Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 07:51
|
goffik wrote:
Those of use who live too far out for regular visits to the hill rely on this resource for our updates. If they don't supply them, we can only assume what is or isn't happening.
slumpystones wrote:
Lack of consultation with non-residents, lack of planning, lack of understanding, but probably most important and worst of all, an action with motives other than good. Satisfying a handful of children does not wash against the storm of protest from several thousand objectors.
Well said goff and slumpy. As for those on this thread who kowtow to English Heritage by supporting the time capsule idea because, '...the little kiddies at Avebury school will be disappointed if it doesn't go ahead...' argument. Well, what can I say? Seems to me the school should be closed without further delay if the standard of ethics and the meaning of heritage conservation taught there (especially there) is so abysmally low.
And Pete G's, "...I'm even loath to post anymore photos on my website at the moment..." Fact is that there are only so many telephoto shots Pete can get of the Atkinson entrance and the monorail before even the most devout Silbury aficionado's eyes begin to glaze over. And also this by Pete, "We are not even 1/3 of the way into the dig and the best bits will be when the centre is reached." We? Is Pete now working for English Heritage? Could be, especially his, 'best bits are at the centre' remark. Sounds like something Atkinson himself might have said (or a jam doughnut manufacturer ;-)
Bottom line is this: English Heritage set up an Ask the Experts page weeks ago. They have failed to publish a single answer to a single question on that page. Everything that's been said here and elsewhere to defend English Heritage's appalling lack of information on its activities at Silbury is whitewash. Full stop.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 08:19
|
"Bottom line is this: English Heritage set up an Ask the Experts page weeks ago. They have failed to publish a single answer to a single question on that page. Everything that's been said here and elsewhere to defend English Heritage's appalling lack of information on its activities at Silbury is whitewash. Full stop."
I think I'd have to agree, Chuckles.
And add to it:
Not disappointing the kids was the predicted defence and doesn't appear in any conservation manual I know of.
I really like kids and hope the disappointment caused by going back on an unwise promise can be ameliorated by placing their capsule elsewhere - or even by displaying their work for a while at the Silbury carpark noticeboard, together with comments by adults. That would be true "public participation" wouldn't it?
In addition, I suggest EH should buy them all a lollypop by way of apology. At their age that would have more than satisfied me.
As for the blokes being overworked, I know that's true and sympathise.
What I don't sympathise with is that the burden of answering questions should have been stuck on them and why they should be answering ANY policy questions when there are others better placed to do so. I have heard nowt back from the project team. Is it not reasonable to assume that after 7 years of planning adequate provision for informing the public was in place?
|
goffik
|
Edited Jun 15, 2007, 08:21
Re: Work continues
Jun 15, 2007, 08:20
|
Hmm. Archaeology seems to be a lot of "I know something you don't", IMHO. Why is that, I wonder? What would be the point in holding information and not sharing it?
I look forward to hearing about Silbury in 2008 and 2010. If it's still standing by then.
And god knows if or when we might hear of anything to do with the Avebury dig. 2012, anyone? ;o)
G x
|
goffik
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 08:23
|
|
nigelswift wrote: That would be true "public participation" wouldn't it?
Public participation?
"Are you local? No? Then fk off!" ;o)
G x
|
Moth
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 09:22
|
Bloody hell - I'm glad I said nowt!!! I could never have put it that well, or that politely!!!!
Nice one Nigel & (esecially, if I may say so) LS!!!
love
Moth
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 09:29
|
Thanks Moth.
Sometimes I think I'm a bit of a bastard. Other times, more frequently, I think Mr L. is. But when someone implies we both are I know they're wrong.
BTW, what about that nice Mr L. Hamilton?!!
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 10:10
|
|
In addition, I suggest EH should buy them all a lollypop by way of apology. At their age that would have more than satisfied me.
Chuckle... we could ask em :-) Now children, which would you like? A silly old time capsule or a lollypop? Can hear the squeals for lollypops from here.
As for the blokes being overworked, I know that's true and sympathise. What I don't sympathise with is that the burden of answering questions should have been stuck on them and why they should be answering ANY policy questions when there are others better placed to do so. I have heard nowt back from the project team. Is it not reasonable to assume that after 7 years of planning adequate provision for informing the public was in place?
Aye... you've a way with words laddie - there's nothing to add to that.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 10:24
|
Now children, which would you like? A silly old time capsule or a lollypop? Can hear the squeals for lollypops from here.
Well indeed. In fact a further exploration into the workings of the average junior mind might throw the "disappointment" defence into even sharper relief.....
Exactly how old does a child have to be before it starts to think there's the slightest difference between "we're sending your painting to the future by putting it in a hill" and "we're sending your painting to the future by putting it in the ground" ?
Older than me and thee, evidently, so is the claim just a tad lacking in sincerity?
|
kevmar
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 11:44
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Now children, which would you like? A silly old time capsule or a lollypop? Can hear the squeals for lollypops from here.
a tad lacking in sincerity?
That's about right,
anyway you can't send a painting in a lollypop,
can ye? :-)
|
Rockrich
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 15, 2007, 15:08
|
Seems to me the school should be closed without further delay if the standard of ethics and the meaning of heritage conservation taught there (especially there) is so abysmally low.
Sod Maths & English for these 7yr olds, lets teach 'em proper subject like Heritage Conservation.... genius!!
|
