Oh!
Well, after a year of consumer testing and £400,000 spent on it, it must be really good mustn't it? Despite appearances.
But I see that (already) a spokesman says it "will evolve". I think that's code for "we know its garbage".
I bet you a tenner it won't be the same soon. I'm sure if you cut it up and re-arranged it you could get a swastika. If the public twigs that there'll be uproar.
What a shame, its not rocket science is it?
Nigel's Content
There have been 66 items by Nigel (Search limited from 11-February 12)
#6171 Stonehenge To Be Stripped Of World Heritage Status - Not!
Posted by
on 4 June 2007 - 21:22
in
Sites in danger
#6169 Stonehenge To Be Stripped Of World Heritage Status - Not!
Posted by
on 4 June 2007 - 19:41
in
Sites in danger
May I comment upon this news item?
http://www.stonepage...?showtopic=1670
Stonehenge is NOT about to be stripped of its World Heritage Status, and if the question ever arose it would be better arising from UNESCO than from a British MP.
I doubt if Mr Key would dispute that his main focus is the transport issue, not the heritage one. This is illustrated by what he wrote on his website http://www.robertkey.com/ last year, particular his "Soapbox" section -
"Robert Key has told the Prime Minister that not just the local economy, but the whole of the South West of England is being damaged by continuing indecision over the road improvements and visitors centre planned for Stonehenge."
True enough no doubt Mr Key, but the issue is not just about transport it is about heritage, and the fact should be explained to the public, not presented in an entirely inaccurate fashion. Thus, when you say -
"we are now closer to agreement than ever before between the majority of heritage interests (led by English Heritage) and local interests (led by Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council), plus the DCMS and the proposer of the scheme, the Secretary of State for Transport”
... you are simply not stating the truth.
Most heritage bodies are totally opposed to the short tunnel that English Heritage are supporting.They include The National Trust, Friends of the Earth, RESCUE (The British Archaeological Trust), CBA - The Council for British Archaeology, The Campaign to Protect Rural England, The Pagan Federation, Transport 2000, Ancient Sacred Sites Network (ASLAN), ICOMOS-UK – The International Council for Monuments & Sites, UK, The Prehistoric Society, WANHS – The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Save Stonehenge, World Heritage Alert and my organisation, Heritage Action.
What's more, UNESCO themselves are yet to support the scheme, it appears to transgress the World Heritage Convention in multiple ways and UNESCO's key appointed advisors, ICOMOS - UK, oppose it.
So, Mr Key, UNESCO are hardly likely to be going to take your advice to strip the site of World Heritage status just yet, are they?
I see your website is headed "Believing in Britain". Well I believe that sentiment should embrace more than a belief in roads but a belief in preserving Britain's heritage, particularly the most iconic parts. Had you been born in Ireland I suspect you'd be saying you believed in Ireland and fretting about the outrageous delay in driving a road through the Tara landscape.
Two countries, same problem, same spin on the part of elected representatives.
http://www.stonepage...?showtopic=1670
Stonehenge is NOT about to be stripped of its World Heritage Status, and if the question ever arose it would be better arising from UNESCO than from a British MP.
I doubt if Mr Key would dispute that his main focus is the transport issue, not the heritage one. This is illustrated by what he wrote on his website http://www.robertkey.com/ last year, particular his "Soapbox" section -
"Robert Key has told the Prime Minister that not just the local economy, but the whole of the South West of England is being damaged by continuing indecision over the road improvements and visitors centre planned for Stonehenge."
True enough no doubt Mr Key, but the issue is not just about transport it is about heritage, and the fact should be explained to the public, not presented in an entirely inaccurate fashion. Thus, when you say -
"we are now closer to agreement than ever before between the majority of heritage interests (led by English Heritage) and local interests (led by Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council), plus the DCMS and the proposer of the scheme, the Secretary of State for Transport”
... you are simply not stating the truth.
Most heritage bodies are totally opposed to the short tunnel that English Heritage are supporting.They include The National Trust, Friends of the Earth, RESCUE (The British Archaeological Trust), CBA - The Council for British Archaeology, The Campaign to Protect Rural England, The Pagan Federation, Transport 2000, Ancient Sacred Sites Network (ASLAN), ICOMOS-UK – The International Council for Monuments & Sites, UK, The Prehistoric Society, WANHS – The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Save Stonehenge, World Heritage Alert and my organisation, Heritage Action.
What's more, UNESCO themselves are yet to support the scheme, it appears to transgress the World Heritage Convention in multiple ways and UNESCO's key appointed advisors, ICOMOS - UK, oppose it.
So, Mr Key, UNESCO are hardly likely to be going to take your advice to strip the site of World Heritage status just yet, are they?
I see your website is headed "Believing in Britain". Well I believe that sentiment should embrace more than a belief in roads but a belief in preserving Britain's heritage, particularly the most iconic parts. Had you been born in Ireland I suspect you'd be saying you believed in Ireland and fretting about the outrageous delay in driving a road through the Tara landscape.
Two countries, same problem, same spin on the part of elected representatives.
#6150 Helman Tor
Posted by
on 30 May 2007 - 08:05
in
Sites in danger
Cakes, on 15 May 2007, 15:49, said:
You can remove the paint. I had good luck removing fresh paint from rock with horticultural oil. by using horticultural oil, you don't damage the moss and stuff growing on rocks. I wrote a thread on it here at the Stone Pages.
May I remind UK readers though that the official line here is not to try it yourself but to alert English Heritage or Historic Scotland or CADW and leave it to them?
I've tried to research methods myself, most particularly regarding substances that won't harm lichens, but have drawn a blank amongst lichenologists. EH have done a lot of work on the subject but I don't think they have ever used your method. I'm sure they'd be grateful to hear from you.
#6059 Stonehenge - Alert!
Posted by
on 6 May 2007 - 13:36
in
Sites in danger
We believe the UK government's decision on the proposed major changes to Stonehenge are now extremely imminent. It may be to give the scheme the final go-ahead or (as we have heard) to shelve the scheme for now (but not forever).
Either way, we think it is vital that as many people as possible understand exactly what it entails and why it is that a very large number of archaeological and heritage bodies are totally opposed to the plans.
Accordingly, Heritage Action has put together what we trust is a simple, factual and honest summary of the situation and an outline of exactly what is at stake. We hope lots of people will take the trouble to read it and form their own opinions. In the words of Lord and Lady Kennet, leaders of the Stonehenge Alliance, “these plans are deeply wrong, and objected to by most of the relevant, well-informed, bodies”.
http://www.heritagea...erts_stonehenge
Either way, we think it is vital that as many people as possible understand exactly what it entails and why it is that a very large number of archaeological and heritage bodies are totally opposed to the plans.
Accordingly, Heritage Action has put together what we trust is a simple, factual and honest summary of the situation and an outline of exactly what is at stake. We hope lots of people will take the trouble to read it and form their own opinions. In the words of Lord and Lady Kennet, leaders of the Stonehenge Alliance, “these plans are deeply wrong, and objected to by most of the relevant, well-informed, bodies”.
http://www.heritagea...erts_stonehenge
#5975 Henge
Posted by
on 29 April 2007 - 12:33
in
Megalithic forum
-->QUOTE(kevin.b @ 29 April 2007, 10:55) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
[url="http://www.harmonikireland.com/index.php?php=GeopathicStress"]http://www.harmonikireland.com/index.php?php=GeopathicStress[/url][/quote]
I thought garbage like that was to be kept out of this part of the forum.
I thought garbage like that was to be kept out of this part of the forum.
#5742 Carvings, The Living, Portals & The Dead
Posted by
on 8 April 2007 - 13:50
in
Alternative theories
Whilst I guess most of the images are most probably axes or daggers, its a truism to say that that an individual image in isolation without the evidence of the others is whatever it is, not necessarily what the others are, so there's always the possibility it isn't what they are and was done separately. And how can we ever know for sure when its purely in the eye of the beholder (hence the disagreement here)?
Atkinson took some great picures, without the aid of newfangled lasers...
http://viewfinder.en...imageUID=108940
The "eye of the beholder" problem is well illustrated by this picture he took of later graffiti , which he said was done by an itinerant workman in 1821.
http://viewfinder.en...imageUID=108813
Not sure how he knew or if he was right but English Heritage describe it as being in the shape of a question mark. But is it in fact a sickle? I reckon so.
Atkinson took some great picures, without the aid of newfangled lasers...
http://viewfinder.en...imageUID=108940
The "eye of the beholder" problem is well illustrated by this picture he took of later graffiti , which he said was done by an itinerant workman in 1821.
http://viewfinder.en...imageUID=108813
Not sure how he knew or if he was right but English Heritage describe it as being in the shape of a question mark. But is it in fact a sickle? I reckon so.
#5731 Poll: Help Us Decide On The Future Of This Forum
Posted by
on 7 April 2007 - 09:57
in
Suggestions
If the issue is to be decided by popular vote (and it doesn't have to be at all, Diego is perfectly entitled to have the forum in whatever form he wishes) my guess is that there would be a majority vote for having a clear separation, i.e. having a separate Alternative section.
Personally, I feel either Stonecarver or Jimit are closest to my feelings. Separation brought about by very firm moderation. Friction arises here and elsewhere not because of the occasional post but because some people post them too often in too many threads and don't stick to the forums set up for them.
On the other hand, as Stonecarver says "some of the stuff IS interesting and leads to really good debate" so the trick is to better define what Alternative means. I'd suggest if it involves scientifically unknown and unprovable phenomena its Alternative. If its just archaeology but not mainstream thought then its not Alternative and worth having in the main forum. The Bosnian pyramid for instance. And (contrary to Stonecarvers opinion), mushroom carvings. They may be against mainstream opinion but if a case can be made for speculating mainstream opinion is wrong or that an alternative is viable, then people ought to be entitled to make it. Otherwise, a while back, anyone saying there was no second Avenue at Avebury would have been consigned to the dungeon thread!
I think what I'm saying is that there's a fringe and then there's a lunatic fringe. And the fringe certainly isn't lunatic!
Personally, I feel either Stonecarver or Jimit are closest to my feelings. Separation brought about by very firm moderation. Friction arises here and elsewhere not because of the occasional post but because some people post them too often in too many threads and don't stick to the forums set up for them.
On the other hand, as Stonecarver says "some of the stuff IS interesting and leads to really good debate" so the trick is to better define what Alternative means. I'd suggest if it involves scientifically unknown and unprovable phenomena its Alternative. If its just archaeology but not mainstream thought then its not Alternative and worth having in the main forum. The Bosnian pyramid for instance. And (contrary to Stonecarvers opinion), mushroom carvings. They may be against mainstream opinion but if a case can be made for speculating mainstream opinion is wrong or that an alternative is viable, then people ought to be entitled to make it. Otherwise, a while back, anyone saying there was no second Avenue at Avebury would have been consigned to the dungeon thread!
I think what I'm saying is that there's a fringe and then there's a lunatic fringe. And the fringe certainly isn't lunatic!
#5358 Palaeolithic Stone Knife Scraper?
Posted by
on 29 January 2007 - 12:50
in
Just Conversation
I find a lot of these images and the large number of similar items you have on sale on Ebay a bit surprising. Also, that you say on Ebay you have 20,000 of them.
#5277 Lithic Implements
Posted by
on 15 January 2007 - 20:49
in
Just Conversation
I can see no evidence of working on a lot of those.
You seem to be amazingly busy on Ebay Steve.
You seem to be amazingly busy on Ebay Steve.
#5168 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 24 December 2006 - 11:02
in
Alternative theories
Kevin, I understand what you are saying about detecting "flows" corresponding with stones, I was merely observing there were no serpents or serpent symbolism at Avebury until William S. started telling porkies.
Anyhow, Merry Christmas to you too t'old flower.
(I'm not from Yorkshire personally - though I did once almost break down on the A1(M) but managed to keep going fortunately).
Anyhow, Merry Christmas to you too t'old flower.
(I'm not from Yorkshire personally - though I did once almost break down on the A1(M) but managed to keep going fortunately).
#5148 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 22 December 2006 - 10:47
in
Alternative theories
-->QUOTE(kevin.b @ 22 December 2006, 8:13) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The reference to serpents is in my opinion simply to do with this curving route that the flows follow.[/quote]
At Avebury, the reference to a Serpent arose from observing the position of visible stones, not "flows". It was a falsified association anyway, and proven to be so. So it can hardly now be held to be "to do with" flows or anything else as it was purely an indivual and erroneous flight of fancy.
At Avebury, the reference to a Serpent arose from observing the position of visible stones, not "flows". It was a falsified association anyway, and proven to be so. So it can hardly now be held to be "to do with" flows or anything else as it was purely an indivual and erroneous flight of fancy.
#5130 Lithic Implements
Posted by
on 18 December 2006 - 10:45
in
Just Conversation
sam, on 16 December 2006, 21:34, said:
...& there was me thinking all the voices quoting my pieces were just natural etc would apply some form of feedback to the recent array of pics......
#5096 Lithic Implements
Posted by
on 12 December 2006 - 16:12
in
Just Conversation
Top marks for patience and restraint!
Next time, maybe "Yes, definitely!" would be easier...
Next time, maybe "Yes, definitely!" would be easier...
#5037 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 4 December 2006 - 14:21
in
Alternative theories
Anew, on 4 December 2006, 12:32, said:
There's a word for the sensation one might get, I'm trying to call it to mind... but it always escapes me.
#5035 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 4 December 2006 - 13:03
in
Alternative theories
Personally, I would discount Faulkner's Circle as being part of this. Its up and over the hill. So we're getting into "amazing surveyors" or "dowsing" territory which are all very well but not necessarily part of the current matter.
"[*]88' from the road, (on center).
[*]165' across, parallel to the road, and 182' perpendicular; (a surprise but this may have to do with the faceting you mentioned, (visible, but no count was possible)).
[*]50' or so across at the platform level."
That's brilliant thanks. I'll go down there, armed with that and a tape measure and see if I see it with new eyes. If your instructions - walk 88 ft from the road - put me at the "centre" of Silbaby then erosion/encroachment/fly tipping will be easier worked out. Perhaps. Either way, I might be the first person to (deliberately) stand on the central point (maybe) for millennia...
"If you suggested, and I would agree, that exactness is too fine a sieve... "
No, not yet, until forced.The reason being, its a sight line so could be measured to great accuracy. Like Pete, they only needed a flag.
"[*]88' from the road, (on center).
[*]165' across, parallel to the road, and 182' perpendicular; (a surprise but this may have to do with the faceting you mentioned, (visible, but no count was possible)).
[*]50' or so across at the platform level."
That's brilliant thanks. I'll go down there, armed with that and a tape measure and see if I see it with new eyes. If your instructions - walk 88 ft from the road - put me at the "centre" of Silbaby then erosion/encroachment/fly tipping will be easier worked out. Perhaps. Either way, I might be the first person to (deliberately) stand on the central point (maybe) for millennia...
"If you suggested, and I would agree, that exactness is too fine a sieve... "
No, not yet, until forced.The reason being, its a sight line so could be measured to great accuracy. Like Pete, they only needed a flag.
#5031 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 4 December 2006 - 06:28
in
Alternative theories
Anew, on 4 December 2006, 1:19, said:
I applied straightedges to a printout of a google-earth map of the area, (S-S-S-WKLB), available through the megalithic portal.
It is my observation that a line from Silbury's center to The Sanctuary's, passes over Silbaby slightly off center -- a shade too close to the road, if the hill itself has not been cut.
A right-triangular relationship with the entrance of West Kennett Long Barrow seems to hold up -- or darned close to it.
It is my observation that a line from Silbury's center to The Sanctuary's, passes over Silbaby slightly off center -- a shade too close to the road, if the hill itself has not been cut.
A right-triangular relationship with the entrance of West Kennett Long Barrow seems to hold up -- or darned close to it.
Now we're cooking!
(I believe that's the phrase...)
That seems to confirm this - http://megmumble.blogspot.com/
A right-triangular relationship with the entrance of West Kennett Long Barrow seems to hold up -- or darned close to it.
Yes. But it would be closer still if the intention was for the body of WKLB itself to be at right angles to a viewer on Silbaby - which is the strong feeling I got from looking there.
On the ground, it is very hard to know where the centre point of Silbaby is. Are you able to estimate how many feet it is from, say, the edge of the modern road?
BTW, see my latest musing here -
http://www.themodern...n.com/site/6766
What do you think?
#4930 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 3 December 2006 - 10:53
in
Alternative theories
Pete -
"Nigel, I have early photos around the time when Tolkien was writing his books and said tree's are only small, no roots showing then.
I think this has just become an avebury urban myth."
Fair enough, can't argue with that.
Kevin -
"I am going to Avebury tomorrow....The energy is everywhere, but it is abundant around precise spots etc"
No strategy for a fruitful meeting of minds then Kevin? Checking out possible sight lines in the particular world to which we're all privy? Binoculars near the Sanctuary, to see if you can see Merlin's Mound? Another attempt to see exactly how precise the S-S-S alignment is? Another look at whether Silbaby has facets? It seems a shame if you come back reporting yet more about what you believe, that I don't. What about a compromise, a dual purpose trip? That way, your report will be required reading for me....
"Nigel, I have early photos around the time when Tolkien was writing his books and said tree's are only small, no roots showing then.
I think this has just become an avebury urban myth."
Fair enough, can't argue with that.
Kevin -
"I am going to Avebury tomorrow....The energy is everywhere, but it is abundant around precise spots etc"
No strategy for a fruitful meeting of minds then Kevin? Checking out possible sight lines in the particular world to which we're all privy? Binoculars near the Sanctuary, to see if you can see Merlin's Mound? Another attempt to see exactly how precise the S-S-S alignment is? Another look at whether Silbaby has facets? It seems a shame if you come back reporting yet more about what you believe, that I don't. What about a compromise, a dual purpose trip? That way, your report will be required reading for me....
#4924 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 2 December 2006 - 23:50
in
Alternative theories
Anew - here are said roots, in case you haven't seen them - http://images.google...q=avebury roots
No idea whether Tolkein took note of them - though it is quoted by Tom Fourwinds in Megalithomania.
No idea whether Tolkein took note of them - though it is quoted by Tom Fourwinds in Megalithomania.
#4914 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 1 December 2006 - 14:21
in
Alternative theories
A couple questions re my pet idea:
> Would anyone know where the spoil from the clearance of WKLB wound up?
> Would anyone know of a significant barrow or lost barrow in the viewshed of "Merlin's Mount" in Marlborough?
[/quote]
wonderfully Tolkienesque maps.
How very true!
They are, at least in part, fanciful -- as you noted in another forum, the Sanctuary is round.
Indeed. Our William was a very bad man, making it look like the head of a snake in order to bolster his pro-Christian serpenty theory. Yet his observation and draughtsmanship were also heroic.
He has been written off as a liar over the existence of the Beckhampton Avenue, yet recently up it pops.
It would be one for the irony box if he turned out to be right about Silbaby as well.
Would anyone know where the spoil from the clearance of WKLB wound up? Do you mean WKLB?
What spoil?
Would anyone know of a significant barrow or lost barrow in the viewshed of "Merlin's Mount" in Marlborough?
Would the Sanctuary do?!
I reckon, but for some trees, you could see Merlin's Mount from the Sanctuary's edge - and from the centre of it if you were elevated above it a few feet, such as on top of a roof. We need an active dowser with flags, a step ladder and binoculars - but we'd need to keep him off the "magic" pills for long enough.
> Would anyone know where the spoil from the clearance of WKLB wound up?
> Would anyone know of a significant barrow or lost barrow in the viewshed of "Merlin's Mount" in Marlborough?
[/quote]
wonderfully Tolkienesque maps.
How very true!
They are, at least in part, fanciful -- as you noted in another forum, the Sanctuary is round.
Indeed. Our William was a very bad man, making it look like the head of a snake in order to bolster his pro-Christian serpenty theory. Yet his observation and draughtsmanship were also heroic.
He has been written off as a liar over the existence of the Beckhampton Avenue, yet recently up it pops.
It would be one for the irony box if he turned out to be right about Silbaby as well.
Would anyone know where the spoil from the clearance of WKLB wound up? Do you mean WKLB?
What spoil?
Would anyone know of a significant barrow or lost barrow in the viewshed of "Merlin's Mount" in Marlborough?
Would the Sanctuary do?!
I reckon, but for some trees, you could see Merlin's Mount from the Sanctuary's edge - and from the centre of it if you were elevated above it a few feet, such as on top of a roof. We need an active dowser with flags, a step ladder and binoculars - but we'd need to keep him off the "magic" pills for long enough.
#4911 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 1 December 2006 - 09:02
in
Alternative theories
Anew - more Silbaby stuff (in case you haven't seen it)
http://www.avebury-w...uk/silbaby.html
An urn!
http://www.avebury-w...uk/silbaby.html
An urn!
#4898 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 28 November 2006 - 13:42
in
Alternative theories
[quote name='Anew' post='4894' date='27 November 2006, 15:45'][quote]What you're saying isn't always far-fetched, its your belief in the magic[/quote]
I echo that. Studying/speculating about the ancients' belief in magic, by studying the landscape with a knowing eye is a fine thing to do. But if in the middle of a conversation about that it becomes clear that one of the participants actually believes that magic (defined as something beyond the current ability of science to confirm) actually exists then the conversation founders hopelesslyand becomes without any possibility of either side benefitting. Its a case of an unshakeable belief bumping up against an unmovable disbelief and without a means to bridge the gap there can't be real communication. And an assurance of "future proof" doesn't real provide the bridge.
Can't we talk about, for instance, why the ancients put Silbaby there (both practical and belief reasons) without always getting into the entirely extraneous issue of whether their beliefs were/were not true?
The first sort of conversation could be a profitable meeting of minds, the second will always remain an irresolvable set of separate dialogues.
I echo that. Studying/speculating about the ancients' belief in magic, by studying the landscape with a knowing eye is a fine thing to do. But if in the middle of a conversation about that it becomes clear that one of the participants actually believes that magic (defined as something beyond the current ability of science to confirm) actually exists then the conversation founders hopelesslyand becomes without any possibility of either side benefitting. Its a case of an unshakeable belief bumping up against an unmovable disbelief and without a means to bridge the gap there can't be real communication. And an assurance of "future proof" doesn't real provide the bridge.
Can't we talk about, for instance, why the ancients put Silbaby there (both practical and belief reasons) without always getting into the entirely extraneous issue of whether their beliefs were/were not true?
The first sort of conversation could be a profitable meeting of minds, the second will always remain an irresolvable set of separate dialogues.
#4889 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 27 November 2006 - 14:21
in
Alternative theories
Pete G, on 27 November 2006, 13:00, said:
If I had my way I would have my Silbaby photos taken off TMA but I didn't post them so I can't get them removed.
I do think its a great shame and hope you'll repost them elsewhere and give a link to them.
#4884 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 27 November 2006 - 11:39
in
Alternative theories
The 'platform' seems proportionally broader for Silbaby... How do the top diameters compare?
I'll leave Pete or kevin to answer that. Certainly the Silbaby platform is proportinately much larger - as is evident from photos.
Silbury's platform is large enough to accommodate Stonehenge and Silbaby's isn't much smaller
so I'll leave you to put that through the speculometer.....
I'll leave Pete or kevin to answer that. Certainly the Silbaby platform is proportinately much larger - as is evident from photos.
Silbury's platform is large enough to accommodate Stonehenge and Silbaby's isn't much smaller
so I'll leave you to put that through the speculometer.....
#4882 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 27 November 2006 - 10:22
in
Alternative theories
The simple check would be to eyeball it. Find the height of Silbury 2, climb up Silbury to that level.... can you see the Sanctuary, just peeping over the top of Silbaby? Yes? QED.
But we aren't allowed on Silbury.
"The second consideration would be the roadfacing slope of Silbaby, which dumping may have masked. Does it have the same profile as the free slope, or is it steeper. How deep did the road cut into this hill? To be honest, on the OS map, it appears as if the crown of the hill was once, where the road currently is"
The current situation (as I recall) looks like this -
You have a cone built into and against a steep straight bank.
Its flat top is the same height as the modern verge and road (ergo, higher than the Roman road which presumably was lower than the modern one.
There is a level "causeway" linking the verge with the cone top. Its clear to me this is a modern artefact, maybe made up of initial fly tipping debris, and providing vehicular access,if you wanted it from the road to the top of the mound.
On the road face of the cone the land slopes down at much the same angle as it does everywhere else (except for where this has been hidden by the existence of the causeway) and the fact its truly a cone is clear to me as you can see the slope of it curving back on itself, again except where the causeway obscures it. I'd say you can discern maybe four fifths or more of a cone at the top and, save for the modern causeway, all of it.
I'd also guess the Roman road cut into it virtually not at all and left it still looking as a cone.
Much guessing there, and its hard to express solid geometry.
But we aren't allowed on Silbury.
"The second consideration would be the roadfacing slope of Silbaby, which dumping may have masked. Does it have the same profile as the free slope, or is it steeper. How deep did the road cut into this hill? To be honest, on the OS map, it appears as if the crown of the hill was once, where the road currently is"
The current situation (as I recall) looks like this -
You have a cone built into and against a steep straight bank.
Its flat top is the same height as the modern verge and road (ergo, higher than the Roman road which presumably was lower than the modern one.
There is a level "causeway" linking the verge with the cone top. Its clear to me this is a modern artefact, maybe made up of initial fly tipping debris, and providing vehicular access,if you wanted it from the road to the top of the mound.
On the road face of the cone the land slopes down at much the same angle as it does everywhere else (except for where this has been hidden by the existence of the causeway) and the fact its truly a cone is clear to me as you can see the slope of it curving back on itself, again except where the causeway obscures it. I'd say you can discern maybe four fifths or more of a cone at the top and, save for the modern causeway, all of it.
I'd also guess the Roman road cut into it virtually not at all and left it still looking as a cone.
Much guessing there, and its hard to express solid geometry.
#4878 Silbury, Silbaby & The Environs
Posted by
on 27 November 2006 - 08:54
in
Alternative theories
Anew, on 27 November 2006, 2:34, said:
Nigel, on 26 November 2006, 20:00, said:
Yes. And the same is obviously true of the different stages of Silbury, the smaller Silbury 2 preceded the final larger Silbury 3. And it is at this point that the intriguing clues/coincidences start crowding in on you because see this, Silbury from the Sanctuary, with Silbaby hidden in the trees but dead in line according to Pete's ranging rods - http://www.themodern....com/post/19965
Would not the Sanctuary, the top of Silbaby and the top of Silbury 2 be in a straight line? Three small points in space, (2 viewing platforms and a mortuary house), perfectly aligned horizontally AND vertically! What are the chances? What would Obi-wan Kenobi say?
Would not the Sanctuary, the top of Silbaby and the top of Silbury 2 be in a straight line? Three small points in space, (2 viewing platforms and a mortuary house), perfectly aligned horizontally AND vertically! What are the chances? What would Obi-wan Kenobi say?
I keep finding a subtle misalignment of the three on my map, (admittedly not to the finest scale, and on which Silbaby proper is hard to pin down.) You probably have a copy yourself, and some which are better. This doesn't toss the whole idea in the wastebasket, there is the road to consider, (if it cut), and to my mind, close would be plenty good enough; but it's something worth considering, as a cut may have affected the height.
Elevations & Distances: I'm coming up with about 169 meters for the Sanctuary, 152.5 for the ground about Silbaby, (would you have a height for that?), and 150 meters for the ground level at Silbury. A height estimate shouldn't be too hard to get on Silbury 2; uh, incorrect... My only source for this is a printout of the plan at stonehenge-avebury.net, which yields 14.5m. I'd like to be able to do better there. I'm coming up with about 725m between Silbury and Silbaby, and 1200m between Silbaby and the Sanctuary.
Doing the trig: The angle of declination from the Sanctuary to the top of S2 is nearly flat, (about .13 degrees). Silbaby is on slightly higher ground than S2... and the result is: About 13.73 meters tall, from its base, will do the trick.
The envelope, please.
Depends which ground you mean - the front of it is on the flood plain similar to Silbury - http://www.themodern....com/post/33300
However, assuming your calcs are right - "13.73 meters tall, from its base, will do the trick" it looks rather short of that on the photo. Maybe 3 or 4 metres short?
Of course, we don't know if it had a wooden Viewing Platform of Doom or whatever on top
Nor do we know if a flat top is a deliberate flat top or a subsequently truncated flat top.
I can certainly find you 1.75 metres towards bridging the gap - the height from the ground to the observer's eyes. There is evidence they may have designed to such a tolerance. At one point in the Avebury South circle you can just see Silbury peeping over the intervening shoulder of Waden Hill (and vice versa of course). Bend your knees and its gone!
