|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury Hill trespassers |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 15:37
|
||
I think a perimeter path further back would create the same sense of alienation from the monument as people feel at Stonehenge. One within touching distance would satisfy a need to be involved with it I'd have thought. To the extent there might even be no need for a fence. Wouldn't that be a revelation!
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 15:43
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I think a perimeter path further back would create the same sense of alienation from the monument as people feel at Stonehenge. One within touching distance would satisfy a need to be involved with it I'd have thought. To the extent there might even be no need for a fence. Wouldn't that be a revelation! Not sure about the closeness thing Nigel. You can be too close sometimes. There's not exactly a lot to see stuck up against the side of Silbury is there! Surely the 'spectacle' would be missing. Now a nice air balloon tethered to the fence and floating above would offer some spectacular views.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 15:52
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I think a perimeter path further back would create the same sense of alienation from the monument as people feel at Stonehenge. One within touching distance would satisfy a need to be involved with it I'd have thought. To the extent there might even be no need for a fence. Wouldn't that be a revelation! Totally agree, pointless to put in a perimeter path that still creates a feeling of distance. When I view Silbury from the road, I get the feeling I want to be nearer. People can still view from a distance if they prefer, to get the 'classic' view, but I think most would also love to get right up close to it, within touching distance. I really think it would go a long way to making people feel they don't have to climb it.
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 15:57
|
||
|
Think the point that’s been staring us in face all this time, and we’ve missed, it is that people do, actually, want to touch the monument. We see it all the time at Avebury, and that’s what makes Avebury and Stonehenge so different – the former let’s you get up close and ‘intimate’ while the latter keeps you at arm’s length. Interestingly, at Avebury, people who actually climb the stones are few and far between – most are quite happy to wander round and interact with the stones in a respectful way. So, I’d opt for a path at the very base of the monument so people can actually touch it – then a simple unobtrusive fence (without barbed wire) a few feet up to deter kids and the less conservation-minded from going further. Won’t deter everyone but it’s a start to better things maybe
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 16:01
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Think the point that’s been staring us in face all this time, and we’ve missed, it is that people do, actually, want to touch the monument. We see it all the time at Avebury, and that’s what makes Avebury and Stonehenge so different – the former let’s you get up close and ‘intimate’ while the latter keeps you at arm’s length. Interestingly, at Avebury, people who actually climb the stones are few and far between – most are quite happy to wander round and interact with the stones in a respectful way. So, I’d opt for a path at the very base of the monument so people can actually touch it – then a simple unobtrusive fence (without barbed wire) a few feet up to deter kids and the less conservation-minded from going further. Won’t deter everyone but it’s a start to better things maybe Yep, I agree with every word of that and it just 'feels' right. The only people who I can imagine objecting are photographers, who, during particularly busy periods, will no longer be able to get shots of the hill without people in. Small price to pay though.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 16:23
|
||
|
"The only people who I can imagine objecting are photographers, who, during particularly busy periods, will no longer be able to get shots of the hill without people in." As with all art, living things always add something to pictures. And it's good to have people in shots of Silbury so as to convey the sheer amazing scale of it. I also think this feels right. The strengthened paths at the Rollrights with grass growing through them are zero aesthetic problem. And of course, such a path wouldn't be interfering with archaeology, whereas strengthening the path on the hill would. But best of all is the fact the public would protect the hill by becoming Shame Wardens. ;)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 16:32
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: The only people who I can imagine objecting are photographers, who, during particularly busy periods, will no longer be able to get shots of the hill without people in. Small price to pay though. Photoshop ;)
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 16:36
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: a viewing platform on Silbury, would really mess with the aesthetics of Silbury when seen from a distance, at different times and in different lights. It's all a matter of perspective though. Not many people feel that a gurt big stone tower on top of Glastonbury Tor interferes with the aesthetics of the site. I think our sense of the aesthetic is largely based on what we're used to and our expectations. I love the mish-mash of Avebury, but I imagine I'd react with horror to the idea of a pub, paths, roads, houses if they weren't already there.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 16:41
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Totally agree, pointless to put in a perimeter path that still creates a feeling of distance. I'm not so sure. I always feel Silbury Hill is quite a difficult monument to engage with, and the idea of a circular path at a distance really appeals. At the moment, there's no real access, and no way to approach the monument. I think if you provide people with SOME way of approaching it and interacting with it, it will reduce the perceived need for climbing the hill. But this is all speculative, and we'll never really know what approach is the best one until something is actually tried.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jan 09, 2013, 16:50
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: Totally agree, pointless to put in a perimeter path that still creates a feeling of distance. I'm not so sure. I always feel Silbury Hill is quite a difficult monument to engage with, and the idea of a circular path at a distance really appeals. At the moment, there's no real access, and no way to approach the monument. I think if you provide people with SOME way of approaching it and interacting with it, it will reduce the perceived need for climbing the hill. But this is all speculative, and we'll never really know what approach is the best one until something is actually tried. True, we cannot know, but going by my own experience viewing from even quite close (from the road or from the field via the gate to the east) I want to get closer, much closer! One worrying possibility, I suppose, is if people were allowed within touching distance they might be tempted to take lumps of the hill home with them as a souvenir. Sounds odd, I know, but I bet there would be a few.
|
| Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 19 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
