Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Silbury Hill »
Silbury Hill trespassers
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 115 16 17 18 19 20 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Harryshill
510 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 16:50
The path wouldn't need to 'engage' with the monument at all points, it could snake.
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Edited Jan 09, 2013, 16:52
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 16:51
Harryshill wrote:
The path wouldn't need to 'engage' with the monument at all points, it could snake.


It could indeed, nice idea.
Mustard
1041 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 16:52
Harryshill wrote:
The path wouldn't need to 'engage' with the monument at all points, it could snake.

Yeah, I'd had similar thoughts.
Mustard
1041 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 16:54
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
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.

Guess it's all very much dependent on the individual. I'd like to get closer to Silbury and move around it, but still from some distance away. I don't feel the need to get close. It'd be nice to climb it, but I don't feel a need to in order to appreciate it as a monument.

I think there'll always be a downside to any approach. Unless you cover it in a glass dome, there'll always be a trade off.
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 16:56
nigelswift wrote:

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. ;)


Yes, it's done really well at the Rollrights. Again, it feels right, unobtrusive and in harmony with the place (as much as it can be).
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 16:59
Mustard wrote:

I think there'll always be a downside to any approach. Unless you cover it in a glass dome, there'll always be a trade off.


Agreed.
VBB
558 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 17:11
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Mustard wrote:

Unless you cover it in a glass dome, there'll always be a trade off.


Agreed.


You have just bought a glass gnome, at trade price?

They would look good around that perimeter walk, fishing lines dangling in the moat!
VBB
558 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 09, 2013, 17:18
Mustard wrote:
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.



Keiller did react of course and wanted to knock down the pub and did demolish some of the houses (as did the NT).
VBB
558 posts

tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 17:25
Is this the longest Silbury thread on tma without war breaking out and the topic getting locked?

Has the evident damage got tma-ers to pick up the same hymn sheet and discuss rationally?

I need a lie down, I feel dizzy!
juamei
juamei
2011 posts

Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 09, 2013, 17:33
VBB wrote:
Is this the longest Silbury thread on tma without war breaking out and the topic getting locked?

Has the evident damage got tma-ers to pick up the same hymn sheet and discuss rationally?

I need a lie down, I feel dizzy!


You are clearly a sockpuppet causing all the problems here. BAN HIM.
Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 115 16 17 18 19 20 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index