On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:48:38 -0800, Matthew Montchalin
wrote:

Having come into this thread late and sideways (through
sci.bio.botany), forgive me if I'm picking up on points that have
already been dealt with.

On 22 Nov 2002, Garry Denke wrote:
| In the meantime, wouldn't a heavily forested area like England
| have had a 'Stonehenge' made first of big oak trees cut and
| fashioned to fit, long before making a monument out of stone?
|
|Which species of oak tree?
|(assuming you are serious)

[Snip]

Not all laymen can tell the difference between any two taxonomic
classifications of trees, and I doubt that the early inhabitants
of England could, either.
Of course we'll never know, but I bet the 'layman' of prehistoric
Wiltshire could recognize differences between tree species better than
most present-day inhabitants!

But laymen can tell the difference
between young shoots and old trees, and I would expect the early
people around Stonehenge to have kept paths and ways free of
vines and shoots - as well as they could, not having "lawnmowers" -
and then have spent a fair amount of their time cultivating those
shoots that they knew would grow up big and tall. From the list
above, I see a few species of oak that I doubt grew in England (but
I should defer to your expertise, I suppose). Are you sure that
Quercus Macedonica is found in England? Or Quercus Virginiana?


Correct - of that enormous list, only two will have been growing in
Britain at the time, and if we're talking about the Stonehenge area
only one is likely to have grown there (Q. robur) because of soil /
climatic conditions pertaining.

But put yourself in their place, and imagine what kind of trees
to raise - if you had enough time, would not a 'stonehenge' made
of live oak trees have been as easy to build as bringing in huge
multi-ton boulders from nearby quarries?

There are lots of wood henge sites known around Britain (not live
trees, though). Incidentally there are no "nearby quarries" of hard
stone - the 'sarsen stones' such as those used in Stonehenge are
actually remnants of a largely eroded sandstone layer that lie dotted
around the chalk downland in separate lumps.

Furthermore, why build Stonehenge on a plain instead of on a hill?

Could it be that the site was originally covered with oak trees
that were pruned down to the desired arrangement, instead?

If 'plain' implies something flat and wet to you, think again.
Salisbury Plain is actually an undulating plateau on chalk. From the
pollen record, woodland clearance in Britain started on a big scale in
the 200 years around 3000BC. (The 'Elm Decline'). Throughout the
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, land on the lighter and drier soils
such as chalk was being extensively cleared for farming.

Bronze Age Wiltshire sat on a major trading route for metals between
the Western seaboards and continental Europe, and was clearly (from
the artefacts found) a highly organized society with at least some
individual members enjoying considerable wealth. All this needs a
settled agriculture to sustain it.

For miles around Stonehenge, and beyond, there is an incredible
landscape of prehistoric structures (many now ploughed out). It is
inconceivable that these sites, many of which predate Stonehenge and
were no doubt meant to be seen, were poked about in a dense primeval
woodland.

Even at the time of the wood henges, some of the wood used in other
monuments (such as wetland causeways) suggests that woodland was
already being managed (by coppicing) rather than just hacked back.

--
Martin (off-duty)
Chandlers Ford, Hampshire