climbing of sacred hills

close
more_vert
thesweetcheat T
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)

H harestonesdown
harestonesdown Jul 11, 2013 23:34:08
Replying to thesweetcheat

thesweetcheat wrote:
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)
I take both examples onboard, but there's no evidence Silbury wasn't meant to be climbed, whilst on the other hand it is a hill, something many of us climb every day.