Silbury Hill 180
Image by tjj

Nigel, yes you personally have been courteous and if your explanation of last night's very brief reply (which you made on behalf of Heritage Action)was in way of an apology then I accept it. If anyone wants to look back on any of the posts I have made on the Silbury topic they will see I have also been courteous and respectful (apart from my knee-jerk response last night).

I reproduced English Heritage's reply to my enquiry verbatim and without comment. I am not an archaeologist, or a historian, or an expert of any description. Heritage Action lays out its remit as 'ordinary people caring for extraordinary places' and yet there there doesn't seem to be much inclusiveness in that statement. I really am not interested in scoring points and only look at TMA because I have a deep love and interest of ancient/sacred sites - especially those around the Avebury area of Wiltshire.

Moss, no it doesn't seem ridiculous to me that the actions of English Heritage have been scrutinised by Heritage Action throughout the process conserving and restoring Silbury. I fully accept that as an alternative to synthetic bags, chalk blocks would be preferable. It also has to be said that with the exceptionally heavy rains that we have had for the duration of that work, EH have been up against it to say the least.

I've done what I said I would do and followed through on the letter and email I sent, although I truly wish I hadn't bothered. I guess that's all I have to say on the matter apart from apologising to TMA Eds for apparently inviting another squabble about poor old Silbury.

I think the Eds are just worried about the name calling etc. on the other thread and want us to know 'they are watching...' I know I sometimes speed read things and get the wrong end.
I was confused it all flared up just cuz you posted the letter you received as you say, verbatim...
Frankly, i think the one thing we can all agree on is that since the initial collapse way back when it's all been a bit of a shambles and I just hope whatever does happen (which it seems for all our emailing, protesting, meeting attending, letter writing and everything else, is out of our hands) means the Hill gets preserved for the future. That's what we all want innit?

Awl Love

SM

Nigel, yes you personally have been courteous and if your explanation of last night's very brief reply (which you made on behalf of Heritage Action)was in way of an apology then I accept it.

June, just to clarify, no it wasn't on behalf of Heritage Action and no it wasn't an apology (for what?). I agree you've been courteous and respectful apart from last night and since I suffer from a short term memory problem I have forgotten what happened last night.

Heritage Action lays out its remit as 'ordinary people caring for extraordinary places' and yet there there doesn't seem to be much inclusiveness in that statement.

I'm not sure how much more inclusive HA could be. We post loads of stuff on various forums, we ask people to contact relevant bodies and sign petitions, we have a permanent invitation on our site asking people to submit details of endangered sites, we offer people help in building their own campaigns and every single one of our hundreds of Heritage Journal articles has a facility for people to make comments on what has been written.

Against that, as "ordinary people" we suffer a lot of stick, and not just here (but a lot here). If you care to you will be able to find really horrible, hurtful things said about us on two other megalithic sites just in the past week or two - Stone Pages and Megalithic Portal. Personally, I don't give a stuff, having the hide of a rhino - part original and part reactive - but I do feel upset on behalf of others who most definitely don't deserve to have their sincere efforts constantly trashed. Like you, they may sometimes wish they "hadn't bothered."

I fully appreciate we aren't perfect, which is befitting "ordinary people" but we ARE on the right side and trying to make a difference to a heritage situation that isn't good - see our Review of the Year for just how not good it is. In fact, that article contains a relevant passage about us -

"No doubt we shall continue to complain and continue to be criticised and dismissed by officialdom and others as amateur trouble making know-nowts. Perhaps we are but we ask only to be judged by events. Either these places ARE being destroyed as those set up to protect them stand by, or they aren't.

So either our "ordinary people" imperfections can be judged in that context or we can be thought of, as it currently says on Stone Pages as a small handfull of fundamentalist heritage activists with a personal axe to grind. Please bear in mind I'm not personally looking for a vote of confidence here as I truly don't give a flying stuff and shall carry on trying, sometimes very badly, to do something I believe in. 'Twould be nice if the others were cut a bit of slack sometimes though.