slumpystones wrote:
Well they are kind of...empty? I appreciate that they are largely removing 1969 infill, which should be clean, and I don't need a picture to know what a tyre looks like after 40 years in the ground, but for such a mammoth project I would have expected more info. If the archaeologists insisted on compiling the reports themselves then time should have been properly set aside to enable them to produce something worthy of publishing. Again, no blame on the guys on the ground, but yer man in Whitehall [or wherever] would probably have a week to work on it, and the saving of his time should have been available at Silbury.
I suppose we're blessed with instant-fix Time Team, with assumptions being made on the spot, but to have what appear to be two ditches and read no comment on them is frustrating. Nobody expects a carbon date, but an educated guess would be nice. It doesn't have to be conclusive, "It's a hill on a henge", but it would be nice to know the thoughts of those on the ground, rather than a sterile weekly report.
The image? Well that speaks for itself.
Well, the last update was about 1000 words. Last week there were two reports, adding up to about the same. I think you're spot-on with the Time Time comment. Most archaeologists treat that show in a similar way to host real CSIs treat that show - they hate the misleading impression it gives and the expectations it raises. You get an hour on Time Team, supposedly taken from three days of digging, when in fact Wessex have been spending much longer before and after sorting it out. There simply is not that much to report yet. Sure, you could pay a civil servant to work on them full time, and maybe you'd get a better report, but there's unlikely to be more information in it because there's not much more information to give. Is that really the best use of taxpayers' money?
In terms of the specifics, they haven't said more because they don't know yet! I believe they've found more stuff in the past couple of days (I could be wrong), so perhaps that will be in the next report. There's no point in making speculations at such an early stage. Sure it may satisfy curiousity and may turn out to be accurate, but I'm sure we can wait another week or so and know something concrete. Where speculation is useful, it has been put in. Read the reports and see.
Time is set aside for the archaeologists to work on them, to the extent that they're allowed to fit their other work around it, and can go and spend a few hours writing up notes, talking to the other archs and engineers, taking and assembling photos, preparing the report and so forth.
I don't know what other archaeological digs you're familiar with, but it's pretty rare to get anything close to this level of information while it's going on. Web updates, photos, videos, a visitor information point on site, staffed seven days a week by archaeologists who can answer questions, show finds and so on. The idea that they should employ someone full time in an office somewhere purely to write weekly reports seems a little bizarre to me. Are we that impatient? The updates let us know what's going on (and provide some interesting detail). The full site report will be published later, which will have all the nitty gritty detail and conclusions. That will be written after they've been able to appraise the whole project, run tests and so forth. It seems that people are expecting a Time Team Special or academic paper every week. 1000 words, six pages. I don't know what everyone's complaining about. The reports have plenty of interesting information to me.
This topic is locked | Posted by ascorbic 27th June 2007ce 16:16 |
Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 20, 2007, 16:20)- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, May 20, 2007, 23:50)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, May 21, 2007, 07:52)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pilgrim, May 21, 2007, 08:04)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 21, 2007, 21:11)
- Sentient Silbury: A lithic laxative? (Pilgrim, May 22, 2007, 01:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (tiompan, May 22, 2007, 07:43)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 22, 2007, 19:31)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, May 23, 2007, 15:46)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 23, 2007, 22:26)
- Re: Silbury updates: 'Atkinson/BBC Entrance' (Littlestone, May 24, 2007, 17:34)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 31, 2007, 20:23)
- Re: Silbury updates (RSleepy, May 28, 2007, 12:54)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, May 22, 2007, 10:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (tomwatts, May 22, 2007, 11:35)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 01, 2007, 18:01)
- Oh come off it! (nigelswift, Jun 07, 2007, 08:23)
- Update No. 4 (nigelswift, Jun 11, 2007, 13:06)
- Diminishing returns (Littlestone, Jun 13, 2007, 22:52)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 15, 2007, 07:51)
- I'd take the Fifth.... (Pilgrim, Jun 18, 2007, 07:35)
- Week 5 update (Littlestone, Jun 18, 2007, 15:58)
- Re: Silbury updates (tomwatts, Jun 20, 2007, 17:14)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 25, 2007, 18:21)
- Re: slumpy's EH comment - England's Heritage (slumpystones, Jun 28, 2007, 17:21)
- English Heritage - Another side (Robert Carr, Jun 29, 2007, 07:15)
- Re: Silbury updates (goffik, Jun 29, 2007, 13:07)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jun 29, 2007, 13:16)
- Re: Silbury updates (scousemaiden, Jun 30, 2007, 14:42)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, Jun 30, 2007, 16:48)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jun 30, 2007, 17:59)
- Re: Silbury updates (scousemaiden, Jun 30, 2007, 20:11)
- Re: Time Capsules? (Pilgrim, Jun 30, 2007, 23:44)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 05:39)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 01, 2007, 06:39)
- Re: Silbury updates (scousemaiden, Jul 01, 2007, 08:16)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 08:44)
- Hate? (Pilgrim, Jul 01, 2007, 09:01)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 09:19)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 13:29)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:12)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 15:23)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:25)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 15:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:33)
- Re: Silbury updates (rammie, Jul 01, 2007, 15:36)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, Jul 01, 2007, 15:38)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 15:40)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 15:44)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:47)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 15:51)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 15:55)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 15:59)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 16:00)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 01, 2007, 16:08)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 16:24)
- Re: Silbury updates (Toxic Delerium, Jul 02, 2007, 08:36)
- Re: Silbury updates (fitzcoraldo, Jul 02, 2007, 08:38)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, Jul 02, 2007, 09:24)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 02, 2007, 09:50)
- Re: Silbury updates (Rockrich, Jul 02, 2007, 10:49)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 02, 2007, 11:35)
- Re: Silbury updates (nigelswift, Jul 01, 2007, 16:03)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 15:28)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pete G, Jul 01, 2007, 12:49)
- Re: Silbury updates (Robert Carr, Jul 01, 2007, 08:32)
- Re: Silbury updates (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 01, 2007, 08:33)
- Re: Silbury updates (slumpystones, Jul 01, 2007, 08:15)
- Re: Silbury updates (Lubin, Jul 01, 2007, 14:52)
- Ask the Experts (Littlestone, Jul 01, 2007, 10:50)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mustard, Jul 01, 2007, 15:08)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 01, 2007, 16:18)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 02, 2007, 15:39)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (goffik, Jul 02, 2007, 15:55)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (Pete G, Jul 02, 2007, 16:07)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (Littlestone, Jul 02, 2007, 16:20)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (slumpystones, Jul 02, 2007, 16:28)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (CianMcLiam, Jul 02, 2007, 16:36)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (nigelswift, Jul 02, 2007, 17:02)
- Re: time capsule - would this solve the problems? (tiompan, Jul 03, 2007, 08:33)
- Re: Silbury updates (Pilgrim, Jul 03, 2007, 06:07)
- Re: Silbury updates (goffik, Jul 03, 2007, 14:48)
- Re: Silbury updates (moss, Jul 09, 2007, 15:15)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 16, 2007, 16:38)
- Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Littlestone, Jul 19, 2007, 06:51)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (slumpystones, Jul 19, 2007, 09:52)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 19, 2007, 15:59)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Littlestone, Jul 19, 2007, 17:26)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 19, 2007, 17:51)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (slumpystones, Jul 19, 2007, 19:13)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Littlestone, Jul 19, 2007, 22:01)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 09:54)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 10:06)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 10:12)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 11:02)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 11:08)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (goffik, Jul 20, 2007, 11:12)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 11:15)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 11:32)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Robert Carr, Jul 20, 2007, 11:57)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (nigelswift, Jul 20, 2007, 12:02)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (Moth, Jul 20, 2007, 12:14)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (moss, Jul 20, 2007, 12:26)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (slumpystones, Jul 21, 2007, 10:08)
- Re: Time capsule - Lord Avebury's opinion (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 20, 2007, 00:10)
- Re: Silbury updates (Mr Hamhead, Jul 20, 2007, 08:00)
- And now for the door... (Littlestone, Jul 20, 2007, 18:54)
- English Heritage and Heritage Action meeting? (Robert Carr, Jul 21, 2007, 12:46)
- Re: Silbury updates (Littlestone, Jul 23, 2007, 15:38)
- Silbury about to implode? (Littlestone, Jul 26, 2007, 12:51)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (nigelswift, Jul 26, 2007, 13:05)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (Rhiannon, Jul 26, 2007, 14:15)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (VenerableBottyBurp, Jul 26, 2007, 21:48)
- More details re temporary halt (whipangel, Jul 27, 2007, 11:15)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (Littlestone, Jul 27, 2007, 17:36)
- the view from inside (fool on the hill, Jul 27, 2007, 20:49)
- Re: the view from inside (fitzcoraldo, Jul 28, 2007, 08:26)
- Re: the view from inside (Littlestone, Jul 28, 2007, 11:14)
- Re: the view from inside (moss, Jul 28, 2007, 11:23)
- Re: the view from inside (Robert Carr, Jul 28, 2007, 13:55)
- Re: the view from inside (goffik, Jul 28, 2007, 19:47)
- Re: the view from inside (nigelswift, Jul 28, 2007, 22:09)
- Re: the view from inside (Pilgrim, Jul 28, 2007, 23:53)
- Re: Silbury about to implode? (slumpystones, Jul 27, 2007, 20:27)
- Mr Carr (Littlestone, Jul 29, 2007, 07:34)
- Calling "Fool on the Hill" (nigelswift, Jul 30, 2007, 11:42)
- Re: Silbury updates (goffik, Jul 31, 2007, 17:11)
|
|