|
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Moundville, AL
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/c8d310f92f67fe64?hl=en
==============================================================================
From: Zac Stewart <zacstew@bellsouth.net>
ENTS,
http://moundville.ua.edu/images/overview1.jpg
A few weeks ago, I participated in a field trip to Moundville,
AL, one
of the largest historical Native American settlements in the
US.
Numerous large burial mounds still dot the large field in the
center
of the park, with the largest - which has a stairway to climb
to the
top - being 60' high. The historical value of such a place was
incredible enough, but perhaps the most surprising thing
there, to me
at least, was the mature forest surrounding the area. Sadly, I
didn't
bring my camera or measuring equipment, because I didn't
expect to
find large trees. This area of the state, located in Hale
County along
the Black Warrior River, is one of the least forested, so I
didn't
expect to see much. In the parking area, surrounded by the
large open
field containing the mounds, I saw several large (though not
tall)
water oaks and a multi-trunked and very wide-spreading ash.
Several
more large water and willow oaks grew along the trails that
lead to
the various events taking place during the Native American
Festival
(which was ongoing while we were there). Celtis and carya
(species
unsure) were rather large at the woodland edge. I saw a very
nice (but
not huge) pecan tree near what I suppose was the picnic area,
along
with more large water and willow oaks. I don't think the oaks
topped
60 or 70', or CBH topped 8', but they were still pretty
impressive.
But the latter part of the visit to Moundville was far more
eventful,
tree-wise. A tuliptree right behind the 60' mound was easily
20'
taller than the mound, and the trunk looked to be at least 8 '
in
circumference, probably bigger; it's a classic open-grown tree
with
vines covering much of the base. Then to the unfinished nature
trail
nearby the mound. At the entrance, the canopy level is easily
60-70',
very high for this part of Alabama. Beside the trail, deeper
in the
woods, lies a deep, long ravine, probably 40-60' below trail
level at
the deepest, with forests that reminded me of what I saw in
the
Smokies. A skinny beech tree looked to be over 100' tall, as
did the
large tuliptrees - probably 7-8' around in circumference. Many
of the
trees were much smaller, and water oaks were very common, but
at
several points along the very short trail, species such as
tulip,
beech, hickory, sycamore, and white oak reached 80+'. One
white oak
was particularly impressive - it was probably close to 90 or
100',
with a trunk easily 10'+ around, much bigger than any of th e
trees
surrounding it. I didn't get a clear look at the trees in the
ravine,
or the equally impressive grove to the right of the trail, so
I may
have missed several other impressive trees. I think a few
trees may
easily come close to 110', with a few girths over 10'. I
definitely
plan to revisit this place again, and hopefully bring along
some
measuring gear and a camera! If anyone on this discussion list
is
going to be in Central Alabama anytime soon, I would certainly
recommend a visit to Moundville!
- Zac
Some Links
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 1 2007 10:35 am
From:
Bob,
To be honest, I really don't know. It is a historic site, so I doubt
that there has been much logging in quite awhile. Most of the area
was clearly younger forest, with very few truly impressive trees
near the center, but the largest forests were at the edge of the
park near the river, and most of the largest individuals were in
nearly unaccessable, very deep ravines. So, I would probably guess
that some parts of the largest forest on the site could easily be a
century or more old. I don't think it is even close to the age of
the forests in the Sipsey Wilderness, though. I suppose it is
possible that some of the forests were selectively cut.
- Zac
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 1 2007 1:32 pm
From: dbhguru
Zac,
Actually, I was wondering about the historic part. When was the site
occupied by indigenenous people? I'm always interested in the
archeologically determined ages of sites. There is still a lot of
debate on when Native peoples settled in New World. Evidence is
fairly strong for the initial wave of Indians dating to between
20,000 and 30,000 YBP. Then around 11,000 years ago, there was
another migration. Many archeologists and anthropologists are stuck
on the 11,000-year ago migration. Like tall tree numbers, the claims
fall all over the place.
Bob
-
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 1 2007 2:13 pm
From: zacstew@bellsouth.net
Bob,
Sorry... don't know that either! I do know that Moundville is
supposed to be the largest settlement in North America 800 years
ago... here is a website that may contain this information: http://moundville.ua.edu/home.html
- Zac
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Moundville, AL
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/c8d310f92f67fe64?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 2 2007 2:47 am
From: Beth Koebel
Zac,
I wonder if Moundville and Cahokia Mounds were built
by the same people? Cahokia Mounds is located 8 miles
east northeast of downtown St. Louis. The largest
mound there, Monk's Mound, is right next to I-70/I-55
just west of I-255.
For those who would like more info on Cahokia Mounds
the website is www.cahokiamounds.com/chokia.html
Beth
|
