Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pyramid in Britain - Silbury Pyramid 2700 BC
11-20-2013, 07:03 PM
Post: #1
Pyramid in Britain - Silbury Pyramid 2700 BC
Pyramid in Britain - Silbury Pyramid 2700 BC

Many Whites don't know that the first Pyramid was built in Celtic Britain, a few decades before the first Egyptian pyramid.

[Image: newbabanner.jpg]


http://www.whiteheritage.org/showthread.php?tid=18&pid=206&mode=threaded
from BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY January/February 2005

Inside the hill

Amanda Chadburn, Fachtna McAvoy and Gill Campbell describe the archaeology of Silbury Hill.

British Archaeology: http://whiteheritage.org/usercp2.php?action=addsubscription&tid=82&my_post_key=f26656e293d81a40cc2df383de669538

Silbury I

The original Silbury consisted of a low mound and capping (people had been there already: archive photos show a small pit dug before the hill was built). First a layer of Valley Gravels mixed with chalk and soil was piled to a height of c 60cm. The layers absence in one core shows it is unlikely to have been circular. Turf was then stacked towards the outer edge (s) to the same height; again extent and form are unknown. These deposits were covered by soil and turf mixed with plants and bushes, raising the mound to c 1.8m. This mixed material may have come from the truncation of the original\par
land surface seen in four of the cores.

Small boulders of sarsen (local sandstone) may have marked this mound, and evidence for wooden stakes was found - though what purpose they served is not known.

This was all capped with alternating and sharply defined layers of clay/soil, chalk, clay/soil and chalk to bring the mound to around 5.25-5.5m high and 34-36m across.

Atkinson recovered a wealth of biological remains from the turf stack and from the pre-mound surface, including insects, land snails, pollen, seeds, moss and other plants, which survived because oxygen was excluded. The mound's huge weight compressed and protected the deposits from temperature change and moisture loss. There is also an unknown degree of iron pan formation, which must affect gaseous exchange within the mound.

The biological remains show Silbury I was built on mature chalk grassland containing plants such as salad burnet, small scabious, bird's foot trefoil and meadow buttercup, with very little woodland in the area. Dung beetles indicate numbers of livestock comparable to the present.

Mature chalk grassland, a habitat that requires carefully managed grazing, stands in sharp contrast to the mosaic of woodland and clearings known from other monuments across Neolithic England.

The new cores show biological remains are also preserved in the capping layers. There has been no deterioration since Atkinson\rquote s work, good news for the long term future of this unique Neolithic archaeology.

Silbury II
Atkinson found a large pit beneath Silbury c 36m out from the edge of the first mound, probably a quarry for what he termed Silbury II, and two dumpsof redeposited subsoil (see diagram). The inner of these, he proposed, was from the initial excavation of the buried Silbury II ditch, and the outer material from the Silbury III ditch laid against the edge of Silbury II - giving that mound a base diameter of c 75m.

At the centre of the hill, in the 1776 shaft and a core close by we recorded a distinct layer of crushed chalk c 10.3m from the summit. If this is the top of the Silbury II mound, it would have been around 20m high.

However, Atkinson recorded crushed chalk above the inner dump. Its detailed description is so similar to what we interpret as the top of Silbury II, that this may also be the surface of an earlier mound, with a base diameter of c 46m. We suggest - very cautiously - that there were four stages of mound construction (see diagram). A more complex sequence inside the mound is supported by new analysis of the ditch system.

Silbury III
This is essentially the mound we see today made of chalk from the outer ditches and terracing of the adjacent slopes. Atkinson thought it was formed in tiers or horizontal steps, of which only the upper two are recognisable today. Each step would have been built with concentric and radial chalk walls to create a network of cells infilled with chalk rubble to provide structural stability.

A rough chalk wall revealed in the excavations on the summit in 2001 seems different from those recorded in 1969-70. The interpretation of all these features needs to be re-considered.

Surface story
In 2001 Dave Field and English Heritage colleagues conducted the most detailed survey and archive study yet made of Silbury Hill.

Silbury is covered with scars, many the result of archaeological and antiquarian excavations. Beside the tunnels, smaller\par
excavations near the base of the mound were opened by a distinguished team including John Lubbock and William Cunnington in 1867, and in 1922 by Egyptologist Flinders Petrie. Alfred Pass dug ten shafts in the ditch to the west and north of the mound in 1886.

Some scars, such as a ramp towards the summit in the south-west, were perhaps cut by the 1776 miners. Others, such as the remnant of a ring of trees around the summit, may be signs of 18th century landscape design. Some may indicate transient activities: 18th century newspapers reported festivals there with wrestling, bull-baiting and eight-a-side\par
football, attracting 6,000 people.

[Image: IMAG017.JPG]


Most distinctive are the steps in the slope close to the summit. Atkinson likened them to wedding cake tiers. On perambulation during survey, however, it quickly became clear that the ledge spirals downwards. Breaks of slope indicate similar, silted ledges further down. Atkinson's trenches across the upper ledges make it clear that they had been revetted by posts with iron nails; a coin and pottery suggested a date soon after 1010 AD, and Atkinson believed the mound had been fortified against the Danes.

He wrote to the landowner implying that he had also encountered an Early Medieval ditch on one of the lower breaks of slope on the northern face. It is unclear whether these ledges were entirely Medieval, or a reshaped older feature. A spiral step would help get materials to the summit, and spirals are part of Neolithic iconography.

Over 10,000 survey points on the mound alone allowed us to plot detailed contours. This emphasised that the structure is not in fact circular, but built in straight segments that may indicate radial walls or buttresses.

[Image: cover80.jpg]


British Archaeology: http://whiteheritage.org/usercp2.php?action=addsubscription&tid=82&my_post_key=f26656e293d81a40cc2df383de669538
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-15-2014, 05:44 PM
Post: #2
RE: Pyramid in Britain - Silbury Pyramid 2700 BC
Amazing how silent the JewMedia is on this subject. They don't want White Britons feeling Pride.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-22-2014, 10:43 PM
Post: #3
RE: Pyramid in Britain - Silbury Pyramid 2700 BC
Makes me proud to be an an Anglo. We were the first to have pyramid technology and we then sailed to other parts of the world and showed the primitive nut-brown races how it is done.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-20-2014, 09:25 PM
Post: #4
RE: Pyramid in Britain - Silbury Pyramid 2700 BC
(11-20-2013 07:03 PM)Spirit of 1776 Wrote:  Pyramid in Britain - Silbury Pyramid 2700 BC

Many Whites don't know that the first Pyramid was built in Celtic Britain, a few decades before the first Egyptian pyramid.

[Image: newbabanner.jpg]


http://www.whiteheritage.org/showthread.php?tid=18&pid=206&mode=threaded
from BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY January/February 2005

Inside the hill

Amanda Chadburn, Fachtna McAvoy and Gill Campbell describe the archaeology of Silbury Hill.

British Archaeology: http://whiteheritage.org/usercp2.php?action=addsubscription&tid=82&my_post_key=f26656e293d81a40cc2df383de669538

Silbury I

The original Silbury consisted of a low mound and capping (people had been there already: archive photos show a small pit dug before the hill was built). First a layer of Valley Gravels mixed with chalk and soil was piled to a height of c 60cm. The layers absence in one core shows it is unlikely to have been circular. Turf was then stacked towards the outer edge (s) to the same height; again extent and form are unknown. These deposits were covered by soil and turf mixed with plants and bushes, raising the mound to c 1.8m. This mixed material may have come from the truncation of the original\par
land surface seen in four of the cores.

Small boulders of sarsen (local sandstone) may have marked this mound, and evidence for wooden stakes was found - though what purpose they served is not known.

This was all capped with alternating and sharply defined layers of clay/soil, chalk, clay/soil and chalk to bring the mound to around 5.25-5.5m high and 34-36m across.

Atkinson recovered a wealth of biological remains from the turf stack and from the pre-mound surface, including insects, land snails, pollen, seeds, moss and other plants, which survived because oxygen was excluded. The mound's huge weight compressed and protected the deposits from temperature change and moisture loss. There is also an unknown degree of iron pan formation, which must affect gaseous exchange within the mound.

The biological remains show Silbury I was built on mature chalk grassland containing plants such as salad burnet, small scabious, bird's foot trefoil and meadow buttercup, with very little woodland in the area. Dung beetles indicate numbers of livestock comparable to the present.

Mature chalk grassland, a habitat that requires carefully managed grazing, stands in sharp contrast to the mosaic of woodland and clearings known from other monuments across Neolithic England.

The new cores show biological remains are also preserved in the capping layers. There has been no deterioration since Atkinson\rquote s work, good news for the long term future of this unique Neolithic archaeology.

Silbury II
Atkinson found a large pit beneath Silbury c 36m out from the edge of the first mound, probably a quarry for what he termed Silbury II, and two dumpsof redeposited subsoil (see diagram). The inner of these, he proposed, was from the initial excavation of the buried Silbury II ditch, and the outer material from the Silbury III ditch laid against the edge of Silbury II - giving that mound a base diameter of c 75m.

At the centre of the hill, in the 1776 shaft and a core close by we recorded a distinct layer of crushed chalk c 10.3m from the summit. If this is the top of the Silbury II mound, it would have been around 20m high.

However, Atkinson recorded crushed chalk above the inner dump. Its detailed description is so similar to what we interpret as the top of Silbury II, that this may also be the surface of an earlier mound, with a base diameter of c 46m. We suggest - very cautiously - that there were four stages of mound construction (see diagram). A more complex sequence inside the mound is supported by new analysis of the ditch system.

Silbury III
This is essentially the mound we see today made of chalk from the outer ditches and terracing of the adjacent slopes. Atkinson thought it was formed in tiers or horizontal steps, of which only the upper two are recognisable today. Each step would have been built with concentric and radial chalk walls to create a network of cells infilled with chalk rubble to provide structural stability.

A rough chalk wall revealed in the excavations on the summit in 2001 seems different from those recorded in 1969-70. The interpretation of all these features needs to be re-considered.

Surface story
In 2001 Dave Field and English Heritage colleagues conducted the most detailed survey and archive study yet made of Silbury Hill.

Silbury is covered with scars, many the result of archaeological and antiquarian excavations. Beside the tunnels, smaller\par
excavations near the base of the mound were opened by a distinguished team including John Lubbock and William Cunnington in 1867, and in 1922 by Egyptologist Flinders Petrie. Alfred Pass dug ten shafts in the ditch to the west and north of the mound in 1886.

Some scars, such as a ramp towards the summit in the south-west, were perhaps cut by the 1776 miners. Others, such as the remnant of a ring of trees around the summit, may be signs of 18th century landscape design. Some may indicate transient activities: 18th century newspapers reported festivals there with wrestling, bull-baiting and eight-a-side\par
football, attracting 6,000 people.

[Image: IMAG017.JPG]


Most distinctive are the steps in the slope close to the summit. Atkinson likened them to wedding cake tiers. On perambulation during survey, however, it quickly became clear that the ledge spirals downwards. Breaks of slope indicate similar, silted ledges further down. Atkinson's trenches across the upper ledges make it clear that they had been revetted by posts with iron nails; a coin and pottery suggested a date soon after 1010 AD, and Atkinson believed the mound had been fortified against the Danes.

He wrote to the landowner implying that he had also encountered an Early Medieval ditch on one of the lower breaks of slope on the northern face. It is unclear whether these ledges were entirely Medieval, or a reshaped older feature. A spiral step would help get materials to the summit, and spirals are part of Neolithic iconography.

Over 10,000 survey points on the mound alone allowed us to plot detailed contours. This emphasised that the structure is not in fact circular, but built in straight segments that may indicate radial walls or buttresses.

[Image: cover80.jpg]


British Archaeology: http://whiteheritage.org/usercp2.php?action=addsubscription&tid=82&my_post_key=f26656e293d81a40cc2df383de669538

Interesting that according to British Archaeology that the structure had walls, and thus was not a "mound" as the Jew supremacists keep trying to say in an attempt to deny our Druid architectural power.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)