Re: Slaggyford Stones . | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Sanctuary Sep 11, 2011 06:30:25

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

Of course not, but that's no reason to theorise the Avenues are fallopian tubes either. Such a proposal would merit the description "cobblers" wouldn't it?

Stick to the hill Nigel. Everything is a theory when it comes to it. There are many people out there that believe it could be a representation of a womb/uterus and put a reasonable case forward for it without the need for it to be described as utter cobblers. Should we call any theories you have as utter cobblers as well even though you also can’t prove anything but are nevertheless sincere in your beliefs?
Like you I also believe the hill was built to a blueprint although Jim Leary doesn’t in his rather good book ‘The Story of Silbury Hill’. Do we now call his idea cobblers as well? Just be fair.

StoneGloves Sep 11, 2011 06:55:21

Replying to Sanctuary

Slaggyford does have its own Silbury Hill, which is a natural feature. It doesn't have a regular profile and the outline varies according to the viewpoint. From the north it gives a good approximation of a pyramid and from the south it is very close to the Silbury outline. Some very rich twit built a road over the lower slope, of the hill, without any kind of Planning Permission, and the cc refuse to enforce planning law. (I have a file an inch deep of planning complaint correspondence). That wouldn't happen at the real Silbury Hill, of course, and is - arguably - only possible in England's Last Wilderness !

nigelswift Sep 11, 2011 07:15:14

Replying to Sanctuary

Jim simply pointed out the intention kept changing, he wasn’t suggesting each stage lacked intention or planning. The place is a civil engineering project, that’s the point I was trying to make – and that “theory” is based on evidence of the way it was put together. Evidence, see?

What is this “reasonable case” for it being a womb/uterus? What evidence is it based on? I’ve never actually seen any. Have you? If we have to give due respect to assertions purely on the basis lots of people on the internet repeat them without the least reason then we have to respect the idea the world will end in 2012. But it won't. That's utter cobblers isn't it? Or aren't I allowed to say that?