Many major and lesser sites when investigated started off from small beginnings Knowth , Long Barrows ,stone circles (Stonehenge took a long time to assume it's current architecture ) etc ,often a midden ,lithic scatter , a few scoops in the ground , deposits , a burial etc until the final monument we see today , appears , sometimes many generations after the initial sequence .
'New and more precise dating of materials found inside the Hill have helped to pinpoint the construction period to be about 100 years involving some three generations between 2400 and 2300BC. Careful study of records obtained in the tunnel dug through the cross-section of the Hill in 2007 shows the monument underwent at least 15 distinct stages of development, instead of the three-phase theory previously suggested'.
I have not read the book either George and don't know if I want to now. I can't believe that he suggests (according to EH) that he believes there was no blueprint or forward planning.
'Silbury Hill was not a single construction project and that the builders did not have any blueprint in mind. Instead, the creators were building the mound as part of a continuous storytelling ritual and the importance of the shape that we see now is of secondary importance'.
We're not talking about a sandcastle here but a mound covering 5.5 acres 130ft high. Who doesn't plan something like that common sense tells me!!! When one looks at an ants' nest, a child could be forgiven for thinking they're just running around like headless chickens whereas we know for sure that they are working to a plan. This suggests that our great ancestors and the builders of Silbury Hill were far less intelligent than ants if they had no plan! I find the idea quite ridiculous based on what the review says.
The bottom line is that it has been built of that we are certain, what we all still want to know (well I do anyway) is why it was built and why it was so high. I have my own ideas but they could be rubbish!! LOLOL
