Re: Silbury Hill trespassers | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by thesweetcheat

Silbury Hill trespassers

nigelswift Jan 12, 2013 09:19:36

Replying to Sanctuary

"you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged"

The "consensus" here is not to "ban the public" but to better explain the damage problem to them and appeal to their better nature. If they are going to say "well some achaeos and the occasional film crew and official Druid goes up therefore I'm going to as well" I'd suspect they are looking for cover to do what they intended to anyway.

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.

Harryshill Jan 12, 2013 09:42:53

Replying to nigelswift

Agreed. Reinstating the path would be a backward step IMO.

All steps should be to encourage folk not to climb the hill and to arrange 'things' to make it less desirable to those that will anyway, again, IMO

Sanctuary Jan 12, 2013 09:55:15

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.

Unsurprisingly, with respect, I'd have to disagree.

My vision of the future:

A single path is reinstated along the lines of the former so that fresh archaeology is not disturbed to any great degree.

The site is sympathetically fenced with a main entrance. CCTV is installed.

The public pay a small fee to be taken to the top via the path with a paid guide. Say a dozen at a time.

At no time are they allowed or encouraged to step off the path.

On reaching the top a smallish protected area is set aside for the 12 visitors to take photos or just take in the view.

After 10 minutes? they return to the entrance and the next group make the ascent.

No damage whatsoever has taken place and the path is maintained regularly. Other than the odd person or two that takes humbrage at having to pay and enters illegally under the gaze of CCTV cameras no feet will tread the surface and no further erosion taking place.

The hill will return visually to its condition prior to the ban being put into place and when the path was commonly used.

Of course this would be subject to H&S.

tjj Jan 12, 2013 09:58:17

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

"you cannot ban the public on the grounds that the hill is being damaged"

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.

My stance on this in the past has always been to 'ban' or rather educate visitors not to walk on Silbury, now after reading all the posts in this thread I've learnt that Silbury is not going to collapse and is in no imminent danger other than surface erosion (which is happening all the time to the Henge banks). I still think people should be educated not to walk up as that clearly is what is most beneficial for the monument and the best way to do this is information boards explaining why.

Perhaps we should have a new topic to discuss 'what does Silbury mean to you' ... why for example does the official Druid need to go up there when Silbury can be appreciated (venerated even) from so many other high vantage points nearby. For myself, it is far more than an ancient mound of grass covered chalk - hard to put into words.

harestonesdown Jan 12, 2013 12:55:36

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

Personally, I would be against renovating and throwing open the main path as that would result in 500x more people going up and a commensurate increase in erosion.

I agree.
I guess it would throw up safety problems on the A4 too at busy times, both lay-bys are often full (WKLB and Silbury) so if the "proper" Silbury car park is full too people will pull up on the dodgy bend, i've witnessed it myself, along with people doing 3 point turns. ! eeeeekk.