Below are observations, and some background information, by Fachtna McAvoy (formerly an archaeologist with English Heritage) for readers of the book, The Story of Silbury Hill: written by Jim Leary and David Field. The views below are those of Fachtna McAvoy and do not necessarily represent the views of this blog.
I was on the Board of the Silbury Hill Conservation Project since its inception and I managed and carried out archaeological excavation and recording at Silbury from 2000 until the 15th June 2007. This was the day that I was dismissed from the on-going conservation work and tunnel re-excavation and then replaced as ‘director of fieldwork’ by Jim Leary, hitherto a (relatively recently appointed) member of the project team. The manner of my removal and replacement was and remains controversial (described at http://sites.google.com/site/anotherstoryfromsilburyhill/ ).
In these circumstances, although I was kindly offered an opportunity to review this book here, I feel it would be more appropriate instead to simply make a few observations on the reporting of events during that part of the Conservation Project for which I had responsibility and have first-hand knowledge. There are a number of factual inconsistencies in the portrayal of these events in the book ie:
1.
‘…. while Jim Leary directed the excavations in 2007 and 2008.’ (page xii).
The text quoted above gives the reader the impression that Jim Leary directed all of the excavations in 2007. This is incorrect as I directed the excavations at Silbury from 2000 onwards and in 2007 until the 15th June.
2.
‘For archaeologists specialising in prehistory, any trepidation at being lowered into the hole was tempered by sheer excitement at the thought of seeing the interior of one of Europe’s most important prehistoric monuments.’ (page 70).
The text quoted above gives the reader the impression that archaeologists specialising in prehistory, like Mr Leary for example, were present at this very early stage in the project. This is an incorrect portrayal. I was one of the very few people who were lowered into the hole and none of us was a specialist in prehistory. On a slightly different tack the thing I found astonishing in this experience was not that the shaft was square but that people had been down the open shaft before us and had left offerings like tea-lights and a small model bull. I am surprised that the authors did not mention this to illustrate the compelling attraction of the monument. One of the things that I found most interesting was the evidence for differing stages in the construction of the mound which could be clearly seen in the walls of the shaft. Here distinctly differing types of mound deposits were separated by a white continuous band of crushed or trampled chalk.
3.
‘On Friday 11 May 2007, the large green door that had been closed nearly 40 years previously was opened.’ (page 90).
The text quoted above gives the reader the impression that this was the first time that the tunnel door had been opened for nearly 40 years. This is incorrect and omits to mention that the tunnel door had been opened in the previous year (2006) by Skanska.
4.
‘…. it could be seen that the tunnel had been filled with pink, Type 1 roadstone.’ (page 91).
The text quoted above reinforces the impression for the reader that this was the first time that this roadstone fill had been observed. This is incorrect. The fact that the tunnel had been filled with pink roadstone had been established in a partial re-exposure of the tunnel entrance by English Heritage in 2004.
The above passages seem to me to reveal a willingness by their author (Mr Leary I believe) to re-write and misrepresent facts from even very recent history. I recognise that this view is based upon a limited set of observations but there is very little other material in the book which refers to matters of which I have first-hand knowledge. I was forbidden to visit Silbury during the engineering and archaeological work which took place from mid-June 2007 onwards.
Fachtna McAvoy
I was on the Board of the Silbury Hill Conservation Project since its inception and I managed and carried out archaeological excavation and recording at Silbury from 2000 until the 15th June 2007. This was the day that I was dismissed from the on-going conservation work and tunnel re-excavation and then replaced as ‘director of fieldwork’ by Jim Leary, hitherto a (relatively recently appointed) member of the project team. The manner of my removal and replacement was and remains controversial (described at http://sites.google.com/site/anotherstoryfromsilburyhill/ ).
In these circumstances, although I was kindly offered an opportunity to review this book here, I feel it would be more appropriate instead to simply make a few observations on the reporting of events during that part of the Conservation Project for which I had responsibility and have first-hand knowledge. There are a number of factual inconsistencies in the portrayal of these events in the book ie:
1.
‘…. while Jim Leary directed the excavations in 2007 and 2008.’ (page xii).
The text quoted above gives the reader the impression that Jim Leary directed all of the excavations in 2007. This is incorrect as I directed the excavations at Silbury from 2000 onwards and in 2007 until the 15th June.
2.
‘For archaeologists specialising in prehistory, any trepidation at being lowered into the hole was tempered by sheer excitement at the thought of seeing the interior of one of Europe’s most important prehistoric monuments.’ (page 70).
The text quoted above gives the reader the impression that archaeologists specialising in prehistory, like Mr Leary for example, were present at this very early stage in the project. This is an incorrect portrayal. I was one of the very few people who were lowered into the hole and none of us was a specialist in prehistory. On a slightly different tack the thing I found astonishing in this experience was not that the shaft was square but that people had been down the open shaft before us and had left offerings like tea-lights and a small model bull. I am surprised that the authors did not mention this to illustrate the compelling attraction of the monument. One of the things that I found most interesting was the evidence for differing stages in the construction of the mound which could be clearly seen in the walls of the shaft. Here distinctly differing types of mound deposits were separated by a white continuous band of crushed or trampled chalk.
3.
‘On Friday 11 May 2007, the large green door that had been closed nearly 40 years previously was opened.’ (page 90).
The text quoted above gives the reader the impression that this was the first time that the tunnel door had been opened for nearly 40 years. This is incorrect and omits to mention that the tunnel door had been opened in the previous year (2006) by Skanska.
4.
‘…. it could be seen that the tunnel had been filled with pink, Type 1 roadstone.’ (page 91).
The text quoted above reinforces the impression for the reader that this was the first time that this roadstone fill had been observed. This is incorrect. The fact that the tunnel had been filled with pink roadstone had been established in a partial re-exposure of the tunnel entrance by English Heritage in 2004.
The above passages seem to me to reveal a willingness by their author (Mr Leary I believe) to re-write and misrepresent facts from even very recent history. I recognise that this view is based upon a limited set of observations but there is very little other material in the book which refers to matters of which I have first-hand knowledge. I was forbidden to visit Silbury during the engineering and archaeological work which took place from mid-June 2007 onwards.
Fachtna McAvoy
25 October 2010
.JPG)
