climbing of sacred hills

close
more_vert
tiompan T
tiompan Jul 11, 2013 23:26:44
Replying to harestonesdown

harestonesdown wrote:
tjj wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Well i'm aware it's not natural, much like the slag heaps close to me that have been landscaped, but nonetheless it's still a hill, one i believe was built to be climbed.
Hahaha! I know you like to wind me up from time to time HSD ... comparing Silbury to a slagheap - hehehe!

Nite-nite, that's me done on the subject.

Lol. I'm not winding you up, it's just we have different opinions on Silbury. I just don't get why they'd build so high if it wasn't meant to be a vantage point. This whole "Silbury game" Cope babbles on about just doesn't work for me, it makes no sense. :)
Building high is just conspicious construction , nothing to do with being utilitarian , like many of the monuments from the period .

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Jul 11, 2013 23:29:05
Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
I just don't get why they'd build so high if it wasn't meant to be a vantage point. This whole "Silbury game" Cope babbles on about just doesn't work for me, it makes no sense. :)
Building high is just conspicious construction , nothing to do with being utilitarian , like many of the monuments from the period .
Nelson's Column is high, but it's meant to be seen not climbed. (Random example)