|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbaby » Silbaby -a plea. |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 08:25
|
||
|
IMHO, something needs to be done urgently. The problem is that nobody in the establishment has expressed the opinion that it's anything in particular. On the other hand, they haven't said the reverse. The most we have is that David Field says it's conical like some R*man stuff he's seen. Well, it's also conical like a certain artificial mound within sight of it, and if you cut and paste Silbaby onto the top of that you'll see the match is perfect and the angle of the slopes are absolutely identical (not to mention that it's dead in line with Silbury and the Sanctuary, that you can see both from on top, that it has a "moat" with a spring in it and in my opinion it is multi-faceted with the same number of faces as Silbury. I also think there's the suspicion that the line of the Roman road is designed to miss it, like Silbury. But maybe it IS Roman. Or whatever. So what, it hardly deserves what's happening. For certain, it's very old, and very artificial. Pete has a fantastic aerial photo, can't remember if he's posted it here, and that leaves zero room for doubt, IMO. So my feeling is this. It's something important. It's being wrecked (not just recently, the same thing happened last year and in previous years and each new layer of rubbish gets incorporated in the profile – there are numbers of quite old bottles in the slopes on the right as well as the left). Yet the protection system is ignoring it, it's slipping through the net, no-one wants to risk ridicule by backing a potential donkey. We're the only one's expressing concern. Pete's the only one doing anything – how mad is that, in the middle of a World Heritage Site? And what's the best we can hope for? The water authority will ask the owner to ensure it stops, and will ask him to clear it. Will that happen, how much will it cost, how long will it take and how many more fly-tippers will be attracted there in the meantime? No-one's to blame, it's no-one's responsibility (except maybe the WHS and they'll take forever) and no-one wants to get pro-active in case it's a "nothing" site, and they'll look stupid. But there's a finite risk that it's a highly important site, and history will record that the Silbury fiasco wasn't the only one. Personally, I think both HA and TMA should do something, despite the risk of looking stupid. Apart from blocking the access and clearing the rubble I reckon the authorities should risk a few quid in taking a core to establish what this place is. If it's significant, then proper protection can be put in place, and if it isn't then fair enough, the money will be wasted. The ONLY way they can argue against that, IMO, is by telling us straight out that it's not an important site. So, my personal view would be (a.) HA should feature Silbaby and write to the appropriate bodies. (b.) TMA should feature Silbaby, despite the uncertainty surrounding it.
|
|||
jimit 1053 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 08:29
|
||
A depressing up-date from Pete who says that tons of fly-tipping rubbish has newly appeared....Grrrr :(
|
|||
Jane 3024 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 09:08
|
||
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with us saying - look at this, look at it's position relative to other sites and whatdya think? Open the debate! Like you say, nige, we have a duty to in case it IS something. And if its isn't, then we did the right thing, didn't we? and got people talking and thinking. (I've long given up caring about 'looking stupid'.) J x
|
|||
StoneLifter 1594 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 09:16
|
||
The first call should probably be to Mr Fitzpatrick. If the alignments show clearly on a map then those are sufficient grounds for considering it prehistoric.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 09:42
|
||
|
If its fly-tipping shouldn't the appropriate department be contacted at (is it?) Kennet District Council? And as its on a WHS also the WHS officer whose email contact is on the Kennet DC website? If it's "adopted" by HA why not set up a page with a Paypal link were people could make a donation - how much would taking a core cost?
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 10:02
|
||
|
If you want a supportive opinion, Nigel - I think you (or someone) should just add Silbaby as a site. Then all the photos, comments and forum threads can be collected together for easy access. After all. I know we don't want loads of 'possibles' on TMA but this one has already been debated by people on here who clearly have detailed local knowledge of the area, and who don't routinely suggest every molehill in the landscape as a Genuine Prehistoric Site. So just do it (I say). Modern Antiquarians are allowed to (re)discover things.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 10:39
|
||
(Will someone please agree/ disagree as I'm starting to feel nervous.) I do feel sure though that many more tenuous sites have been added, and I don't see why this shouldn't be too, myself.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 10:45
|
||
|
Don't be nervous. There are scarier things than silence lurking here! ;) I agree with what you say, though it should be the discoverer who posts it up I reckon, if he's willing. I feel from a tactical point of view a word from TMA Ed would be useful. It's not going to strengthen the case if it gets pulled or causes a big controversy about whether it should be here.
|
|||
|
TMA Ed 614 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 11:55
|
||
|
If Silbaby is to be added to TMA as a site it needs to be made 100% clear that it isn't yet widely recognised as ancient. Also, the grounds for including it should be made clear (not an essay or anything, just something simple). Perhaps Pete could do this and write a short 'Misc' post about the mound. The site category can't really be set as 'artificial mound' until we are sure it is artificial. Until then it should remain uncategorised. TMA Ed
|
|||
Pete G 3506 posts |
Nov 23, 2004, 13:37
|
||
|
I've posted a photo of Waden hill from the air which shows Silbaby and made some notes mentioning the spring and the mound and that there has been no archaeoligical investigation of the mound to date. Is that ok? Perhaps other could expand it from here? My first on TMA and it wouldn't except Netscape 7.2 and crashed my machine after uploading with Explorer. PeteG
|
| Pages: 16 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
