|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
moss 2897 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 06:58
|
||
|
Turned up an old HMSO 1971 leaflet yesterday on Stonehenge and Avebury, written by Atkinson to quote;- "the construction of the mound shows an almost obsessive concern for stability.... and they show (features) that the builders of Silbury had a remarkable empirical knowledge of civil engineering, which they applied so effectively that the shape of the mound has hardly changed at all since it was built".... Its wierd really, all the damage done to Silbury, tearing its heart out to find goodness knows what, that we still at the end have to leave a 'time capsule' to mark the fact that 'we've been here' - a relict of 2007 ;) . We still can't after all these years of civilisation help but leave our territorial mark or scat to determine ownership...
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 08:05
|
||
|
"We still can't after all these years of civilisation help but leave our territorial mark or scat to determine ownership..." Nor, it seems, do we learn that posterity may not share our certainties about our "gesture" in leaving a time capsule. This wouldn't be the first capsule left in Silbury. Dean Merewether's one, with its Christian tracts, is now viewed with disdain (although it did at least have the virtue of containing an apology for the intrusion, which is more than is being planned here, I bet). EH must have astounding prescience to be so sure that their capsule will be seen as appropriate by the future. And what happened to the EH Silbury Hill Project Board's Conservation Principle No. 1, laid down at the start in 2001 - "Minimum intervention"? Eh, EH?
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Edited Jun 05, 2007, 08:51
Jun 05, 2007, 08:50
|
||
|
Absolutely spot on, once again! And - sorry to bring the tone down again, but... Those PDFs are SHIT, aren't they? I thought they were supposed to contain "information"! G x
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 10:55
|
||
|
Its wierd really, all the damage done to Silbury, tearing its heart out to find goodness knows what, that we still at the end have to leave a 'time capsule' to mark the fact that 'we've been here' - a relict of 2007 ;) . We still can't after all these years of civilisation help but leave our territorial mark or scat to determine ownership... Three weeks into their 'Conservation Project' and English Heritage have shown the world half a dozen miserable photographs, no film clips, and no questions from the public (nor answers on their Ask the Experts information board). That speaks for itself - an ongoing combination of secrecy and incompetence. Now talk of a time capsule (which by its very nature would be placed in Silbury so that future generations can dig it out again!). English Heritage seem to be oblivious to the fact that the world is watching them and they have a duty to keep the world properly informed of their activities at Silbury; they also have a duty to adhere strictly to internationally accepted conservation principles (not just the Burra Charter) as well as their own which states, English Heritage Silbury Project Board's Conservation Principle No.1) Minimum intervention. * http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/burracharter.html
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 11:06
|
||
|
Well I hope we don't hear something like.... well there are two schools of thought and on balance, since the children have worked so hard on their contributions and would be disappointed if we cancelled it, we're going ahead. There aren't two valid schools of thought, just one. And if any of those youngsters grow up with just an average sense of propriety they may be hopping mad to think what they were made party to before they were able to apply mature judgement.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 11:58
|
||
|
Well I hope we don't hear something like.... well there are two schools of thought and on balance, since the children have worked so hard on their contributions and would be disappointed if we cancelled it, we're going ahead. To which the children might reply to English Heritage - "As with wildlife and the environment, we do not want to interfere any more than necessary by placing modern objects in this ancient monument. Please, therefore, place our time capsule in the Silbury carpark where both the present and the future can see that we acted responsibly and with respect for our ancestors and their achievements."
|
|||
|
goffik 3926 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 12:14
|
||
|
Hmm...I realise that's a pretty unconstructive thing to say... But worst of all, I think I may have blown any chance of a reply to any questions I post them! Ah, well... It's only my opinion... ;o) G x
|
|||
|
slumpystones 769 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 12:31
|
||
|
Well they didn't put in on the site, but at least I got a reply: "I would like to object in the strongest possible way to the ridiculous idea of putting a children's time capsule inside Silbury. It is not only a poorly-thought out idea, it contravenes everything that EH are supposed to stand for. It is not uncommon for archaeologists to leave something untouched for future excavations, purely from an unselfish point of view, knowing that they will be better equipped in the future to deal with a situation. There is no time schedule set for that return, just a note for Mr Future-Archaeologist that will be acted on when the time is right. With the addition of a time capsule, every ten years someone will consider digging up the capsule, for absolutely no good reason at all. The contents will be well known, and so there will be absolutely no point leaving it there. Time capsules are a great idea, but not in an ancient and protected monument. They have their place, and inside Silbury is not it. There really is no justification for leaving anything but chalk inside Silbury. The only result will be a pointless problem for the future to deal with. Do EH really want their legacy to be one ridiculed for its short-sightedness, bowing to the need for media exposure, being seen as the kindly uncle instead of serious guardians of our past into the future? Please rethink this decision. It is setting a very dangerous precedent. Otherwise, I can see an EH future where there are a thousand cremations at Stonehenge each year, burials inside Avebury, and weddings at The Sanctuary. A very dangerous precedent indeed." The reply: "Dear Mr Angry Bastard, Thank-you for your comments. There are, like many issues related to conservation generally and to Silbury specifically, divergent but equally cogent and supportable views on how to proceed. Our position is that placing a 'time capsule' within the new infill will be a minimal risk to the integrity of the Hill in the future and that this minimal risk is outweighed in the present by the benefits to be gained by providing an opportunity for schoolchildren and their families to engage with their local historic environment. Best regards from the Silbury Project Team" And my reply to his reply: "I am sorry, but the so-called benefits of putting a publicised box into an ancient and protected monument do not really exist - what is wrong with using the carpark instead? What possible extra goodness can be squeezed from burying a retrievable item inside Silbury Hill? The cynic in me says there are other, more clandestine reasons for doing this. Media exposure maybe? Someone in a suit who wants to be photographed in a hard hat, showing how much he is 'with the people'? Do 'the people' even realise what you are planning to do? As guardians of the site, this is exactly the kind of thing you are supposed to prevent. Maybe the best decision would be to hand the care of the site over to someone who understands what their job is! Whatever the real reasons for choosing this site over a neutral piece of ground close by, the result will be another dig at some time in the future, that much is obvious. Not for archaeological reasons, just purely to retrieve an item deliberately placed there, the contents of which will be publicly known, thanks to the media coverage - does that not sound even slightly daft to you?"
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8769 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 13:08
|
||
|
*There are, like many issues related to conservation generally and to Silbury specifically, divergent but equally cogent and supportable views on how to proceed* which sounds remarkably like a wordy take on what nigelswift said they would reply... *well, there are two schools of thought...*
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 05, 2007, 13:48
|
||
|
Well they didn't put it on the site, but at least I got a reply: Excellent letters slumpy! (English Heritage didn't really reply to you with "Dear Mr Angry Bastard" did they :-) You've said it all, and English Heritage have said sweet f*ck all (and reinforces what Squid Tempest writes below, "which sounds remarkably like a wordy take on what nigelswift said they would reply..."). English Heritage are way out of their depth, and digging themselves in deeper in more ways than one. The one satisfying thing in all of this is to know that English Heritage's incompetence is going on the international and historical record - long gone are the days when its predecessor could dig a tunnel into an ancient monument and then leave it unattended while it filled up with tat. English Heritage will be brought to account for their present failings, if not by this generation then by future ones. Wouldn't worry about blowing your chance of a reply to any questions you post to English Heritage goff; the more questions they fail to answer, or to answer correctly, will simply show them up in an even brighter light of incompetence.
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
