Re: Medieval Axemen in New York
From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_nohormelcharter.net)
Date: 11/07/04
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Previous message: Hal: "Re: One reason why KRS and other Norse artifacts isn't accepted genuine."
- In reply to: Doug Weller: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Next in thread: Seppo Renfors: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:00:09 -0600
Doug Weller wrote:
<snip>
> I think Seppo has a point -- at the time this cut was allegedly made, the
> tree would have been much, much smaller, and a 6" cut would have probably
> had a pretty drastic effect on it.
I found this site very helpful:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_2/quercus/alba.htm
or:
According to this, the tree near the southern shore of Lake
Ontario would be near the extreme northern edge of its range.
Therefore, the growth figures given (1.2"/decade increase in
d(iameter) b(reast) h(eight) for seedlings/saplings up to about
4" in dbh), poles of between about 4" and 10" (1.37"/decade),
and saw timber (1.84"/decade) for the best growing regions for
Quercus alba (Ohio River Valley and central Mississippi River
Valley) are probably high for the oak in question.
To get a rough measure of the relative growth rate at the
location found, I first assumed that the tree was about 10" dbh
when first half-cut.* This means that I assume that it grew
another 44" dbh before it was cut down for keeps in 1834. [4.5'
dbh = 54"; 54" -10" = 44"] The last 44" of growth took about
460 years. If this is correct, then the actual growth rate of
this particular tree was about .96"/decade dbh. This is just
over half of the growth rate in the optimum growing area for
this species (about .52% of optimum growth).
Taking this into account, and extrapolating from the
seedling/sapling and pole growth rates, the tree might have been
something like:
0-4" .52 x 1.2"/decade = .624"/decade (round to .62"/decade)
4"/.62"/decade = 6.5 decades or about 65 years
4-10" .52 x 1.4"/decade = .728"/decade (round to .73"/decade)
6"/.73"/decade = 8.2 decades or about 82 years
10-56" .52 x 1.84"/decade = .957"/decade (round to .96"/decade)
44"/.96"/decade = 45.6 decades or about 460 years
Therefore:
0-10" = ~147 years
147 years when 1/2 cut + 460 years = 607 years when finally cut.
If this is anywhere close to correct, then the tree at about
600 years old would be at the extreme upper end of the possible
age range for the species. This is not out of the realm of
possibility but, if true, it speaks to the strength of this
particular tree that it overcame its early maiming to live this
long.
I am also interested in the observation that the cutting was
"large and deep". By that, I take it that the vertical height
of the cut at the outside of the cut was considered 'large' by
the observer. If the tree was about 10" as I am assuming, and
if an expert with a steel (or iron) axe were to have done the
cutting, then the cut would likely have been no more than about
7" from base to top of the cut. This is assuming that an expert
axeman of that time, with a properly maintained metal axe, would
have made the cut as modern woodsmen do; making the vertical
dimension of the cut approximately as tall as the cut is deep.
Now change the assumption. Assume a stone axe, either hafted
as a modern wood axe or as an adze. In this case, the
calculation changes. The vertical dimension of the cut is
almost certainly going to be greater than the 1 to 1 cut height
to cut depth of a metal axe. I'm not an expert, but ISTM that
if the cut discovered in 1834 excited interest partly due to its
'large' size, the possibility of it having been made by a stone
axe must be strongly considered.
* This estimate of about 10" arises from an assumption that the
reports that the original cut was >6" deep, and that the cut
penetrated the entire width of the heartwood, are roughly
correct. I further assumed that the heartwood was about 30% of
the total diameter of the tree at that time, or about 3". This
would mean that about 3.75" of sapwood and 3" of heartwood were
cut. I freely admit that some of this is just me going for
round numbers; but the report is at minimum second-hand, so we
aren't dealing with true accuracy here anyway.
<snip>
-- Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Previous message: Hal: "Re: One reason why KRS and other Norse artifacts isn't accepted genuine."
- In reply to: Doug Weller: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Next in thread: Seppo Renfors: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
