Re: When Silbury is tunnelled | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by photobabe

When Silbury is tunnelled

more_vert

VenerableBottyBurp May 31, 2005 12:03:21

Replying to smallblueplanet

Whilst the Atkinson tunnel still exists today in that it is partly full of in-filled chalk plus roof falls plus voids, EH were quite specific in that if the tunnel was dug out that it would be made larger and the outer layer of that tunnel would have to be removed. Once re-dug, this would be a new tunnel on the route of the Atkinson and 1849 tunnels, there would be no ground on which Atkinson walked and no wall he touched, not as if anyone as far as I know want to commemorate his connection with Silbury as it has proved both disastrous and wasted. There would be no Atkinson or 1849 tunnel as such, and the only way either tunnel would be preserved is if the hill is either left alone or the voids are grouted.

To answer Littlestone's point - which of the methods proposed by EH would preserve the most amount of original Silbury and its subsequent history ? And the answer is that if you formed a league with the expected results, bottom [by a large margin based on amount lost] would be the proposal that is being pushed by a faction within EH that want to re-dig the tunnels to "right the wrongs of archaeology over the centuries".

Appearing mid-table would be grouting based on far fewer own-goals, but this method rightly in my opinion is on a back burner in popularity with the peer group because of the perceived amount of damage this will inflict on the flanks with uncertain success. However, and I take my lead here from a learned Prof. working on behalf of EH on this project, grouting should at no time be dismissed unless another option becomes the obvious solution.

Lastly, to do nothing would obviously come top of this league. The worst scenario [which is not envisaged], is that the voids could work their way to the surface. A small amount of surface area would obviously be disturbed, but this is not projected as massive in % terms and can be no wider than the tunnel area - or at least it would be so insignificant outside this as not to be measurable. Alteration would also take place to material in-between where the voids are now - and the surface area. This material would not necessarily be lost [as the material in the re-tunnelling would be lost when chiselled out then used as backfill - or not if the tunnel remains open], but this material would have moved and any context if that is relevant would be lost at least in part.

HOWEVER, having said all that it is more complex than that as Prof. Bell and others believe they should go in and retrieve data from the centre [there is petrified Neolithic ground preserved at the centre - perhaps the only area to be so preserved unless Marlborough is proved prehistoric], whilst this can be done as Atkinson's recording was inadequate and his records are both poor and few.

To summarise as I understand it: whilst the re-dig is being promoted as the answer this will cause the most upheaval and there is no guarantee there will not be future disasters or indeed that this will not also leave voids which is one of the reasons the tunnel remaining open for future archaeos arose. But Martin Bell and others believe that the material at the centre of the hill will deteriorate and disappear (as air and water has got to it) unless they re-dig and get at it to preserve it - it will be lost. This group oppose grouting as the water required would wash away or contaminate the material they seek to preserve.

So it is not the preservation of the Atkinson tunnel that is in question, but the preservation of Silbury as a structure as it remains today and in the future, or what lies beneath it ?

Sadly, from the conversations I have had it appears a done deal and they are merely preparing the ground by slanting the proposed solution in favour of the re-dig in order to have the best chance of getting the huge sum required to carry it out.

The heading of this thread is therefore correct - it isn't if but "when Silbury is tunnelled" !

VBB

nigelswift May 31, 2005 12:36:26

Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

To add to what you've said so clearly,VBB -

VBB, to add to what you say:

So far as preserving or learning about the two tunnels is concerned, the ICOMOS/Burra principle is relevant, since it would be what would need to be invoked:

"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. "

To my mind, the application of this principle is a matter of judgement and balance, and boils down to case-by-case common sense. Perhaps Littlestone will elucidate how its equivalent is applied in his own field. But in the case of the Atkinson tunnel we have a fifty year old partly collapsed badly executed and poorly documented tunnel constructed in connection with a telly programme, in the heart of a 4,500 year old Neolithic mound. Whilst the Burra principle makes good sense in the case of the successive alterations to an Elizabethan Manor House, it makes little sense in relation to this tunnel. That alone ought to be a conclusive argument against spending money we don't have on it, I would have thought. But if one then adds the fact that it seems it can only be studied or preserved at the expense of vast additional losses to the original Neolithic archaeology then it becomes an absolute non-starter. Better to rip up the conservation manual, avoid philosophical navel-gazing and listen to what the untutored public, the true owners of the monument, will say: "don't be so ruddy daft."

If that's not persuasive, consider what our great grandchildren will say: "So you caused huge damage to the original, so you could leave us with knowledge of a twentieth century tunnel, did you?"

If the tunnel goes ahead on the basis of wanting to learn about or preserve twentieth century meddling it will be on the basis of grotesque misinterpretation of internationally recognised conservation principles. But that's already perfectly well known, of course.