=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Silbaby »
Silbaby -a plea.
Log In to post a reply
155 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8112 posts

Silbaby -a plea.
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.
Replies:
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (jimit)
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (Jane)
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (StoneLifter)
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (smallblueplanet)
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (Rhiannon)
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (jimit)
Silbaby - a suggestion. (Kammer)
More evidence? (ocifant)
West Kennett enclosures (Rhiannon)
Re: Silbaby -a plea. (BrigantesNation)
Council reply (Pete G)
Re WK palisaded enclosures (moss)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index