Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by thesweetcheat
close
more_vert

thesweetcheat wrote:
bladup wrote:
[quote="thesweetcheat"]I've never climbed Silbury, nor do I have a burning desire to do so. But I have climbed onto the top of The Gop in North Wales, the largest artificial mound in Wales (I think). The Gop is a huge cairn, very badly damaged by antiquarian excavations into its top. But it's still huge. I imagine some people will view climbing this as being no different to Silbury, but I mention it by way of contrast (note the fieldnotes, etc).

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/136/gop.html

I've climbed them both and the main difference is Silbury is a lot higher but the gop has better views, what is the difference in your mind [ there's none in mine ] and would you climb silbury if there wasn't any signs telling you not to? i think climbing any barrow/tumuli/cairn or mound is pretty much the same! to me it's none of them at all or all of them, i don't get that people would some but not others! it's all quite interesting isn't it?
That's what i find interesting, you said " The main reason I wouldn't climb silbury is because there is the potential for erosion damage if enough people do", but i know you know that that's the same for anywhere, even more so upland cairns that may have a path going straight though it, or any barrow that people climb on that's close to a path, it's your original point - that these places need protecting as much as silbury, but it's strange you would walk on these [Gop cairn and the like ] but not silbury!!!, i hope you understand what i'm on about as i found it hard to explain!

Yes, I do. I can't necessarily rationalise it entirely and I know that different people have very different views on this.

Here goes. The obscure sites need protecting, but from irrepairable damage. Upland cairns are not damaged by people sitting on them or climbing on them, you have to make a big effort to move any stones (ask Lubin how difficult it is to restore one that's been messed about with). Similarly, most barrows in fields aren't damaged by occasional visitors walking over them. But they are damaged by constant livestock erosion and incremental ploughing. I think - to me- it comes down to what will actually cause damage. If loads of people start visiting a little barrow in the middle of nowhere, it may become at risk of damage from those visits - but most aren't in danger of that happening, so visiting, taking pictures, recording any existing damage (which might not be apparent from below, particularly where the damage is an excavation into the top) has value, which can be weighed against the possible damage (if any) caused by the act of visiting itself. But Silbury is definitely at risk, because lots of people would love to climb it if they thought they could do so legitimately - far more than climb it now clandestinely. So the risk of damage is very real and one person climbing it will be seen by others as an endorsement of a view that it's okay to do so. There are also lots of well-known sites that are finely balanced, examples being West Kennet, Wayland's Smithy, where it would be lot better if people kept off the mound as it is noticeable getting worn.

I know that really there's no difference on lots of levels with climbing another less-known barrow, but in truth the consequences are likely to be very different. Volume of visitors (and the precise behaviour of them) makes it different.

Obviously, if your objections are based on belief rather than damage, that makes for an entirely different view, i.e. you wouldn't climb on any barrow, even if you knew it would cause no damage, because you believe it is disrespectful - I don't share this view, I'll be honest. Dead is dead, as someone said. Everyone walks over multiple graves in any medieval churchyard, but I don't think it's disrespectful to do so.

That's the best I can do, this late on a schoolnight!