Re: Slaggyford Stones . | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Slaggyford Stones 1

Image by StoneGloves

Slaggyford Stones .

Sanctuary Sep 11, 2011 08:10:21

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

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?

You can say what you like Nigel no-ones trying to prevent you but don't knock other peoples beliefs or get smart and make stupid comments like 'Evidence see?'. One can put points over without becoming cynical. Evidence often comes in the form of how you view something but could mean nothing to anyone else.
If you view Silbury as a 'stand alone' object then your view of it becomes different to someone who sees it as an integral part of a much larger complex over the landscape and gives it purpose. 'Cobblers' to some, a breakthrough to others. I respect all views.
Jim takes the view that the original concept of the hill did not have a construction blueprint to take it though to completion 100 + into the future prior to work starting but that doesn't mean there was no bluprint in mind as to how high it would reach or what its intention was. That of course is unprovable but obviously as it progressed each stage would have been carefully thought out and have a 'blueprint' of its own. See it as the building of a block of flats with each storey being built by a different gang but decided beforehand exactly how many stories there would be in total to reach a certain height. Before each gang begins work they get together and discuss how they will go about it and is it to be any different to the lower stories. A individual construction 'blueprint' is decided upon for that storey and they get on with it, but all the while with the initial blueprint in mind. That's how I see it but like everyone else with no proof.
Right I've had my say and know when to stop...no last man standing here! :-)

StoneGloves Sep 11, 2011 08:35:36

Replying to Sanctuary

"Evidence often comes in the form of how you view something but could mean nothing to anyone else". This is what archaeologists refer to when they use the term 'context'. It is difficult to constrain an art form with a scientific analysis. I'm thinking of the ERA rock art survey particularly, but it applies to a lot of archaeology. You can excavate the bits of pots but the meals they made are rarely reconstructed. (Perhaps). If Silbury Hill was constructed on an annual basis, during the winter, say, then alterations in final design might be expected, with the variation of materials and manpower occurred.

nigelswift Sep 11, 2011 08:56:49

Replying to Sanctuary

Hmmm, so you're entitled to say my comment was stupid but I'm not allowed to say the Silbury womb talk is cobblers?! Not very logical is it?

Anyhow, the central reality remains - I've very reasonably asked you to indicate this "reasonable case" that you say lots ofpeople have made for Silbury being a womb and you very conspicuously haven't. You can hardly blame me for continuing to believe there isn't one can you?

thesweetcheat Sep 11, 2011 20:17:10

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

Jim takes the view that the original concept of the hill did not have a construction blueprint to take it though to completion 100 + into the future prior to work starting but that doesn't mean there was no bluprint in mind as to how high it would reach or what its intention was. That of course is unprovable but obviously as it progressed each stage would have been carefully thought out and have a 'blueprint' of its own. See it as the building of a block of flats with each storey being built by a different gang but decided beforehand exactly how many stories there would be in total to reach a certain height. Before each gang begins work they get together and discuss how they will go about it and is it to be any different to the lower stories. A individual construction 'blueprint' is decided upon for that storey and they get on with it, but all the while with the initial blueprint in mind.

A possible - albeit much more recent - analogy might be the building of a medieval church or cathedral. Building starts in 1100 using available technology - thick walls, rounded arches and the building is planned on that basis. Then, 50 years later, technology improves and so the next part is built using higher, pointed arches, and then flying buttresses allow the weight to be distributed more cleverly, glass technology improves as well and and thinner framed, larger windows let in more light. Perhaps a spire is added. Each stage is planned - to completion of the whole buidling, not just to the completion of one corner. But the design changes, often before build, as technology advances or perhaps more money becomes available (for instance because your church is in area where the wool trade has taken off). None of it means that the original plan wasn't complete in its own right, just that things changed. That would seem a plausible supposition for Silbury, regardless of whether it can be definitively "proven".