Midsummer Hill forum 1 room
Image by MelMel
close
more_vert

Thanks for the tip on Wapley, I will try to get over there.

Indeed it was the Crippets longbarrow near Cheltenham which I had in mind when I mentioned trees on barrows and the backwards "conservation" they provide. The longbarrow is covered in Scots pines and has survived pretty well, apart from losing one end to a have-a-go treasure seeker. A few yards away in the same field is a round barrow which is reduced to little more than a circular shadow - you can only see it at certain times of the year and if you really know where to look. Take away the protection of tree cover and it's "whoops, I wasn't looking where I was going with that seed drill".

I don't know why they used to plant stands of trees on barrows - it seems like a daft idea now. But I agree that if they are there, it's better to leave them. The root damage is already done and trying to remove them is only likely to make things worse - not just from mechanical damage but the changes in moisture levels in the soil, erosion etc.

Not that any of this is necessarily relevant to what's happening on Midsummer Hill. But possibly there is an argument for leaving the trees alone, since they are there - whether they should have been allowed to grow there in the first place or not.

Another theory that was mooted for the planting of trees on barrows and the like was to "defeminise" them to prevent them looking like lewd iconography....Seriously you'd have to be pretty frustrated to get find such bumps in the ground as sexual turn-ons...but hey each to his (or her) own. I was told by an archaeologist in this area that the accepted theory was nothing more than asthetics. Another wild idea (wilder than my idea that they were the progeny of grave goods...) is that the trees were planted as a tribute to (Christian) god to take away or disguise the "paganism" of the sites. Maybe not so far fetched as it was taught that anyone without religion (at least the religion of the day) was a savage and wouldn't have had the mental capacity and logical wherewithal to venerate their dead or whatever sites were built to venerate.

When I was at horticultural/agricultural college. I was taught that trees are in balance. What you see above ground is equaled by roots below. Obviously that doesn't mean it has the same 'shape or make up' but it does have the same amount of material. The roots are taking up a lot of 'ground space' They compact the soil, heave it up, remove nutrients and water. Should the roots come upon a void they will fill it up and then exert internal pressure on the walls of the void. I have see 'land drains' smashed by tree roots.. And when you concider that only 50% of the roots are inside the canopy 'drip line' the range at which roots can create damage is quite extensive. If trees are left to do their 'own thing' on a monument. it would seem very likely that they would eventually destroy it..

It doesn't take long for grassland to become a Forrest when left to it's own devices. 50 years or so if conditions are right. This can be plainly seen on some of our 'motorway' embankments and fringes. when they stop maintaining them in the late 60's the process began and now there are some pretty impressive trees and woods growing along these routes and in some cases woodland wild life corridors many, many, many miles long.