Pilgrim
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 10:54
|
|
VenerableBottyBurp wrote: [quote="Squid Tempest"] I wonder if they'll post a hypothesis on this.
Ouch! You need more sugar with your breakfast cereal, VBB!
1. Aye! "It's a far cry from small boys in the park, auroch skins for goalposts. Isn't it? Mmmmm. Marvellous."
2. Aye again! Nice work if you can get it......
Peace
Pilgrim
X
|
Littlestone
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 10:55
|
|
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.
Now you're just being nasty and cynical (and very accurate :-)
Welcome aboard ;-)
|
Littlestone
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 11:07
|
|
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.
The area surrounding Silbury is frequently flooded, Pilgrim, and that could account for the alluvial band (natural deposit). But if Silbury was in fact designed as an 'island' then a clay covering, as Squid Tempest suggests, would also make perfect sense.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 11:15
|
What made me think of it was the fact* that the later Silbury was covered in chalk, which could be an extention of covering the earlier version in clay/mud/silt.
*Is that a fact? I'm not too up on this subject.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 15:15
|
Think you'll find, ST, that the final stage of Silbury was constructed of chalk, not just had a chalk covering. A clay covering of the foundations (above any seasonal waterline the structure may have been subjected to) would make perfect sense for any phase of Silbury.
Silbury, when finally completed, would have appeared as a brilliant white structure set in the valley between the Winterbourne and the Kennet. The builders must have known that left like that it wouldn't have lasted very long - weathering from the elements above and flood erosion from below. So, after millions of man-hours to build Silbury, how would the builders have gone about protecting it? Clay at its base perhaps and the rest covered with turf?
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 15:46
|
|
Interesting - that would make sense, wouldn't it?
|
VenerableBottyBurp
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 15:52
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Think you'll find, ST, that the final stage of Silbury was constructed of chalk, not just had a chalk covering.
That's the point isn't it. It isn't just a spoil heap, and mound is a misleading description because it is a complex construction.
"But if Silbury was in fact designed as an 'island' "
Exactly, if it was an islland you can keep sheep off it and that keeps it free from cryptosporidium which is what poisons Swallowhead.
I have no idea if this is what it is about but at least this is interesting to think about.
Sadly I have another full box of cynic muesli to chomp through but I am saving that for next week.
Today is my birthday - I am 32 and a half ! And I am a iddyl inebraiated..
VBB :o)
|
Littlestone
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 16:17
|
|
That's the point isn't it. It isn't just a spoil heap, and mound is a misleading description because it is a complex construction.
Bloody Hell - synchronicity or wot! Was just about to start a sub thread entitled Drop the Hill. Have avoided using the word Hill when talking about Silbury for sometime now as the word just doesn't do the structure justice. Let's see if English Heritage latch on to that idea. Mind, if they go ahead with their cow-horn music fest on top of Silbury 'Dropping the Hill' might be a bit too prophetic (Jericho springs to mind :-(
Happy birthday VBB. My mate Antonio reckons he's 28 - I don't believe him either :-)
|
tomwatts
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 18:42
|
|
Isn't Maes Howe built on a similar clay layer?
|
Robert Carr
|
Re: This isn't a dig; I'm just confused....
Jul 10, 2007, 19:01
|
|
Littlestone wrote: VenerableBottyBurp wrote: That's the point isn't it. It isn't just a spoil heap, and mound is a misleading description because it is a complex construction.
Bloody Hell - synchronicity or wot! Was just about to start a sub thread entitled Drop the Hill. Have avoided using the word Hill when talking about Silbury for sometime now as the word just doesn't do the structure justice.
Synchronicity Alert!
er... I don't think the (very) VenerableBottyBurp said "Drop the Hill".
Littlestone wrote: Let's see if English Heritage latch on to that idea.
I doubt it. Is it really important anyway?
Littlestone wrote:
Mind, if they go ahead with their cow-horn music fest on top of Silbury 'Dropping the Hill' might be a bit too prophetic (Jericho springs to mind :-(
Yes certainly if the Tap turn up as a late booking.
Will Heritage Action be sending inspectors to monitor the 'acoustic' damage? Looking forward to the podcast!
(Happy birthday VenerableBottyBurp BTW)
|
