No, of course you have not been wrong to shout about Thornborough. But surely its apparent to us all now that conservation and protection of sites like Thornborough are not the prime consideration of archaeologists. Why be surprised that they say that the archaeology of Thornborough is of no great importance? They have extracted all that they want. Archaeologists are primarily concerned with increasing knowledge (and their own reputations) through excavation and interpretation. In pursuit of that knowledge they will sometimes totally eradicate a site, sometimes they will conscientiously back fill sites and preserve for future generations of archaeologists. Nowhere do I perceive archaeologists being primarily motivated towards heritage preservation so that ordinary folk like you and me can enjoy visiting them with our cameras.

So it is at Silbury - the archaeologists will want to maximise the opportunities for excavation and increasing their knowledge of the hill's construction. I dare say that some archaeolgists would jump at the chance of DECONSTRUCTING the hill entirely layer by layer and inch by inch just to find out how it was CONSTRUCTED. The prime duty of English Heritage should be to preserve Silbury Hill for us and future generations. Having said that, I cannot accept that after deciding to do just that, they should be obliged to waste more time and money listening to well intentioned amateurs, lizards or a largely indifferent public. Just let them get on with it.