Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by texlahoma
Silbury Hill

Silbury Round One lock

close

Ding ding,
Mike Pitts referee.
Various EH bods gave a lengthy presentation on the state of the hill so far and what has been done over the last 5 years. Nothing new was announced.
Round Two.
The floor was open for questions and Nigel Swift immediatly leapt up and went up to the podium and launched into a lengthy rant asking why grouting had been thrown out as an option and various other questions based on speculative figures about damage and the time it would take for natural damage to equal excavation damage if the hill was left alone for a long period of time.
EH Prof countered with an arguement that Grouting would introduce water into the hill which could do more damage and moaned that HA had twisted his arm to make him speculate on the damage figures.
Mike Pitts intervened asking why HA's website makes comments about archoaelogists wanting to further their careers and said EH might archaeologists might comment on this further.
Round Three.
Another member of the audience actualy got a chance to ask a question and asked if EH had considered other types of grouting using a dry material.
EH replied that the hill Has to be infilled with chalk.
An audience member at the back stood up and announced he was the Director of the BBC film during Atkinsons dig in the 1960 and gave an interesting speech about his perspective and asked why the hill wasn't properly backfilled by an emminent archaeologist who was respected in his field at that time.
EH replied Atkinson threw a fit when he wasn't allowed to leave the tunnels open and only backfilled 4M from the entrance.
EH also said the a Bristol man had been in touch who was part of the backfilling team and he would be contacted again.
At this point King Arthur left (well the pubs are open and there is longer drinking hours these days)
More questions from HA which actualy got a "No" answer. The first admission that they didn't really know what they are doing.
Mike suggested that Nigel communicate privately with EH rather than dominate the questions,
EH said the website has now got lots more info for people to download.
Someone asked if there could be a better, higher fence put up and EH said No as people will always climb over or cut through. One person recently cut themselves on barbed wire and are now suing EH.
The barbwire is currently being removed. EH said people keep removing the signs they put up.

Finaly I managed to get a question in (remind me not to sit behind Nigel again)
and I asked "When are you going to start digging?" which got a grin from the panel.
Through the fluff it seems that the tender has been put out and that Skanska will probably get the contract to empty the tunnel and take out as little original material as possible. Preferably none.
Nothing will be done before summer 2006.

Mike Pitts blew the whistle and EH announced that if anyone is interested there is a one day course on Silbury at Oxford University on 25th Feb 2006.
Tickets are only £47

After the talk I managed to collar the BBC man and asked where all the spoil was put when Atkinson went in with his bulldozers.
He told me it was put into a huge pile in the meadow but he wasn't there during the backfilling.
Neil Mortimor and I had a chin wag and wondered if the many tons of missing spoil had been flytipped up the road creating Silbaby? If this is so then a dig into Silbaby may be able to rescue the missing primary mound material with the organic matter than EH are so anxious to get their hands on.
Look out for Forteans Times Christmas issue.
I'm sure others who were at the meeting will have plenty to add...

Another interesting thing that was said is that when the tunnel is opened up there will be no visiters into the center of the mound unless they have a confined spaces certificate.
They will however put a camera inside with a feed to a temporary visiters center in the car park.
(Probably charge a couple of quid a pop for visiters)

I heard that their Professor made your 'engineer' look silly - seems like you've misinterpreted the English Heritage report regarding tunnelling? Or didn't you hear that Ish?

Thanks for the info, I have been wondering about how the meeting went.

Hopefully the boxing analogy isn't directly applicable? I had been kinda hoping things would have been nice and amicable, with reasoning rather than ranting. But I'm quite aware this is naive optimism on my behalf, and tbh, I had suspected this meeting would have a high likelihood of having been a PR exercise on EH's behalf, rather than an attempt to genuinely explain the decisions behind the proposals for re-boring.

Mind you, I'm a reet pleb, terribly underinformed, and I divvent unnerstan aal that complkayated stuff anyway :)

I am very tired, but for the record:

We didn't misinterpret anything. However,

a.>
We did believe EH's Risk Assessment document, (section 8.3.3.3) when it said "For re-entry into the tunnels the amount of mechanical damage is calculated on the basis of tunnel enlargement by 0.2m around the existing roof and sides, along all of the 1849 and 1968-69 tunnelling. The figure here for new damage is 166m3 ".

Today, EH said that's not what they meant "in their wildest dreams" and they were aiming to go in on the basis of zero damage or a minimum amount. We look forward to seeing that in print and for the Risk Assessment to be amended to say that there will be no tunnel enlargement by 0.2m and no consequent loss of 166m3. Indeed, if they can do it we'll be the first to hail the miracle.

b.>
At the other end of the scale, we did believe EH's Risk Assessment document (Section 8.3) which calculated the rate of natural collapse, if nothing was done to be very slow and would take many hundreds of years to take place. From this, we had inferred that it would take 107 years before the equivalent damage to the tunnelling damage would occur. Today, their consultant engineer said he did not know how long the natural process would take and he had been pressured to provide those figures. (Not by us, please note. As if.)

So, we were guilty of believing EH's Risk Assessment. In the event, in the two most crucial matters relating to their intention to tunnel, they say we were quite wrong to do so and we must of course accept their word.

(PS - Pete, I have approached this diligently and to the best of my ability and suspect most people know that and will judge your posting on the basis of what they know of me, and of you).

Don't feed the troll

"English Heritage's unilateral decision needs clarification

Before this unilateral decision is accepted we think the owners – the public – are entitled to ask some vital questions."

A small quote from HAs website - has anyone told Lord Avebury that he doesn't own the monument?