Line of sight calculator

close
more_vert
nigelswift N
nigelswift Dec 9, 2010 09:50:13
Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:
I see no reason personally why there would have been a need for the two to be connected in a direct visual sense but it would be from the top of the Great Circles bank wouldn't it and that is part of the setup?
It would be strange if no effort had been made to set up a visual link between two wonders of the world that had been built in such close proximity. You might just as well say they weren't particularly bothered about whether Silbury was visible from anywhere in the landscape, which clearly seems to be the reverse of the truth.

I also don't think the henge wall would be the likely intended viewing point. From a ceremonial point of view (literally) seeing it from inside the henge seems much more likely to have been considered important.

In any case, the henge wall at the relevant point is much lower than it was originally, having been demolished to allow tourist Stage coaches through (no piddling about planning visitors centres in those days, just bish, bash, done!)

The original henge wall (I think) would have been exactly on a line in space running from Silbury, the shoulder of Waden, skimming the henge wall and into the eyeball of a shortish person standing a few feet across from the obelisk. Four points in perfect three dimensional alignment. Chance or deliberate? Spoilsport Littlestone points out Waden might have been wooded, thereby making it chance at a stroke. But WAS it wooded?

And anyway, there was a totem or tower on top, it all works perfectly then, even with trees - quite magical in fact since that's all you'd see from the Henge and for miles along the Ridgeway. The Silbury Tower Game (c)

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Dec 9, 2010 10:14:59
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
I see no reason personally why there would have been a need for the two to be connected in a direct visual sense but it would be from the top of the Great Circles bank wouldn't it and that is part of the setup?
It would be strange if no effort had been made to set up a visual link between two wonders of the world that had been built in such close proximity. You might just as well say they weren't particularly bothered about whether Silbury was visible from anywhere in the landscape, which clearly seems to be the reverse of the truth.
Not so sure about that myself Nigel. My own personal view is that Silbury was built where it is for just two reasons and neither had anything to do with being seen from the Great Circle but the belief at the time. 1. It's close proximity to the Swallowhead Springs which it interacted with. 2. It's direct 'challenge' to the WKLB that also interacted with the springs during its heyday and former belief. That's why Silbury was built so high in my opinion as there seems to be no other explanation as to why it needed to be.
I explain it all in my book as I see it.

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Dec 10, 2010 21:06:09
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
I also don't think the henge wall would be the likely intended viewing point. From a ceremonial point of view (literally) seeing it from inside the henge seems much more likely to have been considered important.

In any case, the henge wall at the relevant point is much lower than it was originally, having been demolished to allow tourist Stage coaches through (no piddling about planning visitors centres in those days, just bish, bash, done!)

The original henge wall (I think) would have been exactly on a line in space running from Silbury, the shoulder of Waden, skimming the henge wall and into the eyeball of a shortish person standing a few feet across from the obelisk. Four points in perfect three dimensional alignment. Chance or deliberate? Spoilsport Littlestone points out Waden might have been wooded, thereby making it chance at a stroke. But WAS it wooded?

Whilst we are discussing the henge bank I'd like to thow open a question. Dunno if it's been asked before but do you think it's possible that the bank was never intended to be an important part of the overall plan? Before everybody says what a daft question that is just have a think about it. What if it was only the ditch that was the important part and the bank just the spoil heap from it dumped on the outside and left, rather than spending donkeys more years removing it. It had to be on the outside because the stones were planned for the inside. But, if it was only the bank that was required then the material for that could have been brought in from elsewhere so it may suggest the ditch was the important bit. Does that make sense and a valid point to raise? I've mentioned this elsewhere in the past and met with a varied response.

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Dec 14, 2010 10:22:09
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
I see no reason personally why there would have been a need for the two to be connected in a direct visual sense but it would be from the top of the Great Circles bank wouldn't it and that is part of the setup?
It would be strange if no effort had been made to set up a visual link between two wonders of the world that had been built in such close proximity. You might just as well say they weren't particularly bothered about whether Silbury was visible from anywhere in the landscape, which clearly seems to be the reverse of the truth.

)

Just to harp back on this, the siting of the hill must have been critical because of the extra work involved in building it where it is when they didn't really have to if the siting was irrelevent. The primary mound, or phase one of around 120ft diameter was staked out on a spur of chalk which projected from what is now the A4 road area. Only a small area of chalk for this initial phase was removed from the spur but a huge amount for phase 2 which included the first ditch. When the final mound was complete with its own ditch it looks to me like about a 5th of the entire size of the hill includes the area dug out of the chalk spur so this must surely indicate that the positioning was critical. If it wasn't then the mound would surely have been built on the higher level ground where you would have done a straight build rather than an excavation first and where it would have been more easily seen from elsewhere because of this extra height.