=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Silbury Hill »
When Silbury is tunnelled
Log In to post a reply
182 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: When Silbury is tunnelled
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)
In reply to:
Re: When Silbury is tunnelled (nigelswift)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index