3 ms·

I certainly wasn't contending that current rural areas are more natural (Isabella Tree's book Wilding is really interesting on what "natural" would have meant i

I certainly wasn't contending that current rural areas are more natural (Isabella Tree's book Wilding is really interesting on what "natural" would have meant in the very long term), but if you're talking about the 13th century - which is one of the maps mentioned above and the kind of timescale I was thinking of - then I'd contend those were much more natural compared to now.

pyrale 2y ago
It really depends on your definition of "natural". But in the 13th century, all of European land had been managed by humans for millenia [1]. To consider rural England from the 13th century more natural, you would rely on a definition unrelated to untouched land, but that distinguishes "natural" human activity, and, I guess, "modern" activity ? Anthropic reach extended since then (e.g. compounds tiny enough to get in blood, or scale of activity creating global impact), but when it comes to landscape, we have been the shaping factor for a very long time. [1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236630316_Open_woodland_in_Europe_in_the_Mesolithic_and_in_the_Middle_Ages_Can_there_be_a_connection https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236630316_Open_wood...