Re: spiral path | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by bawn79

spiral path

Littlestone Sep 7, 2004 21:46:50

Replying to Earthstepper

I'd say considerably off the spiral path and even more off topic; so let's take a few steps back.

Silbury was constructed some four and a half thousand years ago as a five-stepped 'pyramid' (why five-stepped?) from local calcium carbonate material; that material would have appeared stunningly white when first cut and stacked. Silbury then, and for several thousand years thereafter, was the largest manmade structure in Europe, visible not only from the oldest road in Europe (the Ridgeway) but also from an almost inexplicable number of other places (why so many places?).

I struggle to find a modern parallel to Silbury - the only one (and not a very good one) is the Statue of Liberty (the List shudders). I know, Liberty's a lousy parallel but I can't think of another one right now and it's late and I'm tired so it'll have to do. But imagine for a moment that you're a traveller on the Ridgeway four and a half thousand years ago. For a couple of days or more you've been tramping the track, maybe with family and friends on a pilgrimage to Britain's Mecca; or maybe you're travelling alone with a bag or two of things to trade; or maybe you're a Tsuchitala with a tale or two to tell. Maybe you were coming into the Avebury arena from some other direction but, anyway, there in the distance Silbury appears - shining out of the morning mist or the evening haze bigger and brighter and more stunning than anything you've ever seen before or ever likely to see again (French horns here please and a picture of Manhattan Island in the fall ;-).

Contrary to what I've just said I'm not generally given to romanticisim, but the sight of a gleaming white Silbury, four and a half thousand years ago, set in a soft and sensual landscape would have taken your breath away (it does so even now). Did Silbury originally rise to a point? Hell, I don't know, but my gut instinct tells me that it didn't. My gut instinct also tells me that Sbury was not only a place to marvel at but was a place to gather... but who knows? Did Silbury have a path (spiral or otherwise to its summit? My gut instinct tells me that it did, and the fact that Silbury was stepped doesn't really make any difference - you can still have a spiral path whether a structure is stepped or not stepped.

Was Silbury intentionally grassed over or allowed to naturally become grassed? Well, as a conservator, that really is an interesting one. My gut instinct tells me that it was never intentionally grassed over but perhaps there was a wisdom at work here that is even more stunning and even more cunning than the one that lay behind Silbury's original conception and construction - for what better way to carry this place of wonder into the future than to let nature cover it gently over in a robe of greenery...

Littlestone also exits rambling... what was the question again?

nigelswift Sep 8, 2004 05:55:10

Replying to Littlestone

I'm a fan of the "gut instinct" approach. On that basis I tend to agree with you that it never rose to a point, it just wouldn't have looked right that way. And I also understand the Statue of Liberty parallel – there's certainly an element of "look at this" about it. Although I suspect the subtext wasn't "Bring me your huddled masses" but was more like "Up Yours".

On the other hand, there are dangers in just looking. For instance, I'm just as deeply impressed as you by the effect that the Silbury game would have on strangers on the Ridgeway, but the impressiveness of that effect isn't a guarantee that it was deliberately created as part of a master plan. Eg. The linear position of Silbury was determined by the position of the earlier much lower versions, not by the views of it that we now see. So any deliberate creation of views to it (or from it) was restricted to controlling it's height.

I'm sure that was done (which is a big argument for it being originally flat topped – they stopped when it was just right). But WHICH view was the one they intended to create? There are a number of apparently significant views of it, and we're all fond of noticing them, including several where we note with relish that it's flat top is level with the horizon. But there could only have been one that was deliberate, or at most two if topography at the target locations happened to be fortuitous. The lie of the surrounding land wasn't in their control. The only control they had was the ultimate height of the hill.

My gut feeling from looking at it was that they wanted to create a "peeping effect", i.e. just visible or intervisible, but no more. On that basis, the views to/from both Avebury and the Ridgeway are the ones that look to be the possible target ones, and all the others just "happened". There's a bit of a clue to this – the peeping effect is perfect at Avebury (centre of South Circle) but it's rather too much on the Ridgeway. Had the thing been 4 feet lower the peeping on the Ridgeway would have been perfect, but it would have been invisible at Avebury. So, maybe, the height of Silbury is primarily Avebury-orientated, with the Ridgeway view being a secondary and imperfectly executed second target?

(One thing though, that totally fascinates me as a surveyor - did they work the height out in advance, or did they just build upwards until the views appeared, and then stop?)

As for why it's visible from so many other places, and aligns significantly with the horizon, I'd have to cite a rather mundane explanation – it's because it's high, and pure chance, respectively. Each instance "could" be deliberate, but all of them couldn't.