Open woodland in Europe in the Mesolithic and in the Middle Ages: Can there be a connection?

In Grazing Ecology and Forest History F.W.M. Vera published his hypothesis that Europe's primeval vegetation was not closed forest but a more open, park-like landscape maintained by the grazing of large herbivores. The palaeoecological evidence has been re-examined a number of times, however, Vera's research and conclusions about more recent periods (ca. 500–1900 a.d.) have so far been neglected. These, nonetheless, are equally significant elements in the testing of the hypothesis, and deserve to be evaluated. It is argued in this paper that historical sources could be used in testing the hypothesis; however, analysis should concentrate on particular areas and periods and derive a synthesis from these. Vera mixes sources from many regions and periods in the same analysis, which therefore does not provide useful information about the hypothesis. Furthermore, Vera's analysis is based on the assumption that early medieval written sources depict a landscape that is in direct connection with the pre-Neolithic open vegetation, although in some early medieval landscapes domestic animals replaced the original large herbivores. He also claims that medieval coppices were formed straight out of this primeval vegetation. However, current landscape archaeological research shows that areas unaffected by human activity were virtually non-existent in the European lowlands by the Early Middle Ages, therefore early medieval Royal Forests and high medieval coppices were not formed out of primeval ‘wilderness.’ Because there is no direct connection between pre-Neolithic and medieval landscapes – although they can be analogous – the historical ecological evidence in Grazing Ecology and Forest History is irrelevant to the hypothesis. The hypothesis could only be tested if it were first proved that at a particular place the pre-Neolithic vegetation survived until the Early Middle Ages.