Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by wickerman
Silbury Hill

Grrr​…

close
more_vert

Littlestone wrote:
In a last ditch attempt to save Silbury from collapse, English Heritage undertook a ‘conservation’ project during 2007-2008 to stabilise the structure and remove the detritus of previous tunnelling. Sadly, not only has much of this detritus been left within the structure, but parts of the original monument (eg the sarsen stones pictured below)* seem not to have been returned to their original position within Silbury Hill. The present location of these stones, the meaning of which has attracted some speculation, remains unknown.

If that were not bad enough, English Heritage has introduced even more detritus into the monument in the form of thousands of plastic sacks filled with chalk rubble; these sacks were used to form partitions within the Atikinson/BBC tunnel so that the area behind each partition could be backfilled with a chalk slurry. One is force to ask why plastic sacking was used instead of blocks of chalk closer in composition the mound itself. We have no idea at present how long the life span of these sacks is nor whether they pose any long-term hazard to the monument as they break down.

Perhaps English Heritage would care to comment here (or on the Heritage Journal) on their decision to use plastic sacking rather than chalk blocks – a decision which seems so at odds with accepted conservation principles.

* Photos here - http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/sacking-at-silbury/

Mental innit. !
Ah well, at least they didn't allow that bloody awful "time capsule" to be placed within the hill, that could have caused untold damage. ; )

Hear hear! Couldn't agree more. That *was* a fucking stupid idea, wasn't it? Well said. :)

G x

... that could have caused untold damage.
Untold damage comes in various forms Mr m. Guess it's when that which you hold important is somehow 'desecrated'. Like many, I'm just happy to look at Silbury from various places in the area, but that happiness would somehow have been 'interfered with' knowing that this generation of 'custodians' had not only failed to restore the monument to its former state but had somehow arrived at the conclusion that a 21st century 'time capsule' was appropriate within a prehistoric monument.

By all means bury a time capsule near Silbury... but in it!? I do not think so, and it really does beg the question whether English Heritage really knew what they were advocating with the idea of a 21st century Silbury time capsule - and by extension, what they continue to both do and allow at other places (not least Stonehenge) under their jurisdiction.