Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by photobabe
close
more_vert

IMHO there wasn't one.
I sent Wally some pics to help with his 3D model and altho it looks good the reality isn't there.
A spiral path would be much more evident at the bottom as the feet trampled the path over the years.
The only evidence of this spiral path is that you can walk from the top of Silbury and follow a path for 1 turn and a bit before it stops. Dave Field demonstrated this to a local TV crew a while back.
This Must be the spoil heap that Drax threw over the edge when excavating the bore tunnel in the 1770's
It is the only place for the spoil to be (now we know that its missing.)

As the old hill has been knocked about by the Saxons and the people who came before only further investigations (none intrusive hopefully) could tell us what the original angle/shape of the mound was.
The excavations at the top do appear to show that the top was flat because of the chalk-stone work that was found when trenches were dug in the 1960's and a few years ago,
But that does not mean that it was an observation point that had to be climbed (processionaly or otherwise.)

If the ancients believed that the sun, moon and stars went into the earth when they set then Silbury's flat top would have been a landing spot for the moon. The december moonset (16th ?) is just past the full moon (14.4 days) and should be the best chance for testing this theory - weather permitting, of course.

In the South Tyne valley there is the equivalent of Sil. Hill, though it is natural. Many stones and cairns point toward it, yet climbing it and being on the summit feels 'all wrong'. On the other hand, Rivington Pike, a similar hill but in Lancs., still has an annual spring fair - presumably an ancient leftover, when eggs are ceremoniously rolled down the slope.

>The excavations at the top do appear to show that the top was flat because of the chalk-stone work that was found when trenches were dug in the 1960's and a few years ago,
But that does not mean that it was an observation point that had to be climbed (processionaly or otherwise.)

Yes, I'd agree with you there. The whole idea of a path hinges on whether the summit was designed to be flat; indications are that it <i>was</i> designed to be flat but that does not mean it was designed to be flat for ceremonial uses - it could have been designed to be flat for some grander scheme (its place in the landscape when viewed from a distance for example).

Personally I quite like the idea of a path but need to read up on it more. I also think comparisons like the one StoneLifter made with Rivington Pike and similar hills might lead us to a better understanding of these places.

Ishmael wrote: "The excavations at the top do appear to show that the top was flat because of the chalk-stone work that was found when trenches were dug in the 1960's and a few years ago,
But that does not mean that it was an observation point that had to be climbed (processionaly or otherwise.)"

That is the key to understanding the nature of the flat top. What shape was the original summit? Was it rounded, pointed or flat and can archaeology tell us with reasonable certainty? Before people go off imaginging all sorts of rituals and observations on the flat top we now have, we really have to know at what period the top WAS flat. Being concerned only about prehistoric Britain means that we tend to ignore all that happened afterwards. In other words - what happened to the summit after the hill was constructed? How did the Romans use it and did THEY flatten the top? Did it become a Saxon "toot" hill -ie a lookout post and did THEY flatten the summit? Was it flattened when the shaft was dug? Only if it can be shown that the original build was for a flat top can you begin to consider the original purpose of a flat top.