Ancient sites: Protect or Use?

close
more_vert
Mustard M
Mustard Jun 30, 2007 13:22:55
Replying to FourWinds

FourWinds wrote:
Mustard wrote:
FourWinds wrote:
How about the berries of foreign plants? I often see strange bouquets with weird berry-bearing plants.
But then would you also cut down non-native trees? Horse chestnuts, for example?
That's probably going a bit too far doncha think. It's daft to try and change what's happened in the past, but that doesn't mean you should perpetuate the problem in the future.
I'm not suggesting we should do it - just illustrating a point. It seems a little disproportionate to be worrying about a few berries when sites are often surrounded by non-native flora and fauna. It also seems to me that the erosion caused by our collective visits must surely perpetrate far more damage than the depositing of a seed or two? Again, just trying to explore the issue....

F FourWinds
FourWinds Jun 30, 2007 13:51:52
Replying to Mustard

It's amazing what a berry on a stone can do if it gets in a crack ... http://www.megalithomania.com/show/image/2103

The main problem with trying to revert sites to 'how they were' is knowing how far back to go. I think it was Josh Pollard, when asked if Avebury should be restored, said "When to? The Mesolithic?" or something similar.

Monuments are as monuments are. A great many need tidying up and maintaining. A few could benefit from clearing trees etc - Wayand's Smithy to name the first big UK example that springs to mind.

The last thing we need, though, are more Newgranges. All I'm saying is we don't have to make anything worse. Countering that with - "what about all the trees that are there already and shouldn't be", is pointless. The issues are totally separate. One is done. The other can be stopped.