The problem of unauthorised climbing of Silbury persists. In January Avebury Parish Council noted that “The fence around Silbury Hill had broken down and there was no warning sign ‘do not climb’” and in March the Chairman reported he had attended a meeting there with English Heritage staff and that a decision had been made to mend the fence around the base of the Hill, improve signage and place dead blackthorn branches in selected places to deter access. (It had been put to them that hawthorn hedging could be planted to make access more difficult but EH staff on site were concerned this would give cover for burrowing animals such as rabbits.) As can be seen from our photograph taken last weekend neither fences nor signs nor anything else seem to deter some people.
EH had also noted that “the grass surface of the Hill had recovered remarkably rapidly due to the track to the north side of the monument currently being under water.” However, that’s no great comfort as the water will soon be gone and in any case the issue is not damage to the grass but to the surface of the hill, which will never recover. In addition, as can be seen at the top left of our photograph, yet another new footpath has been formed, leading straight up to the summit.
If anyone has any ideas how to discourage those who do this we’d be glad to publish them. We can’t help thinking the key is in the wording on the notices. The two young fellows on the photograph were being watched by four girls they arrived with and it’s possible there is very often an element of “showing off” involved so our own suggestion for the wording would be this…..
The Heritage Journal 
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
13/04/2013 at 10:32
Tim Winter
It’s a shame that the repugnant English Heritage signs, and flags too, aren’t literally invisible in Cornwall. It would remove a lot of dissatisfaction with the way the historical environment in Cornwall is managed.
13/04/2013 at 11:07
Keith Macdonald
The grass-covering may be the current state of the hill, but that is only because of thousands of years of poor maintenance! The original Silbury Hill hardly had a blade of grass in sight.
I can’t work out how to include an image in a comment, so if you look on this page http://www.the-sanctuary.biz/Megaliths.aspx you can see a good image of a reconstruction of the original stepped polygonal shape, of pure white chalk.
Of course, restoring Silbury Hill to its original glory would be far too radical an idea to EH. Keeping the sheeple off and leaving the hill in “splendid isolation” is probably the limit of their limited thinking.
13/04/2013 at 11:33
Jan
So the English flag is repugnant in Cornwall? With regard to signage, if idiots aren’t told that the land is special, it woud soon go the way of all else; abused and littered. If it makes a few stop and think, then it’s a good thing. For the rest, we can only hope that evolution will halt their future presence….
13/04/2013 at 11:35
heritageaction
The original Silbury Hill hardly had a blade of grass in sight.
I don’t think there is clear evidence that that was true beyond the first few months, or meant to be, so it follows there’s no clear justification for saying there have been “thousands of years of poor maintenance”.
Had it been left with exposed chalk all this time it would certainly have deteriorated far more than it has (and it would be even more vital for people to stay off it).
Not sure why you think protecting it from damage is “limited thinking”. What more is needed?
13/04/2013 at 12:32
Keith Macdonald
What evidence is there that there has been any maintenance since Roman times (at least)? There’s two thousand years for starters.
13/04/2013 at 12:39
Keith Macdonald
Granted that filling the holes with polystyrene blocks counts as some kind of maintenance. By all means let’s protect the hill from further damage. That’s probably a good role for EH as protectors of orthodoxy.
13/04/2013 at 13:53
heritageaction
“What evidence is there that there has been any maintenance”….
I wasn’t saying there had been, merely that your claim there has been thousands of years of bad maintenance was based on an assertion (that it should have no grass) which is without evidence.
“Protectors of orthodoxy” is a good role when “no grass” is being proposed as the way it should be managed!
13/04/2013 at 18:34
Janet Kersey
My answer I am sure would not be a popular one BUT please consider – man has always leant towards EXPERIENCING first-hand both sacred sites and high places, rather than just ‘viewing’ things from an outside distance. We tend to want/need to go inside them (West Kennett and other barrows, Penwith quoits and fogous etc), perambulate around them (most of the stone circles, rows and henges), climb them (Glastonbury Tor, Roche Rock, Maiden Castle)…would not the best answer be for a programme, admittedly difficult and probably costly but surely worthwhile in the longterm, that secured the hill enough for people to actually do what they probably did in ancient times and so obviously want to do instinctively now – to freely walk up and stand upon the hill in deepest respect and reverence, perhaps up one or two designated pathways. In other words, go WITH the flow, the natural inner inclinations, the practices of millenia, rather than against…I may be wrong here? but I vaguely remember that the top only caved in after EH placed heavy corrugated sheets there – though if it WERE due to man’s visitation instead, it is not beyond the bounds of modern man to secure the structure to be strong enough to endure for the purpose I propose (remembering also that past excavation took the hill virtually to pieces in the past, so it is not completely ‘virgin’ and sacrosanct against any disturbance whatsoever). Nobody could be more respecting and even loving of sacred sites than I, but I truly feel this is the only way forward with this important place, whereby no other monument in its complex is barred to the visitor for the same reason. Be bold EH and show some courage and broader thinking here!
13/04/2013 at 18:56
heritageaction
Some interesting points, but two difficult issues still remain –
First, it is said that damage is caused to the archaeology by people climbing the hill so if that is true it is hard to see how English Heritage can support it, given their statutory duty to protect.
Second, even if the main pathway was strengthened and people were invited to use it there would remain many who have less respect for the monument and would continue to damage it by using “unofficial” routes. In fact they might do so even more if access was no longer discouraged.
It’s quite a problem!
14/04/2013 at 15:35
Janet Kersey
It is true that if damage were caused to the archaeology from people climbing it, then it would be a huge problem – but is this actually the case? (‘it is said’ – by whom? and why?) What is the concrete evidence of real damage to its structure/formation? and how much and in what way? and how do other monuments and sites, with full accessibility, cope with and manage erosion through human usage? I honestly don’t think this problem needs to be beyond deep questioning and truthful, broad and comprehensive analysis of all the factors leading to the best solution for all concerned.
And it is of course also true that there will always be people disrespectful of places, old or new, sacred or profane, but do we therefore throw the baby out with the bathwater and prevent the majority of thoughtful people from enjoying and understanding, through direct experience, a site as so obviously majestic, central and important as Silbury is, and so at the heart of the Avebury temple complex and the surrounding landscape (no doubt realised so much better from its summit)? What is the evidence, if any, from other sites whereby people significantly damage it when an ‘official’ way is provided? If so, what have been the ways round that to avoid complete inaccessibility?
I am not sure EH is renowned for thinking laterally, sensibly, practically, creatively and sensitively, and with the best use of their not inconsiderable resources, financial and advisory, all at the same time! and I mean not just towards the land and its sites but to all the people of this land for whom it is paid to protect, manage and make as accessible as possible so many special sites. And yet, custodianship of and power over so much of our especially sacred landscape brings with it immense responsibility that demands of an organisation given this authority an awful lot of deep and comprehensive consideration of all factors, people and needs involved. Putting up fences, use of concrete, sandbags and other quick-fix ‘solutions’ are no answer (I am still waiting after over 25 years for the incongruous grille that replaced sandbags to be removed from the Chysauster fogou entrance in west Cornwall…!) I hope it can perhaps not over-react in a literally defensive way with Silbury and its apparent issues (‘imprisoning’ its access to all but the selected few ie. archaeologists and assorted EH officials, somehow assuming the ordinary man has no ability to both comprehend and respect such places) and truly learn to understand what its role needs to be for all, and not just at Silbury of course.
Let us have a fresh perspective on how to manage and maintain this site and set a better example for the years to come at all sites. I wonder if there is anyone from EH out there willing and able to take up this baton, to seriously consider such a suggestion and to find a better way forward.
17/05/2013 at 18:04
Archer
The only way I could think of would be to have a raised wooden access route, a kind of stair, that would be above the ground itself. However, problem is, people would doubtless get off it and go different routes anyway.
I actually shudder at the idea of free accesss. I guess some people have a better view of their fellow man that I do, but I have been to hundreds if not thousands of ancient sites, and the ones where people have been allowed to do as they like are, sadly, often dumping grounds for rubbish, graffitied, damaged (quad bikes etc) eroded, or, worst of all in my mind, show evidence of fires.
Just seeing the chaos at solstice at Stonehenge each year is devastating in itself–the place reeks of fags and p*ss and people have been known to defecate in the circle itself. Yes, really.
Silbury is unique in Europe, and sorry, no, I don’t think we all have right to erode/damage it just for whatever we personally want to get out of it, be that spiritual meaning, knowledge or just a scenic day out.
18/05/2013 at 08:12
Brian
All the above is very interesting. Regarding the wooden staircase, it was suggested and dismissed way back but of course did eventually appear in the henge. As regards other points above: Silbury Hill is privately owned, by Lord Avebury, EH hold it in guardianship, and it was closed to the public in 1974 under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act because the opening of the M4 combined with a surge of interest in the wake of Atkinson’s televised dig and then ‘Dr Who and the Daemons’ (based on the Atkinson dig and filmed locally). It should also be noted that the site has SSSI status having been recorded over 150 years ago due to offering a unique 360 degree research base. Maintenance is a matter of interpretation: Drax digging a path and backfilling his shaft in 1776, the fencing off of the site under the Enclosures Act 1795, repairs made by Blandford in 1849, or not being contemporary the filling in of Blandford’s 1849 tunnel entrance in 1923? More clearly the agreement between the Ministry of Works and the landlord of the Red Lion in the same period – to keep the rabbits down and maintain the cover – this resulted at some point in an annual burning of the grass, last instigated it seems by Mr Greenaway in 1938. Other examples would be a rabbit proof fence and other measures installed in 1934 & 1936, chicken wire laid over large sections of the summit to prevent animal damage in the 1960s, then the importation of chalk to repair the historic path and a shortcut bridging a south west route to the summit (that had appeared when the historic path started to break down). As for the amount of damage caused by climbing, despite incursions by archaeologists in recent centuries Silbury is still something like 90+% original prehistoric archaeology and climbers are wearing ruts through the outer layers. Also, climbing begets climbing, so the more paths are seen the more people are tempted to climb and the more is worn away. It is impossible to stop without an even more hideous fence it had been argued, but EH has indeed come up with a new strategy.