|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
May 31, 2007, 20:23
|
||
Looks like English Heritage's experts are still out to lunch (or out of touch). Two weeks after their invitation to, Ask the Experts - zilch (as far as publication of questions and answers are concerned on their page here at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.17513 ) Now why is that? No questions? No, I've had personal replies back from them. Web design incompetence? Possibly (and that would be in keeping with EH's incompetent performance on the whole Silbury saga to date). Secrecy? Certainly. English Heritage's appalling record on releasing information to the public on its work at Silbury speaks for itself.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Jun 01, 2007, 08:27
|
||
|
Well this was my question (s) to the archaeologists last week and I did get a prompt reply but as everyone will see in the answer there is a problem of introducing a marker between the new and old fill of chalk - and they did'nt get back asap ;) My Question.... Hi, I just wondered as there will be a different type of chalk from the original fill what is being done to ensure the new fill is easily distinguishable from this material?. Also there seems to have emerged from the backfill of Atkinson's time tyres, which seems to me somewhat reprehensible on the part of the people who were in charge of the monument at the time. I know this happened a long time ago but in view of the fact that Silbury has a now somewhat iconic status in the eyes of new 'druidic' groups can you justify allowing more offerings to be placed in the hill. And, perhaps warming to my theme, as Avebury, like Stonehenge, has been given a sacred nature relating to its past prehistoric religious role, how do you set about defining the rules of an emerging religious impulse with that of prehistoric sites..... Answer from Silbury Project .......... "Thank-you for your comments. With regard to the fill going into the tunnel, it will be very difficult and probably impossible to distinguish the new chalk fill from the Neolithic chalk deposits of the mound without introducing either a marker at the interface such as a membrane, or non-chalk materials such as re-cycled glass gravel into the fill - and there are arguments against either of these approaches. We will re-visit our thinking on this issue and get back to you on this asap. It would of course be possible in any case to distinguish the new chalk fill from the non-chalk deposits eg turf and gravel that make up the mound of Silbury 1. to my theme, as Avebury, like Stonehenge, has been given a sacred nature relating to its past prehistoric religious role, how do you set about defining the rules of an emerging religious impulse with that of prehistoric sites..... With the tyres etc these had been placed in the backfill of the cut made to construct the tunnel entrance when the works were carried out with inadaquate supervision in 1969. There is no possibility of this sort of thing happening again. We are not placing offerings inside the Hill, other than the 'time capsule' being designed by the children of Avebury school. Best regards from the Silbury project team"
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 01, 2007, 13:26
|
||
|
Thanks for that moss. English Heritage seem to be pulling answers from a file labelled Try This like a magician pulls rabbits from a hat! Re: their answer to your question on the new chalk infill, "With regard to the fill going into the tunnel, it will be very difficult and probably impossible to distinguish the new chalk fill from the Neolithic chalk deposits of the mound..." Cobblers. For a conservation project of this size there is no way the new infill will be impossible to distinguish from the original mound. Further, they are breaking one of the cardinal rules of conservation that demands that any new infill is distinguishable from the original. English Heritage, in another masterful stroke of ignorance and stupidity, have not only supplied you with an unprofessional answer to your question they have contradicted themselves in the process!
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 01, 2007, 18:01
|
||
|
English Heritage wrote We are not placing offerings inside the Hill, other than the 'time capsule' being designed by the children of Avebury school. Mmm... so this is an offering is it? An offering to what? And on whose authority and with whose consent is this 'time capsule' being inserted into this ancient monument? Another conservation cock-up methinks. English Heritage, If you want to leave a time capsule at Silbury please leave it somewhere in the Silbury carpark - there are too many people here in the present (and no doubt in the future as well) who have no wish to look at Silbury knowing there is yet another intrusion lying at its heart (and no way of extracting it other than to dig yet another tunnel). Now, you wouldn't want the future to dig another tunnel to retrieve the mistakes of the past would you? Be careful how you answer, and how you act, the future is watching you.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 04, 2007, 13:59
|
||
|
In fact, Heritage Action said it all back in March of this year - "Are they (English Heritage)aware that leaving things inside the hill would fly in the face of ALL accepted notions of proper conservation practice?... "Silbury Hill does not need a time capsule. Over the years it has suffered damage from antiquarian vandalism time and time again. An archaeological excavation, that was done for publicity sake, not only damaged the hill but the recording of the evidence was also very poor..."* Do try to keep up English Heritage, not only are you running about eight years behind on the stabilization of Silbury, you are running about eighty years behind on accepted conservation practices. * Full article here - http://www.heritageaction.org/?page=theheritagejournal
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jun 04, 2007, 14:37
|
||
|
ah don't worry, if it's got any metal in it, it won't be there long.. NO Shhh
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 04, 2007, 15:38
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: ah don't worry, if it's got any metal in it, it won't be there long.. NO Shhh Chuckle... you trying to give Nigel nightmares ;-) And the thought of 23rd century metal detectorists crawling all over Silbury trying to find a 21st century time capsule is enough to put us all off our teas...
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jun 04, 2007, 18:58
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Rhiannon wrote: ah don't worry, if it's got any metal in it, it won't be there long.. NO Shhh Chuckle... you trying to give Nigel nightmares ;-) And the thought of 23rd century metal detectorists crawling all over Silbury trying to find a 21st century time capsule is enough to put us all off our teas... Not so crazy a thought - by leaving a time capsule, they are encouraging a future dig that is not inspired by anything archaeological. Digs are frequently interrupted because the archaeologists respect their limits, and understand that future digs will be better equipped to deal with situations that develop. There is no time limit or schedule involved, just a small note to Mr Future-Archie for when the time is right. But the 2007 Time Capsule will be noted, and every time a 7 occurs at the end of the year, people will be discussing digging it up on its anniversary. EH are creating a problem, for no bloody good reason.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 04, 2007, 20:39
|
||
|
EH are creating a problem, for no bloody good reason. Aye, got it in one slumpy. Their third update is out by the way - http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.17511 Limited information, and what there is it's mainly quasi-techno gobbledygook that'll be meaningless to the average interested reader. No mention of the tyres and other junk being brought out, and of course no questions or answers on their Ask the Experts page. A cover up for past, present and future cock-ups methinks.
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jun 04, 2007, 21:07
|
||
|
The updates are getting briefer and briefer, with the usual 'stuff is happening' but with absolutely no background. Shutupdates...
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
