close
more_vert

East Kennett has some dead trees on it... http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/43446, which I have just put on, will take it off later.
As a tree lover and barrows as well, I would not like to see E/K denuded of its natural cover, which I feel does not do too much damage - how many trees have lived and died on it in the last 4000 years?..
everyone wanting to restore, where will it all end? have you ever looked at the abbeys and castles "restored" with suburban lawns, no picturesque 19th C prints for a start ;)

I know of a few chambered sites that have been mucked about to buggery by tree root growth.

no the trees don't last 5,000 years but along with their decendents they do a fairly healthy job of dislodging and damaging over the same period.

>...I would not like to see E/K denuded of its natural cover, which I feel does not do too much damage...<

Trouble is moss that we don't know how much damage <i>is</i> being done (though it's almost certain that some damage has taken place) and I find even 'some' damage due to the tree cover unacceptable.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'd like to see EKLB cleared of trees and excavated - my reasons for that are a) that controlled clearing of the trees would help prevent further damage to the barrow and b) that an excavation of the barrow would almost certainly lead to a better understanding of the structure and probably of the people who built it.

I realise that the excavation of EKLB is not popular with everyone and some of the reasons given in the past are that it involves the loss of a mystery, that East Kennet will end up like West Kennet, or that we should wait until better techniques have been developed. I respect those reasons but, as I said above, if we had applied them to Sutton Hoo we would not now know what we do know about the early English period.