Deforestation During The Roman Period - Interpretations - Alternative View

Alternative View

Some argue that almost all of the above is based on an unhistorical projection of present concerns, onto the past. This alternative view argues that there are immense complexities of time, space, climate, geology and topography which, when combined with our extremely fragmentary information, makes generalizations almost impossible. Tree crops, dates, figs, olives, chestnuts etc, played a very important role in Roman agriculture. Grains were often intercultivated with these tree crops. Almost all species of trees grow again when cut down. Cutting down a wood does not, by itself, destroy woodland. Coppicing is one way in which wood could be harvested on a sustainable basis for example. Hypocausts were pre-adapted to burn poor quality fuels like straw as awell as coal. There is good reason to believe that both straw and coal were important fuels in antiquity, especially in Roman Britain where coal was abundant in many areas. A great deal of protection against soil erosion arises from terracing hillsides. We do not know how extensive terraces were in antiquity but a good deal of the soil erosion, here assumed to be caused by the Romans, may well date to the dark ages when the maintenance of terraces broke down. Changes in tree cover may well arise from differences in climate, which are still not well understood. But there is some evidence that the decline of the Roman West is linked to climate change. Slash and burn agriculture, associated with lower populations than the Roman period, can be at least as responsible for deforestation and soil erosion as Roman agriculture. Coastal marshes can be caused by sea level changes quite as much as soil erosion. There may be reasons to believe that tree diseases as early as 6,000 years ago caused the elm decline but that this tree decline was related in some complex way to the practices of neolithic farmers.