|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
goffik 3926 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 09:25
|
||
|
Not quite true - LS just speaks how he feels! Surely we're all guilty of that at times, eh? Some more than others, granted... ;o) ascorbic wrote: 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? And to be fair - nobody took any pics of the tyres, did they? Loads of bloody great tyres was surely as recordable as some old baccy tins, no? As you say - it's all archaeology! :o) G x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 10:05
|
||
|
Ascorbic, may we start again? You are our main public source of down-to-earth unfiltered information for which I'm grateful to you and indignant about in equal measure. My take on it is: This project has been 7 years in the planning. Any information is both interesting and a matter for gratitude but in total it has been very sparing, by any measure. The blokes at the coal face are overworked, can clearly do without the extra burden of being information officers and appear to be in a position that deserves sympathy particularly since its not of their making. All sorts of shenanigans have been going on, as you hinted, and the project may well be behind schedule. My personal primary concern, as everyone's should be, is the degree of collapse that has happened. I have been asking EH at regular intervals for five years how many, if any, and to what extent these have happened beyond the last one reported in 2002. They have never provided an answer. They have now been inside the hill for seven weeks and I still don't know. Anything you can let us know would be very greatfully received.
|
|||
ascorbic 15 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 10:43
|
||
|
@goffik: Yes, I believe they would have recorded the tyres - they record everything. Even stuff from last year would be archaeology, just not particularly useful archaeology! @nigelswift: I must reiterate that my information is not unfiltered - it's simply what my friends have told me, and I obviously can't say anything to get them in trouble. If anyone has been wondering, no, I am not an EH person undercover, or someone sent by EH. I'm just a guy in Bristol with an interest in arch stuff, due in part to friends who are archaeologists with an infectious enthusiasm for what they do. None of what I say should be taken as 100% accurate, or coming from EH, or even coming from my friends on the project. It's just what we've spoken about when I go up there and am sitting in the pub with them at the end of a day's work. The views expressed here are my own, and the information is hearsay. Regarding collapses, I don't think I know much more than what's been in the updates - they're not hiding stuff. I don't believe there have been any serious ones, but don;t quote me on that. Anything that they think may have been of interest gets put in the updates, or at least it has been in the last two. I don't know about the older ones, as I don't know the people who wrote them. Regarding the schedule - I think they're still on target. This has a lot to do with people working very long hours to keep it on track. Skanska have very specific daily targets, which I think they've been managing to stick to. I believe the Ask The Experts thing and FAQ should be sorted out soon. I know people are working on it, and the archs who are dealing with the public interpretation and so forth are very keen to get it sorted out. It really has just been procedural and technical issues that I can't really go into. Despite what people here may think, EH do take the public interpretation stuff seriously.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8769 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 10:59
|
||
ascorbic - can I just say many thanks for keeping us up to date. the discussions here may get a bit heated, but I'm quite sure everyone would agree that your updates are greatly appreciated.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 11:32
|
||
|
I think Ascorbic that everyone is worried for Silbury's sake, we should in fact, be all on the same side, and working towards final completion of the closing of that wretched tunnel - done in the best manner possible. The arguments tend to rage on TMA, offerings at sites being an example at the moment. But in a way that is probably a good thing, open discussion leads to a better understanding of how people feel, and I think what does come out of all this turmoil is a realisation that our heritage belongs to all, it is a common 'wealth' that we all have to take responsibility for...... that is why the 'nitty-gritty' of each and every shovelful of chalk coming from the Hill is being argued over ;). Moss
|
|||
|
goffik 3926 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 11:49
|
||
|
Yeah - what Moss 'n' Squid said... No hard feelings or owt - all info is gratefully received, I assure you! ascorbic wrote: @goffik: Yes, I believe they would have recorded the tyres - they record everything. Even stuff from last year would be archaeology, just not particularly useful archaeology! Yeah - I'm sure - and sorry to harp on about it! It's just that I asked them if it had been recorded and was told that no photos had been taken. I only have their word for that... But still - onward with the stabilisation of the hill! :o) G x
|
|||
|
ascorbic 15 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 12:32
|
||
|
moss wrote: I think Ascorbic that everyone is worried for Silbury's sake, we should in fact, be all on the same side, and working towards final completion of the closing of that wretched tunnel - done in the best manner possible. The arguments tend to rage on TMA, offerings at sites being an example at the moment. But in a way that is probably a good thing, open discussion leads to a better understanding of how people feel, and I think what does come out of all this turmoil is a realisation that our heritage belongs to all, it is a common 'wealth' that we all have to take responsibility for...... that is why the 'nitty-gritty' of each and every shovelful of chalk coming from the Hill is being argued over ;). Moss Oh, totally. And we *are* on the same side. That's my point. I know that the archaeologists care at least as much as anyone here about the hill. That's why they do the job! You'd not spend years getting degrees and masters and so forth, and then go into a job that is far from well paid unless you really care about it. I know that even the Skanska engineers were vetted in some way to ensure that they understand the significance of the place and have respect for it. This is what frustrates me - the talk on here seems to be based on a premise that somehow "we" are the ones that care about the hill, and that EH are on the "other side" and that the archs there have some kind of agenda and want to hide stuff from the public. This is simply untrue. We are all on the same side! TMA forum members do not have a monopoly on interest in the hill. The EH (and Skanska) workers are not cynical philistines out to do god knows what to the hill for their own unspecified ulterior motives.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 12:44
|
||
|
ascorbic wrote: This is what frustrates me - the talk on here seems to be based on a premise that somehow "we" are the ones that care about the hill, and that EH are on the "other side" and that the archs there have some kind of agenda and want to hide stuff from the public. This is simply untrue. We are all on the same side! TMA forum members do not have a monopoly on interest in the hill. The EH (and Skanska) workers are not cynical philistines out to do god knows what to the hill for their own unspecified ulterior motives. I think it's more a case of EH being, essentially, a government agency, and the natural mistrust of politicians. What maybe has not been made is the division between those on the ground doing the work, and those in offices taking the credit and being paid vast sums to organise the project. When the project fails to satisfy it's easy to attack the organisation as a whole rather than those within it that are failing to deliver. The reports and updates are surely not the responsibility of a guy who has worked a six-day week and slept in a portacabin? Condensing the reports, accumulating images and compiling the updates must be the job of a guy in a suit somewhere, and they are the guys that deserve any criticism. PS if anyone wants a picture of a tyre, email me, my van's just outside.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 12:47
|
||
|
Hi ascorbic. You say that you get the impression that I could never be satisfied with whatever English Heritage provides me/us with. I wouldn't say never but, as the record shows, the information so far has been poor to say the least, and often nonexistent. Yes, I am ripping into image/map that heads the latest update because it is totally relevant to what follows in that update; the fact that the text on the image/map cannot be read is simply gross incompetence on the part of whoever is responsible for these updates. Please note my use of words here whoever is responsible. If the person who posted the image/map is some exhausted archaeologist or engineer after a long day onsite he has my greatest sympathy; I do not understand however why that person is doing that work when it is patently obvious that someone with computer skills at English Heritage should be collating the information and putting it on their website promptly and professionally; that is not happening (re: also their Ask the Experts link) and until it does I make no apology for calling those responsible at English Heritage fools (I should have called them incompetent fools - that would have been more accurate ;-) Your friends onsite, who are doing the actual work of conserving and recording the condition/archaeology of Silbury, have my/our greatest respect, and both your input and theirs is/would be greatly valued. PS I wouldn't take seriously anything that Pete G says about people here; he once had many friends on TMA but one-by-one they have dropped away. Pete has an astonishing knowledge of the Avebury area however and, believe it or not, as recently as a couple of weeks ago I was suggesting that we should try to engage with him. Sadly I, as have others, have now given up on him altogether.
|
|||
|
ascorbic 15 posts |
Jun 27, 2007, 12:55
|
||
|
slumpystones wrote: The reports and updates are surely not the responsibility of a guy who has worked a six-day week and slept in a portacabin? Condensing the reports, accumulating images and compiling the updates must be the job of a guy in a suit somewhere, and they are the guys that deserve any criticism. Nope, the reports are the responsibility of those on the ground. Some of the archaeologists are tasked with dealing with the public-facing stuff when they're not in the tunnel or whatever. This is probably best, in terms of getting the best information. It's also the only way that on-site visitors can find anything out. Likewise, "Ask The Experts" needs to be done by the archs, as they are the experts! However, this does mean that there will be technical issues, but those are being sorted out. The guys at head office (or some other EH office somewhere - I don't know) are the ones who deal with the actual stuff of putting things onto the web site and handling the technical stuff related to that.
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 28 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
