Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by photobabe
Silbury Hill

Silbury Hill trespassers

close
more_vert
tjj T
tjj Jan 11, 2013 08:50:53
Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
Silbury Hill trespassers causing 'spectacular' damage
Serious question (yes I know it is rare): with EH putting a hold on blue plaques (sort of) because they are skint, they could potentially claim they can't afford new/more signs. My reaction is Silbury can't afford not to have improved signage (and they should have taken note all along). Whilst I loathe the idea, and feel something of the spirit of place would be eclipsed, and it might even be counterproductive, what do people here think about signage potentially being sponsored?

Before anyone says that won't happen, the WHS road signs were always an embarrassment, have needed replacing for 5 years, and it looks like sponsorship might be the only way of achieving that. Yuk!

Personally I think discrete sponsored signage is the lesser of other more drastic suggestions that have been considered and dismissed. High wire fencing with barbed wire or (heaven forfend) razor wire would give Silbury the atmosphere of a military installation. While we are so focussed on people not climbing the mound we are overlooking the fact motorists break the speed limit on the A4 right next to Silbury all the time. Some going as fast as 100 mph through a WHS site where visitors wander across the road to visit WK long barrow and along the narrow footpath to the Silbury viewing point without any real comprehension of the danger they are in. Silbury is probably my favourite and most loved ancient monument but I still think people come first.

Doing something to slow traffic down on the stretch of the A4 should also be a priority - if Silbury is as solid as it is claimed to be then the damage of footfall is superficial and on a par with the rest of Avebury. Otherwise, English Heritage (if they are the grown-ups) should be leading by example and refusing all requests, including money making ones, for one-off permissions to go up there.

S Sanctuary
Sanctuary Jan 11, 2013 08:55:44
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
VBB wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
Silbury Hill trespassers causing 'spectacular' damage
Serious question (yes I know it is rare): with EH putting a hold on blue plaques (sort of) because they are skint, they could potentially claim they can't afford new/more signs. My reaction is Silbury can't afford not to have improved signage (and they should have taken note all along). Whilst I loathe the idea, and feel something of the spirit of place would be eclipsed, and it might even be counterproductive, what do people here think about signage potentially being sponsored?

Before anyone says that won't happen, the WHS road signs were always an embarrassment, have needed replacing for 5 years, and it looks like sponsorship might be the only way of achieving that. Yuk!

Personally I think discrete sponsored signage is the lesser of other more drastic suggestions that have been considered and dismissed. High wire fencing with barbed wire or (heaven forfend) razor wire would give Silbury the atmosphere of a military installation. While we are so focussed on people not climbing the mound we are overlooking the fact motorists break the speed limit on the A4 right next to Silbury all the time. Some going as fast as 100 mph through a WHS site where visitors wander across the road to visit WK long barrow and along the narrow footpath to the Silbury viewing point without any real comprehension of the danger they are in. Silbury is probably my favourite and most loved ancient monument but I still think people come first.

Doing something to slow traffic down on the stretch of the A4 should also be a priority - if Silbury is as solid as it is claimed to be then the damage of footfall is superficial and on a par with the rest of Avebury. Otherwise, English Heritage (if they are the grown-ups) should be leading by example and refusing all requests, including money making ones, for one-off permissions to go up there.

Nicely put June