Littlestone wrote:
Or the height of the observer (I can see Silbury from a point near the Obelisk but my daughter cant!)...
Yup, position and height are
critical. Click on the pic here -
http://silbury-hill.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html#315953661864961496 (click again to enlarge). Silbury can just be seen on the skyline between the stone on the left and the stone on the right. If Silbury were originally higher it would have been more easily seen from the Obelisk. If Waden Hill was slightly higher however (now somewhat reduced due to ploughing?) or wooded in the Neolithic, Silbury wouldn’t have been visible from that point... suggesting there was no grand design to link Silbury and the Henge visually?
Don't forget to bear in mind that Silbury was thought to have been modified at the beginning of the 11th century.
Jim Leary and David Field write in The Story of Silbury Hill
... Silbury itself seems to have been left alone for the few centuries after the Roman rule, and it is not until the beginning of the 11th century that once again it becomes the focus of attention. For in the 11the century it appears to have been modified, it huge size perhaps providing a convenient lookout point to the old but still serviceable Roman road.
Evidence of post holes from this period had been found on the two uppermost terraces of Silbury (though not thought to be part a defensive palisade - simply a way of getting to the top).
I am persuaded by Sanctuary's theory that Silbury was built where it is because of the watery connection (given that even today the land between Silbury and the Winterbourne is often under water).
