Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 20, 2007, 17:38
|
|
tomwatts wrote: Hasn't it been intimated that there may be the remains of a missing woman inside. In which case the forensics bods will be in charge.
Yes, possibly (and sadly) the remains of Suzy Lamplugh.
Could be anything though Tom - from archeo info that needs more time to investigate, to unsafe working conditions within the monument. Bottom line, yet again, is the lack of information coming from English Heritage. I can understand EH's need for caution and sensitivity if (recent) human remains have been found inside Silbury but not for any other reason.
The public has the right to know, and the right to know now, what is going on inside this world-famous monument.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 25, 2007, 18:21
|
|
Update 6 now available.
|
whipangel
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 25, 2007, 18:31
|
|
With the 'Special Edition' over the weekend and this one, we're now starting to get some better info.
|
slumpystones
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 25, 2007, 18:33
|
Small but with a better filling, but a shame the image/map is so crap, makes it hard to work it all out.
Does this second bank mean two banks with a ditch between them, suggesting a hengiformic thang?
That would Silbury -1.5 or something then, wouldn't it?
|
Pilgrim
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 26, 2007, 01:43
|
|
slumpystones wrote: Small but with a better filling, but a shame the image/map is so crap, makes it hard to work it all out.
Aye. This is the one that they've been using for a while. It's almost easier to read at small scale. I'd like to say that this is more like it: let's hope we've moved beyond the tobacco tin strata.....
.....but how big is that void? If you can measure it, could you tell us?
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 26, 2007, 17:13
|
|
whipangel wrote: With the 'Special Edition' over the weekend and this one, we're now starting to get some better info.
Aye, though as slumpy says, "...shame the image/map is so crap, makes it hard to work it all out."
What are these fools at English Heritage up to, it's not rocket science to work out that the image/map on the first page of their sixth update would be illegible onscreen (and not much better printed out). Thankfully, however, they've dropped the Mickey Mouse format of their previous updates and are now publishing something with a bit more meat on it (I say 'bit more' because the info coming out really is vague and amateurish). Consequently, slumpy, even if I could I can't answer your question re: "Does this second bank mean two banks with a ditch between them..." Perhaps someone from English Heritage's esteemed 'Silbury Hill Conservation Project archaeological team' could address the question here... English Heritage, you have an audience of informed contributors on TMA waiting for clear and accurate information on your activities and finds at Silbury - do it!
And on the question of English Heritage's Silbury time capsule nonsense; I have written to the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (of which I am a Fellow) to inform them of English Heritage's totally inappropriate scheme to leave a time capsule within Silbury. I have urged IIC to put pressure on English Heritage to desist in this nonsense and to urged other conservation bodies to do the same.
|
slumpystones
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 26, 2007, 18:08
|
|
I'm amazed that the plan can't be scanned and uploaded instead of a photo taken with a mobile phone in a dark room.
|
Pilgrim
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 27, 2007, 00:00
|
|
slumpystones wrote: I'm amazed that the plan can't be scanned and uploaded instead of a photo taken with a mobile phone in a dark room.
You're not a golfer, then? Cynical Pilgrim says this could be par for the course. Optimist Pilgrim (I let him out to play after everyone else has gone to bed) says that this image was designed to be used in hard copy form back when information came with a free carrier pigeon attached, and they are working on a new expandable version as we speak.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
ascorbic
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 27, 2007, 08:46
|
|
Littlestone wrote: whipangel wrote: With the 'Special Edition' over the weekend and this one, we're now starting to get some better info.
What are these fools at English Heritage up to, it's not rocket science to work out that the image/map on the first page of their sixth update would be illegible onscreen (and not much better printed out). Thankfully, however, they've dropped the Mickey Mouse format of their previous updates and are now publishing something with a bit more meat on it (I say 'bit more' because the info coming out really is vague and amateurish). Consequently, slumpy, even if I could I can't answer your question re: "Does this second bank mean two banks with a ditch between them..." Perhaps someone from English Heritage's esteemed 'Silbury Hill Conservation Project archaeological team' could address the question here... English Heritage, you have an audience of informed contributors on TMA waiting for clear and accurate information on your activities and finds at Silbury - do it!
I get the impression that you could never be satisfied, whatever EH provided with you. With every update and every improvement you manage to find some tiny point and use that to deride EH's staff as "fools" or to imply some great conspiracy to hide information from the public. Last week it was the tobacco tin. Oh right, the inclusion of that photo suddenly made the update worthless. You might not like it, but it's all archaeology and all has to be recorded. Should they only record finds from people they like? Because Atkinson was a cowboy, they shouldn't record anything he did? Sure, right. And now this week you're ripping into a great update because one bloody image is over-compressed?
If I sound angry, then that's because I am. These are my friends you're throwing personal insults at. They're not over-fed civil servants and bureaucrats sitting in an office somewhere - they're archaeologists working in a muddy field. If they had the time or means to come to this forum I'm sure it would be completely pointless anyway, as they'd only be spending all their time dealing with abuse about things over which they have no power.
|
Pete G
|
Re: Silbury updates
Jun 27, 2007, 09:13
|
well said.
All you'll ever get from BeLittlistOne is nasty slaggings over a minor point.
He's famous for it on this forum.
I think the latest update is terrific, yes it needs the graphic re-doing sometime but thats a minor point that will no doubt get sorted in time.
PeteG
|
