Re: Romans pay homage to Silbury? | Forum

VenerableBottyBurp Mar 10, 2007 11:03:09

Replying to slumpystones

slumpystones wrote:

I am constantly stunned by the ineptness of our more recent archaeologists - this is supposed to be an important site culturally, and yet the most obvious [let's face it, the Romans were messy bastards] remains of all have not been noticed. It says so much for the last 100 years that everything is being redone to get the right answers.

As I am not an archaeo I am content with the image that archaeology insists it can give and account and the the score of a football match from the remains of a hot dog found below the stand.

They just can't help themselves - the 'news' of the Romano settlement was told to us histo plebs ages ago and as it was kept back one thought they cleverly awaited announcement of the dig and an opening 'do' to focus media attention and the public imagination and keep this news for a gap of nothing happenning during the repairs to reveal it (in order to avoid the 'nothing happenning - no treasure' probs of the 1968-70 'televised live dig'). Instead they blurt it, losing an opportunity in the process and before a spade hits chalk hazardly invites rubber necking on the bath Road where at 50 plus mph people can further endanger themselves and others by trying to glimpse both sides of the road at once and sudennly decide to find a parking space. It makes you mad enbough not to bother speelchooking...

EH works in mysterious ways small wonders to perform...

VBB

slumpystones Mar 10, 2007 11:19:13

Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

VenerableBottyBurp wrote:

EH works in mysterious ways small wonders to perform...

They are a part of the media circus now. They time their announcements for purely political reasons, mostly to prevent embarrassment at the fact that they have overlooked the bloody obvious again.

nigelswift Mar 10, 2007 11:29:44

Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

Oh VBB will you never accept that they don't do spinning?

A couple of asides though. I note in two of the press accounts we have stuff about the hill was in danger of total collapse due to rain and that the original collapse was due to rain. I thought, respectively, it wasn't in danger of total collapse and the original collapse wasn't due to rain (though the second was due to a crappy leaky cover that let in the rain!).
Where DO they get these stories from?!

Pete G Mar 10, 2007 13:36:34

Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

I thought this was public knowledge ages ago.
Bloody Romans, Bloody EH