Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by megadread
Silbury Hill

Silbury updates lock

close
more_vert
ascorbic A
ascorbic Jun 27, 2007 08:46:54
Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:
whipangel wrote:
With the 'Special Edition' over the weekend and this one, we're now starting to get some better info.
What are these fools at English Heritage up to, it's not rocket science to work out that the image/map on the first page of their sixth update would be illegible onscreen (and not much better printed out). Thankfully, however, they've dropped the Mickey Mouse format of their previous updates and are now publishing something with a bit more meat on it (I say 'bit more' because the info coming out really is vague and amateurish). Consequently, slumpy, even if I could I can't answer your question re: "Does this second bank mean two banks with a ditch between them..." Perhaps someone from English Heritage's esteemed 'Silbury Hill Conservation Project archaeological team' could address the question here... English Heritage, you have an audience of informed contributors on TMA waiting for clear and accurate information on your activities and finds at Silbury - do it!
I get the impression that you could never be satisfied, whatever EH provided with you. With every update and every improvement you manage to find some tiny point and use that to deride EH's staff as "fools" or to imply some great conspiracy to hide information from the public. Last week it was the tobacco tin. Oh right, the inclusion of that photo suddenly made the update worthless. You might not like it, but it's all archaeology and all has to be recorded. Should they only record finds from people they like? Because Atkinson was a cowboy, they shouldn't record anything he did? Sure, right. And now this week you're ripping into a great update because one bloody image is over-compressed?

If I sound angry, then that's because I am. These are my friends you're throwing personal insults at. They're not over-fed civil servants and bureaucrats sitting in an office somewhere - they're archaeologists working in a muddy field. If they had the time or means to come to this forum I'm sure it would be completely pointless anyway, as they'd only be spending all their time dealing with abuse about things over which they have no power.

P Pete G
Pete G Jun 27, 2007 09:13:58
Replying to ascorbic

well said.
All you'll ever get from BeLittlistOne is nasty slaggings over a minor point.
He's famous for it on this forum.
I think the latest update is terrific, yes it needs the graphic re-doing sometime but thats a minor point that will no doubt get sorted in time.
PeteG

N nigelswift
nigelswift Jun 27, 2007 10:05:26
Replying to ascorbic

Ascorbic, may we start again? You are our main public source of down-to-earth unfiltered information for which I'm grateful to you and indignant about in equal measure.

My take on it is:

This project has been 7 years in the planning.

Any information is both interesting and a matter for gratitude but in total it has been very sparing, by any measure.

The blokes at the coal face are overworked, can clearly do without the extra burden of being information officers and appear to be in a position that deserves sympathy particularly since its not of their making.

All sorts of shenanigans have been going on, as you hinted, and the project may well be behind schedule.

My personal primary concern, as everyone's should be, is the degree of collapse that has happened. I have been asking EH at regular intervals for five years how many, if any, and to what extent these have happened beyond the last one reported in 2002. They have never provided an answer. They have now been inside the hill for seven weeks and I still don't know.

Anything you can let us know would be very greatfully received.

L Littlestone
Littlestone Jun 27, 2007 12:47:59
Replying to ascorbic

Hi ascorbic.

You say that you get the impression that I could never be satisfied with whatever English Heritage provides me/us with. I wouldn't say never but, as the record shows, the information so far has been poor to say the least, and often nonexistent.

Yes, I am ripping into image/map that heads the latest update because it is totally relevant to what follows in that update; the fact that the text on the image/map cannot be read is simply gross incompetence on the part of whoever is responsible for these updates. Please note my use of words here whoever is responsible. If the person who posted the image/map is some exhausted archaeologist or engineer after a long day onsite he has my greatest sympathy; I do not understand however why that person is doing that work when it is patently obvious that someone with computer skills at English Heritage should be collating the information and putting it on their website promptly and professionally; that is not happening (re: also their Ask the Experts link) and until it does I make no apology for calling those responsible at English Heritage fools (I should have called them incompetent fools - that would have been more accurate ;-)

Your friends onsite, who are doing the actual work of conserving and recording the condition/archaeology of Silbury, have my/our greatest respect, and both your input and theirs is/would be greatly valued.

PS I wouldn't take seriously anything that Pete G says about people here; he once had many friends on TMA but one-by-one they have dropped away. Pete has an astonishing knowledge of the Avebury area however and, believe it or not, as recently as a couple of weeks ago I was suggesting that we should try to engage with him. Sadly I, as have others, have now given up on him altogether.