'Totem Pole' Theory

[John Cowie]

‘Totem Pole’ Theory

Fascinating new theory that Silbury Hill was built around a six inch diameter ‘totem pole’ or oak tree - presumably with the branches lopped off?

Is the perpendicular cavity discovered by Edward Drax more likely to have been part of the structure of a Roman or Anglo Saxon fort built at the summit of Silbury Hill as suggested by English Heritage? Or the more practical possibility that the construction was built as a military watchtower during their occupation of England? Could the six inch diameter pole be a legacy from this wooded structure? A stake pointed at one end and around six inches in diameter and approximately six feet long could have been hammered into the hill using the huge sarsen stones which can still be found on the hill but now in fragments? Another stake of similar length and diameter but without the point would then be placed on top of the initial stake and hammered down forcing the first stake further into the hill. This process repeated a few times and in at least four separate locations would provide a substantial foundation for a number of stilts raising the look-out platform to the requisite height above the summit of the hill?

Incidentally, in a recent lecture held at the Wiltshire Heritage Museum, Devizes on Saturday the 23rd January 2010 titled Silbury Hill: the Archaeology of a Monumental Mound by Jim Leary, the English Heritage archaeologist responsible for the survey on Silbury Hill in 2007/8 - there was no mention of a totem pole or oak tree found at the centre of the hill. There was also no mention of a separate excavation that found “fragments of oak within the cavity leading historians to believe that the mound was built around the pole dating from around 2,400 BC”. So, when did this separate excavation occur and where did this date come from? I doubt we have the technology today to accurately date pieces of wood to 2400BC?

Where precisely at the summit of Silbury Hill was the perpendicular cavity found? Was it off-centre? Could other similar cavities exist at the summit to support the ‘watchtower’ theory?

Drax’s intriguing letters written in 1776 certainly provides a very important input to the debate on Silbury Hill and hopefully will prompt further serious investigation!

The relevant articles can be found at:-

Long lost theory on Silbury Hill is uncovered
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/4884791.Long_lost_theory_on_Silbury_Hill_is_uncovered/
and
Letters suggest Silbury Hill 'built around totem pole'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8495004.stm

[John Cowie]

Central Point?
Letter to the editor – February 11, 2010
From Robert Hunt-Grubbe

The suggestion (Gazette & Herald, February 4, 2010) that Silbury Hill had a totem pole at its centre is fascinating.

The new evidence derived from correspondence between Lord Rivers and the excavation supervisor Edward Drax lends strong support to a theory of construction proposed by the writer of this letter following the findings of the BBC excavation of 1969 led by Professor Atkinson.

This theory was formed after considering how a consulting engineer might go about building this monument today if tasked with such a project.

The horizontal tunnel revealed something about the construction. It passed through pure chalk then through turf formed into a mound a few feet high around the centre. Around this mound was chalk which had not compacted as much as one might expect.

To the disappointment of the archaeologists little more was found. There was, however, a shallow depression in the undisturbed chalk at the centre, perhaps six inches deep and a foot square. It was too small to serve as any sort of burial chamber. If not the entrance to a tomb, what then could that small depression represent?

Silbury Hill is the largest such mound in Europe and it is a wonder how in those primitive times such a vast hill could have been built on a precise spot without losing the coordinates of the centre. Its construction was an undertaking of unparallel scale and its exact position may well have been of supreme importance. Whether or not the precise position mattered the surveyor charged with such a stupendous project will not have wanted it to go wrong. Having been told where to put it he will have marked the spot. To mark the centre position a small depression in the chalk through the turf would have served well. However, once soil started to be piled up this mark on the ground would soon have been lost under each new load of rubble and the highest point would have been liable to drift in the direction of the last wheelbarrow load.

Correcting the position of the summit would have been virtually impossible. However if the builders started with a straight vertical pole and built around it no such problem would have arisen. When the mound reached the top of the pole it would only be necessary to pull it vertically upwards and continue. With care the builders could have maintained the position of the centre within inches as the hill rose to its full 125 feet or more.

The historical record that has just emerged mentioning not only remains of wood, but also a long cavity below through which a pole might have been pulled, lends considerable support to this likely explanation.

But totem pole? Probably not.