Hob said on the other thread -
"It would be nice if the reasoning of those who decide what happens to Silbury can be translated into words that us plebs can understand easily. Maybe it's sound reasoning, who knows?"
Just to clarify: There has been NO reasoning put forward to explain the decision. Zero.
These are the bare bones of the situation relating to the decision making process:
1.) The repair options were presented to the peer group review attendees at Devizes in 2004. No decision had been made at that time (though the preference for the "tunnelling and research option" was blatant throughout the presentations). A period for submitting opinions was specified.
2.) At the end of that period, Christmas 2004, the options were reiterated publicly in a series of articles by EH and others in British Archaeology magazine. Once again, no decision was announced but once again the tunnelling and research option was consistently praised, enthused about and given remarkable prominence. Indeed, as HA pointed out, some of the figures were presented in a fashion that could well have mislead the reader into thinking that particular option was far less harmful than the figures suggested.
3.) On 21 July the peer group review attendees were sent a finalised copy of the 63 page core document "An assessment of the conservation risks and possible responses" together with an accompanying letter. The letter said "In publishing the report we have taken the opportunity to correct a totalling error in table 1, paragraph 6.2.1.3 and to subsequently amend chart 3, paragraph 8.3.4.1" (being the matter we had complained could mislead readers).
The core document attempted to quantify the parameters of damage resulting from each repair option. In my opinion it was written in a fair and balanced fashion. Also in my opinion it illustrated through numerous sets of comparative figures that tunnelling would be a.) most definitely vastly more damaging and b.) ALSO carried the risk of vastly more collateral damage than grouting – the damage ratio between the two methods being 1:12. I am entirely confident that anyone reading the document would conclude the same thing. The document expressed no opinion; it simply presented the risk figures in a factual manner.
However the letter said, baldly: "English Heritage have decided that the best option would be to remove the inadequate backfilling to the tunnels and properly backfill them" (i.e., since the old tunnels would be entirely obliterated, to build a new and larger tunnel). That is all that was said about the decision. No reference to the risk assessment figures, no explanation for the decision at all. "Have decided". That's your lot. Thus, there has been NO reasoning put forward. Zero. Two working days later EH issued press releases announcing their decision – again, entirely devoid of explanation of why the "12" level of damage was preferred over the "1" level.
HA's call is very modest and reasonable. We ask that they explain their decision to the public. Perhaps they are right. We aren't saying they aren't. But we'd like them to publish their reasoning, and we'd like them to hold a public meeting at Avebury so that everyone can be informed of why they have decided to do something which, on the basis of their documents, makes no sense.
Please, if you think this is reasonable, go here http://www.heritageaction.org/?page=heritagealerts_silburyhill_emailtoenglishheritage and send the email. Previous experience tells us that requests just to EH don't work, so we're asking that copies are sent to others, as will be seen. The effect will be that, for the first time, the situation will be highlighted to Parliament, the government and UNESCO. We feel we are approaching the end game with Silbury and unless major questions are raised from elevated levels the decision announced will become irreversible and we WILL have a huge excavation into Silbury without the least explanation of why.
You can do it in 20 seconds. If you think the public deserves an explanation, at the very least, please do so.