|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge and its Environs Forum | Start a topic | Search |
71 messages | Select a forum: |
nigelswift wrote: The dehabilitation of Atkinson has been a deliberate process, and traceable over time. Nothing was said for decades - I presume because half the blame was down to EH's predecessors who should have controlled him. Then a few years ago four people in EH let rip in an article in British Archaeology and the poor sod was finally openly demonised, not without reason but late. Did you know when he'd done at Silbury he left the blokes to fill it and didn't go back to supervise them? Apparently they didn't give a damn how they filled it, and partly didn't, and on cold days they ripped down the timber that had been put to line the walls and made bonfires in there? And no-one checked. I followed the 2007 Silbury conservation project with great interest I have to say I did not know the above. It makes my skin shiver to think about it, such appalling arrogance on behalf of Atkinson. Sixties footage of the excavation work was heart breaking to watch and in the context of the above information it has to be said that the conservation workers struggled, not just against the wettest summer in decades, but other tremendous unknown odds. Everyone agrees that EH fell short in many ways but the fact that Silbury still stands, the scar now 'healed' is a credit to the team who undertook the work. Here's to Silbury on misty, summer mornings. Reply | with quote |  5th June 2009ce 19:34 In reply to: Re: TMA contributes to archaeological theory... (nigelswift) |
Messages in this topic: |