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

Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 125 26 27 28 29 30 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 07:48
VBB wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Hmmm. An unfailingly intense and contentious topic on TMA. Whilst I don't doubt it's worthwhile posting a link to the story, I think we all know only too well how threads about climbing Silbury tend to go here.
'Famous', in fact, for it's ability to bring mayhem to this community, i'd say.

The forum has been good lately, it would be a shame for this to turn into one of 'those' threads.

Some of us think climbing Silbury is ok and will continue to do it, others don't. We never seem to get any further than that, whether Jim Leary says its causing damage or not!









Absolutely, this is nothing more than another agm for the pointless thread society.



Well I think the astonishing length of this spat free thread says otherwise, as does the unified acceptance that there is an issue with damage caused by climbing, and that that is something that can only be minimised as it is impossible to prevent 100%. What that means is that people that have climbed Silbury or are about to can be brought to recognise that there is a problem, and something needs to be done to protect the monument and get folk to act responsibly. I think many people will think again once they have the message for sure. That is all that can and should be done.


Agree with you 100% VBB with regard to the acceptance by the majority that damage is being caused and also that it is almost impossible to eradicate the problem altogether unless there is a total blanket ban that is enforceable. A sensible and plausible compromise needs to be sought which is exactly what we have been discussing in a friendly and non inflamatory manner with no reason for that to change.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 08:08
Yes, but I don't think a compromise is needed but a consensus. I'd suggest one has emerged, and it's this:

1. Some people think it's OK to climb because their individual action is harmless (and they're right)

2. Most think it's not OK to climb because the cumulative damage is harmful (and they're right)

3. The photos have emphasized how right group 2 is, so there's a growing view that whatever can be done to get most of group 1 to join group 2 should be.

4. It's mostly about better notices and it's really up to EH to address that issue. As someone who, in his time, put up dozens of notices there because they hadn't put up enough, and had them all removed by them without them adding to their own, I don't think there should be a request for them to do it but a public clamour.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Edited Jan 12, 2013, 09:04
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 08:53
nigelswift wrote:
Yes, but I don't think a compromise is needed but a consensus. I'd suggest one has emerged, and it's this:

1. Some people think it's OK to climb because their individual action is harmless (and they're right)

2. Most think it's not OK to climb because the cumulative damage is harmful (and they're right)

3. The photos have emphasized how right group 2 is, so there's a growing view that whatever can be done to get most of group 1 to join group 2 should be.

4. It's mostly about better notices and it's really up to EH to address that issue. As someone who, in his time, put up dozens of notices there because they hadn't put up enough, and had them all removed by them without them adding to their own, I don't think there should be a request for them to do it but a public clamour.


I think a compromise is inevitable Nigel because you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged but then allow others up to carry out even scientific research or the real sticking point, commercial reasons as it will be seen as being unjust. It has to be seen as being fair and just or you will always get the person who takes great umbrage to this and puts two fingers up. The public will always be attracted to the hill and would like to climb it but as we have seen over the years they are now, on the whole, being much more understanding and keeping off it. I'm still of the opinion however that both sides can/could be catered for by reinstating the path in a sympathetic way thus making it a compromise but one that was always available to us in the past when very little, if any, damage was caused. It has been the banning and the none use of the original path that has been the main reason for the modern-day damage to the surface on the north side where it can be climbed out of sight of authority. All other damage to the hill lays firmly at the door of the excavators and not JP. That's just my opinion which I have voiced before. Climbing the hill like I have done twice in my lifetime was rather special to me and would love to do it one more time, but only now when everyone is allowed and on an approved path.
nigelswift
8112 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 09:19
"you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged"

The "consensus" here is not to "ban the public" but to better explain the damage problem to them and appeal to their better nature. If they are going to say "well some achaeos and the occasional film crew and official Druid goes up therefore I'm going to as well" I'd suspect they are looking for cover to do what they intended to anyway.

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.
Harryshill
510 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 09:42
Agreed. Reinstating the path would be a backward step IMO.

All steps should be to encourage folk not to climb the hill and to arrange 'things' to make it less desirable to those that will anyway, again, IMO
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 09:55
nigelswift wrote:
"

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.


Unsurprisingly, with respect, I'd have to disagree.

My vision of the future:

A single path is reinstated along the lines of the former so that fresh archaeology is not disturbed to any great degree.

The site is sympathetically fenced with a main entrance. CCTV is installed.

The public pay a small fee to be taken to the top via the path with a paid guide. Say a dozen at a time.

At no time are they allowed or encouraged to step off the path.

On reaching the top a smallish protected area is set aside for the 12 visitors to take photos or just take in the view.

After 10 minutes? they return to the entrance and the next group make the ascent.

No damage whatsoever has taken place and the path is maintained regularly. Other than the odd person or two that takes humbrage at having to pay and enters illegally under the gaze of CCTV cameras no feet will tread the surface and no further erosion taking place.

The hill will return visually to its condition prior to the ban being put into place and when the path was commonly used.

Of course this would be subject to H&S.
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 09:58
nigelswift wrote:
"you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged"

The "consensus" here is not to "ban the public" but to better explain the damage problem to them and appeal to their better nature. If they are going to say "well some achaeos and the occasional film crew and official Druid goes up therefore I'm going to as well" I'd suspect they are looking for cover to do what they intended to anyway.

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.


My stance on this in the past has always been to 'ban' or rather educate visitors not to walk on Silbury, now after reading all the posts in this thread I've learnt that Silbury is not going to collapse and is in no imminent danger other than surface erosion (which is happening all the time to the Henge banks). I still think people should be educated not to walk up as that clearly is what is most beneficial for the monument and the best way to do this is information boards explaining why.

Perhaps we should have a new topic to discuss 'what does Silbury mean to you' ... why for example does the official Druid need to go up there when Silbury can be appreciated (venerated even) from so many other high vantage points nearby. For myself, it is far more than an ancient mound of grass covered chalk - hard to put into words.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4670 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 10:01
tjj wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
"you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged"

The "consensus" here is not to "ban the public" but to better explain the damage problem to them and appeal to their better nature. If they are going to say "well some achaeos and the occasional film crew and official Druid goes up therefore I'm going to as well" I'd suspect they are looking for cover to do what they intended to anyway.

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.


My stance on this in the past has always been to 'ban' or rather educate visitors not to walk on Silbury, now after reading all the posts in this thread I've learnt that Silbury is not going to collapse and is in no imminent danger other than surface erosion (which is happening all the time to the Henge banks). I still think people should be educated not to walk up as that clearly is what is most beneficial for the monument and the best way to do this is information boards explaining why.

Perhaps we should have a new topic to discuss 'what does Silbury mean to you' ... why for example does the official Druid need to go up there when Silbury can be appreciated (venerated even) from so many other high vantage points nearby. For myself, it is far more than an ancient mound of grass covered chalk - hard to put into words.


Finding out what Silbury Hill actually is and why it was built would probably be even more benificial to us!
VBB
558 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 10:09
Sanctuary wrote:
tjj wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
"you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged"

The "consensus" here is not to "ban the public" but to better explain the damage problem to them and appeal to their better nature. If they are going to say "well some achaeos and the occasional film crew and official Druid goes up therefore I'm going to as well" I'd suspect they are looking for cover to do what they intended to anyway.

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.


My stance on this in the past has always been to 'ban' or rather educate visitors not to walk on Silbury, now after reading all the posts in this thread I've learnt that Silbury is not going to collapse and is in no imminent danger other than surface erosion (which is happening all the time to the Henge banks). I still think people should be educated not to walk up as that clearly is what is most beneficial for the monument and the best way to do this is information boards explaining why.

Perhaps we should have a new topic to discuss 'what does Silbury mean to you' ... why for example does the official Druid need to go up there when Silbury can be appreciated (venerated even) from so many other high vantage points nearby. For myself, it is far more than an ancient mound of grass covered chalk - hard to put into words.


Finding out what Silbury Hill actually is and why it was built would probably be even more benificial to us!


Job done, monograph in the shops soon!
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Edited Jan 12, 2013, 12:45
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 12, 2013, 10:55
tjj wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
"you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged"

The "consensus" here is not to "ban the public" but to better explain the damage problem to them and appeal to their better nature. If they are going to say "well some achaeos and the occasional film crew and official Druid goes up therefore I'm going to as well" I'd suspect they are looking for cover to do what they intended to anyway.

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.


My stance on this in the past has always been to 'ban' or rather educate visitors not to walk on Silbury, now after reading all the posts in this thread I've learnt that Silbury is not going to collapse and is in no imminent danger other than surface erosion (which is happening all the time to the Henge banks). I still think people should be educated not to walk up as that clearly is what is most beneficial for the monument and the best way to do this is information boards explaining why.

Perhaps we should have a new topic to discuss 'what does Silbury mean to you' ... why for example does the official Druid need to go up there when Silbury can be appreciated (venerated even) from so many other high vantage points nearby. For myself, it is far more than an ancient mound of grass covered chalk - hard to put into words.


That's certainly one of the problems, you just self appoint yourself as "keeper of the stones" Ha ha and they'll let you up, give them money -they'll let you up, look after the wildlife - they'll let you up, I do agree with lots that's been said [and how nice we're been] but do you [apart from the people who live around there] realise just how many people go up there, in the summer there are people pretty much continuously up there [there was even someone when Steve M took the photo the other day - it's all the time], the signs are as clear for all languages as they can be [it's a picture of someone climbing with a red line though or a red circle with a white line though] and then people see the steps over and it confuses them and pretty much encourages them up, getting rid of the stiles for a start would stop most, i can't believe nobody mentions the stiles [there's even more than one].
Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 125 26 27 28 29 30 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index