very point when science could have revealed the hole and saved the disaster of 2000 it was halted in its tracks by chicken wire. Second, the wire bound the surface material together so that as material beneath fell into the shaft, so the turf layer above became suspended. I guess it was a bit like a trampoline, anyway as you know it finnally parted on May 29th 2000 at 16.42 having said all that I agree that an abitary year pre-Atkinson but post the repairs to the 1849 tunnel in 1922-3 would be as good a model Silbury as is achievable considering the mess the 1776 shaft and 1849 tunnel made - a good year would be say when Frank Mackim did his non-intrusive experiments on Silbury - 1958 ? I know you are out there Frank - please correct us if any of this is wrong ! I would say the nearest you can get to 1958 would be to leave it alone or if anything grout - but certainly not rebore the tunnel. VBB
|
|||
|
VenerableBottyBurp 675 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 14:19
|
||
|
I'm with that, but you musn't keep me out too late Nigel or make the music too loud ! VBB
|
|||
|
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 14:26
|
||
|
Hi, VBB, Thanks for your response: interesting and enlightening. If only other posts on this thread (including mine, it has to be said) were so considered, I wouldn't be so grumpy today! I agree with your response, viz: "I would say the nearest you can get to 1958 would be to leave it alone or if anything grout - but certainly not rebore the tunnel." If I knew how to put the last bit in italics I would! :-) Pilgrim
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 18:17
|
||
|
sorry to disappoint you but I'm not an archaeologist by trade - just an amateur like you un-qualified lot.... I currently work for the M.O.D. FWIW... SBP x
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 18:24
|
||
dunno you tell me? apparently multi-tasking is in favour....
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Jun 01, 2005, 18:42
|
||
|
"A tunnel would be emotionally, spiritually, historically and aesthetically repellent. Accordingly, it must be shown beyond reasonable argument that it is the least worst option for the good of the monument and the decision must be on the basis of the public's full comprehension and wholehearted assent. " and if the public decide they want a tunnel (say to further the existing limited knowledge about Silbury)?
|
| Pages: 19 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
