Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by Littlestone
close

It’s claimed that Silbury Hill is unique in the UK (and indeed in Europe),however it does appear to have at least two extant relatives, both close geographcically ( and one close in terms of scale), at that, one laying only 6 miles to it’s east in the sleepy market town of Marlborough, and the much closer "Silbaby". It also had one 12 miles away – the Hatfield barrow which was wrecked by Victorian “archaeologists” c 1809 then what remained was leveled by the landowner(it was constructed of sandy soil and like Silbury held no burial) but als that relative is lost.

The Marlborough Mound is Located in the private grounds of Marlborough College, and has suffered Much more over the course of history Than it’s more famous cousin, utilized By the Normans after the conquest as the Motte for a castle (just as Silbury was fortified in Anglo-saxon times, presumably when Silbury’s summit was flattened also), used As a garden feature (the “shell grotto” is Still there), covered with trees, boxed in By the college buildings(making it virtually Invisible)…….and the final indignity, The placing of a water tank on its summit!.

It’s re-use as a motte appears to Have led to it’s being ignored as a contempory of Silbury Hill, although plenty of evidence to it’s pre-historic origin is extant.

Isn’t it about time a serious and Extensive archaeological investigation was Carried out on Silbury’s “twin”, even with the damage done to the Marlborough Mound it could Well shed light on the origins and uses of Silbury Hill and of course it’s self.

Further thought led me to think of Dragon Hill, by the uffington white horse, some 16 miles to the North East of Silbury. Although this hill is almost certainly a natural chalk mound ( though almost perfectly conical), the summit WAS at some time in antiquity levelled to produce a truncated cone similar in appearance to Silbury Hill and Marlborough Mound.

This is of course purely conjecture on my part......but perhaps it was modified to appear like the two man made mounds or they were created to look like it.

Furthermore, There is something Silbury Hill, Marlborough Mound and Dragon Hill all have in common, they all appear to have been utilised as mottes in the early Norman period, or forts in earlier periods........

And in various places around the UK I've seen surviving mottes(with or without surviving stonework) with strikingly similar profiles and of a similar scale, also sites like Burrow Mump at Burrowbridge near Glastonbury which although natural show signs of modification by man.

True Silbury would still Dwarf most other mounds(the marlborough mound coming a close second.....but then the Avebury folk WERE neothlithic over achievers after all.

Which leads me to posit a tentative theory: were these man made mounds common in the landscape, and most just were utilised as mottes, leading historians/archaeologists to assume they were purpose built during the Norman or other later period, Silbury being a lucky exception.

So!......were there once Scores of "Silbury's" or is it an only child?

Before it's assumed i'm a crank....laughs....I'm not promoting this theory, which I personally find unlikely(though possible)....just throwing it out there as a topic of discussion.

Welcome!

There's a bit of a discussion about it here http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=18402 - bringing in Silbury, Marlborough Mound, Silbaby and Hatfield Barrow

And there may be more scattered about amongst this lot http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?s_id=6766

love

Moth

You might want to look north to the Great Barrows of East Yorkshire e.g. http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/92/duggleby_howe.html.
There are many parallels between prehistoric East Yorkshire and Wessex.
It might also be worth casting an eye on structures such as Maeve’s Cairn
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2302/knocknarea.html

In some parts of the world, they've never really stopped building them e.g. the four mounds of Krakow
http://www.krakow-info.com/mounds.htm

cheers
fitz

The following are mottes (allegedly) and are examples of mounds all around the UK that originally got me started thinking along this particular line.

http://www.discovernorthernireland.com/accomfinder/product.aspx?ProductID=3171

now does that one look spookily familiar?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dmotte%2Band%2Bbailey%2Bcastles%26js%3D1%26ni%3D21%26ei%3Dutf-8%26y%3DSearch%26fr%3Dytff1-msgr%26xargs%3D0%26pstart%3D1%26b%3D43&w=473&h=239&imgurl=www.ballybegvillage.com%2Fimages%2Fknockgraffon_motte_baily.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ballybegvillage.com%2Ftower_houses.html&size=16.5kB&name=knockgraffon_motte_baily.jpg&p=motte+and+bailey+castles&type=JPG&oid=8f86f102c59b9c58&no=47&tt=282&sigr=11geqdbnt&sigi=11rjq7d81&sigb=148ef0ccq


Another one in Ireland.


http://www.castleuk.net/castle_lists_midlands/164/oxfordcastle.htm

you need to scroll to the bottom for the motte pic


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

Although they all are claimed to have been purpose built by the castle builders, I doubt much evidence is extant - core samples, excavations etc.
as only outermost layers are of much interest to archaeo's who actually have excavated mottes, as they will usually have assumed the date of the mound to be contemporary with the earliest castle building phase only.

And don't forget Thetford Castle. Thats norman, built on an iron age fort. The motte looks scarily familiar though!

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2096/thetford_castle.html

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

nice mound

No, there's thousands of them. What is more difficult is decided what they were symbolising, in particular, and whether they were intended to be climbed or viewed from a distance (only) ...

Marlborough Mound - the ‘Marlborough Mound Trust’ is raising money for its investigation, and commissioned a trench by Wessex Archaeology in 2005 (?) A fund raising lecture was given last week by Barry Cunnliffe.

Marden is being surveyed and excavated next year.

Another aspect of these 'sacred hills', both artificial, natural and altered natural, is the resemblance of their profile, seen from a distance, to a classic pyramid. It's a tabu subject, of course, but does seem apparent with close observation. I can't think of any that have been 'squared off' and it's generally assumed that the ideal was a limpet-shaped cone. But what if it were actually pyramidical? (Please discuss).

Whilst Stoneshifter's theory on the origin of the shape of Silbury type mounds is certainly interesting (and I'm not saying it's wrong....it could be correct) , it is also a large intuitive leap (and hey there's been many a mystery solved in that fashion), I propose that there is a much simpler explanation.

All ancient civilizations (pre-concrete) had a similar problem if they wanted to build a tall structure, they had to make it's base at least as broad as it's height [e.g. Pyramids(cental and south american, egyptian and chinese), ziggurats, prehistoric mounds and indeed Saxon and Norman motte structures].

All had to slope inwards by necessity, and as examples of egyptian pyramids for example will show only a certain steepness of angle can be
achieved before the sides slump and collapse. therefore by trial and error most cultures found the maximum achievable angle(for the given building material) was....and most would have opted for something approaching the maximum because this would reduce base area and thus amount of material required.

The reason for round shaped monuments I'm sure is because if you're building in softer medium - i.e. not brick or stone - corners are unstable (and before anybody points out the amerindians of the mississipian culture built square earth mounds - which I'm sure someone would...lol - They built relatively low squat mounds(max height did not appear to be their aim) and even They had to give the corners very gentle radii) and the round shape gives the greatest stability.

Which brings us back to the problem of why it's so hard without excavation to be sure of the origin of so many mounds (in the British isles at least) the Ancient mound builders and the Saxon/Norman builders faced the same engineering issues in building their mounds if not the same reasons for building them. And by necessity they built in very similar ways, which ironically made it so easy for the ancient mound to be re-used by the medieval castle builders(who I'm sure assumed that the mounds-in the case of the larger ones, had been built originally for the same purpose).

but basically I believe the choice of shape was an almost purely pragmatic one.

http://www.discovernorthernireland.com/Donegore-Motte-Muckamore-Antrim-P3051

Here is another one for the list.

Fourwinds,

Did you include this in your book on Antrim?

I like to think Baal hill and Willy howe in the north Yorks Wolds are the originators of Silbury also the nearby natural hills of Blakey Topping and deffo Howden

The similarity between Silbury and Howden is astounding

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/89/howden_hill_yorkshire.html#