|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury Hill trespassers |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
VBB 558 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 09:20
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: This makes for a good read… http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/conservation-projects/silbury-hill/ And this is interesting considering our discussion on the original path…a flight of stairs??!! ‘The present pathway up the mound is a useful archaeological indicator, for its position has not changed at all since John Aubrey - often regarded as the founding father of analytical field survey - illustrated it during the 1660s. All features that the path overlies or cuts through must therefore be earlier. One earthwork that the path post-dates is a broad but low bank that rises from the terminal of the western causeway almost to the summit. It is conceivable that this marks the line of a hedge that once subdivided the mound, but it could represent an ancient route to the summit - perhaps even the remains of a flight of stairs’. That doesn't take account of the fact that the miners cut a path in 1776 in order to get timber to the summit to line the vertical shaft. Remember also that Stukeley describes the tree planters cutting a path in 1723.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 09:36
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Let's face it we all know the temptation is great, but it simply has to stop and a reasonable solution found. I've never been tempted, tbh. Thinking about it, I'm not sure that anything more than a decent fence is needed. That won't stop the most determined, but it will deter the vast majority. And given that the problem is the number of people climbing the hill, then a fence would seem to offer a solution. I do wonder whether flooding the land around it would be viable, or would it cause permanent damage? Alternatively, I think maybe a properly constructed path and a viewing platform at the top might not be such a bad idea. Yeah, it would have a visual impact, but it's not as though the hill or its surroundings look anything like the would have done at the time of construction anyway.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 09:44
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Sanctuary wrote: VBB wrote: tjj wrote: bladup wrote: Well that would have freaked me out, seeing a camera flying around on it's own, would you really like to see razor wire at Silbury [or anywhere]? I think that would be a sad sad day, I just wish people would stay off when it's wet [as that's when the most damage occurs]. No disrespect to the person who brought 'razor wire' into the debate but to be honest I'd rather see Silbury fall down. That might have been me, I may have mentioned that is how discussions ended, and no one wanted to see it not least because of the aesthetics. Same problem goes for the path round the base or perimeter. In 2001 the first annual protest meeting was held at the site on the anniversary of the collapse, and having agreed everyone should stay off, bless 'em they all bar very few did. One only hopes the same will apply now. I would though correct the impression that this is only a wet weather problem. Those monitoring the site several times a week have been recording the wear since 2008, the wear takes place throughout and is just worse in wet or warm weather, not least because more feet are attracted to climb when it isn't raining thus etching the archaeology away when it is dry. A serious question. Is there any evidence to indicate that the hill has shrunk in height at all? A serious answer. Sensors were laid along the length of the Atkinson Tunnel before it was filled and the entrance closed. I haven’t seen or heard of any data from those sensors – anyone? If this is a question related to slump (and increasing diameter of the base) then yes it was mentioned as part of the presentations made in 2004.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 09:56
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Sanctuary wrote: This makes for a good read… http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/conservation-projects/silbury-hill/ And this is interesting considering our discussion on the original path…a flight of stairs??!! ‘The present pathway up the mound is a useful archaeological indicator, for its position has not changed at all since John Aubrey - often regarded as the founding father of analytical field survey - illustrated it during the 1660s. All features that the path overlies or cuts through must therefore be earlier. One earthwork that the path post-dates is a broad but low bank that rises from the terminal of the western causeway almost to the summit. It is conceivable that this marks the line of a hedge that once subdivided the mound, but it could represent an ancient route to the summit - perhaps even the remains of a flight of stairs’. That doesn't take account of the fact that the miners cut a path in 1776 in order to get timber to the summit to line the vertical shaft. Remember also that Stukeley describes the tree planters cutting a path in 1723. It's interesting that all that activity has taken place over the years which must have caused incredible damage at the time yet here we are today discussing a limited amount of people just walking up it. In comparison the hill appears to have never been so well off as it is today! I'm still for the path reinstatement as it is patently obvious that people are always going to climb the hill if determined enough so lets meet them halfway and keep the situation monitored.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 10:13
|
||
|
That amounts to meeting an unco-opeerative minority half way which doesn't feel right when the majority are willing to not climb it. Yes there'll always be some who will go up come what may but I still think some psychological tweaks would reduce the numbers quite considerably. EH should try those first I feel, especially as they would cost peanuts..
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 10:15
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: VBB wrote: Sanctuary wrote: This makes for a good read… http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/conservation-projects/silbury-hill/ And this is interesting considering our discussion on the original path…a flight of stairs??!! ‘The present pathway up the mound is a useful archaeological indicator, for its position has not changed at all since John Aubrey - often regarded as the founding father of analytical field survey - illustrated it during the 1660s. All features that the path overlies or cuts through must therefore be earlier. One earthwork that the path post-dates is a broad but low bank that rises from the terminal of the western causeway almost to the summit. It is conceivable that this marks the line of a hedge that once subdivided the mound, but it could represent an ancient route to the summit - perhaps even the remains of a flight of stairs’. That doesn't take account of the fact that the miners cut a path in 1776 in order to get timber to the summit to line the vertical shaft. Remember also that Stukeley describes the tree planters cutting a path in 1723. It's interesting that all that activity has taken place over the years which must have caused incredible damage at the time yet here we are today discussing a limited amount of people just walking up it. In comparison the hill appears to have never been so well off as it is today! I'm still for the path reinstatement as it is patently obvious that people are always going to climb the hill if determined enough so lets meet them halfway and keep the situation monitored. It is not a small amount of people, it is a constant regular footfall.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 10:23
|
||
|
Which would bound to increase as time went by, as if you give people access, they would take it. What would people do when they got to the top ?. Walk about, I would have thought. only a matter of time before the wear on the top showed.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 10:25
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: That amounts to meeting an unco-opeerative minority half way which doesn't feel right when the majority are willing to not climb it. Well what's more important? Protecting the monument, or protecting your sense of what "feels right"? The question is ultimately one of efficacy, surely?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 10:38
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: That amounts to meeting an unco-opeerative minority half way which doesn't feel right when the majority are willing to not climb it. Yes there'll always be some who will go up come what may but I still think some psychological tweaks would reduce the numbers quite considerably. EH should try those first I feel, especially as they would cost peanuts.. I'm just trying to strike a sensible balance Nigel. If nobody is going to be taken to book for climbing the hill then all the talking in the world is not going to stop them is it. When I climbed the hill (twice) as a much younger man we had a recognised path that people followed and stuck to. I was never witness to any damage to the hill at that time because we had the path and didn't have to sneak in the back way and cause damage like what is happening these days. At weekends as many people who visited the WKLB also scaled the hill, unless of course they were too elderly or infirm. Left to their own devices and a path to follow the public of old never caused problems damaging the hill...blame the official excavations for that!
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 11:09
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Sanctuary wrote: VBB wrote: Sanctuary wrote: This makes for a good read… http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/conservation-projects/silbury-hill/ And this is interesting considering our discussion on the original path…a flight of stairs??!! ‘The present pathway up the mound is a useful archaeological indicator, for its position has not changed at all since John Aubrey - often regarded as the founding father of analytical field survey - illustrated it during the 1660s. All features that the path overlies or cuts through must therefore be earlier. One earthwork that the path post-dates is a broad but low bank that rises from the terminal of the western causeway almost to the summit. It is conceivable that this marks the line of a hedge that once subdivided the mound, but it could represent an ancient route to the summit - perhaps even the remains of a flight of stairs’. That doesn't take account of the fact that the miners cut a path in 1776 in order to get timber to the summit to line the vertical shaft. Remember also that Stukeley describes the tree planters cutting a path in 1723. It's interesting that all that activity has taken place over the years which must have caused incredible damage at the time yet here we are today discussing a limited amount of people just walking up it. In comparison the hill appears to have never been so well off as it is today! I'm still for the path reinstatement as it is patently obvious that people are always going to climb the hill if determined enough so lets meet them halfway and keep the situation monitored. It is not a small amount of people, it is a constant regular footfall. This is as much about over population and therefore more people having an interest, I agree with sanctuary and accept people will go up regardless so therefore at the very least you need something down to protect the place, but if they do that it would be them accepting letting people up, they think that they're in a catch 22 but they're not as one idea is possible and one is not.
|
| Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
