This has been bugging me for years. In Wiltshire there's an enormous man made mound called Silbury Hill - much bigger than any burial mound. I think it's more than 2000 years old. There's nothing else like it in England (at least, not on that scale) and its purpose seems to be a mystery.
Years ago, I read a report from the Chronicle TV program (fantastic TV prog, why was it ever axed?!) which asked much the same questions. The mound has never been satisfactoraly excavated (it's just too big - the summit doubles as a cricket field!) but from what they could discover, it's an enigma. It seems to be solid, i.e no hollow chamber, and built like a step pyramid, i.e in 'tiers' of chalk or stone, before being covered with earth to give it its smooth profile. It stands alone on a great plain and tho' I've never seen it the photos are awesome!
The step pyramid similarity seems to be significant to me, but there are no other structures like it anywhere - as far as I know - in the UK. Also, it seems to be solid. Of course, geophysics has made enormous advances since that Chronicle doc of the early 70's. But aside from that one report I've never heard anything more. Can anyone enlighten me on this? Has it ever been explored using modern geophys methods and, if so, what was found? Have there been any theories put forward as to its purpose? I know one theory was it marked the burial place of a great king (altho he'd have to be a giant!) and I wonder if the mound does cover a burial chamber, located underground. But WHY though? Then again, it's not too far from Stonehenge which again is unique in the UK, so is it possible both had the same architect?
Whatever, I think this definitely comes under the heading of 'Mysteries of the ancient world' so please, someone, put me out of my mystery misery!

"There have been several excavations of the mound and William Stukeley wrote that a skeleton and bridle had been discovered during tree planting on the summit in 1723. It is probable that this was a later, secondary burial however. The first purposeful excavation came when a team of Cornish miners led by the Duke of Northumberland sunk a shaft from top to bottom in 1776. This was followed in 1849 when a tunnel was dug from the edge into the centre. Others were held in 1867, 1886 and William Flinders Petrie investigated the hill after the First World war. In 1968-70 professor Richard Atkinson undertook work at Silbury in front of BBC television cameras. This last work revealed most of the environmental evidence known about the site including the remains of winged ants which indicate Silbury was begun in August.

Atkinson dug numerous trenches at the site and reopened the 1849 tunnel, finding material suggesting a Neolithic date although none of his radiocarbon dates are considered reliable by modern standards. He argued that the hill was constructed in steps, each tier being filled in with packed chalk, and then smoothed off or weathered into a slope. Others have identified a spiralling path climbing to the top and prefer to see the construction as being more incremental with the benefit of also providing a processional route to the summit.

Few prehistoric artefacts have ever been found on Silbury Hill: at its core there is only clay, flints, turf, moss, topsoil, gravel, freshwater shells, mistletoe, oak, hazel, sarsen stones, ox bones, and antler tines. Roman and medieval items have been found on and around the site since the nineteenth century and it seems that the hill was reoccupied by later peoples.

In 2000, a collapse of the 1776 excavation shaft caused a hole to form in the top of the hill. English Heritage undertook a seismic survey of the hill to identify the damage caused by earlier excavations and determine the hill's stability. Repairs were undertaken though the site remains closed to the public. English Heritage's archaeologists also excavated two further small trenches as part of the remedial work and made the important discovery of an antler fragment, the first from a secure context at the site. This produced a reliable radiocarbon date of c. 2490-2340 BC, dating the second mound convincingly to the Late Neolithic. Other recent work has focused on the role of the surrounding ditch which may not have been a simple source of chalk for the hill but a purposeful water-filled barrier placed between the hill and the rest of the world."

From the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbury_Hill

It would seem that the purpose of the hill is not yet known. There have been precious few artifacts found, giving us little to go on. What there is, is a great deal of is rumor and conjecture. However, long story short: no one knows.

As to the Stonehenge connection, it seems unlikely, but it is possible, to the extent that some of the stonehenge work has been dated to roughly the same period as the second mound (the mound is believed to have been built in two phases). However, parts of stonehenge are actually much older. It too is believed to have been constructed in phases. However, this could be coincidence, as sites of ritual importance would likely be used, reused, and improved over the centuries. There is no direct evidence linking Silbury to stonehenge.

-Pilgrim

A couple of small misconceptions: The summit of Silbury hill is not the size of a cricket pitch, though an ersatz game might be played there. However, the hill is not just unique to the UK, it is the largest prehistoric man-made mound in the world. In terms of location the hill is much more connected to the Avebury complex than to Stonehenge.

Since 2000 archaeology has been ongoing intermittently and it can reasonably hoped that our knowledge of the hill will be increased over the coming years - it's unlikely we'll get much in the way of definite answers, but we should have a better understanding. One of the most incredible facts about the hill is that although it cannot be dated precisely to any particular year or years, we can tell at what time of year certain phases of the building took place by the stages which insects trapped in the mound had reached in their life-cycle.

The purpose of the hill remains a complete enigma, despite several fanciful theories.

I would be most interested to know of the theories (but possible and well.... other).

Maybe we could create a few of our own also?

Anybody know is it aligned to the winter or summer solaciste or a star constlation....

do any of you have links to some pictures?

here are some pictures. I googled it for some images. Quite interesting that they seem to be finding crop circles near it too for some reason...

Pic1
Pic2
Hill with crop circles
More crop circles near Silbury Hill

I myself have never heard of this place before. But it does seem very very interesting

its huge

This is Silbury Hill taken from nearby West Kennet Long Barrow last December.

I've seen a few crop circles in the general Avebury area over the years.

There are as many theories about Silbury Hill as you can imagine. The oldest theory is that it was a giant burial mound (the are is littered with tumuli and barrows), for a great king named Sil. Even if the Sil theory is discounted many people believe that it was a burial mound of sorts. One of the more recent theories was based on the superficial resemblance of the hill and its surrounding moat to prehistoric statues thought to be of the Earth mother, with the hill representing the womb and the moat the rest of the body. However, the resemblance was superficial at best, and could only be seen from the air anyway (prehistoric peoples were notorious for not having developed air travel), so the theory is not a good one, despite its obvious attraction. Other theories abound... aliens, shipwrecked Egyptians, it was done for a bet...

One thing we can tell; it's not aligned to anything, it's a big circular mound in the middle of Salisbury Plain.

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.....

http://www.users.myisp.co.uk/~gtour/main.htm

Although I've never actually done the calculation, and it may be a myth... If the Great Pyramid at Giza were a hollow shell, it would precisely fit over Silbury Hill - those of you who watch Stargate will get the idea

Sounds like a myth. I have not run the numbers myself, but a) the hill's base is round, and the top of the hill is truncated. Thus, the best that we could say is that the hill might fit inside the pyramid, again if it were hollow (which it isn't). There are many, many hills, both natural and manmade, that would be small enough to fit inside the great pyramid, so this is not truly very compelling.

-Pilgrim

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

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.

It is a sad fact that as yet the Marlborough mound has not received the same archaeological attention as Silbury, perhaps because it is privately, rather than publicly owned. However, two important points (and killjoy ones I'm afraid) can be made. The spiral winding round the outside is, I believe, 18thC in origin - cut into the side of the mound to make a pleasant walk up to the top. Secondly, it is unlikely that the name Marlborough derives from "Merlin's Barrow". Marlborough is an Anglo-Saxon name, and the legends of merlin are not prominent in Anglo-Saxon lore. In fact, Marlborough was so named before Geoffrey of Monmouth coined the name "Merlin" anyway.

The sum total of what we know about the Marlborough mound (as opposed to what has been theorised about it) does not even include its age. It has long been thought to be a Norman motte, but Roman coins found nearby and possible antler picks suggest an older date. Infuriatingly, the coins and picks were recorded by Stukely (IIRC), and it is impossible to tell the context in which they were found, so although they are indicative pieces of evidence they are far from conclusive.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was originally 481 feet tall, though it currently stands only 455 feet, due to erosion and the theft of the topmost stone block (no doubt someone needed a paperweight). It was originally 762 feet to a side, though it is now only 760 feet. The original angle would have been approximately a ratio of 1.58:1 (that is, 1.58 feet horizontally to every foot of vertical height). The current angle is harder to calculate since the capstone has been removed and I can find no refrences as to what its width was (and my geometry is too rusty to figure it out longhand); however, we can assume that the ratio is very similar to the original.

Silbury Hill, meanwhile, stands a mere 130 feet tall, with a 100-foot flat top. The base is 550 feet in diameter. If we subtract the width of the top from the base, we can calculate the ratio of width to height. For Silbury Hill, the ratio is 3.46:1 (that is, over three feet horizontally to every vertical foot).

Clearly, the ratios of base to height are nowhere near being similar; the Great Pyramid is more than twice as steep. It is nearly four times as tall, yet not even twice as wide.

There we have it - it is indeed a myth.

-Pilgrim

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...

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.



Nah, it's definitely man-made.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.....

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 ...

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.

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 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) 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 ...

'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.

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.



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.



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?



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.



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.



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!



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



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"?



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.



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

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

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

Witches were burned in Scotland, but not in England (Not nit-picking, it's an important distinction since until the 18thC they were different countries)

On the Witchways list they seem to make no distinction between people being accused of witchcraft and being actually executed for it - for example, they include Joan of Arc who was burned for heresy, and any charges of witchcraft were incidental to the main charge of heresy.

In England burning was reserved for the crimes of heresy or treason, while witchcraft was a secular crime and the punishment was hanging.

Of course, someone who was charged with witchcraft AND heresy might well be burned, but they were burned for being a heretic, not a witch.

Margery Jordemain was one of these latter. Having used her witchcraft against the King she was guilty of treason as well as witchcraft and was burned, not because she was a witch, but because she was a traitor.

well ok, but as it says on the description on the top of the page Quote ALL on this list died as a result of witchcraft accusation Unquote. I guess maybe for me that means she was burned as a result of her being a witch, as well as other things.

Yeah, but if she had used her witchcraft against someone other than the king she would not have been burned; but, if she had attacked the king in a normal physical way, with no hint of witchcraft or sorcery, she would still have been burned. The burning and the witchcraft are only incidental to one another. She was not burned because she was a witch, she was burned because she was a traitor.

Would it be better if I amended my original statement ("witches were never burned in England") to "nobody was ever burned in England for being a witch"?

Mmmm yeh well in the interests of accuracy i guess it would be right to say that.


By the way, thanks for all the info on particularly the Long Man. I am preparing a booklet on the South Downs way and surrounding area for a local foreign student school this summer. It doesnt have to be an exact history, but i wanted to be fairly accurate with it. I am only fitting in the Beachy Head to Winchester area, and some areas of interest around and about. I found a lot of the information you posted very useful. Thanks for that.

The idea that it is a burial site makes sense as a skeleton was found there..

I believe the actually finding of the skeleton is in some doubt, but if there was indeed a body found there then it was reported as being found near the top. Since Silbury hill was built in stages, and the top part was (naturally) the last stage to be built, a skeleton buried in the top does not solve the mystery of why building began.

In no way does this discount the possibility that it was a burial mound. The hill is vast and only small exploratory shafts have been dug into the bottom of it. The fact that no skeleton contemporary with the original building has been discovered is not necessarily terribly significant.

This video includes Silbury Hill and shows its geographic relationship to Avebury and Stonehenge...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/293086/the_w...s_google_earth/

Having climbed the hill myself I can say it is enormous, although going up it is not encouraged.

about the long man, could it be it was the romans who did it? I saw a program on discovery were they compared the image of the fallic cerne giant with a statuette of Hercules....and they almust matched!

But if the L.M is older perhaps has inspired the romans doing the Cerne giant? who knows!

About the hill....well it is a natural formation

LOL! We deserve that!

Hmmm...some have been forgetting that Silbury Hill may have been a part of a system of "Beacon" hills.On hills such as these,large fires would be lit at special times and be clearly visible from the next hill or spot in the line of beacons.

There is also the study of Ley Lines,of which Silbury Hill is possibly one of the markers in one or more of the lines.Many markers along certain Ley Lines may have also been used as beacons.

Would it not make sense to build a beacon hill or marker if one was needed?

It has been shown that a fire or flag on Silbury Hill would have been clearly seen from other spots,so this tends to make a lot of sense.

It would seem, by knowledgeable people such as Foxe of the terrain and topography of where this hill lies, that it would not be the most fruitful of endeavours to build a beacon hill in the shadow of a nearby natural hill of greater height, and of these ley lines , would they have known about such hypothesis, since it is only some concept thought up in the 1920's.

If I remember correctly,several cultures used the beacon hill concepts during early history.As for making a marker such as Silbury Hill,if something was needed,they would build it.

The reason for this is because of "line of sight".The nearby hill may be a bit out of the way,using the line of sight method.There is evidence that "the old straight track" (Ley Lines) may have been in use pretty far back.If so,why not use the most direct line of sight to convey messages or to guide travellers?

Of course,the modern theories concerning Ley Lines is that they are laid out upon lines of Earth energy.But,what if there were more mundane reasons for having the "straight tracks"?

I doubt that we will ever know the whole truth of the matter,but the most feasible explanation for Silbury Hill would be the use as a line of sight beacon hill.

To understand this properly you really need to be at Silbury hill to observe the topography, but Silbury is a large manmade structure surrounded by larger natural ones. If you wanted to site a line of beacons for communication you just wouldn't put one on Silbury Hill because the other hills around are higher. A beacon on Silbury hill would only be seen from the hills surrounding it, and in order to complete a chain of beacons including Silbury Hill you'd need beacons on the surrounding hills. Now, if you put beacons on the surrounding hills then they could be seen from each others' locations and you wouldn't need the beacon on Silbury.

If you were building a beacon chain then you probably wouldn't even utilise Silbury Hill, you definitely wouldn't build it for the purpose.

Sorry, but far from being the most feasable possibility, it's one of the few theories which can almost definitely be discounted.

http://www.britannia.com/wonder/emsilbry.html

[quote]The meridian line from Silbury runs through Avebury church which stands on a ley line running between Stonehenge and the stone circle at Winterbourne Abbas. The same ley line also passes through two churches and the eastern slope of Silbury. Silbury, in fact, is a centre for alignments of straight prehistoric tracks, resurfaced by the Romans, and of standing stones.The Roman road between Marlborough and Bath runs directly towards Silbury Hill before swerving to avoid it.[/quote]

http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/early ages/silbury hill.htm (Grr...this link refuses to post correctly)

[/quote]There is a great deal of evidence for ancient Ley lines that link key sites in this area. Silbury Hill is also at the centre of alignments for straight prehistoric tracks, re-surfaced by the Romans, who may have used the hill as a surveying point.[quote]

Alfred Watkins believed that many alignments of monuments and key points in the landscape were the remains of old travel routes (Ley Lines).At some locations in the "straight tracks" there have been found remnants of signal fires (beacons),so it is a very plausible theory.

Higher hills are not always viable for signal fires,due to topographical features in other spots along a straight track that may block the view of the beacon,hence the reason for some unnatural constructs being placed in certain areas...even near a natural hill.

There was a program that I watched recently where someone showed that the top of Silbury Hill was able to be seen from a couple of other spots along a straight track.From one of those spots,Silbury Hill could only be seen through a small section of surrounding hills,hence the "line of sight" explanation.

So,it is a possibility.The best way to determine if it is plausible is to visit some of the sites along the line and see for yourself,by looking at all of the surrounding landscape at each site.

While not rejecting this, natural formations means that forces of nature, i.e. Wind, Corrosion, etc gradually shape them. So what natural factors would be able to form the hill?

We-ell, I've spent a lot of time in the Avebury complex, and I'm pretty familiar with the topography. My considered opinion is that the last thing Silbury might be is a specially constructed beacon hill, it just doesn't work. I can't ask anyone else to take my opinion at face value, but Silbury hill would need to be a couple of hundred feet taller than it is to convince me that it's got anything to do with beacons.

Add to that the fact that the original Silbury structure was much much smaller, and the beacon theory begin to look even less possible...

Silbury Hill was built in stages...so was Stonehenge and several other sites.

I'm not saying that Silbury was primarily a signal hill,I'm just saying that it's possible that that may have been one of the many uses it got used for.

Why build a beacon mound on low-lying ground when you already have line of sight across the downlands to the East and South of Silbury, and indeed the natural high ground of Windmill Hill to the Northeast?

Also W-MC, you need to study the subject of Ley lines before using the term for two totally different concepts ;-)

There are a couple of interpretations for "Ley Lines".

One is the study of alignments using geographical points,buildings,markers and old "straight tracks".This is the hypothesis put forward by Alfred Watkins.(This is the one I refer to...)

Another concerns the possibility of magnetic or electrical forces associated with certain points along a line or intersection of points.This is the "New Age" hypothesis.

So...which one do you refer to?

...

The link below is a very interesting article on Silbury Hill:

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba70/feat2.shtml

From some of the stuff that I've been reading,apparently the very top part of Silbury can be seen from Avebury and several other points.The top "step" apparently aligns with the hills on the horizon behind Silbury Hill,or with the hills in front of Silbury Hill...giving a "line of sight".

Who knows what all that hill has been used for in the past.We can only speculate...but there are many possibilities for the uses it may have seen.

maybe they just wanted to build something that was theirs, not a natural hill etc . just a monument to say 'look, we can do this'. In that kind of age that would be a deterrant to neighbourhood villages who would look at the thing in some kind of awe and think, we better not attack them ... look what they did with building that awesome monument .. um, lets trade with these people .. rather than war .