Not that we can visit it as it was populated then, either: but we all know which bits of each town are "old" (pre-1700, say) and which are modern extensions.
> You'd be astonished at the persistence of ineffective methods
> in farming... (speaking from experiences with environmental issues)
Take a look at Africa sometime. Any of the charity begging letters that come through the door. A better design of digging stick is a step forward in some cases.
> > Equally the enclosures of the 16th &
> > 17th centuries transferred large amounts of land from
> growing crops to
> > sheep. The people displaced ...
>
> Do we know that people were displaced, or do we know that the
> rural areas produced a surplus population part of which it
> sent to the cities?
If Donald was referring to Scotland, they were displaced. Forcibly. In chains, in some cases. The empty steads are still there, and very Orlanthi they look too. The ones actually built out of heather are great!
> > The total amount of land is fixed (subject to minor changes) so any
> > increased usage is due to improved technology or climate changes
> > making more or less land available for cultivation.
>
> Actually, the total amount of farming land was expanded
> drastically, at the heavy cost of wildland. Where I live,
> next to no wildland has survived, only some cultivated forestation.
Same here. There *used* to be un-used areas of Britain. In times of low population, villages did get abandoned.
> > From that we can conclude that the *maximum* population density in
> > rural areas did not change significantly prior to the industrial
> > revolution.
But how often was that maximum figure reached? Very rarely, I'd suggest.
Powered by hypermail