Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Silbury Hill - what is it?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#16    Nomadgun

Nomadgun

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Location:Atenas, Costa Rica

  • You have 3 choices, submit and live, join and prosper, or resist and be destroyed- Timojin- (Gengis Kann)

Posted 14 April 2006 - 09:39 AM

Just an opinion, but from a military standpoint in those days (just like today) having the "High Ground" was a tremendous advantage.  Although, to build something the size of the hill would have been far beyond the means of any tribal rulers in the UK at that time.  Romans were the first "advanced" group to enter and conquer anything in England and the hill is supposedly much older.  

The pyrimid theory is there- but keep in mind that the pyrimid shape is the most structurally sound form of construction- to this day.   Still who built it? A more advanced and previously unknown army?  ET?  I am sure that with geoscience what it now is, that it could be studied in detail.  Sound imaging and core drilling would bring up samples.  But maybe there is something buried there that was intended to stay down!  Maybe it was just a geologic rarity and some former King Decided to lop off the top and shape it a little to scare the neighbors...

NOMADGUN

#17    Foxe

Foxe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined:19 Nov 2005
  • Location:South Coast UK

Posted 14 April 2006 - 01:30 PM

Quote


Just an opinion, but from a military standpoint in those days (just like today) having the "High Ground" was a tremendous advantage.  Although, to build something the size of the hill would have been far beyond the means of any tribal rulers in the UK at that time.  Romans were the first "advanced" group to enter and conquer anything in England and the hill is supposedly much older.  


I don't know that we really know enough about the prehistoric tribal rulers of Britain to make that statement. We do know that Silbury Hill is pre-Roman by a couple of thousand years, so given that it WAS built, why shouldn't it have been built for military purposes? Against that theory is the fact that no other comparable site exists. When the (again, pre-Roman) Iron Age tribes hit on the idea of building massive hill-forts they started cropping up everywhere. Also against any military theory is the fact that Silbury hill sits right next to a larger and higher natural hill, so if defending the high ground was the purpose of the hill it wouldn't have taken a military genius to figure out that building on top of the adjacent hill would make much more sense that its actual position. I agree with you that Silbury Hill is probably not a military structure, but not for the same reasons.

Quote


The pyrimid theory is there- but keep in mind that the pyrimid shape is the most structurally sound form of construction- to this day.   Still who built it? A more advanced and previously unknown army?  ET?  I am sure that with geoscience what it now is, that it could be studied in detail.  Sound imaging and core drilling would bring up samples.  But maybe there is something buried there that was intended to stay down!  Maybe it was just a geologic rarity and some former King Decided to lop off the top and shape it a little to scare the neighbors...


Nah, it's definitely man-made.

Foxe

Don't believe everything you are told. Question it, examine it, ask for the evidence and make your own mind up.

#18    Tommygunner

Tommygunner

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2006
  • Location:East Sussex

  • I believe, because it makes sense to believe. I don't believe, when a politician tells me its the truth !

Posted 15 April 2006 - 12:44 AM

I have a friend studying Archaeology at Uni and he said in discussion that Silbury Hill was nothing more than an observation tower and defensive position, hence the finding of very few artifacts. He reckons that the peoples living nearby were constantly attacked and built the hill to observe the flat terrain around and give the people enough time to flee to the top and us it as a defensive position by throwing rocks down onto the attacking hostiles. I am not convinced as it seems a hell of a lot of trouble to go to for a lookout post!
  I live very near to the Wilmington Long Man, which is also an ancient mystery, and he told me that Quote Look at the hill above the Long Man. The mounds were an ancient settlement, and the locals carved the Long Man into the chalk to frighten off hostiles. MMMmmmm well I guess i have to bow to the knowledge and intelligence of my friend, but he still hasnt convinced me. Anyone out there know anything more?


www.hows.org.uk/personal/hillfigs/lmw/lmw.htm


#19    Foxe

Foxe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined:19 Nov 2005
  • Location:South Coast UK

Posted 15 April 2006 - 10:33 AM

Quote

Anyone out there know anything more?

I know that your friend is wrong about the purpose of Silbury Hill. Silbury hill is built, as I have said, at the bottom of a larger natural hill. From the summit of Silbury one cannot see over the neighbouring West Kennet hill, so if it was built as an observation tower it was a useless one. Given that most of the known settlements in that area are actually up hills (the Windmill Hill settlement, the small settlement on West Kennet Hill itself etc) why the hell would any of them build a defensive watch tower at the bottom of a hill. It makes no sense, tell your friend to stop being so dogmatic - it makes for a very bad archaeologist. The truth is that we don't know what Silbury Hill was built for, nobody does.

Quote

MMMmmmm well I guess i have to bow to the knowledge and intelligence of my friend


No you don't, his dogmatic assertions do him no credit whatsoever. I would further point out that since nobody knows for sure the age of the Long Man of Wilmington it is ridiculous to speculate so assertively on the relationship between the figure and the other local marks.

Maybe once he's finished studying he will have learnt not to be so ridiculously assertive about points which have yet to be proven (and which, in fact, do not make much sense either!). If he carries on like this he will make a really crappy archaeologist.

Foxe

Don't believe everything you are told. Question it, examine it, ask for the evidence and make your own mind up.

#20    Tommygunner

Tommygunner

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2006
  • Location:East Sussex

  • I believe, because it makes sense to believe. I don't believe, when a politician tells me its the truth !

Posted 15 April 2006 - 01:37 PM

Quote


I know that your friend is wrong about the purpose of Silbury Hill. Silbury hill is built, as I have said, at the bottom of a larger natural hill. From the summit of Silbury one cannot see over the neighbouring West Kennet hill, so if it was built as an observation tower it was a useless one. Given that most of the known settlements in that area are actually up hills (the Windmill Hill settlement, the small settlement on West Kennet Hill itself etc) why the hell would any of them build a defensive watch tower at the bottom of a hill. It makes no sense, tell your friend to stop being so dogmatic - it makes for a very bad archaeologist. The truth is that we don't know what Silbury Hill was built for, nobody does.
No you don't, his dogmatic assertions do him no credit whatsoever. I would further point out that since nobody knows for sure the age of the Long Man of Wilmington it is ridiculous to speculate so assertively on the relationship between the figure and the other local marks.

Maybe once he's finished studying he will have learnt not to be so ridiculously assertive about points which have yet to be proven (and which, in fact, do not make much sense either!). If he carries on like this he will make a really crappy archaeologist.

I just got off the phone to him and told him what you had explained, and he told me that i should ask you if the terrain was definately the same a couple of thousand years ago, and if so could you give him the proof as he may need it for his honors degree.


#21    Oppono Astos

Oppono Astos

    Overlord of Delgon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Beyond your dimension

Posted 15 April 2006 - 03:35 PM

Quote


I have a friend studying Archaeology at Uni and he said in discussion that Silbury Hill was nothing more than an observation tower and defensive position, hence the finding of very few artifacts. He reckons that the peoples living nearby were constantly attacked and built the hill to observe the flat terrain around and give the people enough time to flee to the top and us it as a defensive position by throwing rocks down onto the attacking hostiles. I am not convinced as it seems a hell of a lot of trouble to go to for a lookout post!
www.hows.org.uk/personal/hillfigs/lmw/lmw.htm

Sorry, that idea doesn't make sense.  The position of the mound in the surrounding landscape only offers a clear view over flat terrain to the N and NW.  The natural hill of Windmill Hill (3km NW of Silbury) had already been enhanced as a settlement and fort for several hundred years before the first phase of the construction of Silbury - known as Silbury I.  Silbury I was a relatively small mound less than 10m high.  Two further phases - Silbury II and Silbury III - eventually resulted in the form of the mound that we see today.



Who is the skeptic: the realist who won't accept belief, or the believer who won't accept reality?

#22    Foxe

Foxe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined:19 Nov 2005
  • Location:South Coast UK

Posted 15 April 2006 - 04:24 PM

Quote


I just got off the phone to him and told him what you had explained, and he told me that i should ask you if the terrain was definately the same a couple of thousand years ago, and if so could you give him the proof as he may need it for his honors degree.


Well, there's a pre-Silbury barrow on top of West Kennet hill, so unless someone went and lifted up the barrow while they shovelled more earth in underneath then yes, the landscape is more or less unchanged - at least in that direction. The West Kennet Long Barrow was first built in around 3700BCE, but was in use until around 2200BCE. The first phase at Silbury was around 2500BCE (the dates are obviously approximate, but reasonably reliable). Thus, the builders of Silbury Hill were clearly aware of the much bigger hill right next door (who wouldn't be). If he's doing Silbury Hill as part of his honours surely he's already researched this?

With regard  to the Wilmington Long Man, the date of construction has been debated for ages. Some people have theorised that the figure is reminiscent of figures on Roman coins, while others have drawn comparisons with a figure on an Anglo-Saxon buckle found nearby(ish) in Kent. Obviously they can't both be right and if the resemblances are that close they theories actually discount one another. Archaeological evidence suggests that a post-medieval date is in fact more likely - a team from the University of Reading recently suggested C.1545 based on the scientific analysis of the soil, a date consistent with all the known finds from the hill face. The fact that no record of the Long Man exists prior to the early 18thC goes some way to supporting this theory.

Any kind of settlement on Windover Hill was probably neolithic. All the bumps and holes on the summit are burial mounds and flint mines. There is almost no archaeological evidence of activity in the area for later periods. Nobody, so far as I am aware, has ever seriously suggested that the Long Man is anything like that old. Even the oldest known chalk figure - the Uffington White Horse - dates only to the bronze age, considerably later than the neolithic activity of Windover Hill.

Conclusion: there is no reason at all to connect the possible neolithic settlement of Windover Hill with the probably 16thC Long Man.


Foxe

Don't believe everything you are told. Question it, examine it, ask for the evidence and make your own mind up.

#23    Tommygunner

Tommygunner

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2006
  • Location:East Sussex

  • I believe, because it makes sense to believe. I don't believe, when a politician tells me its the truth !

Posted 15 April 2006 - 07:34 PM

Yeh thanks for that, it certainly is interesting to debate. There is a plaque at the Long Man and they give some dates, but again, it isn't anything firm or certain.

Regarding Silbury, my friend told me something that really astounded me, and i wanted to check with you if you had heard about it. It is that as the planet was forming, the southern part of the UK was actually detached from the rest of the country. Rather like the Indian continent that moved north into the china continent, and that as the two met the himalayas were formed by the crash. As the two plates move together mountains were formed. Of course, I already knew about the Indian continent from old school lessons, but never knew about the British Isles being two separate parts. I have been searching around in google to see if i can find some info on it,  but havent had any luck as yet.


#24    Kobalos

Kobalos

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2006
  • Location:Deadhill

  • 'Hell is never far away'

Posted 15 April 2006 - 11:10 PM

[quote name='Dakotabre' date='Apr 13 2006, 12:10 AM' post='1145088']
[color=#3333FF]CLICK THIS LINK IT'S ABOUT SALISBURY HILL BUT IF YOU GO ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE WAY DOWN THE PAGE- IT HAS A WEBCAM ON THE SCREEN OF THE HILL AND YOU CAN MOVE THE CAMERA AROUND, ZOOM IN AND OUT ETC...  PRETTY COOL!!
WEBCAM OF SALISBURY HILL - (1/4 way down page) Click picture with your mouse and move it aroun.....  wink2.gif

Many thanks for this - lots of up-to-date info there to sieve through. I have added it to my list of favourites as this looks set to be quite some task! I guess the best way forward is to go there and see the place for myself.
Not sure I want to though. Just seeing the stills gave me the shivers ... wacko.gif

To see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a flower, to hold infinaty in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour

#25    Kobalos

Kobalos

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2006
  • Location:Deadhill

  • 'Hell is never far away'

Posted 15 April 2006 - 11:30 PM

Quote


Yeah, I meant the angle, slope and height etc, not a 'jelly mould' fit  wink2.gif

Don't forget Silbury's semi-twin mound at Marlborough (possibly a derivation from Merlin's barrow), about 7km from Silbury; this is known as Merlin's Mound, and stands in the grounds of Marlborough college.  Unlike Silbury the spiral form is very prominent, although unlike Silbury is it tree-covered, so its form isn't so easy to discern.  See here for more details, or try "merlins mound marlborough" in Google images.



Yet more interesting facts for me to bookmark! What I found most interesting was the 'processional' spiral to the top. It reminded me a lot of Glastonbury Tor, which is also strikingly marked in this way, and in fact resembles both these manmade structures. Is GT also an artificial mound? I haven't found out much about that spiralling 'path' to the top of the Tor either - all the Glastonbury references seem to hark on about the Holy Grail etc instead. Some shots of Silbury suggest something similar to these 'procession ways' which would definitely link it to Marlborough - although it could be just an anomaly as it's not very pronounced. Could be it was weathered away. The fact Silbury is so exposed, yet still has its earthen covering, would suggest that (maybe) the covering of soil over the inner structure was much thicker at some time.

To see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a flower, to hold infinaty in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour

#26    Kobalos

Kobalos

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2006
  • Location:Deadhill

  • 'Hell is never far away'

Posted 16 April 2006 - 12:07 AM

With regard  to the Wilmington Long Man, the date of construction has been debated for ages. Some people have theorised that the figure is reminiscent of figures on Roman coins, while others have drawn comparisons with a figure on an Anglo-Saxon buckle found nearby(ish) in Kent. Obviously they can't both be right and if the resemblances are that close they theories actually discount one another. Archaeological evidence suggests that a post-medieval date is in fact more likely - a team from the University of Reading recently suggested C.1545 based on the scientific analysis of the soil, a date consistent with all the known finds from the hill face. The fact that no record of the Long Man exists prior to the early 18thC goes some way to supporting this theory.

Conclusion: there is no reason at all to connect the possible neolithic settlement of Windover Hill with the probably 16thC Long Man.

Sorry - as someone who has visited and studied the Long Man and its environs I think that's wrong. Reason being - there is evidence the monks at Wilmington Priory aligned their abbey (now in ruins and definitely pre-16th century!) with the Long Man itself. My memory of exact facts is hazy, but I know the monks were ousted when the King (John? I know it was pre-Tudor, 13th century maybe) sent his men into the town because word had got back to him the abbey was a) indulging in the worship of distinctly non-Christian idols and cool.gif were holding the town of Wilmington in thrall to help pay for it. If you visit the priory ruins today and go to the main hall, the great window is still there and it exactly frames the Long Man. DFrom what I remember the monks indulged in a bit of pagan worship and when this was discovered they were put to the sword  and the priory razed. Could be that's why records of the Long Man are scant - because for a long time it was 'bad karma' to mention it. Perhaps locals got the wind up - thought they would get the same treatment as the monks got way back.
You may suggest the Long Man was dug to face the priory rather than the other way round - except there was a way of placing holy buildings. Again, my memory is vague but I know the alignment of that big window was important - and the priory broke all the rules WRT the way it was aligned.
A lot of the Long Man is conjecture but I also remember reading at the time (and from a reliable source) that it was a 'twin' to the Cerne Abbas giant and probably dug for the same purpose. Parts of the Long Man seem to have been removed for decency (probably by those naughty abbots!)  and an artists reconstruction of what the original may have looked like showed the two arms (presently empty) holding a club and/or a spear (maybe a cloak)and the 'naughty bits' reinstated! This looked a lot more as I would expect the figure to look.
Maybe more modern arguments overturn all this, but remember that a) enigmatic hill figures are a lot more common in pagan artistry than in the 15th/16th century (besides anything else, why risk creating a 'pagan' relic at a time when burning and torture for witchcraft were the norm? And the only post-pagan hill figures I know of, are 'innocent daubs' like the Marlborough White Horse) cool.gif The monks' behaviour may have been unusual, but they lived at a time when the distinctions between magic and ministry were still very blurred, and worship of the occult arts was rife then. Chances are, the abbot in charge held pagan beliefs as well as christian ones. And combining christianity with prechristian beliefs was nothing new. The festival of Eostre proves this, and many christian churches were built within prechristian enclosures - Avebury is one that brings us neatly back to the original thread of Silbury Hill. Of course, I'm no archaeologist so if anyone can put me right ...

To see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a flower, to hold infinaty in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour

#27    Kobalos

Kobalos

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2006
  • Location:Deadhill

  • 'Hell is never far away'

Posted 16 April 2006 - 12:25 AM

'What I found most interesting was the 'processional' spiral to the top. It reminded me a lot of Glastonbury Tor, which is also strikingly marked in this way, and in fact resembles both these manmade structures.'

Yes, I've since read the reply explaining this was probably a Victorian addition to make the assent easier. That seems to make sense - although a bit of a let down - and could explain why the Tor is similarly marked. Silbury would seem to have collapsed in places due to modern tunnel digs.

One thing I would take issue with, is the theory - by some - that Silbury and other pre-Iron age structures had some defensive role to play in times of war. I always believed that, prior to the age of the Iron Age hill forts no such structures were needed? In the NT book 'Roman and Prehistoric Britain' I'm told that although these forts were often built over older structures eg Neolithic causewayed camps, such things were never designed for defense. All manmade artifacts prior to the age of hill forts were either a) for burial b)for ritual or c) for living/farming purposes. Certainly, if the Neolithic tribes were at all warlike, it was at a very local level and would not have involved the building of specialised structures. It wasn't until we began to develop a hierachy of self-appointed chieftains, lording it over several tribes at once, that the trouble started and previous posts suggest Silbury predated this.

To see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in a flower, to hold infinaty in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour

#28    Foxe

Foxe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined:19 Nov 2005
  • Location:South Coast UK

Posted 16 April 2006 - 11:08 AM

Quote

What I found most interesting was the 'processional' spiral to the top. It reminded me a lot of Glastonbury Tor, which is also strikingly marked in this way, and in fact resembles both these manmade structures. Is GT also an artificial mound? I haven't found out much about that spiralling 'path' to the top of the Tor either


Yar, as I said earlier the spiral going up the Marlborough Mound is not contemporary to the mound, Silbury hill just doesn't have any kind of processional spiral at all, and although it has been suggested that the ridges in the side of Glastonbury Tor are the remains of a processional spiral most scholar are agreed that they are actually the results of medieval strip farming. Yes, Glastonbury Tor is a natural structure.

Quote

Sorry - as someone who has visited and studied the Long Man and its environs I think that's wrong. Reason being - there is evidence the monks at Wilmington Priory aligned their abbey (now in ruins and definitely pre-16th century!) with the Long Man itself.


That's hardly conclusive proof, as you said there is a strict pattern for the laying out of churches and abbeys. Half the buildings in Wilmington would have looked out on the Long Man. You're welcome to your opinion of course, but even then it doesn't change the important argument that there is no reason to link the Long Man with the neolithic structures of Windover Hill.

Quote

My memory of exact facts is hazy, but I know the monks were ousted when the King (John? I know it was pre-Tudor, 13th century maybe) sent his men into the town because word had got back to him the abbey was a) indulging in the worship of distinctly non-Christian idols and  were holding the town of Wilmington in thrall to help pay for it.


Erm the Benedictine Priory was founded in the 12th century, remained a satellite of a French abbey until 1414, then was incorporated into the diocese of the Arch-Bishop of Chichester where it remained until after the dissolution of the monastaries. Where on earth did your story come from?

Quote

A lot of the Long Man is conjecture but I also remember reading at the time (and from a reliable source) that it was a 'twin' to the Cerne Abbas giant and probably dug for the same purpose. Parts of the Long Man seem to have been removed for decency (probably by those naughty abbots!)


The Long Man never had genitals like the Cerne Abbas giant - which, by the way, has also been dated to the 16th or 17th century. Sorry, it's a myth.

Quote

and an artists reconstruction of what the original may have looked like showed the two arms (presently empty) holding a club and/or a spear


Whoa! Back up there! You describe yourself as someone who has studied the Long Man, and then say that his hands are empty? Tell me, how did you miss the pair of whacking great sticks he has in his hands? For a long time they were thought to be the shafts of a scythe and a rake, whose heads had been lost over the centuries, but again archaeology shows that they were just sticks.

QUOTE
Maybe more modern arguments overturn all this, but remember that a) enigmatic hill figures are a lot more common in pagan artistry than in the 15th/16th century


Like which ones? Actually I think it's a myth in itself. Here's a list of British chalk figures with their dates of construction.

Alton Barnes white horse, Wiltshire (1812)
Broad Town white horse, Wiltshire (1864)
Cerne Abbas giant, Dorset (popularly believed to be ancient, but recently dated to c. 17th century)
Cleadon Hills white horse, Tyne and Wear (before 1887)
Old Devizes white horse, or the Snobs' horse (1845)
New Devizes white horse (1999)
Cherhill or Oldbury white horse, Wiltshire (1780)
Folkestone white horse, Kent (2003)
Hackpen or Broad Hinton or Winterbourne Bassett white horse, Wiltshire (1838?)
Hindhead white horse, Surrey (before 1913, lost)
Ham Hill or Inkpen white horse, Wiltshire (1865-1877)
Kilburn White Horse, Yorkshire (1857)
Lenham Memorial Cross
Old Litlington white horse, Sussex (c.1838)
New Litlington white horse, Sussex (1925)
Marlborough or Preshute white horse, Wiltshire (1804)
Osmington white horse, Dorset (c.1808)
old Pewsey white horse, Wiltshire (1785)
new Pewsey white horse, Wiltshire (1937)
Rockley white horse, Wiltshire (discovered 1948, now lost)
Tan Hill white horse, Wiltshire (lost)
Uffington White Horse (Bronze Age, 1400 BC to 600 BC)
Westbury or Bratton white horse, Wiltshire (before 1742)
Wye Crown, Kent
Long Man of Wilmington, Sussex (c. 16th century)
Whipsnade Zoo white lion, on the Dunstable Downs, Bedfordshire (1931)

So, as you can see, the cutting of chalk figures actually has very little to do with pagan England, and much more to do with the post-renaissance era. It is a very common misconception that most of the white horses and other figures around the country are ancient, but it just isn't true - the majority of them don't even require archaeology to date them, we know exactly when they were dug, by whom, and why!

QUOTE
besides anything else, why risk creating a 'pagan' relic at a time when burning and torture for witchcraft were the norm


This is slightly off-topic, but an important point nonetheless: witches were never burned in England.

QUOTE
And the only post-pagan hill figures I know of, are 'innocent daubs' like the Marlborough White Horse


See above. The only known pagan figure is the Uffington White Horse. It may be that the Rockley and Tan Hill horses were pagan as well, but it's impossible to tell. Interestingly, the Westbury white horse which is there now is believed to have been cut over (thus obliterating) an earlier white horse. It is possible that the earlier white horse was ancient, but certainly not proven. The majority of them though are post-pagan. Come to think of it, with the obvious exception of the Cerne Abbas giant, which chalk figures are not "innocent daubs"?

QUOTE
The monks' behaviour may have been unusual, but they lived at a time when the distinctions between magic and ministry were still very blurred, and worship of the occult arts was rife then. Chances are, the abbot in charge held pagan beliefs as well as christian ones.


By the medieval period paganism had been all but completely absorbed into or obliterated by christianity. The "chances are" that the prior held completely Christian beliefs. I'd be really interested to know what the evidence for the "Naughty Monks of Wilmington" is, and exactly what it says.

QUOTE
and many christian churches were built within prechristian enclosures - Avebury is one that brings us neatly back to the original thread of Silbury Hill.


Funnily anough, the church at Avebury is not built within the pre-christian enclosures. Perhaps Knowlton circles would illustrate your point better?

Foxe

Don't believe everything you are told. Question it, examine it, ask for the evidence and make your own mind up.

#29    Tommygunner

Tommygunner

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2006
  • Location:East Sussex

  • I believe, because it makes sense to believe. I don't believe, when a politician tells me its the truth !

Posted 16 April 2006 - 11:27 AM


http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/burning.html


#30    Tommygunner

Tommygunner

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2006
  • Location:East Sussex

  • I believe, because it makes sense to believe. I don't believe, when a politician tells me its the truth !

Posted 16 April 2006 - 11:50 AM

As you can see from my last link, burning at the stake was used for mainly heresy, however look at the link halfway down the page  at witchways.net.
Margery Joredemaine  Burned at Smithfield London on 27th October 1441.



I too, like thorough research. Most of the other cases are in Scotland which I suppose is technically not England, but even for me thats a bit nit picky





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users