Ancient sites: Protect or Use?

close
more_vert
FourWinds F
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.

M Mustard
Mustard Jun 30, 2007 14:44:19
Replying to FourWinds

FourWinds wrote:
It's amazing what a berry on a stone can do if it gets in a crack ...
You're never going to be able to protect sites from the ravages of nature though. Surely we'll end up encasing them in glass domes if that's the route we choose to follow? I do appreciate your point, but I feel that there's a very difficult line to tread between conservation and continuing use, and I'm really not sure where that line should be drawn. Should we prevent all access to monuments? What if we carry in a seed between the tread on our shoes that then grows to become a tree the roots of which undermine a stone? How do we determine what constitutes reasonable risk?