fitzcoraldo
|
Re: First EH update
May 26, 2007, 07:54
|
|
Taking children into an old drift that has been driven into an artificial, unstable hill with a history of recent collapse would be extremely foolhardy to say the least.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: First EH update
May 26, 2007, 08:44
|
|
Well, maybe you're right but it would be more on emotional grounds than practical ones. I presume if archaeologists are being invited in in July then Skanska will have certified it as 101% safe. There may well be something like a temporary steel lining in place, I don't know.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 09:28
|
|
whipangel wrote:
Nice one. Some talent you've got there young man :-)
|
VenerableBottyBurp
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 10:16
|
Not as if I know FA about it but I was told that the lintel looks as if it can't stay without cost and much change, it is I think part of this history now but it should be in the AK.
VBB
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 10:34
|
|
VenerableBottyBurp wrote: Not as if I know FA about it but I was told that the lintel looks as if it can't stay without cost and much change, it is I think part of this history now but it should be in the AK.
VBB
Perhaps it could form part of a small, permanent exhibition showing the various vandalisms to Silbury over the past few hundred years and highlighting how such practices are now frowned upon ;-)
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 12:11
|
I don't understand this at all. What possible reason (other than the hill falling down) could there be for leaving the vile doorway/lintel? It's not history is it, it wouldn't even qualify for a pension. Surely it was a tasteless mistake and it's not too late for us to rectify it?
I'm not saying we should remove the church at Badbury (having a mental block, maybe that's not the right name) or knock down the houses inside Avebury.
I don't get it.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 12:28
|
I think the thinking comes from the Burra Charter, which says
"The traces of additions, alterations and earlier treatments to the fabric of a place are evidence of its history and uses. These will often be a major part of its significance. Conservation action should assist and not impede their understanding. "
But of course, that makes sense with a Manor House where successive changes are interwoven and a valid part of the history of the whole. I don't see much applicability to Silbury which is overwhelmingly a neolithic monument with Roman, Saxon and later tweaks that obviously have to stay. Atkinson's daft door has no more place there than an Ice Cream van that has managed to squat there for 40 years. Its a matter of judgement, not slavishly following a principle. Looks pretty bleeding obvious to me, anyway.
The proponents of Burra will say - ah but which is the real Silbury, there are lots. What right do we have to pick and choose what to preserve? (There was even a school of thought that the tunnels should be preserved). My answer is we have every right to choose to do what's bleedin' obviously right.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 12:38
|
Well that's it isn't it - doesn't common sense come into things? I like your comment about the ice cream van - it's precisely the same thing. In fact it would be less offensive because at least it wouldn't have damaged the hill. If someone had put that lintel in 1990 surely it'd be coming out, so what's the difference? It's within living memory, I mean you could probably track down some people responsible for its inclusion and ask their opinion, before adopting some ridiculous 'everything's equally valid' stance.
It's just stupid and they are a bunch of idiots. Surely.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 12:47
|
|
Brilliantly analysed and articulated as always :-)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance'
May 26, 2007, 13:00
|
And the moral is:
If you adopt a policy of exclusivity, professional snobbery and arrogance (and for instance you don't be arsed to publish your minutes for six months) and you regard the public whose hill it is as bleating know-nowt cattle without owners' rights, to be thrown an occasional turnip from on high, you cut yourself off from a rich reservoir of plain, democratic common sense and sometimes you look really daft and young and inexperienced as a result.
|
