lithop
|
Re: Silbaby - a suggestion.
Nov 23, 2004, 19:52
|
1889 map....apart from "well" there appears to be no sign of it on here though barrows on Overton Hill are shown. Does any other map show it??
http://www.avebury-web.co.uk/silbaby.html
|
lithop
|
Re: Silbaby - a suggestion.
Nov 23, 2004, 20:06
|
|
Perhaps it does!!....I might be looking at the wrong bit....there does appear to be some circular feature near the well closer to West Kennet.
|
ocifant
|
More evidence?
Nov 23, 2004, 20:55
|
Circumstantial, but looking at Jimit's map showing the Silbury-Sanctuary alignment, another possible alignment presented itself: Falkner's - Silbaby - WKLB.
I checked this on Magic, the results can be seen on my alternate weblog at http://megmumble.blogspot.com
Any thoughts? Could this lend weight to any arguments for the site being of importance?
|
Hob
|
Re: Silbaby - a suggestion.
Nov 23, 2004, 21:31
|
|
The fron cover of 'Avebury: Biography of a landscape' By Pollard and Reynolds has a repro of a map by Rev. AC Smith from 1884, which has the words 'The Great Bank' In just the right place, but no earhwork features drawn, only the trees.
|
Hob
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 23, 2004, 21:38
|
>Could this lend weight to any arguments for the site being of importance?
It couldn't do any harm I guess, though it might re-open the dread arguments about how many points are needed to define an alignment.
A quick shufti at the OSmap puts the Windmill hill bowl barrows and East Kennet on two ends of a line with Silbaby between.
|
ocifant
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 23, 2004, 21:52
|
Of course, there are so many monuments around there, it's almost too easy to get 3 in a line.
The long barrow at Beckhamptoin, Silbaby and the barrow on Overton just south of the Sanctuary is another one...
I guess the question is one of intervisibility, and for this the original Silbury-Sanctuary line is good. Can Falkner's site be seen from West Kennet?
|
Hob
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 23, 2004, 22:10
|
>Of course, there are so many monuments around there, it's almost too easy to get 3 in a line
There must be some way of using statistics <bleh!> to infer likelihood of alignments occurring by chance. Then as you say there's the issue of intervisibility. It wouldn't do to just go drawing lines on maps between things that could only be seen to be in alignement if the viewer were aloft. That would be a bit too Von Danikenesque, hence open to academic ridicule.
It might be an idea to cut out the BA stuff like those Windmill hill thingies, that would make any alignments seem more robust, but then there's always the possibility that any human effort at Silbaby could be later than the BA.
|
baza
|
Re: grid ref
Nov 23, 2004, 22:37
|
I took a GPS reading if anyone's interested:
SU 10684 68337
baz
|
jimit
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 00:25
|
|
Probably not, Waden Hill in the way?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: More evidence?
Nov 24, 2004, 01:04
|
Yes, Waden hides Falkners. I agree that it's safer to speculate in terms of visibility as the simplest and most natural motivation, rather than lines on a map per se. It's easy to get tempted though - e.g. Alan's 2 lines not only meet at Silbaby but do so at a pretty accurate right angle...
I did notice, when on top of Silbaby, that as well as being able to see the other monuments, it provided a sort of grandstand view of WKLB, much clearer than from anywhere else.
|
