Barrow cut through by the Romans

Silbaby 17

Image by nigelswift

Pete G Nov 14, 2006 22:20:10

In Geofrey Higgins 1826 book The Celtic Druid there is a drawing of a plan of Abiri and parts adjacent which clearly shows Silbaby with the words "Barrow cut through by the Romans.
Also,
Topographical sketches of North Wiltshire by John Britton, 1826. p306
"This shows Silbury hill was ancienter than the Roman road. The makers of the same Roman road cut through another barrow, of smaller dimensions, east of Silbury hill."
http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/community/gettextimage.php?book_no=049&chapter_no=13&page_no=0043&dir=next

Is this enough for TMA ED's to take Silbaby off the Disputed Antiquity list?
PeteG

Littlestone Nov 14, 2006 22:52:33

Replying to Pete G

In Geofrey Higgins 1826 book The Celtic Druid there is a drawing of a plan of Abiri and parts adjacent which clearly shows Silbaby with the words "Barrow cut through by the Romans.

While I'm intrigued by the idea that the Great Bank is a Silbury prototype I remain to be convinced - I'd also like to see an illustration of Higgins' drawing of 1826.

Topographical sketches of North Wiltshire by John Britton, 1826. p306 "This shows Silbury hill was ancienter than the Roman road. The makers of the same Roman road cut through another barrow, of smaller dimensions, east of Silbury hill."

The Great Bank is southwest of Silbury - John Britton must be referring to something else.

goffik Nov 15, 2006 07:13:12

Replying to Pete G

How exciting! Well found, that man!

G x

StoneLifter Nov 15, 2006 07:55:08

Replying to Pete G

You'll be lucky !

An excellent print though - I'd suggest writing a few hundred words for Antiquity and sending them the pictures. I'll probably have the largest number of disputed sites here (including this one http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/43093 ) and have just about given up on them (the eds.), really. One thing's for certain, but. The ones who post 'it's a hedgebank' or 'it's just a natural feature' are retarded (or similar).

moss Nov 15, 2006 10:26:19

Replying to Pete G

Always been sceptical about Silbaby as a barrow, but there is an argument in its favour;
Silbury itself...
"The tunnel showed that the monument began as a mound less than 40 metres in diameter, carefully composed of gravel, turves, soil and chalk, in part at least revetted by stakes. This overlay an old land surface above a subsoil of clay with flints on what had been originally a spur of middle chalk projecting into the Kennet valley" taken from Whittle - Sacred Mounds, Holy Rings..

that the primary barrow under Silbury Hill was on a "spur of middle chalk projecting into the Kennet Valley" could point as to why the maybe Silbaby barrow could also have been on a spur from Waden Hill but it is awkwardly placed at the foot of the hill, on low ground, presumably flooded at times by the Kennet. And why did the Romans "trash" it, they were a superstitious lot, burying their dead in the old bronze age barrows...

Pete G Nov 28, 2006 19:34:14

Replying to Pete G

So thats a NO then?