Silbaby

26/10/2010

I finally had the pleasure of helping two professional archaeologists take core samples at Silbaby hill today.
The cores were remarkably similar to those taken at Silbury and show the hill to be man made and old.
The mound will be now known as Waden Mound for official purposes as the archaeo's doing the work cannot write Silbaby into a report without giggling.

More news coming soon....
Pete

PeteG wrote:26/10/2010

I finally had the pleasure of helping two professional archaeologists take core samples at Silbaby hill today.
The cores were remarkably similar to those taken at Silbury and show the hill to be man made and old.
The mound will be now known as Waden Mound for official purposes as the archaeo's doing the work cannot write Silbaby into a report without giggling.

More news coming soon....
Pete

Hi Grandad!

Thanks for the news Pete.
About time it got some attention.
Do you think it was a demo mound before they built Silbury?

Mikki x

I'm beginning to think that Silbury and Silbaby were built at the same time or one after the other.
If you imagine taking away the tree's and the road how different would the landscape look than the way we see it now?

Pete

PeteG wrote:I'm beginning to think that Silbury and Silbaby were built at the same time or one after the other.
If you imagine taking away the tree's and the road how different would the landscape look than the way we see it now?

Pete

Am I right in thinking, if you stand on top of Silbaby (Waden Mound) you can se Silbury?

It's over a year since we were down there and I think my memory is going.

BTW - Congratulations to all

Mikki x

if the tree's were not there then yes, deffo!

Thanks for the kind words, we have a very excited family tonight!
X
Pete

PeteG wrote:if the tree's were not there then yes, deffo!

Thanks for the kind words, we have a very excited family tonight!
X
Pete

What was the Archaeo's inital response at the core samples? where they dubious or excited?

I'm really excited now and want to know everything

Typical female thing

Mikki x

the archaeo's are excited as the cores were very similar to those taken at Silbury.
The cores showed banding of earth and chalk with vegetable matter and charcoal.
More work will be carried out on this as it has huge implications if it is contemporary.
Something all the visiting archaeo's voiced was "How has this gone un-noticed for so long?"
The answer is that it becomes invisible in the undergrowth during the summer.

Phew, What a day! A baby Silbury and two grand children!
Hat Trick!
Pete

PeteG wrote:the archaeo's are excited as the cores were very similar to those taken at Silbury.
The cores showed banding of earth and chalk with vegetable matter and charcoal.
More work will be carried out on this as it has huge implications if it is contemporary.
Something all the visiting archaeo's voiced was "How has this gone un-noticed for so long?"
The answer is that it becomes invisible in the undergrowth during the summer.

Phew, What a day! A baby Silbury and two grand children!
Hat Trick!
Pete

It all sound really positive Pete.
This is relly great news after all the (This site is of disputed antiquity) sceptics.

What a day you have had. You'll be partying for the rest of the night.

Congratulations to all concerned.

Mikki x

Congratulations.
On both happenings.

I have dowsed your Waden hill, not easy with that road, but the most interesting aspect is it's relationship to the two side chambers of WKLB that are facing the hill as such.
The flow that goes into the rear of WKLB comes from the silbury hill direction.
the flows if the hills were not there would EARTH where the hills are.
imho the hills will have been progressively enlarged as the flows progressively waned.
this is a cyclic variable system, thus there will have been the need over centuries to increase the resistance offered to the flows otherwise they would not have reached WKLB , which is designed for them to EARTH in the chambers.
There are two further flows coming into the other side chambers which come from a southerly direction, i have not followed them yet.

You could say that silbaby is a twin hill.

The flows enter into Avebury complex and co-join near the cove, I think there should be another stone there where they meet?
cropredy

Hi Pete!

PeteG wrote:26/10/2010

I finally had the pleasure of helping two professional archaeologists take core samples at Silbaby hill today. The cores were remarkably similar to those taken at Silbury and show the hill to be man made and old.

Damn good to hear Pete! I know when you took us there, it was obvious the hill - much prefer its Waden Mound title - was man-made and it's good they're looking at it now. For worrits worth I'd hazard that the if the Waden Mound is prehistoric, it was built before Silbury Hill. However, that "pond" feature at its base is odd and looked decidely medieval: any news on that?

PeteG wrote:More news coming soon....

Look forward to it Pete (you old grandad! )

All the best mate - Paul

mikki wrote:...This is relly great news after all the ("This site is of disputed antiquity") sceptics.

That'd be the TMA eds again, yeah? They're uneducated dickheads them people: classifying some sites with prehistoric affiliations as "disputed", and some that aren't prehistoric as being OK.

Hi Pete - or Fachtna - or helpful southern-dood!

Just a geographical query for the sake of reference: which township/village is the Waden Mound in? Izzit West Kennett?

Ah! Er! Now! I Think it's west Kennett.

PeteG wrote:I'm beginning to think that Silbury and Silbaby were built at the same time or one after the other.
If you imagine taking away the tree's and the road how different would the landscape look than the way we see it now?

Pete

I was thinking much the same, so had a look at the Old Maps website. The earliest map they list which clearly shows the area is 1886-7 and shows a small range of buildings in a small enclosure to the west of the site, with a well marked to the immediate south of the buildings. The river Kennet is shown, and seems to extend flow past the site and off to the south-east, but has an extension west along what would seem to be the southern boundary of the mound. The key thing to note here is that the Waden Mound is NOT shown in any way or form, but the road cutting nearby is shown (therefore the map-makers could and did show steeply sloping ground were it present).

The 1900 map is broadly similar, except for corrections of about 20' upwards on all the spot-heights.

From then on including the 1961 map, everything looks pretty much the same on the maps, and absolutely NO mound is shown.

The earliest time I can see the steep ground associated with the Silbaby mound is 1978; on this map the road cutting appears much larger as well, and the buildings on the west of the site disappear to be covered by the western edge of the dumped mound material.

My working hypothesis at present is thoroughly depressing: I think Silbaby is nothing more than the debris dump from an episode of road widening, dumped willy-nilly in no particular order. I don't think it is any older than 1960 at the earliest, and is possibly as young as the mid 1970s. This does not mean that there is nothing there; certainly in such a water-poor area as this the Waden Spring is worthy of further investigation, but I am highly dubious about the antiquity of the Silbaby mound.

DrDan wrote:

PeteG wrote:I'm beginning to think that Silbury and Silbaby were built at the same time or one after the other.
If you imagine taking away the tree's and the road how different would the landscape look than the way we see it now?

Pete

I was thinking much the same, so had a look at the Old Maps website. The earliest map they list which clearly shows the area is 1886-7 and shows a small range of buildings in a small enclosure to the west of the site, with a well marked to the immediate south of the buildings. The river Kennet is shown, and seems to extend flow past the site and off to the south-east, but has an extension west along what would seem to be the southern boundary of the mound. The key thing to note here is that the Waden Mound is NOT shown in any way or form, but the road cutting nearby is shown (therefore the map-makers could and did show steeply sloping ground were it present).

The 1900 map is broadly similar, except for corrections of about 20' upwards on all the spot-heights.

From then on including the 1961 map, everything looks pretty much the same on the maps, and absolutely NO mound is shown.

The earliest time I can see the steep ground associated with the Silbaby mound is 1978; on this map the road cutting appears much larger as well, and the buildings on the west of the site disappear to be covered by the western edge of the dumped mound material.

My working hypothesis at present is thoroughly depressing: I think Silbaby is nothing more than the debris dump from an episode of road widening, dumped willy-nilly in no particular order. I don't think it is any older than 1960 at the earliest, and is possibly as young as the mid 1970s. This does not mean that there is nothing there; certainly in such a water-poor area as this the Waden Spring is worthy of further investigation, but I am highly dubious about the antiquity of the Silbaby mound.

Ahem. !!!

hello DrDan,
things have moved on a great deal since the old days of TMA (I'm surprised people still post there!)
English Heritage thought it interesting enough to take Core samples in October 2010 and the team discovered they were very similar to those taken at Silbury.
They were interested enough to go back and take a large Core from the top of the mound to the centre.
We are currently awaiting definite dates, but the experts think it is neolithic.
cheers,
Pete
Ps. John Britton made a map that says "Mound cut through by the Roman rd" so it was there at the times the Romans came along.

another thing, local research has revealed the building was a house named Mount Pleasant.
Pete