I did not see this until after I had replied to your previous message. The
Soudley (coke) ironworks themselves were somewhere else and do not affect
the issue. Pope and Karau may add some details to what Hart wrote, but
essentially they confirm his account of the mill. We do not know what may
have been there before 1823 (according to Hart) or 1821 (according to Pope
The object of my original enquiry was to get some one to tell me the Kemp
and Mullins references, which some one did. The point is that whatever Kemp
did find, it was not the early 17th century finery forge. Accordingly, this
is not an excavated finery forge, which was what I was interested in.
From: Industrial Archaeology [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: 27 March 2004 00:17
To: Peter Wickham King
Subject: Re: Supposed Forge in Forest of Dean
<< File: Re_ Supposed Forge in Forest of Dean.txt >> Further to my last:
See: Pope, I. and Karau, P. (1992) The Forest of Dean Branch, Vol. 1.
Didcot: Wild Swan Publications Ltd., p.88-97.
Pope and Karau present an illustrated account the Soudley (coke) Ironworks
(1836/7-1907). They include an illustration of Soudley Mill (Camp Mill).
Apparently mill board manufacture commenced at this location in 1888. Circa
1901/2, the business was purchased by Dulcote Leather Board Co. Ltd. The
illustration (circa 1902?) depicts a sizable pond, buildings associated with
leather board manufacture, and the Camp Mill corn mill of 1876. They state
that circa 1821 the site hosted an iron foundry owned by one Samuel Hewlett.
Archaeology may indicate whether the site's waterpower system/landscape
Paul H Vigor.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Supposed Forge in Forest of Dean
> I have had to go back to the journal Post-Med Arch to refresh my memory on
> this subject after Paul Courtney reminded me of the source. The original
> publication by Richard Kemp was of the excavation of a site, which he
> identified as being Soudley Forge, one of the ironworks authorised by the
> King in his Royal Forest of Dean in 1612. There is a detailed inventory
> this dated 1635. David Mullins reviewed the published account and
> a re-assessment. Unfortunately the volume with the original publication
> not on the shelf in the library that I visited, but David Mullins' article
> Kemp found a structure that was probably a dam, and a wall 28 foot long.
> The inventory referred to a building 40 foot by 28 foot, with a hammer and
> anvil with waterwheel, two finery wheels and a chafery wheel, that is four
> water wheels, but Kemp was unable to explain where any of these were.
> Furthermore, there was no slag at all.
> Mullins conclusion was thus that whatever Kemp found, it was probably not
> Soudley Forge of 1635. I have been looking at something intended for
> publication relating to the archaeology of the metal industries. This was
> making the point that there has been very little archaeological
> investigation of finery forges. I consider that the point will be made
> strongly, if the few excavations that have been done are listed.
> Unfortunately, this is only one of two of the sites published as finery
> forges that are not such; the other, Stony Hazel Forge in Cumbria is
> documented only as a bloomery forge, operating from 1718 to 1725. It was
> then acquired by the two iron companies operating in the neighbourhood,
> almost certainly to close it; they paid dead-rents on several former
> bloomery forges local, almost certainly to keep them from competing to buy
> Kemp, R. L, 'A seventeenth century royal forge in the Forest of Dean,
> Gloucestershire'. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 21 (1987), 127-46.
> Mullin, D., 'The archaeology of Camp Mill: a reassessment' Ibid. 23
> Peter King
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Industrial Archaeology [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> James Brothers
> Sent: 26 March 2004 13:30
> To: Peter Wickham King
> Subject: Re: Supposed Forge in Forest of Dean
> << File: Re_ Supposed Forge in Forest of Dean.txt >> I don't have access
> the journals either. But would like to pose a
> question and make a suggestion. When you refer to a "forge" what do you
> mean, as there are at least nine different kinds? As this one is fairly
> early and is water powered I'll assume it is probably a bloomery.
> In order to avoid confusion, it would be better to only use the word
> "forge" by itself when it is used as a verb. It would be preferable to
> refer to an iron site as a finery or bloomery, or finery forge or
> bloomery forge. This eliminates any possible confusion as to what kind
> of "forge".