|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury updates |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
moss 2897 posts |
Jul 09, 2007, 15:15
|
||
|
Week 8 update has arrived with a rather interesting alluvial layer on the original neolithic surface.... http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Silbury_Hill_web_update_08_20070709134949.pdf hope the link works...
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 09, 2007, 17:05
|
||
Thanks moss (link works fine). Have been out most of the afternoon but will catch up with this and the Rotherwas stuff later.
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jul 09, 2007, 21:27
|
||
|
moss wrote: Week 8 update has arrived with a rather interesting alluvial layer on the original neolithic surface.... http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Silbury_Hill_web_update_08_20070709134949.pdf "Finds from the 1969 tunnel backfill include drinks bottles, a junction box and a plumb-bob." Appalling though these finds are (and what a damning indictment of irresponsibility on those involved in the Atkinson/BBC tunnel of 1968 that such detritus should ever have been left inside Silbury!) at least we now have a modicum of openness by English Heritage on the 20th century rubbish that was left in this world famous structure. Also good to at last see the weekly updates becoming a little more professional in both detail and presentation - though sadly still lacking in volume. Twice as much information would still not be enough. We expect to see that information now English Heritage, not squirreled away so someone in one of your departments can write a fancy paper (at our expense) with it in six month's time.
|
|||
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Edited Jul 10, 2007, 00:35
Jul 10, 2007, 00:31
|
||
|
moss wrote: Week 8 update has arrived with a rather interesting alluvial layer on the original neolithic surface.... This here alluvial surface, made up of alluvium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvium "Alluvium (from the Latin, alluvius, from alluere, "to wash against") is soil or sediments deposited by a river or other running water. Alluvium is typically made up of a variety of materials, including fine particles of silt and clay and larger particles of sand and gravel." Is on a hill: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Silbury_Hill_web_update_08_20070709134949.pdf "The original Neolithic ground surface has become a subject of heightened interest amongst the experts within the last few days. The clearly visible thin seam of blue/grey clay has now been sampled and taken away for further study. At first inspection this seam appears to be alluvial in nature although this is unlikely to be the case due to its location within the landscape on a hill. Another theory is that this material may be imported; however extensive research on the sample by our geoarchaeologist is needed to provide a conclusive answer." ...yet Canti, Campbell, Robinson & Robinson, in their report entitled "Site Formation, Preservation and Remedial Measures at Silbury Hill" http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Silbury_Hill_CFAreport.pdf clearly highlight the presence of alluvium along the course of the Winterbourne / Kennet (Para 2 & 3, Page 3 and Figure 2, Page 3). So where exactly is this "Neolithic Ground Surface" ? Figure 11, Page 17 of the same report shows it as "Old Land Surface" (small text RH side of Figure). Is it further up the Hill, or is it on a level with the surrounding moat? If the latter, why is it so bloody interesting? Frustrated (on so many levels: not just Old Land ones) Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
whipangel 137 posts |
Jul 10, 2007, 06:24
|
||
|
Hang on, I thought the Hill was a SSSI and no-one was allowed up there, suddenly it's okay to stand atop the hill when it has nothing to do with it's preservation? I like a hurdy-gurdy and a crumhorn as much as the next man (!!!) but I'm perplexed by this (especially with the Long Man of Wilmington thing going on), I wonder if anyone will hear anything when they're all the way up there. Does listener feedback make this research rather than entertainment, is that it? Not happy, perhaps confused, but not happy.
|
|||
|
moss 2897 posts |
Jul 10, 2007, 09:41
|
||
;) could have been THE FLOOD, if you're looking for a less complicated explanation...
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Edited Jul 10, 2007, 09:52
Jul 10, 2007, 09:52
|
||
or they could have been coating the original surface with mud from the nearby water courses. sounds interesting to me, I wonder if they'll post a hypothesis on this.
|
|||
|
VenerableBottyBurp 675 posts |
Jul 10, 2007, 10:43
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: I wonder if they'll post a hypothesis on this. I have two, that whilst I don't know a thing about it I feel are equally worthy of consideration : 1. Reverse osmosis: as the water from Swallowhead Springs induces the pukes & shits and the Winterbournes dry up, a reservoir was dug, but this didn't hold enough water for the annual FA cup final held at Avebury, so a bigger reservoir was built, it was during this process that water was noticed to be springing up and filtered by the chalk, so a huge water filter was built so there was plenty of water and the world cups could be held at Avebury, only a new B&Q opened at Stonehenge with bluestone decking so everyone left and then the Romans took it over as a spa resort with water skiing pulled by chariots. 2. Slime : it is meaningless residue and academics that managed to foist an unnecessary tunnelling job on a precious ancient monument deeply loved by the public will have eternal reputations assured and numerous PhD's will be produced about it that no-one will ever read. As I say, they are just ill informed theories. VBB :o)
|
|||
|
VenerableBottyBurp 675 posts |
Jul 10, 2007, 10:45
|
||
|
Must go back to my old breakfast cereal, this one really disagrees with EH... VBB
|
|||
|
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Jul 10, 2007, 10:48
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: or they could have been coating the original surface with mud from the nearby water courses. sounds interesting to me, I wonder if they'll post a hypothesis on this. Agreed, Squid. The way I see it, the whole area about Silbury; widely referred to as "The Moat" and (I think) by Dames a "The Mother figure" seems to indicate a lot of deposition anyway. Reference to the Figure I mentioned in my previous post shows the alluvial band (yellow) as being quite broad and accomodating Silbury III's broad base within it. So I was wondering if this band was just an extension of what was already there. IMO, the notes in the PDF (and my imagination in translating them) don't seem to clarify anything. Which is why I asked. I'm glad I did, because I like your interpretation. Peace Pilgrim X
|
| Pages: 67 – [ Previous | 1 … 45 46 47 48 49 50 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
