Re: Spinning the Spiral Hill | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by jimit

Spinning the Spiral Hill

VenerableBottyBurp Jan 8, 2004 17:18:41

Replying to BrigantesNation

That is not at all stupid ! In my opinion there is archaeology to be investigated (in the ditch and they will not look there) meanwhile they should get on with fixing the hole.

While the basic structure is stable - that is to say the original structure - given that one vertical shaft 8'x8' 135' deep has been cut down into the middle (the size of our box bedroom only with lots of head height), one horizontal tunnel cut to the centre from which most if not all the pit props were removed, and another horizontal tunnel cut into this and then the middle which was refilled by compressed air blowing the spoil back in, external slumping - possibly including spoil from the 1776-7 shaft thrown down the sides, plus internal slumps in the 1776 shaft found by those digging the 1849 tunnel, plus slumps and collapses discovered in the 1849 tunnel by the 1968 tunnel, and collapses in this tunnel found regularly at the time....

sorry out of breath with all that digging...

and that EH drilled four- sorry five holes top to bottom to take core samples...

Nigel is right to state it is the integrity of the structure that was always as worrying as a total collapse of the outside breaking inward to fill the shaft. I will only feel easier about that when the hole has been backfilled, and only easier about the tunnels not migrating further upwards when the voids are filled.

VBB

nigelswift Jan 8, 2004 18:06:43

Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

VBB, for someone with such an unfortunate name you don't half talk a lot of sense!

BN, you ask "So, the question is, do we want more archaeology done, or do we want the hole filled up?"
That's exactly the issue they are confronting, see here (Section 6).....

http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:8WbaStAJvg8J:accessibility.english-heritage.org.uk/Filestore/about-us/pdf/ehac/ehac_minutes_sep2003.pdf+english+heritage+commission+silbury&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

You'll see they are starting from the unqualified premise that the hill is basically stable. But I don't see how anyone could really have told them that there's no risk here and I'd rather like to see it in black and white, and in context and in full. If they've received such assurances they have nothing to fear from releasing the report but until then I'm disinclined to believe that a structure that contains unsupported horizontal chalk/clay tunnels is "basically stable" especially whilst they don't deign to share what they mean by their only other bit of information "but in need of attention" and "more investigation needed".

One more thing from that link made my blood run cold, I don't know what you think VBB: "Dr Bell suggested that the hydrological element of the hill be investigated." That means water, the number one danger. And they don't yet know about it.