The Long Man of Wilmington forum 19 room
Image by Martin
The Long Man of Wilmington

Long Man of Wilmington — URGENT HELP NEEDED

close
more_vert
Stix S
Stix Jul 6, 2007 10:22:56
Replying to Cursuswalker

ENGLISH HERITAGE STATEMENT

Following an inspection of The Long Man of Wilmington in East Sussex (WED,) English Heritage believes that archaeological remains did not suffer any significant damage during the filming activities that took place there recently. During our visit we did note damage to the turf in some areas, which appears to be very recent and might have been caused during filming, and that two to four of the modern concrete blocks that delineate the head are missing, although we cannot say whether they were lost during the filming or whether they had been previously lost. In both cases the damage is superficial and can be repaired.

V VenerableBottyBurp
VenerableBottyBurp Jul 6, 2007 10:39:36
Replying to Stix

Stix wrote:
ENGLISH HERITAGE STATEMENT

Following an inspection of The Long Man of Wilmington in East Sussex (WED,) English Heritage believes that archaeological remains did not suffer any significant damage during the filming activities that took place there recently. During our visit we did note damage to the turf in some areas, which appears to be very recent and might have been caused during filming, and that two to four of the modern concrete blocks that delineate the head are missing, although we cannot say whether they were lost during the filming or whether they had been previously lost. In both cases the damage is superficial and can be repaired.

What a surprise that EH have missed the point. Whether or not there was direct damage from this fashion stunt, it encourages others to use this and other turf monuments to carry out similar stunts. The effects of that are twofold.

First off, as we have seen from the number of incidents in relation to other hill figures since the Big Brother episode at Uffington, this has become an increasing trait. Not all of these have sought permission, and a number of them have caused lasting damage. Approved stunts merely encourage and condone what inevitably leads to this damage.

Secondly, this trait is gratuitously showing disrespect for hill figures as monuments. Some are only a few years old, Uffington is prehistoric, but every single one means rather a lot to countless millions of individuals and thousands of groups. Hill figures are used as symbols of region and county, local and community identity. Shops and businesses are named after them, and of course many are venerated in historic and spiritual ways. They are monuments and as such are part of our historic environment. Is it then right that these symbols that are so cared for and expensively maintained should suffer degradation and insult even when this is so called harmless fun for charity, as in the case of the red nose day horse ?

We all know how the church reacted to the cyber game based on a cathedral, and we all recall the reaction of the authorities to a statue of Churchill getting a green paint punk hairdo. Is it not hypocritical to react like this whilst encouraging stunts in association with hill figures ?

That muesli, it just won't stop repeating on me...

VBB

C Cursuswalker
Cursuswalker Jul 6, 2007 14:02:41
Replying to Stix

Stix wrote:
ENGLISH HERITAGE STATEMENT

Following an inspection of The Long Man of Wilmington in East Sussex (WED,) English Heritage believes that archaeological remains did not suffer any significant damage during the filming activities that took place there recently. During our visit we did note damage to the turf in some areas, which appears to be very recent and might have been caused during filming, and that two to four of the modern concrete blocks that delineate the head are missing, although we cannot say whether they were lost during the filming or whether they had been previously lost. In both cases the damage is superficial and can be repaired.

Response to the EH statement:

1) There is no question of the missing concrete blocks having been removed during the filming, from what I saw and heard of the event.

2) The opinion of archaeologists seems to be that on a site like this most significant archaeology ends up at the bottom of the hill, where the 2003 dig took place. However damage having been caused cannot be ruled out, even if significant damage can be. How does one define "significant" by the way?

3) There is a very good chance that some or most of the damage to turf was caused during filming, again going by my own observations and those of others I have spoken to. It would be serious turf-damage indeed that could not be repaired!

I am just waiting for those involved to leap on this statement as proof that they are off the hook. It does not do that. Avoidable damage to the turf on the Long Man is unacceptable under any circumstances and this WAS avoidable. Of course we may never know if archaeology has been damaged, but again deliberately placing the site in a situation where it might be is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Since ITV undertook to pay for all repairs to the Long Man during filming, can we now assume that they will pay ALL the costs of repair, in material, fuel, wages etc., to the penny?

Like all websites everywhere, we use cookies.