Secret Silbury - The Age Old Question
At the recent MARLBOROUGH MOUND TRUST 5TH ANNUAL LECTURE, in the Ellis Theatre at Marlborough College, Jim Leary gave a lecture titled 'The Marlborough Mound and the other Giants of Wessex'.
Jim, who was the chief archaeologist on the English Heritage Silbury Hill Conservation and Restoration Project in 2007/2008, reiterated his views that Silbury Hill is indeed a 4,400 year old mound.
It was built in phases that grew and grew as each basket load of material was piled on top of the previous pile, but not to any predefined architectural blueprint.
His idea endorses the conventional view for the age and construction of Silbury Hill.
The study of numerous mounds similar to Silbury Hill around the world has provided clues to an alternative theory.
Many of these mounds when unearthed show sophisticated pyramids that had been built to a specific plan.
Dating is difficult, as I will explain later, but it is believed that many of these constructions are much older than previously imagined.
So, is Silbury Hill a 4,400 year old mound, which would support the conventional date, or is it an ancient pyramid.
This pyramid theory would push its creation way back into our mysterious pre-history? Who is right? It seems the key to understanding the function and purpose of Silbury Hill lies in determining its age! In his lecture Jim Leary was unequivocal that the date for Silbury Hill was around 4,400 years.
This speculation is based on carbon dating of an antler found in the side of the hill in 1968; the dating of insects, moss and grass found in the mound in 2007; and the dating of core samples taken from a 10 centimetre diameter hole drilled vertically at the centre of nearby Marlborough Mound (Merlin's Mound) in 2011.
All methods coincidentally provide a consistent date for Silbury Hill and the Marlborough Mound of approximately 4,400 years old.
But, can we trust the current science and technology used to support this assertion? Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock.
The so called "absolute" methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens - not their age.
These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an "age" determination.
Despite its obvious appeal to archaeologists, most radiocarbon facilities date bone only rarely.
The principal reason is often poor preservation of collagen in many contexts.
Preservation of bone collagen is influenced principally by the environment within which the bone is deposited, and, specifically, by the interrelated influences of pH, microbial activity, temperature, and water.
However, these digenetic influences can be extremely variable between, and within, sites.
In general, there is a broad gradient in the preservation state of bones from those deposited in warmer, more humid environs to those recovered from archaeological contexts in colder, more temperate climes.
Over many years, it has become apparent that the characterisation of the quality of the extracted "collagen" is crucial to validate the accuracy of the obtained 14C determinations.
Several methods of achieving this have been tried but few 14C laboratories regularly apply the range of analytical measurements necessary to provide minimum assurance for submitters of bone samples (e.
g.
C to N ratios) even when the samples are of crucial importance to studies of late human evolution.
The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.
It therefore seems unlikely that modern Radio Carbon dating techniques can so accurately date the Silbury Hill antler to 4,400 years - and this is accepting the huge assumption it was used as a pick in the construction of Silbury Hill!! The same principles apply to the core samples from the Marlborough Mound.
Without going into the technical details associated with dating insects, i.
e.
, molecular clock rates, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), chitin, etc.
, similar problems apply in the dating of insects, grass and moss collected from inside Silbury Hill in 2007! According to the English Heritage archaeologists the fresh and green vegetation preserved inside the mound in an "oxygen free environment" was dated to 4,400 years.
Ii is unlikely that an oxygen free environment or vacuum exists within Silbury Hill, but anyhow on exposure to the outside elements would immediately contaminate the samples! Contamination when removing samples is a big consideration.
Josh McDowell and Don Stewart at a Yale University study yielded three different ages for an antler -- 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years.
What caused variations in the result can be explained - limestone contamination of the sample.
The 5,340 years is the carbon 14 date for the antler; the 10,320 years is the limestone contaminant; and the 9,310 years is the date for the antler and limestone combined.
The alternative theory expounded by many independent researchers including myself that suggests Silbury Hill is much older, may also prove impossible to confirm.
As much as I would like to use flint flakes dated to 12,000 years old, found in pits at the top of the first phase in the construction of Silbury Hill as a possible date stamp, but for the reasons mentioned above, there is also some incongruity when arriving at this conclusion.
Also the flint flakes may have been scooped up unintentionally from the landscape and deposited unknowingly in the centre during its construction? Interestingly, nothing was found in these pits according to Jim Leary in his recent lecture.
There seems to be so much emerging from scientists not ground in the dogma of their prior academic standards, whether archaeological, geological, etc.
Although ridicule is still a barrier, many are delving deeper, sharing, networking and laying out their findings alongside the conventional.
Big problems are arising for people trying to maintain doctrines that are not maintainable under these new measures! So, why are Jim and his fellow archaeologists keen to hold onto this date of 4,400 years? It would seem this date can be neatly shoehorned with the time line when the Stone Age slips into the Bronze Age, a period when emigration, bringing its new ideology, pottery, etc.
, was gaining momentum.
Silbury Hill and the surrounding mounds, stone circles and henges in Wiltshire are seen to be an important part in the understanding of this transition! Incidentally, during the conventional time around 4,400 years ago when Silbury Hill, Avebury, Woodhenge, Stonehenge etc.
, etc.
, were built, there are no human remains or archaeological evidence for a large population living nearby at this time that would be essential to undertake these huge projects.
Intriguing?? A similar problem exists with Egyptologists who have dated the pyramids on the Giza plateau to the same period around 4,400 years.
This enables them to verify their belief that these pyramids were built as tombs by the pharaohs.
Interesting in the Great Pyramid, they fail to mention an amazing subterranean chamber, chiselled out of the solid rock, which provided a source of water before a massive pyramid was built on top.
So, why is the belief that Silbury Hill was an ancient pyramid build around 12,000 years ago so important? We are discovering the amazing science of the pyramid with its ability to store energy via the natural flow of ions and convert this into different forms of energy.
We are also discovering hundreds of pyramids, built in our pre-history, on every continent on Earth.
If the science of pyramids was clearly understood by our ancestors, then Silbury Hill would become very important in exploring the possible existence of an intelligent race in antiquity.
Can time replace speculation with the science to provide an accurate date for the construction of Silbury Hill and solve the riddle - when and why? Was it a ceremonial mound or an ancient sophisticated pyramid? Or is there an alternative theory desperate to be revealed that solves the secret of Silbury Hill?
Jim, who was the chief archaeologist on the English Heritage Silbury Hill Conservation and Restoration Project in 2007/2008, reiterated his views that Silbury Hill is indeed a 4,400 year old mound.
It was built in phases that grew and grew as each basket load of material was piled on top of the previous pile, but not to any predefined architectural blueprint.
His idea endorses the conventional view for the age and construction of Silbury Hill.
The study of numerous mounds similar to Silbury Hill around the world has provided clues to an alternative theory.
Many of these mounds when unearthed show sophisticated pyramids that had been built to a specific plan.
Dating is difficult, as I will explain later, but it is believed that many of these constructions are much older than previously imagined.
So, is Silbury Hill a 4,400 year old mound, which would support the conventional date, or is it an ancient pyramid.
This pyramid theory would push its creation way back into our mysterious pre-history? Who is right? It seems the key to understanding the function and purpose of Silbury Hill lies in determining its age! In his lecture Jim Leary was unequivocal that the date for Silbury Hill was around 4,400 years.
This speculation is based on carbon dating of an antler found in the side of the hill in 1968; the dating of insects, moss and grass found in the mound in 2007; and the dating of core samples taken from a 10 centimetre diameter hole drilled vertically at the centre of nearby Marlborough Mound (Merlin's Mound) in 2011.
All methods coincidentally provide a consistent date for Silbury Hill and the Marlborough Mound of approximately 4,400 years old.
But, can we trust the current science and technology used to support this assertion? Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock.
The so called "absolute" methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens - not their age.
These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an "age" determination.
Despite its obvious appeal to archaeologists, most radiocarbon facilities date bone only rarely.
The principal reason is often poor preservation of collagen in many contexts.
Preservation of bone collagen is influenced principally by the environment within which the bone is deposited, and, specifically, by the interrelated influences of pH, microbial activity, temperature, and water.
However, these digenetic influences can be extremely variable between, and within, sites.
In general, there is a broad gradient in the preservation state of bones from those deposited in warmer, more humid environs to those recovered from archaeological contexts in colder, more temperate climes.
Over many years, it has become apparent that the characterisation of the quality of the extracted "collagen" is crucial to validate the accuracy of the obtained 14C determinations.
Several methods of achieving this have been tried but few 14C laboratories regularly apply the range of analytical measurements necessary to provide minimum assurance for submitters of bone samples (e.
g.
C to N ratios) even when the samples are of crucial importance to studies of late human evolution.
The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.
It therefore seems unlikely that modern Radio Carbon dating techniques can so accurately date the Silbury Hill antler to 4,400 years - and this is accepting the huge assumption it was used as a pick in the construction of Silbury Hill!! The same principles apply to the core samples from the Marlborough Mound.
Without going into the technical details associated with dating insects, i.
e.
, molecular clock rates, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), chitin, etc.
, similar problems apply in the dating of insects, grass and moss collected from inside Silbury Hill in 2007! According to the English Heritage archaeologists the fresh and green vegetation preserved inside the mound in an "oxygen free environment" was dated to 4,400 years.
Ii is unlikely that an oxygen free environment or vacuum exists within Silbury Hill, but anyhow on exposure to the outside elements would immediately contaminate the samples! Contamination when removing samples is a big consideration.
Josh McDowell and Don Stewart at a Yale University study yielded three different ages for an antler -- 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years.
What caused variations in the result can be explained - limestone contamination of the sample.
The 5,340 years is the carbon 14 date for the antler; the 10,320 years is the limestone contaminant; and the 9,310 years is the date for the antler and limestone combined.
The alternative theory expounded by many independent researchers including myself that suggests Silbury Hill is much older, may also prove impossible to confirm.
As much as I would like to use flint flakes dated to 12,000 years old, found in pits at the top of the first phase in the construction of Silbury Hill as a possible date stamp, but for the reasons mentioned above, there is also some incongruity when arriving at this conclusion.
Also the flint flakes may have been scooped up unintentionally from the landscape and deposited unknowingly in the centre during its construction? Interestingly, nothing was found in these pits according to Jim Leary in his recent lecture.
There seems to be so much emerging from scientists not ground in the dogma of their prior academic standards, whether archaeological, geological, etc.
Although ridicule is still a barrier, many are delving deeper, sharing, networking and laying out their findings alongside the conventional.
Big problems are arising for people trying to maintain doctrines that are not maintainable under these new measures! So, why are Jim and his fellow archaeologists keen to hold onto this date of 4,400 years? It would seem this date can be neatly shoehorned with the time line when the Stone Age slips into the Bronze Age, a period when emigration, bringing its new ideology, pottery, etc.
, was gaining momentum.
Silbury Hill and the surrounding mounds, stone circles and henges in Wiltshire are seen to be an important part in the understanding of this transition! Incidentally, during the conventional time around 4,400 years ago when Silbury Hill, Avebury, Woodhenge, Stonehenge etc.
, etc.
, were built, there are no human remains or archaeological evidence for a large population living nearby at this time that would be essential to undertake these huge projects.
Intriguing?? A similar problem exists with Egyptologists who have dated the pyramids on the Giza plateau to the same period around 4,400 years.
This enables them to verify their belief that these pyramids were built as tombs by the pharaohs.
Interesting in the Great Pyramid, they fail to mention an amazing subterranean chamber, chiselled out of the solid rock, which provided a source of water before a massive pyramid was built on top.
So, why is the belief that Silbury Hill was an ancient pyramid build around 12,000 years ago so important? We are discovering the amazing science of the pyramid with its ability to store energy via the natural flow of ions and convert this into different forms of energy.
We are also discovering hundreds of pyramids, built in our pre-history, on every continent on Earth.
If the science of pyramids was clearly understood by our ancestors, then Silbury Hill would become very important in exploring the possible existence of an intelligent race in antiquity.
Can time replace speculation with the science to provide an accurate date for the construction of Silbury Hill and solve the riddle - when and why? Was it a ceremonial mound or an ancient sophisticated pyramid? Or is there an alternative theory desperate to be revealed that solves the secret of Silbury Hill?
