Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by Meic
Silbury Hill

PLEASE SIGN PETITION, only takes 1 min

close
more_vert
Littlestone L
Littlestone May 23, 2004 00:12:08
Replying to Steve Gray

If Nigel is taking 'issue with the suggestion that the conservators seemed to be following the rule' then he would appear to be disputing the rule's validity.*

We can argue the toss on this 'til the cows come home while drifting into the realm of semantics and away from what's important - the conservation of Silbury.

I do not know why polystyrene was used at Silbury but to argue that it was just a cheap fix may not necessarily be correct (though possibly a factor). Somebody somewhere will have the answer as to why polystyrene was used and once that information is in the public domain we'll be in a position to argue whether or not it was the best choice - remembering meanwhile that the conservation of Silbury is probably unique and that a rapid 'interim' solution was called for. That interim solution may have become a semi-permanent solution but that's where petitions like this are important - in keeping the question alive.

Meanwhile, I too will put money on the fact that there's not a single conservator out there who doesn't fret and have sleepless nights about things under his or her care. The conservators I know are all totally committed to their work and when problems do arise it's more often the bureaucracy that's to blame not the girls and the guys in the rain and up to their necks in mud.

*The rule being that in all spheres of conservation no procedure is undertaken and no material is employed which is not reversible.

N nigelswift
nigelswift May 23, 2004 13:33:30
Replying to Littlestone

For the avoidance of doubt, HA has never criticised the polystyrene, though people who sign the petition such as wintersylph are naturally shocked to learn that that's all that's been done in 4 years and say so. Whether it was the right quick temporary measure isn't something we'd know, since as you say the expert authority for using it hasn't been published so we all have to take it on trust that it was.

The trouble is – it wasn't quick, since it wasn't provided for many months – until the initial measure, an entirely inadequate rain cover, had buckled and let in the rain and precipitated a further huge collapse. In addition, it's turned out to be semi-permanent and therefore an unprecedented measure. So we're justified in worrying, since the data doesn't exist, that it may not now be preventing further problems developing. Any volunteers to be the one to remove it?

So our only thoughts about the polystyrene is that it was applied too late and too long. Three cheers for the polystyrene, it's reversible. But none for the damage, which isn't.