Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 8:57:18 GMT -1
Hello, The arrival of the Beech in southern England about 500 BC (date to be checked) is the subject of some controversy. One leading authority writing readable books on trees is Oliver Rackham. More later. I do Spotting & Jotting (sometimes called Biological Recording) when I am out in the countryside. I am not so good at trees though. Or fungi and bird songs for that matter. Cheers Andy Horton glaucus@hotmail.com Adur Valley Nature Notes www.glaucus.org.uk/Adur2009.html www.glaucus.org.uk/Adur2008.html Adur Valley Nature Notes: February 2009 www.glaucus.org.uk/Feb2009.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2009 0:30:29 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Feb 20, 2009 9:03:03 GMT -1
The arrival of the Beech in southern England about 500 BC (date to be checked) is the subject of some controversy. Beech was the last 'tree' to make it across the land bridge from the continent before the English Channel formed. The lastest evidence now places the arrival of beech as far back as 6000BC (mesolithic) - in parts of sussex it represented 2% of the pollen produced in that area at the time. (And although a wind pollinated tree Beech produces substantially less pollen than most other trees - so 2% of pollen meant a lot of Beech) But only useful if read, digested and retained. He writes much about beech - and although he's a woodland historian rather than a biologist his view is generally very valuable
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Feb 20, 2009 10:08:35 GMT -1
The arrival of the Beech in southern England about 500 BC (date to be checked) is the subject of some controversy. Beech was the last 'tree' to make it across the land bridge from the continent before the English Channel formed. The lastest evidence now places the arrival of beech as far back as 6000BC (mesolithic) - in parts of sussex it represented 2% of the pollen produced in that area at the time. (And although a wind pollinated tree Beech produces substantially less pollen than most other trees - so 2% of pollen meant a lot of Beech) Excellent at least it explains why it's native in the south east.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2009 10:25:24 GMT -1
The arrival of the Beech in southern England about 500 BC (date to be checked) is the subject of some controversy. Beech was the last 'tree' to make it across the land bridge from the continent before the English Channel formed. The lastest evidence now places the arrival of beech as far back as 6000BC (mesolithic) - in parts of sussex it represented 2% of the pollen produced in that area at the time. (And although a wind pollinated tree Beech produces substantially less pollen than most other trees - so 2% of pollen meant a lot of Beech) Have you got a source reference please? It is not a criticism, but I am interested in extra information. I may actually be Rackham However, it does not read quite right for him The is a problem about pollen counts on chalk soils. This is why the controversy occurs because the accurate evidence is/was not available. I may actually be out of date and new evidence may have arrived. The best information on beech coverage may be from charcoal investigations (best guess). Beech is most likely the climax tree on chalk in Bryonthic times. A very useful tree. Beech supports a large mushroom flora.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Feb 20, 2009 19:09:07 GMT -1
I may actually be Rackham However, it does not read quite right for him {Counts to ten - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I suspect you find social interaction through this medium challenging - whether you realise it or not...} Oliver Rackham "Ancient Woodland" 2003 new edition p327. I'm not sure if you have access to academic journals so I won't quote primary source material? In the above readily available book on the page indicated Rackham describes pollen counts sampled at Wareham in Dorset from 6000 years ago where beech accounted for 2% of the tree pollen. On the same page he asserts the earliest definite records are from 7000BC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2009 23:19:20 GMT -1
I may actually be Rackham However, it does not read quite right for him {Counts to ten - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I suspect you find social interaction through this medium challenging - whether you realise it or not...} Oliver Rackham "Ancient Woodland" 2003 new edition p327. I'm not sure if you have access to academic journals so I won't quote primary source material? In the above readily available book on the page indicated Rackham describes pollen counts sampled at Wareham in Dorset from 6000 years ago where beech accounted for 2% of the tree pollen. On the same page he asserts the earliest definite records are from 7000BC. Thanks for the reply. I thought you were going to say Hastings. The problem arises through the circumstances regarding the preservation of pollen. It requires acidic peat for best preservation, which is about as opposite from porous chalk as you can get. I have not got a reference. I am not jumping to conclusions. It is just that pollen evidence on chalklands is exiguous. The arrival of Beech 9000 years ago is proven. It seems it must be a native tree natural colonisation because of the date. The alternative is introduction as beech mast with the animals brought my the immigrants from the Basque region. With farming beginning 6500 years ago, and this coinciding with other sources for the introduction of Beech gives the alternative controversy which started the thread. The climate was considerably warmer back then. It is my Questor (INFP) part of my personality that asks questions. Thereby, getting different opinions and different answers to the question. I do not really see it as a challenge. It is automatic personality mode of curiosity. Whoops! I have just burnt the rice. Multi-tasking is challenging, especially after the pub.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Feb 20, 2009 23:29:17 GMT -1
It is my Questor (INFP) part of my personality that asks questions. Thereby, getting different opinions and different answers to the question. I do not really see it as a challenge. It is automatic personality mode of curiosity. Y'know, the next time you bring in bullshit personality type profiling I swear I will hit the 'ban account' button on you. How about you just try to deal with who you are rather than trying to classify it?
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Feb 22, 2009 12:30:15 GMT -1
Perseus I'd prefer it if you didn't pm me like that. If you think I've been inappropriately rude then suggest it publicly, if I have been rude people will let me know. I may actually be Rackham However, it does not read quite right for him I'll assume that's just a typing error and that you don't actually think you're Rackham - although that would be a lesser delusion than some you suggested in your intro... The rest of your post read like you were being a little insulting to me - hence my counting to ten. If you were so familiar with his styles and opinions then I think you would be unlikely to hold some of the views you have suggested. I found your statement that what I had suggested "may ACTUALLY be Rackham" irritating. My point about your claimed use of "deduction" to arrive at your view of "commonland = heathland" was in no way intended to be barbed. www.dummies.com/how-to/content/thinking-logically-deduction-and-induction.htmlThe above link will hopefully let you appreciate the difference between deduction and induction. I think you may find being aware of this may help you think more logically - in the style you appear to aspire to. Your comments to me about your personality profile type just leave me wondering if you haven't wrapped yourself up in it like a straitjacket. It will become self-fulfilling if you let it limit your experiences and expectations of yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 13:41:41 GMT -1
Sorry, Francis. I gave the wrong impression to you by accident. You have posted some interesting messages and I wanted to reply to them, without other people putting in rude comments.
Rhos Coed (pronounced koid) in modern Welsh is translated as woodland and this is a heath (same origin). It seems that when the trees were chopped down in a gradual process the lands were still called heaths.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 22, 2009 16:22:28 GMT -1
Rhos Coid - or, in fact, Rhos Coed - means 'Wood moorland', rather than being 'translated as woodland'. The heathy bit is implied in welsh by the Rhos rather than by the coed, which always means 'woodland, forest'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2009 12:14:58 GMT -1
Rhos Coid - or, in fact, Rhos Coed - means 'Wood moorland', rather than being 'translated as woodland'. The heathy bit is implied in welsh by the Rhos rather than by the coed, which always means 'woodland, forest'. Keith Briggs (not me) maintains the Coed bit comes from the same route as heath. The flow chart and notes are very convincing. keithbriggs.info/heath.htmlMy intuition (for what is worth) still maintains it means common land (unenclosed, untilled and owned by the community by default in the absence of cultivation), with a 50% chance that is actually woodland, or 50% tree coverage is average c 500 BC, more in Wales, less in England. By Saxon times, the increased farming resulted in rights like pannage and estovers.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Feb 23, 2009 12:26:37 GMT -1
Keith Briggs (not me) maintains the Coed bit comes from the same route as heath. The flow chart and notes are very convincing. Have you even considered why Megli might take it upon himself to post a descriptiosn of what linguistics is? My intuition (for what is worth) still maintains it means common land (unenclosed, untilled and owned by the community by default in the absence of cultivation), FFS COMMON LAND IS NOT OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2009 12:49:27 GMT -1
It is often thought that a common is somehow owned by everyone, or at least by the community in some sense. While that may have been true more than a thousand years ago, when waste would be used for grazing by the local community and over which there would not be, nor would there need to be, any particular limit or control of usage; since at least late Anglo-Saxon times, the right to exercise a right of common has been restricted to a commoner. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommonsFor the purpose of Bryonthic studies, the common land is either owned by the community or in a transition period. There are semantics on the definition of community. NB: Stonehenge would seem like enclosed land controlled by the Druids, now known as the Government. The controllers of the land could grant permission for religious ceremonies.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Feb 23, 2009 13:04:31 GMT -1
It is often thought that a common is somehow owned by everyone, or at least by the community in some sense. It doesn't matter what people often think, the *REALITY* is that common land is owned, with a right of use to a community. For the purpose of Bryonthic studies, the common land is either owned by the community or in a transition period. There are semantics on the definition of community. Whoaa, 'for the purpose of' doesn't cut shit tbh. You can't make assumptions to fit your own pre-emptive conclusions. You can't use medieval concepts to argure pre-Roman ideas. Get your terminology correct, because the terminology has significance. NB: Stonehenge would seem like enclosed land controlled by the Druids, now known as the Government. The controllers of the land could grant permission for religious ceremonies. Got a better example than Stonehenge and Druids? Again, I have to say the purpose for your arguments are far from transparent.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Feb 23, 2009 14:12:54 GMT -1
Perseus - are you an idiot? The coed word is etymologically related to 'heath' - AS I MYSELF SAID - but it has undergone something called a semantic shift, whereby a word gradually shifts its meaning to something related but different. In the case of the Indo-European root *kaito- it's 'untilled land' --> 'forest' in welsh, whereas in Germanic the same root went from 'untilled land' --> 'open land, heath'. This does not, repeat NOT, mean that 'coed' means 'heath'. (Semantic shifts are common. The word 'pecunia', 'money' in Latin, eymologically means 'thing to do with cattle'. This does not mean pecunia means 'cattle' - it means 'money' - or that the Romans could not tell the difference between a cow and a coin. Similarly with 'coed'.)
Rhos is the normal welsh word for 'heath, moorland' and in the phrase 'Rhos coed' that is the job it is doing.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Feb 23, 2009 15:36:55 GMT -1
My gods! is me or is it hard to explain anything to Perseus? It's like swimming up a treacle river.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2009 17:02:11 GMT -1
What is the source reference for the semantic shift please?
I looked for the obvious place-name example:
Betws-y-Coed (English: Prayer house in the wood, pronounced [ˈbɛtʊs ə ˈkɔɨd]) is a village in the Conwy valley in the county borough of Conwy, north-west Wales. The name Betws or Bettws is generally thought to be derived from the Anglo-Saxon Old English 'bed-hus' - a house of prayer, or oratory.
I can accept this theory without any problem. Hampstead Heath m was probably woodland in the distant past. As the trees were chopped down it was still called a heath.
This happens with many words in same way. e.g. Shore was originally shorn (scora) and only later became to mean the shore as bank of a river or sea coast.
Words change in meaning over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Feb 23, 2009 17:15:43 GMT -1
Your source is right about Betws. However, Hamstead Heath wasn't called as such until the 1500s. Before that it was "the moor near Hamstead". NOT heath.
|
|