Silbury programme

Silbury Hill 180

Image by Spiddly

Rhiannon Oct 22, 2007 07:59:12

I have a feeling it's probably going to get slated, but I rather enjoyed watching it I have to say. When they were filming after all the rain, and they were inside the hill and there was a rumbling and the clatter of chalk - well that was a feeling you can't get from a still photo and a report on EH. It was also very interesting to see the huge void that had opened above the 1960s tunnel as a result. They did put a positive spin on that, as it enabled them to take some samples for carbon dating..

I thought it was interesting that they were able to connect the time of the hill's building to the time when the WK longbarrow was being 'decommissioned'.

Also the speculation that people may have brought turfs from far and wide to add to the growing hill in its early stages. I liked that.

Also I liked mention of the big roman settlement that grew up at the hill's base, like a tourist stop on the road to the baths at Bath. When they were talking about the amount of money that had been found, I was surprised they didn't mention 'offerings' - I mean there was a lot of money in the spring at Bath. Though it was quite bizarre to hear whatshisname 60s excavator suggesting they were thrown out in floor rushes. I think someone poor and enterprising ie the mug who had to throw them out might have cottoned onto that one.

And one more thing, discussion of bronze age burials made me realise with a shock that I would certainly not want to spend eternity lying like a poker on my back, should I be buried. A comfy curled up on my side position will do much better, it seems much more natural. Anyway you can just throw me to the goldfish really - but it did make me reflect generally on the strange posture that this society's been burying people in for centuries.

moss Oct 22, 2007 09:11:18

Replying to Rhiannon

Must admit I enjoyed it as well, dear old Silbury being explored, its intimacy with that fabulous old 'sacred' landscape. Not sure that the two presenters interpreted my ideas about the people who raised it, but they did there best. Strange that they were not prepared to acknowledge ritual/belief etc, it was a very 'cut and dried' interpretation resting on plain fact.
Yet at the end nothing new was really said, it was a quick clip clop through West Kennet longbarrow's final closure, our 'respected' Prof.Atkinson - ouch, and a rather good view of what is really happening inside Silbury. Leaving us with the impression that Silbury was a final last fling of the old autocracies before the new colonists came in - its still a theory....

fitzcoraldo Oct 22, 2007 10:48:37

Replying to Rhiannon

Hi Rhiannon,
I also enjoyed the show. I guess they could only say so much in one hour and had to pitch it to the widest possible audience.
One thing I think the show was spot on about was the idea that when looking at prehistory or modern history, it is the transitional periods that are by far the most interesting.
I liked the ideas regarding the crouched position. I'd quite like the idea of being sent off to the afterworld sprawled out on my sofa with mug of tea by my side and the remote control for the telly clasped in my hand.

cheers
fitz

Littlestone Oct 22, 2007 13:03:51

Replying to Rhiannon

I also sat glued to the TV last night - feeling various emotions (some good some bad). There were a few new insights and some good (if depressing) footage of the interior of Silbury - nice to see so many people referring to Silbury now as just Silbury (without the Hill bit). Dunno why the producers of these programmes always feel the need to have well-known faces presenting them though rather than people who actually know the subject. Julian Richards would have been my preferred choice for last night's prog. And how did Mike Pitts manage to get in on the act - surely there are more deserving if less well-known members of staff at the Wiltshire Heritage Museum who could have introduced the public to the work of Aubrey and Stukeley. Atkinson did his usual waffling and at one point said that the builders of Silbury 'stank' and 'couldn't read' - jeeze, they sure as hell could build though. Was impressed with the guy from Skanska who seemed genuinely concerned for Silbury and its future.

There were some interesting bits, like the possible bringing of turfs from afar and the (possible) importance the transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age might have meant for Silbury. Suppose it was inevitable that the structural problems (and the recent reasons for them) were glossed over, though no doubt that story will one day be told elsewhere ;-)

Hopefully the overall effect of the programme will be to raise awareness of Silbury and its long-deserved place in the history of these islands.

whipangel Oct 22, 2007 13:35:23

Replying to Rhiannon

I was not disappointed by the programme, for which I'd spent a weekday evening in the loft twiddling with the new digi aerial we needed to get BBC four again. Thanks to those who posted the info and broadcast times for the show.

I knew it would fall short on some of the detail (no mention of the purpose of the moat, no mention of the 17' high radial wall construction of Silbury III) and being prepared for that I really enjoyed it. I always find Neil O. to be an enthusiastic presenter, and as my nephew got permission to stay up to watch it on my recommendation that can't be a bad thing.

I agree that seeing footage of the collapses and other interior shots does give you a better perspective than the stills from the EH updates, and the dedication of the EH/Skanska people was commendable.

I was surprised at how often they seemed to mention the hill being in danger, when that's something EH play down, and was a bit perplexed by what the Inspector of Ancient Momuments said when viewing the damage after the downpour - she said words to the effect of 'it'll cost alot but we can't just walk away from it'. This struck me as an odd thing for someone charged with the care of culturally priceless, irreplaceable monuments to say in private, never mind to camera. Why would you walk away from it? (I'm probably reading too much into it)

Good to see Neil Burridge doing the bronze working too.

The show before it was good too - with some bits of the "Chronicle - Silbury Dig".

tjj Oct 22, 2007 18:05:14

Replying to Rhiannon

Just to add a brief comment to those already very succinctly made - I thoroughly enjoyed this programme and thought Neil Oliver was a well chosen presenter. Although an archaeologist, he is clearly not an expert on Silbury but his enthusiasm, enquiring manner and genuine sense of awe when inside the tunnel hit the right note for me. I was totally absorbed.

The sixties clips came across as a sad, misguided adventure - out of time, there is no doubt that Silbury is treated with vastly more reverence and respect today by both the archaeology world and the many people who simply love and cherish ancient (sacred) sites.

I really wish I had managed to get my act together and record the programme to go back to, but hopefully a DVD will be available at a later date.

Regards

june

Kammer Oct 23, 2007 06:29:54

Replying to Rhiannon

Rhiannon wrote:

...I rather enjoyed watching it I have to say.

I agree. I thought it was relatively entertaining, and I learnt stuff too!

wideford Oct 24, 2007 14:42:01

Replying to Rhiannon

Catching up on a pile of "Current Archaeology" I am up to 132. This has an article on the excavation of a long mound on Crickley Hill, which is [?was] thought to be an "offerings mound". This, like Silbury, was built up over time by 'offerings' - in its case of soul rather than chalk. Offerings continued until at least Roman times (mention is also made of a 17thC mound), when the practice was to punch a long hole down and drop the likes of coins in. In a massive earthwork like Silbury it would be little wonder that no finds have been [IIRC] found. So, in my estimation, either an offerings mound or a viewing platform are the neatest solutions to its being so 'clean'

Littlestone Oct 24, 2007 16:10:54

Replying to Rhiannon

Coming up on BBC Radio 4 now. Latest theory on why Silbury was created.

Shelby Mustang Oct 25, 2007 18:31:21

Replying to Rhiannon

hey Rhiannon, i saw the thread warning not to miss the show the other day and yeah' i'm glad i saw it too.
isn't it amazing how Archaeology has changed in forty years though? christ, back in the sixties i should imagine every ancient site was (metaphorically) quaking in its boots. it was like... "HERE'S A HILL, LET'S DIG A FUCKING GREAT BIG HOLE RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF IT!!"
not to mention the backfilling process, shit, you would've thought that at least one person on that dig knew that compressed earth/chalk expands by at least ten percent after being dug out of the ground wouldn't you?. what they perhaps should've done was to re- fill in layers of say one hundred millimetres a very compactible material such as scalps or even very fine crushed concrete (i know what you're thinking but compacted crushed conc is fucking effective) and then whackered thoroughly the entire area and so on until it became impossible physically to 'Whack the ground, then possibly fill with a super strong mortar mix that dries rapidly and ram right into the remaining gap up to the ceiling effectively underpinning the section of the hill that had been raped...i mean excavated.
it's fucking ugly especially a concrete alternative but to just run dirt to the end of the tunnel and back-fill that way was - and they must've known it - woefully inadequate.
thing is, ugly as my underpinning (not actually but certainly the same outcome) idea is, isn't it just as ugly to fucking hammer away at her without a care for her future...desperate...the fuckers.
kinda feel a bit daft talking building processes with you. blue skies x

konaman Oct 28, 2007 19:33:25

Replying to Rhiannon

on again tonight, bbc4 8pm for anyone who missed it

nigelswift Oct 28, 2007 19:59:37

Replying to Rhiannon

I haven't seen the programme but I gather it is being theorised that the top of the hill may have been removed, maybe a thousand years ago.

Does anyone know what evidence is being offered for this? Finding artefacts of that period doesn't prove much, does it?

dickie Oct 31, 2007 18:22:41

Replying to Rhiannon

One thing I was slightly doubtful of was the Silbury I theory that the turfs were communal offerings of many a traveller and then immediately built on top off. Why would you cover a structure in turf to build on top of it straight away ? Turf isn't a great structural component unless to cap off and improve the aesthetic. I think that for no matter how short a time the turf was a closing of the initial structure. The decision to continue onwards and upwards may have been taken quite quickly thereafter. Just a thought !