The classic English system of coppicing is to some extent the result of
legislation of Henry VIII passed in 1544,  requiring coppices to be inclosed
after
felling to preserve the 'spring'.   This followed legislation of Edward IV
in 1482, which permitted inclosure in Royal Forests after felling,  when it
would otherwise have been illegal.   The purpose of this enclosure was to
prevent grazing animals from eating the tender new shoots growing from the
stools left when the coppice was felled.  The fences were removed after a
few years,  when the trees were large enough,  and grazing was again
allowed.

In this part of the English Midlands ironworks accounts and related
documents of the late 17th century seem to indicate that every scrap of
woodland was managed as coppice.  It is accordingly my view that the output
of iron could not be expanded because there was no more fuel to produce it,
but that is by the way.  This view does not conflict with Hammersley's,
though my emphasis is different.   Only woods that were reasonably near
where they could be used for the iron industry were available to it,
principally due to the high cost of overland transport.   This is a large
issue that cannot be discussed in detail here.

Clearly there was coppice before that,  but I do not think we know enough
about woodland management in the late 14th and 15th century (after the Black
Death),  when there was little pressure on land,  nor do we know enough
about how many bloomeries were in use consuming wood.   There is certainly
evidence in the 16th century and beyond of other industrial users of fuel
going over to coal, and of a great increase in coastal traffic in coal from
Newcastle to London from (I think) the late 16th century,  much of which was
used for cooking and for heating homes.

Before the Black Death there was land hunger,  which must have caused
pressure on woodland.   Edward I prohibited the export of iron,  presumably
to limit the pressure on woods.  I do not think we know a great deal about
woodland management practices,  but the practice seems to have been to limit
the production of iron rather than to take particular measures to protect
the woods,  thus private forges were prohibited in the Forest of Dean in
1217.  In the preceding centuries the objective of royal policy was to
preserve areas of the country for hunting as 'forests'.  Uncultivated areas,
commonly but not necessarily woodland,  were generally at the core of these
and a strict code of law prohibited encroachments on them.   The king
profited from fines imposed on those who had encroached,  and from the sale
of timber from the forests.   However I do not recall any reference to woods
being enclosed as coppice in this period.   The situation would have been
the same in the preceding Saxon period.   It is probable that no one thought
of enclosing coppices because the pressure of the demand for wood was just
not there.

In the Forest of Dean Flaxley Abbey was before 1154 granted the right to
have a forge in the Forest and two oak trees per week to fuel it.   This
right was commuted in 1258 to ownership of a particular area of wood.   I
have a couple of nice quotes from court proceedings in the late 16th century
about wood being of little value because there was so much of it until
ironworks were set up.   One relates to what became Pontypool,  where until
Richard Hanbury set up ironworks,  wood was worth nothing except what was
paid for cutting it.   The other concerning south Shropshire concerns a man
who set up ironworks to use his wood which he could not sell because there
were so many woods around there.  These are the gist of what was said not
exact quotations.

It is therefore probable that fairly large trees were used to make charcoal
for the iron industry,  but archaeological contexts will most usually be
slag heaps,  where charcoal will tend to be in quite small pieces.   If the
bloomsmith had noticed a large piece of charcoal,  he would surely normally
have used it in his next smelt.
----- Original Message -----
From: david killick <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 30 June 2000 20:23
Subject: Re: Dendrochronology and iron-smelting sites


>
>
> Justine Bayley wrote:
>
> > It is usually reckoned in Britain that you need 60 rings to be sure of a
dendro match with oak; presumably there is more variability than you find in
your local timber. Species other than oak cannot be matched to an oak master
curve and there are no long chronologies for other species, though I believe
some work has been done on late medieval and later pine.
>
> Thanks for this information. I guess that what determines the number of
> rings needed is climatic variability; Arizona has extremely variable
> winter rainfall, and hence fewer rings are needed than in Britain. I
> have also had a response from Peter Kuniholm, who reports that in
> Anatolia and the Aegean he would need 100-120 rings to be sure of a
> date.
> >
> > It is usually thought that charcoal for processes that used considerable
amounts, such as smelting, was made largely from coppiced wood which is
normally cut on a 15-25 year cycle. It is therefore not surprising that
dendro dates are not normally available to directly date phases of
industrial production.
> >
> When does the use of coppiced woodland for charcoal production begin?
> From Hyde and other older references I had gained the impression that
> coppicing was a medieval technology. Is there evidence of its use in
> earlier times?
>
> Dave




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%