Don,
I like the way you think. To quote you: " My current view is that native american occupation comes under the category of a natural disturbance regime, as distinct from most current american occupation impacts. " I think y ou've hit the nail on the head - a profound insight, in my humble opinion. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "DON BERTOLETTE" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:50:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore Joe/Bob- I hadn't really seen the problem of extrapolating backwards until saddled with a contract to record all archeological sites in a GIS, from a local National Monument. A fairly extensive and intensive archeological site survey was done across the entire monument, using a ten meter grid. The accumulation of sites was incredible...nearly every grid point had a site of some significance. A quick intuitive response would be that there was an enormous population density of native americans. It is quite likely that you could parachute randomly somewhere over the monument and your landing would impact an arch site. Placed in a chronological perspective, the population density at any one time however, was significantly less, even spartan/sparse when the temporal unit of a generation (say 40 years?, choose your own number) was considered...in the case of the native american occupation I was mapping, the fact that they were for the most part nomadic cultures, then the intermittent/seasonal occupation across even the generational unit, further diminishes an anticipated impact. Having read 1491 and other similar accounts, I think it wise to realize that they are snapshots today of a long, often discontinuous, intermittent occupation. Extrapolations based on todays snapshot are fraught with inherent inaccuracy. All that said, it's easy to underestimate the impact of native american occupation, both pro and con. My current view is that native american occupation comes under the category of a natural disturbance regime, as distinct from most current american occupation impacts. -Don Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:50:39 -0500 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore Indigenous populations certainly did not use logging equipment and chainsaws either, with a far lower impact on the ecology of the forests they inhabited as a result. Its a poor argument to even try to include them in a discussion of the current "management" techniques. Ray -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore Joe, We hear your message clearly. "1491" has been misused by the timber lobby and its extensions into government and academia along the lines that you have stated. Yes, indigenous populations were greater in times past and yes they did have a significant impact on the land - but spread out over 10,000 to 20,000 years. I agree with you, it is an apples to oranges comparison between their impact and ours - a no-brainer. Bob P.S. For those who read Joe's email without context, he was responder to an earlier email from Carolyn Summers. It is a good and useful thread to pursue. I hope others will weigh in. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Zorzin" <[email protected]> To: "ENTS" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 11:59:07 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore The book "1491" ( http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232813757&sr=1-1 ) is rather convincing and well written. Though he presents no proof of just how much larger the native populations were compared to what most people thought decades ago- it seems very reasonable that the populations were quite a bit larger. After all, native peoples had been here for tens of thousands of years. They most likely reached the maximum number possible given their level of technology. Regardless of what the population was and how much they "managed" the landscape, the real issue is what can we conclude from their "management" of the land that is relevant today? At one of the biannual "forest forums" held at Harvard Forest in Petersham, Mass. for the forest stakeholders to discuss forestry policy for the state- the state Bureau of Forestry Chief Forester Jim DiMaio held up a copy of the book. Since under his "leadership" there has been a big increase in the "management" of state forest land, now under FSC Certification, I can only presume that his holding up the book, without any explanation, was to imply that the Indians "managed" the forests, so it's OK for him to do so too- and therefore anyone who opposses his mgt. style is just not in tune with Native Americans- thus he wins the moral and progressive high ground! If he thinks he can draw from "1491" a rationalization for the type of forestry being practiced on state of Mass. forests, he's sorely mistaken- there is no connection whatsoever between whatever the Indians did and any sort of forestry being done today- whether industrial strength forestry or mild, gentle forestry in tune with the principles of the Forest Guild. 518 years ago was a different world- different people with stone age cultures- who learned by trial and error what practices enhanced their lives- it wasn't about profit and careers and a world economy- it was pure survival but with a spiritual sense of the Earth almost unknown in the modern world. The issue of whether or not the book's thesis is correct, regarding populations and land management is still an open question- but whatever the answer, it has little relevance to current debates on how we manage the Earth because our numbers and technology are far greater and the potential for us to ruin the planet is in our grasp. Besides, the book says that the western hemisphere was "an artificial wilderness" when the pioneers spread over the land because the native population had been decimated. But, the natives had only been here a few tens of thousands of years- which means for millions of years before they arrived it was a true wilderness. So, beware of forestry "leaders" holding up the book. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:09 AM Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore Joe, Not at all. I'd like to hear your take on it. Lots of very poor science quoted in the book. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Zorzin" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 8:30:22 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore I've read it twice and would like to continue a discussion of the real meaning of that book - but such a discussion might be inappropriate for the ENTS list. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Carolyn Summers To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:47 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore Joe, I strongly recommend you read the book called 1491. That is the title. 1491. Very interesting. -- Carolyn Summers 63 Ferndale Drive Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706 914-478-5712 From: Joseph Zorzin < [email protected] > Reply-To: < [email protected] > Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:09:02 -0500 To: < [email protected] > Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore Well, sure, it can't be said that the Indians had no impact on the forests, but it was minor- virtually nothing compared to when the Europeans showed up. I suspect that the vast majority of the forest land in the Northeast as of 1491- would have looked about the same if the Indians had never been here. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Elisa Campbell <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:07 AM Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore According to a presentation recently by Elizabeth Chilton, an archaeologist at UMass Amherst, there were human inhabitants of southern New England before the forests grew back after the last ice age. So humans modified their culture as the forests grew. Elisa pabigtrees wrote: Joe, Bob The biggest problem is that none of us are willinging to do anything about it but talk. Including myself. If people really believed it was better then, they would revert to that lifestyle. You can do it, it would just be a shock to your current situation. The people who are closest to this idea of living are the Old Order Amish. Farming and living without electricity etc. Although they do use fertilizers and chemicals so noone is perfect. I have read that the forests were not full of big trees though. They would look like an old growth forest of today, as hardwoods seldom live more than 2-300 years. The natives used to burn the undergrowth too for hunting. I would like to see what it looked like before humans entered North america altogether. That would be interesting. When the mega fauna were still walking around. Thank God for computer generated TV shows! Scott On Jan 14, 8:45 am, [email protected] wrote: Joe, Thinking like the Earth, I tend to agree with you. Humans are incredibly destructive. We are a species run amuck with little to be said for us in terms of living up to our ideals. I'd like to think there is hope for us and on some level I do, but not before there's a big population crash. Heck of a way to start the day - thinking about such things. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Zorzin" <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:11:32 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore When I see such trees- I always try to imagine North America before the Euros shows up. Just imagine a virgin continent with billions of giant/ancient trees, vast numbers of wildlife, clean air and clean water and humans living in harmony with it- to me, that's the highest point of human evolution- since then it's been all downhill. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: James Parton To: ENTSTrees Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:34 AM Subject: [ENTS] Re: ancient Sycamore Beautiful Tree! JP On Jan 14, 12:20 am, Barry Caselli < [email protected] > wrote: I have finally found the scans of the pictures of this tree. This was on a rural roadside in Upper Pittsgrove Township, Salem County, NJ. I can give a more exact location if needed. I think it would be cool to have this tree measured. This is one of the largest Sycamores I've ever seen. This one not only has girth, but it has some height to it also. I was in awe when I was near this one. I photographed it sometime in 2007 or 2008. I can't remember for sure. I think this tree is just crying to be measured! Just look at it! Too bad I travel alone, or I could have had a person stand with it for the photo. Barry P.S.- I normally refer to these trees as Buttonwoods, but for the purposes of this group I call them by their more proper name, Sycamores. img622.jpg 330KViewDownload img623.jpg 272KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- Elisa K Campbell, Ph.D. Software Support OIT, UMass Amherst (413) 545-1853 fax: (413) 545-3203 ************************************* "I got a simple rule about everybody. If you don't treat me right, shame on you." Louis Armstrong Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
