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

295 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
1986 posts

Edited Jan 07, 2013, 15:20
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:18
Littlestone 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!

Your argument seems to be based on the premise that, because an issue has been debated before it shouldn’t be debated again because it can and does result in strong disagreement (and as you say, in the worst case, mayhem). However, that’s a little like saying issues such as abortion, or the ordination of women bishops etc, shouldn’t be debated again and again because they may/will cause a degree of rancour. I also disagree that similar issues should be posted on one or more of the original threads; there really is no advantage to doing that as original threads can and do run into hundreds of posts and people (especially newcomers) might not want to scroll through them all. So, perhaps to avoided any possible mayhem, let’s agree to keep it civil right from the beginning.

Getting back to the main point, it might be worth remembering that Silbury came perilously close to collapse a few years ago when high levels of rainfall threatened its very survival. May of us held our breath at that time, genuinely very, very worried that it was going to collapse. I hope you’ll forgive us then for feeling a similar degree of concern now, after one of the wettest years on record, as well as a degree of anger towards those who, over the years, have brought Silbury to such a sorry state, and to those too who continue to treat it with such disrespect.

I agree with pretty much all of what you said but it's not the feet that's going to make it collapse [think of all the feet over 4500 years] it's all the archaeologist's holes that'll make that collapse happen [horrible thought], so when a archaeologist say's that feet are doing the damage it gets my back up because it's not addressing the real problem in any way at all and at worse it's shifting the blame.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index