In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:13:09 +0100, Janet wrote:

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

Slash and burners?

Not in the UK. Except in the most extreme summers, and the pine
domain (which was small, and mainly in the north), the woodland
will not burn. See Rackham again, though he exaggerates.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Fran Farmer wrote:
On 29/06/2014 11:48 PM, Hugh Newbury wrote:
I want to grow some wheat to make my own bread. Where can I buy the seed?

There is an elderly (1980) British book called "Growing wheat & making
bread on a small scale" by Hugh Coats and J. R. Stanford published by
Thorsons Publishers Limited, Wellingborough, Nothamptonshire that may
interest you.

It's been a long time since I read it but glancing over it again, it's
full of interesting info such as a twelfth of an acre producing enough
wheat for a family for a year if they are using 4 loaves a week.

I haven't noticed it in the book, but the UK used to grow soft wheat and
for good bread, hard winter wheat is the type that is preferred for
bread making.

There has been a lot of research on how to use soft wheat for bread
making, and a couple of decades ago, someone worked out how. I don't
know the details, but it is usable only on a commercial scale, and
my guess is that it will produce only inferior, supermarket-style
bread. My guess is that mediaeval bread was pretty leaden.

On the other hand, it is fine for cakes, most pastry (not croissants
etc.) and other such uses.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

Slash and burners?

Not in the UK. Except in the most extreme summers, and the pine
domain (which was small, and mainly in the north), the woodland
will not burn. See Rackham again, though he exaggerates.

Assuming that there was never a dry warm spell in prehistoric times.

Don't be ridiculous - I said "the most extreme summers", and I do
not regard mere dry warm spells as that. On the few occasions that
the woods would have burnt, they would have regenerated before the
next extreme event. At MOST, a tiny patch could have been converted
to farmland.

Did they fell the trees with their little bronze hatches?

Flint - it cuts better than steel, anyway. But I don't think that
they DID fell them - my guess is that they ring-barked them, and
then grazed the area intensively. That will turn woodland into
grassland in under a century, and that is easy to cultivate.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Who cleared land of stones and trees and cultivated the soil fine
enough to sow the grain in?

Slash and burners?

Not in the UK. Except in the most extreme summers, and the pine
domain (which was small, and mainly in the north), the woodland
will not burn. See Rackham again, though he exaggerates.

Assuming that there was never a dry warm spell in prehistoric times.

Don't be ridiculous - I said "the most extreme summers", and I do
not regard mere dry warm spells as that.

There were long dry periods in prehistoric times. Periods being decades not the
occasional hot summer.

What is it about the term "most extreme" that you don't understand?

In the 36 years I have lived in this garden, it has got dry enough
that the soil was bone dry 4" down and chemically waterless on the
surface - i.e. not enough free water to allow even hydrophilic
reactions. And that was nothing like dry enough to make the woods
burn. In my memory (and I have lived in the UK since 1957), there
TWO years when SMALL areas of the UK got dry enough for native
woodlands to burn, and I don't believe that even those ended up
killing most of the (native) trees.

On the few occasions that
the woods would have burnt, they would have regenerated before the
next extreme event. At MOST, a tiny patch could have been converted
to farmland.

I suggest that you think about this paragraph.

Did they fell the trees with their little bronze hatches?

Flint - it cuts better than steel, anyway. But I don't think that
they DID fell them - my guess is that they ring-barked them, and
then grazed the area intensively. That will turn woodland into
grassland in under a century, and that is easy to cultivate.

A century was 3 or 4 lifetimes. Did ancient Britains plan that far ahead?

You are being silly again. They didn't need to - the ring barking
produced the grazing, which would have been their objective. The
eventual conversion to grassland was a side-effect.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.