Trees

close
more_vert
FourWinds F
FourWinds Dec 6, 2006 20:46:11
Replying to fitzcoraldo

I'm with you on this one fitz. I've long been considering the possibility of avenues cut through forests radiating from monuments.

It's easy to forget that in order to see a distant peak you don't have to cut an avenue right the way to its base. Depending on the height of the trees you would probably only have to go a couple of hundred yards at the most. If done in such a way it could make any peak appear to sit on top of the trees at the end of the avenue, thus bringing the peak nearer.

The rate at which communities such as those at the Ceide Fields must have used wood would easily take care of a few avenues of trees a couple of hundred yards long. IIt's also important to remember that not every monument was in use at the same time.

Perhaps the cursus-type monuments were constructed to mark where these tree-cut avenues once stood, but no longer existed after further deforestation.

B bawn79
bawn79 Dec 7, 2006 09:11:50
Replying to FourWinds

FourWinds wrote:
I'm with you on this one fitz. I've long been considering the possibility of avenues cut through forests radiating from monuments.

It's easy to forget that in order to see a distant peak you don't have to cut an avenue right the way to its base. Depending on the height of the trees you would probably only have to go a couple of hundred yards at the most. If done in such a way it could make any peak appear to sit on top of the trees at the end of the avenue, thus bringing the peak nearer.

The rate at which communities such as those at the Ceide Fields must have used wood would easily take care of a few avenues of trees a couple of hundred yards long. IIt's also important to remember that not every monument was in use at the same time.

Perhaps the cursus-type monuments were constructed to mark where these tree-cut avenues once stood, but no longer existed after further deforestation.

I know it makes sense but I have this nagging feeling about it I dont know why.
I guess the tops of mountain are naturally clear of trees unless u put coniferous trees up there? Are they?
That could be a reason for putting them up there but is this true or would the top of a mountain have been covered by trees as well?
That would mean they would have to climb the hill and clear that. Then probably build a cairn up there. Then come down and pick a spot to clear an avenue and then build the mound at ground level. Which is some serious logistics there.
Im not saying they couldnt do it, it would just be difficult. If its true then great I really like the mental picture of these avenues zooming from monument to monument.
Just said Id bring it up as a point to consider, dont know if its been brought up before.

F FourWinds
FourWinds Dec 7, 2006 17:21:08
Replying to FourWinds

Did a bit of maths:

If you had a 300m high mountain 8km away from your site and a forest of 40m high trees in between you would need to cut an avenue 700m long before the hill was visible from the site. For 20m high trees you would need an avenue around 300m long. Obviously this assumes flat ground between the site and the mountain - if your site was raised up a bit the length would decrease.