Re: Romans pay homage to Silbury? | Forum

Littlestone Mar 10, 2007 22:21:16

Replying to Kammer

Moving images! Also... sound!

Thanks Kammer - have only just now listened to the above link which contained more info than this morning's radio and newspaper reports. Astonishing! So what we seem to have is not so much a village, let alone a rather insignificant Roman settlement, but a small town that once completely surrounded Silbury - a town with streets (and possibly a temple) with Silbury at its centre! By any stretch of the imagination that is absolutely astonishing, and I would love to see an artistic interpretation of what it may have looked like.

Pete G Mar 10, 2007 22:24:34

Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:

[quote](and possibly a temple) .

Silbaby isn't a R*m*n temple, they wouldn't have driven their road over it...

Littlestone Mar 10, 2007 22:44:53

Replying to Littlestone

Also, the Romans, being Romans, one cannot but wonder if they didn't excavate Silbury itself. Then again (whatever their other vices) the Romans do seem to have respected native beliefs (as long as those beliefs didn't threaten the power of Rome). Must have been quite a dilemma for the Roman engineers and historians of the day - to tunnel Silbury or not to tunnel. If the Romans had such a town (wonder what they called it?) surrounding Silbury and didn't tunnel the monument that in itself indicates either A) their respect for native beliefs or B) the strength of local/indigenous feeling at the time :-)

Littlestone Mar 11, 2007 13:29:03

Replying to Littlestone

Wonder also how such a 'town' coped with the occasional flooding around Silbury. Perhaps any future investigations/excavations should start at Pan Bridge and work upstream across the Silbury floodplain towards the Winterbourne (as well as downstream towards the Kennet). Apart from existing open streams there may have once also been open drains (and culverts?) in and along which a higher concentration of archaeological information might be present.