Re: Well done EH and all concerned | Forum

Silbury Hill 180

Image by thelonious

Silbury's structural integrity

Littlestone Dec 30, 2007 11:35:15

Replying to fitzcoraldo

Morning fitz. You raised some interesting points last night, one of which I'd now like to address -

As for the poly bags. This fix is supposed to be a permanent fix therefore requiring stability and longevity of materials. Using a natural fibre would surely run the risk of biodegradation before the materials have had a chance to stabilise properly thus running the risk of further collapse. Surely the main aim of the project is to fix the hill permanently and if modern materials are the best for the job then so be it.

It is reasonable to say that, "...the main aim of the project is to fix the hill permanently and if modern materials are the best for the job then so be it." but there are a couple of problems there: the first is that modern materials are not always the best solution simply because they have not been tested over an extended period (and in the case of Silbury we're probably talking thousands of years in a unique environment). We don't really know how the plastic is going to react with the interior of the structure.

There's a principle in conservation that says as far as possible the same (or as near as possible the same) materials should be used for conservation as the original is made from. Sadly, the annals of conservation are littered with examples of well-meaning conservators/restorers using a new, seemingly stable material, only to discover a few years later that the new material is incompatible with the original. The second objection to both plastic, or bags made of a natural fibre, is that both are likely to leave large, alien deposits within the structure - that cannot be ethical on archaeological, conservation or religious grounds.

It's been suggested elsewhere that chalk blocks could have been used for the dividing walls. I don't know if there are good reasons why that method wasn't used but it would have seemed to have been the ideal way of solving the problem. After all, these dividing walls (unless I'm missing something) are only being put in place so that the areas behind them can be properly backfilled - they are not load-bearing as such.

fitzcoraldo Dec 30, 2007 13:05:46

Replying to Littlestone

Conservation/preservation, I don't really know a lot about these things. However I do trust EH and their experts. The Silbury project has taken place under the scrutiny of the international archaeological and engineering community and they don't seem to have a problem, that's good enough for me. Everything they've done has proved to be correct so far, despite the doomsayers of TMA.

Can I suggest that before calling for the resignation of the EH board that you sit back and re-evaluate what has actually been achieved by EH.

I cannot agree with the tone of Paul & Petes postings but I do agree on the broad principle that much of what has been written on this forum over the past few months has done us far more harm than good. Many of us seek to establish links with local archaeologists and groups, rather than sit and snipe at them. I personally have stopped directing people to these forums and have found myself visiting and posting less frequently. I doubt I will ever leave the forum but as a result of much that has been written over the past few months I have definitely become a less frequent visitor.
Perhaps the new year could herald some kind of new start, water under the bridge and all that , and a more of a responsible approach to posting from all concerned on TMA.

Here's a suggestion.
Most of the anti-EH folk seem to be HA members, so why not re-open the HA forum and take some of the pressure off TMA?

cheers
fitz