The Archaeology of Woodland Exploitation in the Greater Exmoor Area in the Historic Period 9781841718774, 9781407320472

Citation preview

l na tio ne di nli ad l o ith ria W ate m

BAR  398  2005  CANNELL  THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF WOODLAND EXPLOITATION IN THE GREATER EXMOOR AREA

The Archaeology of Woodland Exploitation in the Greater Exmoor Area in the Historic Period Judith A. Cannell

BAR British Series 398 B A R

2005

The Archaeology of W oodlandExploitationinthe Great er Exmoor Area i nt he Historic Period Judith A.Cannell

BAR British Series398 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 398 The Archaeology of Woodland Exploitation in the Greater Exmoor Area in the Historic Period © J A Cannell and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718774 paperback ISBN 9781407320472 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718774 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To Tony

ii

Contents Page ii iii v vi vi vi

Acknowl edgement s ListofFigures ListofTabl es ListofAccompanyingM aterial Definit ions Gl ossary Chapt er1 Int roduct ion 1. 1 Preview 1. 2 Thestudy area 1. 3 Exmoor 1. 4 Sourcesandmet hods Chapter2 Researchreview 2. 1 Archaeol ogist sandwoodl and 2. 2 Viewsofpastwoodl andmanagement 2. 3 Thenat ureofwoodl andmanagementandit simpl icat ionsfor archaeol ogy in woods Chapter3 Study areaanalysis 3. 1 W oodl andvariet y 3. 2 Anal ysisofst udy areadat a 3. 3 Concl usionsandquest ions Chapter4 Thecasestudies 4. 1 Preview 4. 2 Sherracombe 4. 3 Bremridge 4. 4 Barl e 4. 5 Set t ingt hescenein t henort h-east :t heVal eofPorl ock 4. 6 Cul bone 4. 7 Horner 4. 8 Thet reesurvey Chapt er5 Themes 5. 1 Int roduct ion 5. 2 Farming 5. 3 Tenure 5. 4 Set t l ement 5. 5 W oodl andproduct ion Chapt er6 Concl usions 6. 1 M et hods 6. 2 Thesignificanceoft hephysicalenvironment 6. 3 W oodsandruralindust ry ury 6. 4 Expl oit at ion from Domesday Bookt ot he19th cent 6. 5 W hy doesitmat t er?

1 1 1 10 14 21 21 22 27 33 33 36 50 52 52 55 66 77 94 100 109 131 146 146 149 158 167 177 185 185 185 186 188 191

AppendixI AppendixII AppendixIII AppendixIV AppendixV AppendixVI

Fiel ddat arecordsheet 192 Descript ionsofwoods 194 Thewoodsdat abase 204 Dat abaseent riesforwoodsin t hecasest udies 205 W oodsizedist ribut ion by parish 247 Descript ionsofwoodsgroupedby principalcomponent s anal ysis 257 AppendixVII Feat uresrecordedin reconnaissancesurvey ofwoodsin Barl e casest udy 259 AppendixVIII Feat uresrecordedin surveysofwoodsin Hornercasest udy 261 AppendixIX Treesurvey document at ion 267 AppendixX Treesurvey dat a 269 Bibl iography

277

Please note that the CD referred to throughout the text has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html i

Acknowledgements This work is a revised edition of a thesis submitted to the University of Exeter for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Archaeology in October,2004. The final year of work towards the thesis was financed by the award of an Ochs Scholarship by the British Archaeological Association,whose help in this respect is gratefully acknowledged. Dr. Stephen Rippon supervised this research,giving experienced advice and guidance from start to finish,for which the writer is very grateful. Long before,lecturers in the (then)Department of Adult Education of the University of Exeter had introduced the writer to archaeology. The teaching of Henrietta Quinnell,Derek Gore and Dr. Tina Tuohy inspired,and continues to inspire,lifelong enthusiasm in the writer and many other students. Archaeological fieldwork invariably requires the co-operation and help of numbers of people and the surveys carried out in this research were no exception. The tree survey was carried out in woodland belonging to the National Trust and thanks are due to the Countryside Manager of its Holnicote estate,Nigel Horner,for permission and to Dr. Gill Juleff,who provided the inspiration and support. The writer is also grateful to the Exmoor National Park Authority, Forest Enterprise,the Somerset Wildlife Trust,Badgworthy Land Company,Mr. Thorne,Mr. Vellacott,Mrs. Carey and other owners of woodland who kindly allowed the writer access for survey. The tree survey could not have been achieved without the unflagging energy and enthusiasm of the following members of Tiverton Archaeological Group who participated,either by working in the field or providing logistical support: Annabel Adcock,Janet Ball,Margaret Davidson,Ashley Gale,Barbara Keene,Peter Maunder,Beryl Richards,Faye Stacey,Paul Stanbrook,Rosemary Stewart,Anne Troak,Pat Webber,Val Weller and Jenny Yendall. Thanks are also due to the various members who helped with survey in the Barle Valley: Ashley Gale,Val Weller, Anne Stacey,Anne Todd and Dot Butler,and to Jenny Yendall for acting as co-ordinator. The writer is also grateful to Cathy Groves,Vanessa Straker (of English Heritage)and Rowena Gale for allowing the writer to participate in the tree-coring programme in Horner Wood. As landowners,both the National Trust and the Exmoor National Park Authority have commissioned many surveys of woodland on Exmoor,which have proved invaluable in research. From an early stage,encouragement was given by Nigel Hester and by Isabel Richardson of the National Trust,who also supplied copies of reports as well as her experienced ‘eye’for woodland features. Rob Wilson-North of the Exmoor National Park Authority provided copies of survey reports and gave valuable support and Sarah Menear also contributed information from her extensive knowledge of the woods within the Park. Advice from Dr. David Harvey of the University of Exeter was appreciated and useful comments were made by others researching woodland subjects,especially Gillian Wood of the University of Leeds and Ian Dormer of the University of York. Dr. Kevin Crockford kindly gave permission for material from his Ph. D. thesis to be used,for which the writer is grateful. Advice on matters non-archaeological was generously given by Dr. Trevor Bailey and Dr. David Earle,both of the University of Exeter. Dr. Gill Juleff has encouraged,advised and made specialist reports from the Exmoor Iron Project freely available,for which the writer expresses gratitude. Martin Watts has provided valuable information on the chronology of milling and Robert Dunning of the Somerset Record Society gave much useful advice and information on documentary sources. Librarians and staff were always helpful and efficient at the Devon Record Office,the Gloucester Record Office,the Westcountry Studies Library,the Somerset Studies Library,the Devon and Exeter Institution,the Exmoor Society,the library of the University of Exeter and the Somerset Archive and Record Office,which also kindly gave permission for reproduction of estate maps from the Lovelace estate. The sections of this study dealing with woods in and near the Vale of Porlock have benefited enormously from the advice,information and encouragement offered by Philip Ashford,whose knowledge of the history of this area is unrivalled and who has generously supplied copies of his own work. The writer has been helped through the vicissitudes of research by Dr. Robert Van de Noort,Professor Valerie Maxfield,Dr. Alan Outram and fellow postgraduates at the University of Exeter,especially Lee Bray,Chris Carey, Lucy Franklin,Jon Freeman,Brynmor Morris,Pauline Plym,Chris Smart and Adam Wainwright. Dr. Martin Gillard provided copies of maps and information based on his own extensive research,which saved much time,and for which the writer is grateful. Finally,the writer wishes to express heartfelt appreciation of the help provided by her husband,Tony Cannell,whose support and encouragement have never faltered.

ii

List of Figures 1.1: Location of the study area 1.2: Relief, principal rivers and places of the study area (based on Ordnance Survey Travel Map Road 7 2003) 1.3: Valley of Horner Water, near Porlock (photograph by writer) 1.4: Geology of the study area (based on Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 3) 1.5: Soils of the study area (Soil Survey 1983) 1.6: The Royal Forest of Exmoor (based on MacDermot 1939, maps before pages 108 and 182), woods and case studies 1.7: Parishes and counties of the study area at tithe apportionment (Gillard 2002; Kain & Oliver 1995) 1.8: Woods in the study area (from comparison of 1st OS 6 inch and modern OS) and the case studies 2.1: Trees available in each year of a 5 year coppice cycle 2.2: Trees after sustained increase in crop in Year 1 2.3:Trees after increases in crop in Years 1 and 2 2.4: Trees after increase in crop in Year 1 followed by reversion to previous crop 3.1: Distribution of woods on soils of the study area 3.2: Pattern of size distribution in the parishes of the study area 3.3: Wood size related to percentage of wood boundary adjoining moor 3.4: Histogram of wood name types 3.5: Chart of wood name elements 3.6: Histogram of wood name groups 3.7: Woods sharing names with settlements 3.8: Distribution of PCA scores (1st component) 4.1: The case studies 4.2.1: Woods, parishes and settlements of the Sherracombe case study 4.2.2: Features recorded in reconnaissance survey of Sherracombe case study (features shown on Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 1973) 4.2.3: State of cultivation of land in and around the Sherracombe case study on tithe maps for parishes of High Bray (1838) and North Molton (1840) 4.2.4: Owners of woods and land in and around the Sherracombe case study on tithe maps for parishes of High Bray (1838) and North Molton (1840) 4.3.1: Bremridge Wood on the 1st OS 6 inch (Devon sheet XIV SE) with transcribed parcel outlines of map of 1672 (DRO 1262M/E4/1) 4.3.2: State of cultivation of Bremridge Wood and some adjacent land on the tithe map for the parish of South Molton (1846) 4.3.3: Parcel boundaries of map of 1672 (DRO 1262M/E4/1) transcribed on to the tithe map for the parish of South Molton (1846) 4.4.1: Woods and settlements of the Barle case study 4.4.2: Administrative boundaries of the Barle case study 4.4.3: Platforms in Barle case study (recorded in writer’s survey) 4.4.4: Features (other than platforms) in the Barle case study (recorded in writer’s survey) 4.4.5: Tracks noted in survey and proposed boundary of Royal Forest on 1st OS 6 inch (Somerset Sheet LVII SW) 4.4.6: Owners of woods and land in and around the Barle case study on tithe map for the parish of Dulverton (1839) with proposed boundary of Royal Forest 4.4.7: Medieval settlement in and around the Barle case study (Aston 1983;DomesdayS) 4.5.1: The Vale of Porlock and the case studies 4.5.2: Woods, parish boundaries and places mentioned in Domesday Book in and around the Vale of Porlock (DomesdayS) 4.6.1: Woods and settlements in and around the Culbone case study 4.6.2: Features recorded in survey of woods in the Culbone case study (McDonnell & Faxon 2002) 4.6.3: Sketch map of Culbone Manor from Estate Memorandum book of the Earl of Lovelace 1741-1840 (SRO DD/CCH/3/3) 4.6.4: Sketch map of ‘Yarner’ Manor from Estate Memorandum Book of the Earl of Lovelace 1741-1840 (SRO DD/CCH/3/3)

iii

Page 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 18 30 30 31 31 37 39 41 41 42 42 43 47 53 56 58 60 62 67 70 71 78 79 80 81 83 84 88 95 96 101 103 104 104

4.6.5: Owners of Yearnor Wood and Worthy Wood on tithe map for the parish of Porlock (1841) 106 4.7.1: Woods, parish boundaries and places mentioned in Domesday Book in and around the Horner case study (DomesdayS) 110 4.7.2: Platforms in the Horner case study (Juleff 2000; Berry 1995; McDonnell 1994; writer’s survey) 112 4.7.3: Features (other than platforms) in the Horner case study (Juleff 2000;Berry 1995; McDonnell 1994; writer’s survey; Grace & Richardson 2001) 113 4.7.4: Holdings in and around the Horner case study in 1809: after 1809 estate map (National Trust Holnicote Archive; DRO 1148m/add) 115 4.7.5: The Horner case study on 1st OS 6 inch (Somerset Sheets XXXIV NW, XXXIV SW) 116 4.7.6: Owners of woods in the Horner case study on tithe maps for parishes of Luccombe (1840) and Stoke Pero (1839) 117 4.7.7: Names of woods in the Horner case study on the tithe maps for parishes of Luccombe (1840) and Stoke Pero (1839) 118 4.7.8: Settlement around the Horner case study by the 14th century (Aston 1983; Grace & Richardson 2001; Riley & Wilson-North 2001; LaySub1327, DomesdayS) 122 4.7.9: Pollard on Cloutsham Ball (photograph by writer) 127 4.8.1: Wilmersham Wood and tree survey areas (based on Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 1973 SS 84 NE and 84 SE) 132 4.8.2: Holdings in and around Wilmersham Wood in 1809; after 1809 estate map (National Trust Holnicote Archive; DRO 1148m/add) 134 135 4.8.3: Wilmersham Wood on 1st OS 6 inch (Somerset sheet XXXIV SW) 4.8.4: Volunteers from TAG at work (photograph by writer) 136 4.8.5: Tree type counts in tree survey areas 137 4.8.6: Girth of trunk and girth of largest pole on coppice (Type 1) in survey areas 1 and 2 138 4.8.7: Number of cut poles on coppice (types 1 and 3) 138 4.8.8: Tree types in survey area 1 139 4.8.9: Tree types in survey area 2 139 4.8.10: Tree types in survey area 3 140 4.8.11: Girth of trunks in survey area 1 140 4.8.12: Girths of trunks in survey area 2 141 4.8.13: Girths of trunks in survey area 3 141 4.8.14: Numbers of complete and cut poles on coppice in survey area 1 142 4.8.15: Numbers of complete and cut poles on coppice in survey area 2 142 5.1.1: Underwood and woodland recorded in Domesday Book (DomesdayS,DomesdayD)147 5.2.1: Cattle recorded in Domesday Book (DomesdayS,DomesdayD) 150 5.2.2: Mares recorded in Domesday Book (DomesdayS,DomesdayD) 150 5.2.3: Possible former wood pastures and the case studies 152 5.2.4: Woods (outside case studies) noted in fieldwork as having tracks/paths along boundary 154 5.2.5: Woodbank in Great Wood (photograph by writer) 157 5.3.1: Distribution of land of lords named in Domesday Book (DomesdayS, DomesdayD) 161 5.4.1: Woods, parishes, case studies and relationships indicated by 1327 Lay Subsidy (LaySub1327) 169 5.4.2: Woods, parishes and medieval farmsteads recorded by Aston (1983) 175

iv

List of Tables Page 1.1: Characteristics of soils (Curtis et al. 1976, 320 et seq.) 4 1.2: Publications on Exmoor in disciplines other than archaeology 13 1.3: Subjects discussed at conferences on Exmoor (1995 and 2000) 13 1.4: Physical remains of woodland management for different purposes 15 2.1: Published primary sources for monastic and other estates 25 3.1: Data collected from 1st OS 6 inch, Soil Survey (1983) and modern OS 34 3.2: Name groups 35 3.3: Name elements and their meaning 35 3.4: Name types 36 3.5: Quantifiable data items 46 3.6: Pairs of woods with similar PCA scores 48 3.7: Woods from clusters 1 to 6 (‘C’ indicates group or cluster number) 49 4.1: Sources of evidence used in all case studies 54 4.2: Sources of evidence used in specific case studies 54 4.3: Woods in the Sherracombe case study 55 4.4: Wood name changes in the Sherracombe case study 57 4.5: Wood in the Bremridge case study 67 4.6: Account of wood and bark sales from Bremridge Wood, June 1816 (transcribed from DRO bundle 1262M/E4/22) 73 4.7: Woods in the Barle case study 79 4.8: Meaning of wood names in the Barle case study 84 4.9: Woodwards in the Barle case study in 1257 (MacDermot 1939, 125) 86 4.10: Confirmation of grant of land in the Barle case study to Forde Abbey in charter of 1204 (MacDermot 1939, 91) 87 4.11: Summary of offences against Forest law in the Barle case study, as recorded by eyres of 1257 and 1270 (MacDermot 1939, 79-91) 88 4.12: Woods in the Culbone case study 102 4.13: Woods in the Horner case study 111 4.14: Meaning of wood names in the Horner case study 116 4.15: Woodwards and owners in and around the Horner case study, as listed in 1257 (MacDermot 1939, 82-83) 120 4.16: Description of land in a charter of Taunton Priory of 1334 (Hugo 1860, 29 et seq.), with summary 120 4.17: Parcels of lease of Stock tenement dated 25th March 1769 (DRO 1148/add/2/73) 126 4.18: Parcels on estate map of 1809 and tree survey areas in Wilmersham Wood 132 4.19: Data collected in tree survey in Wilmersham Wood 135 5.1: Woods bounded by paths or tracks 155 5.2: Patterns of ownership of woods and fields in the case studies, as recorded in the 19th century 159 5.3: Some wood edge settlements in the case studies 163 5.4: Survey of woods at Highley for Augmentation Office (PostDissD, 44) 165 5.5: Categories of settlement (Gillard 2002, 78) 167 5.6: References in 1327 Lay Subsidy to distant places in case studies (LaySub1327, 180; 247-8; Aston 1983, 87-103) 168 5.7: Scores on principal component analysis (1st component) of pairs of woods sharing settlement names 172 5.8: Woods of intermediate size in parishes of Countisbury, Martinhoe and Trentishoe, and nearby hamlets 173 5.9: Medieval farmsteads and soils (Aston 1983, Soil Survey 1983) 176 5.10: Costs and prices of wood produced at Beaulieu Abbey 1269-70 as set out in the Forester’s Table of the Account Book (Rackham 1980, 140; Beauli eu, 35) 178 5.11: Comparison of costs and receipts of woodland production at Bremridge in 1816 as set out in Table 4.6 (from DRO 1262M/E4/22) 178

v

List of accompanying material One compact disc is attached to the inside back cover. It contains the woods database referred to in Appendix III.

Please note that the CD referred to above has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

Definitions 1st OS 1 inch: the First Edition Ordnance Survey at the scale of 1 inch:1 mile (1809). 1st OS 6inch: the First Edition Ordnance Survey at the scale of 6 inches:1 mile (1888-1891). Soil Survey (1983): the Ordnance Survey Soil Survey (1983) at the scale of 1:250,000. The study area: the area covered by this research, shown edged black in Figure 1.2. Other terms are defined in the Glossary.

Glossary Terminology relating to woodland management Bolling: the permanent base of cutting on a pollard tree (Rackham 2003, 5) Compartments: the units into which a coppice may be divided. N. B. This term is sometimes used by others (e.g. Rackham) to apply to divisions of wood pasture. Coppice: a wood managed by coppicing (ibid. , 5) Coppice: the growth exhibited by some species of tree, in which the stump sends up shoots after cutting (ibid. , 1) Coppice cycle orrotation: the interval between successive cutting of underwood (ibid. , 3) Coppicing: the system of managing trees by cutting at intervals to produce a series of crops (ibid. , 558) Faggot: a bundle of rods or twigs which are too small to burn separately; gives a short hot blaze (ibid. ,142). Plantation: trees all of one age and often of one species, which have been deliberately planted (ibid. , 3) Poles, shoots: the growth of a coppiced or pollard tree (ibid. , 581) Pollarding: the system of managing trees by cutting at a height two to five metres above ground (ibid. , 5) Pollard: a tree managed by pollarding (ibid. , 575); also applied on Exmoor to a deer which has cast or lost its antlers; also the surname of a well-known Exmoor family Shredding: system of managing trees by cutting off branches in the expectation they will grow again (ibid. , 5) Spring: regrowth of new shoots after cutting (ibid. , xiii) Stool: the stump of a coppiced tree (ibid. , 1) Stub pollard: a pollard cut at a height below two metres (an Exmoor curiosity) Timberorstandard tree: a tree left to grow to maturity, which is suitable for timber (ibid. , 579, 580), sometimes called a ‘maiden’ Underwood: the growth or crop of coppiced or pollard trees (ibid. , 581) Wood pasture: system of management in which growing trees are combined with grazing animals (ibid. , 3); trees in wood pasture are often pollards Timber: the trunk of tree which is suitable for sawing into planks or making beams (ibid. , 580) Woodbank: a bank and ditch surrounding a wood, with the bank on the wood side; often massive and may be medieval (ibid. , 13). Terminology relating to the Royal Forest of Exmoor Forester: official appointed by the Warden to apply Forest law (MacDermot 1939, 66-7) Wardenofthe Forest: the chief Forester, appointed by and responsible to the monarch (ibid. , 61) Vert: all trees, bushes and underwood giving cover to the deer (ibid. , 46) , 77) Forest eyre: court held to hear proceedings under Forest law (ibid. Justices ineyre: judges appointed to determine proceedings under Forest law (ibid. , 77) Woodward: person appointed by the landowner to manage woods outside the Royal Forest who was required to swear to maintain Forest law and protect the ‘peace of the venison’ (ibid. , 68) Waste (ofwoods): destruction or unauthorised cutting of woods, an offence under Forest law (ibid. , 72) Assart: a piece of woodland which has been cleared and cultivated (ibid. , 71-2) Purpresture: any encroachment on the land of the Royal Forest (ibid. , 71-2). Swainmote Court: a subsidiary court of the Royal Forest (ibid. , 181)

vi

untilthe 1990s,in comparison to otheruplandsofthe sout h-west , and knowl edge of i t s past l and use has consequent l y been ext remel yl i mi t ed.Percept i onsofi t s woodland have been conditioned by theneed to collect dat a for managementpurposes,generat i ng a seri es of surveysandassessment scarri edoutfrom t hemi d-1990s. Theresultsofthesesurveys,whi chrecordedahi ghl evel of archaeol ogi cal feat ures rel at i ng t o woodl and management ,i ndi cat et hatfurt herprogresscan now be madebyanal ysi ngandi nt erpret i ngt hedat a.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I then gathered for myself staves and props and tieshafts,and handles for each of the tools that I knew how to workwith,and cross-bars and beams… and the finest timbers I could carry. I never came away with a single load without wishing to bring home the whole of the forest… in every tree I saw something for which I had a need at home. Ki ngAl fred’st ransl at i onofAugust i ne’s Soliloquies (Keynes& Lapi dge1983,138).

Theperi odcoveredbyt hi sresearchrunsfrom t hedat eof Domesday Book (1086)t ot he earl y 19th century. The st artoft heperi odwasnoti nt endedt ocoi nci dewi t hany part i cul ar phase of,or changes i n,l and use butwas defi ned pragmat i cal l y. Dat ed archaeological material and documentary evidencerelating to thestudy areaare sparseand Domesday Book provi ded arareexampl eof evi dence from aknown poi nti nt i me. Itwast herefore chosenast hest artoft heperi odunderst udy.

1. 1 Preview W oodsare placeswhere we walk,look atwildlife and refresh t he mi nd and senses. W e experi encewoodl and asa‘natural’refugefrom urban life,rarely using itfor any purpose ot hert han recreat i on (unl esswe work for ForestEnt erpri seorasi mi l arorgani sat i on).Thi sl i mi t ed funct i on i s a phenomenon oft he modern age. In t he past ,peopl eused woodsaspast urefort hei rani mal s,as t hesourceofregul arharvest sofwoodandbark,andfor ot heract i vi t i eswhi chhavenoexactmodernequi val ent s, such ascharcoalproduction. Allthoseusesfitted in to economi es i n whi ch farmi ng was t he pri nci palway of maki ngal i vi ng.Themanagementofwoodl andwasnot , t hen,an act i vi t yi ni sol at i on from ot hers;i twasmerel y one t hread i nt he t ext i l e ofrurall and use. Thi sst udy ai ms t o underst and past woodl and expl oi t at i on i ni t s cont ext :asa form ofl and use whi ch harmoni sed wi t h, and compl ement ed use of,t he fi el dsand moorswhi ch ocksandherds. werehometofarmers1,fl

In t hi s Chapt er,t he st udy area wi l lbe i dent i fi ed and publ i shed work on i t s archaeol ogy and hi st ory wi l lbe revi ewed. The nat ure and ext ent of t he sources of evidence for woodland exploitation will be briefly descri bed and t he met hods empl oyed i n col l ect i ng, anal ysi ngandi nt erpret i ngt heevi dencewi l lbeout l i ned. Theterm ‘medieval’willreferto theperiod up to 1500 and the term ‘pre-Conquest’ will be used to refer speci fi cal l yt ot heyearsupto1066.‘Post-medieval’will refert ot heperi odfrom 1500t o1700.

1. 2 Thestudyarea 1. 2. 1 Location and physical characteristics

The subject of this work is the archaeology of expl oi t at i on of woodl and on and around Exmoor,i n sout h-westEngl and. Itfi t si nt ot he exi st i ng body of research att hree l evel s. Fi rst l y,i tat t empt st o anal yse pat t ernsofwoodl and managementoveral argearea. In t hi srespect ,i tformspartofamodern t rend,wi t h many wri t erson woodl and now recogni si ng t heneed t o move away from hi st ori es of i ndi vi dualwoods and adopta wi der perspect i ve.Secondl y,t he area st udi ed i nt hi s research i s an upl and and i t s fri nges,wi t h a di spersed set t l ementpat t ern,whi ch i s an envi ronmentofa t ype still under-represented in work on landscape development.Inparticular,workonwoodlandhas,until recentyears,tendedtofocusonthesouthern,easternand cent ral l owl ands of Engl and, whi ch may have more cent ral i sed pat t erns of set t l ement . Thi rdl y, t he geographi calarea sel ect ed for st udy,Exmoor and i t s fri nges,saw rel at i vel yl i t t l e sust ai ned schol arl y work

Theareacoveredbyt hi sresearchconsi st soft heupl ands ofExmoorand i t sl owl and fri nges,asshown i n Fi gures 1. 1 and 1. 2.Thisareawillbereferred to throughoutas ‘t he st udy area’.The st udy area has a coast l i ne on i t s nort hernedge,wi t ht heW el shcoastl yi ngapproxi mat el y 20-30km away,ont heot hersi deoft heBri st olChannel . TheportofBarnst apl el i est ot hewestand t hel owl ands ofDevonandSomersetaret ot hesout h. Tot heeast ,l i e t heVal eofTaunt onandt heQuant ockHi l l s. Ascan beseen from Figure1. 2,thestudy areaincludes st eep sl opesup t o a cent ral ,gent l y undul at i ng,pl at eau, of which a large part is moorland.Altitudes exceed 450m abovesealevelin placesand treesarescarcely to be found,exceptforrare speci mens,whi ch have been dwarfed and di st ort ed by t he wi nd and weat her. Ot her environments in the study area include steep valleys drai ni ng from t he cent ralmoorl and,i n whi ch many of the principalrivers,such as the Bray,ExeandBarle,

1

A ‘farmer’inthisresearchisonewhomakesaliving onl andoverwhi chhehasadegreeofcont rol ,by cul t i vat i onorbykeepi ngl i vest ock.Noassumpt i onast o t heexactnat ureofhi st enurei si mpl i ed.

1

3

Heddon

Bray

10

Badgworthy W ater

East Lyn

North Molton

Lynmouth

km

Dane' sBrook

Barle

Exford

Horner W ater

Exe

Porlock

PorlockBay

Dulverton

Quarme

Avill

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

Figure 1.2: Relief, principal rivers and places of the study area (based on Ordnance Survey Travel Map Road 7 2003)

W est Lyn

0

above 427m 305m to426m 183m to304m 61m -182m upto61m

Altitude

Dunster Carhampton

Figure 1.3: Valley of Horner Water near Porlock (photograph by writer) have their source. M any of these valleys are heavily wooded, as shown in Figure 1.3, and woods also hem the cliffs along the northern coast and lie on gentler slopes in the lowland fringes to the south and west.

The soils, as shown in Ordnance Survey’s soil survey at a scale of 1:250,000, which will be referred to throughout this work as ‘the Soil Survey (1983)’, follow a broad east-west alignment, as do the rocks, but with marked variation in the central, moorland section. As shown in Figure 1.5, soils range from peat on the highest parts to alluvial deposits on the lower-lying areas. Characteristics of the different soils are set out in Table 1.1. When compared with the map of soils in Figure 1.5, this Table shows that significant parts of the study area are affected by seasonally or permanently wet conditions, which may make them less attractive for cultivation than other, better drained soils elsewhere.

The geology of the study area consists of sedimentary rocks, in contrast to other south-western uplands, such as Dartmoor and Bodmin M oor, which are of granite. M ost of Exmoor and its fringes are composed of Devonian rocks, as shown in Figure 1.4, with the beds running east to west (Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 3) but the geology between Porlock and M inehead (in the north-east of the study area) is of Permian, Jurassic and Triassic rock (ibid., 3).

Table 1.1: Characteristics of soils (Curtis et al.,1976, 320 et seq.) Soil Typi calbrowneart hs Stagnogleviargillicbrownearths Typi calbrownal l uvi alsoi l s Typicalbrownpodzolicsoils Ferri cpodzol s Ferri cst agnopodzol s Typi calcal careouspel osol s Typi calargi l l i cpel osol s Pelo-stagnogleysoils Cambicstagnohumicgleysoils Typi calal l uvi algl eysoi l s Pelo-alluvialgleysoils Typi calcambi cgl eysoi l s Raw ol i go-fi brouspeatsoi l s Raw ol i go-amorphouspeatsoi l s

Charact erist ics Loamy,fri abl ewi t hsoi lext endi ngbel ow 30cm;wel lt oi mperfect l ydrai ned Loamy,withsoilextendingbelow 30cm;welltoimperfectlydrained Recentalluvium withsoilextendingbelow 30cm;welltoimperfectlydrained Loamyorsandy,mayhavepeat yt opsoi l ;normal l ywel ldrai ned Coarsel oamyorsandywi t hal umi ni um/ i ronl ayer;normal l ywel ldrai ned Peat yt opsoi loveri ronpan;peri odi cal l ywet Cl ayeywi t hcal careoushori zon,cracksdeepl yi ndryseasons Cl ayeywi t hsub-surfaceclay,cracksdeeplyindryseasons Peatyorhumosetopsoilwithsub-surfaceloamyorclaylayerwhichimpedes drai nage;seasonal l ywet Peatyorhumosenon-calcaeroustopsoilwithimpermeablelayerwhich i mpedesdrai nage;normal l ywetformostofyear Peat yorhumoset opsoi li nrecental l uvi um;seasonal l ywet Peatyorhumoset opsoi li nrecental l uvi um;seasonal l ywet Loamyorcl ayeywi t hrel at i vel ypermeabl esubst rat um;seasonal l ywet Organi cl ayeratl east40cm t hi ck;permanent l ywat erl ogged Organi cl ayeratl east40cm t hi ck;permanent l ywat erl ogged 4

5

0 10

Exford

Porlock

Figure 1.4: Geology of the study area (based on Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 3)

North Molton

Lynmouth

km

Dulverton

Baggy & Marw ood Beds (UpperDevoni an) Carboni ferous Hangman Gri ts (Mi ddle Devoni an) I lfracombe Beds (Mi ddle & UpperDevoni an) Jurassi c & Tri assi c Lynton Beds (Low erDevoni an) Morte Slates (UpperDevoni an) Pi ckw ell Dow n Beds (UpperDevoni an) Pi lton Beds (Carboni ferous & Devoni an) Recent& Plei stocene

Geology

Dunster Carhampton

6 © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

Present land use over the study area, as recorded for the Exmoor National Park Authority, includes enclosed land in the lower and flatter areas, fragmented moorland at greater altitudes and woodland distributed around the edge of the study area, along the coast and in the river valleys.Some broad correspondence between land use and soil types is apparent, with moorland having peat soils and ferric stagnopodzols.

aforesaid King Henry’(M acDermot 1939, 111). W hen W illiam de Plessy was created Forester in 1251, he was required to ‘answer to the King for the profit of the herbage of the said Forest of Exemore’(ibid.,124)and this ‘herbage’ of the Forest was valued at £10 in a valuation of 1289. That valuation also mentioned that the Forester received 14 heifers and one bull yearly from the commoners and referred to the use of the Forest for grazing pigs (ibid., 132).

1.2.2 The Royal Forest of Exmoor

Grazing in the Forest was subject to restrictions. In theory, none was allowed during the ‘fence month’(17th June to 17th July), when deer calves were born, but in practice, this prohibition may have been used by the Forester merely as a means of raising money, particularly where pigs were concerned (M acDermot 1939, 135). The most frequent references to grazing rights occurred in the proceedings of the Swainmote Court, a subsidiary Forest court, for which documents dating mainly from the 17th century survive. It is a reasonable assumption that those post-medieval documents referred to ancient rights.Two groups were subject to the Swainmote Court:the ‘Free Suitors’(those holding named tenements in the parishes of W ithypool and Hawkridge) and the ‘Suitors at Large’ (the townships bordering the Forest)(ibid., 181-182). The court’s proceedings confirmed that Free Suitors had four rights of common:common of pasture, turbary, estovers and piscary (ibid., 184-185), while the Suitors at Large had a less certain right of common of pasture, for which some paid rent (ibid., 196). In 1655 new payments for pasture were introduced for the Suitors at Large and for ‘strangers’ and these remained unaltered until disafforestation (ibid., 202).

A large part of the study area fell within the former Royal Forest of Exmoor, as outlined in Figure 1. 6, which also shows the location of the case studies of this research. The Royal Forest, for which documentary evidence exists from the 13th century, may have been a medieval version of a much older arrangement, as Domesday Book recorded ‘foresters’holding W ithypool before 1066 (DomesdayS, 98c). The precise area of Forest jurisdiction changed over the period from 1200 to 1400 and its laws were not fully enforced throughout. The Forest (in the centre of Figure 1. 6)was the area in which Forest law applied in full from around 1400 until disafforestation in 1819 and over which the Forester or W arden exercised his jurisdiction. The area to the west (edged with a dashed line) was probably part of the Forest only until 1204, when it was disafforested (M acDermot 1939, 111-113).The exact boundaries are not known and those shown in Figure 1. 6 are speculative. Disafforestation of the area to the east (edged with a dotted line) appeared to have been completed by 1400, although probably in stages, as perambulations in 1219and 1279had recorded a further boundary, of which part is shown in Figure 1. 6 (passing through Exford).Forest law was partly enforced in this disafforested eastern area (ibid., 137-147). All the disafforested areas comprised the Precincts of the Suitors at Large, together with a small area (not shown separately)on the eastern side being the Precincts of the Free Suitors.

The third aspect of Forest administration of significance to this research is the enforcement of Forest law by special judges, the ‘justices in eyre’. Some records of their proceedings have survived and of particular interest are those for the waste (unauthorised cutting)of woods and those relating to assarts (pieces of woodland which had been cleared and cultivated) and purprestures (encroachments on the Forest)(M acDermot 1939, 71-2). These aspects of Forest law do seem to have been enforced to some degree in the land to the east (that edged with a dotted line in Figure 1. 6), which contains a significant number of the woods in the study area. Forest law was therefore a factor which could have affected woodland exploitation in this part of the study area.

By 1400 the Forest itself contained few woods but three aspects of Forest administration were significant for woodland. Firstly, Forest law provided that those appointed by owners of woods outside the Forest to care for those woods should also swear to observe Forest law and protect ‘the peace of the venison’. These private officials with royal obligations were woodwards (M acDermot 1939, 68) and some records relating to them survive.Secondly, the Forest played an important role in providing grazing for livestock.Rights of pasture on the moor may have been ancient, as the entry in Domesday Book for M olland records dues from ‘every third animal on moorland pasture’(DomesdayD,101a). The grazing rights exercised over the Forest were rarely referred to in charters and grants, even after the 13th century. The charter of 1204, which disafforested land in Devon, simply stated that ‘the men of Devon and their heirs may have the customs within the regard of those moors as they were wont to have in the time of the

1.2.3 Other administrative boundaries Figure 1. 7 shows the county boundary and parish boundaries at the date of tithe apportionment (roughly 1830-1846).The writer is indebted to Dr.M artin Gillard for lending his transcription of the outlines of parish boundaries and their changes, which provided the basis 7, together with further detail from a for Figure 1.

7

8

Exford

DISAFFORESTED BY ?1400?

Porlock

Dulverton

km

10

Figure 1.6: The Royal Forest of Exmoor (based on MacDermot 1939, maps preceding pages 108, 132), woods and case studies

North Molton

THE ROYAL FOREST 1400 -1819

DISAFFORESTED 1204

Lynmouth

0

Case study

W ood

Boundary of RoyalForest i n 1219,1279

Boundary of RoyalForest unti l?1400?

Boundary of RoyalForest

Dunster Carhampton

9

Figure 1.7: Parishes and counties of the study area at the tithe apportionment (Gillard 2002;Kain & Oliver 1995)

published volume (Kain & Oliver 1995, 125 and 430). References to parishes will, throughout this work, mean parishes as they were defined at the date of the tithe maps, with the exception of the parish of Exmoor, which was created in 1856 (MacDermot 1939, 438). It is apparent that parishes in the north-eastern quadrant (Porlock, Luccombe, Carhampton and Timberscombe) are fragmented, that parishes fringe the central part of the study area in a radial pattern and that the central, moorland part of the study area is covered almost entirely by the large parish of Exmoor.

1.3

Exmoor

1.3.1 The neglected moor The term ‘Exmoor’, which was used in the preceding description of the study area, is not a precisely defined term. It refers loosely to the upland area shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. In modern usage, the term is applied variously to the moorland in the middle of the study area, to land within the boundaries of the Exmoor National Park, to the former Royal Forest of Exmoor or even to the modern parish of Exmoor, which was coterminous with the Royal Forest from the post-medieval period.

1.2.4 Principles of definition The study area was defined so as to include four different types of terrain: i) the river valleys around the edge of the moor, which now, or during the period covered by this study, adjoined moorland; ii) moorland; iii) the northern coastal strip; and iv) lowland areas, which do not adjoin moorland.

Exmoor (however defined) has been overlooked by academics of many disciplines until recent years. Its history, archaeology and geography represent a large reservoir of unexploited evidence. There were several reasons for neglect of the area by scholars, of which geographical isolation and transport links (or the lack of them) may be the most important. Exmoor was far from urban centres (and seats of learning) and even after the growth of ports along the northern coast and the advent of the railway in the 19th century, it remained relatively unknown and infrequently visited. The author of a delightful memoir of childhood on Exmoor of the late 19th century stated that ‘few people outside the Westcountry had in those days ever heard of Exmoor’ (Bradley 1926, 4).

As is apparent from Figure 1.2, the study area was defined along Ordnance Survey map grid lines. Its precise boundaries were chosen for the following reasons: a. the Vale of Porlock and the area around Dunster possess settlement patterns and geology of a different nature to the rest of the area and it was felt that their inclusion could provide the basis for comparison and contrast; b. the Rivers Barle and Exe are major watercourses with substantial areas of woodland in their valleys which it seemed preferable to deal with as a whole, resulting in extension of the study area to include long stretches of these valleys; c. low-lying areas, which are some distance from moorland, were included along the southern and western fringes as a contrast to other parts of the study area; and d. as the central parts of the study area include several places which possess archaeological evidence of metal working, part of the Brendon Hills (on the eastern edge of the study area), which has similar remains, was also included for comparative purposes, although time pressures eventually prevented detailed investigation of this part of the study area.

The division of Exmoor between two counties may also have hindered research. Much archaeological activity (at least until the post-war years) was conducted or encouraged by, county archaeological societies. Exmoor was not appropriated by either the Devon or Somerset societies to the same degree as other uplands. The division also poses more direct, practical challenges; even today, the researcher must consult records held by two counties’ record offices and the National Park Authority (Heal 1995, 53). The administration of Exmoor National Park (established in 1954) was made complex by the division between Somerset and Devon, which impeded those seeking swift decisions. Problems were experienced, for example, by those studying woodlands and forestry in the 1960s (Miles 1967, 193 et seq.) and no doubt archaeological projects on any significant scale would have been hindered in a similar way. The shock of proposals to afforest The Chains (the western part of Exmoor’s moorland), continuing ploughing of moorland and the formation of the Exmoor Society in 1959 may have helped to galvanise the National Park into reform and simplification of its procedures. However, the Park continued to lack a professional archaeologist until 1991, when Veryan Heal was appointed. At that time, even basic information about the location and exact nature of Exmoor’s archaeological features was in short supply

As is apparent from these points, the study area has not been defined by using the parish as the primary unit. This approach is not intended to imply that parish boundaries are to be regarded as unimportant; on the contrary, it was hoped that using physical geography to define the study area and then mapping administrative boundaries might allow relationships between these two aspects of landscape to be seen more clearly.

10

(Heal 1995, 53). Both Veryan Heal and her successor, Robert Wilson-North, have devoted much effort to rectifying matters and ensuring that archaeology is properly recorded and surveyed. Their activity and the major programme of survey by the Royal Commission for the Historic Monuments of England (RCHME) carried out between 1993 and 1999 (Riley & WilsonNorth 2001, 12) resulted in a body of reports and records which provides archaeologists of the 21st century with both an incentive to, and the material for, further research, which earlier scholars lacked.

1.3.2 Early attitudes and the slow growth of research Antiquarian writers had made no pretence of their dislike of Exmoor. Camden (1610, 203) famously described it as ‘a filthy and barren ground’ and Defoe echoed these words (Defoe, 263). Westcote’s (1630) View of Devon used similar terms, calling it a ‘spacious, coarse, barren and wild object, yielding little comfort by his rough, cold and rigorous complexion’ (Westcote, 89). Beyond brief accounts of the acquisition of property on Exmoor by aristocratic families in a 17th century study of Somerset (Trent, 1-23) the area’s antiquarian potential was overlooked.

Local geology and the physical nature of Exmoor’s archaeology have also played a major role in its neglect. Exmoor is not a dramatic landscape of granite tors and it is not rich in highly visible stone monuments; the individual stones in prehistoric circles, for example, may barely rise above the level of the surrounding ground. When covered in heather, field evidence may be impossible to see. Any archaeologist interested in uplands might compare Exmoor unfavourably with Dartmoor, where field remains may be more easily detected.

Scholars of the late 18th and 19th centuries started to take notice of Exmoor and included accounts of its history in works on Somerset and Devon. The books of Collinson (1791) and Savage (1830) were the principal authorities of this period. Such studies were written from the perspective of a single county and Exmoor’s division between Somerset and Devon prevented development of any view of it as a coherent whole. The early 19th century also saw publication of relevant works on agricultural reform. Reports to the Board of Agriculture on the counties of Devon (Vancouver 1808) and Somerset (Billingsley 1798), together with that on the south-west region (Marshall 1796) provide fascinating insight into the attitudes of reformers and sketch the idiosyncratic, possibly ancient, practices of the region as seen by them.

The national dominance of prehistory in upland archaeological studies reinforced the tendency to ignore Exmoor. Until the creation of The Society for Medieval Archaeology in 1957, ‘archaeology’ normally meant ‘prehistoric archaeology’. Exmoor’s medieval remains (such as those at Ley Hill and Sweetworthy) could only lie disregarded until medieval archaeology became a respectable academic pursuit. Even after recognition of their discipline, medieval archaeologists were at first more interested in settlements of a type not found on Exmoor. For years, the nucleated village was regarded as, in some sense, the standard. A pioneering article on dispersed settlement in Cornwall (Beresford 1964) apparently failed to generate further interest and the study of dispersed patterns, which are characteristic of Exmoor and its fringes, only began in earnest with Aston’s (1983) article on deserted farmsteads.

Until late in the 20th century, historians, like earlier scholars, viewed Exmoor from a county perspective. Chadwyck Healey’s History of the part of West Somerset (1901), which remains a valuable source of historical material, covered only the north-eastern part of Exmoor and Greswell’s (1905) study of forests and deer parks of Somerset is of limited interest. Later historians’ interest in Exmoor tended to centre on royal estates. Two historical works dealt respectively with the history of the Forest (MacDermot 1939) and its development after disafforestation (Orwin et al.1997) and both properly belong to the pre-War years. MacDermot’s volume was first published in 1911 and revised in 1939, while Orwin’s was first published in 1929. The long period before publication of the reprinted or current editions in 1973 and 1997 respectively shows a perceived lack of demand for scholarly books on Exmoor. A single article dealing with medieval Exmoor (Everett 1968) from a historical perspective appeared in the 1960s, which attempted to reconstruct pre-Conquest manors in the parishes of Culbone, Stoke Pero and Porlock. The article was probably written before publication of the work on Domesday entries for the south-western counties (Darby & Welldon Finn 1967) and did not draw on it. Everett’s article did not appear to generate further investigations on this theme.

The lack of archaeological interest in Exmoor and the absence of modern excavation were mutually reinforcing trends. Archaeological publications on particular themes or periods could not draw on material from Exmoor and so the area tended simply to be overlooked. For example, an authoritative gazetteer of deserted sites (Beresford & Hurst 1971, 182-212) contained few entries for that part of the study area in Devon and none at all for that part in Somerset. A general overview of rural settlement in a study of the medieval countryside included no sites on Exmoor (or, for that matter, in Somerset) in its account of settlement in the south-west (Astill 1988). These omissions reflected the lack of modern research.

11

Historians’ interest in Exmoor was perhaps less than that of archaeologists, who had been investigating sporadically since the early 20th century, when Chanter and Worth began excavation of prehistoric field remains. They published brief reports on their barrow excavations, (e.g. Worth 1906) but even by the standards of the time, their work was not of particularly high quality. Gray also maintained an interest, publishing a handful of reports up to the 1930s. It is noticeable that his articles on stone circles at Withypool (Gray 1906), Porlock (Gray 1928) and Almsworthy (Gray 1931) contain descriptions of evidence first observed by others. In the latter two cases, E. T. MacDermot (the historian) had recognised stones, which became visible after heather burning, as possible archaeological features. There was clearly no archaeologist on the spot and his account of the evidence was passed to Gray.

A new era in Exmoor studies was initiated by Aston’s (1983) research on deserted farmsteads, which was one of the earliest published works to focus on medieval settlements on Exmoor. The study showed high levels of medieval settlement and was significant for its integration of documentary, cartographic and archaeological material and its use of personal names to locate medieval settlements. It did not immediately generate further research on the origin or development of Exmoor’s dispersed settlement pattern and archaeological effort in the following years continued to be directed towards publication of reports (sometimes several years after field investigation) on prehistoric field monuments, such as standing stones (Fowler 1988), stone rows (Fowler & Needham 1991) and a barrow (Quinnell 1997) with a single article dealing with medieval communications (Eardley-Wilmot 1990b).

A summary of Somerset’s archaeology (Dobson 1931) contained brief references to Exmoor but little more of direct relevance was written until reports of the excavation of Roman fortlets at Old Burrow and Martinhoe by Fox and Ravenhill (1966). There was thus an extended period, from around 1930 to 1966, when academic archaeological investigation all but ceased. This hiatus is all the more remarkable as it occurred in a period when archaeologists in Britain were active and public interest was growing. These factors did not appear to generate similar activity and interest on Exmoor. The absence of published work accurately reflected a real lack of sustained activity by scholars, which persisted until recent years. A noted figure in south-western prehistoric studies has commented that during the period from 1955 to 1975, only one archaeologist (Whybrow) was regularly active on Exmoor (Quinnell 1997, 1). Whybrow published a general guide (1970) and a gazetteer of hillforts (1967) but no reports of more extensive research or excavation.

Veryan Heal was appointed as archaeologist for the Exmoor National Park Authority in 1991 and, with the National Trust (who owns large areas of land in the study area), commissioned a series of surveys and assessments, many of which covered woodland (e.g. McDonnell 1994; Berry 1995; Teverson 1995; Juleff 2000). Archaeologists and historians could now begin to take more active interest in the development of the settlement pattern and other aspects of land use in the historic period. In spite of this growing body of information, Exmoor still tends to be disregarded in studies dealing with the south-west as a whole. The latest of these, a work on the early medieval period (Pearce 2004), paid scant attention to Exmoor. Exploitation of Dartmoor was described in some detail but Exmoor’s merely described as ‘likely to have been similar’ (Pearce 2004, 60). Greater achievements were apparent in disciplines other than history and archaeology. Table 1.2 lists publications and the importance of palynology is obvious. An early study by Crabtree and Maltby (1975) brought the total number of pollen studies in the area to three (ibid., 42)! This work foreshadowed a more sustained programme of pollen analysis in later years. The major themes of the pollen studies were peat formation, the contribution to this process made by human activities and the changing extent of woodland in prehistory. It therefore tended to perpetuate emphasis on the prehistoric period but provided an invaluable framework within which other research could be placed and has been complemented by more recent research described below.

The only major exception to the general archaeological neglect of the area is represented by Grinsell’s (1970) study, which attempted a comprehensive account of Exmoor’s archaeology. His work did not appear to involve any continuing commitment to further investigation of the area and was not successful in inspiring other archaeologists to research Exmoor at that time. The period up to 1980 therefore shows only a very limited number of publications of archaeological research, which dealt with prehistoric or Roman period remains but the efforts of devoted amateurs such as Hazel Eardley-Wilmot, who published works of general interest in later years (e.g. 1983, 1990a), should not be overlooked. Parish histories for the general reader and archaeological checklists, which were being published at the end of this period by the county societies, of which Dixon’s (1980) study of Carhampton is an example, should also be recognised for their value in collating basic information.

The growth of archaeological research into Exmoor to its current state was assisted by two conferences; the first was a joint symposium of the Royal Geographical Society and the Exmoor National Park Authority in 1995

12

Table 1.2: Publications on Exmoor in disciplines other than archaeology Subj ect Geology of north-west Somerset Vegetation of Exmoor Soils of Exmoor Forest Trees and woods of Exmoor Pollen sequences and soils Vegetation and land use Pollen analysis Pollen analysis Pollen analysis

Source (Thomas 1940) (Sinclair 1970) (Curtis 1971) (Miles 1972),(Menear 1997) (Crabtree & Maltby 1975) (Hallam 1978) (Francis 1986) (Francis & Slater 1990) (Francis & Slater 1992)

Table 1.3: Subj ects discussed at conferences on Exmoor (1995and 2000) Subj ect Archaeology - overview Economic history Pollen analysis overview Woodland Soils Geomorphology Medieval rural settlement Medieval history

Source (Heal 1995) (Binding 1995) (Straker & Crabtree 1995) (Essex 1995) (Maltby 1995) (Straw 1995), (Wilson 1995) (Gillard 2000) (Higham 2000)

and the second was the 146th Summer Meeting of the Royal Archaeological Institute in 2000. The subjects of relevant parts of the published proceedings are listed in Table 1.3. They did not, for the most part, present major pieces of new research but did serve to summarise the current state of knowledge in various fields and demonstrate opportunities for further investigation. These conferences showed that archaeologists, historians, geographers and environmental scientists had all become aware of their respective disciplines’ neglect of Exmoor, as was stated, for example, in one of the papers on geomorphology (Straw 1995, 13). The multidisciplinary nature of the conferences is significant when considering the nature and origins of current research programmes.

its audience amongst such groups. Amateur and general interest in Exmoor is fostered by the Exmoor Society, which was founded as the Exmoor branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, partly in response to afforestation proposals affecting The Chains (an area on the west side of Exmoor’s central moorland). The primary objectives of the society concern conservation of the environment rather than research, and this fact is reflected in its journal, the Exmoor Review, and in other literature it publishes (e.g. Miles 1972). The threat to moorland at The Chains also appears to have encouraged interest in forestry on Exmoor. Miles’ (1967) history of English forestry used Exmoor as its case study (ibid., 135 et seq.), and the Exmoor National Park Authority has published a guide to the management of woodland (Menear 1997).

Apart from work by academics of various disciplines, much research has been carried out on Exmoor by amateur groups, particularly in the areas of mineral extraction and processing. A general guide to Exmoor’s industrial archaeology (Atkinson 1997) probably found

Exmoor is also the subject of many books for the general reader and the discerning tourist. Typically, these contain some historical background and general information about the area’s archaeology. This type of book first appeared at the end of the 19th century,

13

presumably as a result of the influx of tourists arriving by rail and has continued to be published. Examples are those by Page (1890), Burton (1952) and EardleyWilmot (1983, 1990a).

were published (Newman 1996). The Exmoor Iron Project (directed by Dr. Gill Juleff and Professor Valerie Maxfield of the University of Exeter), explores the impact of past iron production on the environment and landscape of Greater Exmoor. The annual conference for 2003 of the Historical Metallurgy Society was held in Dunster (on the north-eastern edge of Exmoor), where continuing work by the Exmoor Iron Project was presented.

1.3.3 Recent and current research Some results of the major programme of survey by RCHME, which ended in 1999, have been interpreted and published in a guide to Exmoor’s field archaeology (Riley & Wilson-North 2001). This work outlined the quantity and quality of archaeological evidence, summarised past activity and sketched possible areas where archaeological research was most needed. One of the co-authors, Robert Wilson-North, is now the archaeologist of Exmoor National Park Authority and arranges regular day conferences, at which the results of research are presented and where interest in current projects is stimulated.

1.3.4 Woodland management: emerging evidence The exploitation of woodland has emerged from current and recent research on Exmoor as a major theme of the area’s past. Firstly, metal-working sites, which have been investigated by the Exmoor Iron Project, have raised questions about the extent, nature and duration of woodland management to meet demands for charcoal fuel. Secondly, woodland surveys carried out for the Exmoor National Park Authority and the National Trust, as owners of large areas of Exmoor, have revealed significant numbers of archaeological features which might relate to woodland management (as well as other activity in woods). All involved in those surveys have also recognised the value of living woodland as an archaeological resource. Finally, the pollen evidence produced by the Landscapes in Transition Project has added to knowledge of Exmoor’s past land use history and the level and composition of woodland at various periods.

These projects included the excavation of a deserted medieval settlement at Ley Hill in 1999, of which an interim report has been published (Grace & Richardson 2001). This excavation is not part of any current, largescale investigation into the development of the medieval settlement pattern. Examples of such programmes in other parts of the country include that in County Durham (Dunsford & Harris 2003), the Whittlewood Project (www.le.ac.uk/elh/whittlewood/index.htm; Jones & Page 2003) and work on Bernwood Forest (Broad & Hoyle 1997). On Exmoor, recent research programmes have been rather more restricted.

After reviewing this evidence, the first task of this research was to construct a strategy which would use the relatively abundant (but mostly undated) archaeological record from the woods of the study area, with further data collected from relevant sources, to interpret the exploitation of woodland by communities of the past.

Dr. Martin Gillard (2002) investigated Exmoor’s medieval field systems and settlement and work on a volume dedicated to Exmoor in The Victoria History series is continuing (R. Dunning, pers. comm.). Further background data has been produced by the Landscapes in Transition Project, a programme of palaeoenvironmental investigations which aimed to provide evidence of medieval environments across the uplandlowland junction around Exmoor. It was set up following similar work on palaeochannels of the Exe (Fyfe 2000). Resulting articles have recently been published, or are, at the date of writing, in press (Fyfe et al. 2003; Fyfe et al. 2004; Fyfe & Rippon 2004). The analysis has shown that woodland cover was reduced in the Middle and Late Iron Ages but not to any significant degree in the historic period (Fyfe & Rippon 2004, 40), which is relevant to this research.

1.4 Sources and methods In this section, different types of evidence for woodland exploitation in the study area will be described, together with the kind of information each may convey, and the strategy of data collection, analysis and interpretation will be outlined.

1.4.1 Archaeological evidence

The single, continuing large-scale research project on Exmoor concerns iron ore extraction and processing. A major research programme (the Exmoor Iron Project) to investigate early iron working, was started in 2000. The programme had been preceded by small pilot excavations and surveys of early iron working sites which had been commissioned by Veryan Heal. Some of the results had been presented at a conference held by the Historical Metallurgy Society, whose proceedings

The physical features, which might be expected as traces of woodland production, are summarised in Table 1.4. In the cases of woods producing timber, associated tracks would probably need to be wide enough for vehicles and at gentle gradients. Other activities might also produce paths or tracks to allow access and/or transport of the final product out of the wood. The archaeological evidence alone can be interpreted to

14

Table 1.4: Physical remains of woodland management for different purposes Output Timber Underwood Charcoal Bark M inerals W ater management for drainage W ater management for power Pasture

Physical remains Areas of mature trees, tracks Boundaries, coppice stool s, compartments, coppicedtrees Platforms, paths, charcoal Tracks Quarries, tracks Ditches Leats (watercourses constructedto supplywater to a millor similar place) Pollards, enclosures

identify specific actions but also to inform discussion of broader issues. For example, boundary features might indicate the relative chronology of enclosure of wood and field, which has implications for the development of farming practices.

Survey. They can also show woods’ relationship to administrative boundaries (such as those of parishes). With the exception of the Greenwood brothers’ maps of Somerset (1822) and Devon (1827) and the early Ordnance Survey maps, there are few informative maps of the study area predating the tithe maps (1830-46). For example, Donn’s map of Devon (1765) omitted large numbers of woods shown on later maps and merely hinted at woodland in some places with a few tree symbols, without showing wood boundaries (Ravenhill 1965). Even the First Edition of the Ordnance Survey at the scale of 1 inch to 1 mile (1809) was selective in its depiction of woods. For example, it omitted Barton Wood in the parish of Brendon, which has been recorded by English Nature as an ancient wood and was shown on the First Edition of the Ordnance Survey at the scale of 6 inches to 1 mile (1888-91).

The physical characteristics of a wood include those of its topography, such as its altitude, relief and aspect. Other quantifiable data include its proximity to settlements and the relative proportions of the wood edge adjacent to land used for other purposes. Information of this kind can further illuminate broader issues, such as the relationship of woods to settlements. The role of palaeo-environmental evidence in discovering past woodland practices was indicated in the review of recent research on Exmoor. Of particular interest in this study are pollen and charcoal. Pollen may indicate the general composition of woodland cover at different periods and highlight episodes of clearance. Charcoal can provide more detailed information through analysis of the growth rings. The rings of complete radial fragments (roundwood) can provide information about the season of felling, the age of the wood and its diameter and even suggest the form of management of other trees nearby (Gale 2003, 30). Regular bands of wide and narrowing rings in charcoal from a tree’s trunk may suggest that the tree was grown as a standard with coppice nearby; the pattern may also show the cutting cycle of the coppice. Charcoal from coppiced wood is normally identified as that showing wider rings towards the centre (shortly after the last cutting), with outer, narrower rings indicating increased competition from other vegetation and consequent slower growth (ibid., 30-1). Continuing work to identify use of pollard wood in charcoal production is being carried out by Peter Crew (P. Crew, pers. comm.)

Patterns of land occupation or ownership on tithe maps have been used elsewhere in the south-west to show medieval practices, notably by Hoskins at Sampford Peverell (Hoskins 1963, 37-39) and by Finberg at Braunton (Finberg 1952, 15). When collecting evidence for the case studies, it became clear that patterns of occupation may have undergone change in the early 19th century. Ownership, rather than occupation, was therefore regarded as the more stable parameter. The pattern of land ownership shown on tithe maps was generally used by this research as a potential source of evidence for earlier land use practices. Where earlier maps were available, they were also used, and their patterns of occupation (as well as ownership) were also considered. Tithe maps for parishes in the study area were generally drawn at the scale of 3 chains to 1 inch (26.7 inches to 1 mile) but larger parishes were at smaller scales (Kain & Prince 1985, 86-88) and this smaller scale was used for parishes with large areas of moorland.

1.4.2 Maps, names and documents

Maps prepared for the management of estates were a further possible source of evidence but were scarce for land in the study area. Only three examples, from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, were noted during this

Further information on the topography of woods can be obtained from maps, especially those of the Ordnance

15

research and each depicted a fairly limited area, although the information they contained was invaluable.The lack of extensive coverage by estate maps reflected the absence of any large estates (apart from the Royal Forest) in the medieval period and the late growth of large, secular estates. Maps also supply the names of woods at a particular date. The meaning of wood names could suggest the nature of past exploitation;for example, Collyhill Wood may include a name (‘Colly-‘) derived from a word for coal dust (Ekwall 1959, 117) and therefore could point to the production of charcoal.Naming as a wood, copse or plantation would also be relevant, as the latter terms may suggest coppicing and modern planting respectively. The inclusion of any one of a variety of suffixes in a wood’s name would also be of potential interest;for example, the element ‘-close’, indicating land enclosed from a larger area, might point to the history of land use in the area.Establishing the meaning of wood names (or place-names) in the study area was hindered by the fact that no volume covering Somerset has been published by the English Place-Name Society (‘EPNS’) and those for Devon (Gover et al. 1931;Gover et al. 1932) are more than 70 years old. Other, more recent works on placenames were therefore consulted (e. g.Gelling & Cole 2000;Watts 2004). Documentary evidence from the pre-Conquest and medieval periods for the study area is sparse. Although around 100 charters dealing with land in Somerset are known (Costen 1988, 33), none relating to woods in the study area have been mentioned in works on Somerset (e. g.Costen 1992a;Costen 1992b;Costen 1994;Corcos 2002).Only two references have been traced to any places in the study area.One concerned a manumission at High Bray in Devon (Hooke 1994, 7) and the other referred to land at Carhampton, which had been the subject of an exchange in the later 10th century (Finberg 1964, 129).Neither contained a boundary clause, which might give details of woodland. Domesday Book was the only documentary source of significant evidence for land use in the study area around the time of the Conquest.

focussed on post-Conquest conditions.Woodland in both Somerset and Devon was recorded by Domesday Book in acres or leagues but it was not assumed by this writer that these corresponded to, or could be translated into, modern measurements. It was not assumed that woodland was necessarily close to the place under which it was recorded and caution was used in equating places mentioned in Domesday Book with surviving settlements having the same name. It was recognised that those names might have referred to settlements in other places, to entire ‘estates’or to geographical areas rather than single places. Other medieval documentary evidence relating to the study area consisted principally of that from the Royal Forest of Exmoor, as translated and published by MacDermot (1939). The Lay Subsidy of 1327 (LaySub1327) was used (with other sources) in a study of deserted farmsteads by Aston (1983) and, as it related in part to the study area, was consulted.Other published primary sources as wills, pleas, feet of fines and inquisitions post mortem were investigated, together with lists of rentals and surveys and inquisitions adquod damnum. All proved to contain little of relevance and did not add significantly to material already published by earlier writers, such as Chadwyck Healey (1901). On investigation of published primary sources, some evidence of individual transactions and disputes involving monastic estates were found but the study area did not include a single, large monastic estate with a good documentary record. The study area included Dunster and other land in the Luttrell estate, for which some medieval documents survive. Many of these require transcription or translation, which was beyond the scope of this research and they therefore await full investigation. Post-medieval documentary evidence included the records of large secular estates, such as those of the Luttrell, Acland and Fortescue families, which were held by county record offices and which included some already published in earlier work, such as (Chadwyck Healey 1901). The documents included various accounts, a few maps and other material.

1.4.3Strategy

Information collected by the Commissioners for the Domesday survey was initially recorded in local returns, which survive for the south-western counties as ‘The Exeter Book’.These local returns contained additional data which was not included in the official version of Domesday Book (‘Exchequer Domesday’) (Thorn & Thorn 1980, Introduction), such as the numbers of livestock. For the purposes of this research, the term ‘Domesday Book’will be used to refer to Exchequer Domesday and the Exeter Book collectively. When entries are given in full in the following Chapters, information from the Exeter Book is in italics. The entries in Domesday Book were interpreted for this research on a narrow basis. None of its information about the pre-Conquest period was used;enquiry was

The aim of this research was the reconstruction of exploitation of woodland in the study area from the date of Domesday Book (1086) to the early 19th century.The study area covered over 900sq.km, including land in 56 parishes.Reconstructing the history of exploitation of every wood within that area, even if each possessed a full archaeological and documentary record, would be a lifetime’s task of Herculean proportions and it was therefore necessary to select and focus research more precisely. Three levels of approach were distinguished. At the level of the study area, a general view of woodland character was the objective, in the hope that it would generate hypotheses and inferences, which could then inform detailed study of individual woods.In other

16

studies of past land use, it has been noted that changing the focus from the locality to the wider area tended to transform the nature of research. An archaeological study of specific places can be changed into work of a more historical nature (Hunn 1994, 1). The lack of extensive documentary evidence for the study area meant that an exclusively historical approach to its woods would be unproductive and it was therefore decided to concentrate on their physical characteristics to produce this general view. Cartographic sources were exploited for this purpose.

1.4.4 Identifying the woods The task relating to the first issue in the strategy was to define and list extant woodland which could date back to the medieval period (or before). Only extant woodland was included for two reasons. Firstly, as the physical features of woodland (including trees) were to form a significant part of the evidence, direct physical examination would be necessary in some instances. Secondly, the subject of research was woodland exploitation, not woodland clearance, and restricting the data set to extant woodland helped to retain this focus.

The next level, that of the case study, was that at which evidence for specific acts of management and exploitation, would be sought. Each case study consisted of a single wood or a group of adjacent woods, which were selected according to environmental and practical criteria. The case studies represented different physical environments and two of them had been the subject of previous archaeological investigations. Their location and names are shown in Figures 1.6 and 1.8 and their characteristics are summarised in a preview to the case studies in Chapter 4.

In order to identify woods, old and new Ordnance Survey maps of the study area were used. The old Ordnance Survey map chosen for this process was the First Edition of the Ordnance Survey (1888-1891) at the scale of six inches to one mile, which will be called throughout ‘the 1st OS 6 inch’. Survey for this edition was carried out in the study area in 1887-1888. The 1st OS 6 inch was preferred over the earlier First Edition Ordnance Survey map (1809) at the scale of one inch to one mile (‘the 1st OS 1 inch’), as showing woodland with greater detail, including wood names. The modern Ordnance Survey maps used were mainly those at the scale of 1: 25,000 (Explorer OL9, 1995 & 2002; Explorer 114, 1997 and Sheet 127, 1997), with some sheets at the scale of 1:10,000 (1973), which will collectively and individually be referred to as ‘the modern OS’.

The third level of approach was thematic. As evidence accumulated and analysis proceeded, it became clear that the exploitation of any wood could and should be viewed as just one instance of land management in the vicinity of the case study. Other relevant aspects included the nature and development of farming practices and of settlements, together with patterns of land tenure. These themes, with that of woodland production, therefore received separate consideration. Thematic analysis made use of the fragments of documentary evidence relating to various places in the study area, which were not within the case studies.

Woods were identified for the purposes of this research as being those areas shown as woods on both the 1st OS 6 inch and on the modern OS. In order to be regarded as a wood on the 1st OS 6 inch, an area had to be depicted with symbols of trees. Areas having only a scatter of dispersed trees (roughly less than ten) were excluded, unless labelled on the 1st OS 6 inch with a name which might indicate woodland. Areas shown on the 1st OS 6 inch as gardens and orchards were also excluded, as were areas straddling the boundary of the study area. During this process, fewer than ten examples of complete clearance of woods since their depiction on the 1st OS 6 inch were found.

The tasks to implement the research strategy were clustered around four issues: 1. The identification of woods; 2. The collection of evidence of their past exploitation from the archaeological and documentary record; 3. The definition of the processes which formed this evidence of past exploitation; and 4. The development of hypotheses to relate those processes to other aspects of land use. Issues 1 and 2 appeared to deal with straightforward matters of identification, which call for simple collection of data. Issues 3 and 4 seemed to demand more complex reasoning, with answers in the form of hypotheses, rather than empirically verifiable statements. In practice, all four issues involved assumptions and hypotheses at various stages.

Each wood was given a unique identifying number (‘the wood number’), which was recorded on a spreadsheet, along with its name as recorded on the 1st OS 6 inch and on the modern OS (if different), its National Grid Reference (‘NGR’) and a note of any partial clearance or expansion since the date of the 1st OS 6 inch. The wood’s outline on the modern OS was traced (allowing for any clearance or expansion since the 1st OS 6 inch). All tracings were imported into a Geographic Information System (Mapinfo Professional Version 7), (‘the GIS’) and the spreadsheet was imported into a database (Microsoft Access 2000 9.0.2720)(‘the Access database’).

17

18 © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

all information obtained in this process is set out in Chapter 3. All the information was initially recorded on spreadsheets, which were later imported into the Access database.

The result was a database of 979 woods, whose distribution is shown in Figures 1.6 and 1.8. Use of the Access database meant that further data could be easily added as discrete tables and related to individual woods through use of the wood number as a key. The Access database also allowed efficient data storage, retrieval and manipulation. Use of the GIS allowed display and manipulation of spatial relationships. As data could be easily transferred from the Access database to the GIS, the spatial distribution of any data relating to individual woods or to other locations in the study area, could easily be shown.

The pollen analysis carried out by the ‘Landscapes in Transition’ project (Fyfe et al. 2003; Fyfe et al. 2004; Fyfe & Rippon 2004), provided further archaeological evidence relating to past environments in the entire study area. The names of all woods in the study area had been recorded during the process of identification. The EPNS volumes for Devon (Gover et al. 1931; Gover et al. 1932) were used to investigate the meaning of names of woods in Devon but there is no such volume for Somerset and in its absence, general works were used (Gelling 1984; Gelling & Cole 2000; Ekwall 1959; Mawer 1924). Caution was needed, as names in other parts of the country, which were apparently identical to some in the study area, could have quite different origins.

This process identified the subject of the research: woods shown on the 1st OS 6 inch which still exist. In the following Chapters, this work uses a particular convention of identification: each wood is referred to by the name recorded on the 1st OS 6 inch, followed by the wood number and parish; for example, ‘Horner Wood (170, Luccombe)’. This convention allows cross references to the parish map shown in Figure 1.7 and to entries in the Access database. On the rare occasions when a wood fell into more than one parish, the fact was noted but the wood was recorded in the database only under the single parish in which the largest proportion of its area was located.

Documentary evidence relating to the study area (as opposed to that relating exclusively to the case studies) was sparse. Information in Domesday Book for Devon and Somerset (DomesdayS,DomesdayD)for places in the study area were summarised on a spreadsheet, which was imported into the Access database and the GIS. Published original records of relevant monastic estates were examined and various county record offices were searched for records of secular estates and any other relevant material. The online catalogue of archives (www.a2a.org) prepared by the British Library and The National Archives was a useful tool in this search. Published records of the Royal Forest (MacDermot 1939) were also considered.

1.4.5 Collecting evidence The task relating to the second issue in the strategy was to collect evidence of past woodland exploitation from the archaeological and documentary record. Evidence was collected at two levels: that of the entire study area and that of the case studies.

Collecting evidence: the study area Field visits were made to 61 woods (outside the case studies), which were selected for their distribution over different parts of the study area and for accessibility. A sampling technique was devised to gain a view of general woodland character and relationships with adjoining land. The perimeter was examined with a view to establishing the nature of the boundaries, and sample transects were walked to establish the general character of tree management. This limited technique took account of the season of visits (normally summer, when ground vegetation was high) and the nature of the terrain (often steep slopes). Observations were recorded on site in a notebook and in photographs, and later in a typewritten summary and in the Access database.

Collecting evidence: the case studies At the level of each case study, archaeological evidence was collected in field visits. Full reconnaissance survey techniques were used for 15 woods in the case studies and the sampling technique (as described above) was applied to a further 25 woods in the case studies. Full reconnaissance survey in the case studies aimed to discover features of the kind listed in Table 1.4. The survey (carried out in winter, when vegetation was at a mimimum) involved walking transects at intervals of 1520 metres along contours (where the terrain permitted) in an effort to cover the entire area of the wood. Any features were photographed and details were recorded on sheets of which a sample is attached in Appendix I. Notes were kept in a field notebook and typewritten versions with a summary and comments were produced after the survey, as an aid to memory and interpretation. Other archaeological evidence relating to the case studies was contained in a number of reports of previous surveys and in specialist reports prepared for the Exmoor Iron Project. In one case study, more detailed data on

Further data relating to the physical attributes of all woods in the study area was collected from the 1st OS 6 inch and the modern OS. This data included each wood’s topography, its shape, the use of adjoining land (at the time of the 1st OS 6 inch), the wood’s relationship to any settlement with which it shared its name and its relationship to the parish boundary. A complete list of

19

the existing woodland was collected by the writer in a tree survey, whose aims, methods and results are fully set out in section 8 of Chapter 4. Further archaeological evidence was collected from the Historic Environment Registers (‘HERs’), which were searched for records relating to the case studies or adjacent land. All information was entered in the Access database.

used in the production of charcoal, which was transported from the wood in a certain direction, or that some boundaries may have been later than others, suggesting woodland management could have been reorganised at some period.

1.4.7 Relating woodland exploitation to its context

Data relating to the physical attributes of woods in the case studies was collected from the 1st OS 6 inch and the modern OS, as part of the collection process covering all woods in the study area. The depiction of woods in the case studies on earlier maps, principally the Greenwoods’ maps of Devon and Somerset (1822, 1827) and the 1st OS 1 inch, was also examined, as were any earlier maps discovered in searches of county record offices. The tithe maps (1830-46) for each case study were examined, traced and imported to the GIS, along with data on the tithe apportionment awards. In particular, names of woods or any subdivisions were noted, along with the names of the owner, occupier, and the state of cultivation. Entries for adjoining land were also examined and any significant information (for example, nearby field names suggesting wood clearance or industrial activity) was noted.

The fourth issue of the strategy also required analysis of evidence, especially that collected at the level of the study area. For example, considering the size distribution of woods in each parish led to ideas as to the influence of different forms of settlement on woodland management. In the case studies, the form and extent of evidence relating to the land adjoining the woods, or to nearby settlement, was very variable, but in all cases, particular attention was paid to the information on the tithe map, as a possible guide to the wider patterns of ownership and exploitation, in which woodland was placed. Further views of the relationships between woodland exploitation and other aspects of social or economic activity were developed around the themes of woodland production, farming practices, tenure and settlement.

The names of all woods in the case studies had been recorded during the process of identification. In addition to published works on place-names, which were used to ascertain meaning for names over the entire study area, a more recent general work (Watts 2004) was consulted for names in the case studies.

At all stages, efforts were made to integrate archaeological and documentary sources. Two major problems arose in this respect. Firstly, in the case studies, woods tended to possess a range of archaeological features, to which no date could be assigned, while documentary research might reveal one or two dated references. It was then tempting to relate the document directly to the archaeology, even though no other supporting evidence might be available. Secondly, archaeology often pointed to a form of activity which was nowhere mentioned in the documentary record. Integrating the two forms of evidence was then impossible or required assumptions and imaginative leaps, which might be difficult to justify. Only rarely did the documentary and archaeological records reinforce each other.

The same range of documentary sources were consulted for the case studies as for the rest of the study area. Entries in Domesday Book (DomesdayS; DomesdayD) for all place-names in the case studies were summarised and recorded in the same way as those relating to other parts of the study area.

1.4.6Defining past woodland exploitation Analysis of the evidence formed part of this stage of research, which related to the third issue of the strategy. The evidence collected at the level of the entire study area comprised a large body of data, much of which was quantifiable. It was therefore amenable to statistical analysis, as well as more informal consideration. For example, considering matters such as the incidence of wood names with industrial connotations could form the basis for the definition of areas where woods were exploited for charcoal at some period. In the case studies, information about the woods was broken down in various ways; for example, by examining the form and spatial distribution of platforms and paths, or by comparing the different forms of wood boundaries. This analysis allowed the processes forming the evidence to be inferred; for example, that platforms could have been

Before examining the archaeology of woods in the study area, the writer considered much of the work published by Rackham and other archaeologists and historians interested in woodland. The development of this strand of research forms the subject of the next Chapter.

20

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH REVIEW In t hi sChapt er, t hedevel opmentofarchaeol ogi st s’and historians’ study of woodl and exploitation will be outlined and published work relating to the period covered by t hi s st udy wi l l be revi ewed. Common t echni ques of managementwi l lbe descri bed and t he relevance of each to the archaeological study of woodlandwillbeconsidered.

2. 1Archaeologistsandwoodland The words ofKi ng Al fred, quot ed att he st artoft hi s work, werewri t t ensomefi vecent uri esaft ert heori gi nal ury whi ch he wast ransl at i ng. The work ofthe 4th cent rangeofmedievaldomesticusesofwood, inadditionto t hose ment i oned by Al fred, i ncl uded product i on of wat t l e forst ruct ures and ri verrevet ment s, basket s, eel t raps, broomsandahostofot hersmal lart efact s, aswel l asvari ousmedi ci nalproduct s(Berryman 1998, 10-32). M edi eval(and post -medi eval )i ndust ry al so consumed significantquantitiesofwood in theform oflye(made from wood ash and wat er), whi ch was needed fort he manufact ure of gl ass and soap, and oak bark, whi ch provi ded t anni n fort heproduct i on ofl eat her(ibid., 3237). Theuseofwoodasafuelwasperhapst ooobvi ous bot h t o August i ne and Ki ng Al fred t o be wort h ment i oni ng. In t he cent uri es before coalwas widely avai l abl e, wood and i t sproduct , charcoal , were al most uni versalfuel sfordomest i candi ndust ri alpurposes. In spi t e of t he ubi qui t y of wood i n dai l y l i fe, archaeol ogi cal st udy of woodl and expl oi t at i on onl y developed in the 1980s.Untilthen, only two types of evidence were normally considered by archaeologists i nt erest ed i n woodl and: art efact s and envi ronment al mat eri al(pol l en, wood, charcoalandmacrofossi l s). The nat ure and rest ri ct ed amountoft hi sevi dence hel ped t o shaperesearchinseveralways. Fi rst l y, fi nds ofwood and wooden art efact s were rare unt i l t he devel opment of wet l and and mari t i me archaeol ogy. Secondl y, pol l en sequences were consi dered t o have coarse resol ut i on, whi ch made det ect i on ofmanagementregi mesby t hi smeansal one, pract ical l yi mpossi ble(Dark 2000, 76-78). In addition, t heunderl yi ng i nt erest sofpal ynol ogi st st ended t o bei n prehi st ori c woodl and cl earance for arabl e agri cul t ure. Few archaeologists were interested in field evidence rel at i ng t o woodl and. There were not abl e except i ons; Sumner (1917, 1928) and Tubbs (1968) used fi el d evidenceintheirstudiesoftheNew Forest. The publ i cat i on of Ancient Woodl and by Ol i ver Rackham i n 1980 marked a t urni ng poi nt . Int eresti n ecol ogyhadbeengrowi ngi nt hel at e1970sandPet erken

21

(1981) devised new, widel y accept ed syst ems of cl assi fyi ng woodl and. Rackham’s work, whi ch he descri bedashi st ori calecol ogy(Rackham 1980, xii), was i n harmony wi t ht hesedevel opment s, i n regardi ng t rees as ‘ant i qui t i es’ (ibid., vii). He was notthe firstto recogni se‘vet eran’t rees;t hreecent uri esearl i er, Evel yn (1664, 88) had descri bed t rees i nt he New Forestas bei ng300or400yearsol d, butRackham’st echni quesof anal ysi s and cl assi fi cat i on of anci entwoodl and were, l i ke t hose of Pet erken, val uabl e met hodol ogi cal i nnovat i ons (Tsouval i s 2000, 96-97). Rackham’s emphasison the value ofallarchaeologicalfeaturesof woodl and, such as t rees, boundary eart hworks, t racks and i nt ernal di vi si ons, as a sounder basi s for reconst ruct i on of past expl oi t at i on t han cont emporary wri t i ng (Rackham 1987, 64) was cruci al for t he devel opmentofwoodl andarchaeol ogy. Furt her progress i n t he devel opment of woodl and archaeol ogy washi ndered by t henat ureoft heavai l abl e evidence and by the prehistoric bias.A conference on woodl and archaeol ogy hel di nt he shadow of Ancient Woodl and’s publ i cat i on recogni sed t hat woodl and shoul d be st udi ed as an economi c resource (Bel l& Li mbrey 1982, 4)butmany oft he cont ri but ors t ot he conferencecontinuedtodealexcl usi vel ywi t hprehi st ori c cl earance. Si nce 1982, ot her fact ors have spurred growt h. The devel opmentofwet l andandmari t i mearchaeol ogyl edt o moredi scoveri esofwel l -preserved wood.Forexampl e, Angl o-Scandi navi anYorkhasproducedmoret han1,500 wooden artefacts(M orris2000, 2090). In addition, the devel opmentofl andscapearchaeol ogyfrom t hesemi nal work of Hoski ns (1955), wi t h i t s emphasi s on reconst ruct i ng usesofal lt ypesofl and, probabl yhel ped t o generat e a st ri ng of l ocalwoodl and hi st ori es (e. g. Schumer1984;St amper1983). By1997, t heorgani sers ofaconferenceonWoodl and in t heLandscapefel tabl e t o refer t o ‘t he weal t h of research … i nt o … det ai l ed reconst ruct i ons of medi eval woodl and management t echni ques’ (At herden 1999, 1). The archaeol ogy of woodl and managementwas now a vi brantsubjectand t hosest udyi ngi twerenol ongerpreoccupi edsol el ywi t h prehistoricclearance. A conferenceinSheffieldheldin2003(thesuccessorto one hel d some t en years before) i l l umi nat ed sol i d progressi n severalareas. Forexampl e, i n pal ynol ogy, t hedevel opmentoffi neresol ut i onanal ysi smayproduce more det ai l ed i nformat i on on past woodl and management(Shaw 2003, 152;Ti ppi ng & M cCul l och 2003, 154). Atamoregenerall evel , FransVera(2000, 2003), who has challenged traditional views of the rel at i onshi p bet ween woodl and devel opment and herbi vores, i si nfl uenci ng t he work of ot hers (e. g. Al exander2003).Overal l ,t heconferenceshowedahi gh degree ofcross-fert i l i sat i on bet ween t he di sci pl i nes of archaeol ogy, hi st ory, pal ynol ogy and ot her subject s, which can only deepen understanding. Thenew edition

of Ancient Woodland has discussed some of this recent progress (Rackham 2003, 499-503).

Place-names are also problematic. Lists of woodlandrelated names appear in several works, of which a recent example is Gelling & Cole (2000). Names are extremely difficult to date and the words involved often have no modern synonyms (Gelling & Cole 2000, xiii). They often refer to clearance rather than exploitation, such as those incorporating the element ‘–leah’ (Gelling & Cole 2000, 237; Pearce 2004, 50) and may therefore only establish the probable existence of woodland at some unknown time, rather than the nature of its exploitation in the pre-Conquest period.

Although accounts of past woodland management now draw on evidence from many disciplines, different types of evidence are unevenly distributed over space and time. This irregular pattern has inevitably shaped medieval woodland studies.

2.2 Views of past woodland management

Place-names, boundary clauses of charters and Domesday Book were used by Della Hooke (e.g. 1989, 1990, 1994, 1998) in a substantial body of work on the development of settlement patterns in various parts of the country. She recognised the significance of woodland as a frontier (Hooke 1998, 139) and used land charters to reconstruct its extent and relationship to settlements in restricted areas including the south-west (Hooke 1994) and W orcestershire (Hooke 1990). Another study, which dealt with pre-Conquest settlement development in the W eald (Everitt 1986), was exceptional in using the distribution of extant woodland as a principal source. The stated aim of this work was topographic reconstruction but the writer’s view of settlement as colonisation inevitably led to concentration on clearance of woodland rather than its exploitation and management (Everitt 1986, 259).

2.2.1Pre-Conquest evidence Evidence from the pre-Conquest period relating to woodland exploitation includes place-names, early land charters, Domesday Book, pollen sequences and macrofossils but other excavated evidence is less plentiful than for the preceding Roman period and is often difficult to date. Each form of evidence presents problems. Pollen sequences have been used to assess woodland regeneration at the end of the Roman period (Dark 2000, 132-134), but there appears to be little consensus on this issue. Other forms of environmental evidence were considered at a conference held in 1990, although only two contributions related to woodland (Rackham 1994; Tyers et al. 1994) and one of these (Rackham 1994) was based on documentary evidence. Recent years have seen an expansion of research into this period, resulting in publication of work on a range of issues (e.g. Collins & Gerrard 2004).

Many writers have recognised the importance of woodland as a resource at local level in the pre-Conquest period (e.g. Hooke 1998, 139 et seq.; Berryman 1998). Entries in Domesday Book showing detached portions of woodland, of which one example is at Brailes in the midlands (Roberts & W rathmell 2002, 20), offer further evidence on this point. It is frustrating that the data has confirmed woodland’s importance but has so far not provided any detail of techniques of exploitation. It is difficult to disagree with Hooke’s judgement that ‘not much is known about the practical management of woodland in the pre-Conquest period’ (Hooke 1989, 119).

Entries in Domesday Book cover a large geographical area but measure woodland on different scales in different parts of the country. Many authorities consider that these measurements cannot be converted to a single figure of acres or hectares (e.g. W elldon Finn & W heatley 1967, 173-4) although Rackham (1990, 48-53) has used them in this way. There may be scope to use the entries more flexibly than by simply adding up areas. For example, Rippon (1999, 23-24) used the ratios of plough to acre, tenant and shilling value of land at places around the Rayleigh Hills (Essex) as grounds to infer relative levels of woodland.

Evidence from the pre-Conquest period was used, along with data from later periods, to depict the national distribution of woodland in an atlas (Roberts & W rathmell 2000) and a complementary study (Roberts & W rathmell 2002). Both works used the level of woodland as one parameter in characterising ‘provinces’ with different patterns of settlement (Roberts & W rathmell 2000, 28) whose antiquity was then inferred. This picture of national woodland distribution built on earlier work by historical geographers, particularly W ilcox, who published a similar map in 1933 (Roberts 2001, 163). No attempt was made in either work (Roberts & W rathmell 2000; Roberts & W rathmell 2002) to analyse possible regional variations in the preConquest exploitation of woodland and the depiction of

The other major documentary sources of this period are the boundary clauses of early land charters, which occasionally refer to woodland. The major authority in the field has acknowledged that their interpretation is fraught with difficulty (Hooke 1994, 2 et seq). One problem (which also applies to the interpretation of Domesday Book) is our ignorance of the exact significance of the many names for woods, which occur in land charters and offer tantalising hints of different forms of management.

22

its national distribution added little to earlier work, in this writer’s view.

many works (e.g. Bond 1994). Forest documents have been the basis for many illuminating studies, such as those of the Forests of Pamber (Stamper 1983), Wychwood (Schumer 1984), Inglewood (Parker 1910), Dean (Hart 1971), Hatfield (Rackham 1989), Bernwood, (Broad & Hoyle 1997) and Rockingham (Foard 2001). Forest records have their limitations and many writers have recognised that exclusive reliance on them may lead to a skewed account. Forest documents may not, for example, show how Forest administration affected the poorest inhabitants (Birrell 1987, 44-48; Birrell 1996, 68), who rarely appeared in Forests’ records.

2.2.2 Post-Conquest medieval evidence Many of the published works on medieval woodland after the Conquest depend heavily on documentary evidence. The sources tend to be no earlier in date that the 13th century, when written records of land management increased. Documentary sources, as they relate to woodland, have been summarised in several works (e.g. Dyer 1988, 12-13) and many deal with woodland in Royal Forests. Other woodland, which was exploited by virtue of private ownership or common rights or a mixture of the two (Stamper 1988, 133), left a very limited written record, except where disputes arose. Documents dealing with woodland subject to common rights are particularly rare, being frequently omitted from inquisitions and feet of fines (Dyer 1988, 18).

Much research into Royal Forests is purely historical but some recent work recognises the value of archaeological material. A programme of survey in the Forest of Dean (www.gloscc.gov.uk/ archaeology/ fod) will provide high levels of archaeological data and the studies of Hatfield (Rackham 1989), Bernwood (Broad & Hoyle 1997), Rockingham (Foard 2001) and Whittlewood (Jones & Page 2003) have also used archaeological evidence. The latter three examples attempted broader reconstruction of the landscape as a background to accounts of woodland use.

Writers have followed the evidence and tended to produce detailed accounts of particular areas with a full documentary record (e.g. Cross 1999). Few have tried to reconstruct medieval woodland management as a whole. This contrasts with research in Wales, whose woodland history was the subject of detailed study (Linnard 1982) and with research in France, where woodland management was described in an historical study at the national scale (Bechmann 1990). Study from a national perspective in England has been confined almost entirely to work carried out within the discipline of forestry, such as that by James (1981). Even Ancient Woodland, which purported to be a national study, was, as the author himself admitted, biased towards eastern England (Rackham 1980, ix).

Some studies have moved away from individual woods and forests and taken the area or region as a starting point. Wager’s (1998) study of woodland in Warwickshire and the work of Jones (1999, 2003) on the ancient woods of south Yorkshire are examples of this trend. These works have relied heavily on documentary and cartographic evidence together with place-names but some have also exploited field evidence. Examples are work on Swaledale (Fleming 1998,1999), Nidderdale (Muir 2000b) and on woodland transport in Derbyshire and Yorkshire (Hey 2003).

The dominance of local woodland histories in England may have contributed to cursory treatment of woodland management in national or regional landscape histories. General neglect of ecological approaches to issues of territoriality by archaeologists since the 1970s (Bintliff 1999, 505) may also have played a part. Even when themes such as the origin of the nucleated village, landscape reorganisation or the exploitation of marginal land were examined, the role of woodland management tended to be overlooked until recent years. Landscape histories concentrated instead on woodland in Royal Forests and on issues such as the assessment of its extent, with only a brief account of management methods (e.g. Cantor 1982, 56-85). More recent regional landscape histories, for example, that by Bond (1994), included woodland but treated it with forests, parks and chases, even though techniques of management may have been quite distinct.

Present knowledge of medieval woodland management has been summarised in several works, such as those by Short (2000) and Dyer (2000). Some trends seem clear: clearance until the 13th century (Muir 2000a, 5) and a move away from wood pasture to coppicing with standards. This coincided with private appropriation of many woods or their incorporation into parks or chases (Muir 2000a, 7), which may have come to fulfil many of the functions of the Royal Forest with the decline of Forest administration (Bond 1994, 115). The end of the medieval period may have seen woodland affected by a switch back to pasture, at least in some areas (Dyer 2000, 113).

2.2.3Medieval evidence:themes for development Studies of medieval industry have shown the importance of wood as fuel and raw material. For example, it is recognised that the pottery industry was sometimes sited in wooded areas (Moorhouse 1981, 119) and that both pottery and tile industries were often located on land

None of these comments detract in any way from the real value of histories of individual forests or woods. In particular, the system of administration of the Royal Forests, which comprised land of various types, including woodland, has been usefully described in

23

from an iron smelting site of the 8th and 9th centuries was typical of its time in restricting itself to identification of species and assessment of the source merely as ‘fairly mature timber and branches’ (Haslam et al. 1980, 53). Modern analysis would use the growth patterns indicated by rings to suggest the form of woodland management. The focus of much work by these specialists contrasts sharply with that of earlier research. Before the 1990s, pollen analysis in particular had rarely focussed on the historic period although a single study, of sequences from Battle Abbey around 1400 (Moffat 1986), had demonstrated its value, pointing to alterations in woodland management at a fairly detailed level (ibid., 87-88). Moffat’s (1986) study also showed that some relevant changes mentioned in the documents did not leave any pollen signal and, conversely, that the documents were silent on events inferred from the pollen record alone. If palynologists increase their use of sequences from the historic period there may be scope for more explicit consideration in their work of the relationship between the documentary and the archaeological record. It cannot be assumed that fine resolution techniques will necessarily resolve all the inconsistencies encountered by Moffat’s (1986) study.

supporting managed woodland (Cherry 1991a, 189). Studies of the glass industry have recognised the use of wood fuel (Hunter 1981, 149) and the association of the leather industry with woodland exploitation has been long known (McIntosh 1986, 155). Woodland exploitation in association with iron production on monastic estates has also been recognised (Aston 2000, 148). In spite of the known importance of woodland to industry, the exact nature of its exploitation has not been investigated. For example, a study of the brickmaking industry from 1400-1450 dealt with brickmakers’ acquisition of clay or brickearth as raw materials (Smith 1985, 39) but only briefly referred to the purchase of wood for fuel (ibid., 52), even though an earlier study recognised that the industry depended on managed woodland (Drury 1981, 135). In a study of lead smelting, it was suggested that the increasing price of wood in the period 1360 to 1520 was responsible for technological innovation (Blanchard 1981, 77) but there appears to have been little inquiry into similar effects in other crafts or industries. Even in a study of the leather industry, which consumed large quantities of oak bark, the relationship to woodland management was described only in broad terms. A general statement such as ‘ oak coppice worked on a rotation of 25 to 30 years was ideal’ (Cherry 1991b, 300) is typical.

A further form of environmental evidence, that of wood and wooden artefacts, is growing in importance. The first volume of Medieval Archaeology contained an article summarising the uses of dendrochronological analysis of timber in the current state of knowledge and technology (Schove & Lowther 1957) but full exploitation of the technique was slow to develop. Buildings archaeology exploited it to a degree, both in England (e.g. Rackham 1986, 40 et seq.) and in France, where Bernard’s study showed that Carolingian timber demonstrated changes in pressure on resources (Bernard 1998, 132-136). Some English excavations, such as that of Norton Priory, have recognised the value of the material; in that case, the discovery of wooden artefacts such as the stumps of timber posts led to consideration of the role of woodland in the local economy (Greene 1989, 56). As a result of the growth in wetland archaeology, more timber and wooden artefacts have become available and it is increasingly recognised that dendrochronological analysis may show woodland management trends (e.g. Hillam & Morgan 1981; Tyers et al. 1994; Goodburn 2000; Brunning 2000; Groves 2003b). To date, this analysis has mostly been confined to timbers and wooden artefacts; the analysis of ring sequences on extant ancient trees is rare; an example using pollards in Hatfield Forest (Rackham 1989, 248) was exceptional.

The evidence to support more detailed descriptions of the relationship between industrial activity and specific patterns of woodland management may be absent in many cases but one exception was the account of pottery production at Donyatt in Somerset (Coleman-Smith & Pearson 1988). That work included a brief chapter on the fuel supply for the kilns in which it was concluded that wood was taken, not from the nearby Forest of Neroche, but from hedges (ibid., 7). That study also used probate inventories to show that those who ran the pottery industry owned livestock and could be regarded as farmer-potters (ibid., xv). The study is unusual in that it outlined both woodland exploitation and the socialeconomic structure of a medieval industry consuming its products. Specialists in palaeo-environmental evidence are making progress in understanding the exploitation of woodland and other resources for industry (in the medieval and post-medieval periods). A recent symposium of the Association for Environmental Archaeology (Murphy & Wiltshire 2003) indicated the range and achievements of such work, which includes analysis of charcoal (Gale 2003), pollen (Marshall 2003) and insect remains (Hall & Kenward 2003). Such work depends heavily on excavation to provide material for analysis. In each area, specialists are extracting more information from the material than their predecessors. The improvement is particularly marked in charcoal analysis, due in great part to the work of Rowena Gale. To illustrate the changes, an example of analysis in 1980 of charcoal

Published research on woodland has been sparing in its use of ethnographic evidence, although work by Halstead (1998) in Greece shows its possible relevance, if used with caution. His study concluded that management for fodder caused a single species wood to emerge as an epiphenomenon (Halstead 1998, 232). Greater ease of access to former Communist countries of eastern Europe, which may briefly retain small scale

24

Table 2.1: Published primary sources for monastic and other estates Institution Source Beaulieu Abbey (Hockey 1975) Ramsey Abbey (Raftis 1957) Bilsington Priory (Neilson 1928) Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds (Douglas 1932) Bolton Priory (Kershaw 1973) Tavistock Abbey (Finberg 1951) Canterbury Cathedral Priory (Smith 1943) Abbey of St. Mary of the Meadows, Leicester (Hamilton Thompson 1949) Abbey and Bishopric of Ely (Miller 1951) Bishopric of Worcester (Dyer 1980) Saint Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol (Sabin 1960) and (Sabin 1938) Battle Abbey (Searle 1974), (Searle & Ross 1967) Forde Abbey (Hobbs 1998) Glastonbury Abbey (Watkin 1947, 1952, and 1956), (Harris & Smith 1991) Cirencester Abbey (Ross 1968) Buckfast Abbey (Stephan 1970) Muchelney Abbey (Schofield 1927), (Bates 1899) Athelney Abbey (Bates 1899) Royal Manor of Havering (McIntosh 1986) Cuxham Manor (Harvey 1976) and (Harvey 1965) farming economies exploiting woodland, might offer an opportunity to collect ethnographic data.

The significance of monastic estates for changes in woodland management may be debated; Linnard’s (1982) study of Welsh woodland ranked monastic estates as one of the great influences, emphasising the expertise of the Cistercians in particular (ibid., 48). The account book of Beaulieu Abbey (a Cistercian house) is well known for its Forester’s Account, containing evidence of the various woodland products and their value to the estate (Beaulieu, 35).

A further under-exploited source is documentary: the collection of grants of land by the Crown following dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s. These include grants of woodland to which surveys were attached. Although the grants date to the post-medieval period, the surveys constitute a final view of late medieval woodland and its management practices. Full publication of the grants and surveys for all counties would be of immense value.

More collation of data regarding estates’ woodland management could be useful. Bond’s (2003) summary of monastic estates’ possessions and activities includes relevant material but Farmer’s (1995) study is exceptional in focussing on woodland. More frequently, woodland has been overlooked, as in a study of the Augustinian order (Robinson 1980). This latter work contained no analysis of woodland use, although the evidence showed it had some significance, in that woodland had some significance, providing 3% of income in 1535 (Robinson 1980, 297). Aston’s (2000) work on monasteries in their landscape had little to say on the subject, beyond describing clearance activities and remarking on the preference of monasteries for grants of woodland, on the ground of its freedom from restrictions inhibiting development (ibid., 133-136). This study did, however, mention the association of woodland with ironworking on monastic estates in the north (ibid., 148). Other industrial activity in which monastic estates were involved, such as the production of tiles (Cherry 1991a, 194), would also have used drawn on woodland resources.

Other published documents from monastic and other estates, which are listed in Table 2.1, have formed the basis for full estate histories, such as those of those of Westminster Abbey (Harvey 1977) and the Bishopric of Worcester (Dyer 1980). Evidence relating specifically to woodland has received attention; for example, commercial sales of woodland products from the estate of the Bishop of Winchester have been analysed (Farmer 1995) and a study of the royal manor of Havering referred to wood as a commercial crop, listed woodland values (McIntosh 1986, 141-143) and described its importance for the local leather industry (ibid., 155). A detailed study of Battle Abbey described the leasing of ‘timber rights’ (Searle 1974, 257) and stated that woodland which produced timber was treated as capital rather than as an asset providing income on a regular basis (ibid., 266). The study of Cuxham Manor mentioned the use of woodland in another manor to supplement Cuxham’s own deficiency (Harvey 1965).

25

18th centuries (ibid., 136) and it is perhaps disappointing that its history has not been taken up by others.

2.2.4 Post-medieval evidence In this period, the volume and range of evidence relating to woodland increases. Published research is dominated by the theme of rural industrial development, which has been of particular interest to economic historians. Woodland exploitation therefore has been viewed as subsidiary to, and only related to, the construction of the history of particular industries. Archaeological evidence has often been neglected.

David Crossley is a major figure who moves towards an archaeologically-based understanding of woodland management for industry. He has carried out research into the Wealden iron industry (Cleere & Crossley 1985), white coal production for the lead smelting industry of North Derbyshire (Crossley 1993) and the glass industry (Crossley 1994), as well as publishing the definitive book on post-medieval archaeology (Crossley 1990). In all cases, he integrated documentary and field evidence relating to woodland management and the industry using its products. For example, he interpreted survey results in Upper Hartfield on the Weald as showing that ore extraction had been organised so as to conserve woodland by leaving undug strips between the pits on which trees could grow (Cleere & Crossley 1985, 138).

Until recent years, one of the most intensively studied industrial regions was the Weald, whose industries included iron, glass and textile manufacture. Woodland products were essential in each case. However, one of the seminal works on the glass industry (Kenyon 1967) devoted little time to analysing woodland exploitation and used archaeological evidence only in so far as it related directly to the process of production.

A rapid scan of the contents pages of the journals PostMedieval Archaeology and Industrial Archaeology would suggest that many post-medieval archaeologists have not yet adopted Crossley’s integrated approach and broad perspective. Many appear to remain wedded to interpretation of evidence from individual sites. Research into woodland in the post-medieval period thus seems to be neglected both by economic historians, who rely on the documentary record, and by archaeologists (except for Crossley).

Reliance on documentary sources, leading to an underestimation of the importance of woodland exploitation, was also apparent in a later study of the Weald (Zell 1994). For example, estimates of the numbers employed in various occupations did not include those engaged in woodland activities (ibid., 120), which may have been part-time or seasonal and so absent from the documentary record. The documentary record has also dominated work elsewhere. The iron industry has been studied but the role of woodland in providing its charcoal fuel has not yet been fully investigated. Hart’s (1971) work on the Forest of Dean, for example, contained few references to the physical evidence of woodland management, except for estimates of the acreage of woodland required. A study of the iron industry from 1540 to 1750 (Hammersley 1973) also relied on documents and merely noted that coppicing was employed (ibid., 612). Historians have examined other post-medieval industries such as papermaking, pottery production, brick and tile making and gunpowder manufacture, all of which used wood, mainly as fuel, but do not appear to have attempted to assess or even describe their relationship with woodland. For example, a history of the paper industry merely mentioned that wood was used as a fuel (Shorter 1971, 30-31) and that experiments took place in the period 1701-1800 on wood as a raw material (ibid., 37).

One welcome exception was a study of the Furness iron industry (Bowden 2000). Its use of charcoal analysis, surveys of extensive areas of woodland and other evidence may be due partly to the influence of Crossley, whose work was cited and included in the study’s bibliography. Local traditions in fieldwork also played a part. Woodland-related archaeology, such as the remains of potash kilns (Davies-Shiel 1973) and leather tanneries (Howard-Davis 1987), had long been studied by local fieldworkers, and histories of woodland at Troutbeck (Parsons 1997) and Meathrop (Satchell 1984) had already been written. This body of work ensured that the value of an archaeological approach was recognised and also freed the Furness project from the need to concentrate on documentary history. The surveys carried out for Furness Iron focussed on earthworks, charcoal platforms and structural remains in woodland (Bowden 2000, 25-28) but trees were not treated as a significant part of the archaeology in the published volume. The relatively recent date of some activity suggests this might have been profitable.

Studies of the leather industry in the Tudor and Stuart periods (Clarkson 1966) and of the bark trade from 1680 to 1830 (Clarkson 1974) also relied on documentary sources but contained information relevant to woodland management, such as the methods of sale of bark, which was used in tanning (ibid., 144-145) and the significance of bark stripping as casual employment (ibid., 150). The latter work noted that leather manufacture was the biggest industry after textile production in the 17th and

This review of published research on post-medieval woodland exploitation shows that, while economic historians of industry may have neglected woodland, some archaeologists have recognised its importance. The general conclusion of landscape histories dealing with the period, refer to a decline in management, as stated by Short (2000, 142).

26

2.3 The nature of woodland production and its implications for archaeologyin woods

2.2.5 Post-medieval evidence: themes for development Living trees in woods which supplied post-medieval industries with fuel or raw materials may have been managed for that precise purpose. Trees’ physical attributes which derive from that system of management are archaeological evidence but, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, archaeologists may not yet have fully exploited this source.

Many studies which describe or refer to exploitation of woodland depend on assumptions about different techniques of exploitation. For example, inferences from the analysis of charcoal are based on suppositions about coppicing techniques and their effect on tree growth. Various management techniques have been identified (e.g. Rackham 2003, 137 et seq.) and have been associated with specific products for particular purposes. There is a great risk of producing circular arguments here. There is relatively little documentary evidence of the precise actions taken in woodland management for the earlier part of the period covered by this study and the sparse references which do exist may be very specific to the place and time in which they were made. Analysis of archaeological material may of necessity come to depend on unsupported hypotheses, which cannot be tested against other evidence. The products and techniques described in the following section should therefore be regarded as a lens through which to view relevant evidence, rather than as an exhaustive, exclusive and rigid classification of past activities. Some terms are included in the Glossary.

Systematic study of charcoal production is also in its early stages. Brief studies by Armstrong (1978), Stratford (1994) and Kelley (1996) offer useful background and excavations of platforms in a nature reserve near Bristol (Hendry et al. 1984), at Llyn Du by Crew (unpublished), and in the Forest of Dean by Jon Hoyle (unpublished) have added to the body of knowledge, although some reports have yet to be published. Little is known of the structure and organisation of this important woodland activity in many areas. A further neglected subject is the economic framework within which woodland production operated. A body of evidence on prices in the post-medieval period provides a clear opportunity in this respect. The Wealden iron study (Cleere & Crossley 1985) may have been unique in providing a sketch of price differentials between various woodland products, price trends and the possible effects on coppice rotations and the composition of the product mix (Cleere & Crossley 1985, 136). This kind of analysis could have considerable potential, in allowing the development of hypotheses, against which archaeological evidence of woodland management could be set. Rackham (1979, 30) used price information from the post-medieval period but, in contrast to Cleere and Crossley, he did not relate price trends to coppice rotations, basing analysis of the latter mainly on extents and surveys. Apart from these examples, the only writer who appears to have emphasised the economic dimension is Fleming (1998, 57), who referred to the ‘balance between coppicing and pollarding for fodder, timber and firewood …and the commercial production of wood and charcoal for the lead smelters’.

2.3.1 Timber Wood from the trunk of large, mature trees, often called ‘standards’ or ‘maidens’, was a major construction material in the past. Timber is taken by felling the tree and the harvest is a single event. In the case of oak, 100 years would be a normal age for felling (Rackham 1990, 11). The value of timber, and the period required for growth, made it a significant asset in any estate, to be retained by the lord in most cases.

2.3.2 Underwood This term will be applied here to the wood obtained from coppicing a tree. The wood is in the form of poles or shoots, which were used in the past for many purposes such as fuel, fencing and tool construction. Underwood may be of varying age depending on species, end use and local pressure on resources. It is obtained by cutting poles or shoots of trees of certain species close to the ground and exploiting the species’ capacity to grow new shoots (or ‘spring’) from the stump after cutting. Oak, hazel and ash are amongst the trees to behave in this way (Rackham 1990, 8). The cutting of underwood from a single stool is a recurring event and the interval between harvests, particularly of fast-growing species like hazel, can be very short. In eastern England, medieval rotations as low as four years have been found (Rackham 1990, 64). Oak generally grows more slowly and requires much longer intervals between harvests.

The post-medieval period saw great changes in land use. Methods of house construction also altered and in agriculture, enclosure of commons, reclamation and ‘improvement’ all had a huge impact. Many of these processes left a large body of documentary evidence but the role of woodland management has received little attention, perhaps because writers tend to regard the period merely as one of woodland decline.

27

Coppicing is generally thought to have required exclusion of livestock, which enjoy grazing the spring. A single wood could, with suitable management, supply a crop on an annual basis. On a 10-year cycle, for example, one-tenth of a wood could be coppiced in each year. Coppicing could be used alongside management of other trees for timber to obtain a variety of products from a single area of woodland (the method of management known as ‘coppice with standards’).

tannin, it has been used for centuries in tanning by the leather industry. Bark is generally stripped in March or April when the sap is rising (Berryman 1998, 38). Bark stripping could be combined with coppicing or timber production. Other activities may, for practical reasons, have been sited in woods in preference to fields or pasture. Quarries may provide evidence of mineral extraction and features of water management may also survive in woods, indicating possible drainage of waterlogged areas, or provision of water power.

2.3.3 Pollards These are trees managed by pollarding (or ‘lopping’) at a height of between six and fifteen feet above the ground from a tree of a regenerating species. The tree then produces shoots or poles. As with coppiced trees, the harvest is a recurring event but requires rather more physical effort. The height of the new growth above the ground places it out of reach of most livestock and there is therefore no need to exclude animals from areas of pollards (Rackham 1990, 8). Pollarding may be a sign that the land has been used as wood pasture (which is defined below).

Woods were also used in the past as pasture, with livestock allowed to move freely between the wood and adjoining land (a ‘wood pasture’) or confined in enclosures within the wood. The practice of wood pasture is inconsistent with intensive coppicing and is generally believed to predate it (Muir 2000a, 6). Trees could still be managed in wood pasture to produce a crop by pollarding and extant pollards can therefore indicate a past use of woodland as wood pasture.

2.3.6The rhythms of woodland exploitation

2.3.4 Other techniques

There are aspects of woodland exploitation, which distinguished woodland production from other forms of farming activity and arose directly from the nature of the activities involved. Firstly, the active intervention required may have been far less, and far less frequent, than in routine farming activities. Unlike arable fields, woods do not have to be weeded or ploughed and the act of harvesting a crop of coppice wood automatically ensured the next harvest. Sowing or planting as a separate activity was not (except in the case of plantations) normally needed. Short bursts of activity to take crops of wood and bark were required infrequently, perhaps on only one occasion in each year. Secondly, the time scale of woodland production was generally longer than that of other activities. A timber tree may take at least 50 years to grow to maturity and may well be older than the man who fells it. Coppice rotations of the past have varied but have generally been at least three or four years in length and, for slower-growing species such as oak, were often 10 or 15 years, or more in poor growing conditions.

Evidence of other methods of management is difficult to obtain. Both trees and wooden artefacts produced from their wood may have long since disappeared and woodland management often left no documentary record. Techniques such as ‘shredding’, recorded in medieval France as ‘émondage’ in which all branches were cut from a full-grown tree (Bernard 1998, 132), could have existed in the study area as local variants on more familiar themes but may now be undetectable.

2.3.5 Other forms of production in woodland There is little direct physical evidence of the production of charcoal in the medieval period and most accounts rely on post-medieval and modern evidence. Wood from trees of any species may be used and is heated out of contact with air at a temperature starting around 350°C. The ratio of wood to charcoal output is about 6:1 (Gale 2003, 34). The heating process drives out moisture, leaving black, porous material (Armstrong 1978, 8). As the production process involves heating, not burning, it is technically incorrect to describe those involved in this activity as ‘charcoal burners’. The requirements for production are wood, a place to pile or stack it, some way of excluding air, flame to ignite it, and the skill to control and eventually extinguish the heating process. Rackham (2003, 143) considers that production in pits preceded the use of platforms, for which there is evidence in the study area.

These long cycles give woodland exploitation a particular character. The results of decisions in the present concerning wood production are not seen for years. A timber plantation may not yield output (in the case of oak) for another two generations and even coppice wood will take several years to grow. The length of time from decision to output means that the presently available crop is the result of decisions taken a number of years ago, possibly by people other than those who now harvest the crop, who may have been facing problems and conditions, which no longer apply.

Bark is a further woodland product. As it is rich in

28

The lapse of time between decision and output has marked effects, which may be seen by considering the effect of change on coppice management. A number of different conditions can be applied to an imaginary example of a wood which has been managed so as to produce a crop from 10 trees every year on a five year cycle. This cycle length has been chosen to facilitate illustration and is not intended to be realistic. In each scenario, conditions over a period of eight years are shown in order to see effects over an entire rotation and in subsequent years.

Increasing output of underwood may therefore be difficult. There could be practical limits to the extent to which rotation lengths can be cut, as very young wood may be unsuitable for particular purposes or too small in size. This situation could lead to runaway effects, with attempts to increase output still further to compensate for the smaller size of younger wood. In these conditions, the coppice system could be unstable, as attempts to meet production targets have the effect of pushing production even further off course. This type of instability has long been known to agricultural economists dealing with monetised systems. A similar phenomenon, now known as the cobweb cycle, was first recognised in hog production in the United States of America in the 1930s, where the long delay between decisions taken in response to price movements and actual production changes, led to wildly fluctuating supply levels and prices (Waugh 1970, 89 et seq.).

The initial situation is shown in Figure 2.1, where the wood manager is faced in each year of the eight year period under review, with 10 trees having shoots or growth aged five years, 10 having growth of four years and 10 with growth of three, two and one year respectively. There is a predictable, even supply of trees with shoots of the right age (five years) for coppicing in each year.

Other responses to produce higher output are theoretically possible. Firstly, turf, peat, coal or other materials could be substituted for wood. Secondly, managers of woodland might take steps to improve ‘efficiency’. Fencing to exclude livestock could be improved, for example, as a way of preventing damage to the spring. As the technology involved in woodland management is relatively simple, the scope for improvement may be limited to a few measures. If considerable expenditure of time and effort were required (as might be the case in installing new boundary hedges or fences), the manager’s own tenure may be relevant. A study of deforestation in various locations has shown that improvements in land management are generally more likely to occur where tenure is secure (Deacon 1999, 341). A third alternative is to plant new trees and extend the wood. This may only be possible if adjoining land is available. If, for example, the population is increasing, all nearby land may be needed for pasture or arable to meet rising food requirements.

In Figure 2.2, the effect of an increase in demand is shown. If wood is needed from 15 trees in Year 1 (an increase of five), then the manager will have to coppice 10 trees having growth of five years plus five trees with growth of four years. This means that the wood manager in the following year, Year 2, has only five trees with growth of five years’ age but will have 15 trees with one year’s growth. If he continues to coppice 15 trees every year, he will, as shown in Figure 2.2, shorten the cycle to three or four years – from Year 4, he will have no trees at all with five years’ growth and will have to coppice five trees with four years’ growth and 10 trees with three years’ growth to meet his target of 15 trees in each year. In conditions of accelerating demand, as shown in Figure 2.3, the effects are even more drastic. If the wood manager coppices 15 trees in Year 1, followed by 20 trees in Year 2 and subsequent years, then by Year 4, the cycle has been cut to two or three years, with half the wood coming from growth of two years and half from growth of three years. From Year 4, there are no trees at all with growth of four or five years. In contrast, a oneoff increase (as shown in Figure 2.4) is absorbed easily. In this situation, 15 trees are coppiced in Year 1 followed by reversion to 10 trees in Year 2 and subsequent years; supply returns to its original, even state after Year 5.

A more radical course for the wood manager would be to refuse to supply. In circumstances where large increases in wood are needed for a single activity or one group of people, the wood manager may, if he is free to do so, simply ignore them. Such a decision could be rational if the increases demanded were so big and abrupt that meeting them would push coppicing to the point of instability. This decision could lead to those wanting large amounts of wood obtaining it from a number of different places. A final option is co-operation by wood managers. If the rotations and output of a number of woods were co-ordinated, the effect of large increases in demand could be smoothed out over a number of woods. The same effect might be achieved by bringing a number of separate woods under a single regime of management, perhaps through consent and co-operation, or perhaps by direction from above.

The above illustrations are intended to show the characteristics of coppice production at the margin. They show that: i) Single increases in output can be handled fairly easily; ii) Sustained or accelerating increases in demand can only be met in the short term by reducing the rotation length, if the wood is already fully exploited; and iii) Reducing rotation length will (by definition) lead to younger wood being cut.

The implications of the long cycles of woodland production can be seen, even without investigating

29

Past cycles

10 9 8 7 6

Number of trees

5 4 3 2 1

No o f1 yr trees No o f2 yr trees No o f3 yr trees No o f4 yr trees No o f5 yr trees

0

ar

6

Ye

ar

5

Ye

ar

4

Ye

Ye

3

ar

ar

2

Ye

Ye

1

ar

ar

Ye

Ye

ar

7

Cutting year

8

Figure 2.1: Trees available in each year of a 5 year coppice cycle

Cycle I

16

14

12

10

Number of trees

8

6

4

2 No o f1 yr trees No o f2 yr tr e es No o f3 yr trees No o f4 yr trees No o f5 yr trees

0

ar

6

Ye

ar

5

Ye

ar

4

Ye

ar

3

Ye

ar

2

Ye

Ye

1

ar

ar

Ye

Ye

ar

7

Cutting year

8

Figure 2.2: Trees after sustained increase in crop in Year 1

30

Cycle II

20 18 16 14 12 Number of trees

10 8 6 4 2 0

7

ar Ye

6

ar Ye

5

ar Ye

4

ar Ye

3

ar Ye

2

ar Ye

1

ar Ye

ar Ye

Cutting year

8

No of 1y No r tr of ee 2y No s r tr of ee 3 s No yr tre of es 4y No r tr of e e 5y s r tr ee s

Figure 2.3: Trees after increases in crop in Years 1 and 2

Cycle III

16 14 12 10 Number of trees

8 6 4 2 0

8 ar Ye

7 ar Ye

6 ar Ye

5 ar Ye

4 ar Ye

3 ar Ye

1

2 ar Ye

ar Ye

Cutting year

No o f 1 yr trees No o f 2 yr trees No o f 3 yr trees No o f 4 yr trees No o f 5 yr trees

Figure 2.4: Trees after increase in Year 1 followed by reversion to previous crop 31

evidence of specific cases in the past. In the case of timber production, long timescales could be most easily used by institutions in a position to plan beyond the lifetime of the individual person. Monastic and other large estates, rather than individual farmers, are the obvious candidates for this role. Coppicing and pollarding, with much shorter cycles, may have harmonised better with farm economies which needed regular supplies in kind and (possibly) regular cash income. Any evidence of reduction in coppice rotations might show conditions of increasing demand in a structure operating at the margin, with woodland managers unable to increase output in other ways. Drastically reduced coppice cycles or wood amalgamation may be alternative strategies in this situation, with tenurial practice tipping the balance in favour of one or the other. The general characteristics of different management techniques, as outlined here, form the background to consideration of woodland distribution in the study area, which is the subject of the next Chapter.

32

CHAPTER 3 STUDY AREA ANALYSIS 3. 1 W oodlandvariety Ifyou fol l ow t hefoot pat h from Hawkri dgeChurch and walk through the fields above the River Barle,you will see a neat patchwork of fields, farms and woods stretching along the valley. Each wood seems tidily appropriated to a farm ina fullyorganised landscape. If you prefer wilder surroundings and cross the moor to W ebber’s Post,near Porlock,you canwalk downhill and through Horner W ood,a huge,dark,confusing mass of woodland which sprawls across two river valleys and laps the moor above. If you have enough energy left, you can drive to Porlock,park and follow a footpath along the clifftop to Culbone Church,which lies in an enormous,apparentlyunbrokenwoodland wilderness. The woods encountered inthis imaginaryjourneyare of daunting variety. Inorder to understand the variationof woods in the study area,some way of viewing and simplifying informationabout them had to be developed. Landscape characterisation has been carried out over Somerset and the Exmoor National Park (Aldred 2001) and it seemed possible that a similar approach to woodland as one landscape element,might produce a grouping of woods which would be useful in understanding their past.The first stepwas to define the informationonwhich such a grouping could be based.

3.1.1 Definition of woodland data The process of identification(outlined inChapter 1)had produced a database of 979woods.During identification and preliminary field visits,the following aspects of woods had been observed to vary and seemed likely to be useful: A. The topographyof the wood; B. The nature of adjoining land; C. The meaning of the wood’s name and its elements; D. The relationship of the wood to any settlement with the same name; E. The relationship of the wood to the parish boundary; F. The form,shape and boundaries of the wood; and G. Internal features (including extant trees and ground vegetation). These aspects were expanded into a list of data,which is shown as Table 3. 1. The data was to be collected from the 1st OS 6 inch,the modern OS and the Soil Survey (1983).Further information on internal features (aspect G)in some woods was to be collected by work in the field.

33

Data required for analysis,which is not listed in Table 3. 1,included that relating to names (aspect C),the parish of each wood and whether the wood had beenclassed as ancient by English Nature. Some information on the meaning of wood names was available inpublished work on place-names (e. g.Ekwall 1959;Gover et al. 1931, 1932 and more recent books). A map of parish boundaries at the date of the tithe maps (1830-46),which had beenprepared from outlines produced byDr.M artin Gillard, was shown as Figure 1. 7 and provided the names of parishes. Inventories of ancient woodland in Somerset and Devon (Lister & Pinches 1986a;Lister & Pinches 1986b;EngNat),which were originallyprepared by the Nature Conservancy Council (now English Nature)provided indicators as to whether woods were regarded as ancient according to the criteria of those preparing the inventories. It was noted that these inventories,which were prepared from cartographicand survey information (Lister & Pinches 1986b,15-18), excluded anywood of less than2ha but were otherwise intended to include woods with continuous cover since at least A. D.1600(ibid.,19). Analysis in this Chapter used the data listed in the preceding paragraphs. It did not refer to other forms of evidence,such as documentary references,which are considered elsewhere in relation to such matters as tenure and farming practices.The species of tree ineach wood was not included in analysis as it could only have beendiscovered byvisiting each of the 979woods inthe studyarea. Infact,many,if not most,deciduous woods inthe Exmoor National Park are of sessile oak (Quercus petraea),with birch,with some local variations,such as the ash-maple woods near Dunster (M enear 1997,23). Fieldwork confirmed the predominance of these species.

3.1.2 Data recording A spreadsheet was prepared, with each wood name, wood number and NGR. Columns for all the data listed in Table 3. 1 were added. This data (with the exception of size and that relating to the meaning of wood name) was collected for each wood from the 1st OS 6 inch,the modernOS and the Soil Survey(1983). Soil associations were recorded bycodes,as included in the Soil Survey (1983),which are set out in the key to Figure 3. 1. Some subjective judgements were involved. For example, in classing adjoining fields as regular or irregular,the decisionwas based onthe general shape of field boundaries (straight or sinuous)and whether they were coaxial. The slope at the mid-point of each wood was added,after calculating it bythe following formula: Slope = (Height of highest contour – Height of lowest contour)/ Distance across mid point.

Table 3.1: Data collected from 1st OS 6inch,Soil Survey(1983)and modern OS,with explanatory notes Subject Data item Number C/D Name A Soil A River dist(cm 1997) A River distm

Data description Wood number (unique) Wood name on 1st OS 6 inch Soil association from Soil Survey (1983) Distance in cm from mid-point to nearest watercourse on modern OS Distance in metres to watercourse:calculated from preceding item Both refer to all watercourses on modern OS E Parishb dist (ft 1888) Shortest distance in feet to parish boundary on 1st OS 6 inch E Parishb m Distance in metres to parish boundary:calc. from preceding item A Contour no Number of contours at mid point on modern OS counted along line at right angles to contours A Contour dist(cm 1997) Distance across midpoint in cm on modern OS A Cont distm Distance across midpoint in metres: calculated from preceding item A Lowest contour Height of lowest contour at mid point on modern OS A Highest contour Height of highest contour at mid point on modern OS A Slope Calculated from preceding items A Aspects Number of aspects (N, S, W etc) F Size Area of wood in hectares (ha) Remaining data items all from 1st OS 6 inch: F Shape Rect irreg/oval irreg/wedge/triangle/ elongated amorphous/amorphous/sliver F EB woods? Is external boundary with other woods completely defined?(Y/N) If blank, then no adjoining woods. F EB other? Is external boundary with other land completely defined?(Y/N) F EB straight? Is any pt of external boundary ruler straight?(Y/N) F EBconcave? Is any pt of external boundary markedly concave?(Y/N) F EBconvex? Is any pt of external boundary markedly convex?(Y/N) F EB River? Is any pt of external boundary a river?(Y/N) F EB Contour? Does any pt of external boundary follow contour closely?(Y/N) F EB Footpath? Does any pt of external boundary coincide with a footpath?(Y/N) This might be just outside wood. E EB Parish boundary? Does any of ext. boundary coincide with a parish boundary?(Y/N) F EB Road? Is any pt of external boundary a road or lane?(Y/N) F EB Otherfeature? Does any pt of ext. boundary coincide with any other feature?(Y/N) G Internal divisions? Are there any internal divisions?(Y/N) G Cleared areas? Are there any cleared areas inside wood?(Y/N) B Adj regfields% What percentage of wood boundary adjoins regular fields(estimate)? B Adj irregfields% What percentage of wood boundary adjoins irregular flds (estimate)? B Adj moor% What percentage of wood boundary adjoins moor (estimate)? Moor includes any land with appropriate OS symbols. B Adj woods% What percentage of wood boundary adjoins woodland (estimate)? B Adjother% What percentage of wood boundary adjoins other land (estimate)? This will include a percentage where a road forms wood boundary - the road represents a land use. Ignore other side of road for calculation. Contrast rivers - this is not a land use, so regard fields on other side as land adjoining wood for this purpose. G Number of FPs Number of paths or tracks going through wood. Ignore any outside it. Ignore junctions when counting; paths in shape of cross count as 2. G FPshort? Is footpath route short (ie from one side to another)?(Y/N) G FPlong? Is footpath route long (ie from one end to another)?(Y/N) G FPwanders? Is there no obvious reason for footpath route?(Y/N) G Numquarry Number of quarries in the wood G Feature other? Are there any other features in the wood?(Y/N) Notes Any other information, especially on reasons for shape

34

After all data had been entered, the spreadsheet was imported to the Access database. The GIS was used to calculate the size of each wood in hectares (ha) from outlines traced on the modern OS, and this figure was added to the Access database. Further information on physical features was collected on field visits to 101 woods (40 in the case studies and 61 outside the case studies). Brief summaries of the notes taken during fieldwork in the 61 woods not in the case studies are included in Appendix II. Data on the woods in the case studies is included in Chapter 4.

imported to the Access database. It had also been noted that many wood names referred to matters such as topography (for example, some included the word ‘hill’ or ‘cleave’) or possible ownership (such as ‘Parsonage Wood’). A list of these general references (‘name groups’) is shown as Table 3.2. Wood names also included elements (for example, ‘-ham’) referring to settlement or land use history, or to topography (for example, ‘–combe’). A list of elements was prepared and is shown in Table 3.3. The element ‘–ham’ was distinguished, as far as possible, from occurrences of the complete word ‘ham’, which also occurs in wood names but has a different meaning, indicating ‘hemmed in’ or enclosed land (Watts 2004, xlv). In addition, wood names normally hinted at the general type of management at some period, being named as ‘wood’, ‘copse’, ‘plantation’ etc. The list of wood management types (‘name types’) is shown in Table 3.4. Each name group, element and type was numbered so that the numbers could be allocated as codes to each wood, to assist analysis.

The map of parish boundaries in the study area at the date of the tithe maps (1830-46), shown as Figure 1.7, was imported to the GIS. A single query then determined the name of the parish in which each wood lay. This information was imported to the Access database. A similar process, using English Nature’s inventories of ancient woodland, allowed determination of the woods classed as ancient by English Nature. The information was imported to the Access database.

3.1.3 Wood names

The study area offers local idiosyncrasies in the pronunciation of place-names. Visitors to Exmoor quickly become aware that ‘Sweetworthy’ is pronounced locally as ‘Sweetery’ and ‘Pinkworthy’ as ‘Pinnery’. It is possible that this practice may mask name elements. One farm named in the 13th century as ‘Slaworth’ has been identified as Slowley in the parish of Luxborough (Weaver 1906, 5), suggesting that the element ‘–ley’ in

On recording the data listed in Table 3.1, it was noted that many woods shared their names with nearby settlements. A further spreadsheet was prepared and the distance in feet between a wood and any settlement sharing its name, as shown on the 1st OS 6 inch, was recorded, along with the wood number. The distance was then converted to metres in the spreadsheet, which was

Table 3.2: Name groups Group None (wood unnamed) Topography or natural characteristics Land history Tree species Identity of users/owners, tenure or value Produce or industrial activity Personal name Size, position or age Other

Code 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Table 3.3: Name elements and their meaning Element -combe -cott/cot/gott -ton/tun/town

Meaning and source Code valley (Gelling & Cole 2000, 89) 1 cottage, settlement (Watts 2004, 160) 2 enclosed land, farm, homestead 3 (Watts 2004, xlviii) -ley/leigh/ly orig. wood, later clearing, pasture, meadow 4 (Gelling & Cole 2000, 198) -wic/wich/wick dwelling place, village (Watts 2004, xlviii) 5 -ham dwelling place, homestead (Watts 2004, xlv) 6 -close enclosure, fenced or hedged piece of land 7 (Field 1972, 268) element -don/dun hill (Gelling & Cole 2000,‘-stow’, 140) meaning a holy 8 place -worthy/ery court, courtyard, farm (Watts 2004, xlix) 9

35

Table 3.4: Name types Type Unnamed Wood Copse Coppice Plantation Brake Other

Code 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

modern usage might be a contraction of ‘-worthy’. Recent work has suggested yet another origin for the name of Slowley (and nearby Stowey) in the name or element ‘-stow’, meaning a holy place or place of assembly (Pearce 2004, 144). The fact of three alternative origins for one place-name underlines the problems which may be involved in determining the meaning of wood names.

bulk of woods were close to rivers or other watercourses and on sloping ground. In precise numbers, 741 (of the 979 woods) were less than 50 m from a watercourse, of which 637 were immediately adjacent to one. Most woods (623) were on ground sloping at a rate of between three in ten and six in ten. Only 12 woods were on completely flat ground and they included many with names suggesting they were plantations, such as Butcher’s Plantation (130, Porlock) and Porlockford Plantation (131, Porlock). Others on flat land lay in lowland areas such as the parish of Brushford.

The name of each wood was then considered. Its group (from Table 3.2), its type (from Table 3.4) and any element in Table 3.3 were determined and the code number of each was recorded for each wood on a spreadsheet. The possible meaning of the entire wood name was also recorded (using the published works mentioned above) on the spreadsheet, which was imported to the Access database.

The altitude of woods varied. Most (797) reached a height of between 125 m and 300 m at their mid-point. There were relatively few woods (93) where the highest contour at mid-point exceeded 300 m. This confirms the first impression gained when examining maps; namely, that woods clustered around the fringes of the moor, but were scarce on the higher moorland.

3.2 Analysis of study area data

The numbers of woods on the different soils in the study area are shown in Figure 3.1. The commonest soils were Rivington 2 and Denbigh 1 (associations 541g and 541j), which are both brown earths (common in river valleys), and Manod (association 611c), a typical brown podzolic soil. As Table 1.1 showed, these are loamy soils with better drainage, which offer more favourable conditions for trees’ growth than the central moorland peats. The distribution of the general soil types to which the soil associations belong was shown in Figure 1.5.

After data recording, the database was checked for errors, missing values and inconsistencies. The complete database, with entries for all 979 woods, is on the CD supplied with this work. Appendix III contains instructions as to how it may be accessed. Appendix IV contains printed copies of the entries for woods in the case studies, also ordered by wood number. Analysis proceeded in two stages. In the first stage, patterns in individual attributes, such as size, slope or name type, were sought. In the second stage, more complex and less visible patterns in relationships between attributes were explored. In the following paragraphs, the term ‘variable’ refers to the data items shown in each database entry. The terms ‘attribute’ and ‘characteristic’ are used interchangeably, to refer to the values of the variables.

Relationshipwithadjoiningland Analysis of the attributes relating to adjoining land (those marked ‘B’ in Table 3.1) showed that in 558 cases, 20% or more of the wood boundary length was estimated to adjoin irregular fields, while in 315 cases, 20% or more of the wood boundary length was estimated to adjoin regular fields.

3.2.1 Stage 1: Variation in single attributes

Woods were rarely completely surrounded by fields; this fact reflects their river valley location. Only 56 woods had 100% of their boundaries adjoining irregular fields. Examples included three in the same parish: Callins Wood (11, Minehead), Mount Brake (96, Minehead) and Beatland Brake (98, Minehead). Only 27 woods were entirely surrounded by regular fields. This group

Topography Analysis of each attribute relating to topography (those marked ‘A’ in Table 3.1) confirmed the impression gained from maps of the study area, namely, that the

36

400

300

Numberof woods

200

100

0

u 1c 83 1a 83 3f 81 1b 81 1d 72 2e 71 4b 65 4a 65

3 63 1d 61 1c 61 2f 57 1w 54 1j 54 1h 54 1g 54 1a 54

1 43 1b 41

Soil Associations

Figure 3.1: Distribution of woods on soils of the study area

KEY to Figure 3.1 Association Code 411b 431 541a 541g 541h 541j 541w 572f

Description Evesham 2 Worcester Milford Rivington 2 Neath Denbigh 1 Newnham Whimple 3

611c 611d 633 654a 654b 712e 721d 811b 813f 831a 831c u

Manod Withnell 1 Larkbarrow Hafren Lydcott Hallsworth 2 Wilcocks 2 Conway Wallasea 1 Yeollandpark Wigton Moor Unsurveyed

37

Soil Type Typical calcareous pelosols Typical argillic pelosols Typical brown earths Typical brown earths Typical brown earths Typical brown earths Typical brown earths Stagnoglevic argillic brown earths Typical brown podzolic soils Typical brown podzolic soils Ferric podzols Ferric stagnopodzols Ferric stagnopodzols Pelo-stagnogley soils Cambic stagnohumic gley soils Typical alluvial gley soils Pelo-alluvial gley soils Typical cambic gley soils Typical cambic gley soils Unsurveyed

included several named as plantations, such as Butcher’s Plantation (130, Porlock) and Porlockford Plantation (131, Porlock) (mentioned in the preceding paragraph) and also several small, unnamed woods, such as those near Arlington Court: (603, Loxhore), (604, Arlington) and (605, Arlington).

Footpaths and internal features Information on these features was contained in the variables marked ‘G’ in Table 3.1. Just under 60% of the woods had one or more footpaths and a significant proportion had more; 105 woods had five or more paths. The paths tended to have long routes, going from one end of the wood to the other, rather than short routes crossing from side to side. Given woods’ topography, short routes would tend to be at right angles to contours and often impracticably steep. 177 woods had paths with ‘wandering’ routes and on closer examination, many of these appeared to follow contours.

A few woods (21 in all) were surrounded by moorland. These were mainly named as plantations or were small, unnamed woods. Many more woods abutted the moor without being surrounded by it; in 229 cases, more than 30% of the wood’s boundary length was estimated to adjoin moorland. Analysis of the numbers of woods having significant proportions of their boundaries adjoining other woods showed that nearly half (457) had boundaries of which more than 5% was estimated to adjoin other woods, while 268 had boundaries of which more than 20% was estimated to adjoin woods. Only two woods were completely encircled by other woods. Woods also adjoined land, which was neither field, moor nor wood. In 190 cases, more than 20% of the wood’s boundary was estimated to adjoin such ‘other’ land. This was often a road and reflected the fact that river valleys carry communications.

Quarries were also a significant feature: 159 woods contained at least one and 19 had more than one. Very few internal divisions or cleared areas inside woods were recorded but there was a scattering of features, such as ponds, gravel pits and monuments of an historical nature.

Variation in size Woods’ size and size distribution could be informative about past exploitation and possibly patterns of land ownership and settlement. In view of the lack of clear evidence on the 1st OS 6 inch and the modern OS for extensive clearance or assarting, there was a prima facie case for regarding the size of woods on the 1st OS 6 inch as a stable and long-lived attribute. Analysis of size showed a great range, with the smallest wood being only 0.1869 ha and the largest, 275.3 ha. Most woods were small: the overwhelming majority (814) were less than 10 ha in size, with 668 covering less than 5 ha. 388 woods were less than 2 ha and none would have qualified for inclusion in English Nature’s inventory of ancient woodland, which was limited to woods over this size. Few woods exceeded 20 ha: only 64 fell into this category and of these, only three exceeded 100 ha.

Parish boundaries The variable indicating the distance from each wood to the parish boundary (marked ‘E’ in Table 3.1) showed that over half the woods (484) were less than 200 m from a parish boundary. 310 woods lay on a parish boundary.

Boundary definition The variables marked ‘F’ in Table 3.1 showed that the wood’s boundary was defined, at least in part, by a river or other watercourse in 569 cases. Boundaries seemed to follow contours in 528 cases and appeared to coincide with footpaths in 406 cases. These categories are not exclusive, as a wood’s boundary could, for example, follow both a footpath and contours. Lack of definition of physical boundaries occurred more often where significant proportions of the wood boundary adjoined moorland.

A normal distribution of a variable, in the sense used by statisticians, is one in which the values cluster in the middle of the range, giving a bell shaped curve when plotted as a graph (Manly 1994, 15). It was therefore clear that wood size distribution was not a normal one; woods bunched at the lower end, with very few medium or large examples. On sorting the woods according to size, the atypical nature of the largest was clear. At 275.3 ha, Pitt Plantation (487.2 Porlock) was more than twice the size of the next largest, Horner Wood (170, Luccombe).

The form of wood boundaries, as depicted on the 1st OS 6 inch, was mixed. In 546 cases, part of the boundary was straight. It was apparent during recording that straight sections were often (but not invariably) boundaries with other woods. Marked concavity in boundaries, which might be consistent with assarting, occurred in 430 woods; marked convexity in 221. On closer inspection, many of the concave boundaries appeared to follow contours and their shape could have been dictated by terrain rather than by clearance alone.

Size distribution was considered within each parish, to discover variations between them. The histograms are reproduced in Appendix V. As the study area is defined by grid lines, the parishes have been separated into two groups; complete and incomplete. North Molton was treated as a complete parish as only a very small part lies outside the study area. The following comments apply to the complete parishes and use of terms such as ‘small’, ‘medium/intermediate’ or ‘large’ refer to the

38

39

Stoke Rivers

Bratton Fl eming

Lynton

South Mol ton

Countisbury

Twitchen

Exford

Mol l and

W est Anstey

Hawkridge

Cutcombe

East Anstey

Oakford

Brushford

Dul verton

Bampton

Morebath

W ithycombe

Carhampton

Dunster

Treborough

Luxborough

Timberscombe

Brompton Regis

Exton

10

Minehead

Minehead W ithout

W ootton Courtenay

Sel worthy Luccombe

W insford

Stoke Pero

Porl ock

W ithypool

Oare

Cul bone

km

Figure 3.2: Pattern of size distribution in the parishes of the study area (for full description of types a to d, see text)

a Many very smal lw oods,numbers decrease as w ood size increases b Many very smal lw oods,even more smal lw oods c Some w oods of intermediate size d Other size distribution i I ncompl ete parish

Bishop' s Nympton

Exmoor

Brendon

North Mol ton

Type of size distribution in each parish

Fil l eigh

East Buckl and

High Bray

Chal l acombe

Charl es

Parracombe

Martinhoe

Landkey Swimbridge W est Buckl and

Goodl eigh

Loxhore

Arl ington

Kentisbury

Combe Martin

Trentishoe

0

size of woods relative to others in the same parish. Absolute values for wood size are not implied here by these terms.

predominantly lowland environments of these parishes may have accompanied slightly different patterns of woodland appropriation.

The complete parishes fall into the following groups: a. Parishes where the number of woods declines from a very large number of extremely small woods to a lower number of small woods and eventually to a very few large woods. These parishes have no, or very few, woods of intermediate size. The parishes in this group are: Brendon, High Bray, Challacombe, Charles, Cutcombe, Dulverton, Exford, Exton, Hawkridge, Luccombe, Luxborough, Lynton & Lynmouth, Minehead Without, North Molton, Oare, Parracombe, Porlock, Timberscombe, Withypool and Wootton Courtenay. b. Parishes where there is a large number of extremely small woods, a slightly higher number of small woods and very few large woods. As with parishes in group a, there are few or no woods of intermediate size. These parishes are: Brushford, Stoke Rivers and Winsford. c. Parishes which have some woods of intermediate size. These parishes are: Bratton Fleming, Countisbury, Dunster, Martinhoe, Minehead, Selworthy, Stoke Pero and Trentishoe. d. Parishes with other patterns of distribution. These parishes are: Culbone, East Buckland, Exmoor, Loxhore and Twitchen.

The size of woods was also plotted against the percentage of woods’ boundary length, which was estimated to adjoin moorland. Woods with very high proportions of their boundaries adjoining moorland tended to be smaller in size than others. This is clear from Figure 3.3, from which Pitt Plantation (487.2 Porlock) was excluded as a distorting outlier, and which shows a sharp drop in size when the percentage of a wood’s boundary adjoining moorland reaches 80%.

Names A histogram of the various wood name types is shown as Figure 3.4. It is clear that ‘wood’ names are the most frequent. The numbers of woods having different name elements are shown in Figure 3.5 and those in the different name groups are shown in Figure 3.6. The spatial distribution of woods sharing settlement names is shown in Figure 3.7, which suggests that the sharing of names is widespread. There are three places where sharing names seemed less frequent: around Dunster, close to Dulverton and, to a less marked degree, to the north of North Molton. This might show that a large, nucleated settlement gave rise to slightly different naming practices, which could reflect different patterns of ownership and exploitation. The distribution of elements of wood names which are shared with settlements has a pronounced character. The ‘–ham’ element in wood names occurs all over the study area but it occurs in wood names which are shared with settlements mainly in the eastern part. The absence of shared wood names with this element in the west may be consistent with slightly different development of wood ownership in the west and east of the study area. It is also clear that wood names containing the ‘-close’ element (indicating partition of a larger area) are not shared with settlements, which is consistent with the element’s meaning. The partition of land to which it refers would normally be expected to postdate the formation of settlements.

This grouping of parishes is mapped in Figure 3.2, which shows types a to d for all the complete parishes. The dominant type is a. This pattern might reflect settlement, with the bulk of woods being associated with hamlets or individual farms. Variations on this pattern, as shown in groups b, c and d, may point towards slightly different patterns of tenure, settlement or clearance. It was noted that, of the eight parishes with woods of intermediate size (group c), six were on the northern coast, which might suggest that size distribution was affected in some way by topographical factors or by easy access to communication routes along the Bristol Channel. Other parishes in group c lay in the north-eastern part of the study area, where fragmented parishes were concentrated and where the towns of Porlock and Dunster are located.

A graph of the size of woods sharing their names with settlements plotted against the distance from that settlement was counter-intuitive (and is not reproduced here) in that it suggested no relationship between the two variables. It might have been expected that a wood at some distance from its possible users would be larger, in order to provide extra benefits to offset increased travelling times, but this was not the case.

Size distribution in the incomplete parishes appeared to be slightly different, in that more parishes (such as Brompton Regis, Carhampton, East Anstey, Filleigh, Oakford and Swimbridge) seemed to have woods of intermediate size. This may be due to the fact that the parishes were incomplete; inclusion of all woods might have reshaped size distribution. Alternatively, the

40

120

100

80

60

Size (ha)

40

20

0 0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of wood boundary adjoining moor

Figure 3.3: Wood size related to percentage of wood boundary adjoining moor

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Types of wood names

KEY:0 unnamed,1 W ood,2 Copse,3 Coppice,4 Plantation,5 Brake,6 Other

Figure 3.4: Histogram of wood name types

41

800

600

Number of woods

400

200

0 n/ tu n/

/le /ly

h ig

t ot

y er y/ th k or ic w w h/ ic /w ic n w w to

to

y le

t/g

n du

co

m ha

tt/

e

n/ do

co

os

be m co

cl

ne no

Name elements

Figure 3.5: Chart of wood name elements

300

200

Number of woods

100

0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

KEY: 0 Unnamed, 1Topography, 2 Land use history, 3 Tree species, 4 Identity of users or owners/tenure/value,5 Produce/industry, 6 Personal name, 7 Size/position/age, 8 Other

Figure 3.6: Histogram of wood name groups

42

8

43

W ood w i th shared name

Figure 3.7: Woods sharing names with settlements

North Mol ton

Lynm outh

Exf ord

Porl ock

0

Dul verton

km

Dunster

10

depictions of woods, we would recognise similarity of shape in woods which all, for example, had apsidalshaped northern boundaries. If integrated representation applies, then we look for global similarity (ibid., 31003101) and so we would recognise woods as being similar if, for example, the overall shape of a number of them was that of a lens.

Summary of results of Stage 1 Some conclusions merely reinforced the impressions gained from looking at woods on the 1st OS 6 inch. In particular, analysis showed that woods tended to lie on the slopes of river valleys and became very scarce at higher altitudes. Adjoining fields tended to be irregular, rather than regular, and few woods were surrounded entirely by fields. Almost one-third of the woods had a high proportion of their boundaries (30% or more) with moorland and over half of the woods adjoined other woods. Around one-third of the woods lay on a parish boundary.

Whatever model is used, experiment has shown that shape recognition depends partly on the degree of heterogeneity in the objects under review. Recognition will be faster and easier if the collection is fairly uniform in the particular respect under consideration (Arguin & Saumier 2000, 3113). This finding may explain the difficulty in developing a shape classification to fit the woods in the study area; there is simply too much variety in their shape for us to pick out any recurring forms.

Some results gave greater resolution to the impressions gained during examination of maps. In particular, the number of woods (406) in which boundaries appeared to coincide with footpaths and the number (159) with quarries were greater than anticipated. The numbers of woods and settlements with the same name were higher than expected and their scarcity close to larger settlements was unforeseen.

The shape, as well as the size, of a land unit, results from past decisions about the placing of boundaries. Very variable or random wood shapes might therefore point to a chaotic history of development, in which no trends or patterns could possibly be discerned. This dispiriting conclusion may be wrong for two reasons.

The results showing size distribution within each parish were valuable, in that they suggested a dominant pattern of large numbers of small woods. The exceptions to this pattern were equally interesting, especially the parishes of Countisbury, Martinhoe and Trentishoe. Reasons why woodland in these north-western, coastal parishes might be different were not obvious.

Firstly, the special character of woodland management may simply not give rise to recognisable shapes. The existence of a wood may not imply a single act of creation by man; woods may rarely have been ‘laid out’ in the same manner as fields. In addition, woodland may have been managed from an early date in ways which did not invariably require fixed boundaries. This kind of management may not have left regular shapes and recognisable patterns in the landscape. A process of classification according to shape, which may be perfectly suitable for fields, may not work for woods.

The final results of this stage of analysis were negative. Woods did not appear to fall into distinct groups whose members shared several similar characteristics. In particular, few recurring similarities in the shape of woods were noted. The list of shapes set out in Table 3.1, which was devised in part before the recording started and in part during recording, actually proved to be of little value. Few woods could be described as having any recognisable shape (for example, rectangular, oval, S-shaped or L-shaped). At the end of data recording, most had been characterised as having ‘irregular, amorphous’ shape. Useful classification by shape seemed to be impossible.

Secondly, the homogeneity of terrain of the study area’s woods is relevant. It was noted that woods were located in watercourse valleys and that their boundaries frequently followed contours. The shape of woods, clinging to the slopes of wandering river valleys, therefore reflected topography. This statement does not amount to environmental determinism. Human management placed fields on the flatter areas and confined woods to the slopes, which is a rational strategy of land use. These decisions may have resulted in no recurring wood shapes.

Before abandoning shape classification as useless, difficulties in its execution were considered and the writer is grateful to Dr. Dave Earle of the Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, for guidance on relevant recent research on this subject. Psychologists have, apparently, no agreed idea of how visual recognition of shape works; whether by separate recognition of different elements (distributed representation), or by joint processing of elements which shapes them into a single representation (integrated representation) (Arguin & Saumier 2000, 3100). If distributed representation applies, then we recognise similar, separate features in objects. In effect, we ask whether different objects share discrete features or attributes (ibid., 3100-3101). In considering cartographic

Observation (both of the 1st OS 6 inch and in the field) suggested an alternative approach to that of classifying individual woods according to their characteristics. A few parts of the study area stood out as having unusual patterns. For example, in the vicinity of Exford, woods were fragmented, small and tended not to adjoin other woods, while around Timberscombe, there were a number of woods surrounded by fields. In the northern part of the Quarme valley (especially in the parish of Exton) and in part of the valley of the River Bray there appeared to be fewer woods than in other river valleys.

44

Woods along the coast seemed to be larger and (on the 1st OS 6 inch) tended to lack physically defined boundaries. These impressions would be difficulty to refine into a set of definitions or a classification scheme and in none of these places were the individual woods remarkable. It was the pattern of woods (their numbers, relative size and location in relation to each other) in a restricted area, which caught the eye and hinted at different local histories of management.

extensively but its raw material (much of it from fieldwalking) consisted mainly of dateable assemblages of ceramics and settlement sites, which were used to model past landscapes and societies and to investigate long term demographic trends (Bintliff & Sbonias 1999, 1). The writer was therefore extremely fortunate in receiving advice from Dr. Trevor Bailey of the Department of Mathematics, University of Exeter, who has particular interest in the use of statistics and spatial analysis. He provided invaluable guidance and background in the form of his own software (which he kindly loaned), the book he co-authored (Bailey & Gattrell 1994) and generous advice.

These impressions suggested two further ways of considering woods. Firstly, it seemed possible that past wood management might be best elicited through studying small groups of woods in restricted areas. Work on such a scale might discern patterns which were incapable of detection by analysis at the level of the entire study area. This tentative conclusion reinforced the decision to define case studies (with one exception) as sets of woods, rather than as individual woods. Secondly, patterns in the distinct areas tended to derive from more than one variable. For example, it was the relationship between small size of woods and lack of adjoining woodland which made woods around Exford stand out. This suggested that further exploratory data analysis, using multivariate techniques, might find patterning in the data, which had failed to emerge from the first stage of analysis.

There are signs that the use of multivariate techniques in archaeology is increasing. One particular technique, correspondence analysis, has been used to analyse assemblages from Germanic burials of the 3rd to 7th centuries A.D (Ravn 2003, 18-20). Another, principal components analysis, has been used to examine the chemistry of medieval ceramic fabrics from Devon (Allan & Langman 2002, 68-71) and Scotland (Chenery at al. 2001) and is also being employed by the Exmoor Iron Project to analyse the geochemistry of metalworking sites (C. Carey, pers. comm.).

3.2.2 Stage 2: Variation in many attributes

The statistical software SPSS (Version 11)(‘SPSS’) was used in this study, in conjunction with the Access database and the GIS.

Examining the values of single variables had provided greater detail on some aspects of woodland but in the real world, woodland management might be associated with several woodland characteristics. For example, management by coppicing to meet the needs of a single household might be associated with a particular size range, a particular way of defining boundaries and a particular number of footpaths (or a particular ratio of footpath numbers to size). The purpose of using multivariate techniques was to discover whether such patterns involving several variables could be discerned. The spatial distribution of any such patterns might illuminate different management practices in different parts of the study area.

The purpose of multivariate techniques It is easy to understand analysis using two variables. The variables can be depicted on the page as x and y axes, with the values for every individual being plotted as a point in the two-dimensional space defined by the axes. One can also grasp a three-dimensional graph, which allows values of three variables for each individual to be shown as points in a three-dimensional space. Individuals with similar attributes appear on such graphs as points which are close together, while dissimilar individuals are shown by points with greater distances between them. It is much more difficult to visualise and depict a space with more than three dimensions. In order to deal with this problem, some multivariate techniques compress a large number of variables into two or three new variables, which can then be plotted or analysed. In effect, these techniques search for the axis (the variable combination) along which the individuals have the greatest distances between them. This axis will express variation between the individuals most clearly. A set of coordinates can be defined for the individuals in relation to this axis, which will then allow simple plotting on a graph.

The writer is aware of few published works, which have explicitly considered the value to landscape archaeology of applying statistical analysis to landscape elements and their spatial distribution. The classic work on statistics in archaeology (Shennan 1997) provides explanations of various techniques but applies them to assemblages of artefacts (for example, ceramics or lithics). A major work on spatial analysis in archaeology (Hodder & Orton 1976) worked with similar material and focussed on matters such as the relationships between ceramic scatters and settlement sites and between relationships between different settlements (ibid., 160 et seq.). The Populus Project in Greece has used spatial analysis

45

Neither multivariate technique used here makes assumptions about the processes producing variation; they are purely exploratory and designed to illuminate ‘complex patterns of variation’ (Shennan 1997, 242243). Multivariate techniques are fully described in statistical works, for example those by Shennan (1997, 243 et seq.) and Bailey & Gattrell (1994, 231 et seq.). Two techniques were employed in this work: principal components analysis (‘PCA’) and cluster analysis.

ii)

iii)

the number of footpaths was significantly correlated to four other variables: distance to rivers, the highest contour and the percentage of the boundary adjoining both regular and irregular fields; and the percentage of the boundary adjoining moorland was not correlated with any other variable (which was surprising, in view of earlier observation of a drop in size when this figure reached 80%).

Principal components analysis PCA was carried out on the matrix of correlation coefficients (again, using SPSS). Results did not initially suggest any clear patterns. A useful PCA results in the first two or three components (combinations of attributes) explaining high levels of variance (Bryman & Cramer 1991, 266) but in this case, the first two components explained only 34% of the differences between the woods. This low percentage reflected weak

Principal components analysis produces new, synthetic variables. The first step is the selection of the number of variables from which the new variables are to be produced. PCA is concerned with quantitative data, or measurements, while nominal data, such as the codes allocated to soil types or name types, are not suitable. The range of Y/N indicators are also unsuitable.

Table 3.5: Quantifiable data items River distm Parishb m Highest contour Slope Size Adj regfields% Adj irregfields% Adj moor% Adj woods% Adjother% Number of FPs

Distance in metres to river or stream Distance in metres to parish boundary Height of highest contour at mid point Degree of slope In hectares Percentage of wood boundary adjoining regular fields (estimate) Percentage of wood boundary adjoining irregular fields (estimate) Percentage of wood boundary adjoining moor (estimate) Percentage of wood boundary adjoining woodland (estimate) Percentage of wood boundary adjoining other land (estimate) Number of paths going through wood.

correlations between the variables.

Quantitative data in the woods database consisted of the data items listed in Table 3.5, of which some related to topography and some to past local land use. These were the variables selected for PCA. Their mixed nature was an advantage, as it was hoped that PCA might discover patterns of relationships between the attributes, so illuminating similar relationships between the physical environment of woodland and land use history.

PCA produced a score for each wood, which was added to its database entry. This score is the figure which, if plotted on a scatter graph, could clearly show whether woods fell into coherent groups in which all members had similar scores. This graph (not shown) of woods’ PCA scores was initially discouraging since clear groups did not emerge. It was possible that viewing the PCA scores of all woods masked groups which might be visible at a smaller scale. Therefore, scores of a few woods were examined individually. Six pairs of woods with similar scores were selected at random and examined to see if their depiction on the 1st OS 6 inch hinted at similar histories. The woods in question are shown in Table 3.6 and a summary of information is shown in Appendix VI. Only one pair of woods (pair 6) seemed to have any similarity.

The next step was to produce a correlation matrix of these variables. This is a table setting out the correlation coefficients of each variable with every other variable in the matrix. The correlation coefficient is the extent to which points are scattered around a regression line; it measures the extent to which the values of those variables are correlated. SPSS was used to produce the correlation matrix after standardising the data. Of particular interest were the following results: i) size was significantly correlated with distance to rivers and to the percentage of the boundary adjoining regular fields (but not to the percentage of the boundary adjoining irregular fields);

A further use was made of the PCA scores. Their geographical distribution was mapped in order to discover whether woods with similar scores were located close together. Figure 3.8 shows the result, from which the following points emerged:

46

47

PCA scores (1st component)

1.4 to 10.3 0.3 to 1.4 -0.3 to 0.3 -0.9to -0.3 -2.6 to -0.9

(61) (297) (277) (216) (166)

(figure in brackets is number of w oods in range)

Exford

Figure 3.8: Distribution of PCA scores (1st component)

North Molton

Lynmouth

Porlock

0

Dulverton

km

Dunster

10

Table 3.6: Pairs of woods with similar PCA scores Pair 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6

i)

ii)

iii)

Wood Name Worthy Wood Shillett Wood Pitt Plantation Smythapark Wood Burrow Wood Little Hill Plantation Bougham Wood Charlestown Barton Wood South Lydcott Wood Lyncombe Wood Little Birchcleeve Wood

woods with the highest scores (the biggest woods) were few in number but had a pronounced distribution - they were evident near Porlock and in a homogeneous strip along the nearby coast; woods further along the coast (close to Lynmouth) had more variable, lower scores; generally, woods in close proximity did not necessarily have similar scores, although part of the Barle valley, to the north-west of Dulverton was exceptional in being relatively homogenous).

Wood no, Parish 485, Porlock 488, Porlock 487.2, Porlock 608.2, Loxhore 290, Winsford 95, Minehead Without 185, Timberscombe 748, Charles 695, High Bray 549, Lynton & Lynmouth 333, Hawkridge

number of clusters (groups) to be specified in advance. The same data items (attributes) were selected as were used in PCA. Cluster analysis was carried out separately on standardised and non-standardised data. There are advantages to each of these approaches (Manly 1994, 134) but it became clear on comparing the results that standardising the data produced more interesting clusters. When non-standardised data was used, the clusters simply reflected the overwhelming effect of uniform topography and most woods (over 600) ended up in one single cluster. Various test runs of K-means cluster analysis, specifying a different number of classes on each occasion, were completed, using standardised data. Analysis using a low number of clusters (two or three) was uninformative as it resulted in woods of great variety being grouped together. Using a high number (eight or ten) produced a confusing effect, as the plethora of groups seemed to have no clear, common attributes. Using six clusters produced the most coherent results. The largest wood, Pitt Plantation (487.2, Porlock) was the sole member of one cluster, and so mapping of the remaining five clusters (not shown) could be compared with the mapping of five ranges of PCA scores, as shown in Figure 3.8. Geographical distribution of woods in the different clusters was found to be similar in many respects to that of the PCA scores, as shown in Figure 3.8, except that homogeneity in the Barle valley near Dulverton disappeared.

It is always possible in PCA that a single variable can have an overwhelming effect on the first component; in this case, wood size might be responsible. The second component was therefore also considered. Neither a graph nor a map of scores (not shown here) suggested any different distribution, further groups or relevant points in addition to those observed for the first component.

Cluster analysis The lack of coherent groups in the results of PCA suggested that little could be said about any underlying structure in the data. In order to gain greater certainty on this point, a different kind of analysis was carried out on the same data. Cluster analysis was chosen as the technique as it is considered suitable where there is no obvious patterning (Shennan 1997, 228).

There were some localised differences in the grouping of woods produced by PCA and cluster analysis. In order to discover whether the results of cluster analysis might better express similarities in exploitation history, the single member of cluster 3 and two members of the other five clusters were chosen (all except that from cluster 3 being selected at random) and their features on the 1st OS 6 inch were considered. To these were added the woods outside the case studies, for which field evidence was available. (Field evidence from woods in the case studies was considered separately and is described in Chapter 4).

Cluster analysis is one of the statistical techniques which examine the distances between individuals but do not (unlike PCA) reduce the number of variables. It is designed to divide a body of individuals (in this case, woods) into groups or classes on the basis of similarities in attributes (Bailey & Gattrell 1994, 231 et seq.). There is no single ‘right’ way to carry out cluster analysis and several methods are available. All aim to group individuals so that members of the same group are more similar to each other than they are to those outside the group (Shennan 1997, 212). The form of cluster analysis used here was ‘K-means clustering’, which requires the

48

Table 3.7: Woods from clusters 1 to 6 (‘C’ indicates group or cluster number) C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Wood Name Birch Wood Stoneball Copse Week Wood Tower Plantation (Unnamed) West Woodybay Wood Mill Cliff Wood Mill Wood Indiclear Wood Thorne Wood Kitchen Wood Burcombe Wood Pulham Wood

Wood no, Parish 518, Brendon 436.2, Bampton 244, Exton 370, Brompton Regis 537, Lyntn&Lynmth 617, Martinhoe 621, Martinhoe 622, Martinhoe 785, Landkey 855, North Molton 856, North Molton 858, North Molton 883, Twitchen

2 2 2 2 2 2

The Brake Ashtown Copse Towns Wood Barn Plantation Helebridge Plantation Burnt Plantation

425, Dulverton 433, Morebath 36, Dunster 285, Dulverton 386, Dulverton 394, Dulverton

3 Pitt Plantation

487.2, Porlock

4 King’s Hedge Coppice 4 South Wood 4 Selworthy Plantation 4 East Lucott Wood 4 Homebush Wood 4 Oaktrow Wood 4 Luckwells Wood 4 Blagdon Wood 4 Lyncombe Wood 4 Barlinch Wood 4 Exe Cleeve 4 Swines Cleeve 4 Worthy Wood 4 Deerpark Wood 4 Caffins Heanton Wood 4 East Woodybay Wood 4 Invention Wood

32.1, Carhampton 799, North Molton 113, Selworthy 135, Stoke Pero 138, Porlock 193.1, Timberscombe 197.6, Cutcombe 202.1, Cutcombe 264, Brompton Regis 362, Brompton Regis 363, Dulverton 371, Brompton Regis 485, Porlock 597.2, Loxhore 613, Lyntn&Lynmth 616, Martinhoe 623, Parracombe

C 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Wood Name Little Hell North Ground Plant. Little Quarme Wood Lyncombe Wood Bincombe Wood Mansley Plantation Road Copse Court Copse Heddons Mouth Wood Birchley Cleave Plant. Birchley Cleave Wood Parsonage Wood South Dean Oaks Heale Wood Redland Wood

Wood no, Parish 282, Brompton Regis 580, Kentisbury 197.7, Cutcombe 225, Winsford 231, Cutcombe 233, Cutcombe 338, Winsford 339, Exford 625, Trentishoe 627, Trentishoe 628, Trentishoe 629, Trentishoe 630, Trentishoe 633, Parracombe 879, Twitchen

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Common Wood Embercombe Wood Great Wood Croft Plantation Bickham Wood Stowey Wood Kersham Wood East Wood Langham Wood Rabbit Wood Great Cleeve Wood Bridgetown Wood Little Plantation Trunelshute Wood Portfolken Wood Molland Wood Burch Wood

407.2, Dulverton 825, Filleigh 108.2, Selworthy 112, Selworthy 189, Timberscombe 193.2, Cutcombe 193.3, Cutcombe 193.4, Cutcombe 232, Cutcombe 243, Exton 247, Exton 255, Exton 626, Trentishoe 784, Landkey 854, North Molton 876, Molland 882, Twitchen

This resulted in a list of 69 woods, of which 11 could be described by reference only to maps and of which the remainder (58) could be described by reference both to maps and fieldwork. The list is shown in Table 3.7 and the descriptions are set out in Appendix II. It was hoped that a review of these 69 woods would generate an overview of woodland representative of the entire study area, which would group woods in such a way as to illuminate aspects of their past exploitation. Brief comments on each cluster follow.

Cluster 1: Woods in this cluster tended to have few footpaths and boundaries with high proportions adjoining ‘other’ land, which was often a road. Cluster 2: These woods were small, with higher percentages of their boundaries adjoining moorland. Cluster 3: Pitt Plantation (487.2, Porlock) is in a cluster on its own due to its huge size. Cluster 4: These woods were larger and tended to lie at higher altitudes, which meant that many adjoined or were close to moorland. Many also possessed higher numbers of footpaths.

49

Cluster 5: These woods tended to be similar to those in Cluster 2 but slightly larger in size and included several named as plantations, set in regular fields. Cluster 6: This cluster included many smaller woods with no, or very few, footpaths. Some woods in this cluster had boundaries of which low proportions adjoined moorland and many had boundaries to irregular fields. Several woods in the cluster contained or were very close to, evidence of quarrying or other extraction activities. This may be related to the fact that some were depicted as adjoining moorland. Land cleared and then left derelict after quarrying could revert to a rough state to which the moorland symbol was allocated by Ordnance Survey surveyors. Several woods in this group had the appearance of having been much larger in the past. Both irregular shape and the pattern of surrounding fields pointed to this conclusion.

uniformity of environment did not dictate uniform past management. Subsequent Chapters will show whether that picture of homogeneous environment, obtained during analysis in this Chapter, would survive work at the level of the case studies, where small, very local variations may become apparent. Analysis using multivariate techniques did suggest distinct groups of woods with similar histories of management in some parts of the study area. Woods in coastal parishes and in the north-east of the study area (around Porlock) had also displayed slightly different size distribution to woods elsewhere. It was also clear that woods sharing their names with settlements were sparse around some towns. Further issues raised by analysis of single variables and fieldwork are set out below.

Summary of results of Stage 2

3.3.1 Proximity of the moor

The results of analysis using multivariate techniques harmonised with fieldwork in showing variety amongst woods lying close to each other. Analysis was intended from the outset to be exploratory and the techniques were successful in suggesting lines of inquiry.

The significant numbers of woods adjoining moorland were more likely than others to lack physically defined boundaries. This characteristic was noted both from examining the 1st OS 6 inch and during fieldwork. Pollard trees were seen in some of these woods but were rarely seen elsewhere. This evidence points towards integrated use of moor and wood as a feature of the study area and the likely system of management was wood pasture.

The results may also confirm that different types of woodland exploitation do not leave clear patterns in the variables under examination. It remained possible that patterning might be found in other variables, such as the Y/N indicators included in the database. There are techniques, such as association analysis, which are suitable for such data (Shennan 1997, 221), but require specialist knowledge and skills and were therefore not pursued further by the writer.

3.3.2 Footpaths The coincidence of footpaths with many wood boundaries had been noted in analysis. Further characteristics were apparent in fieldwork. When walking along these paths, such as that in Burridge Wood (400, Dulverton), it seemed that some could have been (slightly) embanked and functioned as wood boundaries in the past. This suggested that clear physical wood boundaries, as shown on the 1st OS 6 inch, might postdate slight or notional boundaries formed by paths and tracks.

Data recording followed by exploratory statistical analysis and mapping with a GIS offers many benefits. These include a high degree of rigour, the capacity to handle volumes of data in a uniform manner, the opportunity to discover patterns in the data which may otherwise remain hidden and the graphic representation of those patterns. These techniques could be useful when examining past land management in any large area and are particularly appropriate when physical traces of management are scarce, ambiguous or of an unknown nature.

Cluster analysis had illuminated a number of larger woods with high numbers of paths (many were in Cluster 4). These often (but not invariably) adjoined or were close to moorland, which might suggest more intense exploitation, or possibly frequent use of routes through woodland to gain access to the moor.

3.3 Conclusions and questions Analysis showed the relatively uniform physical environment of woods in the study area. Most of the woods lie on the slopes of river valleys. The homogeneity of environment was not accompanied by uniformity in attributes relating to past management. For example, size, number of footpaths and the nature of adjoining land all showed variety, and observations during fieldwork also suggested a range of management histories. The tentative conclusion was that general

3.3.3 Names and settlements Many woods shared their names with nearby settlements and the relationship strongly suggests appropriation or use of woods by those settlements, which are predominantly single farms or hamlets. The infrequency of names suggesting appropriation to a particular parish, or more communal usage, had been obvious during data

50

recording. Two rare examples of such names are: Towns Wood (36, Dunster) and Common Wood (407.2, Dulverton). Both are close to larger settlements (Dunster and Dulverton). The latter is a mere sliver of wood near three others sharing their names with nearby settlements. The general appearance and the names are consistent with dismemberment of a (presumably) communal wood, perhaps with a degree of clearance, to form a number of woods belonging to individual settlements.

They were sometimes associated with internal division of the wood, as in Great Wood (108.2, Selworthy) and with wide tracks having flat surfaces and gentle gradients. Such tracks would be suitable for the transport of timber, suggesting an association between the two activities of quarrying and timber production.

3.3.6 Woodland management When visiting the woods listed in Appendix II, notes were kept of the general character of the trees, as a clue to past management. Neglected coppice was widespread but tended to be spindly, with only a few poles. There were few examples of large, ancient coppice stools. This may be due to poor growing conditions on and around Exmoor, or the coppice may be of relatively recent date.

The periods in which all woods acquired the names shown on 1st OS 6 inch is probably impossible to ascertain and so generalisation about past use on this evidence alone is unwise. Several scenarios are consistent with the evidence. Communal use may have been employed as a strategy only very rarely and the scarcity of names like ‘Towns Wood’ then reflects past practice. Alternatively, woods may have been used by communities but wood names never reflected the practice. Finally, woods may at some time in the past have possessed names reflecting communal use but suffered later appropriation and change of names.

Coppice was noted in woods whose boundaries to moorland were not defined on the 1st OS 6 inch, such as Heddons Mouth Wood (623, Trentishoe). Coppice was also seen in woods where there was evidence of past use as wood pasture, such as the pollards in Homebush Wood (138, Porlock). The existence of coppice in such woods is problematic because of the risk of damage by grazing livestock (and deer) entering from the moor. The coppice might have been enclosed by a boundary which has left no physical traces or coppice and pollards may relate to different phases of use or, if contemporary, those managing the coppice may simply have accepted a certain level of loss from grazing. If livestock levels were low, this could have been a rational choice, given that construction of fences or hedges would have been very costly in time and other resources.

3.3.4 Woods and clearance Past woodland destruction could be inferred from maps and was sometimes evident during fieldwork. Two levels of clearance could be seen: partial and radical. Some areas seemed to have undergone partial clearance confined to the gentler valley slopes, which left sizeable woods in existence on steeper slopes. There is no need to infer enclosure to accompany arable farming. New fields could have been required for pasture and the act of laying them out might merely have indicated a change in grazing regimes, with wood pasture being abandoned in favour of grazing in fields. Some of these fields on gentle slopes later fell into disuse and are now reverting to woodland, as, for example, those next to Caffins Heanton Wood (613, Lynton & Lynmouth). This kind of clearance might represent a high water mark of land use in the study area.

The conclusions of analysis in this Chapter formed a background to the case studies, both by offering pointers to relevant issues and by generating a string of questions. Do the physical environments of the case studies offer small, localised variations, which might affect woodland management? Is there any clue as to why woods’ size distribution in coastal parishes and in some north-eastern parishes is different? Why are woods near Porlock more homogeneous than elsewhere? Is there any evidence that different woodland management around some towns led to different naming practices? Do the case studies offer any evidence as to the chronology of wood pasture and its implications for other forms of land use? Do the results of wood survey illuminate the coincidence of paths and boundaries? Are there any traces of exploitation of woods by communities, as well as single farms? What is the relationship between mineral extraction or exploitation and woodland? How were woods shaped by enclosure and other changes in farming practices? Can the traces of management surviving in living trees be interpreted so as to allow reconstruction of a wood’s history? These questions provided some focus to investigation of the case studies, which are described in the following Chapter.

Evidence for radical clearance was much scarcer but was apparent in the Exford area, and, to a lesser degree in parts of the valley of the River Bray, where the patterns of woods and fields suggested wholesale clearance of both flat and sloping ground, leaving only scattered, isolated woods. Both these areas possess evidence of mineral exploitation, some of which is of ancient or unknown date.

3.3.5 Mineral extraction During fieldwork it was noted that many woods possessed scoops or pits, which were probably the result of quarrying or similar activity, but which were not invariably shown on the 1st OS 6 inch or the modern OS.

51

CHAPTER 4 THE CASE STUDIES 4. 1Preview 4.1.1 Selection of case studies The location of the woods selected as case studies is shown in Figure 4. 1. The purpose of this section is to review the reasons for selecting these woods and to indicate the range of evidence in each instance.The case studies will throughout be referred by the short names shown in Figure 4. 1:Sherracombe,Bremridge,Culbone, Hornerand Barle. The case studies were chosen to reflect, as far as possible,the distribution and physical environment of woods in the studyarea.As indicated in Chapter3,river valley terrain predominates and so three case studies were chosen with this kind of environment. The river valleys of the case studies lie in different parts of the studyarea:the south-west (Sherracombe),the south-east (Barle)and the north-east (Horner).The Culbone case study was chosen as representing woods on different terrain,namely,coastal cliffs,although it includes some small watercourses and theirvalleys. Otherfactors determiningthe location of the case studies were considered,in addition to those of the physical environment.Analysis in Chapter3 showed that woods in the north-eastern quadrant (around Porlock)tended to have higher,more homogeneous PCA scores,perhaps pointing towards a distinct history of management and two case studies (Hornerand Culbone)were located in this area. It includes the Vale of Porlock, which possesses some of the richest soil foragriculture around Exmoor(M altby 1995,33)and a small town (Porlock), with a long established market and port. The demands of the Vale’s economy forwoodland resources would have been a significant factor in past woodland management and accordingly, some (principally documentary) evidence relating to the Vale will be considered. It will provide background information and a context forthe case studies of Hornerand Culbone. Analysis in Chapter3 also suggested that woods in part of the Barle valley might have similar management histories,as theirPCA scores were similar,unlike those in the area of the Sherracombe case study, where adjoining woods had very different scores. These two case studies could offeran opportunity to contrast and compare past exploitation in different contexts. The study area consists principally of uplands and their fringes but one case study (Bremridge) in a lowland environment was selected.General Pitt Rivers advised that ‘common things are of more importance than particular things, because they are more prevalent’

52

(W heeler1955,38)and archaeologists have traditionally been waryof studyingthe aberrant individual in a set of artefacts.Features of land use,in contrast,require a slightly different approach. Unlike excavated artefacts, they do not normally occur in assemblages from recognisablystratified contexts and it is often impossible to date them.Land use features can,on the otherhand, be grouped according to physical environment, regardless of their period of origin, and examining evidence from different kinds of environment can permit identification of factors affecting their creation and history. The distinct environment of Bremridge W ood (826, South M olton)is not typical of the study area and the wood’s past exploitation may,forthat reason,illuminate the different factors affectinglowland and upland woods. The wood is close to a large nucleated settlement (South M olton),which analysis in Chapter3 suggested,could be significant.Like manyotherwoods in the studyarea, it is now (and was at the date of the tithe maps)part of a large estate,close to a parish boundaryand lyingon soil of a type common to the woods of the study area.A furtherpragmatic consideration led to its choice:there is a map of the wood which predates the tithe maps by about 170years.

4.1.2Sources of evidence Some information on the distribution,size and physical attributes of woodland in all the case studies had been obtained in the course of collecting data overthe entire studyarea,as outlined in Chapter3.In addition,sources of evidence listed in Table 4. 1 were examined in detail foreach case study. Othersources,listed in Table 4. 2, were unevenly spread. Documentary evidence and published work relating to the case studies were similarlypatchy. Of particularsignificance is the sparsity of excavation and palaeo-environmental evidence,except in the Horner case study.The Barle case study is close to an area currently underexcavation by the ExmoorIron Project but results have not yet been published. Inevitably,the scarcityof dated,excavated evidence results in a lackof chronological resolution. In contrast,each of the case studies has seen high levels of reconnaissance survey or archaeological assessment (these terms will be used interchangeably).The Hornercase studyalso included a tree surveybythe writer,which is described in section 8 of this Chapter. The results of these surveys have generated understanding of some past activities in woodland (subject to the caveat that much exploitation leaves no archaeological record) but even relative chronologies have been difficult to construct. Documentary evidence will be examined in each case study but it was known from the outset that no volumes of medieval estate records existed,which would allow

53

W ood

Boundaryofcase study

Figure 4.1: The case studies

CULBONE

Exford

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

BREMRI DGE

NorthMol ton

SHERRACOMBE

Lynm outh

BARLE

Porlock

0

Dulverton

HORNER

km

Dunster

10

Table 4.1: Sources of evidence used in all case studies Entries in Domesday Book Names of woods Entries on the HER Tithe maps Greenwoods’ maps of Devon (1827) and Somerset (1822) 1st OS 1 inch (1809) 1st OS 6 inch (1888-1891

Table 4.2: Sources of evidence used in specific case studies Evidence

Sherracombe

Documents of Royal Forest of Exmoor Map predating tithe Survey by others Survey by writer Y Archaeological assessment nearby Vegetation survey Pollen analysis Y Charcoal analysis Dendrochronological analysis Excavation or sampling in case study Excavation or sampling of nearby site(s) Y

Bremridge

Barle

Culbone

Horner

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

detailed reconstruction of land use over an extended period. There is no equivalent on Exmoor of Finberg’s (1951) study of the estates of Tavistock Abbey. Postmedieval and modern maps (principally tithe maps and maps produced by secular estates) were interrogated with a view to defining ancient land units but results indicated the need for caution in assuming that these invariably represented medieval practices.

Secondly, the area of this case study has been the subject of many investigations: reconnaissance surveys and analysis of palaeo-environmental evidence since the mid-1990s. Paradoxically, the resulting volume of data can be harder to analyse than smaller data sets from woods which have seen less investigation. Accordingly, some means of organising or focussing the body of data had to be adopted if underlying processes were to be understood. For this reason, a chronologically ordered account is attempted.

4.1.3 Presentation of evidence In each case study, with one exception, the different sources of evidence will be reviewed in turn, issues raised by the evidence will be discussed and conclusions will be drawn. In each instance, answers to some of the questions set out in the final paragraphs of Chapter 3 will be sought. Evidence in the Horner case study is treated in a slightly different manner. There were two major problems. Firstly, Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) is unusual;apart from Pitt Plantation (487.2, Porlock) it is the largest in the entire study area. Conclusions derived from its history or archaeology must therefore be used with caution, as they may not apply to other woods, even though they may lie in similar physical environments.

54

4.2 Sherracombe 4.2.1 Introduction The case st udy consi st s ofei ghtwoods on t he val l ey sl opesofat ri but ary oft heRi verBray,approxi mat el y2 km north-eastofthevillageofBrayfordinthecountyof Devon. Thewoodsi nt hecasest udy,asdepi ct edont he nch,are shown i n Fi gure 4. 2. 1.The si t e of 1st OS 6 i excavations atSherracombe Ford,which were carried outbyt heExmoorIronProjectandreveal edevi denceof Roman peri od met al product i on, are l ess t han 1 km away.

4.2.2 Theenvironment The woods of t he case st udy are l i st ed i n Tabl e 4. 3, whi chal soi ncl udessomeoftheircharacteristicsandthe woods’ scores i n PCA (descri bed i n Chapt er 3).The namesunderwhich they havebeen known according to t het i t hemaps,t he1stOS 6inchandthemodernOS,are l i st edi nTabl e4. 4. Therei sfurt herwoodl andadjoi ni ngt hecasest udyt ot he nort h-eastbuti ti sa modern coni ferpl ant at i on. Itwas nch andsowasnoti ncl uded notshown on t he1stOS 6 i asawoodfort hepurposesoft hi sst udy. Thet opography oft hecasest udy i st ypi caloft hest udy area’s woods; namel y, ri ver val l ey sl opes, but considerationofthehighestpointsandtheslopeofeach wood, as l i st ed i n Tabl e 4. 3, shows consi derabl e vari at i on.Thi shet erogenei t yi sofphysi calrel i efandnot ofsoi l s,whi ch aremai nl y brown podzol soft heM anod associ at i on(611c),wi t hsomeferri cst agnopodzol soft he Lydcot tassoci at i on (654b) att he east ern edge. The geol ogy,as recorded by Sheet293 of t he Geol ogi cal Survey of Great Bri t ai n (1: 50, 000)(1982) i s al so homogeneous,bei ng Pi ckwel lDown Sl at es,whi chare

purpl e and brown sandst ones wi t h shal es. There are changesi n geol ogy i mmedi at el yt ot he nort h and sout h ofthecasestudy.In the lattercase,UpcottSlates(buff, greenandpurpl esl at es)justt oucht heboundaryofBeara W ood. Bot h soi l s and geol ogy are common t ypesfor woodl andoft hest udyarea. Li kemanyExmoorwoods,t hosei nt hecasest udyl i eon a pari sh boundary, whi ch i s formed by t he Bray’s t ri but ary,di vi di ng t he pari shesofNort h M ol t on t ot he sout h and Brayford (formerl y Hi gh Bray)t ot he nort h and west .The count y boundary (bet ween Devon and Somerset )runsal ong t he hi ghestpartoft hemooron a nort h-westt o sout h-eastal i gnment ,around 2 km nort heastoft he case st udy. The case st udy fel lwi t hi nt he boundaries ofthe formerRoyalForestuntil1204 and now l i eswi t hi nt heExmoorNat i onalPark. Present l and use i n t he surroundi ng area i s predomi nant l y sheep past ure i n enclosed fields. Those on W hi t efi el d Down (t ot henort h oft hecasest udy)are ofrecentorigin.TheDownwasshownasopenmooron nch, whi ch was publ i shed i n 1891. t he 1st OS 6 i Compari sonoft hemodernOS andt he1stOS 6inchalso confi rmst hatwoodl andnow coversal argerareat hani n ury.M uch oft hi smodern expansi on i sdue t he19th cent t ot he pl ant i ng ofconi ferson partofW hi t efi el d Down butol derwoodshave al so expanded.Forexampl e,t he fi el dl yi ng t ot henort h ofW i t hygat eW ood (669,Nort h M ol t on)now hast reecover. Set t l ement si n and cl ose t ot he case st udy i ncl ude W hi t efi el dt ot henort h-west ,whi ch i sahaml etand was recorded assuch on mapsofthe 19th century,and the farms of Beara, Sherracombe and W i t hygat e. Al l (exceptW i t hygat e)appearon Fi gure 4. 2. 1,whi ch al so showst hefarm ofW i nsl ey,cl oset oW hi t efi el d.Onl yi n t he case ofW hi t efi el di st hereany evi dencesuggest i ng medievalorearlierorigins.

Table 4.3: Woods in the Sherracombe case study (EN indicates whether included in English Nature’s inventory ofancient woodland) Name

Number,Parish Size(ha)EN Sl ope Highest contour PCA (at mid-pt) (at mid-pt)(m) (1st component)

BroadW ood ChurchwayHam W ood Wi nsl eyW ood LittleComfort W ood Sherracombe W ood ColehillW ood Wi t hygat eW ood BearaW ood

664. 1,Hi ghBray6. 54 664. 2,Hi ghBray3. 88

Y Y

4i n10 4i n10

240 240

0. 425 1. 019

665,Hi ghBray 1. 48 666,HighBray 1. 78

N N

6i n10 5 in10

250 260

0. 735 1. 024

667,N M ol t on 2. 76

N

2i n10

260

0. 690

668,N M olton 9. 37 669,N M ol t on 9. 53 670,N M ol t on 11. 21

N Y Y

6in10 3i n10 4i n10

300 260 250

1. 145 1. 039 0. 687

55

Table 4.4: Wood name changes in the Sherracombe case study M odern OS refers to OS 1:10, 000(1973) Tit he mapname (1838,1840) BearaW ood SherricombeColdHillW ood W ood LittleComfortW ood LittleComfortW ood M ai nW ood BroadW ood

FirstOS6” Name (1891) BearaW ood & Wi t hygat eW ood ColehillW ood SherracombeW ood LittleComfortW ood Wi nsleyW ood ChurchwayHam W ood BroadW ood

4.2.3 The evidence Archaeology and maps Thearchaeol ogyoft hewoodscoveredi nreconnai ssance surveyi ssummari sedi nFi gure4. 2. 2, whi chi ndi cat est he limits of the survey area and the range of features recorded.Thi s Fi gure was based on Ordnance Survey (1: 10, 000)(1973)andt hecomment sbel ow uset hewood namesrecordedonthatmap.Thesewerenotidenticalto thoserecorded by the1stOS 6 inch,asindicated by the l i stofnamechangesi nTabl e4. 4. The woods shown on Figure 4. 2. 1 as Little Comfort W ood,W i nsl ey W ood,Churchway Ham W ood and t he l and bet ween t hem,were surveyed butt he t errai n and groundveget at i oni nt hewoodsshownonFi gure4. 2. 1 as SherracombeW ood and W i t hygat eW ood (east ern part ) prevented full survey. Sampl et ransect s onl y were walked there. The survey generat ed t he fol l owi ng comment s,whi chrefert oFi gure4. 2. 2: i ) t he st ri p bet ween poi nt E and P1 (t he western fringe ofLittle ComfortW ood)is now aconiferwoodalthoughthetithemap showedi tasanarabl efi el d(parcel580),as descri bedbel ow; i i ) t hefl atareanextt otheriveratthenorthern endofLittleComfortW ood,containedlow eart h banks ofatl eastone,and possi bl y t woencl osures; iii) thehedgeboundary atthenorthern end of LittleComfortW oodwasplantedwithoak, l i ket hatoft hefi el dboundaryt ot hewest ; i v) t he hedge boundary marked ‘B’ (t ot he nort h of Churchway Hams W ood) was planted with beech,suggesting alatedate, as t hi s speci es was grown for hedges i n nurseri es on Exmoor i nt he 19th century (M i l es1967,150); v) atl eastt wopat hs(markedP1 andP2)were apparent , runni ng al ong t he cont our through Little ComfortW ood in a northsout h di rect i on,i n addi t i on t o pat hsshown on the modern OS.P1 ranjustinsidethe

57

vi )

vii)

vi i i ) i x)

x) xi )

xi i )

xi i i )

Modern OSName (1973) BearaW ood & Wi t hygat eW ood SherracombeW ood LittleComfortW ood Wi nsleyW ood ChurchwayHamsW ood BroadW ood

presentwest ernboundaryandP2ranal ong t he cont our l ower down t he sl ope. The latter(P2)mayrepresentanearlierwestern boundary of Little Comfort W ood, as recorded (by adotted line)on the1stOS 6 i nch; t here was evi dence of t wo rect angul ar st ruct ures at t he sout hern end of Li t t l e ComfortW ood (adjoi ni ng W i nsl ey W ood) i nt heform ofl ow eart handst onebanks; the enclosure marked ‘E’wasrelated to a boundary (a hedge bank)whi ch cont i nued downsl ope t owards t he ri ver. The hedge bank wassubst ant i aland marked t heedge ofW i nsl eyW oodasshownont he1stOS 6 i nch; t he pat h marki ng t he edge ofChurchway HamsW oodwassl i ght l yembanked; t hel i neoft hepat h P2 probabl y cont i nued through LittleComfortW ood and W i nsley W ood(fal l ent reesandheavygroundcover prevent ed compl et ei nspect i on oft hi sarea) t ojoi nt hepat hmarkedont hemodernOS, asshownbyadot t edl i ne; there wasan area ofhazelcoppice to the nort hofChurchwayHamsW ood; t woquarryscoopsweresi mi l art oot hersi n t he l and l yi ng out si de and t ot he nort h of the case study, which had also been surveyedbythewriterfortheExmoorIron Project ; t het rack t ot hesouth-eastofSherracombe Farm and t he scoop nearby were cl ose t o t hel ocat i onofa footbri dgemarkedont he nch(whi chnol ongerexi st s);and 1stOS 6i t he t rack marked T2 may represent t he nort h-east ern boundary of Sherracombe W ood,asrecorded(byadot t edl i ne)ont he 1stOS 6inch.

A further feature had already been noted by Isabel Ri chardson i n prel i mi nary work for t he Exmoor Iron Projectand was seen by the writer:a stone wallwith capst ones runni ng nextt ot he ri verand fol l owi ng t he pari shboundary.Itwasfurt hernot edt hatt hel eat ,whi ch

58

Li mi t of survey

Boundary Earthw ork Encl osure Pl atform Quarry scoop Scoop Structure Track/path

(7) (2) (2) (2) (3) (1) (2) (7)

Types of Feature

B

P2

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

Figure 4.2.2: Features recorded in reconnaissance surveyofSherracombe Ford case study (f eatures shown on Ordnance Survey1:10, 0001973)

E

P1

0

T2

m

200

is clearly shown on the 1st OS 6 inch, was still in existence. Modern plastic drains indicated that it had been maintained in recent years.

were analysed by Dr. Ralph Fyfe of the University of Exeter and the writer is grateful to him for supplying a copy of his report (Fyfe 2003) and for discussing the results. Fyfe took samples from a flush (a boggy area) at Sherracombe Ford and from North Twitchen Springs, about 800m to the north of the excavation site. The flush proved to be post-medieval in origin (Fyfe 2003, 6) and so the results were of limited value to this study.

In addition to these features, the varying nature of the woodland was noted. Oak standards dominated in Churchway Ham Wood but with some patches of hazel coppice, as mentioned above, which also occurred in small areas next to the river. Thorns and bracken were prominent in the area between Churchway Ham Wood and Winsley Wood, which is consistent with recent colonisation. Amongst the conifers of Little Comfort Wood and Winsley Wood there were patches of bluebells (an ancient woodland indicator) in areas receiving more light but none were noted in Sherracombe Wood, which was surveyed in the summer, when bluebells would not be obvious. In spite of these clues to a long woodland history in Little Comfort Wood and Winsley Wood, neither appeared in English Nature’s inventory of ancient woodland, probably because they are small woods.

Further assessment of medieval land use depended heavily on interpretation of the earliest maps and on the assumption of continuity in the landscape from the medieval period to the date of the maps’ preparation. One of the earliest cartographic sources for this area is Donn’s map of Devon (1765) but it is uninformative, showing only the River Bray and the parish boundary in this area (Ravenhill 1965). The case study’s woods were first depicted on the 1st OS 1 inch and later by the Greenwood brothers’ map of Devon (1827). Detail is difficult to assess, given the scale of the maps, but both show woodland in the area of Beara Wood (670, North Molton), and probably also include Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) and Winsley Wood (665, High Bray) (as defined on the 1st OS 6 inch). Both appear to omit Colehill Wood (668, North Molton).

The physical features revealed by survey suggested several episodes in the past use of the woods (again, using the names of woods as they were shown in Figure 4.2.2): i) it seemed that the boundaries of Little Comfort Wood and part of Sherracombe Wood (that closest to Sherracombe Farm) had coincided with paths in the past, raising the possibility that these woods had lacked other physical boundaries at some period; ii) the contrast between the species in hedge banks (oak and beech) might be consistent with at least two phases of hedge construction or refurbishment; iii) use of the woods in a period when stone was extracted gave rise to the broader tracks; iv) there may have been a period of occupation of enclosures and structures in the southern corner of Little Comfort Wood adjoining Winsley Wood; and v) at some period, the area between Winsley Wood and Churchway Hams Wood was open. The boundaries in the woodland here are discontinuous with the hedge banks of the adjoining fields and so may have been laid out at different times. No conclusions about the absolute dates of any of these activities were suggested by the archaeological evidence alone.

The relevant information gained from these early maps confirmed that Beara Wood (670, North Molton) and probably Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) and Winsley Wood (665, High Bray), could have a long history as woodland. The maps also showed Whitefield as a substantial hamlet. The date of formation of the fields lying between Whitefield and the case study could be early, as the division between fields and moor in this location was shown by the 1st OS 1 inch, although the detail of field boundaries was not recorded. The tithe maps for the parishes of High Bray (1838) and North Molton (1840) provided more detail of woodland distribution and ownership, together with information on other land in the vicinity, especially the fields around the farms of Beara and Sherracombe and those lying between Whitefield and the case study. The maps and apportionment awards recorded that Whitefield then comprised two farms occupied by Aaron Pattinson and George Radley and that the farm of Winsley was occupied by George Rook. The tithe maps were the basis for Figure 4.2.3, which shows the ‘state of cultivation’. This Figure clearly shows the distinct, curving form of the fields lying between Whitefield and the case study, together with a further wood, which had been cleared by the late 19th century. The tithe maps showed the following significant points on land use: i) tithe parcels 623 and 624 (which now have cover indicating recent woodland expansion) were stated to be cultivated as arable, and furze with arable respectively; ii) tithe parcel 581 was stated to be meadow, whose name (Churchway Ham Meadow)

It had been hoped that some indication of the chronology of environment change would be obtained from a pollen study carried out for the Exmoor Iron Project in connection with its excavation at Sherracombe Ford. The excavation site was well to the north of the case study and was not shown as woodland on the 1st OS 6 inch. Peat deposits in the area around Sherracombe Ford

59

was applied later to an entire wood by Ordnance Survey maps; iii) the names and definition of woods at the date of the tithe map are not identical with those on later maps: Main Wood later became Churchway Ham Wood, Beara Wood then covered the area later comprising Withygate Wood and Beara Wood, and the boundaries of Little Comfort Wood and Winsley Wood were later re-organised (as shown on the 1st OS 6 inch and summarised in Table 4.4); iv) the boundaries of some woodland parcels were shown on the tithe maps with dotted lines, for example, those between parcels 580 (Little Comfort) and 625 (Little Comfort Wood), between 623 (arable) and 624 (furze in arable); and between 617 (furze in arable) and the field to the north; v) the state of cultivation for the woodland parcels was recorded by the apportionment award broadly as ‘copse’ to the north of the river and ‘wood’ to the south; and vi) several fields in the surrounding area were recorded as having names including the word ‘easter’, which can mean sheepfold (Ekwall 1959, 157) and confirms a focus in the local economy on sheep. The owners of the woods and some of the adjoining fields, as recorded in the tithe maps, are shown on Figure 4.2.4 and it is apparent that ownership on the north side of the river (in High Bray) was divided between several people, holding in discontinuous blocks, while that on the south (in North Molton) was not.

vi)

vii)

watercourse running parallel to the river and branching off it; Withygate Wood (669, North Molton) and Beara Wood (670, North Molton) contained an internal boundary feature following the contour; and a foot bridge was shown on the river between Colehill Wood (668, North Molton) and Winsley Wood (665, High Bray).

Documents and place-names Most of the features revealed by survey and maps could not be dated. Documentary evidence might be capable of providing some absolute chronology but was limited to only one relevant source. Domesday Book is the only relevant documentary evidence of the medieval period and it relates, not to the case study itself, but to Whitefield, which was recorded as the property of the Bishop of Coutances. Its entry stated: (High) Bray. Alwin held it before 1066 … … … WHITEFIELD has been added to this manor. Saewin hel d it as a manor before 1066. It paid taxfor 1virgate ofl and. Land for 2pl oughs. 1 pl ough there and ½ virgate, in lordship. 2vil l agers with 1smal l hol der (have)½ virgate. Woodl and,10acres. 15goats. Val ue formerl yand now 10s. (DomesdayD, 102c). Whitefiel d’s entry does not refer to any pasture or meadow;woodland is the only explicitly stated use of l and,al though the reference to pl oughs might suggest cul tivation. Nearby Twitchen has a simil ar entry (ibid. , 115d)and a distinct,l ocalform ofagricul ture might be suggested,with grazing on l and not recorded by these entries. The distribution of place-names mentioned in Domesday Book on the different soil s around the case study,suggests that Whitefiel d may have had a special character. NearbyGratton (ibid. , 102d),M ockham (ibid. , 106d)and High Bray (ibid. ,102c)are al lsituated on soil s ofthe Denbigh 1 association,which is a typical brown earth,whil e Whitefiel d (and the case study)l ie on podzol s.

The case study woods underwent change in the mid-19th century, as is apparent from examination of the 1st OS 6 inch. The names and definition of woods had changed from those shown on the earlier tithe maps. Other relevant details on the 1st OS 6 inch, which may derive from earlier woodland history, were that: i) major parts of the boundaries of Sherracombe Wood (667, North Molton) and Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) were shown with dotted lines; ii) the boundary of Winsley Wood (665, High Bray) , in contrast, was shown with a solid line; iii) the woods on the north side of the river appeared to end some distance from the river in places, leaving open land between the river and the wood edge; iv) a leat led from the river at Sherracombe Ford (about 1 km to the north), across Whitefield Down and ended at Whitefield (much of its route is outside the case study area); v) the area between Withygate Wood (669, North Molton) and Beara Wood (670, North Molton) contained a further

No further useful documentary evidence from the medievalperiod,which rel ated directl yto the case study, was found bythe writer. In research for the Exmoor Iron Project,IsabelRichardson noted that l ater documents of the RoyalForest referred to John Joce feedingcattle ‘on the ridge’at Sherracombe in 1685 and for the previous 10 years (IsabelRichardson,pers. comm.;M acDermot 1939,369). Al though documentaryevidence was sparse,the woods’ names provided some cl ues as to past l and use in the case study. Four ofthe eight woods in the case study shared their names with settl ements: Winsl ey,Beara,

61

Withygate and Sherracombe. Of these four woods, three (Winsley, Beara and Sherracombe) have similar scores in PCA (as shown in Table 4.3), even though the absolute values of their size, slope and other aspects, are quite different.

Old English for bend and this might at first appear to refer to the curved form of the fields to the north of the case study. This meaning is, however, doubted in more recent work, as the descriptive element ‘white’, meaning white, is regarded as an extremely common qualifier of similar settlement names (Gelling & Cole 2000, 272). The importance of this name lies in the element ‘–field’, which is not common in the Exmoor area. It is thought to refer to open land, previously used for rough pasture, which was converted to arable in the pre-Conquest period (ibid., 272). The place-name points to changes in pre-Conquest farming near the case study, which would have major implications for the exploitation of woodland.

Winsley is very close to Whitefield and the ‘-ley’ element, probably indicates (originally) a forest, wood, glade or clearing and later, pasture or meadow (Gelling 1984, 198). Other nearby place-names suggesting wood clearance are Rockley, Coxley and possibly Beara. This last name, shared by wood and farm, may derive from ‘bearu’, meaning a grove or wood (Ekwall 1959, 32). A further reference to trees is in Withygate, where ‘withy’ probably derives from the Old English ‘withig’, meaning willow (Ekwall 1959, 527). The meaning of the name Sherracombe is uncertain; it might possibly mean ‘shire valley’, given that it is close to the county boundary (Gover et al. 1932, 346).

4.2.4 Discussion Place-names and entries in Domesday Book suggest the likely nature of land use and settlement close to the case study by the 11th century. Many of the place-names suggesting woodland clearance are inconsistent with the results of pollen analysis in other parts of Exmoor, which pointed to generally stable levels of woodland from the middle Iron Age (Fyfe et al. 2003, 26-27). There may be no real contradiction here: the clearance suggested by place-names could have been small-scale, local and confined to the immediate area of the farms concerned, which are all scattered along the valley of the main channel of the River Bray, several hundred metres west and north of the case study and Fyfe’s pollen sampling sites.

The names of other woods were also significant. Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) may have referred to unsuccessful settlement, as elsewhere this name refers to a ruined building, or unproductive or barren land (Gover et al. 1931, 40). The name of Colehill Wood (668, North Molton) is ambiguous, as ‘cole’ may derive from Old English ‘coll’, meaning a hill, or possibly from the Welsh ‘coll’, meaning hazel (Ekwall 1959, 117). It is even possible that the name was that of Robert Colshill, to whom Elizabeth I granted a lease of the Royal Forest in 1568 (MacDermot 1939, 224) or of some other person with a similar name. A further possibility is suggested by ‘Colehill’ in Dorset, which has been interpreted as ‘charcoal hill’ (Watts 2004, 150). The tithe map shows the name of this wood as ‘Sherricombe Co?? Hill Wood’, with illegible letters in the second word. Fields around the wood were named on the tithe map as Higher, Middle and Lower Cold Hill, so it appears more likely that the wood name at the date of the tithe map was ‘Cold Hill Wood’, perhaps indicating physical characteristics of this north-facing area.

The distribution of places with names mentioned in Domesday Book showed that Whitefield was alone in the area in being located on podzol soils. Podzol soils may have a peaty top layer (Curtis et al. 1976, 320), making them less favourable for cultivation by modern farmers but Whitefield also has a more beneficial characteristic: it is on a south-west facing slope. Work on soil temperatures on opposing slopes on Exmoor has shown that south-facing slopes can have temperatures 190% higher than those on north facing slopes and west facing slopes can have temperatures 50% higher (ibid., 80). A favourable aspect of this kind could have increased the attractions of Whitefield’s site, perhaps mitigating the disadvantages (if any) of the podzol soils to farmers of the pre-Conquest period. The physical environment alone therefore does not point to Whitefield being any later in origin than other settlements in the vicinity whose names were recorded in Domesday Book.

The ‘Ham’ element of Churchway Ham Wood (664.2, High Bray) means an enclosure, meadow or water meadow (Cameron 1961, 218) or a part of a river valley bottom hemmed in by higher ground (Watts 2004, 273) and is encountered elsewhere in the study area in a similar physical context. The ‘ham’ in the case study could be the parcel numbered 581 on the tithe map (shown in Figure 4.2.3). The reference to a church is intriguing, as the nearest church is at High Bray, about 2 km away but the track which still follows the edge of this wood is substantial and could have been used by local communities to reach High Bray.

Another of Whitefield’s features point may suggest an early origin: its position on a communications link leading from High Bray to the vast grazing resources of Whitefield Down and the moor beyond. The importance of this resource cannot be underestimated and may be underscored by the existence of a detached portion of the parish of High Bray in the area of Yarde Down (about 200 metres south of the case study). This part of Yarde Down remained a common well into the 19th century and

The place-name offering most information as to past land use is that of Whitefield. It is not shared by any of the woods in the vicinity, according to the cartographic evidence. Ekwall (1959, 513) refers to Whitefield in Gloucestershire as containing the element ‘wiht’, being

63

could have been used for grazing by farmers in other settlements scattered along the Bray Valley from an early date. Whitefield was more favourably sited than those farms in being adjacent to large areas of open moor.

Whitefield are clustered around a central area through which a track passes, while Beara and Sherracombe lie at the end of a ‘dead end’ lane branching off a track. To summarise the evidence: Domesday Book confirms that Whitefield was established before 1086; the physical environment, the location, the form of fields, the pattern of ownership and its name together suggest that land around it was used for rough grazing, of which some was converted (probably before 1086) to arable, which was cultivated in an open field. The absence of references to pasture or meadow in Whitefield’s entry in Domesday Book could mean that animals were then grazed mainly on the open moor nearby. The farms of Beara and Sherracombe appear to have had different (possibly later) origins and the evidence does not suggest that their field systems were similar to that of Whitefield. In other words, the various farms and fields in and around the case study probably originated at different periods and have significantly different histories.

It is therefore possible that Whitefield had been established long before it was recorded by Domesday Book. Clues as to its farming regime, and the role played by woodland, may be contained in the settlement name and in the form of the fields between it and the case study, as shown on Figures 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. The name suggests conversion of land from rough pasture to arable and this interpretation is supported by recent work on field forms on Exmoor. Gillard (2002) found curving fields of a type similar to those between the case study and Whitefield in other places on Exmoor in places with a similar settlement pattern. He considered that these fields in areas of small, rural nucleations and single farms, were the fossilised remains of arable ‘common’ (open) fields, in which the strips had been enclosed. He regarded the set of fields south of Whitefield as a probable member of this group (Gillard 2002, 131-133). A possible early date for the establishment of a single open field here is supported by the depiction of the moor-field division on the 1st OS 1 inch and perhaps by field evidence of oak, rather than beech, in parts of the hedge bank marking this division.

The extent of the territory managed by Whitefield by the 11th century might be reflected by ownership at the date of the tithe maps. The route of the leat is also suggestive. Taken together, this evidence could be consistent with a single, large unit, stretching from the River Bray, across Whitefield Down, to the tributary on which the excavation site is located (to the north-east of the case study), of which the greater part was farmed by those living in the hamlet as one open field and which was later sub-divided between the households of the hamlet. There is no evidence to show whether there was a settlement at Whitefield in the Roman period or any possible relationship to metal production at Sherracombe Ford.

Further supporting evidence is offered by the pattern of ownership recorded by the tithe maps, as shown in Figure 4.2.4. The curving fields of Whitefield, North Whitefield and Winsley, were interspersed, with each owner holding some land between Whitefield and the case study. Ownership of the woodland on the north side of the river was similarly fragmented. Figure 4.2.4 shows that ownership of Whitefield included most of the fields but little of the woodland to the north of the river. Part of Whitefield’s land included the area (parcels 623 and 624), which appeared to have been cleared of woodland and recorded on the tithe map as arable and furze. North Whitefield’s land included fewer fields but the bulk of the woodland. Winsley’s ‘estate’ was tiny, having only three fields and one parcel of wood. It may be possible that this distribution, if it reflected medieval practices, could point to a degree of co-operative specialisation, with the economy of North Whitefield perhaps having greater emphasis on pasture and woodland exploitation, and Whitefield being more heavily involved in arable cultivation. Without further evidence, there can be no certainty on this point.

Although Whitefield differs so markedly from Beara and Sherracombe, it may not be alone in the vicinity in having a history of open field cultivation. Other curving, strip-like fields lie between Beara and Withygate farms (to the south of the case study), and one of these (parcel 699) was named in the tithe apportionment as ‘Furrow Close’. This field was, like the others adjacent to it, owned by Thomas Palmer Acland as part of Withygate. The pattern of ownership of Withygate, as recorded by the tithe map, was not fragmented but the pattern of occupation was, with fields being held by Acland’s tenants in dispersed, discontinous blocks. Like Whitefield’s fields, those between Beara and Withygate are on podzol soils but they lie on a gentle, south-facing slope and so have an otherwise favourable aspect. Form, aspect and field name again suggest past use as an arable open field whose strips were later enclosed as single fields.

The dispersed pattern of ownership by Whitefield, North Whitefield and Winsley contrasted sharply with that of the fields belonging to the farms of Beara and Sherracombe. These do not have the curving strip-like shape of those near Whitefield, and the adjoining woods were larger and in single, undivided ownership. Settlement layout, as it appeared on the tithe maps, also offered a contrast; the buildings of Whitefield and North

The curving fields near Withygate lie in the valley of another tributary to the River Bray and extrapolation of the results of analysis of pollen from Sherracombe and Twitchen Springs might predict that this valley would have retained its woods from the middle Iron Age, like

64

others in the area. The probable existence of former arable fields in this valley points instead to woodland clearance and so perhaps to pressure on resources, or at least a reorganisation of resources, when the open field was laid out.

The small, riverside enclosures found by reconnaissance survey might have been used for livestock at some period. The grazing resource offered by woodland could have continued to be exploited, perhaps for pigs on a seasonal basis, even after adjoining fields were enclosed. There is no dating evidence for these enclosures and it is unclear when they were used. Other parts of the woods could have been exploited solely to meet local needs for fuel and other purposes, or to produce timber.

Woodland exploitation in the case study would have been shaped by the strategies of the various farms. In very early phases, preceding formation of the open field, woodland near Whitefield could have been left unenclosed, allowing livestock to move between woodland and adjacent moor. Restricted areas may have been coppiced to provide domestic or industrial fuel and they alone would have needed stock-proof boundaries. The creation of the open field would have been a radical change. If used entirely for arable, livestock would have been excluded for most of the year and only allowed to graze stubble after the harvest. A physical, stock-proof boundary around the open field would have been needed and livestock would have grazed for most of the year on other land. The moor to the north and Yarde Down to the south are the obvious choices.

The state of cultivation and the tenure recorded by the tithe maps may point to a distinct difference between the two parishes in later woodland management. The case study woods in North Molton were under direct management by major landowners (Sir Thomas Acland and Lord Poltimore) and cultivated as ‘wood’. The large estates of Exmoor in the post-medieval period were involved in timber production elsewhere and the Acland and Poltimore estates could have exploited these woods for this purpose. The woods in High Bray were, in contrast, stated to be ‘copse’, perhaps suggesting management as coppice, although this is not consistent with the extant woodland in this area, some of which would also appear to have been managed for timber.

The role played by woodland in the period of arable cultivation is unclear and the exact location and nature of its boundaries uncertain. Reconnaissance survey revealed no boundary banks or ditches on the western edge of Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) or in the area between Winsley Wood (665, High Bray) and Churchway Ham Wood (664.2, High Bray), which seemed likely to date to this early period, and the beech planted hedges are almost certainly of much later date. The oak planted hedge bank at the northern end of Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) was the only part of the boundary between wood and former open field whose appearance suggested it could be contemporary with the field. Both survey and cartographic evidence suggested that other boundaries of both Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) and those of Sherracombe Wood (667, North Molton) may have consisted in the past merely of paths, which were recorded by the 1st OS 6 inch as dotted lines.

Woodland in High Bray appears to have come under pressure. Flatter areas were cleared and enclosed with beech planted hedges, perhaps at a late date, to form the parcels recorded on the tithe maps (617, 623 and 624) as having non-woodland cultivation (either as arable or furze). The hedge banks enclosing these parcels are very similar in physical appearance to those around parts of the flat river plain, which are (just) visible on the 1st OS 6 inch and were inspected during reconnaissance survey. It is tempting to conclude that all these hedge banks and enclosures were contemporary with the construction of the stone wall marking the parish boundary and with reconstruction of Whitefield Farm, whose extant buildings the HER records as dating, in part, to the 17th century (Devon HER 578, 587-01). The quarries found by reconnaissance survey could have supplied stone for these purposes.

It seemed unlikely that the western boundary of Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) consisted merely of a path in the pre-Conquest period of arable cultivation, as it would not have been stock-proof. There are two explanations for the absence of an ancient boundary. The first is the natural relief of the land. The major part of the western boundary of Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) at the date of the 1st OS 6 inch, lay at the foot of an extremely steep, natural slope (then shown as a field). This might have been sufficient physical obstruction to livestock, perhaps with the addition of a bank in places. The dotted line ‘path boundary’ on the 1st OS 6 inch must therefore be interpreted in its physical context. The second explanation is that earlier hedges or man-made banks, which divided the woodland from the open field, were obliterated or masked by later construction of the extant boundary hedges.

The possible settlement in Little Comfort Wood includes features which appear to respect the path P2 (shown on Figure 4.2.2) and their construction may postdate early use of that path. The land occupied by the settlement probably included that shown in the tithe map as parcel 580, which was then stated to be arable. There is no evidence showing when this settlement was occupied. If the people who quarried stone in the woods and enclosed parts of the river plain for their livestock, lived there, then a post-medieval origin for the settlement seems likely.

65

4.2.5 Conclusions

4.3 Bremridge

The case st udy and i t ssurroundi ngsproduced evi dence from severalperiods:materialfrom the excavation at Sherracombe Ford dat es t o t he Roman peri od, document aryevi dencedat est o1086, t hefi el dsyst em of W hi t efi el d coul d bepre-Conquesti n ori gi n and someof thewoodlandfeaturesareprobablypost-medieval.Little oft heevi dencerel at esdi rect l yt owoodl andexpl oi t at i on, whosenat uremustbei nferred.

4.3.1 Introduction

W oodpast urei nt hecasest udywasprobabl ycurt ai l edi n t he pre-Conquestperi od, when t he open fi el d cl ose t o W hi t efi el d (possi bl yt he ol destext antset t l ementi nt he vi ci ni t yoft hecasest udy)wasl ai doutandt headjoi ni ng woodswereencl osed, perhapspart l y by const ruct i on of banksand part l y by nat uralfeat ures.Lat er, st ri psoft he open fi el d wereencl osed and t hei rpat t ern ofownershi p att he dat e oft he t i t he map wasechoed i nt hatoft he woodl and t hey adjoi ned, whi ch had been di vi ded i nt o smal l woods owned by t he farms of t he haml et of W hi t efi el d.Thi spat t erni squi t edi st i nctfrom t hatoft he other (probably later) farms such as Beara and Sherracombe, whosenearbywoodswererecordedont he t i t hemapsasl argeuni t si nsi ngl eownershi p. Thefl at t erpart sofwoodl and adjoi ni ng t heformeropen field were cleared to form fi el ds at some peri od, suggest i ng t hatwoodsatt hedat ei n quest i on may have been l ess val uabl et ot hose in control than enclosed arabl e or past ure.Cl earance and const ruct i on of new boundaries, perhapsobliteratingevidenceofolderbanks, may have occurred i nt he post -medi evalperi od, and a settlementin oron the edge ofLittle ComfortW ood (666, Hi ghBray)maybeofsi mi l ardat e. There is less evidence ofcl earance ordi vi si on oft he woods in the parish of North M olton.The tithe map recorded t hat t he woods i n Nort h M ol t on were t hen owned and managed as l arge uni t s by t he Acl and and Pol t i moreest at es, probabl y fort i mber.Theexi st enceof a medieval open field between Beara and W ithygate farms seems l i kel y but , unl i ke t hatnearW hi t efi el d, i t was not accompanied by evidence of fragmented ownershi p, oroffragment ed occupat i on oft he woods shari ng t hei rnameswi t ht hose farms. In spi t e oft hei r proxi mi t y, woodsi nt het wo pari shesoft hi scasest udy appeart ohavehadverydi fferenthi st ori es.

66

Thi scasest udy, consi st i ng ofonewood i nt hel owl and fri ngeofExmoor, wassel ect ed t o provi deacont rastt o t he ot her case st udi es, whose woods have physi cal envi ronment smoret ypi calofthestudy area.Thesingle wood i nt hecasest udy i sBremri dgeW ood (826, Sout h M ol t on), whi ch may be referred t o here si mpl y as‘t he nch i s wood’. Thewoodasi tappearedont he1stOS 6 i showni nFi gure4. 3. 1, andfort hepurposesoft hi sst udy, i twast aken asext endi ng t ot he nort h asfarasHi gher EmbercombeCot t ageandEmbercombeLodge. Surveyoft hewood wascarri ed outwi t ht hepermi ssi on oft heest at emanager, whi chi sgrat eful l yacknowl edged.

4.3.2 Theenvironment Thewoodi si nt hepari shofSout hM ol t oni nt hecount y ofDevon and was depi ct ed by t he 1st OS 6 inch as a mi xed deci duous and coni ferous wood coveri ng a promontory abovetheRiverBray.ItadjoinsCastleHill Park, a former deer park, and is now almostentirely coni ferous. The soilsofthe case study are typicalbrown earthsof t he Denbi gh 1 associ at i on (541j), whi ch l i ei n a wi de band acrosst hewest ern peri phery oft hest udy areaand are encount ered i n 320 ofi t s woods.The geol ogy, as recordedbySheet293oft heGeol ogi calSurveyofGreat Britain (1:50,000) (1982) consists of Pilton Shales, which are locally calcareous shales with sandstones. Ot heri nformat i on on t opography i scont ai ned i n Tabl e 4. 5. Itappearsunl i kel yt hatt hewoodeverformedpartoft he RoyalForestofExmooral t hough t he exactboundari es oft he Foresti n Devon before di safforest at i on ofsome part sby Ki ng John i n 1200 arenotknown (M acDermot 1939, 111-112). The Forestboundary ati t s great est ext entprobabl yl ay justt ot henort h oft hewood (ibid., 108-9), whi chi snow partoft heFort escueest at ecent red onneighbouringCastleHillintheparishofFilleigh. The wood i s cutby t he A361 and i ncl udes a derel i ct rai l way l i ne const ruct ed i nt he 1850s.The surroundi ng landisentirelyenclosedandfarmed.ThetownofSouth M ol t on l i esaround 4 km t ot hesout h-east .Thewood i s now act i vel y managed for t i mber and game, wi t ha purposeful at mosphere unl i ke t hat sense of negl ect , whi ch permeat es so many Exmoor woods. W al ki ng t hrought hewoodandseei nggameshel t ers, fel l edt i mber and recently cutareasbursti ng with new growth, isto experiencethatrareplace:awoodwhichisproductivein ury.Al t hough l arge and dark wi t ht rees t he 21st cent whi ch are, t o t he modern mi nd, aest het i cal l y undistinguished, itfeelslike a busy, active place in a

Figure 4.3.1: Bremridge Wood on the 1st OS6inch (Devon sheet XIV SE)with transcribed parcel outlines ofmapof 1672 (DRO 1262M/ E4/ 1)

Table 4.5: Wood in the Bremridge case study (EN indicates whether included in English Nature’s inventory of ancient woodland) Name

Number,Parish

Size (ha) EN

Bremridge Wood

826, South Molton

63.15

Y

67

Slope Highest contour (at mid-pt)(at mid-pt)(m) 1.5 in 10 180

PCA score (1st component) 2.247

they could provide evidence of a wood-field boundary constructed before 1672.

domesticated landscape and the visitor is led to wonder whether, in this respect, it bears a closer resemblance to a medieval wood than the neglected coppices favoured by those using Exmoor’s woods for leisure.

Reconnaissance survey was planned with these considerations in mind. There was only a limited time available and, as a modern coniferous plantation cut by a busy road, the wood did not offer ideal conditions. The ground was covered with a thick carpet of pine needles in many places and parts were fenced off to protect game. Survey was thus limited to sample transects aimed at: i) discovering any features which might have formed physical boundaries between the different parts of the wood named on the map of 1672;and ii) examining the remains of other boundaries, particularly those on the old eastern edge and that of the land named as Patheredge on the map of 1672, to establish whether any feature resembling a woodbank might remain.

4.3.3 The evidence Archaeology and maps A map of the wood, drawn in 1672, is held at Devon Record Office (DRO 1262M/E4/ 1) and has recently been published (Ravenhill & Rowe 2002a, 13/18/1). It will be referred to here as ‘the map of 1672’ and is the earliest detailed map of woodland in the study area discovered during the course of this research. A tentative transcription on to the 1st OS 6 inch is shown in Figure 4.3.1. Inspection of the original map of 1672 revealed the following information: i) the wood in 1672 consisted of at least four, separately named parts (Old Wood, North Wood, South Wood and West Wood); ii) a further central, unnamed part of the wood had been ‘cutt downe’; iii) land named as ‘Patheredge’, which appeared to belong to Bremridge Barton to the north-east, adjoined the wood; iv) North Wood was divided from the rest of the wood by a ‘waye’ which was described as ‘leading to North Molton’ at its northern end and ‘to the Mille’ at its southern end; v) a boundary dividing Old Wood and West Wood was shown; vi) no such boundary between West Wood and South Wood was shown;and vii) the part named as North Wood later expanded;the tithe map (1846) and the 1st OS 6 inch included areas well to the north as being within Bremridge Wood (826, South Molton). The map also shows a mill and an endorsement noted that there were nine ‘Ricks of Wood’ in the wood and a large amount of ‘broken wood which then did lye on the ground perishing’ (Ravenhill & Rowe 2002b, 276). This suggests considerable cutting or felling (probably from the central area noted as having been cut) and subsequent neglect. The endorsement also noted that ‘there is more 40 Acres’ which could be converted to meadow and that there was a spring north of the wood ‘that will water 8 or 9 Acres & may be carried towards the House’ (ibid., 276). These notes suggest that changes were being planned.

The survey results may be summarised as follows: i) no bank or other physical division was noted in the area between the parts considered as corresponding to South Wood and West Wood on the map of 1672; ii) the western wood edge (adjoining the old deer park) was not marked by a bank and ditch but, in the southern part, by a track running along a sharp natural contour change, whose downslope side had been stone revetted; iii) in the northern part of the western edge, the boundary consisted of a low bank resembling a field boundary, in which trees had been planted and coppiced; iv) a substantial bank and ditch appeared to correspond with part of the eastern boundary of the area shown in the map of 1672 as ‘woode cutt downe’; v) the bank and ditch mentioned in paragraph iv) turned and continued upslope along the line of the boundary of ‘Patheredge’;here, the bank was less substantial but continued to function in the modern wood as a boundary of sorts, as it divided areas of differently aged trees vi) some other features were noted next to the old railway line on the eastern edge;these almost certainly related to stone quarrying or similar activity, perhaps as part of the construction of the railway;and vii) the extant trees were uninformative as most were conifer. A few isolated oaks remain in the wood, together with some scraps of hazel (which could be due to natural regeneration) around the edges.

The map of 1672 suggested that the wood, as depicted on the 1st OS 6 inch, may have been formed from a number of woods, which could have been separately managed in the past, and divided from each other by physical boundaries. The land named as ‘Patheredge’ in the map of 1672 appeared to have been defined physically, as boundaries were marked in a corresponding position on the 1st OS 6 inch. If extant,

68

Conclusions drawn from survey were as follows: i) the woods shown as South Wood and West Wood on the map of 1672 may have been divided only by a feature such as a fence or path, which has not survived - or they may not have been physically divided from each other at that date and the names could have been merely geographical expressions; ii) a large part of the boundaries of Old Wood and North Wood may have been defined in the past by tracks; and iii) the substantial bank and ditch forming the eastern boundary is unlikely to be a woodbank in the style of a wood of southeastern England, as the ditch lies on the wood side, which is contrary to experience elsewhere (Rackham 1990, 115). It is better interpreted as a field boundary with a track running on one side of it.

iv)

v)

vi)

the land shown on the map of 1672 as Patheredge corresponded to the tithe parcel named as Great Partridge and was not recorded as woodland in 1846; five parcels (shown in Figure 4.3.2) on the north-eastern edge of the wood appeared to cut into the wood: West Emlacombe Cleave, West Down, Great Meadow, Partridge Meadow and Great Partridge with two of these (West Down and Great Partridge) recorded as arable; and several small parcels along the southern wood edge had a similar appearance and most of these were stated to be pasture.

The 1st OS 6 inch was published less than 50 years after the tithe map and its depiction of the wood is shown in Figure 4.3.1. A building to the north of the wood, which probably appeared in earlier maps was now shown as the ‘ruin’ of Higher Embercombe Cottage. Further major changes related to boundary rearrangement, which probably followed railway construction in the 1850s. As this falls outside the period covered by this study, its results will not be analysed in detail but it seems that the general effect was to facilitate expansion of the wood to cover part of Great Partridge and Great Meadow. The conclusions from comparison of the 1st OS 6 inch (in Figure 4.3.1) with the tithe map (in Figure 4.3.2) are that the boundary along the eastern and north-eastern wood edge as recorded by the 1st OS 6 inch, was, in parts, very recent, and that the boundaries on the earlier tithe map bore a closer resemblance to those in the map of 1672. The transcriptions in Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.3 suggest how the boundaries of the map of 1672 may relate to those of the 1st OS 6 inch and the tithe map. In view of the distortion of the map of 1672, these transcriptions should be regarded as approximate.

The track next to the bank referred to in paragraph iii) above could be a continuation of a holloway recorded on the HER in a field to the north-east (Devon HER SS62NE-051). Together, these features could be the remains of the track shown on the map of 1672 as ‘leading to North Molton’. Other entries on the HER confirmed that the features next to the old railway line were modern in date (Devon HER SS62NE-050). Earlier features include lynchets in one of the fields adjoining the wood (Devon HER SS62NE-051). The construction of the railway and the A361 destroyed much of the old eastern boundary of the wood but maps of the 19th century depicted its line clearly. The 1st OS 1 inch and the Greenwoods’ map of Devon (1827) showed the wood in each case as being smaller than on later Ordnance Survey maps, with a track, running north-east from Shallowford towards Bremridge, which may correspond to that shown on the map of 1672 as the ‘waye leading to North Molton’.

Documents and place-names The place-name ‘Bremridge’ was uninformative. Both a general volume (Ekwall 1959, 63) and that of the English Place-Name Society for Devon (Gover et al. 1931, 347) give the meaning as ‘bramble ridge’.

The tithe map for the parish of South Molton was drawn in 1846, some 20 years later than the Greenwoods’ map, and fortunately shows the land before construction of the railway and modern roads. The extent of the wood and some adjoining parcels, their names and state of cultivation, are shown in Figure 4.3.2 together with the parish boundary. Figure 4.3.3 suggests how the boundaries recorded by the map of 1672 may relate to the tithe map parcels. The tithe map showed that: i) the wood was recorded as a single entity in 1846 without the divisions shown on the map of 1672; ii) the track running north-east from Shallowford to Bremridge (the ‘waye leading to North Molton’ on the map of 1672) was not shown; iii) the wood had expanded to the north since the map of 1672;

Bremridge appeared in Domesday Book as land of the Bishop of Coutances and its entry may well refer to the farm or settlement which was later called Bremridge Barton (and is shown as ‘Bremridge’ in Figure 4.3.1). The entry for Bremridge stated: Edmer held it before 1066. It paid tax for ½ hide. Land for 6 ploughs. In lordship 2 ploughs and 1 virgate, with 1 slave; 3 villagers and 3 smallholders with 1 plough and 1 virgate. Woodland, 15 acres; pasture, 30 acres. 5 cattle; 10pigs;60sheep;22 goats. [Value]formerly 10s; now 20s. (DomesdayD, 102d).

69

State of cultivation on tithe map Arable Furze & orchard Furze etc Garden Orchard Pasture Pasture & w oodland W oodland

W est Emlacombe Cleave Marsh Parish of Filleigh

Parish boundary

W est Down

0

m

500

Great Meadow Deerpark Partridge Meadow

Great Partridge

Parish of South Molton Bremridge Wood

Orchard Lower Ham Meadow

HigherHam Meadow

AllerBeer Easter Ham AllerOrchard

Figure 4.3.2: State of cultivation of Bremridge Wood and some adjacent land on tithe map for parish of South Molton (1846)

70

Higher numbers of ploughs and livestock were recorded for Bremridge than many places lying at higher altitudes and closer to the moor. Other places in the vicinity, which were mentioned in Domesday Book, include Filleigh, with eight ploughs and ten acres of wood (ibid., 107a) and Aller (to the south-east of the wood), with land for two ploughs but no woodland (ibid., 102d &116c). The mining centre of South Molton some distance to the south had a value of £10 ‘by weight’ (ibid.,100b).

drawn up with sale in view. This date fits well with the period of management by the first Baron Fortescue, who was the driving force of expansion, reconstruction and reorganisation of the estate from his succession in 1746 (Hoskins 1954, 398). The documentary evidence shows very clearly the method and scale of exploitation of the wood by the Fortescue estate, which was similar to that of the previous owner. Sales of ‘coppice wood’ were recorded for the period from 1767 to 1809 (DRO 1262M/E4/10). The conditions and contracts of sale record that sales were by lots, usually of one acre each, which were marked out on the ground (but the method of marking is not stated). Lots were often adjacent as their locations were described by reference to each other. The notes of sales indicate that individual bidders bought single lots. The conditions of sale were similar in all years over the period and included clauses requiring wood to be cut and cleared in the barking season but before barking was done. Horses had to be muzzled and there were strict conditions against cutting any timber (or, in the conditions set in 1796, last year’s ‘moot sticks’). The seller could specify the number of saplings to be left uncut and the purchaser was invariably required to pay the relevant tithes. If the wood were left uncleared by a specified date, then the seller could dispose of it and the purchaser would only get part of proceeds.

The acreage of woodland in Bremridge’s entry (15) is far below that of the wood on the 1st OS 6 inch, which showed the wood as covering about 63.15 ha (approximately 156 modern acres). The discrepancy seems enormous. As is usual for woods in the study area, the wood at Bremridge was described in Domesday Book as ‘silva’(wood) but that in the entry for Brayley, about 1km to the north, was referred to as ‘silva minuta’, which is translated as underwood (ibid., 116c). This detail may point to different types of exploitation in two neighbouring woods. Other documentary evidence of the medieval period offers little relevant information. A single possible early reference to Bremridge occurs in a grant, probably made in the 13th century, of which a transcription existed in the late 18th century. The transcription was included in a letter from Henry Cruwys to Lord Fortescue dated 22nd November 1779 (DRO 1262M/21) and stated that ‘totam terram de Bremelrigge’was given by Henricus de Tracy to Olivario de Tracy.

Some conditions varied over the years; for example, the conditions set in 1767 included provision for wood to be left ‘in ricks’ and in 1803 and 1804, cutting methods were controlled by prohibiting the use of saws. In some years, purchase money could be paid in instalments, which would allow any purchaser to raise the money by selling the wood and bark. The only reference to the species of tree is very late in the series of sales; in 1807, the wood was described as oak coppice wood. It is noticeable that lots in the later sales became larger and occasionally exceeded four acres.

It is not clear when the wood was acquired by the Fortescues. The notes made on the map of 1672 refer to observations by ‘my Son Blundel’ and an undated document, described as ‘A state of Mr. Blundells Estate called Brimridge’ explicitly mentioned ‘Brimridge Wood 120 acres’ (DRO 1262M/E4/11). This undated document implied that the wood had been nearly exhausted by excessive cutting, as it stated that ‘Mr. Blundell and his father’ had been cutting six acres per year(?) ‘for which reason the Purchaser cannot cut down for some years so much’. On the assumption that the map of 1672 and the undated document were drawn up by or for owners, rather than tenants, they indicate that the wood was probably not yet part of the Fortescues’ Castle Hill estate.

All these conditions seem to have been well known to all involved; a sale in 1809 stated that it was on the same conditions ‘as wood is generally sold in Bremridge Wood’. While the conditions of sale were broadly similar over the period, the prices obtained were not. From £6-£7 per lot in 1767, the price reached a peak of £24 per lot in 1796. By 1799 this had dipped to £19 or less and declined to a maximum of £16 or £17 by 1804, which was the period in which lot size was increasing.

By 1763, Bremridge manor had been acquired by the Fortescues. A survey of their manors of High Bray, North Aller and Bremridge in that year referred to ‘Bremridge Wood’ as part of the estate and stated that it was ‘in hand’ (DRO 1262M/E4/6). Other later documents contain similar references. It therefore appears likely that the estate acquired the wood at some point between 1672 and 1763, possibly following the death of the Mr. Blundell mentioned in the undated document (DRO 1262M/E4/11), which could have been

The economics of coppicing at Bremridge in the early 19th century are shown very clearly in a statement of account from 1816 (DRO 1262M/E4/22), which is reproduced in Table 4.6. This account records a directly managed sale, in contrast to earlier sale of lots by auction, suggesting that direct management was more profitable in a period of falling demand. The statement set out receipts and expenses relating to the felling of

72

73

Deductby

Int hewood 19th June 1816

Cl earProduceoft heW ood

d 0 6 0 0

17 6 6 6

13 6

010

57

19 6 12 5 76

17 1 0

1 18 0 2 17 0

£ s 21 15 8 11 0 14 0 5

ByRi ppi ng3T 2Cwt0Qrsat2s3dperHundred 6 ByBi ndi ng745Faggot sofW oodat1s8dperHundred 0 ByFel l i ngandBi ndi ng1000Faggot sat2s9dperHundred 1 ByFel l i ngandBi ndi ngandCut t i ng93DozenofHardW oodand Pol esat2s9dforeveryt endozen 1 ByCut t i ngout125DozenofHardW oodandPol esat1s8dfor everyt endozen 1 ByNi neDaysW orkforonemanRi cki ngt heW ood,Landi ngBark, andgoi ngt oseei twei ghedat1s6dperday 0 ByTi t hedueandt obepai dfort hesai dW ood(supposeat£16perAcre, 3si nt hePound) 3 Carri ageoft heaboveBarkt oBarnst apl eat15sperTon 2

255Faggot st akenbyt heFarmerat15sperHundredand19 Dozen Pol esat3sperDozenusedont heFarm pri ort ot aki ngt heabove Account 1T 2Cwt0QrsofBarkat5s6dperHundred

29 HundredFaggot sofW oodi nRi cks,at15sperhundred 49 DozenPol esat3s6dperDozen 7DozenSt akesat20s0dperDozen 2DozenM ow Post sat2s6dperDozen

34 18 2

________

18 3 4

21 6 0 ______ 53 1 6

£ sd 31 5 6

19th June1816 M emorandum ofW ood,Pol eset c. ,now remai ni ngi nBremri dgeW oodoft heTwoAcreswhi chhi sLordshi pfel l ed

Table 4.6: Account of wood and bark sales from Bremridge Wood, June 1816 (transcribed from DRO bundle 1262M/E4/22)

t wo acres of wood and i t showed t hat t he hi ghest proport i on ofi ncomei nt hatyearcamefrom t hesal eof faggot si nri cks(st acks)(41%),fol l owedbybark(32%). Thel argesti t em ofcost swaswages(38%),fol l owedby t het i t he(21%)and t hecostoft ransportofbark (13%). The netprofi twas att he rat e of£17 9s 1d peracre, whi chi sconsi st entwi t ht hepri ceforsi ngl eacrecoppi ce l ot ssol ddi rectt opurchaserssome10yearsearl i er(£1617). Itisnoted in the 1816 accountthatthe bark was bei ng t ransport ed t o Barnst apl e,whi ch suggest sonward t ransport by sea, for use i nt anni ng at an unknown dest i nat i on.

4.3.4 Discussion

GreatPart ri dgeal onei son fl at t erl and and,ashasbeen suggest ed,coul d have been formed atan earl y dat e. None of t he remai ni ng fi el ds,W est Down,Part ri dge M eadow,GreatM eadow (latercutbyt herai l wayandt he road)and W estEmlacombeCleave,i son fl atorgent l y sl opi ng l and. A cl ue t ot he reason forformat i on ofat l eastt wo oft hese fi el ds(W estEml acombe Cl eave and Great M eadow) may l i e i n t hei r l ocat i on on wat ercourses.The not es on t he map of1672 st rongl y suggested thatnew meadowswith accessto waterwere bei ng pl anned and i ti sl i kel yt hatGreatM eadow and W estEml acomeCl eavewerecreated ormodified in the post -medi evalperi od,possi bl yaspast ureforcat t l e,who needl argerquant i t i esofwat ert hansheep.

Bremri dgeW ood(826,Sout hM ol t on)wassel ect edasa casestudy becauseitcould provideabasisforcontrast and compari son wi t h woods of t he upl ands. The evidencesuggested severaldi st i nct i vefeat uresset t i ng i t apart .Thefi rsti si t st opography,whi ch wasest abl i shed nchasi ncl udi nga from t hemodernOS andt he1stOS 6i fai rl y fl athi l l t op. Thi s cont rast s wi t ht he bul k oft he st udy area’s woods,whi ch are most l y confi ned t ot he sl opesofri verval l eys.Theseconddi st i nctfeat urei st he concaveform oft heboundary on t heeast ern si de,asi t appeared on t he t i t he map. The t hi rd feat ure i st he wood’s si ze;onl y si x ot herwoods i nt he ent i re st udy areaarel arger.Fi nal l y,t hewood’sboundari esappeart o have been remarkabl y fl ui d,part i cul arl yi nt he post medi evalperi od.

Iti sverycl earfrom t het i t hemapt hatt hepossi bl ecat t l e past uresont heeast ernsi de,whi chcoul dhavebeenpart of Bremridge Barton, contrast with far smaller encl osureson t hesout hern edge,whi ch l i eon fl atl and. Li ke ot hersi nt he st udy area,t he wood seemst o have suffered clearance and enclosure oft hatpartwhi ch l ay on fl atl and adjoi ni ng t heri ver.Thet i t hemap recorded t henameofoneas‘East erHam’,whi chsuggest susefor sheep (Ekwal l1959,157).Ot herencl osures al ong t hi s edge were part of t he hol di ngs of t he t enant s of Shal l owford and used as orchards or past ure. The emergi ng pi ct urei sofadi vi si on i nl and use,wi t h cat t l e past ure i nt he post -medi evalperi od on t he eastsi de of t he wood bel ongi ng t o Bremri dge Bart on and smal l er sheep past ureson t he sout h si de used by est at et enant s l i vi ngatShal l owford.

Deal i ngfi rstwi t ht hewood’st opography,i ti scl eart hat itsdisti ncti venat urei sofrecentorigin.Boththemapof 1672 and the tithe map confirm thatthe flatter,hilltop l andwasmost l yi nt hefi el d‘Pat heredge’,l at erknownas GreatPart ri dge.Subt ract i ng this land creates a much cl oserresembl ancet o ari verval l ey wood. Thesi nuous boundari es ofGreatPart ri dge and i t sl ocat i on cl ose t o Bremri dge Bart on suggestt hatt he fi el d was earl yi n ori gi n and t he concl usi on mustbe t hatt he woodl and l at erknown asBremri dge W ood (826,Sout h M ol t on), l i ke ot her woods i nt he st udy area,was confi ned t o sl opi ngval l eysi desatt heperi odwhent hefi el dwasl ai d out . Thi s concl usi on i s support ed by cart ographi c urymapsshow t he evidence. M apsoftheearly19th cent wood asbei ng smal l erand moreconfi ned t ot hesl opes oft heri verval l eyt hanl at ermaps.

Thet hi rddi st i nct i vefeat ureoft hewoodi si t sl argesi ze. Themapof1672showst hati tt henconsi st edoft hreeor foursmal l erwoods.Survey resul t ssuggest ed t hatW est W ood and Sout h W ood may merel y have been conveni entl abel sreferri ngt oasi ngl ewoodl anduni tbut Ol d W ood and Nort h W ood do seem t o have been physi cal l y di st i nctwoods atsome peri od i nt he past . Thereferencei n DomesdayBookt o awoodof15acres offerssupportt ot hi si dea.Transcri pt i on oft he map of 1672 (as shown i n Fi gure 4. 3. 1) suggest st hat ‘Ol d W ood’covered an areaequi val entt o around 12 modern acres,whi ch i sroughl yi nl i newi t ht hefi gurerecorded for Bremri dge’s woodl and i n Domesday Book. Ol d W oodcoul dt hushavebeent heearl ycoreoft hewood.

The obvi ous i nt erpret at i on of t he second di st i nct i ve feature,thatoftheconcavitieson theeastern boundary, i st hatt he wood suffered from assart i ng t o form t he fi el dsrecorded on t he t i t he map (and shown on Fi gure 4. 3. 2)as W estEmlacombe Cleave,W estDown,Great M eadow,Part ri dge M eadow and GreatPart ri dge. In many upl and woods i nt he st udy area,such concave boundari es appeared t o fol l ow cont ours, wi t h fi el ds favouri ngfl at t erground.Int hecaseoft hel andadjoi ni ng Bremri dgeW ood(826,Sout hM ol t on),t herel i efoft hese fi el dssupport sadi fferenti nt erpret at i on.

74

The form ofexpl oi t at i on i nt he medi evalperi od cannot be est abl i shed from t he evidence. Clear wood-field boundari esonal lt hemapsamountt oaprimaf aciecase agai nstmedi evalwoodpast ure. Iti sact ual l ydi ffi cul tt o be certain on this point because the nature of the medi eval expl oi t at i on of adjoi ni ng l and i s uncert ai n. The lynchetsrecorded in t he HER (whi ch are probabl y i nt he parcel cal l ed ‘Part ri dge M eadow’ on t he t i t he map)show t hatatl eastsomeoft headjoi ni ng l and was pl oughed at some peri od and i ft hese feat ures are medi eval ,t henast ock-proofboundarybet weenfi el dand wood musthaveexi st ed att hatperi od. A possi bl epreConquest dat e for t he physi cal boundary of

Patheredge/ Great Partridge would also imply enclosure of some of the adjacent land by the medieval period. However, post-medieval reorganisation of field boundaries has made it difficult to be certain of the medieval field layout.

timber sales throughout their estates (Nicholls 1996, 27) and Bremridge Wood (826, South Molton) seems to have been coppiced (perhaps to the point of exhaustion) in this period for regular cash income. This management did not appear to be related in any way to the farming of surrounding land; it produced a cash crop, whose sale was facilitated by transport links to the port of Barnstaple. This form of exploitation continued beyond the period of this study well into the 19th century, as is shown by documentary evidence of later coppice sales (DRO 1262M/ E4/ 30)

The final distinctive feature is the relative impermanence of the boundaries. The reasons for change are twofold. Firstly, the wood was located on land required for major communications links and so was affected by railway construction in the 19th century and road building in the 20th. Secondly, it appears to have been under the management of an assertive landowner in the postmedieval period.

To summarise the evidence: the size, shape and distinctive features of the wood as it appeared in survey and on maps of the 19th century are partly the result of processes of improvement instigated in the postmedieval period, probably by the Fortescue estate, and partly the result of modern changes following railway and road construction. These changes have worked to destroy or conceal evidence of land use in earlier periods but offer, in themselves, a significant contrast to the other case studies.

The latter context for change is that of stability after political upheaval. The map of 1672 was drawn 21 years after the end of the Civil War, 17 years after Charles II was restored and 8 years after John Evelyn’s Sylva (1664) was first published. The map of 1672 reveals felling of part of the wood and general neglect, which Evelyn would probably have denounced in thundering terms, as the actions of ‘our late prodigious Spoilers, whose furious devastation of so many goodly woods and Forests have left an Infamy on their Names and memories not quickly to be forgotten’. Alternatively, the felling could have fallen into the category described by Evelyn as ‘the deplorable necessities of a Gallant and loyal Gentry, who … .were compelled to add yet to this Waste, by an inhumane and unparallel’d Tyranny over them, to preserve the poor remainder of their Fortunes’ (Evelyn 1664, Notes to the Reader). Whatever the reason for the state of the wood in 1672, the map shows the owner making plans for improvements, perhaps after a period of disruption. The proposed mapping of the boundaries shown in the map of 1672 onto the tithe map (in Figure 4.3.3) indicates that changes may have included transformation of part of the area of wood ‘cutt downe’ into the field shown on the tithe map as Great Meadow, as the areas generally coincide. This supports the idea of a post-medieval origin for Great Meadow.

Woods in other case studies saw exploitation in the postmedieval period and other case studies formed part of large estates but none appear to have been reshaped as radically as Bremridge Wood (826, South Molton). It is tempting to argue that the lowland location was responsible. More favourable physical conditions and better access to markets made improvement for pastoral farming easier and potentially more profitable. The lowland location may also have provided more attractive surroundings for permanent residence by landowners. A wealthy owner may have been more likely to implement sweeping schemes of improvement in land under his eye than in more distant parts of his estate. Changes in the post-medieval period may be explicable in these terms but the sparse evidence from earlier periods presents puzzling aspects. The entries in Domesday Book might suggest a landscape under pressure in the 11th century. Two entries were made for Aller (perhaps referring to North and South Aller respectively) of which one possessed more ploughs than ploughlands (DomesdayD,116c). Filleigh’s entry also recorded more ploughs than ploughlands (ibid.,107a), and both Brayley (ibid.,116c) and Filleigh (ibid.,107a) managed wood as ‘underwood’. These facts may point to an area in which woods had been cleared in order to create cultivable land and to farmers managing the remaining woodland more strictly in consequence. Arable cultivation may have continued over many centuries in the vicinity of the wood, as shown by lynchets in adjoining land (Devon HER SS62NE-051) and by the name of ‘Aller Great Field’ (close to North Aller), which was recorded as parcel 667 on the tithe apportionment award.

There is no hint in the map of 1672 of the system of management then planned for the wood itself but in later periods it is apparent from the documentary evidence. Production of wood and bark by coppicing was in full swing by the second half of the 18th century and may have been carried on (perhaps less intensively) for centuries before that time. Prices reflected the situation described by contemporary observers, especially Marshall, whose study of the rural economy in the southwest referred to ‘the exorbitant price of bark’ in the late 18th century (Marshall 1796, 89). He noted that this, and the increased demand for wood resulting from the Napoleonic wars, resulted in high prices for coppice (ibid.,93). Marshall further noted that the practice in West Devon was for the sale of coppice by auction to ‘chiefly working woodmen’, sometimes banded together in sets (ibid.,92). The Fortescues took advantage of this situation in a period of agrarian depression by wood and

Do the entries in Domesday Book suggest widespread use of land in the 11th century for arable cultivation and

75

dense settlement, which could have resulted in pressure to clear woodland? There is a marked distribution of farms and hamlets in the area, with Bremridge standing as an isolated settlement in contrast to the more crowded landscape to the south, where North Aller, East Clatworthy and West Clatworthy are located. None of these latter three places were recorded separately in Domesday Book although the HER notes that all were at that period included in Aller (Devon HER SS62NE-029, 013 and 005). The place now bearing the name of Aller lies over 1 km to the south-east of the wood. Most of the river valley slopes close to North Aller, East Clatworthy and West Clatworthy, which were hamlets at the time of the tithe map, are not now wooded (with the exception of small stretches on the steepest slopes), suggesting that each settlement may have cleared woodland for its fields. The tithe map recorded several small wooded parcels in the middle of fields near these hamlets, suggesting the means by which farmers (at some unknown period) may have compensated for the destruction of woodland.

4.3.5Conclusions One of the aims of survey in this case study was to discover any traces of a woodbank. None was found, suggesting either that evidence had been completely destroyed, or that the wood was, in this respect, unlike those in lowland environments in other parts of the country. Examination of early maps showed that the wood was, in one important respect, similar to those in other parts of the study area; it was, probably from an early period, confined to the slopes of a river valley. The obliteration of evidence for medieval land use by post-medieval changes in this case study was frustrating but significant. The evidence, when compared to that of the other case studies, might, on first consideration, suggest that post-medieval changes in land use were more radical, and had greater impact on woodland, in this lowland environment than in the uplands. It could be concluded that land management of the 16th and 17th centuries may have been more assertive in lowland environments, perhaps because of easier communications, or the greater willingness of estate owners to live there. More radical changes in the postmedieval period in the lowland fringes of the study area might also, incidentally, point to a higher rate of survival for medieval land use features in the upland centre.

Does this pattern suggest that an estate or manor centred on Aller by the 11th century carved smaller, subsidiary settlements at some period out of its land to the south of Bremridge Wood (826, South Molton), while the estate or manor centred on Bremridge remained more stable as a single settlement, retaining control of its land? Aller’s putative new settlements may have cleared significant areas of woodland for fields while Bremridge limited its own clearance to the hilltop (Patheredge/Great Partridge). The topography of the wood may have been relevant, as the four woods named in the map of 1672 are all on fairly steep slopes, and could have escaped clearance for that reason, even at times of pressure.

The hypothesis of more radical changes in the postmedieval period in lowland environments, suggested some questions for consideration in other case studies. Were woods in the upland environment less susceptible to commercial pressures in the post-medieval period and less likely to have been intensively coppiced?Were they insulated from changes in farming in that period? Was their remoteness a factor shaping their exploitation? Other case studies, which offer evidence from that period, may provide some answers.

There are no obvious reasons why one settlement (Aller) might have fostered expansion and clearance while the other (Bremridge) remained static, unless Aller had control of larger areas in which new settlements could be placed. The proximity of Filleigh is suggestive; Domesday Book recorded it as land of Baldwin the Sheriff, with a substantial population: nine villagers and six smallholders with a value of 60s, having increased from 40s (DomesdayD, 107a). The Fortescue family acquired the estate (centred on Castle Hill) by marriage in the mid-15th century (Nicholls 1996, 18), adopting it as their family seat (ibid., 10). Is it possible that land in this estate had been managed over a long period in a way that inhibited nearby Bremridge from spawning subsidiary settlements and so indirectly helped to conserve the wood? It is difficult to see what kind of factors could have operated in this way, or why Bremridge was affected when Aller was not.

76

4.4 Barle

4.4.3 Theevidence

4.4.1 Introduction

Archaeologyandmaps

Ofal lt he case st udi es,t hi swasthe mostenjoyable to vi si t . The woods are on pri vat el and whose owners, while generously allowing access to students of all ki nds,haverefrai nedfrom addi ngnew pat hsori nst al l i ng any ‘t ouri st -fri endl y’ faci l i t i es which,in other woods, may accompany publ i c access. In the tranquillity of t hesewoods,anci entfeat urescanspeakcl earl y.

Ot herpart soft he Barl e Val l ey have seen a si gni fi cant level of archaeological activity. Surveys and i nvest i gat i onspoi ntt o a numberofrel evantt hemes,of whi ch t he fi rsti st he si gni fi cance ofmet alworki ng i n pastwoodl andexpl oi t at i on.

4.4.2 Theenvironment The case st udy compri ses ei ghtwoods on t he east ern si deoft heval l ey oft heRi verBarl e,whoseout l i nes,as depi ct edont he1stOS 6inch(SomersetSheetLVIISW ) areshowni nFi gure4. 4. 1.Thewoodsarel i st edi nTabl e 4. 7,whi chi ncl udessomedet ai l soft opography.Noneof the woodsexceeds18 ha in size and allexceptone is cl assed as anci ent woodl and by Engl i sh Nat ure, t he except i on bei ng t oo smal l(under2 ha)t o qual i fy for Engl i sh Nat ure’s i nvent ory.The woods are deci duous; some are predominantly beech whi le ot hersare mai nl y oak. The soi l s, as shown on t he Soi l Survey (1983),are uni forml y t ypi cal brown podzol s of t he M anod associ at i on (611c). The underl yi ng geol ogy,shown on Sheet294 of t he Geol ogi calSurvey of GreatBri t ai n (1: 50, 000)(1974)i sUpperDevoni an,predomi nant l yt he sandst ones,si l t st onesand sl at esoft he Pi ckwel lDown Bedsbutwi t h a narrow st ri p ofundi fferent i at ed M ort e Sl at es runni ng roughl yi n an east -westl i ne across t he casest udy,t hrough Sl adeW ood (335. 3,Dul vert on)and HorseW ood(335. 4,Dul vert on). Al lt he woods i nt he case st udy,ofwhi ch some now form partof a pri vat el y owned nat ure reserve wi t hi n ExmoorNat i onalPark,are i nt he pari sh ofDul vert on, whose boundary i st he Ri ver Barl e. The pari sh and count y boundari esareshown i n Fi gure4. 4. 2andfol l ow t he Ri ver Barl e and i t st ri but ary,Danes Brook.The woods al lfel lwi t hi nt he RoyalForestofExmoorbut mostoft hem wereremovedfrom thecore(‘theregard’) ury,asshowni nFi gure1. 6. i nt hel at e13th cent Set t l ement i n and near t he case st udy consi st s of scat t eredfarmsandhaml et s,wi t ht het ownofDul vert on l yi ng about 2 km t ot he sout h.Adjoi ni ng l and now consists of enclosed fields, which are mainly sheep past ure,andafew apparent l yunused,marshyareascl ose t ot he ri ver. A smal l part of t he boundary of t he nort hernmostwoodadjoi nsmoorl andknownasAshway Side.

77

Severalsi t esdefi ned by t heExmoorIron Projectl i eon t hesout h-west ern bank oft heri ver(t heopposi t esi det o t he case st udy). Bl ackl ake W ood (423, Dul vert on), whi ch l i es about1. 5km al ong t he ri ver val l ey t ot he sout h-east ,cont ai ned smel t i ng evi dence. Sampl esofi t s charcoal have been dat ed t o bet ween t he 5th and 7th cent uri es A. D.and excavat i on i nt he summerof2004 found pot t ery dat i ng t ot he6th century A.D.(LeeBray, pers.comm. ).Closer to the case study,two areas of smel t i ng act i vi t yi n Shi rcombeSl ade(302. 3,Dul vert on) and on t he edge ofInvent i on W ood (302. 2,Dul vert on) havebeen located and charcoalfrom t hel at t erhasbeen uri esA. D. (Ri l ey & W i l sondat ed t ot he13th or14th cent Nort h 2001,90). The HER al so not ed sl ag fi nds i n Draydon W ood (301. 2, Dul vert on) (Somerset HER 35572),cl oset ot hesout h-east ernedgeoft hecasest udy, suggest i ng t he exi st ence of a fourt h area of met al worki ng.Al lt hesesi t essuggestt hatnei ghbouri ngwoods were probabl y managed t o produce charcoalfuelfor smel t i ngorsmi t hi ng. Archaeol ogi cal assessment of woods by M cDonnel l (1995;1999)l yi ng t ot he nort h and sout h oft he case st udy (butnotwi t hi ni t )i dent i fi ed a l arge numberof features. M any (40) were interpreted as charcoal pl at forms,especi al l yi nwoodst ot henort h,suchasRow Down W ood (319, Hawkri dge), Sout h Bart on W ood (331,Hawkri dge),W est Hol l owcombe W ood (334. 1, Hawkri dge) and Hawkri dge Ri dge W ood (335. 2, Hawkri dge)(whosel ocat i onsareshowni nFi gure4. 4. 1). Onl y onesuch pl at form wasfound i nt hewoodscl osest to Dulverton. No charcoalfrom these platforms has been submitted for radi o-carbon dating but their di st ri but i on support st hei deat hatmet alworki ng shaped woodl andmanagementi nt heBarl eVal l ey. Anot hert heme t o emerge from M cDonnel l ’swork was t he i mport ance of wat er management . He recorded severall eat s,whose ori gi naldest i nat i onswere uncl ear. Somehad been re-used aspat hs.A t hi rd t hemewast he i mport ance of mi neralext ract i on (notconnect ed wi t h metalworking);herecordedatleastsixquarries. These results were considered when carrying out reconnai ssancesurveyoft hecasest udy.Thel ocat i onof probabl echarcoalpl at formsfoundi nt hewri t er’ssurvey i sshown i n Fi gure4. 4. 3 and ofot herfeat uresi n Fi gure 4. 4. 4,wi t hdet ai l sl i st edi nAppendi xVII.Product i onof charcoalwascl earl ysi gni fi cant(atunknownperi ods),as

--.J 00

VARLE HILL

MOUNSEY HILL

Figure 4.4.1: Woods and settlements ofthe Barie case study © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved

� To Old Ashway

Church

iii

�

Farm/hamlet

Rh.er

Other wood

km

�

■ Millbrook

Wood of Barie case study

■

--

1£1

Pari sh ofW i nsf ord

W ood ofBarl e case study

Pari sh ofDul verton

Other wood

Ashway dWe /W AshwayFFor ord/ steAst shAshway way

Ri ver County boundary

Ashway Ford / W estAshway

Pari sh boundary ... As Ashh···Manor Manor

Pari sh ofHawkri dge

A shwayAs hw i ck/·Ea s AshwaAshway y Ash· ·kManor Ashway Ashwi c /t East Ashway Ashwick / EastAshway

0

km

Pari sh of W estAnstey

Pari sh ofEastAnstey

Pari sh ofDul verton

Figure 4. 4. 2:Administrative boundaries ofthe Barle case study © CrowncopyrightOrdnance SurveyNC/05/100050747.Allrights reserved.

Table 4.7: Woods in the Barle case study (EN indicates whether included in English Nature’s inventory of ancient woodland) Name

Number, Parish

Ashway Hat Wood Nine Acre Copse Slade Wood Horse Wood M ill Ham Wood Dibble Wood M ounsey Wood AshwickWood

330, Dulverton 332, Dulverton 335.3, Dulverton 335.4, Dulverton 335.5, Dulverton 301.5, Dulverton 301.4, Dulverton 301.3, Dulverton

Size (ha) EN Sl ope Highestcont our PCA score ) (mid-pt) (mid-pt)(m) (1stcomponent 17.34 Y 2 in 10 280 0.223 1.28 N 5in 10 240 0.050 3.29 Y 7 in 10 240 0.320 1.93 Y 3 in 10 210 0.090 4.11 Y 5in 10 240 -0.219 6.97 Y 5in 10 260 0.112 12.09 Y 3 in 10 230 0.374 16.12 Y 4 in 10 280 0.735

79

1

pl at formswerenot ed i n al lbutt wo oft hewoods. The except i onsweret hewoodwi t ht hest eepestsl opes,Sl ade W ood (335. 3, Dul vert on), and t he l argest and most nort herl y, Ashway Hat W ood (330, Dul vert on). Although survey conditions in these two woods were poor,i tseemed unl i kel yt hatpl at forms i n si gni fi cant numbers coul d have been mi ssed and t he di st ri but i on cal l edforexpl anat i on. Ext ract i veact i vi t i eswerei n evi dencei nt hecasest udy, as severalquarri es wi t h associ at ed t racks were found. Feat uresrel at ed t o wat ermanagementwere al so not ed, ofwhi ch onewasassoci at ed wi t h aprobabl emi l lsi t eunsurprisingly,in M illHam W ood (335. 5,Dulverton). The great estrange offeat ures was found i n Ashwi ck W ood(301. 3,Dul vert on)butgeneral l y,al li ndi cat edpast act i vi t i esbroadl ysi mi l art ot hoserecordedi nsurveysof woodsel sewherei nt heBarl eVal l ey. In addition,moredistinctivefeatureswerenoted.These i ncl uded unfi ni shed hedgebanksi n Sl adeW ood (335. 3, Dul vert on),showi ng an abort i ve at t emptatboundary reorgani sat i on. Banks marki ng encl osures on t he fl at l and nextt ot he ri ver were found i n M ounsey W ood (301. 4,Dul vert on),suggest i ng useoft heri verpl ai n for past ure or perhaps as coppi ce. Probabl e st ruct ural remai nswerefound i n Di bbl eW ood (301. 5,Dul vert on) cl ose t ot he boundary wi t h adjoi ni ng fi el ds (whi ch showedsi gnsofquarryi ngact i vi t y). The case st udy i ncl uded M ounsey Cast l e, whi ch i s l ocat ed i n M ounseyW ood(301. 4,Dul vert on).M ounsey nch,andcrownst he Cast l ewasdepi ct edont he1stOS 6i steep hillin M ounsey W ood,asshown in Figure4. 4. 1. It i s one of several prehi st ori c hi l l fort si nt he Barl e Val l ey and i t s earl y use fal l s wel lbefore t he peri od covered by t hi s st udy. It s eart hworks, t racks and a charcoal burner’s hut wi t hi nt he rampart s, whi ch i s known t o havebeen used i nt he19th century,havebeen surveyed(Ri l ey& W i l son-Nort h2001,64)andnot edon t heHER (SomersetHER 33538 and33539).Duri ngt he wri t er’svi si t ,t hepresenceofcoppi cedbi rchi nt hecast l e i nt eri or was not ed, whi ch mi ght show t hat broom makingaccompaniedcharcoalproduction. Asinallthecasestudies,surveyrevealedalargenumber oft racksand pat hs,someofwhi ch werenotmarked on Ordnance Survey maps. M any were narrow and ran al ongcont ours,l i ket hosei nmanyot herExmoorwoods. Somebroadert racksranal ongsi det heri veronfl atl and. A cont i nuat i on ofonesuch t rack i n Ashway HatW ood (330,Dul vert on)had been not ed on t heHER (Somerset HER 33472).A furt hergroupoft hreebroadt rackswi t h di st i nct i verout esrunni ng di agonal l y acrosswoods,was not ed.Eachent eredonecornerofawood,t urnedandran t hroughi t ,t oemergeneart hefootoft hesl opeandcl ose to theriver.Thetracksaremapped on the1stOS 6 inch i n Fi gure 4. 4. 5. Those i n Ashwi ck W ood (301. 3, Dul vert on)andNi neAcreCopse(332,Dul vert on)were

82

sunken and seemed t o beanci enthol l oways. A furt her hol l oway wasnot ed out si det hesout h-west ern boundary ofSl adeW ood (335. 3,Dul vert on)and i sal so shown i n Fi gure4. 4. 5. Other features near the case st udy i ncl ude rel i ctfi el d boundaries and traces ofploughing on Varle Hilland Ashway Si de (SomersetHER 33564),whi ch areas are indicated in Figure 4. 4. 1. Traces of three possible enclosures on M ounsey Hillhad been noted butfield i nvest i gat i on fai l ed t o det ect t hem (Somerset HER 33473). W at er meadow syst ems at Li scombe Farm (Somerset HER 34410) and Hi gher Spi re (Somerset HER 34411)(bot h nearOl d Ashway)are feat uresofa t ype oft en consi dered post -medi eval i n dat e (M ui r 2000a,212-213). Tracesofafiel dsystem nexttoGreat Bi rchcl eeve W ood (335. 1,Hawkri dge)(SomersetHER 34318) t ot he sout h-west of Ni ne Acre Copse (332, Dulverton)areevidenceofan earl i erphaseofl and use ont heot hersi deoft heri verbutneart hecasest udy. M ostofthefeaturesrecordedont heHER cl ust eront he north-facing slopes of M ounsey Hi l l and Varl e Hi l l . Apartfrom thethreeenclosuresonM ounseyHill,which seem doubt ful ,t here are no ent ri es on t he HER for feat ures l ocat ed i nt he case st udy. Thi s factprobabl y refl ect st hebi asofsurvey act i vi t y. Duri ng t hi swri t er’s survey,anumberofpossi bl efeat uresi nadjoi ni ngfi el ds were vi si bl e,suggest i ng t hatt hey woul d repay furt her examination. Themodern boundari esoft hewoodsi nt hecasest udy, asnoted in survey,were compared with thoseon maps oft he19th century.The1stOS1 inchindicatedthat: i ) Ashway HatW ood (330,Dul vert on) had been encl osed al ong i t supsl opeand sout hwest ern boundari es by a si nuousfence or hedge; t he l i ne of t he l at t er cont i nued beyond t he wood,runni ng roughl y al ong t hecont ouri nasout h-east erl ydi rect i on,t o joi nt he ri veratThree W at ers,nextt ot he l ocat i on of Ni ne Acre Copse (332, Dul vert on); i i ) The area of Ni ne Acre Copse (332, Dul vert on)wasshownasopen; iii) Depiction of the remaining woods in the case st udy was si mi l ar t ot hat on l at er maps;and i v) Thewood whi chcorrespondedt o Ashwi ck W ood(301. 3,Dul vert on)wasbi sect edbya t rack (l eadi ng from Ashwi ck Farm t ot he river). The rel at i onshi p bet ween t racksand set t l ement son t he nch i squi t e di st i nct . The farmsofAshway, 1st OS 1 i Ashwi ck,Sl ade and M ounsey (t hen cal l ed ‘M ouncy’) were al ll ocat ed on a road ort rack runni ng from Tarr St eps(justofft henort hernedgeoft hecasest udy),al ong t hecont ours of t he ri ver val l ey, i n t he di rect i on of

Figure4. 4. 5:TracksnotedinsurveyandproposedboundaryofRoyalForest nch(SomersetSheetLVIISW) on1stOS6i broadly as depicted in the earlier map except that Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) was shown as reaching the river on its south-western side, while the 1st OS 1 inch showed the river plain as open (as it is now). The Greenwoods’ map also showed an open area in the centre of the wood. As before, the area of Nine Acre Copse (332, Dulverton) was shown as open.

Dulverton to the south. A further track was shown apparently fording the river at Slade Wood (335.3, Dulverton), to run upslope along the south-western edge of the wood, where it appeared (on this map) to end abruptly. This track is probably the holloway noted in survey in this location and shown in Figure 4.4.5. No settlement named ‘Old Ashway’ was shown on the 1st OS 1 inch; the farm or hamlet in that location was called ‘Varle’. ‘Varle’ had communication links different to those of Ashway, Ashwick, Slade and Mounsey. ‘Varle’ was connected to ‘Spire Liscomb’, Tarr and the network of tracks across the high ground now known as Mounsey Hill and Varle Hill. That area, of which a substantial part is now open moor, was then shown as enclosed.

The depiction of the case study on the tithe map for the parish of Dulverton (1839) is shown in Figure 4.4.6, which illustrates parcels’ ownership. The tithe map showed the woods’ boundaries as they appeared on later maps, with the exception of Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton). This wood was smaller on the tithe map, due to the exclusion of areas recorded as separate parcels of furze and pasture (which were included in the wood on later maps). The tithe map also showed that some rearrangement of field boundaries had occurred since 1809. The line of the fence or hedge which was shown on the 1st OS 1 inch as continuing from the

The Greenwoods’ map of Somerset (1822) showed fewer tracks than the 1st OS 1 inch and Old Ashway/ Varle was shown as ‘Vardle’. The woods were

83

River Barle Old Ashway

Ashway Hat Wood Proposed boundary of Royal Forest Ashway

Slade Nine Acre Copse 0

Slade Wood

1

km

Mounsey

Horse Wood

Ashwick

Mill Ham Wood Dane' s Brook

Dibble Wood

Ashwick Wood

Owners on tithe map

Mounsey Wood

Earl of Carnarvon George Hall Peppin Hon New ton Fellow es Sir Thomas Dyke Acland

Figure 4.4.6: Owners of woods and land in and around the Barle case study on tithe map for parish of Dulverton (1839) with proposed boundaryofRoyalForest

Table 4.8: Meaning of wood names in the Barle case study Wood name Ashway Hat Wood Slade Wood Horse Wood

M ill Ham Wood Dibble Wood M ounsey Wood Ashwick Wood

Meani ng Source Weg OE = road or track (Gelling & Cole 2000, 65) Slaed OE = valley (Ekwall 1959, 426;Watts 2004, 554) Note Horsebridge (Lifton) (Gover etal.1931, 209) 1st element is personal name Horsebridge (Hants) could (Watts 2004, 317) refer to reed bed or thicket Ham OE = meadow on (Ekwall 1959, 214) stream Dibble (Yorks) = deep (Watts 2004, 186) hollow (Gover etal .1932, 429) Note M ounson –1st element prob.personal name -wic OE = settlement, (Watts 2004, xlviii) village

84

south-western edge of the wood along the valley to Three Waters, now appeared to end some distance from Three Waters.

hamlets of Little Ash and Great Ash lie around 4 km away on the north facing slopes of Winsford Hill. They might be too far away to have the same origin but the possibility that they too include a personal name and were part of a large, ancestral ‘tenement of Assa’cannot be entirely discounted.

Various changes since the 1st OS 1 inch were apparent, with other significant features, as follows: i) Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) had suffered clearance in its southern corner, where buildings shown as Ashway Hat Cottages were located; ii) The line of the fence or hedge which had appeared on the 1st OS 1 inch as continuing along the valley from the wood to Three Waters, ended abruptly, half way between the wood and Nine Acre Copse (332, Dulverton); iii) Bridges (Castle Bridge and Ashwick Bridge) and two fords were shown; iv) The track along the south-western edge of Slade Wood (335.3, Dulverton), which had been depicted on the 1st OS 1 inch, was not shown; v) The land on which Mounsey House now stands, which is on the edge of Ashwick Wood (301.3, Dulverton) was shown as an irregularly shaped area of uncultivated land without buildings; vi) some enclosures and relict field boundaries were marked; and vii) Old Ashway was shown under that name.

Domesday Book contained an entry for Ashway, which is now the name of the farm close to Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton). ‘Old Ashway’lies about 1.7 km to the north-east of modern Ashway farm, as shown in Figures 4.4.1 and Figure 4.4.6, suggesting relative ages and a relationship between the two settlements. Ashway belonged to Roger of Courseulles and its entry stated: Hugh holds ASHWAY from Roger. Aelfric held it before 1066; it paid tax for ½ hide and 1 furlong. Land for 6 ploughs. In lordship 1 plough; 2 slaves; 1virgate. 11 villagers and 3 smallholders with 2 ploughs & 1virgate & 1furlong. Meadow, 1 acre; woodland, 60 acres; pasture 1 league long and ½ league wide. 3 cattle;12 pigs;26,both sheep and goats. Value, 25s; when Roger acquired it,20s. (DomesdayS,93d).

Documents and placenames The meaning of the woods’names, as recorded on the 1st OS 6 inch, is set out in Table 4.8, using information in published works (Ekwall 1959; Gelling & Cole 2000; Gover et al.1931; Watts 2004). The river name ‘Barle’ means simply ‘hill stream’(Ekwall 1959, 25) and could be the origin of the place-name Varle/Vardle, although Old Ashway/ Varle is on a tributary to the Barle and not on the main river. No reference to the ‘Hat’part of ‘Ashway Hat’appeared in the published works and this element remains puzzling. The names Ashway and Ashwick could refer to ash trees but the ash is not the commonest species in Exmoor’s woods. The place of Higher Ashton in Devon has been thought to include a personal name (Aescere) (Ekwall 1959, 16) and the ‘– way’element has been noted as qualified by personal names in some other places (Gelling & Cole 2000, 95). It therefore seems possible that a personal name forms the origin of the place-names Ashway and Ashwick, with the ‘–wick’element indicating a ‘dwelling place’(Watts 2004, xlviii). This interpretation is consistent with the wording in a charter of 1204 (of which part is reproduced in Table 4.9) referring to land ‘in the tenement of Assa’forming part of ‘Aswei’(MacDermot 1939, 91). The place-name ‘Ash’occurs in other locations to the north of the case study. Great Ash Wood and the

85

Both ploughs and pasture were mentioned, which suggest both arable and pastoral farming. The significant number of villagers and smallholders may point to ‘Ashway’ as covering a number of small hamlets or farms. Dulverton (to the south-east of the case study) was recorded as land of the King, formerly owned by Earl Harold and paying £11 10s of white silver (DomesdayS,86c, d). Other documentary evidence of the medieval period comes from the records of the Royal Forest of Exmoor. Some date to the 13th century, such as the Forest perambulation of 1219, which described the boundary of the Forest in the vicinity of the case study as running ‘… to Mageldene … .and from thence by the great way between the two Eisseweis [Ashways]to the water of Bargel[Barle], and along the water of Bargel to [where] Donekesbroch[Danes Brook] falls into Bargel’ (MacDermot 1939, 117). A further perambulation in 1279 repeated this boundary description (ibid., 130). Some of the places named in the perambulations of the ‘Donekesbroke’ or 13th century can be identified. Danes Brook, joins the Barle near Mounsey Wood (301.4, Dulverton), and is shown in Figure 4.4.1. ‘Mageldene’cannot be identified but ‘the two Ashways’ have been interpreted as the ‘manors or tenements’later known as Ashway Ashwick and Ashway Ford. These were sometimes called East and West Ashway. In the view of the Forest’s principal historian, Ashway Ashwick (East Ashway) included Ashwick, Mounsey and Slade (covering the southern part of the case study), while Ashway Ford (West Ashway) comprised Ashway

and Old Ashway (close to the northern part of the case study), as indicated in Figure 4.4.2. The ‘great way’ was interpreted as a track reaching the river from the east or north-east ‘in the neighbourhood of Three Waters’ (MacDermot 1939, 119), which is the name given to the point in the river near Nine Acre Copse (332, Dulverton), whose position is shown in Figure 4.4.5. MacDermot interpreted the perambulations of the 13th century to mean that the Forest boundary ran along a line from north-east to south-west, placing it across the case study with the western part (Ashway Ford or West Ashway) inside the core of the Forest and the eastern part (Ashway Ashwick or East Ashway) outside. The location of the manors and the probable line of the Forest boundary are shown in Figures 4.4.2 and 4.4.5.

Hillary de Munceaus for old waste of his wood of Ashweye, half a mark’ (ibid., 90). Presumably Hillary had failed to pay the fine imposed in 1257, or further old offences had come to light. Henry of Asweye was also mentioned as a pledge for a defaulting offender in other proceedings (pleas of the venison) at the same eyre of 1270 (ibid., 87). The pleas of 1270 recorded amercements for default (fines for failure to attend) against various names including the following: Roger le Erceveske of Ashweye (half a mark), Richard of la Slade of the same (12d), Baldweyn of Hindeham, Baldewyn of Loscumbe…’ (MacDermot 1939, 84). This seems to treat Ashwick and Slade together, suggesting that Slade may then have formed part of Ashway Ashwick (East Ashway).

Table 4.9: Woodwards in the Barle case study in 1257 (MacDermot 1939, 125)

Owner The Abbot of Ford Roger of Erceveske (Ashwick)

Woodward Roger of Asweye William Hylleking

The application of Forest law to the case study during the 13th century is confirmed by the list of Forest woodwards of 1257, which included two woodwards of woods with a single name: the ‘wood of Asweye’. The details are set out in Table 4.9, and showed that the wood’s owners at that date were Roger of Ercesveske (Ashwick) and the Abbot of Forde. The Abbot’s part of the ‘wood of Asweye’ was, if MacDermot’s interpretation of the Forest boundary is correct, within the Forest, while Roger’s part was outside (but still subject to some provisions of Forest law). A woodward of the wood of Hawkridge, which is close to the case study, was also listed.

Wood Wood of Asweye Wood of Asweye

Forde Abbey had been recorded as owner of the wood of Ashway in the list of woodwards of 1257. Some years later, the Forest eyre of 1270 enrolled a charter of 1204, in which the Abbey’s acquisition of its Ashway land had been confirmed. The charter granted lands and tenements in Ashway to the Abbey free from Forest law (MacDermot 1939, 85) and its terms are set out in Table 4.10. The different areas of land included in the grant cannot now be identified precisely but the grant indicates that some of the land had formerly been owned by other church institutions: Margam Abbey and the Canons of Taunton. The grant’s description of land as ‘ferlings’ implies arable cultivation, perhaps in open fields. Reference to the ‘tenement of Assa’ and the name ‘Baldwin of Assa’ may suggest the existence of both a person and a place with the name ‘Assa’. The charter may also show the Abbey as originally holding a number of scattered parcels and perhaps attempting later to construct a more compact unit by acquiring the land between. The enrolment of the deed at the eyre of 1270 confirms that the land concerned was within the regard at this time (ibid., 126), which is consistent with the earlier perambulation of 1219. The wood of Ashway may thus have had status differing from other woods in the area; the 1219 perambulation placed it geographically inside the Forest but Forde Abbey held it ‘free from ….the regard of the forest’.

Those who committed offences (or assumed responsibility for them) under Forest law were pursued. At the Forest pleas of 1257, Gilbert Hyling of ‘Ayswey’(Ashway) and Richard of ‘Essweye’ (Ashway) were each fined 12d for vert. Hyllary de ‘Munceaus’ (Mounsey) was listed as an offender but no fine was levied; he was noted as ‘poor’ (MacDermot 1939, 79). Nevertheless, he was fined half a mark for old waste in the wood of ‘Assweye’ (ibid., 82). In pleas of 1270, Richard Leg of Ashweye and Robert of Asweye Erceveske (Ashwick) were each fined 12d for vert (ibid., 85-86) and further fines and penalties were levied in the following terms: ‘The wood of Henry of Ashweye at Asweye is wasted newly by the same [Henry]; therefore in mercy. Let the wood be taken and remain……From

86

Table 4.10: Confirmation of grant of land in the Barle case study to Forde Abbey in charter of 1204 (MacDermot 1939, 91).

Aswei which the Abbot and the aforesaid monks purchased from the Canons of Taunton and from Hugh de Turbervill; by gift of Richard son of Baldewin, Uppecote; and by sale of the monks of Morgan [Margam Abbey in Glamorgan] five ferlings of land, by gift of Richard of Balega two ferlings in the tenement of Assa, and by sale of Walter son of Baldewin of Assa, whatsoever is between the aforesaid seven ferlings of land, except only the meadow which is called Brademede; by gift of Richard de Turbervill one virgate of land in Aswei;by gift of Henry de Pomera one ferling of land which is called Tunbrichtesford in Exemore ……free from assarts, waste and the regard of the forest’

At the eyre of 1270 the only township to be called which had not been specifically called at the earlier eyre (of 1257) was Ashway Ashwick (East Ashway), and it has been suggested that it was still included under Ashway at that earlier date (MacDermot 1939, 126). However, Roger of Erceveseke (Ashwick) was one of the two woodwards recorded in 1257, suggesting that Ashwick already had a degree of separate identity as a place in 1257, which was recognised by Forest administration.

Later surveys for the purposes of Forest administration confirmed that the Ashways’ lords retained their status. A survey of 1651 listing the lords who possessed rights of pasture as suitors at large included Ashway Ford (West Ashway) and Ashway Ashwick (East Ashway) (MacDermot 1939, 197). The list of suitors of 1797 included Ashway Ashwick along with the lords of Ashway Ford and Ashway Mounsey (ibid., 189-193). Part of the interest of the Forest documents lies in the sheer number of people who are involved. Those with names relevant to the case study are summarised in Table 4.11. The names appear to confirm the existence of separate settlements in the 13th century at Ashway (perhaps that now called Old Ashway), Slade, Ashwick and Mounsey but there is nothing in the documentary evidence to suggest that woods shared their names with these settlements for the purposes of Forest administration in the relevant years. On the contrary, the list of woodwards of 1257 referred only to the ‘wood of Ashway’. However, it seems that the ‘wood of Ashway’ had by that date been divided for management purposes between Ashway and Ashwick, as two woodwards from those places were listed. This arrangement might be consistent with a single, physically continuous stretch of woodland running perhaps from modern Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) along the river valley to modern Ashwick Wood (301.3, Dulverton) and then to the southern edge of the case study, all under the name of the ‘wood of Ashway’. Some parts of this land are now open and clear of woodland.

In the later 13th century, both Ashways (and hence the entire case study) were disafforested. The perambulation of 1298 mentioned Westastheway (West Ashway or Ashway Ford) and Estaswey (East Ashway or Ashway Ashwick) as amongst the places to be disafforested (MacDermot 1939, 138-141) and this was repeated in the confirmation of this perambulation in 1301 (ibid., 146). It was perhaps inconsistent to include East Ashway in this process, as it had almost certainly already been placed outside the Forest by the perambulation of 1219. After disafforestation the townships concerned ranked as ‘suitors at large’, who held rights of pasture in the Forest. In 1335, the Forest administration took action for offences committed by (inter alia) the lord of Ashway (West Ashway) and the lord of Ashway Ashwick (East Ashway) in that ‘their men and tenants enter the forest with their cattle’ (MacDermot 1939, 97). It is not clear why the actions of the two Ashway lords were unlawful, given that the Ashways had rights of pasture as suitors at large. By this date, the closest Forest boundary was more than 6 km away and the offences might suggest that grazing resources were under pressure, with farmers driving their livestock to pasture at a considerable distance. The offence might also suggest that the Ashway farmers did not have access to the moorland grazing on Winsford Hill to the northeast, which was far closer.

The existence of two woodwards for the ‘wood of Ashway’ does not necessarily imply that exploitation and management were in the hands of only one or two people. The eyre of 1270 fined Hillary de Munceaus (Mounsey) for ‘old waste of his wood of Ashweye’, strongly suggesting that some woodland was controlled

87

Deserted medi evalf arm Ashway HatWood

Conti nui ng medi evalf arm Pl acename menti oned i n Domesday Book

Ashway

Mi l l brook Nine Acre Copse Three W aters

Sl ade Slade Wood Mounsey

Horse Wood

MillHam Wood Dibble Wood Draydon Castl e Ashwick Wood 0

1

km

Mounsey Wood

Figure 4.4.7: Medieval settlements in and around the Barle case study (Aston 1983; DomesdayS) © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

Table 4.11: Summary of offencesagai nstForestlaw i nt he Barle case st udy,asrecorded by eyresof 1257and Table 4.11: Summary of offencesagai n12 st7 Fo res tlaw i nt h Barle cas e st udy,asrecorded by eyresof 1257and 0( M ac Dermo te19 39,79 91) 1270(M acDermot1939,79-91) Nameofoffender Name ofof f ender Gi l b e r t Hy l i n Gi l bertHyl i ng go of fAy Ays swe wey y( (As Ash hwa way y) ) Ri c h a r d o f Es s we y e ( As h wa y ) Ri chardofEssweye(Ashway) Hy l a Hyl l l ar ry yd de eM Mu un nc ce ea au us s( (M Mo ou un ns se ey y) ) Ro g e r d e Er c e v e s k e ( As h wi c k ) RogerdeErceveske(Ashwi ck)o of f As Ash hwe wey ye e Ri c a a Ri ch ha ar rd do of fl l aS Sl l ad de eo of fAs Ash hwe wey ye e Ri c h a r d Le g o f As h we y e Ri chardLegofAshweye Ro c Rob be er rt to of fAs Ash hwe wey ye eEr Erc ce es sv ve es sk ke e( (As Ash hwi wi ck k) ) He n r y o f As h we y e HenryofAshweye Hi l l a Hi l l ar ry yd de eM Mu un nc ce ea au us s( (M Mo ou un ns se ey y) )

88

Offence Of f ence Ve r Vert t Ve Ver rt t Ve Ver rt t, ,wa was st te e

Dateofeyre Date ofeyre 1 12 25 57 7 1 2 125 57 7 1 12 25 57 7

De t Def fa au ul l t De f a u l t Defaul t Ve Ver rt t Ve Ver rt t W e Wa as st t e W a s t W aste e

1 12 27 70 0 1 2 7 1270 0 1 12 27 70 0 1 12 27 70 0 1 12 27 70 0 1 12 27 70 0

by the occupier of Mounsey in a manner equal to outright ownership, regardless of the wood’s name.

Catsley, given the amount of timber and other wood going back to the Abbot.

A further significant aspect of the evidence of the Forest documents is the confirmation of Forde Abbey’s interest and possible earlier ownership by Margam Abbey and the Canons of Taunton. Forde Abbey’s ownership dates from at least 1204 and included further land in the vicinity of the case study. The Abbot of Forde was party to legal proceedings instituted in 1251, in which he complained that named persons had ‘disseised’ him of 23 acres of his land at ‘Hasweye [Ashway] and Luscom [Liscombe]’. The names of the defendants and the reference to Liscombe strongly suggest that the land concerned lies outside and to the north-east of the case study. The Abbot stated that, in this disputed area, he had ‘depastured the herbage and cut furze’ (SomPleas1, 404). This action may point to the land being more profitable as furze (fuel) than as pasture. Exploitation for furze might be consistent with widespread local woodland clearance, leading to shortages of underwood for household fuel. Alternatively, the reference to depasturing could imply that the land had been overstocked (MacDermot 1939, 123), suggesting that there was pressure on grazing resources in this part of the Barle Valley at that time.

The documentary evidence summarised in the preceding paragraphs gives some idea of the number and names of settlements in the vicinity at various dates up to the 14th century. Aston’s (1983) work on medieval farmsteads on Exmoor, using the 1327 Lay Subsidy and other sources, provides further detail. The Lay Subsidy referred to Mounsey and Slade (in the case study), together with other settlements nearby: Draydon, Tarr, Lower Marsh, Millbrook, Nutsford and Lower Spire (ibid., 91). Figure 4.4.7 shows the location of those closest to the case study and their status as continuing or deserted, together with the location of Ashway as a placename mentioned in Domesday Book. Millbrook was noted on the HER (Somerset HER 33554), as was Lower Spire (Somerset HER 33555). The settlement at Three Waters (outside but close to the case study), noted by Aston on the basis of physical remains of structures (ibid., 102), is in the area of a field system recorded on the HER (Somerset HER 34318). No trace of the field system was found during assessment (McDonnell 1999, 18) but this writer has observed possible slight earthworks in this area. While it cannot be assumed that all these settlements were necessarily in existence contemporaneously, their distribution might be consistent with fairly intense resource in the area over the medieval period.

At some point in the 13th century, Forde Abbey disposed of its interest in Ashway, exchanging it for ‘Catsley’ in Corscombe. The exact date of the transaction is not known but it is possible that the Abbey’s charter was produced to the 1270 eyre in order to establish and confirm its title in readiness for the disposal. The published cartulary of the Abbey contains the deed of exchange, (whose witnesses included Roger Arceveseke) which simply refers to the ‘manor of Asweie’ [Ashway] without further definition or description (CartFA, 82). A second grant of ‘all the tenement in Catsley’ by Henry de Catsley referred to the exchange of Catsley for the ‘manor of Asweye’ (ibid., 79). A third grant by Henry de Catsley (to which Roger Arceveseke was again witness) gave the Abbot and chapter the right which ‘Henry and his bailiff have to take timber from his wood at Assweia [Ashway] each year for whatever use they wish’. In addition, they (the Abbot and chapter) were given the right ‘once a year’ to ‘cut and carry away 200 spars (radiolas) to make wheels for carts and waggons’ (ibid., 176). The reference to spars for wheel spokes implies use of oak rather than any other species (Evans 2003, 167).

Moving into the later medieval period, there is documentary evidence of further transactions concerning the case study. Feet of fines of 1469-70 effected a transfer of property including the following: 1 messuage, 300 acres of land, 16 acres of meadow, 20 acres of wood and 100 acres of gorse and heath ‘called Aysshewey Mounceaus’ (Mounsey) subject to the tenancy for life of John Mounceaus; and 1 messuage, 79 acres of land, 7 acres of meadow 12 acres of wood ‘called Aysshewey Raleigh’ subject to the tenancy for life of John Ley. This had (with other property) been the ‘heritage’ of Margaret Mauncell (FFSom4, 138-139). Both ‘Aysshewey Mounceaus’ (Mounsey) and ‘Aysshewey Raleigh’ included specified areas of woodland as part of their holdings, although the latter is probably not within the case study. The place-name Ayssheweye Raleigh might refer to the holding occupied by Robert Leg, who was fined for vert at the Forest eyre of 1270. It could perhaps be the name of the place lying about 3 km to the north-east of the case study and shown as Leigh on the modern Ordnance Survey map, or it could conceivably be the name by which the farm now called Ashway was then known.

In these transactions, the Abbey seems to have transferred its right to take timber to Henry de Catsley, who then transferred it back to the Abbey. The arrangement emphasises the value of such rights, which were a major asset of the medieval landowner and normally reserved to the lord of the manor. It appears that the Abbey wished to retain some of the advantages of lordship even after disposing of the property. One can only speculate as to the value of the wood to Henry

A further feet of fines of 1477-78 confirmed transfer of ‘the manor of Aysshewey Mounceaus’ and land (described collectively) in places including ‘Aysshewey

89

Archenesque’ (Ashwick), ‘Aysshewey Mounceux’ and other places (FFSom4, 211-212). This deed contains no further description of the lands involved.

Wood (330, Dulverton) was special in another respect; it was the only wood in the case study recorded as part of a monastic estate.

There are few further documentary references to woods or land in the case study in the later medieval or postmedieval period. There is a solitary reference to Ashway in the subsidy of 1581, which mentioned ‘John Comer of Ashway’ under the tithing of Dulverton (TudorSub,188). It may be significant that only John Comer and two other people of Dulverton tithing were named with a qualifier relating to a specified place. It is possible that either the places or the people concerned had a special status.

All these aspects of the evidence suggested different land use histories in the northern and southern parts of the case study and the documentary evidence pointed to an obvious explanation. The Forest perambulation of 1219 referred to a ‘great way’ separating the ‘two Ashways’. Both the track in Nine Acre Copse (332, Dulverton) and that along the south-western edge of Slade Wood (335.3, Dulverton) are holloways. They merge, to continue as a single track running upslope in a north-easterly direction (as indicated in Figure 4.4.5). Such a route would divide ‘the two Ashways’ in the manner suggested by the Forest’s historian (MacDermot 1939, 119) and would also form a neat boundary between the two parts of the case study possessing markedly different woodland distribution. The tithe map also recorded a boundary along this line (between Ashway Farm and Slade Farm), as shown in Figure 4.4.6.

4.4.4 Discussion The case study was selected for its apparently uniform relationships between woods and farms. At first sight, it appeared to be homogeneous in several respects, particularly that of wood size. This impression was confirmed by comparison with the other case studies. For the purpose of this comparison, woods in each case study were grouped and the standard deviation of wood size was calculated for each group. Standard deviation, an index of size variability, was only 6.4 for this case study, compared to 26 for the Horner Wood complex and 40 for Culbone. Only Sherracombe had a lower standard deviation (3.9). The fact that four of the woods in this case study shared their names with nearby farms enhanced the impression of uniformity, hinting at a common relationship between woods and farms. This uniformity dissolved when other evidence was considered.

If this route of the Forest boundary is accepted, then it is tempting to conclude that different forms of woodland exploitation coincided with it and were generated by the restrictions of Forest law. While this inference appears plausible, it is simplistic and probably wrong. Some aspects of Forest law, particularly those designed to protect woodland, applied to woods beyond the Forest boundary (MacDermot 1939, 127-128) and both the list of woodwards of 1257 and the offences recorded in 1270 tend to show that these aspects of Forest law were being applied to all woods in the case study, wherever they lay in relation to the Forest boundary. In addition, the period in which Forest law could have been applied was relatively short, as the land in the case study was completely disafforested around 1300. To summarise, the restrictions of Forest law would have affected all woods in the case study but only for a limited time.

The woods’ scores in PCA (of which the 1st component is shown in Table 4.7), show a wide range, with six of the eight woods scoring between 0.05 and 0.374, and two outliers at either end of the range: Mill Ham Wood (335.5, Dulverton) with a score of –0.219 and Ashwick Wood (301.3, Dulverton) with 0.735. Survey had revealed that the former wood was unique in having remains of a mill and that the latter had the greatest number of feature types in the case study, which may be taken to show a wider range of past activities than in the other woods.

A different factor may have shaped woodland in the north and south of the case study: topography. Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) has a different aspect to the woods to the south. It faces north, in contrast to the other woods, which face west or south-west. Northfacing slopes might have a less favourable aspect for growth (whether of pasture or arable) and so be less likely to be cleared for these purposes. Aspect alone could thus provide an explanation for the persistence of a large stretch of woodland in this part of the case study. It may not explain the absence of charcoal platforms, which have been identified on other north facing slopes in the Barle Valley; for example, in Row Down Wood (319, Hawkridge) (McDonnell 1999, 14-15).

Survey suggested that Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) was unusual, as it was one of only two woods in the case study with no evidence of charcoal production. Its depiction on maps of the 19th century seemed less consistent than that of the other woods but illuminated the difference in woodland distribution which still exists within the case study. The maps showed Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) as the largest wood with open land on either side of it, while the other, smaller woods were more closely packed along the southern part of the river valley. The maps also showed that Old Ashway’s communication links differed from those of the farms closer to the case study. The documentary evidence confirmed that Ashway Hat

It is also clear that part of the land to the north-west of the ‘great way’, (that in West Ashway/Ashway) is the flat floodplain of the river. The river plain adjoining Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) to the south-west is now open and was shown as such on the 1st OS 1 inch.

90

There are also similar areas of floodplain adjoining the river lying to the south-east of the ‘great way’ (in East Ashway/Ashwick), which are also now open or offer evidence that they were open in the past. These areas comprise those between Horse Wood (335.4, Dulverton) and Mill Ham Wood (335.5, Dulverton), and between the latter wood and Dibble Wood (301.5, Dulverton). The gentle slopes of the combe between Mounsey Wood (301.4, Dulverton) and Ashwick Wood (301.3, Dulverton) are open and the enclosure on the flat river plain in Mounsey Wood (301.4, Dulverton) was probably open in the past. The area between these woods, shown on the 1st OS 6 inch as Castlemeadow Linhay, is now open and could also have formerly been wooded. Most of these areas were shown as open on the 1st OS 1 inch.

and running downslope to the river. This pattern suggests that the Royal Forest may have adopted one of a number of pre-existing boundaries as its own, which would imply that the general layout and division of land (including woodland) between Ashwick, Slade, Mounsey and Ashway had been established long before the Royal Forest’s laws were formulated, probably in the 12th century (MacDermot 1939, 47). Does the documentary record offer any evidence for the absolute ages of the settlements in and around the case study, to support the idea of boundaries pre-dating the 12th century? Ashway’s entry in Domesday Book confirms its existence (or that of Old Ashway) in the 11th century but the earliest documentary references to Ashwick, Mounsey and Slade were in 1257 and 1270, when their names were recorded at eyres of the Forest. Earlier origins are plausible; the three smallholders of Ashway mentioned in Domesday Book could have occupied these farms (Ashwick, Mounsey and Slade). The entry in Domesday Book might be consistent with very early division of this part of the Barle Valley.

In short, flat or gently sloping land close to the river, whether lying to the north-west or south-east of the ‘great way’ seems to have been cleared of woodland (assuming that it was once wooded). There is no evidence of the date of such clearance. If medieval, it could show the operation of the process of farm expansion or re-organisation in the particular terrain of a river valley. The effect of Forest law on such activity is debatable. The offences of waste committed by Hillary de Munceaus (Mounsey) and Henry of Ashweye, suggest that clearance was punished but the imposition of fines may show that Forest officials were less interested in preventing the offences than they were in extracting money from the culprits. Legal liability did not appear to have deterred Hillary and Henry and so, it could be argued, the restrictions of Forest law were relatively unimportant in shaping land use anywhere in the case study.

What of the role of woodland in the economy of the case study? That economy may have included both arable and pastoral farming in the 11th century, as Ashway’s entry in Domesday Book suggests. Ploughing on Varle Hill and Ashway Side (whose traces were recorded on the HER) to the north and north-east of the case study occurred at an unknown period and could have been centred on Old Ashway and the other settlements in the vicinity (Liscombe, Higher Spire, Lower Spire and Knaplock). Apart from the entry in Domesday Book, there is no positive evidence for medieval arable activity in the area of the case study itself, although references to furlongs in the charter of 1204 suggests ploughing in an open field on the land of Forde Abbey in the 13th century or before.

In addition to the influence of topography, the special status of one owner, Forde Abbey, may also have been significant. The Abbey’s acquisition of Ashway (West Ashway) was stated to be ‘free from the regard of the Forest’. The Abbey was thus unfettered by the restrictions of Forest law regarding woodland which bound (or were supposed to bind) other land owners on both sides of the Forest boundary. This could have allowed the Abbey to act with complete impunity and might point to the river plain adjoining Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) being cleared during their ownership. It is impossible to know whether the absence of any potential liability for Forest fines actually played any part in the Abbey’s putative clearance decisions.

While the absence of evidence for medieval ploughing in the case study is not conclusive, it is possible that farms here could have been predominantly pastoral from an early date. If they exploited woodland as wood pasture, extant indicators might include ancient pollards, the absence of physically defined woodland boundaries, or woodland boundaries which could be shown to be relatively recent. Little positive evidence of this kind exists in the case study. All the woods adjoin enclosed farmland in which the wood/field boundaries gave no appearance of having different form or construction to the rest of the field hedges which could be seen. No inference as to different dates for the construction of the wood/field hedges and the rest of the field boundaries could therefore be drawn. No ancient pollards, as occur in other parts of the study area, were noted during survey of the case study woods.

Although the significance of the Forest boundary for woodland exploitation is unclear, its line does seem to have acted as an axis in the landscape, with fields on either side being laid out differently but with regard to it (as may be seen from Figures 4.4.5 and 4.4.6). Physical geography was also relevant; the proposed Forest boundary lies in a shallow combe. It is not the only axis; the layout of fields suggests a number of long boundaries radiating from the general area of Mounsey Hill Gate

There are two parts of the case study in which there is a faint possibility of an undefined wood edge. The first is

91

by a specialist living on site, as noted in the 19th century, but many of the platforms recorded in the writer’s survey could have been used by the farmers of whose lands they formed part. There is no dating evidence for these platforms and no physical evidence for metal working in the case study was noted during reconnaissance survey. The dates for charcoal sampled by the Exmoor Iron Project from nearby sites stretch from the 5th to the 14th centuries and the case study’s platforms could fall anywhere within (or outside) this range.

in Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton), where the field boundary on the south-eastern side is (at least in part) very straight and modern in appearance, and there is an open area between it and the present tree line. Given the probability of post-medieval reorganisation of Ashway’s fields, the wood must be considered as a candidate for wood pasture, followed by late enclosure in the postmedieval period. Neither cartographic nor archaeological evidence fully supports this hypothesis. The 1st OS 1 inch showed the wood with a boundary on its south-eastern edge. In survey, the writer noted very faint traces of a bank (well inside the modern boundary) which corresponds with it, and also with the boundary as recorded on the tithe map. The other boundaries of this wood are all clearly defined with hedge banks. In particular, that on the southwestern side, adjoining the river plain, corresponds with the boundary shown on the 1st OS 1 inch and is slightly sinuous in form. This bank is overlaid with a beech planted hedge in one place, which clearly postdates it. In the writer’s view, Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) shows no evidence of a history of wood pasture; on the contrary, the physical evidence suggests it could have been enclosed at an early date.

Although archaeological features in the case study cannot yet be exactly dated, some relative chronology is evident in the field layout, which may be seen in Figure 4.4.5. Field boundaries in the area from the southwestern edge of Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) to Slade Wood (335.3, Dulverton) in particular, are rulerstraight and have a modern appearance. A recent origin for some of these fields is clear when the 1st OS 1 inch is compared to the tithe map (1839). In 1809, there was a continuous boundary from the south-western edge of Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) to Nine Acre Copse (332, Dulverton); by 1839, this line had vanished, obliterated by new field hedges. Regular fields close to Old Ashway (outside the case study) also point to a single, perhaps late, layout of fields there in one operation.

The second wood without clear, physical definition is that of Nine Acre Copse (332, Dulverton). The greater part of this wood (in which the living trees are standards, not coppice) is on extremely steep land and the tithe map recorded the strip of flat land between the wood and the river as being ‘coppice and pasture’. It seems that the flat river plain was not divided from the adjoining woodland, as it was in other parts of the case study, but may have been used as wood pasture. There seems to have been some effort to embank the river edge here, perhaps to prevent flooding. This wood is thus the only one in the case study whose lack of physical, man-made boundaries might be consistent with past use as wood pasture. However, the wood itself may not be particularly old. It was not shown on the 1st OS 1 inch and was noted during survey as lacking the typical ground flora of an ancient wood. If it was used as pasture, the practice may have been modern.

There may have been other phases of land reorganisation around Ashway. A quarry in the field adjoining Ashway farm is shown in Figure 4.4.5 and a further large quarry was found during survey of Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton). Small quarries in another case study (Sherracombe) were found to be consistent with rebuilding dated to the 17th century. Nothing in the evidence would rule out a similar date for field reorganisation and re-building in this case study.

4.4.5 Conclusions Consideration of the evidence in this case study tended to confirm some of the impressions gained during the writer’s first visits to this part of the Barle Valley. While the form of fields suggested layout at different periods, cartographic, documentary and archaeological evidence was consistent with land being divided between the farms of Ashway, Mounsey, Slade and Ashwick at an early date (perhaps in the pre-Conquest period) by the long boundaries, which still exist as tracks and field hedges.

The evidence may be summarised as pointing towards early division of the land into units, which were later recorded in the documents of the Royal Forest. It may also tend to show early enclosure of woods, or, at least, an absence of evidence for wood pasture. The practice of grazing livestock in fields, rather than woods, may have been part of early specialisation in pastoral farming. The enclosure of flat riverside areas could have been an element in this process.

Assessing the role of woodland in the medieval period in the case study is hampered by a lack of evidence for past local farming practices. There is no clear evidence that the woods were managed as wood pasture and left unenclosed but neither is there any evidence for arable cultivation (which would imply enclosure of woods adjoining the arable fields) beyond the hints in Domesday Book, whose interpretation is, as always, difficult. Evidence for arable cultivation of other land

Exclusion of livestock from the woods would have allowed coppicing and the production of underwood for various purposes, including charcoal production. In Mounsey Wood (301.4, Dulverton), the remains of a hut close to platforms on the castle berm suggest production

92

nearby (not in the case study) is firmer. There is a similar lack of clarity in the exact relationship between woodland management and metal working, for which alternative accounts can be developed.

Certainty is not possible on the evidence now available but the writer’s tentative view is that the exploitation of woodland for charcoal in this case study was tightly tied to enclosure of fields and the consequent enclosure of woods by individual farms. A social and tenurial system which permitted those farmers a degree of freedom in their management of woodland may be consistent with early division of land into farming units which roughly correspond to those still in evidence, and with the production of metal, using fuel from woods within those units.

If metal working started in a largely unenclosed, well wooded landscape, then its need for charcoal could have been met at first from woodland clearance. Cleared areas could have been enclosed as fields until woods had shrunk to occupy only the valley slopes. Woods were then divided from adjoining fields by boundaries laid out on cleared land and production of charcoal from wood coppiced for the purpose became possible. In this scenario, metal working drives the development of the landscape by providing the impulse to clear land, which is then drawn into agricultural use. This narrative is simple and plausible but it is inconsistent with pollen evidence from other parts of Exmoor and its fringes, which does not show significant woodland clearance in the periods in which metal is known to have been worked in the vicinity of the case study (the 5th or 6th century and the 13th or 14th centuries A. D.) (Fyfe & Rippon 2004, 40; Fyfe et al. 2003, 27). This statement may need to be qualified after pollen samples taken during current excavations at Blacklake Wood (423, Dulverton) by the Exmoor Iron Project, have been analysed. It is possible that metal working in this part of the Barle Valley generated a special, local pattern of resource exploitation. A second, alternative reconstruction envisages early enclosure of open land, without wood clearance, solely in order to provide fields for arable or pasture. In the case study, enclosure of areas immediately downslope of the farms (assuming their early location was similar to that shown in Figure 4.4.1) would also enclose the adjacent woods, making coppicing possible. In this scenario, the driving force is the need to enclose. Metal working could then develop as a response to conditions of plentiful fuel. In the absence of more dated evidence from the metal working sites, local pollen studies and some further idea of the dates of field boundary construction in this area, no firm conclusions as to the relationships between metal working, enclosure and woodland management, are possible but there are a couple of points in favour of the second alternative. Firstly, the areas of smelting debris now visible at the known sites closest to the case study do not appear to be large (although any statements of this kind may need to be reconsidered after the results of excavation by the Exmoor Iron Project further down the Barle are known). The sites may not have produced on a scale and at a level of intensity which generated or required woodland clearance. Secondly, the view of metal working as a driving force lacks any sort of social or economic context and divorces it from its background of small farming communities, which may make the argument less plausible.

93

4.5 Setting the scene in the northeast:the Vale ofPorlock 4.5.1 Introduction TheVal eofPorl ock,whi ch i scl oset ot wo casest udi es (Hornerand Cul bone),hasanat uralenvi ronmentwhi ch is unique in the study area. Specialcharacteristics ofthe Val e’s l and use,and its woodl and management,have been investigated to provide background to the two nearby case studies and a contrast to l and use in other parts ofthe study area. The Val e was not itsel ftreated as a case study in this research and the writer is aware that this section,which is focussed principal l y on documentary evidence from the manor ofPorl ock,l eaves many avenues unexpl ored. The l ater socialand economichistory ofthe Val e is the subject ofongoing research by M r. Philip Ashford,to whom the writer is indebted for discussion and information on documentary sources.

four woods in the study area to l ie on compl etel y fl at ground surrounded entirel y by regul ar fiel ds. The form ofthe fiel ds surrounding both woods suggests modern encl osure. Other woods with unusual attributes are Timber W ood (125.4,Sel worthy & Luccombe),which is a rare case ofa wood l ying in two parishes,and Great W ood (108.2,Sel worthy),which possesses an unusual number ofinternalbanks. These were marked on the 1st OS 6 inch and stillexist. Larger woods lie on the sl oping l and on the fringes of the Val e,as shown in Figure 4.5.2. These incl ude W orthy W ood (485, Porl ock)to the west,a string ofwoods in Hawk Combe to the south-west,the Horner W ood compl ex to the south,and l arge,modern pl antations tothe north-east.

4.5.3 Landuse in the Vale

4.5.2 The environment The Val e ofPorl ock is a geographicalexpression for an area in the north-eastern quadrant of the study area, whose l ocation in rel ation tothe case studies is shown in Figure 4.5.1. It consists ofa l ow-l yingexpanse offl atter l and openingout tothe sea at its northern end,as shown in Figure 4.5.2. The Val e l ies between upl ands near Sel worthy Beacon to the north-east and the central upl ands of Exmoor to the south and west. The l and consists mostl y ofa coastalstrip,whose estuarine marsh was recl aimed at different periods,with pel o-al l uvial gley soils ofthe W allasea 1association (813f),which are extremel y unusual on and around Exmoor. The remainder ofthe Val e consists oftypicalbrown earths of the Newenham and Rivington associations (541w,541g and 541j). Settl ement is dominated by the town ofPorl ock,with severalvil l ages in or on the fringes ofthe Val e:Porl ock W eir (once a fl ourishingport),W est Porl ock,Luccombe, W est Luccombe, Horner, Al lerford, Sel worthy and Bossington. As indicated by Figure 4.5.2,l and in the Val e fal l s within more than one parish,whose boundaries suggest that access to the coast or the flattest land could have been factors shapingthis arrangement. M ost ofthe Val e fel lwithin the boundary ofthe RoyalForest.

The form offiel ds in the Val e has l ong been interpreted as showing past use as open fiel ds under arabl e cul tivation. This was the view taken in an earl y l ocal history (Chadwyck Heal ey 1901),which was noted and shared by more recent work (Gillard 2002,130). Other research has suggested that two places in the Vale, Al l erford and Porl ock,formed part ofa pre-Conquest multiple estate centred on Carhampton (Corcos 2002, 95). The distribution of places corresponding to names of entries in Domesday Bookconfirms the impression ofan area fully occupied and farmed from an early date. Entries referred to Allerford, Bossington, Doverhay, Holnicote (twice), Luccombe (twice), Porl ock and Selworthy,and the places now bearing those names are shown in Figure 4.5.2. Pl oughl ands were recorded in high numbers: Porl ock had l and for 12 pl oughs (DomesdayS,93a)and Luccombe’s two entries together had l and for 14(DomesdayS,97a,98a). Lords ofl and in the Val e had royalconnections. Queen Edith had hel d Sel worthy and Luccombe (DomesdayS, 97a) and the King’s Cl ergy hel d part of Hol nicote (DomesdayS,91c). The church seems to have been attracted by the Val e; Athel ney Church had hel d Bossington before 1066(DomesdayS,97a),where Neath Abbey al so acquired l and (in the opinion ofthe abbey’s historian)in the 12th century (De Gray Birch 1902,34). Buckl and Priory owned arabl e l and, meadows and woods at Linch in Sel worthy (Buckl and,58-61) and medievalfish weirs on the coast al so point to church interest (Somerset HER 33776). The entries in Domesday Book and the evidence for open fiel ds indicate that fl atter parts ofthe Val e coul d have been cl eared ofwoodl and at an earl y date. Further pressure may have come in 1366,when Sir NigelLoring was granted the right to impark his woods at Porl ock (Chadwyck Heal ey 1901, 253), which might have inhibited their use to suppl yl ocalneeds. The demand for wood coul d then have been met in twoways:by

W oods in the fl atter l and in the centre ofthe Val e are smal l ,both in number and in totalarea,as can be seen from Figure 4.5.2. They incl ude some unusualwoods. Al l erford Pl antation (131,Porl ock)is a rare exampl e ofa wood surrounded by regul ar fiel ds on a very gentl e sl ope and Butcher’s Pl antation (130,Porl ock)is one ofonl y

94

95 Figure 4.5.1: The Vale of Porlock and the case studies

NorthMol ton

Exford

Barl e

Porlock

THE VALE OF PORLOCK

0

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

Bremri dge

Sherracombe

Lynm outh

Cul bone

Dulverton

Horner

km

Carham pton

Boundaryof case study

W ood

Dunster

10

300

300 m

350m

0m 35

m

10 0

0m 30

km

250 m

0m

300m

20 0m

30 0m

20 0m

m 50

m

Horner Wood

0 20

Parish of Luccombe

Doverhay 100m

Porlock

Allerford Plantation

150m

Timber Wood

Lower Horridge Wood

Allerford

50m

Selworthy

100 m Luccombe

Holnicote

50 m

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

100

m

100m

Parish of Timberscombe (detached part)

250 m

Brakely Wood

Great Wood

Parish of Selworthy

250m

0m 30

1 0 0m

200m

Figure 4.5.2: Woods, parish boundaries and places mentioned in Domesday Book in and around the Vale of Porlock (DomesdayS)

30

m 250

Bossington

Parish of Porlock (detached part)

THE VALE OF PORLOCK Butcher' s Plantation

Hawk Combe

20 0m

Parish of Porlock

1

100m

Porlockford Plantation

The Parks

250m

m

0

50m

Worthy Wood

300 m

96

0m 35

100m

200m 10 0m

150m

20 0m

m

15 0m

50

200m

50m

100m

0m 15

100m

m 200 150

m

20 0

100m

m

Place-name mentioned in Domesday Book

Myne

Parish boundary

River

Wood

exploiting woods beyond the Vale and by managing the remaining woods in an appropriate manner.

apportionment award as ‘pasture and copse’. The ‘park’ element in the names may show that these were part of the area emparked in the 14th century and it is this writer’s view that ‘Porlock Wood’, ‘the Waste wood of West Porlock’ and ‘The Parks’ are all names for roughly the same wooded area and that the state of ‘pasture and copse’ recorded by the tithe map echoes its use three centuries earlier as wood pasture. If correct, this interpretation shows that woods on the slopes around the edge of the Vale were not invariably enclosed and coppiced. Some may have remained wood pasture into the 16th century and this use may have harmonised with their status as a park.

The first option may have been pursued from the preConquest period. Porlock’s entry in Domesday Book included pasture of 500 acres and woodland of 300 acres (DomesdayS, 93a). As there are large expanses of woodland and moor to the west and south-west of Porlock, the entry is consistent with exploitation of woods some distance from the Vale. Evidence for the second option, that of more effective woodland management in the Vale, is limited. Given the probable extent of arable farming and the physical environment, management of the woods in the central Vale might be expected to conform to the pattern in other parts of the country with similar economies and environments. Enclosure with ‘woodbanks’ and systematic coppicing would produce a greater quantity of underwood from a limited area.

Woodland management in the Vale up to the 16th century thus appears to have used different techniques: enclosure and (probably) coppicing in some places and wood pasture in others. This flexible approach was not entirely successful in meeting the local demand for woodland resources.

Some of the woodland archaeology points in this direction. Survey in the parish of Selworthy has shown the existence of woodbanks in three woods (which are all shown in Figure 4.5.2): Great Wood (108.2, Selworthy), Brakeley Wood (108.1, Selworthy) and Lower Horridge Wood (125.1, Selworthy) (Berry undated, 12) although it was noted that some of the ‘woodbanks’ had the appearance of ‘field boundaries’ (ibid., 10-11). There is also some documentary evidence of coppicing in the area of the Vale in an inquisition of 1345. This document referred to underwood (as well as timber) in a wood belonging to Elizabeth of Luccombe (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 58) although the exact location of the wood concerned is not clear. This evidence tends to confirm that enclosure with woodbanks and coppicing were employed in at least some of the Vale’s woods, as in other areas of the country.

Bailiff’s rolls for the manor of Porlock for 1422-23 refer to the import of wood from Wales. This was in the form of laths (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 436), which are thin strips used as support for plaster or similar material. Some timber for building was obtained from Horner Wood in 1425-6 (ibid., 442), which shows that large timber trees were still available locally. The lord of Porlock also held the Exmoor manor of Brendon, which is close to Countisbury, in the north-west of the study area, whose bailiff’s rolls for this period show that it actually produced an income from the sale of wood (ibid., 449 et seq.). The two manors offer contrasting conditions. Porlock was unable to produce a surplus of wood for sale and could not supply all local needs, while Brendon generated a surplus and cash income from wood. One of the reasons for shortage in the Vale may have been retention of wood pasture, so preventing systematic coppicing. Enclosure of emparked woods might have been prohibited in order to maintain the best possible habitat for deer and the persistence of unenclosed wood pasture may thus have owed as much to the lord’s need to display his status (by maintaining the park) as to conservatism in local grazing practices.

This solution to the problem of wood shortage may have been limited in extent. In 1525, the inventory of Cicely, Marchioness of Dorset, who then held the manor of Porlock, recorded that the right to pasture animals in ‘Porlock Wood’ was granted to seven tenants, of which three cases related to single animals and the remainder to larger herds or flocks. Some tenancies also had rights of common on moor or heath (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 412 et seq.). The grazing rights shows that, as wood pasture, ‘Porlock Wood’ was unlikely to have been coppiced and may not have been enclosed. A documentary reference in 1580 to the ‘Waste wood of West Porlock’ being used to pasture livestock (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 271) may refer to the same wood.

Another factor to be considered is the nature of local tenurial practices. Earlier documentary evidence, in the form of a deed of 1286, recorded that four acres of wood were granted with two acres of land in the manor of East Luccombe (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 48). Although this is not in the central part of the Vale (and the exact identity of the wood is not known), these terms suggest that it may have been local practice to grant woodland with other land, rather than retaining it in the lord’s hands.

The tithe map of the parish of Porlock (1841) did not show any wood under the name ‘Porlock Wood’ but it did show two adjoining parcels (Park Wood and Great Park) to the west of Porlock, in the location of the wood later named as ‘The Parks’(140, Porlock) (shown on Figure 4.5.2). Both parcels were shown without physical boundaries on the tithe map and were listed in the

The tithe map for the parish of Porlock (1841) might offer clues as to whether division and disposal of woods

97

was a general, long-standing practice in the Vale. It shows several woods such as Worthy Wood (485, Porlock) and Homebush or Holmbush Wood (138, Porlock), in Hawk Combe, divided by dotted line boundaries into small strips. Some individuals owned a number of such strips; for example, Abraham Phelps had 11 dispersed parcels, of which only one exceeded one acre in size. It is possible that these parcels may have had a medieval origin, perhaps forming part of farms’ holdings from an early date, and at least one observer has taken this tentative view of the woods in Hawk Combe (Teverson 1997, 55). If medieval, the existence of these strips might explain the absence of any cash income from wood in the manor’s accounts. The wood, or cash from its sale, might have accrued to farmers and not to the lord.

and she married her groom (who was 16 years her junior) shortly after the Duke’s execution, continuing to hold the manor of Porlock until her death in 1559 (Cannon 2002, 301). These events may have left lord and lady, and their stewards or bailiffs, no time to direct improvements in woodland management in Porlock, if they ever had any interest in it. In any event, the Marchioness, as a mere life tenant from 1554, may have lacked legal power. Even in the more productive manor of Brendon, one of the Marchioness’ woods was described in the bailiff’s rolls as consisting of ‘lesser timber and scrub’ (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 449-50), suggesting simple neglect. The Marchioness’ death in 1559 seems to have acted as a turning point, and in 1580 particulars for a lease recognised the need for change.

On balance, this scenario seems improbable and sparse documentary evidence points in other directions. In 1525, the inventory of Cicely, Marchioness of Dorset, listed the land included in the holding of each tenant of the manor of Porlock. None explicitly included any woodland. The inventory records instead that most of the tenants paid sums for ‘Woode Werght’, the right to take wood, implying that woodland remained the lady’s. The only exception was the tenancy of the bakehouse, which included land with ‘underwood’ but the underwood itself was ‘reserved to the lady’ (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 412 et seq.). The inventory does not suggest that tenant farmers invariably held parcels of woodland with their farms in 1525. It does not constitute conclusive evidence against the antiquity of such a practice, as the holdings listed in it are only a part of the Vale’s land and are not necessarily identical to the holdings possessing the small woodland parcels shown on the tithe map. However, if the tithe map’s woodland divisions were indeed medieval in origin, then some evidence of such a practice might be expected in the inventory of 1525.

The particulars of 1580 dealt with several woods around Porlock, including those in Hawk Combe and the ‘Waste wood of West Porlock’(Chadwyck Healey 1901, 271), which this writer identifies as The Parks (140, Porlock). The particulars referred to the poor state of woodland due to the lack of fencing and the practice of grazing cattle there in winter and summer. They laid down the practice to be followed in the future: underwood was to be used for hedging and enclosing the woods, which were to be coppiced, and timber was reserved to the lessor (ibid., 271 et seq). The imposition of these practices meant radical change. Unfettered pasture in the woods ended, livestock would have been forced to graze elsewhere. The production of underwood would have increased. It is significant that these changes appear to have been driven by the owner. There is absolutely no hint in the particulars that the proposed changes recognise or implement existing usage; on the contrary, they imply that farmers would need to change their grazing practices to accommodate the owner’s drive for profit.

Evidence of the shortage of wood suffered by the Vale of Porlock, first suggested in the bailiff’s rolls of the 15th century, also emerged in later documents. Legal proceedings in the 1570s over ownership of Horner Wood (described in the Horner case study) referred to a perceived dearth of wood and timber, and to use of the wood for grazing. Even Leland, as an outsider, commented on the local wood shortage (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 2-3).

These particulars were produced on the application of a groom of the Queen’s privy chamber (following the Crown’s acquisition of the manor by attainder and after the Marchioness’ death) (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 270). The particulars refer only to woodland and it is tempting to conclude that woodland was, by this date, recognised as a specialised, profitable asset distinct from arable or pastoral farmland. As income from the sale of underwood was variable and could be increased, woodland may even have been more attractive than farmland let out at fixed rents or premiums.

Further factors affecting woodland management may relate to the turbulent lives of the lord and lady of Porlock in the mid-16th century. The Duke of Suffolk, the 3rd Marquis of Dorset, who held the manor, was active in national politics and was executed in 1554 for his part in Wyatt’s uprising against Mary’s marriage to Philip of Spain. His property was forfeited but the life interest of his widow, Cicely, Marchioness of Dorset, in the manor of Porlock, could not be seized. The death of the Duke appears not to have destroyed her zest for life

Interest on the part of outside investors is one sign of the flourishing state of the economy of the Vale of Porlock in the 16th century, which included several activities using raw materials from woodland. High levels of demand by these non-farming enterprises were probably as important as low levels of supply, in creating the wood shortage noted by Leland and implied by other

98

D1799/ M51). By the early 19th century these parcels seem to have become extremely small; in the survey of 1824, F. Baston’s holding included 1 rood 32 perches of ‘wood in Great Wood’ and JGroves’ included 35 poles of wood in ‘Shillett Wood and Great Wood’ (GRO D1799/ M53).

evidence. The legal proceedings over Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) refer to bark, which was almost certainly supplied to local tanneries. This wood’s waterpowered smithy, which dates to this period, suggests an interest in investment and experiment with local materials and this period also saw the expansion of fishing as herring shoals moved in increasing numbers into the Bristol Channel from about 1580 (Ashford 2003, 30). Fishing consumed various resources: salt and wood in particular, for curing, smoking and production of barrels and even (possibly) fishing boats. The economy of the Vale of Porlock at this period therefore depended on woodland to provide raw materials: bark to the tanners, wood to the fishermen, charcoal fuel to the metal workers as well as household fuel to the population.

This evidence from the 18th and 19th centuries is consistent with the appearance of some woodland on the tithe maps in showing small, strip-like areas of woodland in the occupation of smallholdings. It does not, unfortunately, provide any further clues as to the origin of these small woodland parcels. As earlier discussion showed, there is no clear evidence for a medieval origin. Different explanations for their creation are possible. The small woodland parcels could have been laid out when ancient grazing rights in other woods were ended, perhaps in the late or post-medieval period. Alternatively, they could have been a post-medieval innovation, unconnected to the end of grazing rights and designed to encourage production of materials to supply the Vale’s other enterprises. The third possibility is that the inclusion of woodland parcels in leases may merely have formalised real practices. It is conceivable that the right to take wood, for which the tenants listed in the inventory of 1525 paid 1d or 2d, was in practice exercised by each tenant over a particular piece of woodland. The early 18th century leases might have recognised this fact and included the woodland in the tenant’s lease. In this case, the woodland parcels may have been defined by custom, if not by documents, long before. These hypotheses must remain speculative.

The particulars of 1580 show that landowners, anxious to profit from all these activities, recognised the importance of woodland and the scope for production of underwood, in particular. Widespread imposition of coppicing to achieve this aim would have been a radical change on three levels. At ground level, it amounted to a significant technological change, involving physical alteration of the landscape, as new boundaries were constructed. It would also have entailed change in the practices of the farmers who previously grazed their animals in the woods. Finally, it might have involved tenurial change, as traditional grazing rights were ignored in favour of the landowner’s de facto right to enclose. Later documentary evidence adds further material. The manor of Porlock was acquired from the Crown by two adventurers or ‘title hunters’ and sold on to Edward Rogers of Cannington (Comptroller of Queen Elizabeth’s household from 1560-65). In the late 17th century it was sold to the Winters-Blathwayt family (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 291-294) and some records of their management survive. Those records do not include any useful documents before about 1705, when the Blathwayts obtained possession from the Rogers branch of the family, but fairly detailed surveys after that date exist.

There is one small clue to another kind of woodland tenure in the Vale. The manorial survey of 1727 gave some information on a lease dated 20th April 1706 to Thos JJSparks which included ‘five acres of Common Wood by allotment and common of pasture’ (GRO D1799/ M45). The 1st OS 6 inch did not show any wood of this name in the Vale but the reference to allotment and the wood’s name are intriguing. Is it possible that some woods in the Vale had been shared (either as wood pasture or as coppice), rather along the lines of an open field, up to the 18th century? No other documentary references to such practices in the Vale or in other parts of the study area have been found by the writer.

These late manorial surveys show that many leases of houses or cottages then included a few acres of land and small areas of woodland. Typical examples were some of the leases listed in 1731, which granted a house, land and four acres of wood to William Slowley and a house, ten acres of land and five acres of wood to Robert Phelp (GRO D1799/ M46). Similar practice is revealed by other surveys dated 1752 (GRO D1799/ M50) and later. Most of the tenancies were for lives and much of the woodland granted in this way was located in Hawk Combe. In later surveys there are also frequent references to Great Wood (108.2, Selworthy). In a survey after 1790, for example, at least 11 of the listed tenancies included parcels of ‘wood in Great Wood’ and two were stated to include a ‘share’ in it (GRO

The references to ‘allotment’ in Common Wood and ‘shares’ in Great Wood (108.2, Selworthy) might be explicable in other ways. Great Wood (108.2, Selworthy) contains physical evidence of quarrying and internal boundary features. One observer has noted that the name of Clayhills Lane, which runs from Selworthy into the wood, probably refers to the type of stone quarried locally (Berry undated, 5). Mr. Philip Ashford, who has studied the Vale’s post-medieval history in depth, considers that a lime kiln could have existed nearby (P. Ashford, pers. comm.). The interior of the wood and the fields around it, still contain pits and other

99

feat ures(observed by t he wri t er)and i ti spossi bl et hat t he st one burnti nt he ki l n had been ext ract ed i n and cl oset o,t hewood. Thel easesofsmal lparcel sand t he ‘shares’ment i onedi n manori alsurveyscoul dhavebeen thetenurialstructureinwhichtheseactivitiestookplace. The earl i est document ary reference t ol i me ki l ns or l i mi ng i nt heVal edi scovered by M r.Ashford wasi na probat ei nvent oryof1679(P.Ashford,pers.comm. )and t he wri t er has found no earl i er evi dence. It can be assumed on present knowl edge t hat l i mi ng and l i me ury or l at er and t here i s ki l ns dat et ot he 17th cent t herefore not hi ng t o suggestt hatt he smal lwoodl and parcel si n GreatW ood (108. 2,Sel wort hy),i ft hey rel at e t ol i mi ngal one,wereori gi nal l yofmedi evaldat e.

4.6 Culbone 4.6.1Introduction St eep sl opes, sea vi ews, spi ndl yt rees and voraci ous i nsect sfeat ure promi nent l y when wal ki ng i nt he woods oft hi scasest udy,whi chofferssomeoft heharshestand mostdramat i c physi calcondi t i ons i nt he ent i re st udy area. The clifftop terrain contrastswith the othercase st udi esand,al ongwi t ht hearea’sl ackofroads,probabl y explains why its archaeology was overlooked until a surveywascarri edoutbyRi chardM cDonnel landKei t h Faxon(2002)fort heExmoorNat i onalParkAut hori t yas owneroft hewoods.

4.5.4 Conclusions Land i nt hecent ralpartoft heVal edi ffersfrom t hati n ot hercasest udi esi n bei ng fl atornearl y fl at ,l yi ng ata l ow al t i t ude and havi ng soi lofa t ype rare i nt he st udy area.Thephysicalenvironmentofthecentralpartisthat ofal owl andandevi dencesuggest st hatt hewoodst here share charact eri st i cs wi t h l owl and woods of ot her regi onsoft hecount ry:t heyadjoi nedarabl efi el dsi nt he medi evalperi odandhadbeenencl osedwi t hwoodbanks andcoppi ced. W oodsont hesl opi ngfri ngesoft heVal eareadi fferent mat t er. In spi t e of possi bl e wood short ages, wood past urecont i nued i n someoft hesewoodswel li nt ot he ury. Att hatt i me,di versi fi cat i on oft heVal e’s 16th cent economy seems t o have generat ed abrupt change i n woodl and management ,l eadi ng t oi t sexpl oi t at i on asan assetseparat e from ot her forms of l and,probabl yt o suppl yt heVal e’sgrowi ngi ndust ri es. Concl usi ons regardi ng l and use i nt he Val e generat e quest i ons about t he nearby case st udi es (Horner and Cul bone). Ist here any evi dence t hatt hei rwoodswere used i nt he medi evalperi od t o meetwood short agesi n t he Val e? W ere woods i nt hose case st udi es al so affect ed by changesi nt he Val e’seconomy oft he 16th cent ury or di dt hei r remot eness i nsul at et hem from change?

The ai m oft hi scase st udy i st o suppl ementand revi ew t hatworkandt odi scussi t si mpl i cat i ons.

4.6.2 Theenvironment The case st udy consi st soffourwoodson coast alcl i ffs westofPorl ock. Thewoodsareshown i n Fi gure4. 6. 1 and l i st ed i n Tabl e 4. 12, whi ch i ndi cat es physi cal characteristicsandthescore(‘PCA score’)ofeachwood i npri nci palcomponent sanal ysi s,whi chwasdescri bedi n Chapt er2.Thet hreel argestwoods,whi chal lsharet hei r names wi t h set t l ement s,have si mi l ar PCA scores The Soi lSurvey(1983)showst hatt hesoi l sarebrowneart hs oft heRi vi ngt on 2 associ at i on (541g),i n an areawhose geol ogy,shown on Sheet278 oft he Geol ogi calSurvey ofGreatBri t ai n(1997)(1: 50, 000),i sofM i ddl eDevoni an HangmanGrits. Thecasest udyfel li nt ot woSomersetpari shes:Cul bone and Porl ock, wi t h pari sh boundari es runni ng al ong combes on t he west ern edges ofYearnorW ood (479, Porl ock)and Embel l e W ood (481,Cul bone). Cul bone was a very smal l pari sh (somet i mes cal l ed Ki t nor), whi ch wasl at erabsorbed i nt ot he pari sh ofOare. The casest udyfel lwi t hi nt heboundari esoft heRoyalForest ofExmoorbutfrom t he14th centurywasinanareain whi ch Forest l aw was onl y part i al l y enforced (M acDermot 1939, 114-120). It i s now wi t hi nt he ExmoorNat i onalPark.Thewoodsweredepi ct edont he nch and al lwere l i st ed i n Engl i sh Nat ure’s 1st OS 6 i i nvent oryofanci entwoodl and. Thewoodsarenow ownedbyt heExmoorNat i onalPark Aut hori t yandremai npredomi nant l ydeci duousandopen t ot he publ i c. Adjoi ni ng l and i sencl osed and farmed, most l y for sheep. Set t l ement s consi st of di spersed farms,wi t ht he t own ofPorl ock l yi ng t ot he east . The (former) pari sh church of Cul bone i st ucked i nt ot he combeseparat i ngCul boneandYearnorW oods. M uch of t he avai l abl e evidence has already been considered by a preliminary archaeological survey (M cDonnel l& Faxon2002) butfurt heri nformat i onwas

100

0

Broomstreet

Em belle Wood

km

2

Twi t chen

100m

40 0

Withycom be Wood Ash

300m

0m Cul bone 20

50m

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

Figure 4.6.1: Woods and settlements in and around the Culbone case study

m

Sil combe

Pi ttPl antati on

250m

Culbone Wood

3 5 0m

101

Pit t W estcot t

Yearnor Wood

Yarner

150m

W ort hy

East cott

W orthy W ood

Porl ockBay

Farm/haml et

Church

Desertedsettl ement

W atercourse

Other wood

W oodi n case study

Table 4.12: Woods in the Culbone case study (EN indicates whetherincluded in English Nature’s inventory ofancient woodland) Name

Number Parish Size (ha) EN Y Y Y Y

Slope Highest contour (mid-pt)(mid-pt)(m) 5 in 10 220 7 in 10 270 5 in 10 270 6 in 10 270

PCA score (1st component) 3.199 3.653 2.792 1.554

Yearnor Wood Culbone Wood Embelle Wood Withycombe Wood Worthy Wood (not in case study)

479, Porlock 480, Culbone 481, Culbone 486, Culbone

60.55 104.94 39.73 5.71

485, Porlock

93.77

Y

3 in 10

3.478

gathered from tithe maps and other sources for this research. Relevant documentary evidence has been thoroughly investigated by Mr. Philip Ashford, who has written extensively on the social and economic history of the area. It is a matter of regret that his work on Porlock Weir from 1540 to 1837 (Ashford 2003) remains unpublished and the writer is greatly indebted to him for a copy and for stimulating discussion.

230

Withycombe Wood (486, Culbone) is the smallest in the case study. It contained a single charcoal platform and a boundary feature at a point where two footpaths join. Yearnor Wood (479, Porlock) lies at the eastern end of the case study. Its features were crowded into combes on its boundaries with adjoining woods. The southeastern combe adjoining Worthy Wood (485, Porlock) contained the only charcoal platform in Yearnor, together with other features associated with landscaping, such as paths, rides and ornamental planting of pine trees. ‘Military’ and ‘ritual’ features consist of wreckage from a plane crash in 1943 and a memorial to the victims. The remains of a building at the south-eastern end of the wood included sawn timber and was interpreted as being ‘associated with processing woodland products ‘ (McDonnell & Faxon 2002, 48). An enclosure on the ridge at the wood edge was considered to be pastoral (ibid., 23).

4.6.3 The evidence Archaeology and maps The features recorded in the preliminary archaeological survey (McDonnell & Faxon 2002) are summarised in Figure 4.6.2. Their spatial distribution is immediately obvious. Features were densest in Embelle Wood (481, Culbone), with 14 charcoal platforms on the seaward side of the wood, close to paths and tracks giving access to the beach, where a limekiln and ancillary buildings were tucked against the foot of the cliff (McDonnell & Faxon 2002, 59). Limekilns are a recognised feature of Exmoor and were fuelled with coal dust and brushwood (Atkinson 1997, 109-110), not charcoal. Remains in this wood included a square structure on the cliff top and a structure in an enclosure next to the beach which was interpreted as a bark drying house (McDonnell & Faxon 2002, 55-57). Two further stone structures were found and were thought to relate to nearby charcoal platforms (ibid., 78-79). Culbone Wood (480, Culbone) also contained a large number of charcoal platforms (25 in all) and, like the other woods, networks of tracks and paths. Several quarries were also noted. Although the number of features was high, their density was low in comparison to Embelle Wood (481, Culbone). Agricultural features in this wood included a D-shaped enclosure, which had not been shown on the 1st OS 6 inch, although a footpath was depicted crossing its location. Pollards grew in this enclosure and on its boundary (McDonnell & Faxon 2002, 31-32).

The HER for Somerset reveals significant features nearby. The deserted farm at Twitchen (Somerset HER 33847) (in the parish of Oare) is just outside the case study, as shown in Figure 4.6.1. Along with two other farms (Yearnor and Silcombe), Twitchen was noted as medieval by Aston (1983, 96-97). The HER also notes possible ‘Saxon period’ origins for parts of Culbone Church (Somerset HER 34855). Features relating to the Exmoor-Porlock railway, which date to the second half of the 19th century (Somerset HER 33046) fall outside the period covered by this study and will not be further described. The woods of the case study were depicted on the following maps: (i) Day & Masters’ map of Somerset (1782), which was uninformative, as it shows woodland inaccurately and incompletely; (ii) the 1st OS 1 inch; (iii) the Greenwoods’ map of Somerset (1822); (iv) sketch maps from the estate memoranda book of the Earl of Lovelace (17411840)(SRO DD/ CCH/ 3/ 3);and (v) the 1st OS 6 inch.

102

0

Broomstreet

Embelle Wood

km

2

Pitt Plantation

250m

Culbone Wood

40 0m

Silcombe

Withycombe Wood

Ash

300m

0m Culbone 20

50m

Pitt

Yarner

Yearnor Wood

150m

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

Feature Types

Westcott

Worthy

Eastcott

Worthy Wood

Porlock Bay

agricultural (6) agricultural,boundary (4) boundary (2) boundary,communications (1) building (3) communications (4) enclosure (1) industrial (51) military (1) ornamental (1) ornamental,communications (1) ritual (1) uncertain (3) w ater management (1)

Figure 4.6.2: Features recorded in survey of woods in the Culbone case study (McDonnell & Faxon 2002)

Twitchen

100m

Farm/hamlet

Church

Deserted settlement

Watercourse

Other wood

Wood in case study

350m

103

Figure 4.6.3: Sketch map of Culbone Manor from estate memorandum book of Earl of Lovelace 1741-1840 (SRO DD/ CCH/ 3/ 3) (with wood and farm names added). Reproduced by permission of Somerset Archive and Record Office

Figure 4.6.4: Sketch map of ‘Yarner’Manor from estate memorandum book of Earl of Lovelace 1741-1840 (SRO DD/ CCH/ 3/ 3) (with wood and farm names added). Reproduced by permission of Somerset Archive and Record Office

104

Relevant parts of the 1st OS 1 inch and the Greenwoods’ map were reproduced in the archaeological survey report (McDonnell & Faxon 2002, 18), where it was noted that all the maps mentioned in paragraphs i)-iii) and v) above, showed three zones: steep cliffs and woods, enclosed land with dispersed farms and the (then) unenclosed moorland (ibid., 18-19). The maps also contained minor inconsistencies in the precise area of woodland, which are not significant here.

case study. Culbone (under the name ‘Chetenore’) was recorded as land of the Bishop of Coutances and its entry stated: Drogo also holds Culbone from the Bishop. Before 1066 it paid tax for 1 hide and 1 virgate. Land for 2 ploughs. 2 villagers, 1 smallholder and 1 slave with 1 plough. Pasture, 50 acres; woodland, 100 acres. Value, 15s; when the Bishop acquired it, 5s. Osmund Stramin held these 2 manors before 1066. (DomesdayS, 87d, 88a).

The sketch maps drawn in the estate memoranda book of the Earl of Lovelace (SRO DD/CCH/3/3) are reproduced by permission of the Somerset Archive and Record Office in Figures 4.6.3 and 4.6.4. Some of the farm names (as recorded on the 1st OS 6 inch) have been added. The maps confirm that the woods in the case study were owned by the Earl of Lovelace (formerly Lord King) in the mid-18th century. The map of ‘Culbone Manor’ (in Figure 4.6.3) did not depict Embelle Wood (481, Culbone) separately, and its area was then included in Culbone Wood (480, Culbone). The maps also show that holdings in ‘Culbone Manor’ were compact, with the exception of that labelled ‘G’, which is intermixed with that of ‘H’. In the map of ‘Yarner Manor’ (in Figure 4.6.4), the holdings labelled ‘G’, ‘K’ and ‘B’, which centre on Yarner, are intermixed. In neither case, was woodland shown as part of any farm holding. The number of holdings (eight in Culbone and eleven in Yarner) is high.

Livestock were not mentioned, in spite of the acreage of pasture. The woodland is larger than that of nearby Oare (15 acres) (DomesdayS, 96d), but is dwarfed by that for Porlock, which amounted to 300 acres, together with 500 acres of pasture (DomesdayS, 93a). Other documentary evidence includes references in documents of the Royal Forest of Exmoor. The townships of ‘Kytenore’, ‘Yarnar’ and ‘Porlok’ together with their woods and moors were disafforested in 1301 (MacDermot 1939, 143-146). Disafforested townships had some rights of common in the Forest and were subject to some provisions of Forest law, as described in Chapter 1.

Tithe maps reflect the persistence of large, undivided woods in this area. That for the parish of Culbone (1838) proved to be puzzling in that the woods in the case study were shown and numbered on the map but were omitted from the apportionment award. There is no reason to suppose that ownership had changed since the date of the maps in the Earl of Lovelace’s memoranda book or that the woods were exempt from tithe in 1838 as glebe, barren land or land which had paid no tithe since time immemorial (Kain & Prince 2000, 3). The map of the parish of Porlock (1841), which formed the basis for Figure 4.6.5, was more informative and confirmed that Yearnor was still at that date, a hamlet consisting of three farms named as Stowey, Ridlers and Clayers. Yearnor Wood (479, Porlock) was still owned and occupied by the Earl, with the exception of a small enclosure in Worthy Combe, which was occupied as a meadow. No internal divisions of Yearnor Wood (479, Porlock) were shown, apart from boundaries of the meadow, the garden of Ashley Lodge and an enclosure, which was recorded by the tithe apportionment as a ‘plantation’ and had been noted by the archaeological survey (McDonnell & Faxon 2002, 22). The strip-like divisions of Worthy Wood (485, Porlock), as shown in Figure 4.6.5, offer a sharp contrast.

A further place close to the case study woods, which may have been referred to by Forest documents, is Ash, now an isolated farm about 0.5km to the south of Culbone church, as shown in Figure 4.6.1. Philip de Asse was mentioned in Forest pleas for 1257 although the place referred to may be Ash in Winsford (MacDermot 1939, 79). Ash farm in this case study is a longhouse (Aston 1983, 97-8) of medieval type, suggesting that the farm may be of an age consistent with the reference in Forest pleas. A further reference to Culbone (under its former name of Kitnor) was made in the Lay Subsidy of 1327, which listed ‘Willelmo de Kytenare ’ under Timberscombe (LaySub1327, 247), which is about 13 km away. If this document points to relationships between places, then it might suggest that, at some period, resources in the case study could have been exploited for the benefit of distant Timberscombe. The names of the woods throw little light on their history of use. ‘Culbone’ is thought to derive from the name of St. Columbanus (Ekwall 1959, 135; Watts 2004, 174) or St. Bueno (Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 85), to whom the church was dedicated. The earlier name of ‘Kitnor’ means ‘hill frequented by kites’ (Ekwall 1959, 135) or ‘kite ridge’ (Watts 2004, 174). The names of the other woods in the case study do not appear in the relevant published works (Gover et al. 1931; Gover et al, 1932; Gelling & Cole 2000; Watts 2004).

Documents and place-names Yearnor was not mentioned in Domesday Book, which contains only one entry relating to a place-name in the

105

4.6.4 Discussion Thei nvent oryoffeat uresrevealedbythearchaeological survey attributed charcoalplatforms to an ‘uncertain’ peri od and al lt he ot herfeat ures t o ‘postmedi eval ’or l at erperi ods(M cDonnel l& Faxon2002,7).Nopl at form was regarded as unequi vocal l y medieval in character (but ,i tshoul dbeadded,nonehasbeenexcavat edandno dat eabl emat eri ali savai l abl efrom anyofthefeatures,as farasthewriterisaware). The absence of woodl and feat ures rel at i ng t o expl oi t at i on i n t he medi eval peri od cont rast s wi t h evi denceforset t l ementand expl oi t at i on ofnearby l and. The farms of Yearnor,Si l combe and Twi t chen were t hought by Ast on (1983,96-98) t o be medi eval and Cul boneexi st ed i n someform i nt he11th century. The nat ure oft he t errai n and t he ent ry i n Domesday Book may poi ntt ot henat ureoft hei reconomi es:al ow l evel ofarabl ecul t i vat i on,wi t hsomel i vest ock.Itseemsl i kel y t hatt hemoorcoul d havebeen preferred aspast ureover t he woodl and,much of whi ch i s ext remel y st eep and exposed.The physi calcharact eroft he woodsdoesnot i ndi cat et hat ext ensi ve areas of wood past ure were present ,and t hi sfactmay poi ntt o an earl y di vi si on of woodsfrom fi el ds.Such a di vi si on i ssuggest ed by t he nchandbyext antst ub woods’depi ct i onont he1stOS 6i pol l ards(M cDonnel l& Faxon2002,20). The tithe mapsand the mapsfrom the Lovelace estate hi nt at pat t erns of occupat i on of farml and i n earl i er peri ods.Yearnor was ‘cl earl y a smal lhaml et ’ (Ast on 1983,98)whosefarmshel dt hei rl andi nt he18th century i nfragment ed,di spersedparcel s. Incont rast ,Cul bone’s hol di ngsweremorecompact . Itappearst hatl andi nt he t wo manors may have had di fferentt enuri alhi st ori es. There is no evidence in these maps as to how (or whet her)woodl and was di vi ded bet ween t he di fferent farms;indeed,on the evidence of the maps alone,it woul d appeart hatt hecasest udy woodsmay havel ong formedl argeuni t s,whi chmayhavebeenret ai nedbyt he lord. Thereremai nst hefactt hatCul bone’sent ryi nDomesday Bookreferredt owoodl and. Coul dt hewoodshavebeen exploited forcharcoalin the medi evalperi od,l eavi ng platforms which were perhaps re-used later? No excavat i ont oobt ai nsampl esofcharcoalforradi ocarbon dat i nghasbeencarri edout ,whi chcoul dprovi deposi t i ve evidenceasto date. Theform ofplatforms,asrecorded by sket chesmade duri ng survey and reproduced i nt he survey report(M cDonnel l& Faxon 2002)appearst o be morevari abl et han encount ered i n ot herExmoorwoods andi ti sjustpossi bl et hatt hephysi caldi fferencesmi ght poi ntt o di fferentperi odsofuse. Therei s,however,no publ i shed evi dence of any medi evalact i vi t y (such as met al product i on) i nt he vi ci ni t y, whi ch mi ght have requi red l argequant i t i esofcharcoalfuel . Thi sabsence of evidence reflects the lack of archaeological i nvest i gat i onoft hi sarea.

107

It seems more l i kel yt hat t he product i on of charcoal accompaniedotherformsofwoodlandexploitation(bark st ri ppi ng and t i mber fel l i ng) for whi ch document ary evidence survives from the post -medi evalperi od.The cl ust eri ng ofpl at forms i n cl ose proxi mi t yt ot he t hree wood processi ng si t es i s consi st ent wi t h a set of act i vi t i es desi gned t o use al lpart s oft he t rees. Bark coul d be st ri pped from a t ree, whi ch was fel l ed t o produce timber(to be transported down to the beach) andthesmallerbranchesorlowerqualitywoodcouldbe usedt ofi ret hel i meki l norconvert edt ocharcoal . Feat uresrel at edt ot heseact i vi t i esarel i mi t edt oCul bone W ood (480, Cul bone) and Embel l e W ood (481, Cul bone),whi l eYearnorW ood(479,Porl ock)possesses onl y asi ngl echarcoalpl at form and abui l di ng,possi bl y for processi ng woodl and product s. The scarci t y of evi dence forcharcoalproduct i on i nt he l at t erwood i s part i cul arl y st ri ki ng.It appears t hat t he woodmen of Cul boneand Embel l eweret ryi ng t o wri ng profi toutof t hewoodst hrough t hesl ow,l abour-i nt ensi veact i vi t y of charcoalproduct i on whi l et hoseofYearnorW ood(479, Porl ock)were not . The di st ri but i on ofact i vi t i es may suggestt hatt hoseworki ng i nt hewoodson t hewest ern si de oft he case st udy had t o meethi ghercost s.These coul d havebeen rent sorsi mi l arpayment st ot heowner but ,gi vent hel ocat i on,areequal l yl i kel yt o bet ransport charges.M ovi ng any art i cl esfrom t heseremot ewoods, part i cul arl y heavy l oads,woul d have been expensi ve. Convert i ng wood t o charcoalmay have been a way of reduci ng bul k,wei ghtand t ransportcost s and,att he same t i me,generat i ng i ncome. Act i vi t i es i n Yearnor W ood(479,Porl ock),bei ngcl osert oPorl ock,mayhave i ncurred l ower t ransport cost s,l eadi ng t o a di fferent pat t ernofwoodl andexpl oi t at i on. Thest ruct ureofownershi pandoccupat i onoft hewoods may al so have been rel evant . Yearnor W ood (479, Porl ock)wasdi rect l y managed by i t sowner,t heEarlof Lovelaceatthedateofthetithemapandpartwasbeing used as a plantation. A similar system of direct managementi nt he peri od when nei ghbouri ng woods wereproduci ngcharcoal ,mayhavel edt oasl i ght l yl ess i nt ense pat t ern of expl oi t at i on and l ower l evel s of charcoalproduct i oni nt hi swood. Ownershi p and managementoft hecasest udy woodsat t hedat eoft het i t hemapsmaybecomparedwi t ht hatof adjacentW orthyW ood(485,Porlock),wherethelargest area wasowned by FrancesDougl as(a memberoft he Bl at hwayt fami l y, who were l ords of t he manor of Porl ock).In cont rastt ot he woodsoft he case st udy,a numberofot heri ndi vi dual s al so owned smal lpat ches andst ri psi nt hi swood(asshowni nFi gure4. 6. 5),whose boundari es were most l y shown by dot t ed l i nes on t he t i t he map.M ostoft hese ownersal so hel d nearby l and, such as t he farm ofEast cot t(shown i n Fi gure 4. 6. 1). W oods of t he Bl at hwayt s and t hose of t he Earl of Lovelacethusofferverydifferentpatternsofownership.

There is no evidence that the distinct pattern of ownership in Worthy Wood (485, Porlock) is particularly ancient. A survey of the wood for Mrs. Douglas (Blathwayt) in 1824 referred to leases for lives of some parts of the ‘coppice wood’ having been ‘improvidently’ granted ‘several years ago’ (GRO D1799/ E76) and it is thus possible that the strips recorded by the tithe map represent these very late disposals. The ownership of the woods in the case study as single, large units not forming part of any farm’s holding may therefore be more likely to represent an ancient pattern than the scattered strips of Worthy Wood (485, Porlock).

In particular, the existence of local tanneries consuming bark in earlier periods would have been accompanied by production of bark for their needs, which could later blossom into an export trade. The bailiff of the Manor of Porlock in the late 17th century was Thomas Kent ‘Tanner’ (GRO D1799/ E174) and evidence of the dispute in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) in the 1570s (mentioned in the Horner case study) referred to loads of bark being removed from the wood. Tanning was a significant activity well before documents record the bark trade through Porlock. The scale of any possible export trade in bark and timber from the case study woods before the 18th century is unknown but its development would certainly have been facilitated by the coastal location and the improvement of Porlock harbour in 1700. There may have been other enabling factors at work. Ashford has found evidence for increased use of lime on land to enhance arable yields, from the 17th century and evidence for grain exports from the same period (Ashford 2003, 50-52). He has argued that a trade in grain served to create and develop links, which were then used to trade other products (P. Ashford, pers. comm.).

This statement must remain speculative as there is very little evidence of land use in and around the case study in the medieval period and in particular, very little evidence of medieval woodland exploitation. This problem evaporates in the post-medieval period. Documentary evidence of post-medieval trade in woodland products through Porlock has been investigated by Mr. Philip Ashford (2004). Official port records treated Porlock as a minor ‘creek’, attached to Minehead for purposes of administration, although it enjoyed trade in the 17th and 18th centuries which was independent of its parent (Hussey 2000, 11). Ashford found documentary evidence for the export of charcoal in port records, showing a load shipped from Porlock to Barnstaple in 1700 (Ashford 2004, 50) and a similar record of bark being shipped from Porlock to Newton in South Wales in 1733. Further records showed shipments of both bark and charcoal at later dates (ibid., 51).

Processes specifically affecting woodland may also have been operating from the late 16th century. Evidence of changes in woodland management at that time in the Vale of Porlock has already been outlined. Owners were becoming increasingly aware that woods’ potential value could only be realised by stricter management and direct assertion of private property rights. Were owners of the woods in t his case study also affected by this change in the climate of ideas? There is little in the landscape to suggest that the case study woods required enclosure at this period but owners may have been inspired by the prospect of gain to grant leases or licences of previously underused woodland to woodmen or tanners. Such arrangements were recorded in Culbone Wood in the early 19th century, when a tanner from Porlock was the lessee (Savage 1830, 71) and may have existed in earlier periods.

The entry in the list of Harbour Dues for the Manor of Porlock at 25th March 1723, which required payment of 1d to the Lord of the Manor for ‘every hundred weight of Barke’ passing through the harbour (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 473) suggests that trade in bark was established by that date. The strength of links with Wales are further emphasised by dues ‘for every pack or fardle from Wales’, ‘every Horse or Bullock from Wales’, ‘every score of sheep from Wales’ and ‘every bundle of Matts from Wales’ (ibid., 471-2).

4.6.5 Conclusions

The evidence for a flourishing trade in woodland products from Porlock in the 18th century points to the harbour as a key factor shaping the economic development of the area. The Blathwayt family, who held their Porlock estate from the early 1700s, arranged construction of a new quay building and seawalls; the specifications (GRO D1799/ E159) and agreement to build (GRO D1799/ E160) are dated 1700 and 1714 respectively. Ashford’s work on the history of Porlock Weir from 1540 to 1837 found some evidence for an earlier harbour in the Tudor period, noting that Camden referred to it (Ashford 2003, 15). Trade in the 18th century could have developed out of systems supplying local crafts or industries, which were rooted in earlier patterns of resource exploitation and trade.

There is little evidence of medieval exploitation of the woods of the case study. There is no sign of any phase of use as wood pasture and no indication that any parts of the woods were appropriated to the use of single farms. Given the difficult terrain, the woods may simply have been an underused resource until the post-medieval period. Savage’s (1830, 71) description of bark production in the case study shows commercial exploitation in the early 19th century to supply tanners in Porlock. There are three possibilities for such exploitation in earlier periods. Firstly, the case study woods could have supplied wood for domestic and other purposes to meet the general shortage in the Vale of Porlock, which, it was suggested

108

in thepreceding section,may haveexisted from atleast t he 15th century. There is no clear evidence for managementoft he case st udy woodsfort hi spurpose. Indeed,t he reference i nt he 1327 Lay Subsi dy,mi ght hi ntatexpl oi t at i on i n earl i erperi odsfort he benefi tof di st ant Ti mberscombe, rat her t han nearby Porl ock. Secondl y, t he case st udy woods coul d have been expl oi t ed t o suppl y raw mat eri al st oi ndust ri es whi ch devel oped i nt heVal eofPorl ock from t he16th century. Again,there isno evidence forsuch earl y expl oi t at i on but ,i nt hewri t er’svi ew,barkcoul dhavebeenproduced on acommerci albasi sl ong beforet hereferencet oi tby Savage(1830,71). Fi nal l y,commerci alexpl oi t at i on of t he case st udy woods coul d have occurred onl y aft er devel opment of Porl ock’s harbour i nt he earl y 18th cent ury. It remai ns possi bl e t hat nearl y al lt he archaeol ogi calfeat ures di scovered by M cDonnel land Faxon(2002)dat efrom t hi sl at eperi od. The Cul bone case st udy has shown t hatcont emporary vi ews of t he ‘remot eness’ of upl and woods may overlook thepotentialoftransportby sea.Accessto the sea may have faci l i t at ed commerci al expl oi t at i on of woodsi nt hi scasest udy,whi cht urnedawayi nt hepost medi eval(and modern)peri odsfrom purel yl ocalneeds t owardst hoseoft hewi dereconomy.

4.7 Horner 4.7.1 Introduction Theareaofwoodl andt owhi cht hename‘HornerW ood’ i s now commonl y appl i ed i s a compl ex of woods of whi ch one el ementwasnamed i nt he 1st OS 6 inch as ‘HornerW ood’. The convention here willbe to apply t hename‘HornerW ood’t ot hatel ementand‘t heHorner W oodcompl ex’t ot heent i regroupofwoodsi nt hecase st udy. For reasons expl ai ned i nt he Previ ew, some evi dence i n t hi s case st udy wi l l be present ed chronol ogi cal l y. The wri t er i s great l yi ndebt ed t o M r.Phi l i p Ashford, who i sengaged i n research on t hesoci aland economi c hi st ory of t he Val e of Porl ock, for i nformat i on on document ary sourcesrel evantt ot hi scasest udy and for st i mul at i ngdi scussi on.

4.7.2 Theenvironment Thecasest udy,whi chi sshowni nFi gure4. 7. 1,consi st s of19 woodsl yi ngont hesl opesofHornerW at erandi t s tributaries,between Dunkery Beacon and Porlock.The constituentwoods are listed in Table 4. 13,which also i ndi cat essomephysi calcharact eri st i cs.W oodl andi nt he Horner W ood compl ex i s mai nl y deci duous and t he predomi nantspeci esi soak. Thesoilsofthecasestudy,asshownont heSoi lSurvey (1983) are mai nl y ferri c podzol s of t he Larkbarrow associ at i on(633)andbrowneart hsoft heRi vi ngt on2 associ at i on (541g).The underl yi ng geol ogy,shown on Sheet s294 and 278 oft he Geol ogi calSurvey ofGreat Bri t ai n (1974; 1997) (1: 50, 000),i s of Hangman Gri t s, whi ch are sandst one wi t h shal es,si l t st onesand quart zpebbl econgl omerat es. The case st udy fel li nt ot wo pari shesoft he Count y of Somerset :St okePeroandLuccombe,whoseboundaryi s i ndi cat edonFi gure4. 7. 1.Thecasest udywaswi t hi nt he RoyalForestofExmoorbutnoti nt hecore(‘t heregard’) ury,asshowni nFi gure1. 6.Forest from t hel at e13th cent l aw woul dnothavebeenful l yappl i edfrom t hatperi od. M ostoft hewoodsi nt hecasest udy arenow owned by t he Nat i onalTrustaspartoft hei rHol ni cot e est at e and are open t ot he publ i c.The case st udy i s wi t hi nt he boundary oft heExmoorNat i onalPark and mostoft he l andformsanat i onalnat urereserve. Surroundi ngl andnow i ncl udesopenmoorandencl osed farml and,where set t l ement sconsi stofdi spersed farms and haml et s,wi t ht hevi l l agesofLuccombe,Hornerand W estLuccombe t ot he eastand t he t own of Porl ock l yi ngl esst han1 km t ot henort h. The di st ri but i on of archaeological features, the charact eri st i cs of t hewoodsasdepi ct edi nvari ousmaps

109

Table 4.13: Woods in the Horner case study (EN indicates whether included in English Nature’s inventory ofancient woodland) Name

Number Parish Size (ha) EN

Whitburrow Wood Tarr Ball Wood Pool Wood Wilmersham Wood Rowbarrow Old Wood Bagley Wood Parsons Wood Stoke Wood Goss’s Rocks (Unnamed) (Unnamed) Ten Acre Cleeve

157, Luccombe

5.68

159, Stoke Pero 3.95 160.1, Stoke Pero 8.19 160.2, Stoke Pero 23.20

161, Luccombe 9.95 162, Luccombe 6.12 163, Stoke Pero 6.09 164, Stoke Pero 0.88 165, Stoke Pero 29.20 166, Luccombe 12.22 167, Stoke Pero 0.35 168, Luccombe 18.02 169, Luccombe 16.91 & Stoke Pero Horner Wood 170, Luccombe 118.44 Parsons Wood 171, Luccombe 15.39 Horner Side 177, Luccombe 2.72 Cloutsham Ball 178, Luccombe 32.80 Cloutsham 179, Luccombe 1.83 Cleeve Sideway Wood 180, Luccombe 16.16

Y

Slope Highest contour PCA score (mid-pt)(mid-pt)(m) (1st component) 3 in 10 280 0.760

N Y Y

4 in 10 6 in 10 4 in 10

270 280 270

0.043 1.568 2.348

Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y

4 in 10 5 in 10 6 in 10 4 in 10 4 in 10 3 in 10 7 in 10 5 in 10 6 in 10

270 310 320 290 300 180 260 310 250

1.794 1.091 1.376 -0.047 1.826 1.602 -0.653 1.517 0.860

Y N N Y Y

3 in 10 4 in 10 6 in 10 3 in 10 6 in 10

290 200 150 270 270

5.284 1.236 0.784 2.999 0.934

Y

4 in 10

300

1.587

and the wood names will be reviewed before grouping evidence chronologically.

34458), around Stoke Pero (Somerset HER 34459), Bagley (Somerset HER 34460), Wilmersham farm (Somerset HER 34461) and Sweetworthy (Somerset HER 34462). Such features are often considered postmedieval (Muir 2000a, 212-213).

4.7.3 Archaeology, maps and names Three archaeological surveys by McDonnell (1994), Berry (1995) and Juleff (2000) have been carried out for the National Trust and a vegetation survey was carried out by Teverson (1995). The National Trust has kindly made copies of all the reports available to the writer. The writer has also surveyed a part of Horner Wood (170, Luccombe), which had not been examined in detail in previous surveys. The Horner Wood complex has been the subject of palynological study but this has aimed at establishing tree lines in prehistory (Tinsley 2001, 1) and so has little direct relevance to the period covered by this research.

Some implications of the archaeological evidence will be discussed within the chronological account below but spatial patterns are immediately clear. Figure 4.7.3 shows that features (other than charcoal platforms) are relatively sparse in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe). Figure 4.7.2 shows charcoal platforms densely clustered in Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) and in certain parts of Horner Wood (170, Luccombe). A map was drawn by Alexander Law in 1809 as part of an estate survey and the extant sheet (DRO 1148m/ add) includes the case study. The map was accompanied by a list of parcels, whose front cover showed the title ‘Manors of Wilmersham West Luckham & Stock Pero’. This map will here be called ‘the 1809 estate map’. Its depiction of potentially ancient patterns of land use has been used by others, especially Chadwyck Healey (1901). Copies of the 1809 estate map and the list of parcels were provided by Isabel Richardson (Archaeologist at the National Trust’s Holnicote Estate), to whom the writer is grateful.

The features recorded in the archaeological survey reports and during the writer’s own survey are listed in Appendix VIII. There are too many for a single map to be informative and platforms (of which the majority were interpreted as charcoal platforms) are shown in Figure 4.7.2, with all other types of feature being shown in Figure 4.7.3. In addition to features listed in Appendix VIII, the county HER also notes water meadow systems near Cloutsham Farm (Somerset HER

111

The 1809 estate map covered most of the case study woods and included small areas of adjoining land. The accompanying list of parcels recorded the cultivation of woodland broadly as ‘furze & waste’. The name of the holding of which each parcel formed part is shown in Figure 4.7.4. As the 1809 estate map does not depict the entire estate, only some of the holdings to which woodland parcels belonged, can be definitely identified. In many cases, the location of the cottage or farm (if any) is not known.

iii)

Subdivisions of Horner Wood (170, Luccombe), Rowbarrow (161, Luccombe) and Goss’s Rocks (166, Luccombe), which appeared in the estate map of 1809, were not shown on the tithe map. It therefore appears that woods in the two parishes of Stoke Pero and Luccombe may have had different tenurial histories. Those in Stoke Pero maintained their fragmented character, while those in Luccombe were either undivided or had coalesced into larger units by the date of the tithe maps.

The 1809 estate map was contemporary with the 1st OS 1 inch. Both predated the Greenwoods’ map of Somerset (1822) by around 13 years and their depiction of woods may be compared with that of the earlier map of Somerset by Day & Masters (1782) and also with that of the 1st OS 6 inch, which is shown in Figure 4.7.5.

Comparison of the tithe maps (1839 and 1840) with the 1st OS 6 inch showed further significant differences. Many of the subdivisions of woods in Stoke Pero were not recorded at all in 1889 but the Ordnance Survey surveyors recorded other changes in the names of woods. It is impossible to know whether these discrepancies reflected a real change in woodland boundaries or whether the Ordnance Survey surveyors simply decided to disregard some of the smaller subdivisions of woodland. Figure 4.7.7 shows names of the parcels on the tithe maps. The names Emmetts Side Wood, Little Lords Wood, Lords Wood, Prickslade Wood, Kempscombe Wood and Little Combe Wood did not appear in the 1st OS 6 inch. To add to the chaos, the 1st OS 6 inch recorded some new names. For example, ‘Wilmersham Wood’ does not appear at all on the tithe map, that part of woodland being called ‘Stoke’ or ‘Stock’ Wood. Stoke Wood (165, Stoke Pero), as defined for the 1st OS 6 inch, was shown on the tithe map as Lords Wood and Stoke Church Wood. Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) was simply called ‘Wood’ on the tithe map.

The earliest map, that of Day & Masters (1782), shows little woodland to the west and north of Stoke Pero and only limited cover on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe). Comparison of the depiction of woodland in the other maps showed that: i) Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) and the area immediately to the south and southwest of Horner village were shown with few or no trees on the 1st OS 1 inch but were shown with more tree cover on the 1st OS 6 inch; ii) The Greenwoods’ map (1822) showed more trees in the areas mentioned in paragraph i), with a clearly defined rectangular strip of trees to the south-west of Horner village; iii) The 1st OS 1 inch showed Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero) as far smaller than on the Greenwoods’ map (1822) or the 1st OS 6 inch; iv) In contrast, the representation of Stoke Wood (165, Stoke Pero) and Ten Acre Cleeve (169, Luccombe & Stoke Pero) was broadly similar on all maps; and v) Tree cover in the area of Cloutsham Cleeve (179, Luccombe) and Sideway Wood (180, Luccombe) was lowest in the 1st OS 1 inch.

This confusion suggests that many divisions of woods, which may have been of considerable age, either did not exist on the ground or were considered insignificant at the time of survey for the 1st OS 6 inch, which took place in 1888. If the tithe map had been based mainly on the 1809 estate map, then the discrepancies between the tithe map and the 1st OS 6 inch may be explained in one of two ways. Considerable changes to the practice of woodland tenure and management may have occurred in eighty years (from 1809 to 1888) and old boundaries may have been removed. Alternatively, the 1809 estate map may have recorded ancient woodland divisions, which had already become unimportant in practice by that date, but were still maintained as legal parcels. By the date of the 1st OS 6 inch, those old woodland divisions had become entirely obsolete and were then dropped completely.

Ownership, as recorded by the tithe maps and apportionment awards for the parishes of Luccombe (1840) and Stoke Pero (1839) is shown in Figure 4.7.6. Comparison with the pattern of holdings in the estate map of 1809 (as shown in Figure 4.7.4) revealed that: i) Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) was a single unit in both the tithe map and the 1809 estate map; ii) Woods in the parish of Stoke Pero were broadly similarly divided in both the tithe map and the 1809 estate map, with Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero) in particular having many subdivisions; and

The 1st OS 6 inch provided the names of woods, as recorded at that date, but their meaning offers little information as to past land use. Where meanings have been found in published work on place-names (Ekwall 1959; Watts 2004), they are shown in Table 4.14.

114

‘St ock W ood’, t heformernameofW i l mersham W ood (160.2, St oke Pero), coul d refert ot ree st umps (W at t s 2004, 576)ratherthan to the settlementofStoke Pero. The element ‘-ley’ in Bagley probably refers to woodl andcl earancei nt heareaand‘–ham’i nCl out sham and W i l mersham poi nt s t o earl y set t l ement s but ot herwi se, t henames’meani ng i sel usi ve. Theori gi n of t he name HornerW ood (178, Luccombe)i suncert ai n. Insomedocument soft heRoyalForest ,i twasnamedas ‘Arnor’(M acDermot1939, 82)and one suggest i on i s t hat t he name deri ves from Ol d Engl i sh ‘hwrnwr’, meani ng ‘t hesnorer’, and referst ot hesound ofHorner W ater(Burton 1952, 137). Anot herpossi bi l i t yi st hat t he name i s modern, bei ng t hatofThomasHorner, an unpl easantcharact erwhoacqui redl andi nSomersetaft er t heDi ssol ut i on(W yndham 1979, 70). Names on t he t i t he map (as shown i n Fi gure 4.7.7) included Lords W ood and Little Lords W ood, which may show somespeci alrel at i onshi p wi t ht hel ord oft he manor. The name ofPri cksl ade W ood, whi ch appeared on t he t i t he map, shares i t s name wi t h a nearby set t l ement , whi ch was shown on t he 1st OS 1 inch as ‘Bracksl ade’ and on t he Greenwoods’ map (1822) as ‘Brakslade’. The firstelementof these names could derive from Old English ‘braec’, meaning a strip of uncul t i vat edl and(Goveret al. 1931, 30), whi chappears as ‘brake’elsewhere in the study area, forexample in Hopcot tBrake (13, M i nehead). Al t ernat i vel y, i tmi ght derive from the Pero family name, which occurs in ‘St oke Pero’ and whi ch was recorded i n 13th century document sas‘Pyro’(M acDermot1939, 82-83).

4.7.4 Before the Conquest Intheabsenceofexcavation, thereisnoclearideaofthe ori gi nanddevel opmentof set t l ementandl andusei nt he pre-Conquest peri od i n t hi s case st udy. Ent ri es i n Domesday Book record namesofplaces(W ilmersham, St okePero and Bagl ey)whi ch now l i every cl oset ot he woods. Each ofthese settlementscould have been old byt he11th century.

4.7.5 From the Conquest to 1500 Allevidencepointstorelativelydensesettlementaround t he case st udy i nt he medi eval peri od. Ent ri es i n Domesday Book record information for three places. Wi l mersham washel d by t he Bi shop ofCout ancesand i t sent ryst at ed: W ILM ERSHAM Drogo hol ds from hi m. Before1066i tpai dt axfor1 hi deand1 vi rgat e of l and. Land for 5 pl oughs, of whi ch 3 vi rgat es are i nl ordshi p; 1 pl ough t here; 3 sl aves; 5 vi l l agersand 3 smal l hol derswi t h1 pl ough& 3vi rgat es. Past ure, 200 acres; woodl and, as much. 5cattle;40 sheep;30 goats.

119

Val ue, 30s. (DomesdayS,87d, 88a) Thisacreageofwoodland isexceeded in thestudy area onl y by t hat for Porl ock, for whi ch 300 acres were recorded(DomesdayS, 93a). St oke Pero bel onged t o Roger of Courseul l es and i t s ent ryst at ed: Rogerhol dsSTOKE (Pero)hi msel f. Ai l hal l a(?) hel di tbefore1066;i tpai dt axfor ½ vi rgat e of l and. Land for 2 pl oughs. 1 pl ought here, wi t h1 sl ave; 2smal l hol ders. Past ure, 50 acres;woodl and, 60 acres. 5cattle;7 pigs;20 sheep;20 goats. Theval uewasandi s5s. (DomesdayS, 94a) Bagl eyi st het hi rdrel evantent ryandi st heonl ymember ofthisgroup ofthree places, which isnow a deserted si t e. DomesdayBookrecordsi tast hepropert yofRoger ofCourseul l es: Kafliholds‘BAGLEY’from Roger. Heheldit hi msel fbefore1066;i tpai dt axfor½ vi rgat eof l and. Inl ordshi p1 pl ough;1 furl ong. 2 smal l hol ders have ½ pl ough & 1 furlong. Past ure, 50acres;woodl and, 12acres. Theval uewas12d, now 40d. (DomesdayS, 94a). Three other nearby places were also mentioned: Holnicote, Luccombe and Doverhay. Luccombe was, l i ke Sel wort hy some 2 km t ot he nort h, formerl yt he propert yofQueenEdi t h(DomesdayS, 97a). Lat er document ary evi dence refers t o woodwards, appointed in accordance with Forestlaw. They were l i st ed i n 1257 (M acDermot1939, 82-83)and det ai l sare shown i n Tabl e4.15, whi ch al so l i st sot herwoodwards i nt hevi ci ni t y, gi vi ngat ot alofei ghti nanareaofabout 7sq. km. Thi sprol i ferat i onofoffi ci al smayi ndi cat et he i mport ance of t hese woods t ot he Forestand perhaps suggestt hatl ocall anduseposedt hreat st ot hedeer’s habi t at . The l i stof1257 namesonl y fourwoodsi nt he casest udy, whi chmaysuggestt hatdi vi si oni nt osmal l er uni t s, asshown on l at ermaps, had notoccurred by t he ury. Al t ernat i vel y, each wood named in thelist 13th cent may represent delineation of responsibility and may act ual l y have covered severalphysi cal l y separat e areas ofwoodl and. The Forestperambul at i on of1298, whi ch di safforest ed the case study, mentioned ‘W ynermeresham’ [W i l mersham], ‘St oke’ [St oke Pero] and ‘Chi t t esham’ [Cl out sham]‘wi t ht hewoods’(M acDermot1939, 139), asdi di t sconfi rmat i on by Let t ersPat enti n 1301 (ibid., 145). W oodswereal so ment i onedi namemorandum of

Table 4.15: Woodwards and owners in and around the Horner case study,as listed in 1257(M acDermot 1939,82-83) Woods in the case study Woodward Wilmersham Wood William Russell Arnor Wood [Horner] Roger de Stapel Stoke Wood John of Stoke Chaudesham Wood [Cloutsham]William Scorte

Owner Philip of Luccombe Philip of Luccombe Richard Pyro Richard of Cloutsham

Woods outside the case study Dovery Wood Adam Spark Bugedehole Wood [Buckethole] John le King Lege Wood [Woodcock’s Ley?]Henry Broun Luccombe John of Holte

Adam Spark The Prior of Taunton Geoffrey le Troc John of Luccombe

Table 4.16: Description of land in a charter of Taunton Priory of 1334 (Hugo 1860,29et seq.),with summary

‘… of Ralph le Tort, of four ferlings of land at Wynemersham & c; of Reginald le Tort, son of aforesaid, of all his land of Luycot, and of all his wood of Chiddescumbe, of ground for the erection of a mill in Lytlecoumbe, of the watercourse of Luycot, liberty in the moors belonging to Wynemrsham, of the wood of Luycot, the end of the wood of Yelescumbe and ten hogs with free feed in the wood of Wynemersham; of Ralph le Tort, of all his land of Luycot; of the same, of the liberties pertaining to the manor of Wilmersham; of Richard de Wrotham, of all his land at Luycot with all its appurtenances; … . of Geoffrey, son and heir of Philip de Luccombe, of the land of Buggedehole, with its appurtenances, liberties and customs; of the same Geoffrey, of thirty hogs with free feed in the woods of the same Geoffrey… .’

Summary:

Donor Ralph le Tort (father)

Land 4 ferlings at Wilmersham All his land of Lucott Liberties of manor of Wilmersham

Reginald le Tort (son)

All his land of Lucott, All his wood of Chiddesham Ground for erection of mill at Little Combe Watercourse of Lucott Rights over moors of Wilmersham Wood of Lucott End of the wood of Yealls Combe 10 hogs with feed in wood of Wilmersham

Richard de Wrotham

All his land AT Lucott with appurtenances

Geoffrey (de Luccombe) The land of Buggedehole with appurtenances, liberties, customs 30 hogs with free feed in Geoffrey’s woods

120

1316, which listed townships outside the core of the Forest. The memorandum referred, inter alia, to the woods of ‘Legh Wodecoke, of Wynemersham [Wilmersham], of Stocpyro [Stoke Pero], of Cloudesham, of Horner …’ (ibid., 155).

least partly derived from their use as pasture, as other contemporary references to pannage would indicate. The preceding documentary references give little clear idea of the manner in which the Horner Wood complex was exploited in the period up to the 14th century beyond the reference to pannage in the wood of Wilmersham and the absence of underwood in Elizabeth’s wood.

Forest documents also referred to verderers, officials whose concern was the preservation of deer and the prevention and prosecution of poaching (MacDermot 1939, 30). The name Cloutsham was mentioned on three occasions: John Cloudesham was a verderer in 1362 (ibid., 99); William Cloutsham was verderer before his death some time around 1422 and another person of the same name (perhaps his son) was removed from the office of verderer around 1431 (ibid., 71).

The density of medieval settlement may be indicated by Figure 4.7.8, which shows settlements in the vicinity which have been shown to have functioned in the medieval period by archaeological or documentary evidence. This depiction is chronologically flat; almost any of the settlements could have been in existence at the date of Domesday Book - or those not recorded in Domesday Book could have developed at any time thereafter. The exception is the settlement at Ley Hill, whose lynchets and field boundaries were also shown on Figure 4.7.3 and whose partial excavation has provided material dating it to the 13th and 14th centuries (Grace & Richardson 2001, 172).

The list of woodwards of 1257 included the Prior of Taunton as owner of Buckethole Wood (outside the case study). The Priory’s charter of 1334 recited earlier grants and donations of land in and around the case study, which are summarised in Table 4.16 (Hugo 1860, 29 et seq.). These included Lucott with its wood and Buckethole, which both lie on the slopes of Hawk Combe, (shown in Figure 4.7.1) outside and to the north of the case study, as well as land at Wilmersham. It is impossible to identify the Priory’s property exactly but the terms of the grant suggest a small estate, perhaps in scattered parcels, with different elements: cultivation, pasture and milling. Its references to the ‘wood of Chiddescumbe’ and the ‘end of the wood of Yelescumbe’ are intriguing. It is conceivable that ‘Chiddescumbe’ could refer to Cloutsham and that ‘Yelescumbe’ could refer to the part of Horner Wood called Yealls Combe. If so, then Taunton Priory was, at some period, owner of a substantial part of the Horner Wood complex. The grant mentioned pannage in the woods of Wilmersham (and Buckethole).

Figure 4.7.8 includes settlements whose existence was inferred from names in the 1327 Lay Subsidy: Littlecombe, Sweetworthy, Bagley, Prickslade, Blackford, Cloutsham, Luccombe and Lucott (Aston 1983, 94). Two of these (now deserted) settlements (Prickslade and Bagley) survived as holdings into the 19th century and were recorded in the 1809 estate map. The reference in the 1327 Lay Subsidy to Cloutsham is in the name of ‘Johanne de Clouteshamp’, who was listed, not under Luccombe, but under Timberscombe, some 7 km away (LaySub1327, 247). There is no obvious reason for any relationship between Cloutsham and Timberscombe, which was later, as shown in Figure 1.7, a fragmented parish.

Documentary evidence of a dispute in the late 13th century concerned woodland in Luccombe although it is not clear whether this concerned any of the case study woods. Margery de Holt claimed from Hugh de Lucumbe the right to take wood for repairs (estovers) from Hugh’s woods in Luccombe. The settlement allowed Margery six cartloads of alder yearly although she gave up any claim to oak (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 224). The dispute shows the value of wood, particularly oak, to landowners and occupiers in and around Luccombe.

Medieval settlement at Prickslade is indicated by both documentary and archaeological evidence. It was mentioned in the coroner’s roll for 1320, when the death of ‘Thomas de Pyrkeslade’ was recorded after a beam of his forge fell on his head (Coroner1315, 459). This indicates that metal working (probably of iron) was being carried on at Prickslade, which could have used charcoal fuel from nearby woods. ‘Stephano de Pyrkeslade’ was mentioned in the 1327 Lay Subsidy but his name was not recorded under Stoke Pero, as might be expected, but under Almsworthy (‘Almandeswythi’) (LaySub1327, 248). Almsworthy, mentioned in Domesday Book (DomesdayS, 94a), was one of two manors which later formed the parish of Exford (MacDermot 1939, 194) and may have covered several scattered settlements in the area around modern Exford (Darby & Welldon Finn 1967, 146). Exford is between 6 and 7 km from Prickslade.

A reference to woodland management was implied in an inquisition post mortem describing the estate of ‘Elizabeth of Lucombe’, who died in 1345. It stated ‘there are 40 acres of great wood, the pasture of which is worth nothing by reason of the shade, neither is there any underwood’ (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 58). Again, the identity of this wood is not clear but the description suggests a wood of standard trees, left to grow to maturity, without coppicing. It also confirms that the value of other woods in Luccombe at this time was at

The idea of a relationship between Almsworthy and Prickslade is supported by the Forest’s roll of woodwards of 1257, which lists them in the following

121

order: Stoke…., Buckethole, Ley Woodcock, Horner, Wilmersham, Almsworthy and Cloutsham (MacDermot 1939, 82). This places Almsworthy between Wilmersham and Cloutsham and reflects Prickslade’s spatial position in relation to those woods. The coroner’s roll recording Thomas de Pyrkeslade’s death in 1320, also clearly stated that Pyrkeslade was in Almsworthy tithing (Coroner1315, 459).

estate map. Both were part of the holding of Bagley (which was then called ‘Bagley and Hagley’) and both were detached parcels close to the Stock Church Tenement, some distance from the compact, main part of Bagley’s holding (as shown in Figure 4.7.4). The tithe map (1839) did not record ‘Bagley Wood’ at all; the parcels were then subsumed in Lords Wood and Stock Church Wood (as shown in Figure 4.7.7). This pattern of holdings raises questions about the relative dates of origin of Stoke and Bagley. Both were mentioned in Domesday Book. The existence of detached parts of Bagley’s holding next to Stock Church Tenement and the line of the parish boundary, which included Bagley in Stoke Pero, might point to Bagley having been formed out of lands belonging to Stoke Pero before 1086 (making Stoke Pero the older place). Alternatively, the settlements could have been more or less of similar age but Bagley could have appropriated woods at a later date, perhaps when the manor or unit of Stoke Pero was disintegrating. It may be significant that a field close to Bagley settlement was named in the 1809 estate map as Church Close. It is not near Stoke Pero’s church and could conceivably hint at an exchange of field for wood.

Almsworthy and Exford were two of only seven places in the entire study area whose entries in Domesday Book mentioned underwood (DomesdayS, 94a). The area around Exford is now one of the less wooded parts of the study area, perhaps because of its altitude. Domesday Book’s references to underwood at Almsworthy might point to the adoption of different woodland management (systematic coppicing) because of pressure on scarce woodland resources by the 11th century. These isolated facts may be consistent with Prickslade being formed to exploit the plentiful woodland of this part of the Horner Wood complex for the benefit of a manor or other unit whose centre was somewhere in the vicinity of Exford. The cluster of archaeological features in Prickslade Combe was recorded by Berry (1995, 9 et seq.). Some may be the remains of the settlement mentioned in the documentary sources. Features included quarries, a stone structure, platforms (not interpreted as charcoal platforms) paths and holloways. A feature described as a woodbank (ibid., 11) was noted on the eastern side of Prickslade Combe in the north west corner of Ten Acre Cleeve (169, Luccombe & Stoke Pero). Woodbanks in the classic form are not the commonest of features in the woods of Exmoor and this example did not lie on any obvious old boundary. It appeared to predate a wall marking one of the small parcels appearing on both the 1809 estate map (ibid., 11) and the tithe map and so could conceivably represent a very early woodland boundary. Alternatively, Prickslade may have seen more than one phase of occupation, which is consistent with the existence of both house platforms and a ruined cottage (ibid., 11), and the bank could have formed part of an earlier phase. Water management, whose features appear elsewhere in the Horner Wood complex, could conceivably be another explanation of this ‘woodbank’.

4.7.6 From 1500 to 1700 The extent of Taunton Priory’s property in the case study in the preceding period could not be precisely defined but it is clear that the Priory retained other land nearby (Lucott) until Dissolution. Lucott was included in the surveys and valuations by the Augmentation Office and was granted to David Clayton (Archbold 1892, 214). The full text of the grant and accompanying survey has not been published and it is not known whether any woods were included. Clayton’s purchase seems to have been a speculation; by 1554, Lucott was in the hands of Henry Herdson, alderman of London, who then conveyed it to an Exmoor man, Thomas Cooke of Winsford, for £55 (SRO T/ PH/ lrm/ 3) by a deed in which woods were not mentioned. Some of the most entertaining documentary evidence from this period relates to a dispute over the ownership of Horner Wood (170, Luccombe), which has been published (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 108 et seq). Ownership of the wood (however defined) was then shared between several people; in 1558, George Harrison left a one-twelfth share in the ‘woods called Clotisham [Cloutsham], Wilmersham and Horner’ to his son (ibid., 108). In the 1570s, proceedings were started by one John Bowyer, who claimed ownership, alleging riotous entry, wrongful keeping of cattle in the woods and wrongful removal of loads of timber and bark by others (ibid., 113). Later pleadings referred to removal of ‘timber wood bark and hay’ (ibid., 117) and complained that timber was being cut recklessly, stating that ‘there there is already a very small store of timber trees or wood left standing 9 or 10 miles’ compass of the same place …. And if other men thereabouts would seek utterly to spoil and waste their woods there in suchlike

The location of the Stoke Pero parish boundary near Prickslade may be significant. It does not run down the centre of Prickslade Combe, which might be the obvious place for it, but along the edge of Prickslade’s holding as it was defined on the 1809 estate map, as shown in Figure 4.7.4. This fact might be consistent with Prickslade being formed from land partly on the fringe of Stoke Pero’s territory, with the boundary of the parish being formed at a later date so as to respect the entire holding. Bagley is the other deserted medieval settlement which was named as a holding in the 1809 estate map. Rather oddly, two Bagley Woods were recorded on the 1809

123

disordered manner as he [Bowyer] doth and hath, then in short space it will fall out that there will hardly be gotten either timber or wood for money’ (ibid., 118-9). The protagonists hired mercenaries to protect their interests, including Edward Harley, also known as ‘Ned the Fencer’. Violent confrontations ensued, with participants indulging in sword fights, stone-throwing, fighting with cudgels and hurling insults at the opponent’s wife. Bowyer also made further complaints of the taking of ‘great timber and wood on Clutsome Cleeve, parcel of ….Horner Wood’ (ibid., 129-130).

inventory, which has not yet been published, records that Harrison owned chattel leases to the value of £1400 and a dairy with a large amount of butter and cheese (P.Ashford, pers. comm.). The high value of land in the case study at this period attracted outside investors. Surveys of the Merchant Venturers of Bristol recorded that they granted a lease of ‘Clowtsom’ in West Luccombe, in or before the 1640s (SRO DD/MVB/46). It is not clear whether woodland was included in their property. This evidence of exploitation of Cloutsham for the benefit of distant persons is an intriguing echo of Timberscombe’s possible interest some three centuries earlier, suggested by the 1327 Lay Subsidy. The Merchant Venturers disappear from view after granting their lease; no other evidence of any interest on their part in Cloutsham has been discovered by the writer.

The outcome of the proceedings, which continued into the 1590s, is not known but perhaps the most intriguing statement came early in the case, almost as an aside, from William Harrison of East Luccombe, who stated his belief that ‘the wood called Horner Wood and common of pasture upon the hills yet remain in common’ (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 124). Common rights of pasture in the vicinity had been mentioned in much older documents. Proceedings in 1292 had referred to common of pasture in the parish of Porlock for all cattle during the whole of the year upon 100 acres of hill, wood and heath (ibid., 244), showing a long established practice.

One of the major archaeological discoveries in the case study belongs to this period. Berry (1995, 17-19) found a riverside metal working site, whose location is marked on Figure 4.7.8. Its slag and charcoal deposits have been sampled by Dr. Gill Juleff. Radiocarbon dates from the charcoal are consistent with that of pottery from the site, which dated to the late 16th or early 17th century and came from northern France (Juleff 2000, 13). Dr. Juleff interpreted the site as a water-powered smithy with some smelting activity (ibid., 7) and it has been identified with the ‘iron mill’ of George Hensley and his brothers referred to elsewhere (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 102).

The plaintiff John Bowyer was well known as a litigant and so his claim to ownership may not have had much real substance but the dispute does illuminate several aspects of contemporary woodland tenure and exploitation, namely: i) there may have been doubt as to the legal ownership of at least part of Horner Wood (as then defined); ii) legal ownership was shared by several people; iii) ownership was sufficiently valuable to fight for; iv) the woods were being exploited for timber, bark and as pasture for livestock; v) the area was experiencing a worsening shortage of timber trees and wood; vi) there was a local belief that the wood and the moor (presumably that adjoining the wood on the west) were still subject to common rights; and vii) use of the word ‘yet’ by William Harrison suggests that similar common rights over other land (and perhaps the wood) had been abolished recently, perhaps within living memory. Many of the practices mentioned or implied by these proceedings could have been centuries old.

The evidence for involvement by the Merchant Venturers of Bristol in Cloutsham may be slightly later in date than the water-powered smithy but their trade along the Atlantic coast, which was expanding at this period (MVB, xiv), could have brought French pottery to the area. The Merchant Venturers also have an indirect connection with the Bowyer-Harrison dispute in Horner Wood some 50 years before their lease of Cloutsham. John Bowyer came from Beer in Cannington (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 112), where the Bowyer family were tenants of the Merchant Venturers (SRO DD/MVB/46). Did Bowyer provide information about potentially profitable resources in the Horner Wood complex and lead the Merchant Venturers to acquire an interest in Cloutsham and perhaps in the Hensleys’ smithy? Some functional connection between the smithy and the Cloutsham holding is highly likely, whatever the precise interests and identities of the respective owners. Charcoal fuel was used on the smithy site and there are many charcoal platforms on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe), especially at the western end. Some are close to paths leading to the water powered smithy site and it is reasonable to suppose that they were in use at the time the smithy site operated (Juleff 2000, 7).

Some further idea of the value of land in and around the case study at this period can be gained from the probate inventory of William Harrison of Luccombe, who died in 1615 (Harvard Law School Hollis Catalog Ref 6877941 Deed 803) and was probably the same William Harrison who figured in the dispute with Bowyer. The

It should not be assumed that all platforms on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) date to this period and were

124

dedicated to supplying the smithy site. Some of the Cloutsham platforms seem to predate substantial pollards growing on them or out of their back walls and it is possible that they could have produced charcoal in the medieval period, as previous surveys have noted (McDonnell 1994, 14; Teverson 1995, 94). Clearly, metrical survey to discover morphological differences and excavation to find dateable evidence from the platforms would help to establish the precise periods of activity represented by these features and the phasing of woodland management on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe).

have used the phrase ‘common woods belonging’ merely as a legal ‘catch-all’, or it may have shown that Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero) was shared between the farms in the hamlet of Wilmersham, or even that the woods were subject to broader, common rights. Similar tenurial practices may have been described in a terrier of 1606 of the manor of the rector of Porlock (of land not in the case study), which mentioned ‘common of pasture…..and the parsons wood containing 4 score acres all which does belong unto the aforesaid customary tenants’ (ibid., 474).

4.7.7 After 1700

At the date of writing, no charcoal from the platforms on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) has been analysed but a sample from the water-powered smithy has been examined. A specialist report by Gale (2001) was prepared for the Exmoor Iron Project and the writer is grateful to the Project for supplying a copy. The charcoal was predominantly oak, although birch, ash and other species were present. The wood was slow grown but did not show the wide rings found in the early growth of coppiced wood (ibid., 4). Wide heartwood was found and it was suggested that the ring pattern could indicate stressful growing conditions (ibid., 4). Most of the samples did not include bark, which could indicate bark stripping, although some authorities on charcoal production consider that removal of bark was standard practice purely as a precaution against explosions in the clamp (ibid., 7).

There are a few extant leases in the 18th century of parts of the Horner Wood complex which show woodland as part of the property demised to tenants. In particular, a bundle of leases dating from 1745 to 1780 and a single example from 1840 dealt with land and woodland in Stoke Pero (DRO 1148m/add/2/73). The leases generally included with the tenement all ‘orchards, gardens and coppice wood’, while reserving all timber trees to the landlord. Some of the leases defined more exactly the woodland included in the grant: for example, the lease dated 15th January 1765 of ‘Hagley and Bagley’ included Old Wood and part of Stock Wood; the lease dated 16th April 1780 of Stockbridge included ‘coppice wood or woodland ground known as Lords Wood’. The parcels in the lease dated 25th March 1769 of ‘Stock tenement’ are of interest and have been set out in full in Table 4.17.

The Exmoor Iron Project organised a programme of dendrochronological sampling carried out by Groves (and observed by the writer), who examined cores from trees on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe). The aim was to discover the age of oak pollards, which would help to establish, inter alia, whether their wood could have been the source of charcoal from the smithy site. Unfortunately, the exact age of the trees could not be assessed, as the cores from all the sampled pollard trunks were incomplete (mostly due to rot in the heart of the trees). Three complete cores were taken from branches, which provided the number of years since the last pollarding episode: 140, 182 and 158 years. These were the minimum ages of the trees at around the time they were last ‘harvested’ (Groves 2003a, 2-4). Given the girth of the sampled pollards, which ranged from 297cm to 369cm, it was thought that they could be more than 400 years old and could have been the source of charcoal fuel at the smithy (ibid., 7).

Some of the leases demised a fractional share of the holding. For example, a lease dated 10th June 1757 demised to John Paramore ‘all those five parts the whole in twelve parts to be divided of all that one messuage or tenement …now in the tenure or possession of Mary Cantor widow’. In contrast, the leases of Stock Bridge and Stock Church tenements, and of the Bagley and Hagley holding, dealt with each property as a whole and did not refer to fractional shares. The terms of the leases show the following: i) some properties seem to have been divided in the past into fractions or shares, which were then dealt with as a unit, but this practice was not universal; ii) the leases often included areas of woodland, defined at varying levels of detail; iii) woodland was not described by explicit reference to man-made physical boundary features (banks, ditches etc); and iv) where boundaries were described, it was by reference to natural features.

There is little further documentary evidence of woodland in the case study until 1669, when the will of one Dr. Bryan referred to three tenements in Wilmersham then in ‘tenure and possession of William Vauter, Andrew Arnold and Michael Ferriss or their assigns with all rents and common woods belonging’ (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 135-136). Dr. Bryan may also have owned the shares in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) which had been claimed by Bowyer (ibid., 127). The will might

These leases point to a system of tenure in which ownership of some woods (and other land) had undergone division or fragmentation by the postmedieval period. Such property was then described by reference to these shares, as, for example, John Paramore’s five-twelfths’ share of Mary Cantor’s home.

125

Table 4.17: Parcels of lease of Stock tenement dated 25th March 1769 (DRO 1148/ add/ 2/ 73)(bold is writer’s emphasis) ‘….. all that messuage and tenement commonly called Stock Tenement And all that part of a certain wood called Stockwood hereinafter mentioned and expressed (that is to say) all that part of the said Wood lying and being from a certain close or parcel of ground commonly called the Ham parcel of a certain tenement commonly called Stockbridge tenement parcel or reputed parcel of the Manor or reputed Manor of Stockpiroe unto the messuage or dwellinghouse on and parcel of the said tenement called Stockbridge tenement and from a certain rivulet or water commonly called Stockwater Streight up on the west side of a certain Gurt or deep place in the said Wood to a certain Highway leading from the said messuage part of the said tenement called Stockbridge tenement to the parish church of Stokepiroe aforesaid…’

The reference to shares echoes that in the dispute over Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) in the 16th century, when George Harrison bequeathed a ‘one-twelfth share’ in the wood.

difficult to interpret and considered that they could have been the result of terracing or of amalgamation of holdings followed by the removal of boundaries (ibid., 155).

Holdings described by reference to fractional shares survived into the 19th century and were recorded on the 1809 estate map, as shown in the key to Figure 4.7.4. That map also showed that some woods in the case study were divided into small parcels, which formed part of the land held by farms or smallholdings. It is clear from the list of parcels attached to the 1809 estate map, that the property divisions recorded in 1809 were similar to those of the earlier leases mentioned above, confirming that the 1809 estate map may have depicted long-standing boundaries. This conclusion was shared by the principal local historian (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 14).

The names of the curved strips were shown in the list of parcels attached to the 1809 estate map as including the word ‘Park’ (except for one whose name is illegible). The only other parcels with ‘Park’ names held by the four Wilmersham farms were ‘Rye Park’ and ‘Wood Park’ (twice). The field name ‘Park’ is common in the study area, merely signifying an enclosed plot of ground (Smith 1956, 59) but its recurrence here may point to a common origin for the curved strips, perhaps as enclosures of a larger unit (either field or wood). The name ‘Rye Park’ points to some arable farming. Use of an open field for arable, whose strips were later enclosed, is a possible interpretation of the form and names of fields close to Wilmersham.

The 1809 estate map illuminated a further significant aspect of land holding in and around the case study. Land adjoining Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero) was divided between four holdings, as shown in Figure 4.7.4: Late Arnold’s, Late Chaplin’s, 9/12 Late Ferris’s and (to a lesser degree) Late Vaunter’s. These were the constituent farms of the hamlet known as Wilmersham (now a single farm). A few other parcels, being part of the 4/12 Tar Ball holding and of Mr. Parrymore’s land, also lie close to Wilmersham but the four Wilmersham farms were the principal holdings concerned. As previously indicated, a will of 1669 named only three farms as Wilmersham tenements and did not refer to ‘Chaplin’s’. The list of Chaplin’s parcels did not include a house although, like Late Vaunter’s, which also lacked a house, its parcels did include a garden/orchard. It is possible therefore that Chaplin’s was a later and perhaps less successful creation.

The fragmented pattern of farmland is reflected in the pattern of woodland close to Wilmersham, as shown on Figures 4.7.4 and 4.7.6. The 1809 estate map, and the tithe map (1839), recorded parcels of woodland, which run along or across contours close to Wilmersham, in separate ownership. Small parcels of woodland in other areas of the Horner Wood complex were recorded on the 1809 estate map but not on the tithe map. The divisions in Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero) could therefore have been ancient in 1809. The writer’s tree survey in part of Wilmersham Wood aimed to discover any features which might have formed these parcels’ physical boundaries and to reconstruct woodland management where possible. The aims, methods and results are fully discussed in the next section.

4.7.8 The sequence of woodland management

The 1809 estate map (in Figure 4.7.4) shows that the four Wilmersham farms did not hold land exclusively in continuous blocks although the three largest farms held some adjoining parcels, particularly in the case of Late Arnold’s. The general picture is of intermixed fields with farms holding discontinuous, curved strips in places. These strips are very restricted in their total area, so do not appear to be the remains of an open field. A recent work on Exmoor’s fields (Gillard 2002) found them

The preceding account revealed a few glimpses of past woodland use and further clues emerge when woodland character is considered in conjunction with other evidence. No real definition can be made of the period in which these management regimes were applied but the evidence forms a background against which other

126

Figure 4.7.9: Pollard on Cloutsham Ball (photograph by writer) by the writer) suggest management for timber, together with coppicing, particularly of oak and birch, occasionally in close proximity to pollards. Coppicing would have implied exclusion of livestock and its existence shows the end of wood pasture at the times and places where coppicing was practised.

evidence may be interpreted. The following comments are applied to woods under their names as recorded in the 1st OS 6 inch and shown in Figures 4.7.1 and 4.7.5. One noticeable characteristic of Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) was the absence of a physical, man-made boundary on the upslope edge of the wood. In other woods with this characteristic, the adjacent land may be open moor but this wood adjoined an area shown on the 1st OS 6 inch (in Figure 4.7.5) as a small, moor-like patch sandwiched between enclosed fields and other parts of the Horner Wood complex. Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) contains many pollards, which can be extremely large and are probably of great age (an example is shown in Figure 4.7.9) and extant trees and the cartographic evidence thus clearly point to past use as wood pasture. This could have continued until the last pollarding episode, which occurred less than 200 years ago, according to the results of dendrochronological analysis. Those who surveyed the area have reached a similar conclusion; for example, McDonnell (1994, 14). Use as wood pasture may have followed an earlier period of coppicing to accompany production of charcoal on platforms, which, in some cases, clearly predate pollards growing on them.

The tenurial history of Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) may be special in comparison to the rest of the Horner Wood complex. It is the only wood to have been depicted as undivided on both the estate map of 1809 and the tithe map and, at the same time, to have been recorded as having a single owner and occupier at the date of the latter (1840). Figure 4.7.4 shows that the Cloutsham holding was compact, with large woodland units. Two of the woodland parcels were separately named and recorded in the 1809 estate map’s list of parcels but were shown on the map as divided only by a dotted line, probably indicating that there was no physical boundary between them. Immediately to the west lies Ten Acre Cleeve (169, Luccombe & Stoke Pero). This wood is unusual in that it straddles a parish boundary (marked on the ground by a bank). The portion in Luccombe does not, on first examination, appear to resemble Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) in that it adjoins enclosed fields, but this impression dissolves on closer inspection. Figure 4.7.5 shows a narrow strip of moor-like land between the wood edge and the fields, suggesting that this portion of

Use as wood pasture could be consistent with management for timber, which was mentioned in the litigation of the late 16th century. Extant trees (observed

127

Ten Acre Cleeve (169, Luccombe & Stoke Pero) may have lacked a physically defined wood edge at some time in the past. The existence of this strip between wood and field may also point to the boundary being constructed to enclose the field, and not (primarily) to define the edge of the wood. This feature, together with the oak pollards (noted in survey) confirm wood pasture here, as well as in Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) (Berry 1995, 13). Given that the part of Ten Acre Cleeve (169, Luccombe & Stoke Pero) which lies in Luccombe was shown as part of the wood of the Cloutsham holding in both the tithe map and the estate map of 1809, it seems likely that it was managed in the past with Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe).

In Horner Wood (170, Luccombe), extant trees suggest a mixed pattern of exploitation. Some pollards were noted by the writer, particularly near the present wood edge and there are extensive areas of oak coppice and singled coppice, as well as standard trees (Teverson 1995, 8990). Much of the archaeology consists of platforms (interpreted as charcoal platforms) and quarries, as shown in Figures 4.7.2 and 4.7.3. The charcoal platforms could relate to the riverside smithy site, as they are fairly close to it. The quarries may have supplied stone for various walls and structures built at and around Horner Farm in the early 19th century (or may date to some other period). These include the wall of an enclosure at the north end of the wood, which was noted in the writer’s survey and which also appears in the Greenwoods’ map (1822).

The western part of Ten Acre Cleeve (169, Luccombe & Stoke Pero) contains most of its archaeological features, with those in Prickslade Combe probably lying in an area cleared of woodland at the time the Prickslade settlement was functioning. The land exploited by that settlement seems also to have included part of Stoke Wood (165, Stoke Pero) to the west, as indicated by the distribution of archaeological features.

Some idea of the sequence of activities in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) can be obtained from the relationship between the earthworks of the Ley Hill medieval settlement (as shown in Figures 4.7.3 and 4.7.8) and other features. The settlement’s earthworks and lynchets stretch some way inside the wood, indicating that these areas were clear of woodland at the date when the settlement was in existence. In a rare example of woodland ‘stratigraphy’, an alignment of trees appears to respect and be orientated with regard to, one of these relict enclosure boundaries (as observed by the writer). This tree alignment almost certainly delineated one of the parcels on the 1809 estate map and so it is likely that the creation of those parcels (however they were originally defined) occurred after the period in which the Ley Hill settlement flourished. To summarise, this part of Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) had been open when the Ley Hill settlement exploited it, and had then been divided at some later period into parcels which were marked by tree alignments.

The remainder of Stoke Wood (165, Stoke Pero) contains a few charcoal platforms, some charcoal finds and a few other features (mainly paths). Apart from exploitation for charcoal at some period, the archaeology gives few other clues as to the past history of this wood. In each of these latter two woods, Ten Acre Cleeve (169, Luccombe & Stoke Pero) and Stoke Wood (165, Stoke Pero), the divisions shown by the 1st OS 6 inch did not coincide with the distribution of archaeology. In particular, the clustering of features in Prickslade Combe was masked, as this area straddles the two woods. The inescapable conclusion was that parts of these two woods had been exploited within a structure of ownership or occupation which had vanished by 1889. This conclusion was confirmed by the estate map of 1809, whose divisions of the Horner Wood complex were quite different to those shown on the 1st OS 6 inch.

There are a couple of other boundary features (ditches) in the southern part of Horner Wood (170, Luccombe), which could have marked parcels in the 1809 estate map. The wood thus contrasts with Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero) in having some physical evidence of parcel boundaries. The divisions are also of different form in the two woods; in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe), the 1809 estate map shows a regular pattern of division into strips, in contrast to Wilmersham’s (160.2, Stoke Pero) more irregular appearance, as is clear from Figure 4.7.4.

Turning to Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero), the results of the tree survey in the next section supports some conclusions about management in the more recent past but the earlier history of the wood is less clear. Finds of slag and platforms suggested exploitation for charcoal fuel for metal working in the vicinity at some period. Areas of large standard trees noted in the tree survey show management for timber and parcels of flat land next to the river seemed to have been exploited in a distinct fashion, either as hazel coppice or as pasture. There are no ancient pollards in the numbers seen on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) to suggest a long history as wood pasture although documentary evidence (the grant of 1334 to Taunton Priory) does explicitly refer to pannage in the wood of Wilmersham (however then defined).

The tenements holding strips in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) in 1809 included farms such as Woodcock’s Leigh, Buckethole and Horner Farm, which are near the wood and were shown on the 1st OS 6 inch. Others cannot now be identified. Cloutsham farm held a single (large) strip, even though its core holdings close to its farm included large areas of woodland. Noticeably absent are the holdings in the parish of Stoke Pero: Bagley & Hagley, Prickslade, Stock Church Tenement and the four Wilmersham farms. Horner Wood (170,

128

The case study showed that analysis of charcoal could be more widely and profitably used. The failure to find evidence of coppicing in the charcoal from the smithy site raised many questions; soil exhaustion in Horner Wood, the use of pollarded (rather than coppiced) wood for charcoal, or even the use of entirely unmanaged wood, are possibilities generated by the results of this analysis and more work of the same kind would be of great benefit. Peter Crew is investigating indicators of pollarded wood in charcoal in other locations (P. Crew, pers. comm.) and the subject has great potential.

Luccombe) therefore seems to have been divided, probably in the late medieval or post medieval period (after the Ley Hill settlement expired), between the farms and smallholdings in the manors or parishes whose occupiers may have formerly enjoyed common rights over it. Gillard’s recent study (2002) of Exmoor’s fields took this view of woodland strips in other areas of Exmoor (ibid., 127). The resulting strips may have been marked by ditches in some places and by trees in others. Considering the case study as a whole, much information about land holdings was provided by the estate map of 1809 but relatively little about the particular use of specific parcels. The schedule to the 1809 estate map recorded use against each parcel but this was uninformative as arable and pasture were not distinguished. Fields were generally recorded as ‘Arable & pasture’ and woodland parcels as ‘Furze & waste’ but a number of parcels were recorded as having both uses (‘Furze & waste’ plus ‘Arable & pasture’). They included three parcels in the Stock Church Tenement and a single parcel for each of Late Arnold’s, Late Vauter’s and 9/12 Late Ferris’s. The other Wilmersham holding, Late Chaplin’s, did not include any parcel with mixed use. It is difficult to see what this part of the record may represent in terms of land use history; it could conceivably be the ghost of wood pasture or of convertible husbandry, a system in which fields were used for different purposes at different times.

In spite of the range and volume of evidence in this case study, a detailed, chronological account of woodland exploitation could not be produced. Early medieval land use remained mysterious. The period of origin of the settlements mentioned in Domesday Book (Wilmersham, Bagley and Stoke Pero), and the other medieval settlements in the vicinity, is not known but the evidence did suggest farming and exploitation of the landscape on some scale by the 11th century, with woods probably being used for pasture. It is possible that Wilmersham controlled other farms; one writer saw East & West Lucott and Buckethole, with Littlecombe and Poole as Wilmersham’s ‘villein farms’ (Everett 1968, 57). It seems that the Horner Wood complex and adjoining land came under some pressure by the 13th century. Almsworthy may have overseen the settlement of Prickslade some time before their relationship was implied by the Forest’s roll of woodwards of 1257 and it was functioning by 1320, when Thomas met his fatal accident in the forge. The settlement at Ley Hill (on the evidence so far published) had its origin in the 13th century. Both settlements could have been located on former woodland or moor and have used the neighbouring commons of wood and moor as a resource.

A final clue to past woodland management lies in the stub pollards, which were noted in previous surveys; for example by Juleff (2000, 9), and were observed by the writer in Rowbarrow (161, Luccombe) and Goss’s Rocks (166, Luccombe). Trees of this type occur in other woods near this case study; for example, in Homebush Wood (138, Porlock) and East Lucott Wood (135, Stoke Pero) (Teverson 1997, 57) in the valley of Hawk Combe to the north-west of the case study. The distribution of these trees in the case study might show that the areas concerned were under a special form of management in the past – or they may be traces of a local technique, which had been applied to large areas of woodland in the case study but whose remains have disappeared elsewhere.

4.7.9 Conclusions

The precise role of woodland in these medieval farms may have varied from place to place. On Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) the woods probably functioned as wood pasture, in close proximity to enclosed fields. The Ley Hill settlement may have worked in a similar way, with animals grazed on the common, which probably consisted of both moor and wood. Arable agriculture was practised, as evidenced by field boundaries and lynchets at Ley Hill and (possibly) by traces of former open field strips and field names at Wilmersham.

Consideration of the evidence in this case study led to reappraisal of assumptions and methods. Firstly, the depiction of woods on the 1st OS 6 inch proved, in places, to be a misleading guide to past woodland units. Secondly, the tithe maps (1839, 1840) were of limited value, as they did not record tenurial units shown on the 1809 estate map (admittedly, drawn up for different purposes) only 30-40 years earlier. These results indicated the need for caution in assuming that maps of the 19th century accurately depict all ancient woodland boundaries.

Mixed farming, with some arable fields and animals grazing adjoining commons, would have implications for the formation of boundaries. Arable fields would have needed to be stock-proof but physical boundaries around the woods may not have been required, unless fields were laid out along their margins. This hypothesis is consistent with archaeological surveys, which have not found clear evidence of extensive woodbanks in the Horner Wood complex. The only features which might qualify include the short bank close to Prickslade and a low, occasionally faint bank on the edge of Horner

129

tradition (recorded in the 18th and 19th centuries) of granting leases for three lives discouraged amalgamation of holdings (Ashford 1984, 45-46) and could have perpetuated fragmented holdings. Inheritance and tenurial practices of this kind work well, in the writer’s view, as an explanation of Wilmersham’s holdings because they can account both for the origin and survival of the landholding pattern and for the fragmented ownership of woodland parcels, which otherwise remain mysterious. The probable early medieval roots of this former hamlet lead us to ask: when looking at Wilmersham’s holdings of field and wood on the 1809 estate map, are we looking at a medieval pattern typical of Exmoor?

Wood (170, Luccombe), adjoining the open moor. The writer has examined this latter bank and is of the opinion that most of it was originally part of the earthworks of the Ley Hill settlement and so may have been a field boundary. It seems to the writer that it was later embellished as a wood boundary feature, perhaps when paths were laid out in the wood in the 19th century. It is almost certainly well above the medieval wood edge and so is, in the writer’s view, unlikely to be a woodbank. A further conclusion may be drawn concerning the exploitation of Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe). Ancient pollards, the lack of physical boundaries, the nature of adjacent land and stable, long lived tenurial arrangements together with the documentary evidence of verderers from Cloutsham comprises a body of evidence consistent with the suggestion that the wood and adjacent land could have formed a game reserve or hunting area (Teverson 1995, 89) for the benefit of lord or owner, as well as functioning as wood pasture for domestic livestock.

In the late or post medieval period, land use appears to have been changed by the ending of common rights in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) and the allocation of rights over individual strips to former commoners. This may not have been disruptive. Harrison’s statement in the 1570 dispute suggests that, whatever the legal niceties, local people continued to treat the wood as they always had. The wood expanded after the desertion of the Ley Hill settlement (many of whose earthworks are well inside the present treeline) and offered opportunities for intensive and lucrative exploitation, as suggested by the legal proceedings of the later 16th century and by the existence of the smithy site. Coppicing was not specifically mentioned in these proceedings but it is perhaps significant that the perceived shortage of timber extended to ‘wood’.

Woodland in the case study could have supplied fuel to any metal working carried on in the medieval period. The reference to Thomas de Pyrkeslade’s forge dates to 1320 and it is quite possible that some of the platforms in Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe), which predate the pollards growing on them, could be medieval in date. Finds of slag elsewhere in the Horner Wood complex (Juleff 2000, 19) have not been dated but are too far from the riverside metal working site to derive from it. It seems likely that there are at least two further metal working sites somewhere in or near the Horner Wood complex (in addition to the water powered smithy site) which might be medieval in date.

Some of the charcoal platforms on Cloutsham Ball (178, Luccombe) and many of those in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) could belong to this period. In particular, the distribution of many of the platforms in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) coincides with the layout of parcels in the 1809 map, suggesting that the farmer holding each parcel may have exploited his small plot for charcoal. Not only could this have supplied the smithy site but production could have complemented timber felling and bark stripping (which were mentioned in the 1570 dispute) in a suite of processes designed to maximise income from the wood. A similar post-medieval association of iron working and bark stripping has been noted in the Forest of Dean (Clarkson 1966, 29) and the Weald (ibid., 35). All the evidence suggests that Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) was an extraordinarily busy place at this time – populated (at various seasons) by grazing animals and by people working metal, stripping bark, felling timber, fighting, making charcoal, loading and transporting the woodland products. If the litigants are to be believed, the wood was being exploited to the point of exhaustion, at least as far as timber and wood were concerned.

The degree of success of the various medieval settlements varied. The possible intrusion of Almsworthy (at Prickslade) suggests that Stoke Pero may have been weak from an early date, with a boundary fluctuating according to its fortunes. The latest material from Ley Hill dated to the 14th century. Settlements at Ley Hill and possibly Bagley may have ended around this time. It is tempting to see land reorganisation at Wilmersham, for which the strip-like fields may be evidence, as an assertive act of appropriation by individual farmers in conditions of reduced pressure on land and weaker seigneurial control which are typical of the later medieval period. There is an alternative explanation of the fragmented pattern of land holding and the form of fields around Wilmersham, relating to local inheritance and tenurial practices. If primogeniture were not the norm at some period, then fragmented holdings at places like Wilmersham could have developed as each farmer’s land was divided on his death between his relatives, who may have started farming on their own account or disposed of the parcels to others. Even where ownership was later concentrated in the hands of one person, the local

By the beginning of the 19th century, the exercise of rights over strips of Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) by farms and smallholders may have been obsolescent and by the date of the tithe map (1840), may have ended

130

completely. There may have been severalreasons for t hi s change. Fi rst l y,t he wood may have been overexploited intheprecedingperiodanditsexhaustedsoils simply ceased to be productive. Secondly,the markets forsomewoodl and product s,part i cul arl ybark,begant o decl i ne around t hi st i me. Fi nal l y,t he owners of t he freehol d (t he Acl and fami l y)may have t aken posi t i ve st epst oal t ert het enuri alarrangement s. Progressi ve opi ni on i n t he earl y 19th century, as embodi ed by t he agrari an wri t erson t he sout h-westof t hi s peri od,recommended t he endi ng oft enanci es for l i vesand conversi on t ol easesatrack rent s(Vancouver 1808,81-2;Billingsley1798,31). Iti spossi bl et hatt he Acl and fami l y, who owned Horner W ood (170, Luccombe),t ook t heopport uni t y offered by t hewood’s possi bl e exhaust i on t o end t enanci esoft he st ri ps.Thi s mi ghti ndi cat easpeci alcareon t hei rpartfort hewood, ast heygeneral l yl eftl i fet enanci esi npl aceel sewhereon t heest at eunt i lt hepol i cyofconversiontorackrentswas adopt ed i nt he1830sand 1840s(Ashford 1984,46). In t he case of t he wood,no t enancy ata rack rentwas grant ed and t he t i t he map recorded i tas owned and occupi edbySi rThomasDykeAcl and. Thi s account has expl ored some of t he di st i nct i ve feat uresoft heHornerW ood compl ex. M anagementi n earlier periods remains murky but evidence has confi rmed t hatt he woodswere i nt ensi vel y expl oi t ed i n t he post -medi evalperi od t o produce bark,t i mber and woodatat i mewhent heeconomyoft heVal eofPorl ock wasgrowi ng and di versi fyi ng.Evi dence suggest ed t hat commonri ght soverwoodl andwereendedatt hi speri od, whi ch al so saw t he const ruct i on of a met al worki ng faci l i t yfuel l edwi t hcharcoalanddri venbywat erpower. Charcoalanal ysi s and document ary evi dence suggest s t hat woodl and expl oi t at i on was unrest rai ned; i ft he picturethey convey isaccurate,peoplewerenotcutting wood fordomestic needsaccording to the dictatesofa sust ai nabl e coppi ce cycl e, but grabbi ng resources, i n anarchi c, and somet i mes vi ol ent , at t empt st o make money.

4.8 The tree survey 4.8.1 Introduction Previ ous surveys of t he Horner W ood compl ex emphasisedthatitstreesmayhavearchaeologicalvalue. Pol l ardsandcoppi cest ool s,i npart i cul ar,canbeofgreat age (Jul eff 2000,26-27) and t he woodl and has been descri bedasa‘l i vi ngart efact ’(M cDonnel l1994,17).It has been furt her not ed t hat reconst ruct i on of past woodl and expl oi t at i on from archaeol ogi calevi dence i s extremely difficult, as there is no stratigraphy of l andscape i nt he normalsense i n a woodl and cont ext (M cDonnel l1994,17). Ident i fi cat i on ofbroad pat t ernsofpastt reemanagement overl argeareasoft heHornerW oodcompl exwasbegun by Teverson (1995).Ot hersurveyshave not ed speci fi c featuressuchastreealignment sbutt herehavebeenfew sust ai nedat t empt st oi dent i fypat t ernsofmanagementi n more detail. Dr.GillJuleffsuggested thattheproblem may be tackled by meansofa survey at‘tree by tree’ l evel(Jul eff2000,28)andt het reesurveydescri bedhere owedi t sori gi nst ohersuggest i on. There were t wo reasons t o preferW i l mersham W ood (160. 2,St oke Pero)asa survey si t e overot herpart sof t he Horner W ood compl ex, of whi ch i t forms part . Fi rst l y,t hewoodi scl oset o(andsharesi t snamewi t h)a place mentioned in Domesday Book, whose entry recorded a l arge acreage of wood. Secondl y, Wi l mersham W ood(160. 2,St okePero)wasdepi ct edon boththetithemapofStokePero(1839)andontheestate map of 1809 (mentioned in the preceding section) as consi st i ngofsmal lparcel s,mostofwhi chformedpartof t he hol di ngs of t he four farms t hen compri si ng t he haml etofW i l mersham. Itwast houghtt hatt hi spat t ern ofl andhol di ngcoul dbeanci ent ,i nawoodpossessi nga l onghi st oryofexpl oi t at i on. Beforet hesurvey,i twasnotcl eari fsubdi vi si onsoft he wood refl ect ed di fferences i n pastmanagementand i t was not known i f (or how) t hey were physi cal l y delineated. Close inspection of selected parts of the wood and pat t erns of t he l i vi ng t rees woul d,i t was hoped,provi deanswerst ot hesequest i ons. Thi ssect i on referst ot ermsofwoodl and management , such as‘st ool ’,‘pol e’or‘bol l i ng’,whi ch aredefi ned i n theGlossary.

4.8.2 Theenvironment Wi l mersham W ood (160. 2, St oke Pero) l i es on t he sl opes of t he val l ey of Horner W at er and one of i t s t ri but ari es. Iti s partof t he Horner W ood compl ex, whose l ocat i on and envi ronmentwere descri bed i nt he preceding section. The wood and other features,as

131

recorded on t he modern OS,i sshown i n Fi gure 4. 8. 1, whi chal sodepi ct st het hreetreesurveyareas. Teverson’s management survey (1995) used t wo recogni sed cl assi fi cat i on syst ems i nt he HornerW ood compl ex:Pet erkenst andt ypesandNat i onalVeget at i onal Cl assi fi cat i on. W i l mersham W ood (160. 2,St oke Pero) wasfoundt oi ncl ude: a.Pet erken st and t ype 6ab (upl and bi rch-sessi l e oakwoods)wi t hsomeevi denceofcoppi ci ng, b.Peterken stand type 6ac (upland hazel-sessile oakwoods), whi ch occurred near t he foot of slopes, c.Pet erkenst andt ype1d(ash-wychel m woodl and), d.NVC communi t y W 11a (Dryopt eri s di l i t at a), which consistsofoak with occasionalbirch and hol l yandgrassygroundwi t hferns (Teverson1995,9-17).

4.8.3 The evidence The rel evant cart ographi c and document ary evi dence wasdescribed in the precedi ng section and willnotbe exhaust i vel y repeat ed here. Ofpart i cul ari nt erestwas t hefactt hatt hewood wasshown asvery much smal l er ncht hanonl at ermaps. ont he1stOS1 i Fi gure4. 8. 2showst heparcel soft herel evantpartoft he 1809est at emap,whosedet ai l sarel i st edi nTabl e4. 18. Fi gure4. 8. 3 showst hewood,asdepi ct edont he1stOS 6 i nch. Archaeol ogi cal feat ures recorded by Jul eff (2000) i ncl uded a former woodl and boundary wi t h bank and treelineintreesurveyarea1.

4.8.4 The survey:aims,methodsand results Theaim ofthesurveywastwofold: i ) t oi nvest i gat e whet hert he pat t ern oft he l i vi ng t reesi ndi cat ed pastwoodl and parceldi vi si ons; and i i ) t o di scoverwhatt he l i vi ng t rees coul d reveal aboutpastwoodl andmanagementregi mes. In orderto achieve these ai ms,treeswere surveyed in l i mi t ed areas.The survey recorded t he dat al i st ed i n Tabl e 4. 19,whi ch i ncl uded t he t ype of management appliedtoeachtree:coppicing,pollardingorgrowthasa st andardt ree.Charact eri st i cswhi chmi ghti l l umi nat et he t ree’s hi st ory,such as t he numberofpol es whi ch had beencutfrom acoppi cedt ree,orwhet heri twasast ump orst oolwi t houtpol es,wereal so recorded. Thespat i al di st ri but i on ofdi fferentformsofmanagementwast hen analysedbymappingthetreesandtheircharacteristics.

133

Threeareascompri si ngaround6, 400squaremet reswere selected forsurvey.They were chosen to meetcertain cri t eri a: t hey had t o di spl ay vi si bl e changes of t ree managementoverashortdi st anceOR asi ngl e,uni form managementst yl e;t heyhadt obecapabl eofl ocat i onon t he 1809 est at e map and t he modern Ordnance Survey with a fairdegree ofaccuracy and they had to straddle parcelboundari es(asshown on t he1809 est at emap)or fal lunequi vocal l yi nt ooneparcel . The location of the survey areas is shown for i dent i fi cat i on purposes onl y i n Fi gure 4. 8. 1. As difficultiesinobtainingGPS readingswereencountered, due t ot he t opography oft he survey areas,t hi s Fi gure showsonl yt he approxi mat el ocat i on oft he areas. Al l consi st ed ofsl opi ng woodl and wi t h fi el ds t ot he west and t he val l eysofHornerW at erand i t st ri but ary l yi ng downsl opet ot heeastandsout h-east .Al li ncl udedpat hs. Ast he1809est at emapi ssl i ght l ydi st ort ed,anyat t empt to place the survey areason i twi t h perfectaccuracy i s fut i l e;onl yt he generall ocation ofeach survey area on t he1809est at emapcanbesurmi sed. Area 1 compri sed woodl and st ret chi ng downsl ope ofa crescentshaped,terrace-likestripnotedbyJuleff(2000) (and listed in Part2 of Appendix VIII as PRN 4 in survey SW ). Area 1 st raddl ed t hree, possi bl y four, parcel si nt he1809est at emapanddi spl ayedevi denceof t ree managementof di fferentst yl es,havi ng st andards t owardst het op oft hesl opeand coppi cedownsl ope. It coveredaround4, 600squaremet res. Area 2 compri sed a smal lpartoft he parcelnamed as Reed M ead on t he 1809 est at e map, t oget her wi t h woodl and adjoi ni ng i tand runni ng upsl opet ot hewest . Thi sarea st raddl ed t wo parcel si nt he 1809 est at e map and showed achangein treecharact er,wi t h hazelatt he footof t he sl ope and oak furt her upsl ope. The area coveredabout1, 100squaremet res. Area3 i ncl udedpartofapl at form not edbyJul eff(2000) (and listed in Part1 ofAppendix VIIIas PRN 22 in survey SW )t oget herwi t ht he woodl and st ret chi ng up and down sl ope of i t . Thi s area fel lwi t hi n a si ngl e parceli nt he 1809 est at e map and seemed t o have a si ngl e managementst yl e.The area covered about700 squaremet res. Thesurveywascarri edoutoversevendaysi nt heperi od November 2002 t o February 2003. The survey t eam compri sed t he wri t er and vol unt eers from Ti vert on Archaeol ogi cal Group. The background, ai ms and met hod of t he survey were expl ai ned on si t e. Each vol unt eerwas bri efed on heal t h and safet yi ssues and equi pped wi t h a wat erproof pack cont ai ni ng record sheet s,wri t t en i nst ruct i ons,a t ree t ype chart ,t apesand ot hermat eri al s.

Figure 4.8.3: Wilmersham Wood on 1st OS6inch (Somerset sheet XXXIV SW)

Table 4.19: Data collected in tree survey in Wilmersham Wood Position of tree within grid square Code for management type: 1 (coppice), 2 (singled coppice), 3 (coppice stool), 4 (pollard), 5 (stub pollard), 6 (standard) or 7 (stump) Species Girth of trunk If coppice (type 1, 2 or 3), the number of complete and cut poles If coppice (type 1, 2 or 3), the girth of the largest pole If pollard (type 4 or 5), height to bolling

135

Figure 4.8.4: Volunteers from TAG at work(photograph by writer) Each survey area was marked out in squares 10 m by 10m (with the exception of the terrace in area 1, which was treated as a single ‘square’). An attempt to mark squares with pegs and tape was abandoned as being both inexact and time consuming and, at the suggestion of Barbara Keene, (one of the volunteer workers) the use of canes was adopted to mark the four corners of each square. Each square was marked and numbered on a master plan. Within each square, volunteers allocated a number to each tree and recorded its data, as shown in Figure 4.8.4.

Deciding management type was often difficult. The different management techniques were described to the volunteers, who then decided type by comparing the appearance of the trees to those shown on a chart prepared by the writer. After fieldwork had been completed, all data from the record sheets was transferred to a spreadsheet and checked for obvious errors, omissions and inconsistencies. Entries on the spreadsheet are listed in Appendix X. Scanned images of the graph paper pages were imported into the GIS and a point object was created for each tree, which was labelled by its tree identification number (grid square number concatenated with tree number). This allowed the creation of maps showing the spatial distribution of the trees and their characteristics. The spreadsheet was also imported into statistical software (SPSS), which allowed manipulation and analysis of the data.

The record sheet for each grid square consisted of two pages (one page of graph paper and one data sheet). The position of the tree in the grid square was determined by measuring its distance from two sides of the square (to provide x and y co-ordinates), and was then marked on the graph paper for the square. The remainder of the data listed in Table 4.19 was noted on the data sheet (along with information identifying the square and each tree) for the square. The layout of the data page of the record sheet and the instructions to volunteers are included in Appendix IX.

Analysis was carried out to establish (where appropriate) in each survey area the relative numbers of different tree

136

types, their spatial distribution, the relationship between trunk girth and the girth of the largest pole on coppiced trees, the number of cut poles on coppiced trees and the total number of poles (complete + cut) on coppiced trees. The results for each area are summarised in a number of charts and maps as follows: i) the numbers of different tree types in each of the areas are shown in Figure 4.8.5; ii) the relationship between trunk girth and girth of the largest pole on coppiced trees (type 1) in areas 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 4.8.6 (only one tree of this type occurred in area 3, which is therefore not shown); iii) the numbers of cut poles on coppiced trees (types 1, 2 and 3) are shown in Figure 4.8.7.

70

60

50

40

Countoftrees

30

20

10 0 um St p

lla po

ai

rd

l oo st

/m rd da an St

ub St

rd

ce pi op

lla Po

C

e ic pp co

ce pi op

d le ng Si

C

n de

Survey Area 1 In areas 1 and 2, the coppiced trees and coppice stools (types 1, 2 and 3) outnumbered all other types and there seemed to be some relationship between trunk girth and girth of the largest pole on coppiced trees of type 1. The number of cut poles on coppiced trees was generally low (less than five), with a handful having five and one outlier possessing twelve. In area 3, the trees were dominated by standards and stumps. There were few pollards and those recorded were, on inspection, found to be doubtful.

30

20

Countoftrees

10

0 um St p

ce pi op l oo st

e ic pp co

ce pi op

rd da an St

C

C

d le ng Si

Distribution of the various tree types is shown in Figures 4.8.8, 4.8.9 and 4.8.10. In area 1, standard trees dominated on the terrace and coppiced trees only occurred in any numbers further downslope. In area 2, there was no clear pattern but coppice (types 1 and 2) tended to cluster along the edge of the path, next to and on, the flat land next to the river (Reed Mead on the 1809 estate map). In area 3, trees and stumps became denser as one moved downslope. Of the six coppiced trees (types 1, 2 and 3) in area 3, four were in a loose cluster downslope

Survey Area 2

30

Maps of trunk girth are shown in Figures 4.8.11, 4.8.12 and 4.8.13. In area 1, the less substantial trees tended to be at the top of the slope, on the terrace feature. The map of area 2 illuminates a scatter of spindly trees across the southern part of the area, with larger trees upslope, which is due mainly to the distribution of species. This was observed in the field. Hazel was noted at the foot of the slope with more oak upslope. The map of area 3 shows that more densely packed trees (located downslope) tended to be slender.

Countoftrees

20

0 um St p

rd da an St

rd

l oo st

lla po

ce pi op

ub St

C

e ic pp co

ce pi op

d le ng Si

C

Maps of the distribution of the total numbers of poles on coppiced trees (types 1,2 and 3) in areas 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 4.8.14 and 4.8.15. Area 3 possessed so few coppiced trees that distribution was uninformative and so has not been shown. Areas 1 and 2 show trees with higher total numbers of poles clustering in particular locations in each area, which is discussed in more detail below.

10

Survey Area 3 Figure 4.8.5: Tree type counts in survey areas

137

14

500

12

400 10

300 8

6

Number of cut poles

Trunkgirth (cm)

200

100

0 0

100

200

300

4

2

0

Girth largest pole (cm)

Survey Area 1

Survey Area 1

5

4

3

400

2

Number of cut poles

300

Trunkgrith (cm)

200

1

0

100

Survey Area 2 2.5

0 0

100

200

300

Girth largest pole (cm)

2.0

Survey Area 2 Figure 4.8.6: Girth of trunk and girth of largest pole on coppice (type 1) in survey areas 1 and 2

1.5

Number of cut poles

1.0

.5

0.0

Survey Area 3 Figure 4.8.7: Numbers of cut poles on coppice (types 1 and 3) (each bar represents a single tree of type 1 or type 3)

138

Figure 4.8.8: Tree types in survey area 1

Figure 4.8.9: Tree types in survey area 2

139

Figure 4.8.10: Tree types in survey area 3

Figure 4.8.11: Girth of trunks in survey area 1

140

Figure 4.8.12: Girth of trunks in survey area 2

Figure 4.8.13: Girth of trunks in survey area 3

141

Figure 4.8.14: Numbers of complete and cut poles on coppice in survey area 1

Upslope

Reed Mead

N

SurveyArea 2

Path

0

metres

Number of complete and cut poles on coppice 14

20

7 1.4

Figure 4.8.15:Number of complete and cut poles on coppice in survey area 2

Figure 4.8.15: Numbers of complete and cut poles on coppice in survey area 2

142

4.8.5 Discussion Inarea1,t hesurveyshowedevi denceofdensercoppi ce downslope.Did this pattern merel yi ndi cat et he pl aces wi t hbet t ercondi t i onsforsurvi valoft heevi dence,ordi d i taccurat el y refl ectpastmanagement ? Threeaspect sof t he fi el d evi dence i ndi cat et hatt he pat t ern was t rul y represent at i veofpastmanagement . Fi rst l y,t he di st ri but i on of coppi ce st ool s and st umps showsacompleteabsenceofthesetreesin theupslope, sout h-west ern partoft hearea. Secondl y,t horns,whi ch areal i ght -l ovi ng,col oni si ngspecies,areconcentratedin theupslopepart,suggesting open conditionsin thepast. Both these aspects of the evidence confirm thattree managementas represent ed by t he l i vi ng t rees i nt he nort hern,downsl ope partofarea 1 may have a l onger hi st ory t han t herestofarea1. Thi rdl y,t hemap oft he numberofcompl et eandcutpol esoncoppi ce(i nFi gure 4. 8. 14)reveal st reeshavi ng rel at i vel y hi gh numbersof pol es formi ng a (rat her wobbl y) l i ne, l yi ng wel l downsl ope,wi t ht he t rees on t he downsl ope si de ofi t havi ng l owernumbers ofpol es.Thi s can onl y be t he resul tofmorefrequentori nt ensi vecut t i ngofpol esfrom t rees i nt he l i ne. The purpose may have been t he creat i on of t hi cker, new growt h and a hedge-l i ke boundary, t o mark t he edge of t he coppi ced wood. Al t ernat i vel y,i tcoul d be argued t hatt reesi nt hi sl i ne, beingnearerthepath,weremoreaccessibleandsolikely t o be cut more frequent l y si mpl y as a mat t er of conveni ence. In ei t hercase,t he spat i aldi st ri but i on of pol es t ends t o show sel ect i ve cut t i ng oft rees and not merel ydi fferent i alsurvi valoft heevi dence. Cartographicevidenceisalsorelevant;the1stOS 1 inch i ndi cat edt hatwoodl andi narea1 wasl essext ensi vet han t hemodern t reel i newoul d suggest . Al t hough t hescal e oft hemap makesi tdi ffi cul tt o becert ai n,t he1stOS 1 i nch may show apat ch oft reesin thevicinity ofarea1, whi ch coul d correspond t ot he more i nt ensi ve coppi ce revealedbythesurveydata. Dat a from area 1 hi nt s atsome di vi si ons. These may refl ectt he parcel son t he 1809 est at e map,whi ch were probabl y defi ned by t hepat h and by anot herl i newhose approxi mat el ocat i on i sshown i n Fi gures4. 8. 8,4. 8. 11 and 4. 8. 14. The di st ri but i on of st umps and st ool s (shown i n Fi gure 4. 8. 8) suggest s a possi bl e di vi si on bet weent hesout hernandnort hernpart soft hearea,and di st i nct , possi bl yl at er management of t rees on t he terrace-likepartwestofthepath (parcelb7 on the1809 est at e map). The nort h-sout h di vi si on very roughl y coi nci deswi t h aboundary bet ween parcel son t he1809 est at emap(bet weenparcel s&5andb9)buti tshoul dbe emphasi sed t hatno t ree al i gnment s orsi mi l arfeat ures di vi di ng t he part sofarea 1 were found,ot hert han t he alignment along the edge of the terrace, which had al readybeen recorded byJul eff(2000). Anal ysi soft he t reesurveydat amerel yshowedfewerst umpsandst ool s and a sl i ght l y more random di st ri but i on oft reesi nt he

143

sout hern part of area 1. Onl yt wo st umps and one possible coppice stool were recorded on the terrace, whi ch i s consi st ent wi t h earl i er suggest i ons of open conditionsin themorerecentpastand lateexpansion of t hewoodi nt ot hi spartofarea1. Takenasawhol e,t he evi dencei sconsi st entwi t hal ongerhi st oryofcoppi ci ng (suggest edbyt hest umpsandst ool s)i nt henort hernpart ofarea 1. There i sal so a sl i ghtcl ust eri ng ofprobabl e si ngl edcoppi cei nt hesout h-east ernpart ,agai nhi nt i ngat distinctpracticeshere. Inarea2,t hedi st ri but i onoft reet ypes(showni nFi gure 4. 8. 9)i scompl ex.Observat i on i nt he fi el d showed t hat thehazelon theflatland nextto theriver(Reed M ead) had cl earl y been coppi ced and t hedat ashowst hatsome oft he hazelt rees cl ose t o the path in area 2 had also been managed i nt hi s way. There are also a large numberofst andard t rees,especi al l yt horns,whi ch are l i ght l overs. The di st ri but i on suggest s coppi ci ng on Reed M ead itselfand on adj acentland in area 2,with clearanceoftreesinthevicini t yoft hepat hatsomet i me i n t he past , fol l owed by nat ural regenerat i on of unmanagedt hornandbi rch. Consi deri ngoakal one,t he t reesi n area 2 are mi xed i nt ype,perhapssuggest i ng a regi meofcoppi cewi t hst andards. The di st ri but i on of t ree t ypes i n area 2 shows some coincidence with the 1809 est at e map i nt hat hazel coppi ce i scent red on Reed M ead and oak coppi ce and standardsarelocated upslope. However,hazelcoppice al soseemst ohaveext endedbeyondt heparcelknownas Reed M ead (as far as t hi s can be judged,gi ven t he di st ort i on oft he 1809 est at e map),whi ch may i ndi cat e nat uralcol oni sat i on fol l owed by coppi ci ng. The 1809 estate map records use ofReed M ead as ‘Arable and past ure’,i n cont rastt o mostoft he woodl and parcel s, whose usewas‘Furze& wast e’.Encl osuressuggest i ng past oraluse ofareasoffl atl and nextt ot he ri verhave been found el sewherei nt heHornerW ood compl ex;for exampl e, Al l ercombe M eadow i n East W at er Val l ey (Jul eff2000,49).ReedM eadcoul dhavebeenpast ureat some period, with later coppicing of the hazel, as recorded by this survey. Hazelt rees may t hen have spreadnat ural l yt oasl i ght l ywi derarea. Thehandfulofst umpsandst ool srecordedi narea2were l ocat ed att he ext remi t i esoft he area. Thi sdi st ri but i on may supportt heconcl usi on drawn from t hedi st ri but i on oft reet ypes,t runkgi rt h,coppi cepol esandspeci es:t hat someoft hel andl yi ngbet weenReedM eadandt hesl ope had been open fora peri od and t hatregenerat i on here wasunmanaged,withoutthefelling orcoppicing which woul dproducesi gni fi cantnumbersofst umpsandst ool s. The data from area 3 indicates a simple pattern of management i nt hat t he t rees were overwhel mi ngl y st andards,asshown i n Fi gure4. 8. 10.Thel argenumber ofst umpsi sconsi st entwi t ht hel i vi ng t rees,i nt hati ti s goodevidenceoffellingfortimber.Thestumpsconfirm t hatatl eastone fel l i ng epi sode hasoccurred here and

given their proximity to each other when compared to the distances between living standard trees it may also be suggested that more than one episode is represented. The uniform pattern of management revealed by the trees in area 3 accords with the 1809 estate map, which shows that the area fell within one parcel. The handful of coppiced trees in area 3 need not have been contemporary with any of the standards and could represent the last traces of a phase of coppicing, which preceded management for timber. The pattern of sparse trees near the path, with increasing density downslope is less pronounced in area 3 than in area 1.

In all three survey areas the number of cut poles on coppiced trees was not high; this suggests that the field evidence relates to a relatively short period of coppicing, or possibly that conditions were not favourable to growth. The density of coppiced trees was quite low: at around 220/ ha or less, it was far lower than the rate of 1,000 stems/ ha recommended for modern, profitable coppice production (Crockford 1987, 156-158). In none of the three survey areas were tree alignments found to fossilise the boundaries of parcels on the 1809 estate map except for those trees which were aligned along physical features (the path marking the edge of Reed Mead in area 2 and the edge of the terrace in area 1). Both Reed Mead and the terrace are flat or gently sloping areas, which were found to contain distinct patterns of tree types. The following conclusion may be drawn: topography shaped both the boundaries of parcels and patterns of tree management.

4.8.6 Conclusions The survey of area 1 showed that intensive coppicing may, in the period represented by the trees and stools, have been confined to an area well inside the wood, as it was defined on the 1st OS 6 inch and the modern OS. This supports earlier suggestions that the wood has expanded in the recent past. The area of intensive coppicing may have been defined by managing the coppice on its margin in such a way as to create a hedgelike line of trees. The sample represented by area 1 is small and it would be interesting to know if this effect is encountered elsewhere in the Horner Wood complex. The path in area 1 may also have performed the function of a boundary at periods when trees were coppiced, given its position on the edge of the coppiced areas and inside the expansion indicated by the terrace. If these conclusions are true then it follows that the tree line and the edge of the parcels shown on the estate map of 1809 in this part of the wood, were not necessarily identical at all times.

The fact that the extant trees did not invariably appear to mirror the boundaries on the 1809 estate map is capable of various interpretations. As suggested in the preceding section, the 1809 estate map could have shown legal entities, which were obsolete or irrelevant to contemporary woodland management. Alternatively, the parcels on the 1809 estate map might indeed have been managed in different ways but all the extant trees could be younger, reflecting only later management.

The survey of area 2 showed that the entire extent of area 2 had not been assertively managed in all periods – episodes of open conditions may have occurred in places, which were then allowed to regenerate naturally. Some hazel on the flatter parts of area 2 (on Reed Mead) was managed by coppicing, which would postdate use of Reed Mead for pasture. Wood management for which there is evidence upslope, may have differed from that in area 1 in that it may have been ‘coppice with standards’ but the sample is small and without firm evidence of the age of the trees, one can only speculate as to whether the different styles of management in areas 1 and 2 existed together.

Comparison of the distribution of coppice with maps of the early 19th century may help to decide which interpretation may be correct. The depiction of the wood on the 1st OS 1 inch is consistent with the distribution of coppice, at least in area 1. This might suggest that the pattern of the coppice derives from management in the period before that map was published in 1809. Taken with the fact that the distribution of coppice does not mirror the parcels on the 1809 estate map, the results might show that the first alternative interpretation is more likely - the parcel divisions on the 1809 estate map did not delineate areas of different woodland management. It is also significant that the Greenwoods’ map of Somerset (1822) depicted this part of the wood as larger than on the 1st OS 1 inch, indicating that a phase of woodland expansion probably occurred here in the early 19th century, blurring a pattern of coppice inherited from an earlier period.

The survey of area 3 showed that part was coppiced at some period. The group of four coppiced trees lying downslope of the platform could be very roughly in line with the ‘hedge’ of coppice in area 1. If management for timber succeeded coppicing, it could have represented expansion of the wood upslope. Management for timber was employed for a period which was sufficiently long to see felling, probably in more than one episode.

Metal working debris recorded by Juleff’s (2000) survey strongly suggests that the wood was, at some period, managed for the production of charcoal fuel. The exact location and nature of the metal working is not known but would appear to lie to the south and west of the survey areas. None of the results of this survey pointed unequivocally to the extant trees having being managed to produce charcoal as fuel for metal working.

Thus, the evidence from both Areas 1 and 3 points to relatively recent expansion of the wood.

The relative positions of the platform (in area 3), the paths (in areas 1 and 3) and the coppice (in areas 1 and

144

3) might suggest the following sequence: trees (if any) near the top of the slope (in the immediate vicinity of the platform in area 3 and the terrace in area 1) could have been cleared for timber, wood or other products, resulting in a reduction in the overall wooded area. This pattern could have been inherited by later periods, resulting in coppice being restricted to land downslope, as revealed by this survey. Coppicing was later abandoned in area 3 and replaced by management for timber over a larger area. Area 2 suggests a slightly different sequence as a result of the existence of a separate parcel used for arable and pasture. This use may have been followed by the adoption of hazel coppicing and oak coppice with standards. The writer was always aware that the survey did not take place in woodland under active management for production. The survey data consisted of neglected trees from the last, dying phases of such management. Results suggested a direct relationship between the girth of the trunks of coppiced trees and that of the largest pole (as shown in Figure 4.8.6). This relationship may show that both the trunk and the uncut poles of neglected coppice continue to grow in girth but further research is needed into the development of neglected coppice and the inferences as to woodland history which it may support. The tree survey achieved its aims. It showed that living trees could point towards past woodland management units although no unequivocal boundary features were noted, except where topography was distinct. It showed that the mapping and analysis of data collected from individual trees could provide evidence for the sequence and nature of past management. By showing the variety of tree management techniques employed in even small areas and the existence of different phases of management, it demonstrated the fallacy of regarding this wood as a stable, unchanging place. Even without any information as to the exact date and duration of management phases, the survey results suggested a shifting pattern of use – for timber, coppice and pasture – in an area whose modern label as ‘wood’ masks its kaleidoscopic past. The survey results demonstrated the need for caution in employing modern concepts to classify and reconstruct the use of woodland by the people of the past. If they used ‘woods’ for many purposes, then our poverty-stricken terminology may be inadequate to analyse the remains of their practices.

145

W oodl and i nt hest udy areawasrecorded by Domesday Book i n acresori nl eagues,orby area measurement s. Fi gure 5. 1. 1 shows t he di st ri but i on of rel at i ve l evel s according to those entries, using the formula for conversi on ofl eaguest o acres,whi ch wasempl oyed by Corcos (2002, 57); one square l eague i st reat ed as equi val entt o1, 166 haorabout2880acres.

CHAPTER 5 THEMES 5. 1 Introduction 5.1.1 Recurring issues The case studies revealed a kal ei doscope of past woodl and management , wi t h varyi ng i nt ensi t y i n exploitation at different times and places. Some recurri ngi ssuesechoedt hosei dent i fi edbyt hest udyarea anal ysi si nChapt er3andrel at edt owi dert hemes. The rel at i onshi p bet ween woodl and management and ot herfarmi ng pract i ces,was an obvi ous t opi c;woods had been shaped by clearance and enclosure in some places, while unenclosed woods managed as wood past ure persi st ed i n ot hers.Tenuri ali ssues were al so si gni fi cant . The Royal Forest of Exmoor had some effecton woodl and,ashad ownershi p by ot herpersons ofvaryi ng st at us. Changesoccurri ng overt i me i nt he ri ght sofownersandot herusersal sohadani mpact .The set t l ement pat t ern was anot her i nfl uence; di fferent pract i cesi nnami ngwoodsneart ownswereapparentand avari et yofownershi pandoccupat i onpat t ernsi nwoods nearsi ngl efarmsand haml et swasclear. Theinfluence of t he end product was al so a probabl e fact or i n woodl and management . Archaeol ogi cal and document ary evi dence for t he product i on of charcoal , bark and ot hermat eri al swaswi despread and suggest ed t hatst yl es ofwoodl and managementmay have vari ed, according to the desired end product.Each of these t hemes (farmi ng pract i ces, t enure, set t l ement and woodl and product i on)waspl ayed outi n woodswhose expl oi t at i ondat edback,i nmanycases,severalcent uri es. Domesday Book,ast heearl i estdocument ary sourcefor l anduseovermostoft hest udyarea,provi desapoi ntof depart ure.

5.1.2 Woodlandin DomesdayBook Publ i shed work on Domesday Book,and st udi eswhi ch usei t sent ri es,havet endedt ot aket hecount yast heuni t of anal ysi s. The rel evant vol ume of t he Domesday Geography seri es (Darby & W el l don Fi nn 1967),for example,presented data foreach county and Rackham (2003)t ook asi mi l arapproach. Hecal cul at ed l evel sof woodl and i n 1086 as bei ng 10-16% (of al ll and) i n Somerset ,andatl esst han5% i nDevon(Rackham 2003, 117-8).Thest udy areast raddl escount y boundari esand accordingly,a clearpictureofthepattern ofwoodland, as recorded i n 1086, can be di ffi cul tt o see from publ i shedmat eri al .W orksonal argerscal e,ont heot her hand, such as the At l as produced by Robert s and W rat hmel l (2000), are not const rai ned by count y boundari es and show broad pat t erns,butl ack det ai l ed informationonindividualplaces.

146

Underwood wasrecorded assil va minut a in Exchequer Domesdayandasnemuscul us i nt heExet erBook.These references may i mpl y coppi ced woodl and and,as was ment i oned i nt hecasest udi esofBremri dgeand Horner, occurredi nonl ysi xent ri esforthestudyarea. Ofthese, four(Fi l l ei gh,Brayl ey,Tappsand Hi ghl ei gh)areon t he l owl and fri nges. The remai ni ng t wo were Al mswort hy and Exford. Itmustnotbeassumed t hatcoppi ci ng was practised in 1086 only in those places;the entriesmay si mpl yshow t hatt hecri t eri aforrecordi ngunderwoodas such weremetby woodsin theseplaces. Asmentioned inthecasestudies,theExford-Al mswort hyareai soneof t he l esswooded part soft he st udy area (apartfrom t he hi gher moorl and).If t hi s scarci t y had appl i ed i nt he medi evalperi od,i tmay have l ed t ot he acqui si t i on of ri ght st o expl oi twoodl and el sewhere (atPri cksl ade i n theHornercasestudy,forexample)and to theadoption ofsyst emat i ccoppi ci ng asaway ofmaxi mi si ng out put , ata time when otherplacestended to use theirwoods l essi nt ensi vel y. M ost ent ri es for pl aces i n the study area recorded woodlandinacres,withonlyafew placesusingleagues. An exampl eoft hel at t erwasLyn,on t henort h-west ern coast ,wherewoodl andwasrecordedas‘½ al eaguel ong andt wofurl ongswi de’(DomesdayD,110c). W hi l et hi s entry mi ghthave referred to large areas,its style may al so refl ect l ocal t errai n. The st eep sl opes of ri ver val l eys al ong t hi s partof t he coastcoul d have made accurate measurementdifficultand the style ofLyn’s ent ry coul d have si gnal l ed t hatonl y an est i mat e was possi bl e. However,t here are many ot herwoodsi nt he st udy areal yi ng on t hesl opesofri verval l eys,and i ti s notreal l ycl earwhyt heval l eysaroundLynshoul dhave beentreateddifferently. Ot her ent ri es measuri ng woodl and i n l eagues were recorded forfourplaces in the north-eastern quadrant: Carhampt on, W oot t on Court enay, Broadwood and Cut combe. Al ll i ei n an area i n whi ch (l at er)pari shes were fragment ed, as shown i n Fi gure 1. 7, perhaps refl ect i ngearl i erl andhol di ngpat t erns.Iti spossi bl et hat measurements of woodland in these places, as, for exampl e, ‘one l eague l ong by ½ a l eague wi de’ at Cut combe (DomesdayS, 95c), aggl omerat ed wi del y scatteredwoodlandholdingsinvariouspartsoftheplace named i nt heent ry. Theuseofdi mensi onscoul d agai n have si gnal l ed t hat onl y a rough est i mat e was bei ng gi ven.A si mi l ar concl usi on was drawn i nt he sout hwest ern vol ume of t he Domesday Geography series, where i twassuggest edt hatareadi mensi onsi nt hi sst yl e

147

30acres

150acres

300acres

W oodland under 1,000acres

Fi l l ei gh

Brayl ey

2,500acres 500acres

5,000acres

W oodl and over 1, 000acres(est im ated)

Al msworthy

Tapps

Exf ord

km

(DomesdayS, DomesdayD)

Hi ghl ei gh

Cutcombe

10

40acres 20acres 4acres

Underwood

W ood

Pl ace-name menti oned i n DomesdayBook

Carhampton

Broadwood

Ti mberscombe

W ootton Courtenay

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

Figure 5.1.1: Underwood and woodland recorded in Domesday Book

Lyn

0

could have recorded the addition of a number of smaller areas (Darby & Welldon Finn 1967, 174).

distribution indicated in Figure 5.1.1 might show a pattern of larger woods to the east and south, with Lyn in the north-west again appearing exceptional. This pattern has some relationship to woods depicted on the 1st OS 6 inch but may also simply show where population or land use was more intense in the 11th century, perhaps resulting in higher productivity and more accurate measurement of resources.

Fragmentation of land holdings, including woods, around Cutcombe was noted by an observer in the 19th century, who recorded that most farms there ‘have a portion of woodland belonging to, but detached from them’ and considered that such arrangements could date back to the period of Domesday Book (Savage 1830, 210). The same observer also noted that Wootton Courtenay then possessed very little timber apart from that in the hedges (ibid., 334).

In summary, entries in Domesday Book showed variation over the study area in the distribution or recording of woodland, as shown in Figure 5.1.1. Some significant developments by 1086 may be indicated, when entries are interpreted with other evidence. These include significant clearance around Timberscombe, generally infrequent management by coppicing, possible fragmentation of land holdings in the north-eastern quadrant and perhaps a distinct form of woodland management around Lyn and Exford-Almsworthy. The nature of the farming practices accompanying these developments, and later changes in farming, are considered in the next section.

These fragmented parishes in the north-eastern quadrant of the study area fell within the hundred of Carhampton, which was one of the three Somerset hundreds whose early medieval settlement was the subject of a recent work (Corcos 2002). Corcos proposed, on the basis of documentary and cartographic evidence, that Carhampton was the centre of a pre-Conquest multiple estate, with other subsidiary centres at places including Allerford and Bossington (in the Vale of Porlock) and considered that the place-name of Timberscombe showed possible specialisation at a subsidiary centre (ibid., 95). By the date of Domesday Book, the entries for Timberscombe recorded only 65 acres of woodland (DomesdayS, 94c), which was not particularly large in comparison to other places in the study area. Timberscombe lies in terrain of a particular character, with rivers having very wide, flat flood plains. Early clearance of these plains for timber, with subsequent use as meadow, pasture or arable could have produced relatively low levels of woodland before the Conquest. Distribution of extant woodland points in this direction; it tends to be confined to the steeper slopes; the flat plains and gentler slopes have been enclosed as fields. A deed of grant by Robert de Vinea, which dates to 1270 or before, provides further evidence. This deed has not, as far as the writer is aware, been fully published, but a partial transcription and summary mentions meadows and ‘one and half acres called la Bohne next the ford of Timbercomb’ (Harvard Law School Hollis Catalogue Ref 003279862 MSS Deeds 122). The deed also mentions ‘groves’ but as ‘la Bohne next the ford’ is not so described, the wording tends to confirm clearance of the river flood plain by the date of the grant All evidence from the north-eastern quadrant of the study area (which does not include pollen analysis) which was considered for this study may therefore be summarised as tending to show that significant woodland clearance had taken place, and had perhaps been completed in or by the pre-Conquest period. As the criteria for recording woodland in Domesday Book are not known, its entries cannot be regarded as providing a complete and infallible account, but the

148

wood past ure,wi t h Domesday Book asast art i ng poi nt . The i mpl i cat i onsofarabl e cul t i vat i on i nt he st udy area forwoodl andareal soexpl ored.

5.2 Farming 5.2.1 Introduction Recentresearch has laid foundations for the study of Exmoor’s past farmi ng pract i ces. The resul t s of RCHM E’s survey (Ri l ey & W i l son-Nort h 2001), Gillard’s (2002)study offi el d syst ems and set t l ement andt heLandscapesi nTransi t i onProject(Fyfe& Ri ppon 2004;Fyfe et al. 2003;Fyfe et al . 2004),whi ch were ment i oned i n Chapt er 1, have provi ded masses of rel evantmat eri al . Before t hese st udi es,l i t t l e had been publ i shedconcerni ngExmoor’sfarmi ngpract i ces.Even i nt heAgrarian HistoryofEngl and and Wal escoverage was t hi n,due t ot he sparse document ary record. It s vol umes,and work by ot herwri t erson t he sout h-west , focussedonot herpart soft heregi on.Thi st endencywas apparenti n st udi es by Hoski ns (1954,1960 & 1963), Fi nberg (1951,1952 & 1969),Fl emi ng (1994)and Fox (1973,1989,1991a,1991b,1994,1996,1999 etc.). In t hi s body ofwork,di st i nctpract i ces i n farmi ng oft he sout h-westwererecogni sedandt hreei ssuesofpart i cul ar i nt erest were out l i ned: t he ext ent of past arabl e cul t i vat i on, t he form of fi el d syst ems and t hei r chronol ogy.

5.2.2 Woods,livestockand arable cultivation The pastrol e ofwoodl and i nt he farmi ng oft he st udy area i s closely t ied t ot he hi story ofgrazi ng pract i ces. Frequentreferencehasbeen madein thecasestudiesto t hecharact eri st i csofwoodpast ureandcoppi cedwoods, whi chi ti susefult orevi ew here. In wood past ures,no barri ers are const ruct ed bet ween wood and adjoi ni ng l and.Li vest ock may wanderfreel y, grazi ng i n bot h areas.Asani mal sare l i kel yt o eatany spring within theirreach,thetreesmay bemanaged by pol l ardi ng i fa‘crop’ofwood i sdesi red. Thephysi cal charact eri st i csofwoodsused aswood past uresaret hus l i kel yt o be pol l ard t reesand the absence ofa physical boundarywi t ht headjoi ni ngl and(att heperi odwhent he woodwasmanagedi nt hi sway). W hen livestock is grazed elsewhere, woods may be managed by coppi ci ng.The physi calcharact eri st i cs of t hese woods may be areas of ext antcoppi ce and t he boundary feat ures, by whi ch l i vest ock i s excl uded. Cl earl y,t hel evelofarabl ecul t i vat i onandt hesyst em by whi ch i t was organi sed, wi l l al so be si gni fi cant . Encl osi ng fi el ds for arabl ei mpl i ed t he excl usi on of livestock from thefieldsformostoftheyear,leadingto t heexpl oi t at i onofl andel sewhereaspast ure. Inthissection,evidencefrom thecasestudies,fieldwork and t hest udy areaanal ysi si n Chapt er3 wi l lbeused as t he basi s forhypot heses concerni ng t he di st ri but i on of

149

5.2.3Grazingand livestockin DomesdayBook M any places in the study area were recorded as possessing meadows,where livestock could be grazed andhaycoul dbegrownaswi nt erfodder.Al lent ri esfor placesinthestudyareawhichrecordedmeadow referred toacres,withthesoleexcept i onofNort hM ol t on,whose ent ry referred t o meadow oft wo l eagues(DomesdayD, 100d) suggest i ng a very l arge area. M eadows were recorded in most parts of the study area, with the exception ofa string ofplacesalong the north-western coast ,whi ch were recorded as havi ng pl oughs butno meadows.These i ncl ude Brendon (DomesdayD,114a) Lynt on & Il kert on, whi ch were recorded t oget her (DomesdayD,110c)andM art i nhoe(DomesdayD,102c). Past ure was recorded i n Domesday Book but t hese ent ri esmay notgi ve a compl et e descri pt i on ofgrazi ng resources. Common rightsto graze the moorwere not included in entriesfori ndividualplaces,although they wereprobabl yenjoyedatt hi speri od,asi ndi cat edbyt he ent ry forM ol l and,t o whi ch bel onged ‘t he (dues from every)t hi rd ani malon moorl and past ure’(DomesdayD, 101a),asment i onedi nChapt er1. Past ure was (l i ke woodl and) recorded by di fferent met hodsofmeasurement ,ei t herasacresandl eagues,or asareasmeasuredinleagues(forexample,oneleagueby hal fa l eague). Past ure i nl eagues occurs al lovert he studyareawiththeexceptionofpl acesi nt hevi ci ni t yof Chal l acombe and on t he west ern fri nge, from St oke Ri verst o Buckl and. Ent ri essuch ast hoseforW i nsford (DomesdayS, 86d) and Nort h M ol t on (DomesdayD, 100d),whi ch used l eagues,mi ghtpoi ntt ot he use of l argeareas. Int hecaseofW i nsford,t heareawashuge: fourleaguesbytwo.Thedi stributionofplacesforwhich pasture was recorded in acres may al so be si gni fi cant . No entries for pasture in acres were made for places al ong t he nort h-west ern coast al st ri p (roughl y from M art i nhoet o Oare),wheremeadowswerenotrecorded. Thi s may suggest t hat grazi ng was more or l ess excl usi vel y on l arge(perhapsunencl osed)areasand not i n smal l erfi el ds.Fourl ords hel dl and here,a pat t ern si mi l art ot hatoft heVal eofPorl ock. Doest hi spat t ern suggest that each area possessed a flourishing local economy att he Conquest ,whoseprofi t si twasdeemed pol i t i ct o share bet ween several l ords or whi ch had si mpl y been grabbed by t hem i nal ess cont rol l ed process? Thedi st i nct i venat ureoft henort h-west ern coast alst ri p i s underscored by t he di st ri but i on of l i vest ock. Domesday Book recorded hi gh numbersofsheep,pi g, goatand especi al l y cat t l e (showni nFi gure5. 2. 1) for

0

Counti sbury

10

km

Lyn Brendon Oare I l kerton Parracombe

Bratton

Cheri ton

Mi nehead

Knowl e Chal l acombe

Quarme Radworthy

Numbers of cattle

North Mol ton

58

Mol l and

29 6

EastAnstey W ood Pl ace-name menti oned i n Domesday Book Figure 5.2.1: Cattle recorded in Domesday Book (DomesdayS, DomesdayD)

0 Lynton

km

10

Brendon

Knowl e

Cutcombe Quarme Number of wi ld mares 72

W ood

36 7

Pl ace-name menti oned i n Domesday Book

Numbers of unbroken mares 110 55 11

Figure 5.2.2: Mares recorded in Domesday Book (DomesdayS, DomesdayD)

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

150

places here, in conjunction with relatively low numbers ofpl oughs. Ift he ent ri es refl ect ed t he realeconomi es of these places, then the farmers here may have been speci al i st s i nl i vest ock, i ncl udi ng horses. Brendon was recorded as havi ng 104 unbroken mares (DomesdayD, 114a) and Lynt on & Il kert on, 72 wi l d mares (DomesdayS, 110c). The di st ri but i onofent ri es formares i s shown i n Fi gure 5.2.2, whi ch i ndi cat es t hatt hose i n Brendon and Lynt on are by a l arge margi nt he hi ghest numbers in the study area. Ifthese horses lived on the moor, as t he numbers mi ghtsuggest , and represent ed a significantpartofthe localeconomy, theirsuccessful managementmay have provi ded a good reasonforl ocal farmers to avoid enclosure ofthe moorforarable. A di sput e on t hi s i ssue bet ween Forde Abbey, whi ch owned l and i nt hi s area, and l ocalfarmers i nt he l at e 13th century (CartFA, 114 et seq.) may show t he Abbey di st urbi ng a cent uri es-ol d past oralt radi t i on ofl and use, whi ch expl oi t ed t he open moor (and perhaps wood past ure). Three otherplaces recorded numbers ofhorses:Knowle (DomesdayS, 96a), Cut combe (DomesdayS, 95c,d) and Quarme (DomesdayS, 95d). Al ll i ei nt he nort h-east ern quadrantoft he st udy area. Nei t herKnowl e norQuarme woul d have been part i cul arl y cl ose t ol arge expanses of open moor, so t hei r horses (whi ch were recorded i n l owernumbers t han t hose oft he nort h-west ern coast al st ri p) coul d have been kepton smal l erareas shown on l at ermaps as commons. W hile precise conclusions aboutpractices in each place cannotbe drawn, t he ent ri es i n Domesday Book may show t hat by t he 11th century, a degree of localised speci al i sat i on had devel oped, whi ch coul d have been apparenti n di fferentgrazi ng pract i ces i n di fferentpart s ofthe study area.

5.2.4 Where were the wood pastures? Inferri ng wood past ure i nt he medi evalperi od i nt he study area requires a leap of faith. For the earlier medi eval peri od, ent ri es i n Domesday Book whi ch referred to silva pastilis may be adduced as evidence (Rackham 2003, 118) butno ent ri es fort he st udy area cont ai ned t hi s t erm. Pol l ard t rees may poi nt t owards wood past ure butt he peri od i nwhi cht hey were managed as such could only be accurately assessed by dendrochronol ogy. Some of t he woods i nt he case st udi es cont ai ned pol l ards and scat t ered exampl es were encount ered duri ng fi el dwork, butnone oft he exampl es i n t he smal l programme of dendrochronol ogi cal sampl i ng(i nt he Hornercase st udy) coul d be dat ed t ot he medieval period. The ot her physical trace of wood past ure i s negat i ve, bei ng t he absence of wood boundaries, but this trace disappears if the wood is subsequent l y encl osed. Evidence from the case studi es must therefore be i nt erpret ed wi t h caut i on. Pol l ards were not ed i n woods

151

l acki ngphysi calboundari es t o adjoi ni ngl and i npart s of t he HornerW ood compl ex, especi al l yi n HornerW ood (170, Luccombe) and Cl out sham Bal l(178, Luccombe). W oods i nt he case st udi es ofSherracombe, Bremri dge and Cul bone di d notshow t hese si gns ofuse as wood past ure and i nt he Barl e case st udy, onl y Ni ne Acre Copse (332, Dul vert on) l acked boundari es and onl y Ashway Hat W ood (330, Dul vert on) offered any i ndi cat i ont hati tmi ghthave beenopeni nt he past . The obvi ous di st i nct i onbet weent he woods wi t hsi gns ofpast wood past ure and t hose wi t hout , i s proxi mi t y t o open moor. Horner W ood (170, Luccombe) was t he onl y wood whose edge, as depi ct ed on t he 1st OS 6 inch, adjoi ned open moorl and t o any si gni fi cantdegree. Iti s t empt i ng t ol eap t ot he concl usi on t hatwoods adjoi ni ng moorl and al l over t he st udy area were i nvari abl y managed as medi evalwood past ures. Such woods may nothave been di st i ngui shed from t he mooroverwhi ch common ri ght s were enjoyed, whi ch mi ghtexpl ai n why t he woods were notrecorded by Domesday Book as silva pastilis. To expl ore t hi s hypot hesi s, t he woods dat abase (as descri bed i nChapt er3) was searched forany woods wi t h charact eri st i cs suggest i ng a prima f acie case forwood pasture. The criteria used were the absence ofphysically nch and defi ned boundari es att he dat e oft he 1st OS 6 i boundari es ofwhi chmore t han30% adjoi ned moorl and. 114woods mett hese cri t eri a. Thei rdi st ri but i oni s shown i nFi gure 5.2.3. Iti ncl udes a cl ust erofsmal l erwoods i n t he nort h-west erncoast alst ri p, part s oft he HornerW ood compl ex and some modern pl ant at i ons, such as Sel wort hy Pl ant at i on (113, Sel wort hy). The group al so i ncl udes a l oose cl ust erofl argerwoods on t he nort heast ernedge oft he st udy area, i nt he vi ci ni t y ofDunst er, suchas Grabbi stCoppi ce (19, Dunst er), Hat s W ood (34, Carhampt on) and Sl owl ey W ood (71, Luxborough). M any oft hi s group i nt he nort h-eastare now modern coni fer pl ant at i ons but al l were recorded on Engl i sh Nat ure’s i nvent ory ofanci entwoodl and. These woods are cl ose t o l ong est abl i shed t owns (Carhampt on and Dunst er) whi ch experi enced growt h up t o t he 14th century. Dunsterwas a centre oftextile production and possessed a harbour by t hatperi od (Ri l ey & W i l sonNort h 2001, 120) and, i t mi ght be supposed, t he expansi onofbot ht owns woul d have l ed t o hi ghl evel s of demand forunderwood as fuel . ‘Effi ci ent ’management by encl osure and coppi ci ng mi ght be expect ed as a consequence. The cont i nued exi st ence of l arge, unencl osed woods suggest st hatsuch a course was not i nvari abl y fol l owed. Cani tt henbe concl uded t hatmedi evaldemand forwood i n t he nort h-east was moderat e and easi l y accommodated?A single piece ofdocumentary evidence poi nt si nt he opposi t e di rect i on. A l at e 17th century copy by Narci ssus Lut t rel lofa deed of1300or1301 showed thatthe rightto take fuelfrom Croydon Hillwas then grant ed by members of t he Lut t rel l fami l y t o t he burgesses of Dunster (SRO Luttrell Archive DD/L

152 North Molton

CULBONE

Exford

BARLE

Porlock

Vale of Porlock

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

Figure 5.2.3: Possible former wood pastures and the case studies

BREMRIDGE

SHERRACOMBE

Lynmouth

0

Dulverton

HORNER

km

Carhampton

Case study boundary

Other wood

Wood adj oining moor and lacking physically def ined boundaries on 1st OS 6 inch

Dunster

10

1,23/1b, part 1). Croydon Hill was moorland on the 1st OS 6 inch, lying about 3 km from Dunster and adjoining Hats Wood (34, Carhampton). The grant tends to confirm that supplies from woods closer to Dunster were proving inadequate to meet its needs.

Attitudes seem to have altered in the post-medieval period. Documentary evidence from the Vale of Porlock, as outlined in the preceding Chapter, included the particulars for a lease of woods in 1580, which required the woods’ enclosure. The particulars referred to livestock in the woods but failed to mention the rights by which animals were pastured there (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 271). The terms of the new lease constitute evidence of radical change, with the owners acting in cheerful disregard of any common rights.

The grant of 1300 and the existence of large, unenclosed woods nearby raise several interesting questions. Why, in view of possibly increasing fuel consumption in Dunster, were all woods in the vicinity not enclosed and coppiced? Were unenclosed woods important to the local economy for other reasons? Is Dunster’s deer park relevant? It includes some woodland such as Hollow Wood (29, Carhampton), and was in existence by 1279 (Somerset HER 33441, 33568) or 1281 (Cantor 1983, 65). Did the formation and management of the deer park reduce supplies of wood in the area or conserve them by preventing clearance and ploughing?

It is clear that an assertive policy of enclosure in the post-medieval period was not universal. Figure 5.2.3 indicates that wood pastures probably survived to some degree in most parts of the study area. Even on the fringes of the Vale of Porlock, with its booming economy consuming high levels of woodland produce and its assertive lord, some woods probably continued to function as wood pastures well into the 16th century and beyond.

The explanation for the puzzling pattern of woodland near Dunster may be that distinct tenurial practices prevented a rising demand for fuel being translated into a drive towards enclosure and coppicing. The existence of common rights of pasture over wood and moor, together with a social structure allowing their robust defence, would fit neatly here. If land around Dunster were subject to such common rights, then enclosure and coppicing of woods may not have been practicable or possible, and both wood and adjacent land may have remained a communal wood pasture. Persistence of rights over a wood and adjoining moor was evident in the Horner case study, where William Harrison’s statement in the dispute of the 1570s echoed the pastoral practice - ‘the wood called Horner Wood and common of pasture upon the hills yet remain in common’ (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 124). Evidence from other parts of the Vale of Porlock has also been outlined in the preceding Chapter to show only patchy enclosure (and coppicing) of woods in the medieval period, with large tracts of wood pasture remaining well after 1500.

5.2.5 More wood pastures? Post-medieval or modern enclosure of woods overwrites the open wood pasture with a boundary feature. Fieldwork suggested another clue: tracks or paths along the wood edge. In the following account, no technical definition of ‘path’ or ‘track’ is used. The term ‘track’ is applied merely to the features which appeared from maps or on the ground to be noticeably wider than others in the vicinity and the term ‘path’ is applied to the others. Many examples of paths or tracks coinciding with the wood edge had been noted on the 1st OS 6 inch (as mentioned in Chapter 3) and several were examined in fieldwork. In addition to examples in the case studies, further instances were seen at the woods whose location is shown in Figure 5.2.4, and which are listed in Table 5.1. In all these cases, which were inspected during fieldwork, the path or track ran along a flat area at the foot of the slope or at the top of the slope, as in Burridge Wood (400, Dulverton), Invention Wood (623,Parracombe), Bickham Wood (189, Timberscombe) and Week Wood (244, Exton).

Assertion of common rights may not always have defeated a determined lord. The significance of the individual may be neatly illustrated by a pair of adjoining woods near Dunster: Slowley Wood (71, Luxborough) and Monkham Wood (70, Luxborough). The former was depicted on the 1st OS 6 inch as a large, unenclosed moor edge wood while the latter was entirely enclosed. The name of Monkham Wood suggests monastic ownership and Cleeve Abbey is thought to have owned land at Slowley (Weaver 1906, 29-30) (MacDermot 1939, 97). While conclusions must be tentative in the absence of positive evidence of the Abbey’s ownership, it appears that Cleeve Abbey could have enclosed Monkham Wood (70, Luxborough) while leaving Slowley Wood (71, Luxborough) open. Different treatment of adjoining woods might show the lord’s policy of enclosure being moderated, but not destroyed, by local practices.

Over the entire study area, paths or tracks coincided with a wood edge in 406 cases, as noted in Chapter 3. There is no reason to assume that all these cases experienced a uniform process of development but the frequency of the phenomenon is of interest. It is capable of several interpretations. It may simply be a product of woods’ location on sloping valley sides. Tracks and paths which trace the easiest routes will follow flatter land just beyond, or on the edge of the wood, either at the top or foot of the slope. The tracks and paths coinciding with the wood edge may merely reflect this fact. Alternatively, woods may have been enclosed by banks at an earlier period, which have been masked by tracks,

153

154 North Molton

Exford

BARLE

Porlock

Vale of Porlock

0

Dulverton

HORNER

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

Figure 5.2.4: Woods (outside case studies) noted in fieldwork as having tracks/paths along boundary

BREMRIDGE

SHERRACOMBE

Lynmouth

CULBONE

km

Carhampton

Case study boundary

Other wood

Wood with track or path along boundary

Dunster

10

Table 5.1: Woods bounded by paths or tracks Caffyns Heanton Wood (613, Lynton & Lynmouth) Heddon’s Mouth Wood (625, Trentishoe) Mill Cliff Wood (621, Martinhoe) Heale Wood (633, Parracombe) Burch Wood (882, Twitchen) Barlynch Wood (362, Brompton Regis) Rabbit Wood (243, Exton) Bridgetown Wood (255, Exton) East Lucott Wood (135, Stoke Pero) West Wood (197.3, Cutcombe) Burridge Wood (400, Dulverton) Bickham Wood (189, Timberscombe) Invention Wood (623, Parracombe) Week Wood (244, Exton).

century, as mentioned in the Sherracombe case study. The hedges’ probable modern date is also consistent with a past history as wood pasture.

paths and later bank construction and by the ‘hollowing out’ effect of long use. There is no means of distinguishing such cases, or of ruling these possibilities out completely on the evidence now available.

The extent to which wood pastures existed throughout medieval England, even in lowland areas with significant levels of arable cultivation, may have been underestimated, as recent work has recognised (Campbell 2000, 85). Treatises on estate management of the 13th and 14th century routinely refer to the pasturing of livestock in woods;for example, Walter of Henley offered comparative yields from livestock grazed on salt marsh and ‘woody pasture’ (Walter, 333) and the Husbandry, which was probably written for the management of Ramsey Abbey’s estates (Husbandry, 200), mentioned sending cattle ‘away from the fields and into the woods’ for grazing (ibid., 425). It appears that, even in the period of ‘high farming’, wood pasture coexisted with high levels of arable cultivation (Campbell 2000, 411). It is therefore possible that Exmoor’s wood pastures were unusual only in surviving well into the post-medieval period.

Finally, some of these woods may have been wood pastures, without stock proof boundaries, at an early period. When the woods were later enclosed, the physical boundary may, as a matter of convenience, have been erected along the line of any path or track already skirting the treeline. The extant traces of such a process would be the coincidence of path and wood boundary and a sinuous boundary form, if the path followed contours. The results of analysis of study area data in Chapter 3 might be consistent with development along these lines and individual examples also offer support. In the case of Burridge Wood (400, Dulverton), the tithe map (1839) labelled the track at the foot of the slope as ‘path boundary’, suggesting that it, and not the nearby field hedge bank, was the original wood edge. Support is also provided by field evidence in the case studies: at Little Comfort Wood (666, High Bray) in the Sherracombe case study and also at Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) and possibly Wilmersham Wood (160.2, Stoke Pero) in the Horner case study. In the Barle case study, definition of the former edge of Ashway Hat Wood (330, Dulverton) and Slade Wood (335.3, Dulverton) by tracks was supported by cartographic, as well as physical evidence.

5.2.6 Woods and arable cultivation The published works mentioned at the start of this section have increased understanding of the development of arable cultivation in the Exmoor area. Physical remains on moorland, such as the relict field systems and traces of ploughing on Molland Common and Winsford Hill, have been summarised in the major work on Exmoor’s field archaeology (Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 126). Gillard’s (2002) study considered the form of fields in ‘Greater Exmoor’ (as he defined it) in conjunction with the nearby settlement pattern, topography and documentary evidence. His work, which found eight separate groups of fields with common characteristics (ibid., 106-130), showed that arable

One of the woods listed in Table 5.1, Invention Wood (623, Parracombe), lies at the western end of the northwestern coastal strip, which analysis of entries in Domesday Book suggested, specialised in livestock. An early period of management as wood pasture would be consistent with this documentary evidence. The extant boundary hedges are planted with beech, which is normally a sign on Exmoor of construction in the 19th

155

cultivation was widespread and that a variety of field systems was used.

recorded assarts of small areas (mostly one or two acres) for corn and oats by eight persons and purprestures of 10 acres for arable crops (MacDermot 1939, 81). Other documentary references indicating ploughing include the term ‘furlong’ in grants of land in or before 1204 at Ashway (in the Barle case study) and at Wilmersham (in the Horner case study) in or before the 14th century. Documentary evidence of the dispute over Forde Abbey’s land at Lynton and Countisbury (CartFA, 112), which has already been mentioned, also points to arable The cultivation there by the late 13th century. documentary evidence of arable cultivation in the study area is therefore 13th century in date or later.

A chronology of arable cultivation has been proposed by the Landscapes in Transition Project, which was mentioned in Chapter 1. This programme of pollen analysis, (whose sample sites at three locations are not within the study area of this research) produced results showing an increase in cereal pollen in the lowland fringe in the 7th to 9th centuries A.D. (Fyfe et al. 2004, 23) and in the uplands in the 10th century A.D., which the authors interpreted as cultivation within a system of convertible husbandry (Fyfe et al. 2003, 27).

To summarise, evidence for arable cultivation in the study area in the pre-Conquest period consists of entries in Domesday Book and the pollen record from nearby sites. Whenever and however arable cultivation developed in the medieval period, it persisted well into the post-medieval period on the uplands. Documents refer to cultivation at Withypool Common in 1523 (MacDermot 1939, 446-7), and the pollen record showed cereals at Molland Common until the period 1750-1800 (Fyfe et al. 2003, 26). Tithe maps continued to record an arable state of cultivation in many places in the 19th century, although the precise meaning of this may be open to doubt.

The context in which changes in cereal cultivation were adopted, is not known. Is it possible that they represented the first signs of commercialisation in the agrarian economy? Some writers have seen evidence for trade in a range of goods on a national scale by the 11th century (Snooks 1995, 36-37). The possibility of occasional local markets, as well as those in burhs, in the pre-Conquest period, has been envisaged by some (e.g. Dyer 2003, 69) but discounted by others (e.g. Britnell 1996, 16). The writer is aware of no evidence in or around the study area which supports such a suggestion and the difficult terrain might contradict it. Transport of arable crops to market would have been extremely difficult. Livestock may have been a different matter. As others have realised, animals can walk to market (Campbell 1995, 85) and entries in Domesday Book may, as has already been suggested, point to localised specialisation in livestock, which implies some kind of market. If this speculation has any value, then the tracks recorded on the 1st OS 6 inch and noted during fieldwork are potentially of great interest in showing longstanding routes between farms and the markets for their produce. For example, those in the Barle case study may indicate routes to markets in Winsford and Dulverton, which could have been in use from a very early date.

What was the significance for woodland exploitation of arable cultivation in the study area? Firstly, the construction of physical field boundaries may have resulted in the enclosure of woods. Secondly, changes in the level or systems of arable cultivation may have been accompanied by changes in grazing practices which might in turn affect woodland use. It has already been noted that the woods of the study area are located, for the most part, on the sloping sides of river valleys. If, as their distribution suggests, farmers laid out fields on the flatter land above the slopes of the river valleys, then enclosure of that land would, without further action, result in the enclosure of woods on the slopes immediately below them. The upslope boundary of the wood would be a field hedge bank and the downslope, the watercourse. In this terrain, enclosure of woods may therefore have been an epiphenomenon of field layout, not requiring any further action on the part of the farmer. Wood-field boundaries would, in these circumstances, be indistinguishable from field hedges. This was borne out by observation in the field. The writer noted few examples of wood boundary features of a different appearance or form to those of the adjoining fields. Cases like Great Wood (108.2, Selworthy), which has a substantial bank around its perimeter (shown in Figure 5.2.5) were rare. Even here, the ‘woodbank’ is really only definable as such on the grounds that it encircles a wood; its form is not markedly different from the hedge banks of the neighbouring fields. Another archaeologist reached a similar conclusion, recording that the banks in the wood and in nearby Brakely Wood

It is tempting to conclude that arable cultivation over the entire study area followed the chronology of the sites in the Landscapes in Transition Project but some caution is needed. Very little evidence from the study area can definitely be assigned to the pre-Conquest period. Domesday Book recorded ploughs for all places (except one) in the study area, even those at high altitudes but its interpretation is always a matter of debate. The archaeological evidence of ploughing, of which much was reviewed by Gillard, includes lynchets close to the deserted settlement at Ley Hill (in the Horner Wood complex) and traces in relict field systems on Bossington Hill (Somerset HER 34002) close to the Vale of Porlock, and on North Hill, Minehead (Somerset HER 35856) in the north-eastern corner of the study area but all are practically impossible to date. Documentary evidence from the Royal Forest referring to arable cultivation in the study area does not date to the pre-Conquest period. The eyre of 1257, for example,

156

Figure 5.2.5: Woodbank in Great Wood (photograph by writer) (108.1, Selworthy) and Lower Horridge Wood (125.1, Selworthy) ‘reminded me more of field boundaries’ (Berry undated, 10-12).

problems could arise. Tension between the different uses would be almost inevitable and disputes such as that between Forde Abbey and livestock farmers (CartFA, 112), could result.

If woods on the slopes of river valleys had been enclosed by such a process, which resulted from field layout, then it follows that the consequent reduction of wood pasture was probably not driven by the need to coppice woods and increase production of underwood. No ‘woodbank’ would have been constructed for the sole purpose of excluding animals from a coppice wood. Instead, the creation of fields for arable or pastoral use served to create the conditions in which trees could be protected from grazing animals and in which coppicing could be implemented, if required. Even without systematic coppicing, greater quantities of wood would have been available after enclosure and exclusion of livestock from the woods..

In this respect, the function of the Royal Forest may have been crucial. For the period up to the mid-13th century, its role is difficult to assess but the hints in Domesday Book suggesting common grazing rights over areas of moor, point to a very long history. The clearest conclusion to be drawn is that rights of common exercised over land in the Royal Forest could have gained importance as arable cultivation increased. The Royal Forest may have been significant for woodland, not by reason of any great deterrent to clearance, but by providing a structure in which common rights of pasture could be asserted and protected against encroachment, whether by ploughing on the open moor or enclosure of adjoining woods.

The second effect of arable cultivation on woodland flows from changes in grazing practices. If former wood pastures close to a farm were divided and enclosed for arable, then local grazing resources would be reduced. One solution is to move livestock to open moorland. Somewhat paradoxically, arable cultivation close to the farm (even under the shifting pattern of convertible husbandry) may have been a force acting to conserve and intensify the use of any more distant wood pastures adjoining the moor. If that moorland were then enclosed for cultivation and taken out of wood pasture, real

157

5.3 Tenure 5.3.1 Introduction In t hi s sect i on, t he spat i al pat t erns of woodl and ownership in thecasestudies,asthey existedinthe19th cent ury,wi l lbeconsi deredi nrel at i ont opossi bl eearl i er pract i ces. Evi dence ofrel evantact i vi t i esby i ndi vi dual ownersatvari ousperi odswi l lal sobeexami ned. The t erm ‘owner’ wi l l be used t o descri be t hose cont rol l i ng l and i nt hepastbuti ti snott hereby i mpl i ed that they enjoyed exactly the same range of rights, powers and responsibilities as owners in the present. M odern usage vi ews an owner or propri et or as t he person ‘who hast heexcl usi veri ghtort i t l et ot heuseor di sposalofa t hi ng’(OEDXII,655).Such a conceptof ownershi p as an expressi on of excl usi ve, i ndi vi dual ri ght sdi dnotappl yi nt hepast ,whenl andwasoccupi ed wi t hi nawebofobl i gat i onsundert hemonarch.

5.3.2 Patternsofwood tenurein the casestudies Pat t ernsofwoodl and ownershi p and occupat i on i nt he savai l abl e)i n 19th century (orbefore,where evidence i t hecasest udi esaredescri bed hereby referencet o four paramet ers: 1. Thenumberofunitsofownership in each case st udy as t hi s may i ndi cat e l ongst andi ng di vi si onsofl andmanagement ; 2. Any subdivision ofwoodland within each unit of ownershi p as t hi s mi ghtpoi ntt o separat e managementi nt hepast ; 3. The degree ofi nt egri t y ofwoodl and hol di ngs (t hati s,whet herwoodl andwashel di ncompact bl ocks ori n parcel si nt ermi xed wi t ht hose of ot hers)ast hi smi ghtgi veot hercl uesaboutpast l anduse;and 4. Thedegreeofi nt egri t yofhol di ngsofadjoi ni ng land. Table 5. 2 summarises the patterns in each case study. M ostwere assessed by reference t ot he t i t he maps or ury but at Cul bone and est at e maps of t he 19th cent Bremridge,earlier evidence was avai l abl e. Uni t s of ownership, and subdivision of each such unit (the paramet ers numbered 1 and 2 above),were assessed from t het i t hemapforal lt hecasest udi es,exceptt hatof Culbone,wherethewoodlandhadbeenomittedfrom the tithe apportionment.In thatcase,ownership (and any subdi vi si on) was t aken t o be t hati ndi cat ed i n earl i er sketch maps from the estate records of the Earl of Lovelace. Assessmentofthe integrity ofholdings of woodsandofadjoi ni ngl and(t heparamet ersnumbered3 and 4 above)wasmade on t he basi soft he pat t ernsof occupation recorded in estatemapsofthe18th and 19th cent uri esforCul boneand Horner(ast hesepredat ed t he

158

t i t he maps)buton t he basi sofownershi p,asdepicted on t het i t hemaps,forSherracombeand Barl e. Onl yi n t hecasest udy ofBremri dgewast het i t hemap’srecord of occupat i on (as opposed t o ownershi p) used t o det ermi neparamet ers3 and 4;t here,ownershi p ofbot h woodlandandadjoininglandwas,atthedateofthetithe map, al l vest ed i n one person and was t herefore uni nformat i ve. The reason foravoi dance oft he t i t he maps’recordofoccupat i onwast hatst at edi nChapt er1; i twasfel tt hatownershi p wasl i kel yt o be more st abl e andsoabet t ergui det ot hepast . Tabl e 5. 2 shows t hat onl y i n t he case st udy of Sherracombe was each owner’s woodland subdivided i nt o smal l er uni t s (appl yi ng paramet er 2 above), al t hough some subdi vi si on occurred i n al lt he case st udi es except Cul bone and Bremri dge. Int ermi xed woodl and hol di ngs (paramet er 3) occurred al ongsi de i nt ermi xed hol di ngs ofadjoi ni ng l and (paramet er4)at SherracombeandHorner. Int hecasest udyofCul bone, i nt ermi xed occupat i on of fi el ds co-exi st ed wi t h si ngl e ownershi pofl argewoodl anduni t s. Arethesepatternsareliableguidetopastpractices? The Hornercasestudyshowedthatcautionovertheantiquity ofpat t ernsofoccupat i on att he dat e oft he t i t he maps (1839-40)wasjust i fi ed.Compari sonwi t ht heest at emap of1809 showed t hatsi gni fi cantchangeshad been made t ol and occupat i on i nt he i nt erveni ng 30 years.(Bot h sources showed t he same pat t ern ofownershi p,as t he l and formed partoft heAcl and est at e,bot hi n 1809 and y19th 1839-40. ) Agrari anwri t ersoft hel at e18th andearl centuries were fervent advocates for change in land hol di ngpract i cesandt i t hemapsshow t hesi t uat i onaft er apot ent i alperi odofupheaval ,especi al l yi nl argeest at es, whoseownersmayhavebeenpart i cul arl ysuscept i bl et o ideas of ‘improvement’. The Horner case study also shows evi dence of consol i dat i on i n t he earl y 19th cent ury, wi t h some ol d di vi si ons of woodl and bei ng ent i rel yel i mi nat ed. Consequent l y,i tcannotbeassumed thatlarge woodland unitsshown on the tithe mapsare i nvari abl y anci ent ;t hey mi ght have been created rel at i vel yrecent l y. Ti t hemapsneednotbereject edcompl et el yasagui det o the past. The trajectory of change in the early 19th cent ury, i fi t fol l owed t he gui dance of t he agrari an wri t ers,probabl yl ed t o consol i dat i on ofhol di ngsrat her t hant ot hei rsubdi vi si on. Therefore,whereset sofsmal l woodland divisionswere recorded by the tithe mapsof thecasestudies,(asatSherracombe,forexample)itis, in the absence of other evidence,reasonably safe to assume t hatt hese coul d be l ong st andi ng arrangement s rat hert hani nvent i onsoft heearl y19th century. Thepossibleorigin ofthepatternsofownership in each case st udy hasal ready been considered.Sherracombe’s i nt ermi xed pat t ern of fi el d ownershi p was t houghtt o deri ve from di vi si on of a former open fi el d at an unknown dat e.Thei nt ermi xed pat t ernoft hewoodl and

Table 5.2: Patterns of ownership of woods and fields in the case studies, as recorded in the 19th century (*indicates earlier information used) No. of owners

Woods subdivided? (Y/ N)

Woods intermixed? (Y/ N)

Adjoining fields intermixed? (Y/ N)

Horner

6

N Y Y Y Y Y

N N Y Y Y Y

Y, N

Barle

4

N Y Y Y

N N N N

N

Culbone*

1

N

N

Y, N

Sherracombe

4

Y Y Y Y

N N Y Y

Y, N

Bremridge*

1

N

N

N

parcels probably originated in the clearance and enclosure of flatter, formerly wooded areas as fields, rather than in any history of use as parts of a larger unit. In the Barle, ownership of both woods and fields, as depicted on the tithe map, was in large blocks and seemed likely to have been ancient. The case study of Bremridge was similar and may have enjoyed similar stability of ownership. The disappearance of woodland units shown in Bremridge’s map of 1672 suggested a process of consolidation by a single owner, leading to the creation of the wood as a single unit. In the Horner case study, patterns of occupation of intermixed holdings in two areas were depicted on the estate map of 1809. In Horner W ood (170, Luccombe), this pattern may have originated in the ending of common rights, perhaps shortly before the dispute of the 1580s. In W ilmersham W ood (160.2, Stoke Pero) both the pattern of ownership and occupation of woodland was intermixed, as recorded on both the estate map of 1809 and the tithe maps, and the pattern of occupation of adjoining fields was also intermixed. Partible inheritance was considered as a possible explanation.

saw a period of open farming, with subsequent enclosure of the strips, which were held by different farmers but this scenario does not explain the intermixed ownership of woodland. Alternatively, and more simply, holdings of land and wood may have been subdivided and small parts transferred to others in ways other than by inheritance. This is the kind of explanation proposed for strip-like parcels of woodland in the Vale of Porlock in an earlier Chapter. The principal reason why this explanation has not been accepted for W ilmersham is the different form of the woodland parcels in the two areas. At W ilmersham, the intermixed woodland parcels are irregular in shape and some lie along contours and paths, while in the Vale of Porlock (and other parts of the Horner W ood complex), the parcels are regular strips at right angles to contours. The pattern at W ilmersham is unusual and suggests different, perhaps earlier origins. The antiquity of intermixed holdings as a result of partible inheritance, as may have occurred at W ilmersham, is debateable. The latest documentary evidence of partible inheritance is probably from North W ales, where the custom of dividing leasehold property by will between sons and sometimes grandsons survived until the 18th century (Thirsk 1984, 276). In the 16th

Other explanations cannot be ruled out entirely. It remains possible that W ilmersham, like Sherracombe,

159

century,such customs were recorded elsewhere in the country and were more widespread in upland areas than in the lowlands (Thirsk 1967,9). The names ofsome holdings in the Horner case study,as recorded on the estate map of 1809 and in earlier leases,referred to fractional shares and it is possible that a late period of partible inheritance,perhaps in or before the 16th or 17th centuries,could have created the intermixed pattern of holdings around W ilmersham and the intermixed ownershipofits wood. Earlier origins are possible. Normal tenure under W elsh customs existing in the 13th century involved passing hereditary land to descendants in equal shares (Finberg 1972,320).Such land often consisted of a personal holding (consisting of the homestead and scattered parcels ofarable and meadow)and ashare in joint land (often wood, pasture and waste) (ibid., 321). This system created long,narrow parcels (ibid.,331). A further form ofW elsh tenure was that ofnucleal land, which was passed on,not as homesteads or enclosures, but as ‘gardens’,which had to be manured every year. These are also thought to have been probably strip-like in form (ibid.,340-341).The fields around W ilmersham include acouple ofstrip-like enclosures and one parcel (now part ofthe wood)was described as agarden in the estate map of 1809. Do the strip-like fields at W ilmersham constitute evidence that transmission of land was bypartible inheritance alongW elsh lines in the period when the fields tookon their present form? Ifso, then the practice may have applied from an early date there,and perhaps also in other parts ofthe study area. A recent work on the south-west in the early medieval period saw partible inheritance as operatingin the region in the period up to 1100 (Pearce 2004, 300). A hypothesis that partible inheritance was an ancient practice,responsible for both the form offields and the intermixed pattern ofwoodland around W ilmersham,is feasible, although there is no positive evidence to support it and large gaps in the chronology. If land at W ilmersham were transmitted by partible inheritance,was the practice indigenous or imported? Tradinglinks with W ales have been referred to on more than one occasion in this research and it is possible that W ilmersham could have been influenced by W elsh immigrants,bringing with them their own inheritance practices.There is no direct evidence to support this idea and migration is an unfashionable explanation for change.Perhaps more acceptable is an argument based on environmental character. The upland environment, which has been noted as the background to partible inheritance in other areas,such as the Calder Valley in Yorkshire (Hey2000,200),could also have given rise to the practice at W ilmersham. Kentish gavelkind might have been rooted in similar surroundings,evolving as settlements expanded and multiplied on former woodland,although even earlier origins,in RomanoBritish or even pre-Roman practices, have been considered possible (Everitt 1986,179).

160

The onlyflaw in the argument for partible inheritance as an ancient phenomenon of the uplands, is that W ilmersham’s pattern ofholdings is apparently unique amongst the case studies ofthis research. Ifthe upland environment alone were responsible, then one might expect to see intermixed holdings offields and woods as the norm right across Exmoor. There is no trace ofa similar pattern in the Barle,or at Bremridge and that at Sherracombe is explicable as the remains of open farmingand clearance offlatter land.Such objections are not fatal. The sparsity ofthe documentary record and the activities ofthe owners oflarge estates in the recent past leave room to argue that partible inheritance could well have been a widespread medieval custom but that evidence has simplynot survived.A fruitful programme for future research would be to examine tithe maps (and any earlier maps) for all the parishes of Exmoor and discover the extent ofintermixed patterns ofwoodland which are not related to enclosure offormer open fields. It remains possible that W ilmersham was unique or,at least,exhibited unusual characteristics due to its special position.The high level ofmedieval settlement in the areahas already been mentioned,with expansion in the 13th or 14th centuries on to former moorland at LeyHill. Perhaps partible inheritance,adopted in the context ofan expandingpopulation,acquired afootingat W ilmersham and could be retained there due to nearby reserves of land (moorland),which subsequent generations could appropriate,so as to avoid impractical and excessive division ofthe original holdings. The existence ofsuch reserves has been noted as necessary for the survival of partible inheritance customs in W ales (Thirsk1967,11). The preceding paragraphs suggest that patterns of woodland ownership recorded in the 18th and 19th centuries can,with suitable caution,suggest past tenurial practices. The identity and significance of woodland owners is rather more difficult to establish,given the sparse documentary record,but a few individuals and institutions can be glimpsed.

5.3.3 Theowners The principal owners ofland in the study area,who are identified in documentary sources,were lords named in Domesday Book, the Crown, the Royal Forest of Exmoor, monastic estates, secular estates and other miscellaneous persons.

Lords recorded in Domesday Book The post-Conquest pattern of ownership recorded by Domesday Book is shown in Figure 5. 3. 1.M any lords controlled several places lying close together on similar terrain,ofwhich examples are: i) A cluster ofplaces in the lowlands around Dunster held by W illiam of M ohun;

161

km

© Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747.Allrightsreserved.

Figure 5.3.1: Distribution of land of lords named in Domesday Book (DomesdayS,DomesdayD)

0

10

Names of lords Ai ulf Alfred of Spai n Baldw i nof Exeter Baldw i nthe Sheri ff Bi shopof Coutances Bi shopof Exeter CountEustace Countof Mortai n Countof Mortmai n Earl Hugh Godbold Ki ng Ki ng' s Clergy Ki ng' s Thanes Odo sonof Gameli n Ralphof Feugeres Ralphof Li mesy Ralphof Pomeroy Roald Dubbed Robertof Aubervi lle Roger Arundel Roger of Courseulles Thurstansonof Rolf W alter of Douai Wi lli am Cheever Wi lli am of Falai se Wi lli am of Mohun Wi lli am of Poi lley

ii)

A string of places scattered along the sout hernand east ernl owl and fri nge hel d by Bal dwi nt he Sheri ff; iii) A string ofplaces close to the coastin the nort h-west ern quadranthel d by Ral ph of Fougeres; iv) A group ofplaces in the eastern uplands hel d by RogerofCourseul l es;and v) A broad swathe ofplaces alongthe western edge oft he st udy area hel d by t he Bi shop ofCout ances, i n addi t i on t o Cul bone and Wi l mersham i nt he nort h-east ernquadrant . Incontrast,some areas suchas t he Val e ofPorl ock, were spl i tbet weenseverall ords. The possible significance ofthe st yl e ofmeasurement s of woodl and i n Domesday Book has al ready been di scussed butl i t t l e canbe i nferred abouttenurialfactors i nfl uenci ng woodl and at t hi s peri od, i n vi ew of t he absence ofsupport i ng, dat eabl e evi dence and onl y one observat i on concerni ng t he Val e of Porl ock wi l l be made. Ithas al ready been suggest ed t hatt he Val e had been cl eared and cul t i vat ed from an earl y dat e. Perhaps t he val ue ofarabl el and had l ed t o severall ords t aki ng (or being awarded) a share. W hateverthe process, past woodland clearance forcultivation may have meantthat woods on t he fri nges of t he Val e had scarci t y val ue. Porl ock’s 300acres ofwoodl and recorded by Domesday Book may have gi ven i t sl ord, Bal dwi n ofExet er, who held no other places in the st udy area, a si gni fi cant degree ofi nfl uence i nt he Val e.

Royal estates and the Royal Forest of Exmoor The Ki ng was recorded by Domesday Book as hol di ng nine places in the study area:Carhampton, Brompton Regi s, W i nsford, Dul vert on, Brushford, M orebat h, M ol l and, Nort h M ol t on and Fi l l ei gh. An east ern bi as i s apparent , al t hough t he Ki ng was al so l ord of Combe M art i n, justbeyond t he west ern edge oft he st udy area (DomesdayD, 110d). The royalest at es may have had earl y ori gi ns. Ki ng Al fred bequeat hed l and at Carhampton to his son Edward (M iller2001, 8) and a latercharterreferred to a furt herest at e atCarhampt on bei ngacqui red by t he Crowni nexchange forl and gi ven t o monks at Cheddar (Fi nberg 1969, 129; Robert son 1939, 95). As previ ousl y ment i oned, i t has been suggest ed t hat Carhampt on was t he cent re of a preConquest multiple estate which extended as far as Al l erford and Sel wort hy (Corcos 2002, 95) but no i nferences aboutt he possi bl ei mpactofroyalownershi p onwoodl and are possi bl e. The exi st ence oft he RoyalForestofExmoor, as shown i n Fi gure 1. 6, provi ded rat hermore evi dence rel at i ng t o woodl and.Al lt he case st udi es exceptBremri dge, were

162

subjectatsome peri ods t o a degree ofcont rolby t he Royal Forest but rel evant document ary evi dence was noted only in the case studies ofthe Barle and Horner. The effectofForestl aw onwoodl and canbe consi dered i n rel at i on t o t wo i ssues i n part i cul ar: cl earance and enclosure. Itis easy to regard Forestlaw simply as a means of rai si ng revenue, as document s i nevi t abl y recorded breaches ofthe law and the fi nes levied onoffenders, but i tmay al so have act ed as a det errentt o cl earance at peri ods ofi nt ense l and use.The l ocat i on ofset t l ement s whi ch mi ghthave been creat ed atsuch peri ods coul d provi de evi dence on t hi s poi nt . IfForestl aw det erred cl earance, t hen new set t l ement s mi ghthave been more likely to be placed, notoncl eared woodland butonother l and, such as open moor.The case st udi es i ncl uded a numberofsettlements close to the wood edge, as shown nch, whi ch may be medi evalcreat i ons, on t he 1stOS 6 i although dating evidence is scanty. These settlements are l i st ed i n Tabl e 5. 3. Onl y (part i al ) excavat i on oft he set t l ementatLey Hi l lhas produced evidence to confirm t hatoccupat i on st art ed i nt he medi evalperi od. Even approxi mat e dat es ofori gi n fort he remai nderare not known butitwillbe assumed forthe purposes ofthis analysis thateach settlementcould have been subjectto Forestl aw att he peri od whenoccupat i onbegan. The wood edge settlements in the case studies ofthe Barl e, Cul bone and Sherracombe are ofunknown dat e and perhaps onl y one, atThree W at ers (on t he opposi t e si de oft he ri verand justout si de t he Barl e case st udy), appears l i kel y, from i t s proxi mi t yt o woodl and, as shown in Figure 4. 4. 7, to have been placed on cleared land. Even there, clearance is doubtful , as t he al t i t ude oft he si t e pl aces i t at t he very l i mi t of sui t abl e growt h condi t i ons fort rees. Atwhat everdat e any set t l ementat Three W at ers was creat ed, woodl and around i tmay have been scant y and st unt ed. In t he HornerW ood compl ex, as shown i n Fi gure 4. 7. 8, Ley Hi l l was probabl y const ruct ed on open moor, rat her t han woodl and and Pri cksl ade i s t he onl y set t l ement whose archaeol ogy suggest s t hatwoodl and cl earance was i nvol ved i ni t s const ruct i on. Thi s evi dence may suggestt hatcl earance i n connect i on wi t ht hese set t l ement s was mi ni mal . Pol l enanal ysi s has shown t hatt here was some reduct i on i n woodl and on and around Exmoori nt he peri od aft er1,000 A. D (Fyfe et al. 2003, 25-26);nei t hert hese resul t s nort he l ocat i on ofthe settlements listed in Table 5. 3 suggestextensive clearance for new settlement s. Did hi gh fines on woodland destruction play a partin the siting ofnew settlements and make non-woodland locations more attractive? Forest records show that wood felling (‘wast e’) at t ract ed hi gherpenal t i es t hanmere dest ruct i on ofcoverordeerfodder(‘vert ’).In t he case st udy oft he Barle, the formerresulted ina fine ofhalfa mark(equal t o one-t hi rd ofa pound) and t he l at t era muchl owerfi ne of 12d.Assarts (pieces of woodland which had been

Table 5.3: Some wood edge set t lement si nt he case st udi es Case study Horner Horner Horner Horner Horner Barle Sherracombe Culbone

Settlement Ley Hill

Dating evidence 14th century (Grace & Archaeological: dated to 13th/ Richardson 2001, 172) Littlecombe Documentary: Lay Subsidy 1327 (Aston 1983, 94) Prickslade Documentary: Lay Subsidy 1327 (Aston 1983, 94), Coroner’s roll (Coroner1315, 459) Bagley Documentary: Domesday Book (DomesdayS, 94a) Sweetworthy Undated archaeological evidence (Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 73 et seq.) Three Waters Undated archaeological evidence (Somerset HER 34318) Little Comfort Undated archaeological evidence (writer’s observation) Twitchen Undated archaeological evidence (Somerset HER 33847)

cleared and cultivated) and purprestures (enclosures of any kind encroaching on the Forest) (MacDermot 1939, 71-72), attracted fines at an intermediate level. For example, at the Forest eyre of 1257, Elias of Hawkridge was fined 4s for an assart of 2 acres and Hameline of Lanacre was fined 3s for a purpresture of one acre (ibid., 81).

relatively short period of time in which woods in the study area were subject to Forest law may also be relevant, as leaving only a limited period for its provisions to have an impact. As is clear from Figure 1.6, only the (unwooded) core of the Forest continued in existence throughout the medieval period. Other documentary evidence might be consistent with a preference for wood pasture in the study area. Feet of fines for Devon and Somerset from the 12th to the 15th centuries (FFDev1; FFDev2; FFSom1; FFSom2; FFSom3; FFSom4) contain no deeds relating to the enclosure of woods in the study area but do show woods being enclosed in other parts of Devon and Somerset. For example, a wood elsewhere in Somerset was enclosed by the Dean and Chapter of Wells around 1233 (FFSom1, 78-9) and in Devon, reference was made to wood enclosure in Wonford (near Exeter) in 1238 (FFDev1, 132-3) and to a ‘new ditch’ outside a wood called ‘Briggerigge’ in the same year (FFDev1, 136-7). The absence of similar evidence for medieval enclosure of woods in the study area might simply reflect the general lack of records but is perhaps equally likely to reflect real practice. Land at Cloutsham and East Luccombe (in the Horner case study) was described in a deed of 1384-5 as ‘wood and pasture’ (FFSom3, 125), which might point to an absence of physical boundaries at this date and deliberate retention of wood pasture, at least in this part of the study area. In short, the effect of Forest law on wood enclosure (or the lack of it) is unproven and could have been negligible.

Any deterrent effect is impossible to quantify; by definition, it would have been unrecorded. Taking all the evidence together, it seems possible that new settlements may have kept Forest fines to a minimum by enclosing moorland rather than felling established woods but this strategy could have been adopted for reasons unrelated to Forest law. Enclosing moorland may have involved less physical effort than woodland clearance. One fact stands out clearly; where fines were levied on assarts or purprestures, the areas concerned were quite small. Most were half an acre or one acre and nearly all were below four acres. Only one larger purpresture of nine acres was recorded (MacDermot 1939, 81). This accords with evidence from the Royal Forest of Whittlewood, where assarts of similarly small areas generated fines (Jones & Page 2003, 74). The other aspect of woodland management which may have been affected by Forest law was enclosure of woods. The Assize of the Forest of 1184 and later legislation made it clear that the duty of the King’s foresters and the woodwards of other landowners was to prevent destruction or waste of woods within the Forest (MacDermot 1939, 47 & 68-9) but the legislation contained no specific prohibition of wood enclosure. Indeed, the Charter of the Forest of 1217 permitted any owner of woods or land in a Forest to make, inter alia, ‘a ditch, or arable land’ (ibid., 51). The absence of boundary banks and ditches in some of Exmoor’s woods may therefore not be due to any embargo by the woodwards in order to preserve the deer’s habitat, but to a lack of pressure on woodland, lack of interest by landowners in coppice management, low densities of livestock or a positive preference for wood pasture. The

Monastic estates The study area does not include any single, large monastic estate possessing a good documentary record. Monastic institutions were present but it is impossible to establish from the sparse evidence how these institutions managed woodland. Only a few clues exist as to their patterns of resource exploitation.

163

Wales, whose charters invariably allowed clearance, may therefore have been more inclined to clear than to coppice. If Neath Abbey managed land in Exford for farming as well as mineral exploitation, then clearance could have been the strategy of choice, to provide wood for charcoal as well as open land for pasture or arable. This is a speculative suggestion and the Exford area would, in the writer’s view, merit more investigation.

Perhaps the most interesting case is Neath Abbey, which lay just across the Bristol Channel in South Wales. A history of the Abbey was written early in the last century (De Gray Birch 1902). The Abbey’s original foundation charter of 1129 was lost but later copies showed that this Cistercian house had interests in the south-west from an early date. Gifts on foundation included land in Devonshire and donations made soon afterwards probably included land (in the study area) at Bossington, in the Vale of Porlock (De Gray Birch 1902, 30-34). At some date before 1208, the Abbey acquired Exford (in the study area) from William de Mohun and land near Watchet (outside the study area) from Gervase de Staner. Both gifts were mentioned in a second charter granted in that year (ibid., 58). Exford was listed as a possession of the Abbey in the Taxatio Ecclesiastica of 1289 (ibid., 86) but the exact extent of the estate is not known.

Another Cistercian house, Forde Abbey, owned Ashway, which was part of the case study of the Barle. Founded in 1136 (CartFA, vii), Forde retained Ashway for a relatively short period but also held Lynton and Countisbury, near the coast in the north-western quadrant of the study area, from the late 12th or early 13th century (ibid., 112-113). The land at Lynton was the subject of a dispute with other landowners over grazing rights (ibid., 114 et seq.). In settlement of the dispute, the right for the Abbot to ‘improve, cultivate and till’ the land was conceded (ibid., 115). There is no hint in the documentary evidence of the nature of the Abbey’s woodland management in this north-western area.

Neath Abbey had a troubled history. As well as the devastation and destruction which appear to have been regularly inflicted on Welsh houses by the Welsh (Williams 1969, 23), it suffered from its hostile relationship with its Cistercian neighbour, Margam Abbey, which tried to seize its land (ibid., 41). In an unstable period from 1183-1185, Neath Abbey even made plans to move to Exford. Approval was given by the Chapter General in 1199 but the plans were later abandoned, probably because of the establishment of another Cistercian house at Cleeve (ibid., 32). The Abbot of Neath was named as holding Exford in the Nomina Villarum of 1315-16 (Nomina, 53) but in 1322 the Abbey relinquished control and granted a lease of Exford for life to Sir John Ingge at a yearly rent of £13 6s 8d (De Gray Birch 1902, 123).

The Cistercians of Cleeve Abbey owned land in the study area up to 1535, consisting of the manor of Treborough, manorial rights in Luxborough and (inter alia) rents of lands at East and West Oaktrow, Smallcombe, Northcombe, Dunster, Blackford, West Anstey and Walworthy (VCHSom, 117), as well as land in Cutcombe and Challacombe (MacDermot 1939, 97). The Abbot of Cleeve was identified as a lord in an inquisition of the Royal Forest of 1335 (ibid., 97). ‘Slaworth’, part of its land, has been identified as Slowley in the parish of Luxborough (Weaver 1906, 5). No evidence relating to woodland management by Cleeve Abbey in the study area (beyond their possible enclosure of Monkham Wood (70, Luxborough) mentioned in the preceding section) has been discovered in the course of this research.

The presence of Neath at Exford might, as has been already suggested, be related to mineral exploitation and associated woodland management. Other Cistercian houses, such as Furness and Margam, were involved in metal production, (Tobin 1995, 132) and the Cistercians had probably been the first order to recognise the importance of, and develop skill in, woodland management (Linnard 1982, 48). A Cistercian house, Beaulieu Abbey, produced the first written recommendations for woodland management in England (Beaulieu, 35). If Neath Abbey had managed Exford’s woodland for fuel to supply metal working sites on a regular basis, then coppicing might be expected as the dominant method. Ancient woodland, which might have been managed as coppice in the medieval period, is extremely sparse around Exford and its scarcity demands explanation. Clues may lie in Neath’s Welsh background.

Buckland Priory, of the order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, owned land at Lynch near Selworthy in the Vale of Porlock. The grants describing the land suggest a holding of dispersed parcels, with arable, meadow and wood (Buckland, 58-61) and the importance of mature trees to the priory is shown by a reference to their oaks which could not be touched ‘without the licence of the master of the Hospital of Bocklande’ (ibid., 61). Buckland also owned land at Badgworthy in the upland centre, which is described in terms recalling monasteries’ original purposes: ‘Baggeworth which the hermits held’ (ibid., 121). The Benedictine order was present in the study area at the Priory of St. Peter at Bath in Dunster and the Augustinian canons held a priory at Barlynch (Archbold 1892, 17-18). Dunster Priory may have held land and fisheries in the study area, which had been granted to Bath on its foundation in 1090 (Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 107). The Priory at Barlynch, which was founded

Welsh woods had probably not been systematically exploited in the pre-Conquest period (Linnard 1982, 15) and the country’s thick woods and forests were considered to be potential refuges for rebels and criminals. The monarchy encouraged their clearance in the 12th century (ibid., 21-27). Cistercian houses in

164

in the 12th century, may have owned little property; the poverty of its canons was noted in 1257 (CartPB, 35). Fragments of its buildings remain (Riley & WilsonNorth 2001, 109-110) but there is no indication of the extent of its estate. This is particularly frustrating, as the site now lies on the edge of Barlynch Wood (362, Brompton Regis), which possesses a large numbers of tracks and internal boundary features noted during fieldwork. This wood is also the site of a probable iron mine (Somerset HER 35384) and it is possible that some of the archaeological remains (which are all undated) could relate to medieval management and exploitation by the Priory.

Humphrey Colles (ibid., 203, 205, 214), who also acquired woods of other houses: Bath, Bridgwater St. John’s and Cannington (ibid., 202-216). In most cases, he did not acquire other parts of the monastic holding. As the associated surveys of woods were not included in this volume, no conclusions can be drawn about former woodland management regimes but the fact that one individual acquired these woods may be significant. It is consistent with slightly later evidence from the Vale of Porlock, which showed that woodland was being handled in 1580 as a distinct and potentially profitable asset, entirely separate from farmland. Table 5.4: Survey of woods at Highley for Augmentation Office (PostDissD,44)

The interests of Taunton Priory (like Barlynch, of the Augustinian order) in and around the Horner case study, have already been considered. The terms of the grant of 1334, as set out in Table 4.16, showed ownership of a mill and watercourse, moorland, woodland (including pannage) and possibly arable land. The description suggests that the estate may have consisted of dispersed parcels and only the farm(s) of Lucott appear to have been retained until Dissolution. The Priory’s grant of 1334 describes a mixed estate in which woodland played a part but little about its management can be inferred beyond their use for pannage.

Woods at Highley etc: Highley wood, 16 ac. and another wood there, 9 ac.:- 25 ac., 5 ac. of 12 years’ growth and 5 ac. of 16 y.g. reserved to 3 tenants; 4 ac. of 12 y.g., 16s; 11 ac. of 16 y.g. 58s 8d:- £3 14s 8d: Spring of the wood, 10 ac. reserved and 15 ac. at 4d p.a., 5s and at 20 years’ purchase, 100s: Also in the hedges, etc., 220 oaks and elms of 60 and 80 y.g., ‘moste part usually cropped and shrude’, 180 reserved to 12 tenants for repairs, including that of a mill, and 40 at 4d, 13s 4d:- £9 8s

Aspects of later medieval monastic land management can be inferred from grants made by the Augmentation Office and the attached woodland surveys, which were drawn up after Dissolution in 1538. Grants and surveys by the Augmentation Office for land in Devon have been published in full (PostDissD) but those for Somerset have not, and this is a matter for regret. Complete publication would be of immense value to studies of later medieval monastic land management and of the impact of the Reformation on land use. This latter subject has been neglected by archaeologists, whose concerns, as expressed in the papers to a conference in held in 2001, have so far included issues such as church architecture, iconoclasm and the reuse of monastic sites for country houses (Gaimster & Gilchrist 2003). A short article analysing the social status of those taking former Crown lands in Somerset (Wyndham 1979) does not seem to have inspired further research into this subject.

Certified by William Cowper

The published grants of land in Devon contain only one transaction which might relate to land in the study area. This concerned property (formerly held by Pilton Priory) in the parishes of Parracombe and ‘Highley’, which included woods, of which a survey was made. This survey is reproduced as Table 5.4. The editor of the published volume noted that there was (and is) no such parish as Highley but that there is a place called Highleigh in the parish of Parracombe (PostDissD, 4344). Two woods in the vicinity of Highleigh, which might be those described in the survey, are Southlands Wood (568, Parracombe) and Holwell Wood (545, Parracombe). The acreage of each wood, as depicted on the 1st OS 6 inch, is far lower than that specified in the survey for the Augmentation Office, even allowing for possible use of Devon acres, which were some 19% larger than statute acres (Finberg 1951, 30) and were in use by monastic houses such as Tavistock, up to the Dissolution (ibid., 113). The discrepancy in area may show either that significant clearance took place after Dissolution, or that the survey actually referred to other woods.

In the absence of the complete text, the main source of information on post-Dissolution grants of land in Somerset is a work on the religious houses of that county (Archbold 1892). Using the Index of Calendars of Grants, this work showed that no requests were received by the Office of Augmentation for the purchase of woods of the priories of Dunster (ibid., 205) or Barlynch (ibid., 203). The entry for Taunton Priory includes a reference to unidentified woods which might be those in or near the Horner Wood complex, as they appear immediately after the property named as ‘Lincote [Lucott]in Stoke Perrowe’ (ibid., 214). As before, no request for the purchase of these woods had been received. In all three cases, the woods were granted to

The survey of woods at Highley identified trees (apart from the timber in the hedges) of 12 and 16 years’ growth, showing an interval of four years between recent cuts. More than 40% of the woodland and more than 80% of the timber in the hedges was reserved to tenants,

165

perhaps suggesting that cash income generated by the sale of surplus wood could have been relatively low in this case. A rough comparison of these figures with others in surveys in other parts of Devon suggests that the proportion of wood reserved to tenants at Highley was perhaps higher than average.

disafforestation in 1819, when John Knight bought the Crown’s estate of 10,000 acres and other individuals (Sir Charles Bampfylde, Thomas Acland, Mrs. Blathwayt, Earl Fortescue, the Earl of Carnarvon and others) received allotments of smaller areas (Orwin et al. 1997, 46).

The Augmentation Office surveys of woods in Devon outside the study area are informative, even though the woods described are not the subject of this research. The grants and surveys show that many of the woods had been managed by systematic coppicing and that a close account was kept of valuable timber trees. Common rights over woodland were specifically mentioned in only two cases: namely, the wood of Deane Pryor near Buckfastleigh (PostDissD, 30) and Dunsford (ibid., 39). Reservation of rights over woodland was made ‘by custom of the manor’ or ‘by ancient custom’ in only two cases: at Abbottes Cressewell (ibid., 15-17) and Dotton (ibid., 33-34). The grants show that rights over woodland enjoyed by persons other than the monastic estate owner had, by this date, been almost universally defined as contractual, being based on leases by owner to tenant.

Much effort was directed in the modern period by these owners towards rationalising their estates, often by effecting exchanges with other landowning families, and towards landscaping and ‘improvement’. These activities, which fall outside the period covered by this research, are only considered here for their effect on the survival of evidence from earlier periods. The case study of Horner showed that ownership by a large estate could preserve documentary evidence, as embodied in the estate map of 1809, but could also destroy old units, as shown by the obliteration of former named parts of Horner Wood after 1809. Ownership by large estates may have had similarly ambivalent effects on woodland in other parts of the study area. There is normally no way of knowing whether the large woods recorded in their ownership by the tithe maps represented medieval land units or modern constructions, except by tracing physical remains of possibly ancient boundaries within those units.

A range of different kinds of resource exploitation by the monastic houses owning land in the study area is likely, given the location of the various properties, including fishing, arable and pastoral farming, with hints of mineral exploitation at Exford (and perhaps also at Barlynch). The terms of medieval grants in the Barle and Horner case studies may point to estates of restricted size, perhaps in scattered parcels. Woodland exploitation could have used the full range of techniques: clearance, coppicing, pollarding and timber management, perhaps with bark and charcoal production as accompanying activities. The evidence is not sufficient to determine exactly where and when different techniques were applied or whether monastic woodland management was special in any way. Like other owners of large estates in the medieval period, monastic owners may have resisted the exercise of common rights and attempted to manage their land to produce a surplus, participating in the market to some degree. There is no evidence that they were pioneers in woodland management in the study area.

Survey has produced only patchy evidence for such internal boundaries. The survey of woods in the Culbone case study (which had formed part of the estate of the Earl of Lovelace) did not record any features which were thought to have divided the wood into smaller units in the medieval period. Survey of large woods in the Barle Valley (outside the Barle case study) included several forming part of estates of the Earl of Carnarvon, Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, the Hon. Newton Fellowes and others. Examples of internal boundaries were found in some, such as North Barton Wood and South Barton Wood (McDonnell 1999, 10-12), but not in others, such as Hawkridge Ridge Wood (McDonnell 1995, 5). This mixed picture tends to confirm that no general conclusion as to the effect of ownership by a large estate in the modern period can be drawn.

Other owners

Secular estates

The remaining owners are simply those who do not fall into the preceding categories and consist of two types.

The impact of large secular estates (of which the Royal Forest was an early example) on Exmoor has been recognised for some time. Dramatic changes in land use were introduced in the late 18th and 19th centuries, mostly outside the period covered by this research, by the families owning large estates, such as the Aclands, the Knights, the Fortescues and the Luttrells (Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 133-137). Other major landowners recorded by the tithe maps were the Earl of Carnarvon and Earl Lovelace (formerly Lord King) and members of the Blathwayt family. Secular estates benefited from

The first is the commercial institutional investor, of which there is a single example, the Merchant Venturers of Bristol, in the case study of Horner. They granted a lease of Cloutsham in the 17th century, whose farm appeared in a probate inventory of the estate of William Harrison (Harvard Law School Hollis Catalog Ref 6877941, Deed 803) who died around 1615. The inventory showed it was a flourishing dairy farm but its attractions may have been enhanced by special factors. In the 1630s, a number of Merchant Venturers, of whom two (Francis Creswick and Richard Long) were

166

ori gi nal l yi nvol vedi nacqui ri ngt heVent urers’sharei na l i cence t o export W el sh but t er, were t he subject of proceedingsforbreach ofitsterms. They (and others) werechargedt hatt heyhadwrongful l yt ransport edbut t er from W al es by shi ppi ng i tat‘creekes and unl awful l places’ and that they had added to it English butter ‘undercol ourofIri she and W el she’(MVB,124).The edi t or of t he publ i shed vol ume of t he M erchant Vent urers’ records not ed dri l y t hat ‘some of t he merchant satt hi st i mewereengagedi nanumberofact s of doubtful legality’ (i bi d., 124). Is i t possi bl et hat Cl out sham wasacqui red by t he M erchantVent urersso t hati t sbut t ercoul d be added ‘undercol ourofIri sh or W el she’ t o l oads arri vi ng at Porl ock from W al es? Smuggl i ng of a more convent i onal ki nd al ong t he Exmoorcoasthasbeen wel ldocument ed (Travi s2001) i nt hi speri od. Ownershi p ofCl out sham by t he M erchantVent urersi s evidence ofthe dynami sm (legalorot herwi se)oft he economy i n and around t heVal eofPorl ock i nt hefi rst ury. The l arge area ofwoodl and, hal foft he 17th cent Cl out sham Bal l (178, Luccombe), whi ch mi ght have been owned by t he M erchantVent urerswi t ht he farm, coul d have formed partofCl out sham’s at t ract i on as a source ofraw mat eri al sforot hercommerci alact i vi t i es. The M erchantVent urerswere i nvol ved i nt he t rade of cal fski ns(MVB,118)and i ti spossi bl et hatCl out sham coul d havebeen ast rat egi cacqui si t i on,t o producebot h barkandhi desfort anni ng. Thel astgroupofownerst obement i onedheremi ghtbe cal l ed ‘men oft he mi ddl i ng sort ’. They di d nothol d large estates like those of the Acland or Fortescue fami l i esbutwererecorded on t het i t hemapsasowners ofsi gni fi cantareas ofl and i nt he vi ci ni t y oft he case st udies. Exampl es are t he Parrymore fami l yi nt he HornerW ood compl ex,GeorgeRadl ey atSherracombe, and possibly George Peppin in the Barle. In each i nst ance,t hewoodl andhel dbyt heseownerswasdi vi ded i nt osmal lt omedi um si zeparcel sont het i t hemapandi n t wo oft hecasest udi es(Sherracombeand Horner),bot h woodl and and adjoi ni ng fi el dsdi spl ayed an i nt ermi xed pat t ern of ownershi p.It has been suggest ed t hat t he smallerunitsofwoodlandrecordedonthetithemapsare probabl y anci enti n ori gi n. W ast hemoderat est at usof ury equal l y t he men who owned t hem i nt he 19th cent anci ent ,havi ng i t s ori gi ni nt he medi eval farms and set t l ementpat t ern oft he st udy area? The rel evance of thatsettlementpattern to woodland exploitation is the subjectofthenextsection.

5.4 Settlement 5.4.1Introduction Any at t emptt o underst and rel at i onshi psbet ween woods and set t l ement si nt he st udy area mustbe made agai nst an ext remel y sparsebackground ofpubl i shed work. As the review in Chapter 1 showed, few aspects of Exmoor’s set t l ement pat t ern had been consi dered i n detail until 2002, reflecting a national lack of i nvest i gat i on i nt o areaswi t h di spersed pat t erns. Some i nformat i on hasbeen provi ded by l ocalst udi es,such as t hehi st ory ofCarhampt on pari sh (Di xon 1980)and t he reconst ruct i on of Domesday manors i nt hree Exmoor pari shes(Everet t1968)butt hei dent i fi cat i onofdesert ed medi evalfarmst eadsbyAst on(1983)wasavoyagei nt o t erra i ncogni t a,wherefew ot hersdared t o fol l ow. The recent study of settlement origins in (i nt er al i a) Carhampt on hundred (Corcos2002)i srel evantbutonl y partoft he area i tcovered fel lwi t hi nt he st udy area of t hi sresearch. Someworkonset t l ementi not herpart sof t hesout h-westhasbeencarri edout ,not abl ybyFox(e. g. 1989)butExmoorhasreceivedscantat t ent i oni nst udi es att hecount yorregi onall evel ,suchasCost en’s(1992a) st udy of Somerset and Pearce’s (2004) st udy of t he sout h-west . Table 5.5: Categories of settlement (Gillard 2002, 78) Isolated farmsteads Li nked farmsteads Grouped farmsteads Small rural nucleati ons Large rural nuclations Urbannucleati ons

Excavat i on hasbeen equal l y sparse.Int eri m publ i cat i on ofwork atLey Hill(Grace & Richardson 2001)isthe only example of a recently published report of excavat i on ofamedi evalset t l ementi nt hest udy areaof which the writerisaware. Subjectsrequiring research werecl earl y defi ned aft ert heRCHM E’sprogrammeof survey,whi chcul mi nat edi nt hepubl i cat i onofagui det o Exmoor’s fi el d archaeol ogy (Ri l ey & W i l son-Nort h, 2001)and aframework wasoutlined by Gillard (2002), whose charact eri sat i on ofExmoor’s hi st ori cl andscape developed sophisticated cat egories of settlement, as l i st ed i n Tabl e5. 5. Hefound t hatt hecommonestform i n Exmoor(ashedefi ned i t )wast hei sol at ed farmst ead, t he rarest was t he l arge rural nucl eat i on or urban nucl eat i on and t heot hercat egori eswereofi nt ermedi at e frequency(Gillard2002,95-96). A few settlementplanswereincludedinthegazetteerto Ast on’s(1983)art i cl e,whi chcoveredpari shesi neast ern

167

Exmoor,and plans of some deserted settlements were included in the guide to Exmoor’s field archaeology (Riley & W ilson-North 2001,94)but no detailed work on layout in a larger sample,comparable to that by Ellison (1983)on the villages of south-east Somerset, has been done.Recording the detail of settlement layout is one obvious area for future research. In the circumstances,it is not surprising that there is no real understanding of the origin or earlydevelopment of settlement in the studyarea. Few conclusions as to how or when relationships between settlements and woods were formed can therefore be drawn with any certainty and the observations made here are tentative.

5.4.2 Hidden relationships between settlements and woods In other parts of the country,wood names and parish boundaries have indicated relationships between woods and settlements some distance away. For example, W rockwardine W ood in Shropshire has been identified as the woodland referred to in the entry in Domesday Book for W rockwardine,some 7 km away. The wood was in a detached part of the parishuntil the 19th century and is thought to have been used by people from W rockwardine and other settlements (Stamper 1988, 130).Similar links were found in the Royal Forest of W hittlewood between settlements in areas of arable cultivation and woods some distance away (Jones & Page 2003,71-72)but in the course of this research,no obvious examples of such arrangements emerged from consideration of wood names in the studyarea.This was frustrating,as it is known that several parishes were fragmented at the date of the tithe maps,as shown in Figure 1. 7and the need to exploit distant resources such as woodland, is an obvious explanation of that phenomenon.

Evidence for a relationship between settlements and distant woods was not found in wood names or Domesday Book but another source,the LaySubsidyof 1327 (LaySub1327),might contain hints. The subsidy named the administrative units under whichpeople were liable for tax,which have been described as ‘manors or vills’ (Aston 1983, 73) and within each unit, listed personal names, which sometimes correspond to identifiable places.For example ‘W altero de Leecote’, who was listed under Luccombe (LaySub1327,246), may be assumed to have lived at, or had some relationship with,Lucott (in the parishof Luccombe and on the edge of the Horner case study).Aston (1983) made full use of this evidence to identify settlement locations. The gazetteer to his article (ibid.,87-103) noted instances of persons whose names indicated places some distance away from the units in which they were listed for tax purposes and a few refer to places in the case studies of this research. Table 5. 6 lists these names, which were recorded under Timberscombe (‘Timbercombe’),Almsworthy (‘Almandeswythi’) and W insford (‘W ynsforde’). A further possible reference (Garlannd)to a place in the study area (but not in any case study)is also included.The location of the places is shown in Figure 5. 4. 1. W hat kind of relationship lies behind these entries in the Lay Subsidy? Taking a sceptical approach,it might merely show that some people who lived at Timberscombe were recent arrivals,or had ancestors who lived somewhere else. This explanation, while plausible,does raise further questions,such as why the ancestors moved to Timberscombe and not to other, nearer places such as Porlock or Dulverton. In the Horner case study,it was suggested that the listing of names in the Lay Subsidy might indirectly reflect patterns of resource exploitation, with woodless Almsworthy gaining access to Prickslade’s woods.In

Table 5.6: References in 1327 Lay Subsidy to distant places in case studies (LaySub1327, 180;247-8; Aston 1983, 87-103) Unit oftaxation Timbercombe

Name W illelmo de Kytenare

Place -case study Kitnor aka Culbone -Culbone

Timbercombe

Johanne de Clouteshamp

Cloutsham -Horner

Timbercombe

Thoma atte Torre

Tarr –close to Barle

Almandeswythi

Stephano de Pyrkeslade

Prickslade -Horner

W ynsforde

Adam de Blakeford

?Blackford -Horner

(Timbercombe

Simone Garlannd

?Gulland –not in case studies)

168

0

10

km

CULBONE Culbone

HORNER Pri ckslade

Blackford

Cloutsham Timberscombe

Almsw orthy

W insford W ood Pari sh boundary Tarr

Boundary of case study BARLE

Pl ace underwhi ch names l i sted i n 1327 Lay Subsi dy Pl ace-name of person l i sted i n 1327 Lay Subsi dy

Gulland Rel ati onshi p between pl aces and persons l i sted i n 1327 Lay Subsi dy

Figure 5.4.1: Woods, parishes, case studies and relationships indicated by 1327 Lay Subsidy ( LaySub1327 ) © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

169

the case of Timberscombe, four of the eight persons listed by the Lay Subsidy have names referring to distant places, and at least three of these places are close to large areas of woodland (Cloutsham, Culbone under its old name of ‘Kitnor’ and Tarr). As was suggested in the introduction to this Chapter, Timberscombe’s woods may have been cleared at an early period and the Lay Subsidy entries could suggest that it consequently acquired rights over distant woodland, perhaps in conjunction with rights to graze livestock on the moorland close to the woods.

In the Sherracombe case study, the distinct form of settlement at Whitefield in comparison to others in the vicinity was clear. At the date of the tithe map (1838), it was a small hamlet, consisting of three farms (Whitefield, North Whitefield and Winsley), while other settlements nearby (Beara and Sherracombe) were single farms with a different layout of tracks and buildings. Open field cultivation at Whitefield was evident in the preservation of former strips in the extant field pattern but was not indicated in the fields of Beara and Sherracombe.

A further hint of relationships between places is suggested by ‘Kirby’s Quest’, a list of places made around 1286, which stated that ‘Ricardus de Cloudesham, Wilielmus de Kidenor [Kitnor/Culbone]’ and others held property in ‘Gunercumbe’, which was identified by the editor as ‘Yannery in Oare’ (Kirby, 37). ‘Yannery’ could be either Yenworthy or Yearnor, both being places in or close to the Culbone case study. This entry may be evidence of a link between Cloutsham and Culbone.

The woods in the Sherracombe case study were divided at the date of the tithe map between the farms of the hamlet, with a degree of intermixed ownership, as outlined in the preceding section and shown in Figure 4.2.4. Does this imply that woodland ownership simply and directly reflected the forms of both settlement and field system? The allure of this sweeping conclusion is diminished when all the facts are considered. In particular, the woods’ subdivisions may have been constructed with a view to clearing and enclosing flatter land. Those subdivisions appeared to postdate enclosure of the strips of the former open field. In addition, other woodland outside the case study but still in the vicinity of Whitefield was not divided between the farms of the hamlet. On balance, the influence of topography on woodland seemed at least as important as that of settlement form.

In the absence of further evidence, all interpretation of these documentary references must be speculative. Relationships (if any) between places could have developed as woodland in Timberscombe (and possibly Almsworthy) was cleared, or they may be much older and have their origin in ancient, large units, which were later subdivided. Whatever their date of origin, such relationships may not have been purely economic in nature. One of the places referred to is ‘Kitnor’(Culbone), whose church was dedicated to one of the early Christian saints (Riley & Wilson-North 2001, 85). Culbone was recorded in Domesday Book as land of the Bishop of Coutances, and was one of only two places he held in this part of the study area, the rest of his land lying on the western side of Exmoor. Did Culbone, as an early Christian holy place, have special symbolic value, which was appropriated by the Norman bishop? Similar church dedications occur at only three other places on Exmoor, of which Timberscombe is one. If the 1327 Lay Subsidy reflects a link between Timberscombe and Culbone, could the relationship faintly echo a link between early Christian settlements? Sharing woodland resources may have been one way in which these spiritual links were reinforced and realised in economic terms.

The Horner case study also contained a hamlet, Wilmersham, and a wood sharing its name, which was held in a fragmented, intermixed pattern of ownership and occupation. Wilmersham still comprised four farms in 1809 and it has been suggested in this work that its intermixed pattern of field holdings had its origins, not in cultivation as an open field, but in inheritance practices. The period in which these practices may have been adopted, and the date of origin of the settlement at Wilmersham is unknown but nearby Lucott may offer hints of the significance of family ties in a local context. The grant before 1334 of land at Lucott to Taunton Priory, whose terms were set out in Table 4.16, showed that the farms shown on the 1st OS 6 inch as East and West Lucott had been owned by father and son, with the father also holding the manor (Wilmersham) of which Lucott formed part (Hugo 1860, 29 et seq.). Evidence from the 14th century may not be capable of throwing light on settlement origin in earlier periods but it does perhaps convey the odour of a kin-based settlement pattern in the study area.

5.4.3 The case studies: hamlets, farms and woods The case studies included settlements of common form: single farms and hamlets, which will here be regarded as groups of up to five farms, whose buildings were depicted as adjoining or close together on the 1st OS 6 inch. Hamlets were in evidence in Sherracombe, Horner and Culbone.

170

Whatever the origin of Wilmersham, the pattern of woodland holdings in the 1809 estate map appeared to reflect those of the hamlet’s fields, with each Wilmersham farmer occupying scattered woodland parcels. The nature of terrain was also a factor, as the flat riverside area of woodland was shown by the tree survey described in Chapter 4 to have been subject to different management and uses. Again, there is a caveat to the

simple conclusion that settlement form dictated the pattern of woodland. As shown in Figures 4.7.4 and 4.7.6, parcels in Wilmersham Wood were owned by ‘M r. Parrymore’, who did not occupy any of the Wilmersham farms but did hold other land in the Aclands’ Holnicote estate. The Parrymores were (and still are) an established local family;references to them date back at least to the time of Edward VI (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 22). M r. Parrymore’s intrusive presence in Wilmersham Wood might show that allocation of woodland parcels to each element of a hamlet facilitated further disposals and that one of the Wilmersham farms had transferred part of its woodland holding to an ‘outsider’.

The scarcity of shared names around larger settlements suggested that their relationships with woods may have differed from those of single farms and hamlets. It was shown in the discussion of farming practices in an earlier section of this Chapter that the area around Dunster and Carhampton may have retained wood pasture, where lords permitted it. The scarcity of shared names and the probable examples of wood pasture together point to these woods being a communal resource and not the exclusive property of single farms. Again, some caution is needed when interpreting evidence relating to woods’ names. Slowley Wood (71, Luxborough) is one of the moor-edge unenclosed woods in this part of the study area, which could have been treated as a communal wood pasture, but it shares its name with a farm and so might, on that evidence alone, have been regarded as a ‘farm wood’.

The hamlet in the Culbone case study, Yearnor, was shown with three farms by the tithe map (1841) and the earlier estate memorandum book (1740-1840). As shown in Figure 4.6.4, the fields were held in a fragmented pattern of scattered parcels but without numbers of regular strips like those seen at Whitefield (in the Sherracombe case study). Yearnor Wood was shown as a single large unit without subdivision on both the tithe map and earlier estate records. In this case study, a hamlet was not accompanied by any kind of division of woodland between its constituent farms in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Hints of the effect of a nearby larger settlement were also picked up in the Bremridge case study. The proximity of the Fortescues’ estate centre at Castle Hill/Filleigh may have prevented the development of numbers of farms and small hamlets in the vicinity which were capable of appropriating the constituent parts of Bremridge Wood (826, South M olton). This wood showed no signs of a history of wood pasture. Instead, it seemed to have been a single, large, enclosed The existence of the wood by the 17th century. Fortescues’ estate centre here seems to have accompanied the growth or retention of a large wood under the control of a single settlement (Bremridge), in contrast to the urban nucleations of Dunster and Carhampton, which seem to have co-existed with wood pastures probably managed as communal resources.

The Barle case study is different again, having single farms in a dispersed pattern, without any signs of open field arable cultivation and with fields held in (more or less) continuous blocks, as shown in Figure 4.4.6. None of the farms in this case study appear, from their depiction on the 1st OS 6 inch, to have formerly been hamlets which have contracted into single farms. Woodland appeared to have been appropriated to individual farms from an early date, without any evidence for fragmentation into small units or intermixed patterns of ownership. The pattern of single, dispersed farms was accompanied by woods, often sharing the farm’s name, which might be called ‘farm woods’.

The existence of large nucleated settlements may, in some places, have had an entirely different effect on woodland. It was noted in the Barle case study and the commentary on the Vale of Porlock that some woods close to urban settlements (Dulverton and Porlock) were recorded by the tithe maps as being divided into strips. The origin of these divisions was unclear but strips of similar appearance in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) in the Horner case study were interpreted as showing division on the termination of common rights. This hypothesis may suffice to explain the phenomenon entirely wherever it occurs. However, it may be possible that strip-like divisions near towns originated solely in the high demand for fuel and raw materials by these larger settlements. Wood owners might have granted such strips to townspeople, in return for a premium or rent at almost any period, and some could be quite recent and owe nothing whatsoever to a history of common rights. Some (negative) evidence in support of this suggestion was described in the case study of Culbone.

5.4.4 Larger settlements and woods in the study area The phenomenon of names being shared by wood and settlement was noted in the study area analysis described in Chapter 3 and was distributed over almost the entire study area with the exception of areas around Dunster, Dulverton and (to a lesser extent) to the north of North M olton. If name-sharing is a sign of ‘farm woods’, along the lines of those in the Barle case study, then its distribution might suggest that woods were appropriated to single farms all over the study area, perhaps from an early date. This conclusion would not be entirely justified by the evidence, as the case studies of Horner and Sherracombe clearly showed that wood names can be remarkably fluid. Without investigating more instances of shared names in depth, their prevalence is suggestive but not conclusive.

In that case study, strips in Worthy Wood (485, Porlock) (shown in Figure 4.6.5) may have been obliquely referred to in a surveyor’s report written in 1824, which stated that ‘some parts [of Worthy Wood] were several

171

Table 5.7: Scores on principal component analysis (1st component) of pairs of woods sharingsettlement names Wood

Wood number, parish

Marsh Wood Ashwick Wood

(301.1, Dulverton) (301.3, Dulverton)

Score on PCA (1st component) 0.787 0.735

Haddon Wood Lyncombe Wood

(266, Brompton Regis) (264, Brompton Regis)

2.88 2.04

Lower Highleigh Wood East Tapps Wood

(451, Oakford) (450.3, Oakford)

0.487 0.509

Allerford Plantation Holnicote Plantation

(120, Selworthy) (121, Selworthy)

1.94 1.92

Slattenslade Wood East Woodybay Wood

(615, Martinhoe) (616, Martinhoe)

0.66 0.97

Twitchen Wood Tidicombe Wood

(600, Arlington) (601, Arlington)

0.47 0.36

years ago improvidently granted out upon lives which are now in existence’ (GRO D1799/E76). There was no suggestion these leases were made against the background of former common rights or were anything other than a commercial transaction. The conclusion must be that similar shape alone does not justify inferring a common period of origin for all these woodland parcels. Some may be modern and derive solely from the demand created by activities in the towns, while others could have been created when common rights were terminated and others may even directly reflect medieval patterns of use.

having a mean score of –0.088. The principal components score expressed the relationships between the variables in Table 3.6 and as some of these variables (e.g. size and number of paths) derive from management decisions in the past, different mean scores between the two groups (woods sharing and not sharing settlement names) does suggest that sharing a settlement name might be a sign of a management history which differs from that of a wood not sharing its name with a settlement. A further interesting result emerged when the spatial distribution of principal components scores was examined. In a number of instances, which are listed in Table 5.7, pairs of woods located close to each other shared names with settlements and possessed scores of a similar value, which were markedly different to the scores of other woods nearby. These woods did not all share similar scores overall. This result might suggest that the characteristics which derive from the management history of woods sharing settlement names are determined (and can only be detected) at a local level and that those characteristics may vary over the study area. That is to say, there are no signs that there is a single management history common to all woods in the study area which share their names with settlements. Instead, within limited areas, there may be a pattern of similar past management of woods with shared names, which sets such woods apart from their immediate neighbours.

5.4.5. Settlements and woods: the significance of shared names The phenomenon of names shared by wood and settlement was widespread in the study area and the results of statistical analysis, described in Chapter 3, may help to establish its significance. The principal components analysis described in Chapter 3 used the variables listed in Table 3.6 to calculate a score for each wood. The variables chosen were quantitative data related both to topography (e.g. distance to nearest river and slope) and land use history (e.g. size and number of paths). To investigate differences between woods sharing and not sharing settlement names, the mean of the principal components score for the woods in each of these two groups (woods sharing and not sharing names) was calculated and compared. The result showed a real difference, with the woods sharing settlement names having a mean score of 0.202 and the woods not sharing settlement names

The case studies of Sherracombe, Culbone and the Barle also displayed this effect. At Sherracombe, the scores for woods sharing their names with the farms of Sherracombe, Beara and Winsley were bunched close together and apart from the other woods. Similar

172

bunching of scores appeared at Culbone, where Culbone, Yearnor and Worthy Woods all scored at a higher level than the other woods. In the Barle case study, woods sharing their names with Ashwick, Mounsey and Slade were the three highest scores in the case study. It should be emphasised that as principal components analysis is purely exploratory, these results do not constitute any kind of ‘proof’; the analysis is merely another way of looking at patterns in data. The patterns revealed are not uniform and crystal clear, as, for example, Withygate Wood (669, North Molton), shares its name with a farm on the 1st OS 6 inch but has a higher score than the other name-sharing woods. It may be significant that Withygate farm is further from its wood than the other three farms sharing names with woods.

5.4.6 Settlements and woods in exceptional parishes Further variations in relationships between settlements and woods might be suggested by the graphs showing distribution of wood size by parish, which were described in Chapter 3 and set out in Appendix V. Most parishes had large numbers of small woods, no woods of intermediate size and a few large woods (describing size in relative terms within each parish). Five parishes were exceptions, in that they possessed woods of intermediate size: Dunster, Stoke Pero, Trentishoe, Martinhoe and Countisbury. Dunster and Stoke Pero are exceptional in other respects. Dunster contains one of the major towns of the study area and, as indicated above, the existence of such a settlement could affect the way in which woods were used and named. Stoke Pero contained three places mentioned in Domesday Book but was a small parish and, in the historical period, seems always to have been poor. Pressure on its resources from an early date may have led to unique patterns of resource exploitation. The remaining parishes with woods of intermediate size are in the county of Devon, with boundaries to the northwestern coast and they overlap with the area which, it has been suggested, may have had a specialised economy based on livestock and wood pasture from the pre-Conquest period. The woods of intermediate size in those parishes, and nearby hamlets, are listed in Table 5.8.

The local bunching of principal component scores for woods sharing settlement names points to two results. As scores for all name-sharing woods vary, the (trivial) conclusion is that land use varies over the study area. As scores for some name-sharing woods bunch at the local level, the (more significant) conclusion is that the specific processes of exploitation, which formed some characteristics of woods, may only be elicited by study within the local setting. This conclusion relates in part to methods of research but it may also tell us something of the scale of operations of farms and hamlets in past periods and of the importance of local customs in shaping resource exploitation.

Table 5.8: Woods of intermediate size in parishes of Countisbury, Martinhoe and Trentishoe and nearby hamlets. Wood name

Wood number, parish

Farm Wood

(508.1, Countisbury)

Glenthorne Plantations

(508.3, Countisbury)

Horner’s Neck Wood

(525, Countisbury)

Countisbury

Mill Wood

(516, Countisbury)

Leeford

Wilsham Wood

(517, Countisbury)

Wilsham

Bonhill Wood

(614.4, Martinhoe)

Croscombe Wood

(614.7, Martinhoe)

Road Wood

(620, Martinhoe)

West Lyn

West Woodybay Wood

(617, Martinhoe)

Martinhoe

Heddon’s Mouth Wood

(625, Trentishoe)

Trentishoe

Mill Wood

(641, Trentishoe)

Parsonage Wood

(629, Trentishoe).

173

Hamlet

study area might all be post-medieval constructions but there are earlier documentary references, placing fulling mills at Barnstaple, North Molton and South Molton by 1327 (Hoskins 1954, 125). By 1395, the three leading cloth merchants, who controlled one-third of Devon’s cloth trade, were based in Barnstaple (Postles 1995, 140). All these places lie on the western side of the study area. It may also be significant that the only feet of fines for land in Devon which referred to woodland in the study area was a single example of 1248-9, which granted the right to take timber for repairs to a mill near Middleton (now in the parish of Parracombe) (FFDev1, 230-233). West Middleton, as recorded on the 1st OS 6 inch, lies less than 1 km from Mill Wood (641, Trentishoe). Could the mill referred to in the feet of fines be an early tucking mill rather than a grain mill, or perhaps a dual-purpose mill? If so, then it would not have been very far from land owned by a Cistercian house (Forde Abbey) in the parish of Lynton & Lynmouth (around 4km away). Given the order’s skill in exploiting water power and the evidence for early tucking mills in Cistercian houses at Fountains (Watts 2002, 89), Beaulieu (ibid., 115) and Dunkeswell (in East Devon)(Hoskins 1954, 124), the coincidence is interesting.

The north-western quadrant of the study area, in which these three parishes lie, does not now seem to display any markedly distinct settlement pattern; Gillard (2002, 104-131) found a range of settlement types in the area, with the exception of large or urban nucleations. As far as past woodland exploitation is concerned, there are two points of interest arising from the settlement pattern here. Firstly, there is the matter of shared names. There are only eight woods in these three north-western parishes which share their names with nearby settlements so the sample is small, but it may be significant that the distances between those sharing their names with settlements are greater than those between settlements and woods sharing names in other parishes. The mean distance between wood and settlement of the same name is 479 m in the three north-western parishes but 335 m in the rest of the parishes of the study area. The greater distance between wood and settlement may reflect terrain or a generally more sparsely settled landscape. It might also confirm that appropriation, naming and possibly the enclosure of woods occurred under different conditions than in other parishes, perhaps long after the settlement pattern had assumed its shape.

Tucking mills of 13th century date in the north-western parishes of the study area could be relevant to woodland management. Mills and textile production could have fitted into a livestock-based economy, which has been suggested as dating from the pre-Conquest period in this part of the study area. Rural production of textiles could have depended on farmers having access to large areas of grazing for sheep and reduced incentives to enclose woods adjoining the open moor. The maintenance of wood pastures could have been the result. Woods may also have been needed to supply wood for mill construction and repair. The size and names of woods may have reflected these special influences, which could have acted to preserve ancient woodland units, which were, in other places, divided, enclosed or claimed by single farms.

Secondly, there is the matter of settlement form in relation to woods’ relative size. Again, the data set is small, but Table 5.8 shows that half of the intermediate sized woods in the parishes concerned (Trentishoe, Martinhoe and Countisbury) were close to hamlets (as shown on the 1st OS 6 inch). It is possible that their households shared woods in the past, without dividing or appropriating them in the same manner as, for example, those in the hamlet of Whitefield in the Sherracombe case study. This hypothesis reinforces an earlier conclusion; namely, that there is no simple, universal association between forms of wood and settlement in the study area. The woods of intermediate size in these three parishes include two instances of ‘Mill Wood’ and the parish of Martinhoe includes a further example of this name (622, Martinhoe). The 1st OS 6 inch depicted only two further examples of ‘Mill Wood’ in the entire study area: (311, Hawkridge) and (756, East Buckland). Given that the three north-western parishes of Trentishoe, Martinhoe and Countisbury include three of the five instances of ‘Mill Wood’ in the study area, the relationship between woods and mills here would seem to be significant and perhaps relevant to their unusual size distribution.

It is easy to use these fragments of evidence to paint a picture of the north-western part of the study area as a special place, with distinctive patterns of settlement and resource exploitation. This may not be correct, as northwestern Exmoor has probably suffered less modern development than any other part of the study area and its patterns and characteristics should be read accordingly. In looking at this area, we may see evidence of older, formerly widespread patterns, which have been obliterated in other parts of Exmoor.

Both old and modern Ordnance Survey maps confirm several tucking mills in the north-western quadrant of the study area but the period of their origin is uncertain. ‘Tucking’ is the Devonian term for ‘fulling’ (Postles 1995, 137), a process of cleansing and thickening cloth. The peak of Devon’s textile production occurred over the period from the late 15th to the early 18th centuries (Hoskins 1954, 126-128) and mills in this part of the

5.4.7 Settlement change and woods The origin and early development of the settlement pattern may be unclear but there is plenty of evidence of later changes. Aston’s (1983) study, which included the eastern half of the study area, and the study of Exmoor’s

174

0

10

km

Culbone Selworthy

Minehead Without Minehead

Oare

Porlock

Dunster

Luccombe Wootton Courtenay Stoke Pero

Exford

Carhampton Timberscombe

Cutcombe Withycombe Luxborough

Treborough

Withypool

Winsford

Exton

Wood Hawkridge Dulverton

Brompton Regis

Deserted medieval farmstead Continuing medieval farmstead Western limit of Aston' s (1983) study

Brushford

Morebath Parish boundary

Figure 5.4.2: Woods, parishes and medieval farmsteads recorded by Aston (1983) © Crown copyright Ordnance Survey NC/05/100050747. All rights reserved.

175

field archaeology (Riley & Wilson-North 2001) included many examples of desertion. Other processes of change may be involved; the phenomena of contraction and settlement shift have been recognised since Beresford’s (1954) pioneering work and have been analysed in other parts of the south-west, such as Hartland (Fox 1991a, 164; 1989). After Dyer’s (1989) reassessment of activity on ‘marginal’ land, simple models of catastrophe, based on the work of Postan (1972) have been abandoned, and more recent work takes a positive attitude towards settlement change. The fluidity of Exmoor’s settlement pattern has been as a sign, not of farming practices prone to disaster, but of social and economic flexibility (Gillard 2002, 18). The following discussion concentrates on settlement desertion merely because evidence is available. It is not intended to imply that desertion was the only, or even the most important kind of change in settlement in the study area.

Exford) had been exploited for minerals on a seasonal basis by farmers, then farm desertion may have been associated with exhaustion of the workable mineral sources. Another history is suggested by the high number of deserted farms in the parish of Cutcombe. Land in this parish is generally lower, its valleys are less steep and it includes less high moorland than Exford, Winsford and Hawkridge. It was observed in the 19th century that many farms in Cutcombe held detached parcels of woodland as part of their land (Savage 1830, 210). If land in medieval Cutcombe had been subdivided into very small holdings, perhaps because of traditions of partible inheritance at a time of rising population, many farms could have operated at the margin of practicability. Any adverse change in conditions could have pushed them to collapse, leaving survivors to acquire their woodland piecemeal. Lack of woodland may have played a part in settlement collapse. Many of the deserted farms recorded by Aston (1983) are located in less wooded areas, such as the parish of Exford, parts of the parish of Cutcombe and the coastal strip between Minehead and Bossington, as shown in Figure 5.4.3. If these farms did not enjoy the full range of resources available to those in more wooded parishes, they may have found it harder to adapt to change. Fewer alternative strategies may have been available when their economies came under pressure and desertion may have been the result.

Farmsteads listed in the gazetteer of Aston’s (1983, 87103) article are shown in Figure 5.4.2 with the parishes of the study area. Of 190 farms in the study area whose existence in the medieval period was regarded as certain by Aston, 99 were recorded by him as deserted. The date of the death of these settlements is not known. Evidence from Ley Hill supports the hypothesis of desertion in the 14th century (Grace & Richardson 2001, 172) in that single instance but there is no reason to suppose that all, or even most, of the deserted settlements in the study area suffered contraction or death at the same period.

Perhaps only two clear conclusions can be drawn from the evidence considered here. The first is that there is a pressing need for further investigation of the origin and development of Exmoor’s settlement pattern. The second is that the isolation of any clear, distinct influence on woodland exploitation by the different forms of settlement seems extremely difficult. One may be forced to conclude that patterns of resource exploitation underlie settlement development, not vice versa.

Table 5.9: Medieval farmsteads and soils (Aston 1983), (Soil Survey 1983) Medieval farms Brown earths

Brown podzols

Deserted

47

52

Continuing

57

34

The distribution of deserted and continuing farms as recorded by Aston (1983) on two main soil types (brown earths and brown podzols) was mapped in the GIS and Table 5.9 sets out the data. Considered in isolation from other information, the numbers seem to show that farms on brown podzols were more likely to have been deserted than those on brown earths, although desertion affected farms on both soil types to some extent. Altitude may also have been a factor, as the numbers of deserted farms in the higher moorland parishes of Exford, Winsford and Hawkridge would suggest. Other factors leading to desertion may have arisen from purely local histories of land use and tenure, in which woodland exploitation could have played a part. The parishes of Exford, Winsford and Hawkridge, which include large areas of high moorland, possess large numbers of deserted farms. If any of these areas (such as

176

5.5 Woodland Production 5.5.1 Introduction Di fferent ki nds of mat eri al s were produced from Exmoor’swoods.Somewereraw mat eri al swhi ch were usedi napart i cul arform ofproduct i on,suchast hebark suppl i ed t ol eat hert anners.Ot herswere more versat i l e; underwood, for exampl e, coul d be consumed as domest i c fi rewood,coul d be used t o make hurdl es or t ool s,ormi ghtfuelt heact i vi t i esoft hecharcoalmakers, whoseend productcoul di nt urn beused i n ot herforms ofproduction such asmetalsmelting. Thecasestudies have illumi nated the evidence for production of mat eri al s from l i mi t ed areas of woodl and and t he purposeoft hi ssect i on i st o draw t hi sevi dencet oget her and rai se more general i ssues rel at i ng t o woodl and management for t he vari ous product s: underwood, timber,charcoalandbark. M uch evidence from the study area dat es t ot he post medi evalperi od,when ownershi p ofwoodl and appears t o have been di vorced from t hat of surroundi ng ury expl oi t at i on may have farml and. By t he 18th cent becomemorecommerci al ,wi t ht heproduct st ransport ed and sol d. In earl i er peri ods,out put may have been mai nl y for domest i c use, wi t h product s (ot her t han timber) rarely being offered for sal e.Att he nat i onal l evel ,t he ext entt o whi ch t he medi evaleconomy was commerci al i sed,andt henat ureoft heforcesdri vi ngi ti n t hatdi rect i on,aremat t ersofdebat e,andvari ousmodel s have been summari sed by Hat cherand Bai l ey (2001). Gi ven t hel ow l evelofpastresearch i nt hest udyarea,i t i sunsurpri si ngt hatfew concl usi onscanbedrawnont he ext entofany commerci alwoodl and expl oi t at i on i nt he medi evalperi od buti ti shoped t hatsomepoi nt si nt hi s sect i onwi l lberel evantt ot hedebat e.

5.5.2 Thebiasofevidencefor woodland production Underwood,t i mberand bark t end t o bei nvi si bl ei nt he archaeol ogi calrecord and t hei rproduct i on oft en l eftno trace beyond boundary features and the management t ypeofl i vi ngt rees(coppi ce,st andard,et c. ). Incont rast , pl at forms,whi ch probabl y rel at et o onl y one form of out put(charcoal ),arevi sual l y domi nantand may bet he onl y archaeol ogi calfeat ure capabl e ofsupport i ng fi rm concl usi onsast o pastact i vi t i es. Duri ng fi el dwork,t he writerbecameawareoftheri sk ofover-relianceon this si ngl et ypeoffeat ure,whi ch may notrepresentt heful l rangeofactivitiesinanyparticularwood. The document ary record has i t s own bi as. As was apparentfrom t hecasest udi es,wri t t en mat eri alrel at i ng to Exmoor,apartfrom Domesday Book,issparse until ury,and t hen t ends t o refer onl yt ot he t he 14th cent propert y of l arge est at e owners (i ncl udi ng t he Royal

177

Forest). Evidencefrom earlierperiodsandreferencesto land management by small farmers, are scarce. Document ary evi dence of medi eval woodl and managementi not herareasoft hecount rymaybeusedt o fi l li nt hepi ct ure,butmay al so beunrepresent at i ve. In part i cul ar,medi evalt reat i sesonest at emanagementmay have depi ct ed bestpract i ce and have been asfarfrom real i t y asmodern managementt heory i sfrom l i fei nt he averageoffice.

5.5.3 Costsand prices The prescriptive nature of such medieval documents mustbe borne i n mi nd when consi deri ng t he earl i est written accountofwoodland managementin England, whi ch i scont ai ned i nt heAccountBook ofBeaul i eu of 1269-70 (Rackham 1980,140;Beaul ieu,35).In this document ,t heForest er’sTabl el i st edrul esandgui dance for t he management of woodl and i n t he est at e of Beaul i eu Abbey,a Ci st erci an house i n Hampshi re,and provi ded t he fi gures for cal cul at i ons shown i n Tabl e 5. 10. TheForest er’sTabl edescri bedt hemeasurement s, cost s and pri ces of di fferent t ypes of wood t o be produced from asi ngl eacreofwoodl and. Thecost sof cut t i ng and preparat i on were gi ven for smal lburni ng wood, faggot s and st akes. These t erms were (unsurpri si ngl y)notdefi ned orfurt herdescri bed i nt he AccountBookbuti ti shereassumedt hatt hel i st edcost s i ncl udedl abourandmat eri al sbutexcl udedt ransport . The Forester’sTable stated t he ‘val ue i nt he grove’of each typeofwood,which ishereassumed to reflectits sal epri ce.Ast hefi guresi nTabl e5. 10show,t hecostof preparation perpieceofsmallburningwoodwaslow in relation to the price. The price ofeach piece ‘in the grove’wasmoret hanfi vet i mest hecostofcut t i ng,t yi ng and maki ng ready. In t hecaseoffaggot s,t he‘val uei n t hegrove’wasbet ween t wo and threetimesthecostof preparation and thatofstakes‘in thegrove’threetimes t he costofpreparat i on.The Forest er’s Tabl e does not expl i ci t l yst at et hecostoft ransportandi ti spossi bl et hat t he ‘markup’ on preparat i on cost si ncl uded i t . The di fferentpri ces charged for fi rewood may refl ectt he cost s of preparat i on or t ransport ;t he pri ce of smal l burni ng wood on t he‘four-wheel ed cart ’wasmoret han doubl et hatsol d‘i nt hegrove’. These relationships can (cautiously) be compared to t hose exi st i ng i nt he earl y 19th century atBremridge. Di fferent uni t s and expressi ons were used, but i ti s possi bl et ocomparet hecostofcut t i ngandbi ndi ngwood atBremri dge wi t ht ot alrecei pt s,ascal cul at ed i n Tabl e 5. 11. Di sregardi ng t i t he and t he cost s oft ransport i ng bark,receiptsatBremridgewerebetween fourand five t i mesl abourcost s. Thi si sroughl yi nl i newi t ht hecost pri ce rel at i onshi p forsmal lburni ng wood atBeaul i eu some six centuries earlier, when the value of small burni ng wood wasjustoverfi vet i mest hecost s.These fi gures may i ndi cat e ast abl e rel at i onshi p bet weent he

Table 5.10: Costs and prices of wood produced at Beaulieu Abbey 1269-70 as set out in the Forester’s Table of the Account Book (Rackham 1980,140;Beaulieu, 35) Small burning wood: Cost of preparation of 100 dozen ?bundles (6,000 pieces) = 1s 4d Cost of preparation of each piece = 16d /6000 = 0.003d 2 bundles (10 pieces of wood) on cart sold for 1/3d Price per piece of wood on cart = 1/3d /10 = 0.033d If sold in grove, price of 12 bundles (60 pieces) = 1d Price per piece of wood in grove = 1d /60 = 0.016d. Receiptsasmultiple ofcosts= 0.016/0.003= 5.33 Faggots: Cost ofpreparati onof1, 000= 1s 4d Cost ofpreparationofeachfaggot = 16d/1, 000= 0. 016d Val uei nthegroveof100= 4d Valueofeachfaggot ingrove= 4d/100= 0. 04d Stakes: Cost ofpreparationof100bundles (40ineachbundle)= 8d Cost ofpreparationofeachstake= 0. 002d Valueinthegroveof100bundles (40ineachbundle)= 2s Valueofeachstakeinthegrove= 24d/(100x40)= 0. 006d

Table 5.11: Comparison of costs andreceipts of woodland product ion atBremridge in 1816as setoutin Table 4.6(from DRO 1262M / E4/ 22) Totalreceipts (inpence):

12, 738

Totalcosts (i npence): Labourcosts 2872 Ti the 930 Transport ofbark 558 Total receipts as multiple oftotal labour costs = 12, 738/2872= 4. 435

price of labour and one type of domestic fuel in preindustrial periods.

If ‘faggots’ in each case refer to wood suitable for heating ovens (Rackham 2003, 142), then the difference in relative prices may show that alternative fuels for ovens were available in 19th century Bremridge.

The passage of time did appear to have changed relative prices for different types of wood (assuming that the two accounts described the different types in a similar way). At Bremridge, the highest price per unit was charged for stakes and the lowest for bark. Poles were roughly twice the price of faggots and each stake cost more than ten times the price of a faggot. At Beaulieu, the ‘value in the grove’ showed these figures in reverse order, with the highest value per unit being for faggots (at 0.04d/ faggot) and the lowest for stakes (at 0.006d/ stake).

One factor common to these two accounts is the significance of transport costs. At Beaulieu, firewood on the cart was double the price of that ‘in the grove’. At Bremridge in the 19th century, the cost of transporting bark was nearly 13% of total costs and was the third largest cost item, after payments for ‘ripping’ (bark stripping) and tithe. Other forms of woodland production roughly contemporary with the Bremridge account were

178

in a similar situation. Figures showing the costs of charcoal production in Somerset in the late 18th century indicate that packing and transport represented about 22% of total production costs (Billingsley 1798, 231232). This evidence shows that the position of a wood in relation to communications infrastructure could drastically affect total costs at all periods. W ithout necessarily assuming that wood owners were always driven by the desire to maximise cash receipts, it can be concluded that ease of access to, and the cost of, transport was a significant factor in shaping the nature and level of exploitation. It further follows that improvements in transport, which had the effect of reducing transport costs or opening up new routes, might facilitate higher levels of production, or the sale of products which had formerly been discarded or neglected (without necessarily acting as a driving force to increase production for sale). Evidence from the case study of Culbone suggests that the construction of Porlock harbour had such an effect and reference to the transport of bark from Bremridge to Barnstaple further emphasises the importance of road and sea transport for producers in and around Exmoor.

relates to production of bark, as well as underwood, but long cycle rotations do accord with the woods’ environment. The dominant species, sessile oak, tends to grow more slowly than other frequently coppiced species, such as hazel, and river valleys of the uplands offer more difficult conditions for growth than lowland environments. Such a long cycle might have been flexible in conditions where higher output was desired, as a reduction of one or two years in a cycle of 20 might have been easily absorbed, but could have made systematic coppicing in compartments (along the lines suggested in Chapter 2) impractical for the manager of all but the largest woods, if an annual crop was required. The relative scarcity of archaeological evidence for coppice compartments in the study area’s woods, as suggested by the surveys of others and bythe writer’s own observation, is consistent with this suggestion.

Real transport costs (in terms of time and effort) may also be relevant when considering woodland management for domestic use. Put simply, loading and carrying wood is hard, slow work, especially on the sloping ground so characteristic of Exmoor’s woods. Rational people would, all other considerations being equal, attempt to minimise these real costs byexploiting woodland close to their home, using the most efficient routes and keeping their visits to a minimum.

5.5.4 Underwood Production of underwood (as distinct from timber) may be inferred from the ring pattern of charcoal or from evidence of bark production but direct evidence for production by coppicing in the study area is limited to the areas of extant coppice and a few (late) documentary references. One distinct characteristic of coppice in the studyarea is the length of the cycle of production. In eastern England, coppice cycles longer than 20 years in the medieval period were ‘unknown’(Rackham 2003, 140). There is no positive evidence of the medieval cycle length in the study area but 20 years was normal in the 18th and 19th centuries (Savage 1830, 71), at least when bark stripping was involved. This period is equal to the age of some oak used as timber elsewhere in the medieval period. Examples of construction timber from eastern England having ‘between twenty to seventy years’growth’are known (Rackham 2003, 145). The evidence from the study area may be slightly unrepresentative, in that it is post-medieval and often

179

The case against systematic coppicing should not be overstated. It is perfectlypossible that managers marked areas of underwood without constructing compartment banks. Tree alignments are still visible in Horner W ood (170, Luccombe), of which some coincide with parcel boundaries as shown on the 1809 estate map, and compartment boundaries could have been marked in this way in the medieval period. Another technique which leaves little physical trace is to mark the trees in some way, perhaps by removing bark. In a dispute over activity at Gallox Hill (near Dunster) in the early 19th century, one party referred to ‘bond(?) marks’on trees, which he thought were ‘easily to be found’(SRO DD/L 1/11/37). W ood managers could have used such techniques at any period;all traces would long since have vanished from the woods. It should also be emphasised that the scarcity of medieval references to coppicing in the documentary record is not conclusive evidence of absence. Some treatises on estate management of the 13th and 14th century, which were written in other parts of the country, do not specifically mention coppicing, for example, Wal t er (Wal t er, 308-385) and the Husbandry (Husbandry,417-445). W as coppicing an activitybelow the horizon of visibilityof those writing the documents? If so, the implication is that coppicing was an activity carried out by those living on an estate mainly to meet their own needs, with little direct effect on the lord’s income.

5.5.5 Timber In contrast, timber was long recognised as the jewel in the crown of manylarge estates. The high price it could command was an important element in the value of woodland for which there is a graphic example from Devon in the 15th century. Proceedings in 1438 against Thomas M ede, the Abbot of Tavistock (not in the study area), on charges of ‘wastage and incontinence’,

included a list of allegations, of which the first was that he had, by sale and neglect, squandered the abbey’s woods. Other charges included the wrongful sale of other monastic property, manumission of serfs (especially women), adultery, drunkenness, simony, imprisonment of the abbey’s prior and threats of violence (Lacy1420, 215-218). In spite of the appalling nature of the other alleged crimes, the charge of wasting the abbey’s woods was placed at the top of the list and probably reflected the high priority attached to the woods as an asset.

of the hundred of Carhampton (Corcos 2002, 95). Timberscombe’s pattern of fields and the relative sparsity of its woods might show clearance at an early date, as has already been suggested, and would be consistent with timber production on a significant scale. A reference to timber was made in the list of grievances attached in 1279 to the Perambulation of the Royal Forest of Exmoor. People complained that: ‘… if a man bring the timber of a house a hundred years old ..from one place to another… or an old chest without iron, or a pair of wheels for a wagon or a cart… they [the foresters]attach them in the king’s highway as if for cheminage, until they have made fine at their will… ’ (MacDermot 1939, 55). This merely confirms that mature timber was used on Exmoor, probably for construction, in the 13th century, and that its transport gave rise to taxation by the foresters. The exact origin of the timber is unknown.

The long periods required for timber to mature set it apart from other woodland products. In early 19th century Devon, it was recorded that local people said that oak trees took 150 years to grow to maturity, remained mature for 150 years and took 150 years to decay (Vancouver 1808, 267-268). This timescale is probably the reason why timber production was, at most periods, an activity of large estates and institutions, whose structure allowed them to take the long view. High demand for other woodland products might reduce timber supplies, by increasing the incentive to cut young trees and this effect was noted in Devon in the early 19th century, when, it was stated, no trees were being left to grow on to maturity in coppiced woods (Vancouver 1808, 457). Perceived pressure on timber supplies in the Horner case study was recorded in the 16th century and over the entire study area in the early 19th century, as it was in other parts of the country. Agricultural depression at this later period formed the context for intense exploitation of woodland; by coppicing at Bremridge and by felling and sale of timber near Dunster and in the Vale of Porlock.

5.5.6 Bark Evidence of bark production was found in the case studies of Bremridge, Culbone and Horner. All is late in date: the archaeological evidence at Culbone and the documentary references at Horner are post-medieval. The structure interpreted as a bark drying house in the Culbone case study and the documentary evidence from Bremridge fit into the peak period of tanning with oak bark, which occurred in the 18th and early 19th centuries (Rackham 1980, 154) but bark stripping to supply leather producers could have been significant in earlier periods. Leather production was a specialised industry from an early date. By 1260, cordwainers (shoemakers), skinners and curriers were recorded as separate trades in London (Britnell 1996, 79-80). Two forms of production existed in the period between 1200 and 1500. The first was a simple process of ‘tawing’, which was used mostly for finer sheep or goatskin. The skin was soaked in whale or fish oils and then rubbed with salt, flour, alum or egg yolk. The ‘tawer’ normally also made the finished article: purses, uppers of shoes or gloves (Farmer 1991, 405). This process was brief, did not use much equipment and did not require the tannin contained in oak bark. The second form of output was heavy leather, which needed cattle and horse hides. These were scraped, ‘bated’ (soaked in animal excrement) and then soaked, perhaps for months, in an oak bark solution (ibid., 405-6). The bark for the soaking liquor was sometimes ground in a mill and there are a few documentary references to medieval bark mills. Documents relating to medieval leather production in Exeter showed the chain of supply. Tanners bought hides for tanning from estate bailiffs and butchers, and sold their output of tanned or ‘crust’ leather to the craftsmen such as cordwainers or saddlers (ibid., 407).

Most of the evidence for timber production in the study area is late. The Luttrell estate (centred on Dunster) shipped wood through Minehead between May 1816 and Jan 1819 in large quantities as follows: oak and ash timber planks 2,582 tons; oak tops 180 ¾ tons; and oak bark 656 ½ tons (SRO Luttrell Archive DD/L 1/11/37). The Vale of Porlock saw similar sales by the Blathwayt family. Following a surveyor’s report in 1824, which recommended the sale of 700-800 trees (GRO 1799/E76), the manor steward’s accounts recorded receipt of the proceeds (SRO DD/BR/bn 12). Outside the study area, large amounts of timber were shipped through Barnstaple; the timber equivalent of around 6,000 trees was exported in 1805 and it was noted that felling was producing trees of declining size (Vancouver 1808, 266-267). In contrast, evidence of timber production in the medieval period is sparse, as might be expected, given the small number of medieval documents relating to the study area. The place-name of Timberscombe offers a clue, as it has been described as the ‘sole surviving example of a specialist place-name’ in the parish centres

180

The scale and location of medieval tanneries is still not clear. The level of investment and the time taken in the tanning process has been thought to point to its being an urban activity (Farmer 1991, 406) but the need for both hides and oak bark may have made rural tanneries a practical proposition. Excavations of village sites have not, so far, revealed their presence (Cherry 1991b, 301) but advances are being made in establishing biological indicators (Hall & Kenward 2003, 121-4) and future excavations may throw further light on this issue.

bark production in the study area to supply tanneries, or even the presence of such tanneries. There may be an indirect clue in the documentary evidence relating to the Barle case study. Forde Abbey’s right to cut spars or spokes for wheels in Ashway Hat Wood (mentioned in deeds of the 13th century) probably implies production of rods from wood which had been cleft (split along the grain), to provide maximum strength. This technique has to be applied when the wood is full of sap (in spring and summer) and so has often been used after trees have been stripped of bark, which is harvested in spring (Harris et al. 2003, 82). It is therefore possible that some woodland in the Barle valley was being exploited for bark in the 13th century.

It is clear that medieval monastic estates produced leather. Beaulieu’s Account Book recorded a tannery with a bark mill in 1269-70 (Beaulieu, 37) and Rievaulx retained a tannery until the Dissolution (Aston 2000, 101). Cistercian houses, which often possessed large herds and flocks, were recorded as having tanneries in other parts of the country. The Taxatio Ecclesiastica of 1291 listed tanneries at, inter alia, the houses of Margam, Tintern, Dore, Quarr and at the grange of Hulton (Donkin 1978, 69). The Cistercian house at Tintern contracted to buy large amounts of bark in the mid-13th century to supply its tannery (Linnard 1982, 39) and, closer to the study area, Tavistock Abbey’s records show that one of its manors possessed a ‘tan mill’ in 1291, which continued in use until the 15th century (Finberg 1951, 154 & 196).

The Assize of the Forest of 1184 prohibited tanners from living in Forests outside the towns (MacDermot 1939, 48) and if enforced in those parts of the study area within the Royal Forest of Exmoor, would have made small, rural tanneries there less likely. Further archaeological investigation of places such as Porlock, Minehead and Lynton might be the only way of discovering traces of medieval tanneries, if they existed. How, or whether, medieval woodland exploitation in the study area was shaped by their needs, remains an open question. Post-medieval documentary evidence from the study area is more informative and shows the value of bark to estate owners. Sales by the Luttrells in 1749 produced £28 19s 3d but costs were high; wages for bark stripping were £12 16s 11d (Harrison 1984, 388). The early 19th century account from Bremridge, shown in Table 4.6, showed income from bark as 32% of total receipts, but with high associated costs of ‘ripping’ and transport.

In the later medieval period, population decline may have changed the economics of supply to the leather industry. The reduction in population associated with the Black Death led to a higher per capita consumption of meat, so providing favourable supply conditions for leather production (Britnell 1996, 168). These conditions could have encouraged or allowed higher levels of bark production in many parts of the country.

Published accounts of bark stripping within living memory, of which a particularly charming example describes production in Wales (Linnard 1978), gives some idea of methods of production in the recent past. Documentary evidence relating to methods used in the south-west dates to the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In Devon, it was noted that every branch ‘one inch or less’ was peeled when preparing brushwood for sale (Vancouver 1808, 246), which indicates that bark production probably accompanied the cutting of coppice wood. Mature standard trees were also stripped and it was calculated that timber of five tons could produce over one ton of bark from the trunk and branches. This was usually peeled by the purchaser of the tree but was kept by the vendor (ibid., 267). Production of bark at Culbone was stated as being from coppice of about 20 years’ growth and it was noted that bark had been transported from the wood in earlier years (up to around 1790) by horse, which might point to a long history of activity on a modest scale. Stripping in the early 19th century was under the control of a Porlock tanner (Giles), who would send 10 or 12 men to ‘rip the trees, for which he paid the lord of the manor one shilling a man per day….as a compensation for all the oak bark,

It is an open question as to whether there were medieval tanneries producing heavy leather in the study area. The absence of early manorial records does not allow a definite answer but the Vale of Porlock’s historian of the early 20th century envisaged a medieval assize of leather as part of manorial administration, to accompany those of bread and ale and to regulate quality and prices (Chadwyck Healey 1901, 304). The raw materials were present and hides may have been available in significant numbers in the study area from an early date. It was suggested in this Chapter that some local specialisation in livestock could even have developed by the 11th century and certainly from the mid-14th century, cattle farming is thought to have operated ‘at some scale’ on Exmoor, especially in specialised farms on the moor edge. By the 1420s, a vaccary at Brendon was recorded as possessing over 100 animals (Fox 1991b, 317). The reference to loads of bark in the dispute at Horner in the 1570s may have described a traditional harvest from the woods to supply local tanners. However, no clear, positive evidence of any kind was found in the course of this research to show medieval

181

(Hussey 2000, 11). As an alternative domestic fuel, coal could have displaced both charcoal and firewood. Conversely, improved transport links could have allowed the export of charcoal, along with bark and timber, and so encouraged its production for export and sale.

which they, and his two sons, whom he did not pay anything, could strip off’ (Savage 1830, 71). The organisation of bark production in other parts of the country in the post-medieval period varied. In a study of the bark trade from 1660 to 1830, it was noted that different methods of stripping and sale were encountered, with some landowners allowing the income from bark stripping to accrue to their tenants, while others ensured that it remained their own (Clarkson 1974, 144-149). Uniform practices in this activity should perhaps not be expected but it may be worth noting that wood in Scotland in the post-medieval period were exploited mainly for bark and not wood (Rackham 2003, 285) –it is possible that many woods of the study area were similarly dedicated in this period.

Evidence for charcoal production in the case studies is almost exclusively archaeological. Practically no documentary references were found. Written accounts of production in the recent past and post-medieval evidence from other parts of England show that the technique of woodland management most commonly used in connection with charcoal production was coppicing. Most writers on the subject seem to assume that it was invariably employed in earlier periods (e.g. Williams 2003, 187; Armstrong 1978, 69) and both modern production and reconstructions, tend to use coppiced wood, of limited size and uniform species. The tree survey in the Horner case study suggested that, in Wilmersham Wood, coppiced trees did not show a long history of cutting and it seems unlikely that significant areas of extant coppice in the study area were contemporary with medieval charcoal production.

5.5.7 Charcoal Archaeological evidence for charcoal production in the study area is plentiful, as indicated by the numbers of platforms found in the case studies of Horner, Barle and Culbone. No excavated material from any of these features has yet been dated and so the periods in which the platforms were in use have been inferred (where possible) from their relationship to other sites. Metal working would have consumed charcoal as fuel and the Exmoor Iron Project has recorded remains of this activity near platforms in both the Barle and Horner case studies.

Direct evidence of past woodland management associated with charcoal production must therefore rest on charcoal analysis. The only such work to have been carried out in the study area examined charcoal from the 17th century metal working site at Horner Wood (Gale 2001). This single set of results is an extremely limited basis for conclusions but it is suggestive. As indicated in the Horner case study, oak dominated but other species were present and included birch, ash, willow/poplar and hawthorn/rowan. The age of the oak ranged from 4 to 45 years and most samples fell within the range of 15 to 30 years. Most of the charcoal did not have the ring pattern characteristic of coppiced trees (ibid., 3-4).

Before concluding that charcoal was invariably produced to supply metal working within walking distance of the platform, the distribution of the production sites should be considered. Survey of the Barle Valley revealed large numbers of charcoal platforms but only three metal production sites clustered at the southern end. Survey in the case study of Culbone revealed platforms but no traces of metal production. Some relationship is probable but factors other than metal working may also have shaped charcoal production.

The author of the report proposed a possible explanation for the charcoal’s ring pattern. Stress from harsh growing conditions, climatic change or other causes, was thought to be responsible (Gale 2001, 4). As was suggested in the Horner case study, over-exploitation of the wood may have been an underlying cause. Rackham (2003, 140) has suggested that long periods of coppicing can reduce soils’ fertility and other studies have agreed. For example, an investigation of medieval woodland management close to salt springs in France suggested that coppicing or coppicing with standards would both degrade and exhaust forest soils. The author concluded that coppicing could not be employed for periods exceeding 250 years (Dufraisse 2002, 674). Another French study of woodland and forest exploitation over a longer period reached a similar conclusion (Bernard 1998, 130) and also stated that cycles of less than 10 years in oak coppice could kill the trees (ibid., 135). The charcoal at Horner ‘s metal working site may therefore have shown the adverse effects on soils and tree growth of an extended period of coppicing.

There may have been some local domestic demand for charcoal and it also seems likely that access to communications could have been as significant for its production, as it was for that of bark. There is no reason to assume that charcoal was invariably consumed on the spot where it was produced; the distribution of platforms at Culbone strongly suggests charcoal could have been carried down to the beach for transport, at least in the post-medieval period. In other parts of the country, charcoal was carried significant distances; London, for example, was supplied with charcoal produced in Surrey and the Chilterns up to the Elizabethan period, when coal began to displace it (Everitt 2000, 212). Improvements in communications may also have affected production in the study area by facilitating imports from South Wales. Coal was recorded from the mid-16th century as an import at Bridgwater, a port whose administration also recorded trade through Minehead, Porlock and Watchet

182

was at 13th century Beaulieu: it made money by using up otherwise unsaleable wood.

Alternatively, the ring patterns, age and mix of species might suggest that systematically coppiced trees were not selected for the production of charcoal at this particular place and time. The mix of species and ages might be consistent with the use of all trees within easy reach of any starting point. In other words, the people cutting wood might have made no conscious choices regarding the age and species of tree, they simply took whatever grew at accessible height in the place where they were working. Such uncontrolled activity would involve cutting shoots and branches as this would be physically less demanding than clear felling, particularly if men were working as individuals and not in teams. If the trees were of species capable of natural regrowth from the stump, such as oak, then the act of cutting would result in a further harvest in the future. To that extent, the activity could be classed as coppicing, but those using it may not have worked on a fixed cycle, selected particular species, cut different parts of the wood in an orderly sequence, or chosen trees which had previously been cut in this way. If this picture contains any flavour of actual events, it may suggest that some ‘coppicing’ in the study area was a rougher and less organised affair than in other parts of the country, perhaps carried out without any overall control.

The charcoal from Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) and the documentary evidence suggest three conclusions. Firstly, the economic significance of charcoal production could be less than its remains in the archaeological record might suggest. Secondly, charcoal may not invariably have been produced from coppiced wood. Finally, charcoal may have been a byproduct (from timber, underwood or bark production) rather than the main aim of management. Nevertheless, universal conclusions are to be avoided. The significance of charcoal production may have varied enormously over time and place. In the early 19th century, it was noted that charcoal produced in other parts of Somerset ‘for the use of manufacturers’ gave a return about 25% higher than firewood (Billingsley 1798, 231-232) and demand of this kind would have increased the importance of charcoal and encouraged woodland exploitation for this purpose. The incidence and scale of metal working in the study area in the medieval period is clearly relevant here and further work by the Exmoor Iron Project will be very informative. If metal working expanded over relatively short periods, then its growth could drastically affect any woods which supplied wood for its charcoal fuel. Increases in demand from crafts and industries other than metal working could also have an effect. Even the establishment of orchards for the production of cider in the post-medieval period might have fuelled demand; all parts of a cider press and cider vessels had to be made of wood (Savage 1830, 9-10). As described in Chapter 2, increases in demand can lead to shorter coppice cycles but accelerating increases can lead to a chaotic pattern in the amounts of differently aged ‘spring’, if systematic coppicing in compartments is practised. If increases in output are to be achieved, the options available to the manager of a compartmented, coppiced wood in a fully exploited landscape may be very limited. In such conditions, those who have access to woodland without the restrictions involved in coppicing in compartments could meet demand simply by cutting all the trees they can reach. Such a scenario is consistent with the results of the analysis of charcoal from Horner Wood (170, Luccombe). One is reminded of the statement in court proceedings that the wood had been thought by some in the late 16th century to be ‘yet in common’. Does the charcoal analysis indicate an arboreal ‘tragedy of the commons’ in the wood, precipitated by demands from the metal producers?

It is useful to consider again the Forester’s Table from 13th century Beaulieu Abbey. After listing different types of wood products, it describes a technique of cutting wood in difficult, stony terrain so as to leave stumps or poles (coti) of one foot in height. These coti are made into charcoal, for which no price can be fixed due to its variable quality (Rackham 1980, 140). Charcoal here appears to have been an item of uncertain value, whose production consumed wood which was otherwise difficult to use. To the Forester of Beaulieu, the idea of managing a wood solely or mainly for charcoal production would probably have seemed nonsensical and wasteful. A similar approach seems to have been taken in Devon in the early 19th century, as described by contemporary observers. Coppice woods were cut at around 20 years’ age, some wood was cut into poles, some into faggots and the remainder was converted into charcoal (Vancouver 1808, 246). As at Beaulieu, charcoal seems to have been produced from the remains of other processes. Seven centuries after the guidance to the Forester at Beaulieu was written, the National Trust at Holnicote (whose estate includes the Horner Wood complex) was advised by its headquarters’ Deputy Chief Agent, in a memorandum dated 9th October 1947, that ‘charcoal burners are most useful merchants for clearing anything lying about in a woodland, to getting 60 year old hazel underwood cut and sold’ (National Trust Holnicote Archive, Woodland file G/17). The technology of charcoal production had changed (modern charcoal makers transport wood to specialised production sites and use metal kilns) but the role of charcoal production in woodland management appeared to be the same as it

In addition to coppicing or uncontrolled cutting, a further option is available to those controlling woodland in conditions of high demand (for charcoal, wood or timber): wholesale woodland clearance. Pollen analysis does not point to extensive clearance in and around Exmoor in the period covered by this research (Fyfe et

183

al. 2003, 25-26) but there may have been localised exceptions.

coppice and standard trees. Thirdly, the production of charcoal may have generated particular forms of woodland management (clearance or coppicing) in restricted areas close to metal production sites but elsewhere may simply have been a way of using up waste from other forms of woodland production.

The first area in which clearance could have taken place is Exford, which was the subject of a fascinating piece of local folklore. Exford possesses relatively small areas of woodland and scattered, undated remains of mining (Atkinson 1997, 235). The historian of Neath Abbey, which owned land in the area, referred to ‘ancient ironworks’ near the church, which tradition regarded as responsible for consuming all the Forest’s woods (De Gray Birch 1902, 88). The earliest version of this tale found during the course of this research was that of Collinson (1791, 21), which was repeated by other, later writers. The ‘ancient ironworks’ have been identified as the traces of smelting remains at Aldworthy, formerly called Oldre (Howes 1889, 39; Somerset HER 34564). Many valleys in this area have stunted, sparse trees, which might be consistent with extensive past clearance followed by natural regeneration struggling at a high altitude, as suggested earlier in this Chapter. It would be rash to discard the local tradition as an old wives’ tale and reject the idea that Exford’s woods were cleared for charcoal production. The other area of possible medieval clearance is Timberscombe, in the north-eastern corner of the study area, whose name indicates production of timber and whose relevance has already been briefly discussed.

In considering the various forms of woodland production, the degree to which they required the involvement of specialists is an interesting question, especially in the case of charcoal production. In the writer’s view, archaeological evidence is rarely capable of providing a clear answer on this point, and documentary evidence is lacking. As far as production in the study area is concerned, the question cannot yet be answered from the available evidence. It is plausible to suggest that charcoal was at some periods and in some places in the study area, produced by farmers in their own woods, as part of their annual round of tasks. It is equally plausible to suggest production by specialists travelling to the area at particular seasons or in particular years, under the direction of those farmers. It is, of course, also possible that reality was untidy and defied simple generalised description.

5.5.8 Summary The evidence has shown that production of materials of high value, which made money for the elite, sometimes made its way into the documentary record. Production of low value material for those who were, in Pistol’s phrase ‘base, common and popular’, did not. Exploitation by the latter group can be illuminated by archaeology, as employed in the case studies, and by the analysis of cartographic data, as carried out in Chapter 3, but large gaps in the evidence remain. As indicated at the start of this section, evidence of production in the study area’s woods is biased towards the post-medieval period; the nature and extent of medieval production remains uncertain. Nevertheless, some general conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, the level of transport costs (in time or money) meant that improvements in transport could encourage woodland production, for both domestic and commercial use. Evidence of such improvements is overwhelmingly post-medieval in date but many Exmoor tracks (like the ‘great way’ in the Barle case study) could have provided links between woods and markets or production centres in the medieval period. Secondly, the slow growth of oak in Exmoor’s environment resulted in long periods between wood ‘harvests’ and probably pushed woodland management away from systematic, regular coppicing in compartments. This background was particularly favourable to the growth of bark stripping, which may be relatively indiscriminate and take bark from both

184

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 6. 1M ethods The woods st udi ed i n t hi s research have seen considerable archaeological assessment, with some excavat i onandsampl i ng,agai nstabackgroundofsparse documentary evidence. Thisresearch wassuccessfulin ful l y expl oi t i ng al l t he evidence: archaeological, cart ographi c and document ary and i t was onl y by synt hesi si ng i nformat i on from al lt hesesourcest hatany underst andi ngofpastwoodl andusecoul dbedevel oped. Statistical analysis (in Chapter 3), which produced resul t s wi t h a hi gh degree of object i vi t y and great resol ut i on ofdet ai l ,al l owed pat t erns i nt he dat at o be di scovered. Anal ysi s of wood si ze, for exampl e, illumi nated the preponderance of small woods, with more t han 80% bei ng under 10 ha i n si ze. M erel y l ooki ng atamap woul d notconvey si mi l ari nformat i on, ast heeyei si nevi t abl ydrawnt owardst hel argerwoods. Usi ng t he GIS t o map t he resul t sofst at i st i calanal ysi s (i n Chapt er 3) hi ghl i ght ed vari ous aspect s of t he evidence; for example, mapping the patterns of size di st ri but i on i n vari ous pari shes (l i st ed i n Appendi xV andshowni nFi gure3. 2)showed,inter alia, t heunusual charact eroft hegroupofcoast al ,nort h-west ernpari shes, whi chmi ghtot herwi sehavebeenoverl ooked. Syst emat i canal ysi s(i n Chapt er3)ofot herfeat ureswas al so product i ve. In part i cul ar,t hehi gh numberofpat hs runni ngal ongt heedgeofwoodsl edt ot hedevel opment ofanhypot hesi sconcerni ngt hel ocat i onofformerwood pastures,which leave few clearsigns in the landscape (M ui r200a,7)andarenot ori ousl ydi ffi cul tt odet ect . Useofmul t i vari at est at i st i calanal ysi s,wi t hresul t sbei ng mapped i n a GIS, i s a new t echni que i nl andscape archaeology. Someclearresultsemerged.Forexample, t hedi scovery ofnei ghbouri ng woodswi t h si mi l arPCA scores, whi ch shared t hei r names wi t h set t l ement s, support ed t wo i nferences. Fi rst l y,t he scal e atwhi ch pat t ernsi n woodl and expl oi t at i on can bedi scerned was seent obet henei ghbourhoodorl ocalenvi ronmentrat her t hant hepari shorregi on.Thequest i onoft heri ghtscal e ofanalysisoflandscape isan issue considered in other work (e. g.Hunn 1994,1;Jones& Page 2003,54)and t he resul t soft he st at i st i calanal ysi scarri ed outi nt hi s research cont ri but e t o t hi s debat e. Secondl y, t he probabl erel at i onshi p bet ween t hesi ngl efarm orhaml et and an adjacent wood, which was suggested by the resul t sofanal ysi s,proved t o befundament al . Thecase st udi es abounded wi t h exampl es, whi l e evi dence for expl oi t at i on by more di st ant ,l arger set t l ement s was t enuous, at best , and l i mi t ed t o Ti mberscombe and (perhapsmoreconcl usi vel y)Al mswort hy.

185

Ot her resul t s were i nt erest i ng but more di ffi cul tt o i nt erpret .Fi gure3. 8 showedwoodscl oset oPorl ockand on t he coast just t ot he west of Porl ock as bei ng rel at i vel y homogeneous i nt erms oft hei rPCA scores. Evi dence from t he rel evantcase st udi es (Cul bone and Horner)and from t heVal eofPorl ock di d notpoi ntt oa uniform style of past management but did, in each i nst ance,suggestt hatt he proxi mi t y ofPorl ock and i t s speci al ,i ndust ri alact i vi t i eshad asi gni fi canti mpact . In cont rast ,PCA scoresofwoodsaroundLynmout h(i nt he nort h-west ernquadrantoft hest udyarea)werel owerand more mi xed. Here, ot her evi dence suggest ed earl y speci al i sat i oni nl i vest ockandl ong-l i vedwoodpast ures. Nosi mpl ecorrel at i onbet weenPCA scoresandst yl esof management i s apparent but t he di st ri but i on of PCA scoresdi d confi rm t hatwoodsi nt het wo areas(around Porl ock and Lynmout h)were very di fferent . Itwoul d perhapsbewort ht ryi ng outot hert echni quescapabl eof usi ngcodeddat at oexpl oret hesepat t ernsfurt her. The value of using living trees as archaeology was demonstrated by the tree survey (described in Chapter 4).Thet ypeofmanagementreveal ed by t rees’physi cal form,and t hei rspat i aldi st ri but i on,wasi nt erpret ed wi t h al lot herl ocalevi dencet oprovi dei nformat i onaboutt he i nt ensi t yandpurposeofpastmanagement . M anyoft he treessurveyed wereofrecentgrowth butthepattern of management was project ed back i nt i me t o generat e furt herhypot hesesaboutmanagementhi st ory. The research showed t he i mport ance oft i t he maps i n underst andi ng past pat t erns of woodl and use and ownershi p.Thevari et yi nt hest ruct ureofownershi pi n the five case studies was a revelation. Ifitmi rrored medi evalpat t erns,t hen Exmoor’s woods were unl i ke t hosedescri bed i n Rackham’s(2003)work,whi ch were ‘usual l y… part of an est at e and … . sel dom owned separat el y’ (ibid. , 137). However, evi dence of significantchanges in tenure in the early 19th century showed t he need forcaut i on and al so i l l umi nat ed areas i n whi ch fut ureresearch coul d beprofi t abl e.Pat t ernsof y 19th centuries,and ownershi pi nt he l at e 18th and earl the precise impactof large estates on tenure allover Exmoorarewort hyoffurt heri nvest i gat i on.

6. 2Thesignificanceofthe physicalenvironment Anal ysi soft heent i rest udy area(in Chapter3)showed t hatwoodst ended t o be l ocat ed on t he sl opesofri ver val l eys and t he domi nance oft hi s envi ronmentwas a t hread runni ng t hroughout t he research.The physi cal rel i efofwoodl and i mpl i est hati twasconfi ned t ol and not needed, or capabl e of bei ng used, for ot her agri cul t uralpurposes. Thi sphenomenoni snotconfi ned t oExmoor;woodl andi nmanyot herpart soft hecount ry hasasi mi l ardi st ri but i on(Rackham 2003,50).

W hen examined in detail, many of the woods in the case studies revealed evidence of significant past changes in their extent. At Sherracombe and Barle, flatter land had been cleared of woodland at some period and enclosed as fields. In the Horner case study, some gentler slopes had been ploughed in the medieval period and at Bremridge, the flatter hilltop and part of the gently sloping valley side had been cleared and enclosed at an early date. This pattern of small changes within a generally stable location shows that farmers, in both upland and lowland, occasionally revised their land use strategies in the light of various factors, such as changes in the benefits of exploiting different types of land (woodland and enclosed fields). The resulting changes in strategy might involve woodland clearance or, alternatively, abandoning a field and allowing woodland regeneration. Decisions to clear or to permit regeneration operated at a small scale and the areas concerned were restricted. In all cases, such decisions affected only the flatter land; when more agricultural land was needed, only woodland on the gentlest slopes was cleared.

There was a hypothetical risk in depending on analysis of small areas of woodland (in the case studies) to provide explanations of past exploitation. By concentrating on these groups of woods, the general pattern of woodland use in, or other characteristics of, the parishes or other units in which the woods were situated, may have been overlooked. In fact, analysis of data over the study area identified only one such pattern – that of the size distribution in different parishes. Otherwise, patterns appeared to correspond, not with parishes, but with local topography. This finding justified the decision to examine groups of woods in limited areas, rather than on a parish by parish basis. In addition, thematic discussion in Chapter 5, which considered inter alia the variation in size distribution over parishes, elicited wider influences which may have been otherwise omitted through exclusive reliance on the case studies.

To summarise, both the general distribution of woodland and also local decisions as to its exact size were determined by the physical relief of the local environment. In comparison, the relative influence of human action, whether through the institutions of the Royal Forest, or other owners, appeared unimportant, as precise decisions were invariably determined by topography. The conclusion of this research is therefore that the distribution of woodland was shaped mainly by the physical environment. This conclusion was reached after considering specific cases, such as the sequence of clearance and regeneration at Sherracombe and the other examples referred to above.

The work of the Exmoor Iron Project, which had raised questions about the extent, nature and duration of woodland management to meet demands for charcoal fuel, formed part of the background to this research, as outlined in Chapter 1. The relationship between rural industry and farming practices (including woodland management) has been recognised as an important theme for post-medieval archaeology (Crossley 1990, 3) but this research has shown it may also be profitably explored in earlier periods, as suggested in Chapter 2. Evidence considered in this research included 11th century coppicing (recorded in Domesday Book) and signs of possible early mineral exploitation at Almsworthy, pointing to relevant industrial activity on Exmoor in the medieval period.

6.3 Woods and rural industry

Landscape archaeology has a long tradition of developing schemes of classification or characterisation over wide areas, as in recent work at a national level (Roberts & W rathmell 2000, 2002). Such classification may, in this writer’s view, have little value in explaining past woodland use, for reasons outlined in Chapter 3. Analysis of data from the entire study area showed the relatively uniform nature of the physical environment but the case studies showed that small variations in the physical environment and associated changes in woodland extent and exploitation were detectable only at the local level. Such changes were crucial in developing understanding of past woodland exploitation. The conclusion of this research is therefore that schemes of characterisation do not necessarily possess explanatory value; woodland use, and its changes over time, may be better explained by examining individual cases. A similar conclusion was reached for different reasons in recent work on W hittlewood Forest (in Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire), where no single scheme of classification (whether of physical environment or settlement pattern) was found to fit an area of mixed character (Jones & Page 2003, 83).

The Exmoor Iron Project has located and investigated metal working sites of the Roman era, which predates the period covered by this research, at Sherracombe Ford and Brayford (both within the study area) and at Clatworthy Reservoir (just outside the study area). The Exmoor Iron Project has also identified and is in the course of excavating a pre-Conquest site at Blacklake W ood (423, Dulverton) in the Barle valley (which is within the study area but pre-dates the period of this research) and has sampled the nearby medieval smelting site at Invention W ood (302.2, Dulverton). The postmedieval site in Horner W ood (170, Luccombe) is accompanied by strong evidence for earlier, medieval activity in the Horner complex. These latter two sites, at Invention W ood (302.2, Dulverton) and Horner W ood (170, Luccombe), produced evidence directly relevant to this research, while the remainder of the sites investigated by the Exmoor Iron Project either lie outside the study area or predate the period of this research. The site at Invention W ood (302.2, Dulverton) consists of small slag deposits, which produced charcoal from the 13th and 14th centuries. Low levels of medieval activity

186

small scale, but they are near more extensive remains at Blacklake Wood (423, Dulverton), dating to the 6th century. Evidence in this case study suggested that land (including many of the woods) had been enclosed and appropriated to individual farms at an early date, giving farmers the degree of control necessary to exploit woodland systematically. Taken in conjunction with the numerous charcoal platforms found in this part of the Barle valley, the evidence might show that the habit of coppicing could have been acquired in the pre-Conquest period, dropped when metal production ceased and then revived in later periods, when fuel for metal production was again needed. In the Horner case study, the forge at Prickslade, the charcoal platforms and finds of smelting slag, point to some medieval metal working. As in the Barle valley, medieval activity could have been accompanied by the adoption of coppicing.

are suggested. The short-lived, water powered site at Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) was sampled and produced charcoal and pottery dating to the late 16th or early 17th century, as described in Chapter 4. Both sites consumed charcoal on a small scale. In other parts of the country, high levels of metal working (or any other activity requiring large quantities of wood or charcoal as fuel) led to more intensive, efficient management of woods through coppicing of enclosed woods. Smelting one ton of iron in the Weald consumed 84 tons of wood and in that area, the development of iron production in the post-medieval period was accompanied by more sophisticated woodland management (Cleere & Crossley 1985, 134). In Swaledale (in the uplands of North Yorkshire), Leland referred in the 16th century to lead smelting being fuelled by coppiced wood (Fleming 1999, 38). Iron working in the 18th and 19th century in Furness (in the Lake District) used large quantities of charcoal in blast furnaces, making woodland management so profitable that woods expanded onto former arable land (Bowden 2000, 22). Post-medieval iron making in South Yorkshire led to the development of large, compartmented coppices as metal working expanded (Jones 2003, 18) and similarly large scale production in the 16th century in the Forest of Dean was also accompanied by leases of large areas of coppice (Hart 1971, 327).

However, it would be wrong to infer a simple and universal association between metal working and coppicing in the study area. Analysis of charcoal from the post-medieval metal working site at Horner Wood (170, Luccombe) did not show that the fuel was produced from coppiced wood and the documentary evidence suggested that the wood may have been treated as a common. The conclusion of this research is that the precise impact of metal working in the study area may have been as uneven as elsewhere in the country. Where levels of activity were high and woods were under the control of individuals, coppicing was probably adopted; where levels were low and woodland exploitation was uncontrolled, fuel could be produced by less systematic cutting. A common factor of weak feudal control may be inferred. There is no sign that the individual farmer in the Barle or the over-enthusiastic woodcutters of Horner were acting under the direction of their lord.

Medieval industrial activity on a smaller scale than that of the post-medieval period, was also supplied from coppices. Coppicing in association with iron working in the medieval period was seen as likely in Rockingham Forest in Northamptonshire (Foard 2001, 41). The glass industry of the Weald was fuelled by coppiced wood from the 13th to 17th century and woodland was managed so effectively that three parishes supplied all the fuel required (Kenyon 1967, 13).

It is easier to show an association between coppicing and bark stripping in the study area in the post-medieval period, thanks to documentary evidence. Post-medieval bark stripping was found in the Culbone, Horner and Bremridge case studies. Given Savage’s reference (1830, 71) to 20 year old trees being stripped, it is reasonable to conclude that post-medieval bark stripping was normally accompanied by coppice management on a long cycle. The period of such systematic management may have been fairly brief. Demand for bark fell as leather production contracted from the early 19th century, and the physical effect of regular coppicing on Exmoor’s woods may also have led to difficulties in supply. Documentary evidence from Bremridge and analysis of charcoal from the Horner case study hint at possible exhaustion of soils after intense exploitation. Systematic coppicing for bark in the post-medieval period may have been relatively short lived, lasting only for the period in which demand was at its height.

However, coppicing does not seem to have been universally adopted as a technique to supply industrial fuel. In Nidderdale (in North Yorkshire), lead smelters’ source of supply in the 17th century was pollard trees in wood pasture (Fleming 1999, 36) and in parts of Herefordshire, demand for wood for iron working was met from wooded commons, a practice for which the commoners took action in 1301 (Cross 1999, 370-1). Lead smelting in medieval Flintshire led to wood shortage in 1360s (Blanchard 1981, 77), suggesting that coppicing had not been not adopted. The conclusion of this research is that the method of woodland exploitation to supply industry on Exmoor was determined partly by the scale of metal working relative to local woodland levels, and partly by local tenurial factors, which would affect the legal right to take wood. In the study area, medieval levels of metal working activity may have been low. Close to the Barle case study, the slag heaps (dated to the 13th and 14th centuries) at Invention Wood (302.2, Dulverton) are on a

If trees were coppiced in the medieval period for charcoal production, is it possible to conclude that they were also stripped to supply tanneries in the study area?

187

There is a significant amount of post-medieval evidence for the presence of both forms of exploitation in other parts of the country. Bark collection was associated with charcoal production in the post-medieval period in the Lake District (Howard-Davis 1987, 238; Parsons 1997, 81-83) and with charcoal, wood and potash production in Furness (Bowden 2000, 22). Tanning and wood turning co-existed with metal production in the Forest of Dean (Hart 1971, 330 et seq.) and in woods around Sheffield in the post-medieval period (Jones 1999, 45). Evidence from the medieval period for tanneries in the study area is, however, absent, but a hypothetical case for their existence is strong. In the writer’s view, bark stripping is extremely likely to have accompanied production of charcoal in places where coppicing had been adopted to supply fuel for metal working in the medieval period.

at the date of Domesday Book had been inherited from prehistory. If accepted, this interpretation of evidence also implies that both the general impact of activity in the Roman period, and also its cessation, had been negligible as far as the general level and distribution of woodland were concerned. Local effects may, of course, have been greater but no evidence was found in this research to suggest that the study area saw large scale regeneration of woodland in the post-Roman period. This absence of evidence implies either that the pattern of resource exploitation (in so far as it affected tree cover) in the Roman period was broadly similar to that in both earlier and later periods, or that activity in the Roman period was of a kind to leave no signal in the pollen record. Elsewhere, evidence of post-Roman regeneration is widespread (Stamper 1988, 129). Even upland Swaledale (on the North Yorkshire moors) was found to have denser settlement and less woodland in the Roman period than in the pre-Conquest period, when regeneration occurred (Fleming 1999, 39-40). Evidence of regeneration has also been found in Essex (Rippon 1999, 23), London (Goodburn 2000, 191) the Kentish Weald (Everitt 1986, 2), Herefordshire (Stamper 1988, 128), Oxfordshire (Schumer 1984, 12), Buckinghamshire, parts of Northamptonshire (Jones & Page 2003, 66; Foard 2001, 48) and Warwickshire (Wager 1998, 171). The reason for Exmoor’s lack of regeneration may lie in the nature of land use in the Roman period, which is beyond the scope of this research. Work on sites dating to that period by the Exmoor Iron Project will provide further evidence to aid discussion of this issue.

A third form of rural production may have had an impact on woodland in the study area. Some of the mills noted on the western side of the study area could have produced textiles in the post-medieval (or the later medieval) period. In the Weald, clothiers of the 16th century are known to have bought or leased woods (Zell 1994, 200) to provide the fuel for their dyeing vats. A Wealden survey of 1574 distinguished between woods managed for the textile and iron industries. This distinction has been treated with scepticism (ibid., 1278) but it can be plausibly argued that cutting wood of different sizes, species and ages could have created woods having very different appearances. There are only hints of woodland exploitation connected to the textile industry on the western side of the study area, but management for this purpose may have been entirely different from that applied to woods exploited for the complementary products of bark and charcoal.

In contrast to the stability displayed by the absolute levels of woodland from the 11th century, the techniques of woodland exploitation showed considerable variety over the period covered by this research. It is clear that management in the 11th century included coppicing, as six places (of the total of 178) mentioned in Domesday Book refer to ‘underwood’. This fact implies that the woods concerned were enclosed. At least one of these places (Almsworthy) was located at a high altitude and may have been associated with mineral exploitation, both factors being relevant to woodland growth and conservation in an area of wood shortage. Early enclosure of woods in other places, such as the Barle Valley, was noted from the case studies. Elsewhere in the study area, wood pasture in conjunction with specialisation in livestock, especially in the northwestern area near Lynmouth, was the likely management regime, with woods left unenclosed.

A final conclusion may be drawn concerning Exmoor’s rural industry; namely, that it must be distinguished from that of other south-western uplands. Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor in particular, differ from Exmoor in having been intensively exploited for tin and in experiencing higher levels of settlement on moorland in the medieval period. None of the relevant published works on those moors (e.g. Fleming 1994; Fox 1994) has investigated associated patterns of woodland exploitation and so no comparisons or contrasts with the study area of this research can be drawn.

6.4 Exploitation from Domesday Bookto the 19th century In 1086, 80% of the settlements in and around Exmoor were recorded as possessing both woodland and pasture (Welldon Finn & Wheatley 1967, 214). Analysis of pollen from places on the fringes of Exmoor has shown that tree cover changed little after the Late Iron Age (Fyfe & Rippon 2004, 40) and it could therefore be concluded that the pattern of woodland in the study area

The chronology of change in woodland exploitation in the study area in the period up to the 14th century can only be tentatively sketched. Several of the published studies reviewed in Chapter 2 concluded that woodland management switched from wood pasture to coppicing in the period up to the 14th century. This conclusion was

188

thus joined others in seeing distinct regional or subregional variation in the medieval period.

drawn, for example, by Campbell (2000, 12-13) and Muir (2000a, 6-7), and is traced back to the 13th century in some parts of lowland England (Short 2000, 139; Birrell 1987, 42) and in North Yorkshire (Gledhill 1999, 114-5). In general terms, the evidence adduced by these writers showed that as woodland was cleared to provide agricultural land, the remainder had to be more carefully managed (Stamper 1988, 129), with wood enclosure and coppicing becoming ‘almost universal’ by 1250 (Rackham 1980, 135). A major aim of this research, as mentioned in Chapter 2, was to discover whether this framework fitted woods in the study area.

Instead of systematic coppicing, the study area’s enclosed woods may have been cut only when needed by those living or working in the farms to which they were appropriated. People probably visited woods occasionally and simply took whatever grew within easy reach. This is certainly the impression conveyed by the results of the analysis of (early 17th century) charcoal from Horner Wood (170, Luccombe). More samples of charcoal or fuel wood from domestic contexts in the study area are needed for a clearer view of medieval practices. Such sporadic cutting of trees of a coppicing species could be called coppicing – but it is a far cry from the picture of intensive, controlled, ‘efficient’ management designed to maximise regular production of underwood, which has been painted in other parts of the country.

Several aspects of the evidence showed that medieval woodland in the study area followed a different course. Firstly, neither pollen evidence nor any other sources showed extensive medieval clearance of woodland. Possible exceptions were the area around Timberscombe, on the east of the study area, and Almsworthy in the upland centre. Secondly, the (sparse) evidence of medieval settlement expansion showed that new settlements were perhaps more likely to be founded on the moor edge, than on areas of cleared woodland. Thirdly, the archaeological evidence confirms that the wood enclosed with a purpose built wood bank, allowing systematic coppicing in compartments, is rare in the study area. It was found in only limited places, such as the Vale of Porlock. Finally, there are physical traces of ploughing on the open moor, which could date to the medieval period. The conclusion is that the increase in demand for food and land, which resulted from population growth, was perhaps less marked than in other areas and could generally be met without significant clearance of woodland. This conclusion is consistent with positive evidence for retention of some wood pastures until the 16th century (or later). In short, all the evidence from Exmoor suggests that strict management by coppicing in an enclosed wood in the medieval period was not universal but contingent on circumstances which only pertained in parts of medieval Exmoor.

The lack of evidence for systematic coppicing for domestic purposes and the longevity of wood pastures in many places is accompanied by another idiosyncratic aspect of Exmoor’s medieval enclosed woods: their apparently private nature. In many other parts of the country, woodland was exploited by communities living at some distance. Examples abound in Shropshire, Sussex, Kent and Oxfordshire (Stamper 1988, 130) and intercommoning of woods was found in places such as Warwickshire (Wager 1998, 168-9). In the study area, only the relationships between Prickslade (in the Horner case study) and Almsworthy (near Exford) and tenuous links between Timberscombe and other, distant places offer any hint of such exploitation. Other aspects of the evidence confirm the private nature of Exmoor’s woods. Analysis of wood names and evidence from the case studies indicated that many woods in the study area were enclosed and appropriated at an early date, probably when flatter land upslope of the woods was enclosed as fields. The settlements to which these woods belonged are (now) single farms, rather than larger, nucleated settlements, and in this sense, the woods’ exploitation reflected a dominant form of settlement. In addition, no documentary evidence of rights over woodland was found in the course of this research, which included searches of the county record offices. Other sources included legal proceedings (e.g. SomPleas1) and the records of the Royal Forest (MacDermot 1939), but none referred to any rights relating specifically to woodland or to rights over land outside the woodless core of the Royal Forest.

There may be implications for the study of woodland elsewhere. Conclusions drawn from Exmoor’s evidence show that developments in the period up to the 14th century should not be seen as nationally uniform; they were subject to regional variation. Earlier work asserting ‘almost universal’ coppicing by 1250 (Rackham 1980, 135) was based mainly on woods in the southern and eastern lowlands, which are not necessarily nationally representative. Together with the known tendency of wood pastures to be under-recorded, the conclusions of this research may help to qualify the view that coppicing was universal by the 13th or 14th century. A few other studies have moved in a similar direction. In Warwickshire, some wood pastures were retained until the later medieval period (Wager 1998, 141) and significant clearance with wood enclosure was found in Bernwood Forest (in Buckinghamshire) only in the 15th century (Broad & Hoyle 1997, 16). This research has

Finally, archaeological evidence for shared or communal use of enclosed woods is scarce. Given the slow-growing nature of the dominant deciduous species, sessile oak, (Quercus petraea), large areas of woodland would have been needed to support significant numbers of households. If managed by coppicing, then an obvious strategy would be the division of a large wood into

189

century (SRO Luttrell Archive DD/ L 1,23/ 1b, part 1) shows that lords could step in to assist. It is also possible that the strips into which some woods near Dulverton and Porlock, for example, were divided at the date of the tithe map could have originated as medieval divisions for the benefit of townspeople, although evidence suggests many could be much later in date. Given the overwhelming dominance of the single farm and hamlet in the settlement pattern of the study area, the possible ownership or exploitation of enclosed woods by town dwellers would have been confined to a low proportion of its woodland.

compartments for harvesting in sequence. Little of the evidence from the study area points towards widespread management of large woods along these lines. The bulk of woods (814 of the 979 in the database) were less than 10 ha and there is no evidence that they were formed from the subdivision of larger units. Evidence actually points in the opposite direction, suggesting that some larger woods were formed in the early 19th century by amalgamation of smaller woods. In addition, physical traces of compartment boundaries are scarce. There are some features of this kind, for example, in Horner Wood (170, Luccombe), North Barton Wood (326, Hawkridge) and South Barton Wood (331, Hawkridge) but they are not a frequent feature in woods surveyed by the writer and others. Again, this fact does not mean that woods were never divided, as boundaries could have been marked in ways which have left no trace, but it does point away from communal use as the norm.

The existence of large, nucleated settlements had a further effect on woodland exploitation. This research found that wood pastures close to some towns persisted longer than in other places. Wood pastures formed a communal system of land use and their existence close to towns shows that the private nature of Exmoor’s woodland was not uniform. The pattern of communal use of land around a population centre echoes that around London well into the modern period, with charcoal, brooms and other materials flowing into the capital from surrounding commons (Everitt 2000, 212).

One reason for the woods of the study area having a private character may be relatively low levels of population in the medieval period. If the areas around the ‘farm woods’ supported few people beyond the farmer, his family and household then there could have been little demand on the woods’ resources by anyone apart from the farmer (except where industrial fuel was needed). This private exploitation of woods in the study area contrasts with that in other parts of the country, where a degree of shared use (of privately owned woods) has been regarded as the norm in the medieval period (e.g. Stamper 1988, 133). The probable existence of purely private woods in the study area poses a major question: how did the landless obtain their wood supplies?

To summarise, the medieval woods of the study area consisted of largely private woods, which were enclosed at an early date, together with shared wood pastures adjoining the moor and close to some of the larger, nucleated settlements. Enclosed woods may have been systematically coppiced when industrial fuel was needed. These arrangements appear to have been fairly stable until the later sixteenth century, when evidence from the Vale of Porlock and the Horner case study recorded action to curtail wood pasture. That action was generated by rising levels of commercial activity in the post-medieval period, making woodland produce more profitable.

In the medieval period, even a sparely populated rural area would have included numbers of labourers and craftsmen without land of their own. One wood source available to them could have been coppiced trees in hedges. The case studies showed early enclosure of land in several places, where hedges could have provided underwood from at least the 11th century. The planting of oak in hedges has been suggested by others (e.g. Muir 2000a, 212) as a replacement for wood loss after wood pastures were curtailed, and underwood from hedges was thought to have supplied the Donyatt potteries in another part of Somerset from the 12th century (Coleman-Smith & Pearson 1988, 7). Hedges were also mentioned as a source of wood in many grants of the Augmentation Office in the 16th century. For example, in the single grant relating to land in the study area, 180 of 220 oaks and elms in the hedges were ‘reserved to 12 tenants’ and were ‘usually cropped and shrude’ (PostDissD, 44). Hedges may be a persistently underrated source for the medieval population. Other materials, such as peat and gorse or furze, could also have been used as fuel.

The study area shows two forces at work in the postmedieval period. At Bremridge, evidence from the 17th century showed that pasture was being improved, and this trend was apparent in other wooded parts of the country, such as Bernwood Forest (Broad & Hoyle 1997, 48) and in former royal forests elsewhere (James 1981, 133). In addition to the improvement of pasture, woods were enclosed to facilitate more intense exploitation by coppicing. This phenomenon of the 16th and 17th centuries occurred elsewhere, with the conversion of many parks to enclosed coppices (Crossley 1990, 71). Both trends were in evidence in the study area, suggesting that Exmoor’s land use in the 16th and 17th centuries was converging in some respects with that in other parts of the country. Post-medieval changes in woodland management in the study area were radical, abrupt and far-reaching. Woodland was transformed into a commercial asset, with its value depending, not on the occasional crop of timber, but on a flow of regular income. This increase in

For the landless living in towns, other solutions may have been adopted. The grant of rights to collect fuel on Croydon Hill to the burgesses of Dunster in the early 14th

190

value could only be realised by producing for sale into a market and required tenurial change as a first step. Setting aside ancient grazing rights would have meant changes in grazing practices, which would have reverberated through the economy. The exploitation of the study area’s woods were thus more drastically affected by economic and tenurial changes in the postmedieval period than they were by any pressure from rising population in the medieval period. The end of the period covered by this research coincides with a decline in active woodland management. The contraction in the leather industry was probably again an important factor. The tree survey (described in Chapter 4) showed woodland expansion in the early 19th century, which coincides with the national drop in leather production. If woods were no longer intensively exploited, then natural regeneration and expansion would follow, and it seems likely that many woods in the study area met a similar fate.

6.5 Why does it matter? The conclusions of this Chapter show that the research achieved its aim of investigating past woodland exploitation over a wide area of upland, in the context of other forms of land use. This study has addressed some of the under-researched themes identified in Chapter 2, such as the relationship between woodland management and industrial activity in the medieval and post-medieval periods. The conclusions show the importance of woodland to Exmoor’s economy at all periods. Woodland and moor together comprised a reservoir of resources for the medieval communities of Exmoor. Villagers in the lowlands may have been engaged in a perpetual struggle to find grazing for their livestock but their counterparts living on and around Exmoor were largely free from this pressure. This research has shown that, far from seeing medieval Exmoor as backward or atypical, we should recognise its economy as exploiting plentiful resources in a stable manner. Those resources derived from Exmoor’s physical characteristics: wooded river valleys, fast flowing watercourses, expanses of moor and sources of iron ore, which together formed a niche in which rural industry in both medieval and postmedieval periods could develop. Industry depended on woodland for fuel and raw materials and its growth led to more systematic woodland exploitation in an increasingly commercial economy. A major figure in post-medieval archaeology takes the view that the historic landscape owes more to the 16th and 17th centuries than to any other (Crossley 1990, 3) and this research found that the vitality and dynamism of this period led directly to radical changes in tenurial practices and woodland exploitation. The impact of economic and cultural changes in the post-Reformation period on landscape have emerged as an important theme, on which this research has thrown some light.

191

Appendix I Field datarecord sheet Reconnai ssanceSurvey2003:Fi el dDat aSheet

Judi t hCannel l

Si t enumber

Phot ono

It em

GPS/ NGR

Topography/ veget at i on/ geol ogy:

Hei ght : Wi dt h: Lengt h: Dept h: Di amet er: Area: Ori ent at i on: Hei ghtOD:

Rel at i onshi ps:

Descri pt i on:

1 192

Dat e

Site number

Item

Sketch (including section): with scale and orientation

2

193

Appendix II Descriptionsofwoods Thi sappendi xsummari sest hefeat uresofasampl eofwoods,orderedbyt hei rcl ust ernumber(asdescri bedi nChapt er 3andlistedinTable3. 7).Thefirsttwowoodsineachclusterwerechosenatrandom from thestudyareadatabaseand nch(whi chi sabbrevi at edt o‘OS’i nt he t hedescri pt i onoft hei rfeat uresi sderi vedfrom t hei rdepi ct i oni nt he1stOS6i t extoft he descri pt i on).The remai ni ng woodswere vi si t ed and sampl et ransect swal ked whereverpossi bl e. Thei r description integratesfield and cartographic evidence.In the descripti on ofeach wood,the reference ‘EN :Y/N’ showswhet hert hewoodi si ncl udedi nt hei nvent oryofanci entwoodscompi l edbyEngl i shNat ure(EngNat). 1stOS6inchsheet:LXVIINE.

Cluster 1 Birch Wood (518, Brendon) Topography:St eepsl opei nri verval l ey Feat ures:Partofboundaryi sanaqueduct . Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ ground veget at i on:OS shows as deci duous wi t h somepat chesofopenmoor. Concl usi ons:None 1stOS 6inchsheet:IIISE,IIISW EN:Y St onebal lCopse (436. 2, Bampt on) Topography:Sl opeaboveroadi nri verval l ey. Feat ures:OS shows i nt ernaldi vi si on cont i nuous wi t h fi el dboundary. Quarri esnearby. Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ groundveget at i on:OS showsdeci duous. Concl usi ons: Possi bl y pl ant ed aft er adjoi ni ng regul ar fi el dsl ai dout . 1stOS6inchsheet :LXVIISE EN:N WeekWood (244, Exton) Topography:St eepsl openearri ver Feat ures:Quarryscoopsal ongedge,whi chhassl at e-l i ke rock and ext remel y sharp cont ourchange. OS shows ot her quarri es. Tracks i n wood are appropri at e for quarri es–wi deandgent l egradi ent . Trackrunni ngal ong one edge i nsi de wood coul d be former boundary, predatingcurrentboundary,abeechplantedhedgebank. Shares name with 2 settlement s - Higher and Lower W eek. Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ground vegetation: M aple, oak, ash, beech especi al l yatN end. OS showsdeci duous. Concl usi ons:W asquarryi ngmosti mport antact i vi t y? 1stOS6inchsheet:LVIINW . EN:Y Tower Pl ant at ion (370, Brompt on Regis) Topography:On fairly flatareaon top ofahillbetween ot herwoods Feat ures:OS showsquarry,t racksandat ower(afol l y?) Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ groundveget at i on:Coni fer. Concl usi ons:Thi si sa modern pl ant at i on t ucked i nt oa bend in road. Beech in boundary hedge banks is coppi ced.

194

EN:N Unnamed (537, Lynt on & Lynmout h) Topography:St eep cl i ff(ri verval l ey)above road and river. Feat ures:Thi s woodl and coul d have been t oo st eep t o expl oi t– hence,i ti sunnamed,even t hough t hereare2 farmsnearby. Boundari es: Tree l i ne i s not cl ose t o t he physi cal boundary – where doeswood end and moorbegi n? It merges wi t h M yrt l eberry Cl eave. Any physi cal boundari esare t hose offi el ds,rat hert han wood. Area around M yrt l eberry Camps kept cl ear by Nat i onal Trust/Park??. Trees/ ground veget at i on:Some oak coppi ce t owards S end;ot herwi secol oni sersandst umps,whi chcoul dresul t from assertive modern management. Dense hazel coppi ceonl owerpartofsl openearW at ersmeetcoul dbe veryrecentat t emptt opreventsoilerosion. Concl usi ons:Li t t l e si gn of pastexpl oi t at i on buti si n Engl i sh Nat ure’si nvent ory asol d wood. Coul di thave been mai nl y wood past ure,i nt egrat ed wi t h management ofadjacentmoor? 1stOS 6inchsheet:IIISW EN:Y WestWoodybayWood (617, Mart inhoe) Topography:St eepcoast alcl i ff. Feat ures:Regul ar fi el ds upsl ope and some moorl and. Some boundary feat ures now i nsi de wood on upsl ope edge,whi ch coul d havebeen fi el d boundari es. Lot sof banksandwal l s. Somewal l sdownsl opecont ai nanarea of st andard oaks and coul d be edge of W oodybay’s grounds. The wal l s upsl ope coul di ncl ude some t o preventerosion ofsoilon steep slope – terrace effect. Sharesnamewi t hhouse. Boundari es: Part of boundary i s cl i ff, rest are al l defi ned. Trees/ ground veget at i on:Di st i nctareaofst andard oaks; somehazelcoppice;ash,rowan,maple,yew. Conclusions:W ood hasexpanded in recentpast. Little evi dence of expl oi t at i on and proxi mi t y of W oodybay (house)andt reespeci essuggestl andscapi ng. 1stOS6i nchsheet :IISE EN:Y

Mill Cliff Wood (621, Martinhoe) Topography: Slope above road and river. Features: Footpath (on OS as ‘Churchway Path’) running through middle was probably not old edge, as OS shows wood downslope of it as partly cleared. OS shows quarry near road. Boundaries: Upslope boundary with fields and moor not defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Lots of spindly singled oak coppice which seems evenly aged and evenly spaced. Some colonisers. Conclusions: History of coppicing, which was abandoned in favour of singled coppice. Lack of definition of moor boundary may suggest earlier use as wood pasture. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW. EN: Y

not share its name with any settlement) might suggest it served North Molton. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SW EN: Y Kitchen Wood (856, North Molton) Topography: River valley with road Features: Quarry and tracks. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer but OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: Similar to adjacent Thorne Wood. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SW EN: Y Burcombe Wood (858, North Molton) Topography: River valley with road. Features: Shares name with farm; hedge bank boundary divides this wood from adjacent Kitchen Wood. Contains quarries next to road. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer but OS shows deciduous. Conclusions: Adjoining irregular fields seem to respect its boundaries, so could have been farm’s wood since fields laid out. Noticeably larger than 2 small woods to north. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SW EN: Y

Mill Wood (622, Martinhoe) Topography: Slope above road and river. Features: Only had very limited view – none visible. Wood contains many patches of scree, which must be bad environment for trees! Tucking mill in or on very edge of wood and corn mill further south (still in or on edge of wood). Settlement is called Milltown. Boundaries: Small part of boundary to moor may be undefined, rest are all defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Oak (spindly standards?) and lots of coppiced maple. Conclusions: This is quite a large wood for 1 settlement. It could have provided wood for mill repairs. As with other moor edge woods, it could have earlier use as wood pasture. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW. EN: Y

Pulham Wood (883, Twitchen) Topography: Very gentle slope above small watercourse. Features: Track follows western edge and leads to farm with which it shares name. Quite substantial bank between wood and track, which is planted with hazel. Open combe lies between this and Burch Wood, suggesting combes cleared for grazing? Boundaries: OS shows small part near road is undefined; rest all defined. Contrast track and bank in this lowland wood with possible use of tracks as boundaries in upland woods. Trees/ground vegetation: Possible oak coppice, some birch and hazel, then standard oaks further to north, with some rhododendrons. Latter could have escaped from Burch Wood, which has been landscaped. Met lady looking for sorrel. Conclusions: Possible past use as coppice and perhaps timber. Colonisers suggest open patches (from felling?) in past. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SE. Part of top edge is parish boundary EN: Y

Indiclear Wood (785, Landkey) Topography: River valley with road Features: Upslope edge is parish boundary. OS shows internal banks – not clear on ground now. Boundaries: All defined. Part is marked by very large coppice stool and pollard; otherwise standard field hedge banks. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer but patches of hazel coppice near top. Conclusions: Old coppice succeeded by modern conifer plantation. Could have been amalgamation of 2 or 3small woods. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XIV NW EN: Y Thorne Wood (855, North Molton) Topography: River valley with road Features: OS shows tracks following contour(?) through middle. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer but OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: No hints now as to past exploitation but proximity to North Molton (and fact that this wood does

Cluster 2 The Brake (425, Dulverton) Topography: Moderate slope. Features: Name could mean strip of uncultivated land. This is a straggle of trees in regular field enclosed from moor. Not really a wood? Close to Northmoor (hamlet).

195

Boundaries: Partly undefined Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous or mixed. Now entirely conifer. Conclusions: Late planting on reclaimed land, possibly as windbrake? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII NW EN: N

name) close by. Modern plantation contemporary with adjoining regular fields. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LVII SE EN: N Helebridge Plantation (386, Dulverton) Topography: Flat to gentle slope. Features: Track through middle could be solely for purpose of access to quarry (shown on OS) in adjacent Helebridge Wood. Adjoining fields difficult – fairly regular. Lane on one side (Helebridge Lane) runs between hedge banks planted with coppice beech. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer but OS shows as mixed conifers and deciduous. Conclusions: Probably a late plantation contemporary with adjoining regular fields. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII NE EN: N

Ashtown Copse (433, Morebath) Topography: Slope near watercourse. Features: Cut in two by railway on OS. Shares name with farm. Adjoining fields irregular and might respect wood. OS shows path across it, which seems to lead nowhere. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: Wood created on sloping land not suitable for fields. As it is well under 2 hectares, not on English Nature’s inventory but could be old and contemporary with fields. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII SE EN: N

Burnt Plantation (394, Dulverton) Topography: Flat ground. Features: None. It is a patch between regular and irregular fields. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now deciduous but OS shows as conifer. Conclusions: Late plantation contemporary with regular fields on one side. Could conceivably be on site of old wood cleared for fields. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII NE EN: N

Towns Wood (36, Dunster) Topography: Flat to gentle slope. Features: Now part of the horrid group of Crown Estate conifer plantations near Dunster, which have wiped out archaeology. There are signs of small boundary changes; in NW corner, which is tangential to parish boundary, there are small furrows and ridges. This part of wood could have been part of adjoining field, perhaps preceding the field (hedge bank) boundary, and/or possibly an orchard. Also, there are few trees between the track following the northern boundary (present on OS) and the conifers, which start on a break in slope. Did a former wood have the same configuration? Gravel pit in SW corner. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer but OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: Name might suggest intense use by local settlements (including Dunster). OS shows it as adjoining moorland but with defined boundary and this might suggest intense exploitation as coppice, rather than wood pasture encountered elsewhere on Exmoor. Not on English Nature’s inventory but this is not surprising, given the very destructive nature of modern management here. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XXXV SW EN: N

Cluster 3 Pitt Plantation (487.2, Porlock) Topography: Slopes of 2 river valleys and flatter ground above. Features: Shares name with settlement. Huge number of tracks. OS shows several ‘tumuli’ inside. Some has now been cleared. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Conifer. Conclusions: Modern plantation on former moor/commons. Some of the tracks and paths could relate to its past as common. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XXXIII SE. EN: N Cluster 4

Barn Plantation (285, Dulverton) Topography: Flat ground. Features: None. It is a belt of trees near house (Northcombe) – this area has some others like it. Boundaries: Partly undefined. Trees/ground vegetation: Conifer Conclusions: Name may be ‘Burnt’ Plantation, which would make it part of the other plantation (with that

King’s Hedge Coppice (32.1, Carhampton) Topography: Slopes of river valley around part of edge of Dunster Deer Park, near Castle. Features: OS shows quarry, gravel pit and several paths. Boundaries: OS shows part of boundary undefined, except perhaps by paths. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous with some open areas at NW end.

196

Conclusions: Use as coppice (with defined boundaries to exclude livestock) difficult to reconcile with deer park. Might expect deer park to have undefined boundaries with adjoining woods so that deer can lie up – but there are patches of wood within deer park, so perhaps this wood could be fenced off. Does this show pressure on woods from needs of population of Dunster? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVII NW, XXXV SW EN: Y

paths in wood, some head to Porlock Common and could have allowed access for grazing. Shares name with settlement. Boundaries: Boundary with moor undefined; boundaries with fields defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Oak coppice, singled coppice and stub pollards (like adjacent East Lucott Wood) Conclusions: Old coppice with earlier use as wood pasture? Use of this wood integrated with use of moor. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XXXIV NE, NW. EN: Y

South Wood (799, North Molton) Topography: Sloping river valley Features: OS shows iron mine, quarries and several paths. Parts adjoin 2 mine tramways. Boundaries: All defined and those adjoining regular fields are straight. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows deciduous with some conifer in NW corner Conclusions: Land in this vicinity could have been cleared for regular fields and for copper and iron mining. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV NW EN: Y

Oaktrow Wood (193.1, Timberscombe) Topography: Steep slope of river valley. Features: Road runs through the middle not along the edge, which is unusual. Shares name with farm but this wood is huge for needs of a single settlement. Several quarries visible and on OS. OS also shows old limekiln. Fields to East look fairly regular. Boundaries: All defined. The boundary with fields is not absolutely straight. Trees/ground vegetation: Now mixed coniferous and deciduous. OS shows mainly deciduous with a few conifers on downslope side. Conclusions: Possible that regular fields to East respected boundary of old wood – hence sinuous wood boundary but straight field boundaries. Wood could have provided fuel for lime kiln. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NE. EN: Y

Selworthy Plantation (113, Selworthy) Topography: Moderate to steep slope adjoining moor and other plantations. Features: Internal divisions visible and marked on OS. No obvious signs of nature of exploitation. Boundaries: Boundaries undefined. Probably defined by combes. Trees/ground vegetation: Very mixed. This could be result of landscaping or neglect of a conifer plantation. Conclusions: Recent plantation on former moorland, possibly with landscaping. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XXXIV NE EN: N

Little Quarme Wood (197.7, Cutcombe) Topography: Extremely steep slope above road and near river. Features: One wide track seems likely to be for sole purpose of joining roads on either side and not related to exploitation. OS shows other tracks. Slope is so steep that it is difficult to see how wood could be used. Boundaries: Boundary with adjoining Luckwells Wood not defined; rest all defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Bad conditions and difficult to see but appears mainly standard oaks. Conclusions: Could have been exploited for timber, or perhaps for nothing at all. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NE EN: Y

East Lucott Wood (135, Stoke Pero) Topography: Steep slopes of river valley. Features: Internal bank with planted beech continuous with field boundary; enclosures next to river and at least 1 platform. Wide track along and inside top edge adjoining fields. Track along SW edge marks boundary with adjoining West Lucott Wood. Boundaries: All defined. NE edge is parish boundary. Trees/ground vegetation: Coppice oak with some stub pollard oaks (like adjacent Homebush Wood) and singled coppice oak. Conclusions: Old wood with more recent enclosures inside. The internal division marks old ownership boundary; it used to be 2 woods (Teverson noted this). Possibly exploited for bark and charcoal. Pollards might suggest even older use as wood pasture but they are very low. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XXXIV NW. EN: Y

Luckwells Wood (197.6, Cutcombe) Topography: Extremely steep Features: None obvious but conditions were bad. OS shows large number of paths. Adjoining fields are regular. Boundaries: Boundary with adjacent Little Quarme Wood undefined, except possibly by paths. Others defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Invading rhododendrons in some parts and heavy ground cover in others meant it was difficult to see whether other trees (oak) were singled coppice or spindly standards. OS shows some conifer on one edge.

Homebush Wood (138, Porlock) Topography: Moderate slope of river valley. Features: Part adjoins fields, part adjoins moor (Porlock Common). Track next to boundary with fields. Many

197

Conclusions: Difficult to see the purpose served by this wood. It is very close to but does not adjoin, moor. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NE. EN: Y

EN: Y Exe Cleeve (363, Dulverton) Topography: Steep river valley slope Features: Track leading to it from lane to SW has banks. There is a large mound next to this track inside the wood (approximately at point where OS marks a quarry). Same track roughly follows contour and embanked on downslope side. Boundaries: All defined except for small part which adjoins moorland and is possibly defined by path. Trees/ground vegetation: Very mixed. Many of trees are colonisers. No definite character. Conclusions: This is an uninteresting wood. Before adjoining regular fields laid out it could have been larger. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII NE EN: Y

Blagdon Wood (202.1, Cutcombe) Topography: Steep slopes of river valley. Features: Shares name with settlement. Visible banks and walls next to river (also on OS); some could be the boundary of former Underwood Plantation but others suggest enclosures on flat river plain. Possible internal division marked by slight bank (not on OS). Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Oak coppice and singled coppice, invading rhododendrons, a few oak standards. Lots of stumps suggest past felling. A few large stumps of conifers. Saw a single area of standards of uniform appearance. Conclusions: Past exploitation for coppice and possibly timber. Landscaping in more recent past? Flat land next to river cleared and enclosed, possibly for grazing. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NE. EN: Y

Swines Cleeve (371, Brompton Regis) Topography: Steep river valley slope adjoining other large woods Features: None seen. On OS, paths converge for no obvious reason. Boundaries: Boundary with Butter Ball not defined except by combe; others all defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer with some oak standards; OS has deciduous. Conclusions: None possible. A boring wood. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII NE EN: Y

Lyncombe Wood (264, Brompton Regis) Topography: Steep river valley slope adjoining other large woods. Features: None obvious but conditions were bad. Shares name with farm. Boundaries: Boundary with adjoining Butter Ball not defined. Boundaries with fields and moor defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Mainly conifer with some oak. OS shows deciduous. Conclusions: Part of old wood could have been cleared for regular fields at northern end. These fields lie between wood and the farm with which it shares its name. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LVII SE. EN: Y

Worthy Wood (485, Porlock) Topography: Steep slopes above Porlock Weir; part is on river valley. Features: Very limited excursion into interior. OS shows gravel pits and quarry. Shares name with manor house. Two lanes lead into wood from fields to SW. Trees/ground vegetation: trees very mixed, with rhododenrons, ash, maple, sweet chestnut, oak, lots of stumps. Boundaries: All defined. Conclusions: No clues as to past history, except that wood boundary could have been respected by regular fields to SW. The lanes suggest transport needed for something. In view of proximity to Porlock (with bark house), it could have been exploited for bark. Present trees suggest later landscaping. 1st OS 6 inch sheet : XXXIII NE, XXXIV NW. EN: Y

Barlinch Wood (362, Brompton Regis) Topography: Steep river valley slope Features: Shares name with nearby Barlinch Abbey. A very busy wood, with many broad tracks and internal banks (many masked by invading rhododendrons). OS shows 2 quarries. Boundaries: Upslope edge defined by hedge bank with planted beech, which could be contemporary with adjoining regular fields. A track along this edge could represent an older boundary. All boundaries defined. Trees/ground vegetation: conifer but some oak standards Conclusions: This wood has been intensively exploited for something! Tracks might be related to quarrying but the internal banks suggest coppicing (and are quite rare on Exmoor). This wood was sold on Dissolution, so post-Dissolution exploitation (for timber and/or bark?) is possible. The recent appearance of the upslope boundary suggests an earlier history as wood pasture? Rhodendrons might show recent landscaping. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII NE.

Deerpark Wood (597.2, Loxhore) Topography: River valley near Arlington Court. Features: Boundary bank next to quarry at SW end. No others obvious on visit or on OS. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now mostly conifer with some oak and beech standards. Some hazel coppice next to river.

198

Conclusions: Could have been managed by large estate for timber. Contrasts with King’s Hedge Coppice near Dunster, also adjoining a deerpark. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: X NW. EN: Y

singled coppice, some standards (especially downslope). All rather spindly; invading rhododendrons; area of experimental hazel coppice (run by National Trust). Trees near top of slope evenly spaced and even aged with relatively modern appearance. Conclusions: Could be old wood with addition of current physical boundaries contemporary with layout of adjoining regular fields. Could formerly have been part of single large wood from which Invention and Heale were defined. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW. EN: Y

Caffins Heanton Wood (613, Lynton & Lynmouth) Topography: Steep river valley near coast. Features: Part of wood adjoins area apparently cleared, now regenerating. Most adjoining fields are quite regular. Track runs whole length of valley in wood. Wood now managed for Lee Abbey visitors’ use. Shares name with settlement mentioned in Domesday Book. Boundaries: All defined but OS shows that tree line stopped short of boundary with field (compare Ashway Hat Wood in Barle valley). Trees/ground vegetation: No obvious areas of coppice apart from a patch of singled coppice next to river. Mainly oak standards. Conclusions: In spite of probable antiquity, no visible signs of past exploitation. If fields are recent, it could have functioned as wood pasture. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SE EN: Y

Birchley Cleave Wood (628, Trentishoe) Topography: Steep river valley slope next to road Features: None obvious. Boundaries: OS shows part of boundary with adjoining woods undefined. Trees/ground vegetation: Oak (probably standards) plus colonisers. OS shows as mixed conifer and deciduous. Conclusions: Function unknown. Has appearance of simple neglect. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW EN: Y

East Woodybay Wood (616, Martinhoe) Topography: Very steep coastal cliffs Features: Internal division by wall, which could mark grounds of Woodybay (house), with which it shares name. Boundaries: OS shows boundaries with field/grounds and moor defined (unusual); boundary with adjoining wood probably defined by combe; rest of boundary is coastal cliff. Trees/ground vegetation: Mixed deciduous - singled coppice oak, standard oaks, birch (possibly coppiced), beech, ash and rhododendrons. Conclusions: Colonising trees suggest some open patches in past. Rhododendrons and proximity to house suggests has been landscaped but coppice trees show some past exploitation for wood (and bark?) 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SE EN: Y

Cluster 5 Little Hell (282, Brompton Regis) Topography: Steep slope Features: None on OS apart from path.. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as mostly conifer, with some deciduous near boundary with another wood. Conclusions: Modern plantation, perhaps contemporary with the regular fields into which it is fitted. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LVII SE EN: N North Ground Plantation (580, Kentisbury) Topography: River valley with road. Features: None on OS. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as conifer. Conclusions: Similar to Little Hell. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: VI SW EN: N

Invention Wood (623, Parracombe) Topography: Very steep slope above road and river. Features: Interesting boundaries at top of slope. Adjoining field boundaries look recent – straight, regular and planted with beech. Wood boundary has track and bank on field side, which could be an old wood boundary. Present wood boundary (much of it hedge with planted beech) added later? Shares name with settlement. Boundaries: The boundary with Heale Wood to south is puzzling; OS shows physical division but name ‘Heale Wood’ spreads over this line. The physical division is perfectly clear but OS division does not follow it. Rest of boundaries all defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Beech with increasing oak towards top of slope. Oak is mixed – some coppice and

Lyncombe Wood (225, Winsford) Topography: Very steep slope near river Features: Fields and ground in this valley suggest entire area was cleared of trees in past (perhaps related to nearby Exford’s iron mining and also to use of river plain for grazing?). This wood is only just over 2 hectares; otherwise would expect it to be on English Nature’s inventory. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Hazel coppice, birch. Conclusions: The uniform character of hazel coppice is unusual in Exmoor area. Unclear whether it is a remnant of a very old wood or a wood planted when surrounding

199

irregular fields laid out after general clearance. Shares name with nearby settlement. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI SW EN: N

Trees/ground vegetation: Oak, hazel coppice, beech, goat willow. Lots of stumps. OS shows as deciduous. Unusually diverse character for modern Exmoor wood. Conclusions: This wood could have suffered clearance due to mining activity on adjacent land. See comments on Road Copse, which adjoins it. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLV SE EN: Y

Bincombe Wood (231, Cutcombe) Topography: Steep slope in valley of small watercourse on moor. Features: None apparent but there are relict field boundaries in adjacent moor. Boundaries: All defined on OS but wood has now spread naturally on to moor in places. Trees/ground vegetation: Trees appear a bit sparse. OS shows as mixed, with deciduous at lower end and conifer higher up. Conclusions: Could be a natural scatter of trees managed and planted as experiment in use of moor. Defining boundaries contemporary with adjacent (now derelict) fields? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NW EN: Y

Heddons Mouth Wood (623, Trentishoe) Topography: Steep river valley opening to sea. Features: Wood larger now than on OS. It has expanded northwards. 2 small enclosures on moor on OS are now in wood. Boundaries: Northern edge (boundary with moor) has no defined boundary; downslope edge marked by track. Trees/ground vegetation: ash, maple, hazel and oak coppice with quite large stools. One extremely large one in liminal position – possibly used as boundary marker. Conclusions: Has obviously been used for coppicing, even though there are no physical boundaries. Possible former wood pasture. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW EN: Y

Mansley Plantation (233, Cutcombe) Topography: Steep river valley adjoining moor. Features: Gap between tree line and hedge bank defining southern edge. OS shows none. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Many of trees have gone but OS shows as conifer. Now oak standards. Conclusions: Former conifer plantation seems to have been felled. This could have been part of modern experiments in ‘improving’ moor. But the –ley name is interesting – could this area have been wooded before the irregular(?) fields to the south were laid out? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NW EN: N

Birchley Cleave Plantation (627, Trentishoe) Topography: Moderate slope Features: Conditions bad; none seen. None on OS except for large open patch Boundaries: OS shows small gap in one corner; otherwise all defined. OS shows boundaries ruler straight. There seem to be two hedge banks on edge near road and parallel to it - rather odd. Trees/ground vegetation: Now has no definite character; ash, hazel, oak, birch, horse chestnut, no visible coppice. OS has conifer in places. Conclusions: Probably contemporary with adjoining regular fields. Perhaps a plantation which was never fully planted. As it appears to be on English Nature’s inventory, it could have been plantation on site of old wood (supported by –ley name?). 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW EN: Y

Road Copse (338, Winsford) Topography: Steep slope near river Features: Mining features in this area. Edge of wood is parish boundary. Track just outside edge (not shown on OS). Regular field above has lots of bluebells all over it. Boundaries: All defined. OS shows possible old boundary or internal division inside wood. Trees/ground vegetation: Hazel, thorn, birch. Could not see any oak but did not cover entire wood. OS shows as sparse deciduous. Conclusions: In area with few woods as much cleared in past (see comments on Lyncombe Wood). As it is on English Nature’s inventory, could be remaining part of very old wood which was devoted to hazel coppice after local clearance. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLV SE EN: Y

Parsonage Wood (629, Trentishoe) Topography: Steep river valley slope next to road. Features: Bisected by road, which is not common. Track on the river side of the wood has planted banks and runs entire length of wood. Boundary with South Dean Oaks beautifully over-determined, with a hedge bank, a gate post and a giant pollard elm (very unusual on Exmoor). Boundaries: All except that with adjoining Birchley Cleave Wood are defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Oak (possibly coppice) with colonisers. Conclusions: Probably old coppice, jealously guarded! 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW EN: Y

Court Copse (339, Exford) Topography: Steep slope near river Features: Mining features on adjacent land Boundaries: All defined.

200

South Dean Oaks (630, Trentishoe) Topography: Steep slope above road and river. Features: OS shows open areas. Shares names with settlement. Boundaries: No defined boundary on NW edge; OS shows trees peter out before land turns to moor. Trees/ground vegetation: Oak (coppice, singled coppice and standards), holly (?coppiced?), maple. OS shows as sparser deciduous. Conclusions: Name and character consistent with past use as wood pasture. Not exactly a wood, more of a scatter of trees on moor edge, later under coppice-withstandards management? Possible landscaping. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW EN: Y

Conclusions: Adjoining fields suggest clearance. This wood was perhaps formerly much larger. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XIV SE EN: Y Great Wood (108.2, Selworthy) Topography: Unusual in that NOT a river valley wood – but ground slopes away on both sides. Features: Extraction evidence in and around wood. Platforms and tracks in fields and wood is full of pits and banks. OS shows heavy subdivision. Name of nearby Buddle (or Budley) Hill consistent with mineral working, although OS shows only quarries. Name does not tie it to a particular settlement. Boundaries: All clearly defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Some coppiced oak, modern conifer in southern half. Dog’s mercury and other ancient indicators. OS showed all deciduous with some open patches. Conclusions: Old wood subject to some clearance, followed by subdivision for extraction activities and later regeneration and conifer planting. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XXXIV SE. EN: Y

Heale Wood (633, Parracombe) Topography: Steep river valley Features: Physical boundary (with Invention Wood) is now beech planted hedge but track runs downslope inside Heale Wood with slight bank on Heale side. It could possibly represent an old boundary. OS shows Heale Wood as straddling this track and hedge – a puzzle. Shares name with hamlet. Boundaries: OS shows boundary with Invention Wood undefined. All others defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Very mixed towards the top of the slope, with oak, beech, holly, hazel. Some oak coppice and singled coppice at foot of slope. Conclusions: This wood is intriguing. Could Invention Wood be a relatively late appropriation of what was formerly part of Heale Wood? Has seen period as coppice wood. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: VI NW, II SW EN: Y

Croft Plantation (112, Selworthy) Topography: Steep slope behind church. Features: Several internal walls. Quarry nearby. Boundaries: Large proportion not defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Beech, birch, conifer, a few coppice (not large). OS shows mixed deciduous and conifer. Conclusions: Recent plantation but on former fields? Clearance for fields then regeneration and/or planting? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XXXIV NE EN: N

Cluster 6 Bickham Wood (189, Timberscombe) Topography: River valley. Features: Nearby ?manor of same name. Track along NW side follows wood edge and could disguise old bank? Fields on both sides suggest clearance. Path on OS in fields to SW could mark former wood edge. The combe to SW is not wooded even though it is quite steep slope, suggesting clearance quite intense in this area. No evidence of coppicing seen. OS shows wood divided by a track, which is unusual. Boundaries: All clearly defined on OS. Trees/ground vegetation: Standard oaks, some beech, lots of modern conifer. Conclusions: Old wood subject to clearance. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NE EN: Y

Common Wood (407.2, Dulverton) Topography: NE facing slope of small watercourse Features: Sliver of wood sandwiched between watercourse and another wood. Close to old mine, which could be on land formerly part of wood. Three other adjoining woods share names with settlements; this one does not. Boundaries: Not all are clearly defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Deciduous Conclusions: Shape and location of fields to SE suggests wood clearance. This wood could be remains of much larger wood. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LXVII NW EN: Y Embercombe Wood (825, Filleigh) Topography: sloping ground close to River Bray Features: Contains quarry. Very irregular shape could have been produced by clearance of adjoining woodland. Nearby is ‘Brayley Wood’ and –ley points to clearance. Boundaries: Not all are clearly defined. Trees/ground vegetation:

Stowey Wood (193.2, Cutcombe) Topography: River valley Features: Shares name with settlement. Stowey Mill is not in Stowey Wood! Possible internal banks (one is marked on OS) but these could be enclosures of cleared areas which later regenerated. Wood has expanded since

201

date of OS. Structure next to track near Sully in area shown as field on OS but now wood. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Some old oak coppice, oak standards and singled oak coppice. OS shows some open patches. Conclusions: Formerly under coppice management, possibly coppice with standards. Could have suffered patchy clearance. 1st OS 6 inch sheet : XLVI NE EN: Y

area saw attempted enclosure and possibly settlement of moor in past. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NW, XLVI NE EN: Y Rabbit Wood (243, Exton) Topography: Very steep slope near river Features: Could not inspect any part of interior but walked along edge. Small scoops (possible quarrying/extraction). Boundaries: No definition of boundary on river side. This is marked by an extremely sharp contour change (almost sheer), so further definition unnecessary? Trees/ground vegetation: Some conifer, some large standard oaks, some oak coppice, maple. Conclusions: Wood could have once spread over river plain and been partly cleared for fields. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LVII NE EN: Y

Kersham Wood (193.3, Cutcombe) Topography: River valley Features: Shares name with settlement; mill adjacent; internal banks possibly dividing areas with different tree management or with trees of different age. OS shows three enclosures inside or on edge of wood. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Some old oak coppice, ash. OS shows deciduous. Conclusions: Ash suggests that patches have been cleared and then colonised. A wood under pressure? OS shows limekiln in field behind Kersham farm; wood provided fuel? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XLVI NE EN: Y

Great Cleeve Wood (247, Exton) Topography: Steep slope near river. Features: Now called Edbrooke Wood. Wide modern forestry tracks. Main track could be old and mark former boundary; it has no bank but follows natural contour change. OS shows part of interior as orchard and a small internal enclosure. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer with some beech. OS shows deciduous. Conclusions: Old wood which has been subject to some clearance and then to later expansion. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LVII NE. EN: Y

East Wood (193.4, Cutcombe) Topography: River valley Features: Stowey Mill in or on edge of wood. Track running from NW to SE has bank on downslope side. Remains of large structure built into hillside downslope of track. Fields on sloping land between wood and river could have formerly been wooded. OS shows quarry at western end. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Mostly conifer with some beech, maple and ash. No old coppice evident. Conclusions: Could be old wood part cleared for fields. 1st OS 6 inch sheet : XLVI NE EN: Y

Bridgetown Wood (255, Exton) Topography: Moderate slope Features: Footpath runs through middle, which is unusual. Path has bank on one side but this could have been deposited by water. Shares name with village. Very irregular shape and adjoining fields (as shown on OS) suggest piecemeal clearance in this combe. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now mixed conifers and deciduous. None of trees looks old. OS shows deciduous with some open patches near SW edge. Conclusions: Old wood subject to clearance and assertive modern management. Although it appears on EN inventory, it has oddly modern feel. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LVII NE. EN: Y

Langham Wood (232, Cutcombe) Topography: River valley. Moor on other side of river. Features: Platform close to western boundary. Track (not path) running inside southern, upslope boundary hedge bank could mark former wood edge. It marks the tree line (more or less). Track cuts through old bank running downslope (possible site of gate). This old bank could be a former wood boundary? Shares name with farm. Some of the paths head towards moor and could have been used for grazing access. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Standard oaks. OS shows deciduous trees petering out in parts. Conclusions: Could be old wood managed for timber. It seems very large for a relatively sparsely settled area – but there are relict fields on other side of river so this

Little Plantation (626, Trentishoe) Topography: Moderate slope above road. Features: Neat wall on road side with capstones (wide verge). Boundaries: Wall on road side; OS confirms no physical boundary dividing wood from moor to NE. Trees/ground vegetation: Mature, standard oaks, even aged, no visible coppice. Grassy, lawn-like ground.

202

Conclusions: Recent plantation using moor for timber trees. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: II SW. EN: N

Activities/features: None apparent but had very restricted view. OS shows quarry just outside. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer but OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: Uninteresting. Name consistent with area as location of iron mining. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SE. EN: Y

Trunelshute Wood (784, Landkey) Topography: Moderate slope near road. Features: Modern forestry tracks and platforms. Internal division by bank with old coppice on it (mostly hazel). OS shows quarry. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Now coniferous but bluebells and other ancient indicators. Willow and hazel on flat part next to river (not part of wood on OS). Some scraps of hazel coppice near edges of wood. Conclusions: Very irregular shape, especially at SW end suggests wood formerly large and cleared for adjoining regular fields. Internal bank suggests wood could be amalgamation of 2 smaller woods after clearance for fields (it is continuous with field boundary). Where land is flatter (at SW end), there are fields. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XIV NW. EN: Y

Burch Wood (882, Twitchen) Topography: Moderate slope near watercourse. Features: Shares name with settlement. Track running just inside boundary on downslope side is visible but not marked on OS. OS shows internal division (not continuous with field boundaries). Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: Rhododendrons, pines, maples with some standard oaks in interior. Conclusions: Present appearance is probably result of modern landscaping but possibly on site of old wood. Probably spread over land to N/NW but cleared for fields. Landscaping by owners of large house at Burch? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SE. EN: N

Portfolken Wood (854, North Molton) Topography: Moderate to steep slope Features: Ground cover made inspection difficult. 2 quarries (also on OS) visible next to road. Boundaries: All defined and mostly straight. Trees/ground vegetation: Probably standard oak, which were evenly spaced and sized with some colonisers. No obvious coppice. Conclusions: Wood was managed mainly for timber? Field layout suggests that wood has been subject to clearance for fields, especially to north. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SW. EN: Y Molland Wood (876, Molland) Topography: Distorted V shape with two steep slopes. This is unusual. Features: Ground cover made inspection difficult. Shares name with parish, which is very unusual for Exmoor. OS shows 2 quarries. There is another Molland Wood (736, North Molton) so name could also be topographical. Boundaries: All defined and fairly straight. Trees/ground vegetation: Now conifer under active management. Masses of foxgloves and other ground cover in areas of recent felling. OS shows mainly deciduous with some open patches and conifer at NW end. Conclusions: Could be a former common wood which was subject to clearance when adjoining regular fields laid out. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XV SE EN: Y Redland Wood (879, Twitchen) Topography: Gentle slope of river valley

203

Appendix III The woodsdatabase Thewoodsdat abasei sst ored on t hecompactdi sc(CD) accompanying this study. Please read the following i nst ruct i onsbeforeat t empt i ngt ouset heCD. Thefi rstst epi st oi nsertt heCD i nt ot heCD dri veoft he comput er.Thecomput ershoul dt henshow ont hescreen thefilesstoredontheCD,whichare: A copyoft hi sAppendi x, W oods. mdb, W oodsCD. xl sand W oodsDat a. rt f. Therearethreewayst ovi ew t hedat abase: 1.In ordert o seedat aasaspreadsheet,go into Excel or W orks spreadsheet appl i cat i on and open W oodsCD. xl s. 2.In order t o see dat a as a t extdocument ,go i nt o W ord and open W oodsDat a. rt f. Thi s fi l e i s ext remel yl arge (over 5, 000 Kb),wi t h over 900 pages,and i twoul dt hereforebeunwi set o pri nti t . Ast hi st extfi l e hasonl y basi c format t i ng,i tdoes notoffert hebestwayofvi ewi ngt hedat a. 3.In orderto see the data asa table,go into Access (which you willhave ifyou are running M icrosoft Offi ce)and open t he fi l e W oods. mdb. Thi sfi l ei s an Access dat abase and so i thas t o be opened i n Access. Itcannotbe opened i n W orks dat abase appl i cat i on ori n W ord. The dat abase W oods. mdb cont ai ns one t abl e and one report . The t abl ei s W oodsCD, whi ch cont ai ns t he same dat a as t he spreadsheet referred t o i n paragraph 1. If you double-click on the table W oodsCD,you willsee t hedat ai naformatsi mi l artothatofthespreadsheet referred t o i n paragraph 1. The report i s W oodsReport .Ifyoudoubl e-cl i ckonW oodsReport , you wi l lsee a ful l y format t ed report(ofwhi ch t he t extfi l eW oodsDat a. rt freferredt oi n paragraph2 i s asi mpl erversi on). Agai n,ast hereporti sover900 pagesl ong,i twoul d be unwi se t o pri nti tand i ti s bestvi ewedonscreen.

204

W hat everopt i onsaresel ect ed,i tshoul dbenot edt hat i) thespreadsheetW oodsCD. xlsandtheAccess t abl e W oodsCD cont ai n some dat a not i n W oodsReport ,suchascal cul at i ons; i i ) t hecol umn‘QCL_1’i st hecl ust ernumberof eachwood;and i i i )t hecol umns‘Ekwal l ’and‘EPNS’refert ot he meaning of the wood name according to Ekwal l(1959)and Goveret al. (1931,1932) respect i vel y;numberswi t hi nt het exti nt hose col umns refer t o page numbers i n t hose publ i shedworks.

205

TheAppendi xcont ai nst hedat abaseent ri esfort hewoodsi nt hecasest udi eswoods.

Database entriesforwoodsin the case studies

Appendix IV

Y

30

Is any partofboundary a road?

Internaldivisions?

Percentage ofwood boundary which adjoins: m oorland

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m ) Distance between contours (m ) Highestcontour(m )

199Note W hite Barrow is white beorghill

EPNS:

Nam e group

Cluster

206

Land history

Num berofquarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 175 280

541g

5

0

n/a

40

0

Y

n/a

Y N N

5.68993

Is any partofboundary otherfeature?

Note 76 Burrow OE burgfort

0.759947669698

n/a

Luccombe

SoilAssociation

PARISH

Otherboundaries fully defined? Any partofboundary convex? Any partofboundary follow FP?

Ekwall

Nam e elem ent

Notes: Score on PCA (1stfactor)

Any footpaths with wandering route?

2

N

Boundary with otherwoods fully defined? Any partofboundary concave? Does any partofboundary follow contour?

Num beroffootpaths in wood

1 Y N N

Num berofaspects

0 6 230

Distance to river(m ) Num berofcontours Lowestcontour(m )

Typicalbrown earths

W hitburrow W ood

WOOD NAME

SoilType

157

WOOD NUMBER 871448

Any otherfeatures in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

0

30

N

Y Y

50 0.342857142857143

Any partofboundary straight? Is any partofboundary a river? Does any partofboundary coincide with parish bounday?

Heightrange (m ) Slope atm id point

Nam e type W ood

NGR

Y N

0 2

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Notes: Score on PCA (1st factor)

4.399655095690

n/a

Y Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 3 240

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Tarr Ball Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

159

WOOD NUMBER Stoke Pero

Name group

Cluster 6

0

n/a

25

0

N

n/a

N N Y

207

868448

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 75 270

541g

3.94721

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Y

Y

0

75

N

N Y

30 0.4

Y N

0 4

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

See wood 122

Notes: Score on PCA (1st factor)

1.567904004257

n/a

Y Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 6 240

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Pool Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

160.1

WOOD NUMBER Stoke Pero

Name group

Cluster 4

0

n/a

75

0

N

n/a

Y N Y

208

875447

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 100 280

541g

8.19058

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Y

Y

0

25

Y

N Y

40 0.6

3 Y Y Y N Y

0 8 Y

Number of aspects

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Stoke Pero

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element ham

Name group

0 300 270

541g

209

880440

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

0

25

Y

N Y

100 0.366666666666667

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners,tenure,value

4

0

Y

75

0

Y

n/a

N Y Y

23.1967

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Convex boundaries -are they encroachments of wood on fields (?late). FP stops in middle. Score on PCA (1st factor) 2.348306685983 Cluster

0 11 170

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Wilmersham Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

160.2

WOOD NUMBER

Rowbarrow

WOOD NAME

N

45

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Luccombe

Name group

EPNS:

4

0

Y

55

0

N

n/a

N Y Y

9.953

0 225 270

633

210

887440

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

N

Y

0

0

Y

N N

100 0.444444444444444

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Unnamed

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Note 394 for Rowberrow OE ruh rough, OE beorg mound esp grave mound

Name element

Ekwall

Cluster

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: No apparent division with Horner. Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.794406108393

Y

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

N Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

5

1

Number of aspects

Number of footpaths in wood

0 10 170

Ferric podzols

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Soil Type

161

WOOD NUMBER

Old Wood

WOOD NAME

N N

35

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

Luccombe

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

541g

0

n/a

50

0

N

n/a

N Y Y

6.1174

1280.16 100 310

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

211

Size, position or age

Notes: Only pt of boundary defined - adjfield and moor. Compare rest in Horner - moor bdary undefined. Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.091502853430 Cluster 5

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

Y Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

1

0 5 250

Typical brown earths

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Soil Type

162

WOOD NUMBER 871430

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N

Y

0

15

N

N Y

60 0.5

N Y

50

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

Stoke Pero

Note 635 (Axminster) Bacca' s leah

Name group

EPNS:

ley/ly/leigh

23 puzzle first element could be fox or badger

Ekwall

Name element

5

1

n/a

50

0

Y

n/a

N Y Y

6.0926

212

873430

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners, tenure, value

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

541g 1249.68 100 320

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: NE pt could be reclaimed field left to re-gen. Rest a wooded combe? Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.376191821277 Cluster

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

Y Y N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

1

0 6 270

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Bagley Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

163

WOOD NUMBER

Y

Y

0

0

N

N Y

50 0.6

Y N

0 0

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Stoke Pero

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

541g

213

875434

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners, tenure, value

1

0

n/a

35

0

N

n/a

Y N Y

0.879021

1158.24 125 290

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Very small wood tucked in between large woods and reclaimed fields - later than large woods? Score on PCA (1st factor) -4.71285888361 Cluster

n/a

Y Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 5 250

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Parsons Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

164

WOOD NUMBER

N

n/a

30

35

N

N Y

40 0.4

N Y Y Y Y

5 3 Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Stoke Pero

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 250 300

541g

0

Y

65

0

Y

n/a

Y Y Y

29.2039

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH 881438

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Note 1924 56 has stocc as tree stumps and stoc place rare

EPNS:

Name group

443 OE stoc monastery, place orig - then cattle or dairy farm

Ekwall

Name element

214

Identity of users or owners, tenure, value

Notes: Looks like boundary has moved -wood has fields cutting in to it and also has encroached on them? Reflects periods of less intense field use? Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.826005236137 Cluster 4

2

0 11 160

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Stoke Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

165

WOOD NUMBER

Y

Y

5

25

Y

N Y

140 0.44

N Y Y N N

0 4

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Note 1924 29 OE gos (long vowel) goose

Luccombe

Name group

4

0

Y

100

0

N

n/a

N N Y

215

890438

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

0

0

N

N Y

40 0.333333333333333

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Other

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 150 180

541g

12.2246

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: No real shape - just topog name and part of Horner? Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.602277445111 Cluster

n/a

1

Number of aspects

Any footpaths with wandering route?

0 5 140

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Goss's Rocks

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

166

WOOD NUMBER

0 0

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Stoke Pero

Name group

Name element

EPNS:

Ekwall

Cluster

216

Unnamed

Number of quarries in wood 6

0

n/a

0

wood Any footpaths short?

0

N

n/a

N N N

regular fields

Cleared areas?

548.64 25 260

541g

0.353797

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Trees regen on edge of moor. Score on PCA (1st factor) -0.65268864024

n/a

Y

Internal divisions?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

1

25 2 240

Typical brown earths

n/a Y N

167

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Soil Type

WOOD NAME

WOOD NUMBER 866448

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Unnamed

NGR

N

n/a

0

100

N

N N

20 0.8

80

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

Luccombe

Number of quarries in wood 0

Y

5

wood Any footpaths short?

0

N

n/a

N N Y

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 100 310

541g

18.0247

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

217

Unnamed

Notes: Wooded combes on edge of moor - really a managed wood? M ed sett nrby. Do FPs reflect its encs? Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.517447169762 Cluster 5

Any footpaths with wandering route?

4

N

Internal divisions?

Number of footpaths in wood

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

4

0 5 250

Typical brown earths

n/a Y Y

168

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Soil Type

WOOD NAME

WOOD NUMBER 885427

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Unnamed

NGR

Y

Y

0

15

Y

N Y

60 0.5

N N

0 1

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Luccombe

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 200 250

541g

0

Y

55

0

Y

n/a

Y N Y

16.9144

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

111 cleave OE clif cliff, hill

Name group

218

890436

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Other

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Notes: Is boundary the parish boundary or Prickslade Combe on W? Slivers of cleared land/moor inside wood. Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.860009740694 Cluster 4

n/a

N N Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 12 140

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Ten Acre Cleeve

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

169

WOOD NUMBER

Y

n/a

0

45

N

N Y

110 0.6

Horner Wood

WOOD NAME

N

40 11 Y

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Poss. Thomas Horner (Wyndham 1979)

648 Note Horner (Stockland) could be horn + ora border, margin, bank

Ekwall

EPNS:

219

Personal name

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 700 290

633

4

0

Y

50

0

Y

n/a

N Y Y

118.444

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Name group

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Name element

N Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Cluster

4

Number of aspects

Luccombe

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Huge, ill defined - how much is really old? Score on PCA (1st factor) 5.283588872245

0 19 70

Ferric podzols

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Soil Type

170

WOOD NUMBER 891445

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

0

10

Y

N Y

220 0.271428571428571

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N N

60

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

Luccombe

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

5

0

Y

40

0

N

n/a

N Y N

220

900440

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners, tenure, value

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

883.92 200 200

541g

15.3862

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Wooded slope of moor - if not for name would not look managed on map. Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.236106372293 Cluster

Any footpaths with wandering route?

3

N N N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

3

0 8 130

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Parsons Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

171

WOOD NUMBER

Y

Y

0

0

N

N Y

70 0.4

N N N N N

35

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

See wood 170

Notes: Score on PCA (1st factor)

n/a

0.783786292030

Any footpaths with wandering route?

2

1

Number of aspects

Number of footpaths in wood

0 7 90

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Horner Side

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

177

WOOD NUMBER Luccombe

Name group

Cluster

221

Personal name

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

541g

5

0

Y

63

0

N

n/a

N N Y

2.27232

1005.84 125 150

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH 876450

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Other

NGR

Y

Y

0

2

N

N Y

60 0.56

N

30

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Notes: Score on PCA (1st factor) ham

2.998640994399

Y

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

N Y N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

9

4

Number of aspects

Number of footpaths in wood

0 12 120

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Cloutsham Ball

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

178

WOOD NUMBER Luccombe

Name group

Cluster 4

0

Y

70

0

N

n/a

Y Y Y

222

878437

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

0

0

N

N Y

150 0.342857142857143

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Other

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

518.16 350 270

541g

32.7995

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

N Y

0 2

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

See wood 169 for cleeve

ham

Luccombe

Name group

5

0

223

890429

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Other

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

Y

45

wood Any footpaths short?

55

N

n/a

N Y N

regular fields

Cleared areas?

426.72 50 270

541g

1.83245

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Looks like fields pre-datea and wood encroached later. Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.933953452009 Cluster

n/a

Y N N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 3 250

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Cloutsham Cleeve

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

179

WOOD NUMBER

Y

n/a

0

0

N

N Y

20 0.6

70

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Luccombe

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

Note 422 OE side side, ME side slope of a hill;421 OE sid broad

5

0

n/a

30

0

Y

n/a

N Y N

224

900433

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

670.56 125 300

541g

16.1638

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Undefined boundary with moor - wooded combes left to themselves? Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.586730050482 Cluster

Y

N

Internal divisions?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

3

Y Y N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

3

0 5 210

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Sideway Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

180

WOOD NUMBER

Y

Y

0

0

N

Y Y

90 0.4

2 Y N N N N

2 4 Y

Number of aspects

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Dulverton

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

121.92 225 280

611c

0

Y

25

0

Y

n/a

Y N Y

16.1243

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH 890296

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

16 OE wic by ash trees

wic/wich/wick

Name group

225

Tree species

Y

Y

0

73

N

Y Y

110 0.444444444444444

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Notes: See coments on Draydon. Fields here have no obvious relationship to wood, except for E edge. Note FP on N edge stops at junction Draydon. Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.734624148391 Cluster 4

0 10 170

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Ashwick Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

301.3

WOOD NUMBER

N

20

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

0.374069275811

Dulverton

Name group

Cluster

226

Other

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 350 230

611c

6

0

n/a

30

0

Y

n/a

Y N Y

12.0858

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Note 429 Mounson 1st el probably ME surname

Notes: Encroaching fields? Score on PCA (1st factor)

Y

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Y Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

2

4

Number of aspects

Number of footpaths in wood

0 10 170

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Mounsey Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

301.4

WOOD NUMBER 885295

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

0

50

Y

N Y

60 0.285714285714286

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N Y

0 2

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Dulverton

Name group

227

Other

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 200 260

611c

6

0

n/a

25

0

N

n/a

Y Y Y

6.96584

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Edges very straight for old wood? Core of much larger wood? Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.111903337267 Cluster

n/a

Y N N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 9 180

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Dibble Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

301.5

WOOD NUMBER 885300

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N

Y

0

75

Y

Y Y

80 0.45

N Y

10

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

Dulverton

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Note 224 OE heafod headland

Name group

228

Tree species

Notes: Could be remains of old cleared wood - note some edges with fields v st. But only 1 FP! Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.223409630215 Cluster

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

Y Y N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

3

0 9 210

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Ashway Hat Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

330

WOOD NUMBER

6

0

Y

20

0

N

n/a

Y N N

17.363

0 375 280

611c

865317

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N

n/a

0

70

Y

Y Y

70 0.24

N

20

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

Dulverton

Number of quarries in wood 0

Y

0

wood Any footpaths short?

50

N

n/a

N N Y

1.2751

30.48 100 240

611c

regular fields

Cleared areas?

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

229

871308

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Copse

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Notes: Unusual in that edges with fields undefined. Could be late use of steep slope - seems fitted into fields. Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.050248844307 Cluster 5

Any footpaths with wandering route?

2

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

Number of footpaths in wood

n/a N Y

1

25 5 190

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Nine Acre Copse

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

332

WOOD NUMBER

N

Y

0

30

N

Y N

50 0.5

PARISH

Y Y Y N N

20

Boundary with otherwoods fully defined? Any partofboundary concave? Does any partofboundary follow contour?

Is any partofboundary a road?

Internaldivisions?

Percentage ofwood boundary which adjoins: m oorland n/a

426 OE slaedvalley

1924OE slaedlow flatvalley

Ekwall

EPNS:

Nam e group

6

0

n/a

40

0

N

n/a

N N N

230

878308

Any otherfeatures in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

N

n/a

0

40

Y

N Y

50 0.666666666666667

Any partofboundary straight? Is any partofboundary a river? Does any partofboundary coincide with parish bounday?

Heightrange (m ) Slope atm id point

Nam e type W ood

NGR

Topographyornaturalcharacteristics

Num berofquarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 75 240

611c

3.29012

Is any partofboundary otherfeature?

Otherboundaries fully defined? Any partofboundary convex? Any partofboundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m ) Distance between contours (m ) Highestcontour(m )

Notes: Leftoutofclearance/rec-orclearedandthenregen? Score on PCA (1stfactor) 0.320236131609 Cluster

Any footpaths with wandering route?

0

2

Num berofaspects

Num beroffootpaths in wood

0 5 190

Distance to river(m ) Num berofcontours Lowestcontour(m )

Nam e elem ent

Dulverton

Typicalbrownpodzolicsoils SoilAssociation

SladeW ood

W OOD NAME

SoilType

335.3

WOOD NUMBER

N N

0 0

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

8.951083655538

Dulverton

Name group

Cluster 6

0

n/a

60

0

N

n/a

Y N N

231

878305

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Produce or industrial activity

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 100 210

611c

1.92797

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Note 209 Horsebridge (Lifton)1st el is pers name

Notes: As Slade 335.3 Score on PCA (1st factor)

n/a

Y Y N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 3 190

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Horse Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

335.4

WOOD NUMBER

N

n/a

0

40

Y

Y Y

20 0.3

0 2 Y

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

EPNS:

Ekwall

214 OE ham(m) meadow on a stream

6

0

Y

15

0

N

n/a

Y Y N

4.1058

0 125 240

611c

232

880301

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners,tenure,value

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

Name group

Y

Internal divisions?

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Name element

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Cluster

Y Y Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Dulverton

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Pronged shape - due to filds being cut in? Score on PCA (1st factor) -0.21906309830

1

0 6 180

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

M ill Ham Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

335.5

WOOD NUMBER

N

n/a

0

85

Y

Y Y

60 0.48

3 Y Y N Y Y

0 14 Y

Number of aspects

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Porlock

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 375 220

541g

1

n/a

30

0

N

Y

Y Y Y

60.5512

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

233

Other

Notes: Lots of paths, structures, terracing?, lime kiln on beach. Wood encroached on fields - edges due to topog? Score on PCA (1st factor) 3.199422249950 Cluster 4

0 20 10

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Yearnor Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

479

WOOD NUMBER 855482

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

40

30

Y

N Y

210 0.533333333333333

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

3 Y Y N N N

0 7 Y

Number of aspects

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Culbone

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

4

1

n/a

30

0

N

Y

Y Y N

234

830487

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

N

Y

40

30

Y

N Y

260 0.693333333333333

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners, tenure, value

135 after St. Columbanus;old name Kitnor OE cyta hill frequented by kites

Name group

0 375 270

541g

104.946

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Woods encroaching on fields. Fields look as though they have cut in but could be due to topog. Score on PCA (1st factor) 3.653097854343 Cluster

0 26 10

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Culbone Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

480

WOOD NUMBER

N

30 11 Y

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

Is any part of boundary other feature?

n/a

30

0

N

Y

Y Y Y

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

Name group

235

Other

4

N

Is any part of boundary a road?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

39.7399

0 450 270

Notes: FPs wander - McD' s work. Moor between wood and fields - cf Yearnor and Culbone. Score on PCA (1st factor) 2.792265325072 Cluster

Y Y N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

541g

1

1

Number of aspects

Culbone

Soil Association

PARISH

Number of quarries in wood

0 23 10

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Embelle Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

481

WOOD NUMBER 813492

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

40

0

Y

N Y

260 0.511111111111111

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

3 N Y Y Y N

0 9 Y

Number of aspects

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Porlock

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element worthy/ery

536 OE worthig homestead, enclosure

Name group

236

Land history

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

541g

4

1

Y

40

5

Y

Y

N Y Y

93.7709

1158.24 675 230

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Seems to cover more of flatter clifftop than other coastal woods. Lots of FPs. Score on PCA (1st factor) 3.479734491477 Cluster

0 20 30

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Worthy Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

485

WOOD NUMBER 858478

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

25

30

N

Y Y

200 0.296296296296296

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Y Y N N N

0 5 Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

Culbone

1924 66 OE withig withy, 19 OE cumb valley

EPNS:

Name group

527 OE withig willow

combe

Ekwall

Name element

237

Tree species

Number of quarries in wood 4

0

n/a

55

wood Any footpaths short?

45

Y

n/a

Y N N

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 125 270

541g

5.71337

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Shape looks like fields cleared and postdate. Lots of FPs for size. Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.553588461703 Cluster

1

0 7 100

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Withycombe Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

486

WOOD NUMBER 840481

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N

Y

0

0

Y

N Y

170 0.56

N N

0 2

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Name element

EPNS:

Ekwall

Brayford

Name group

238

Size, position or age

Number of quarries in wood 5

0

Y

15

wood Any footpaths short?

85

N

n/a

Y N Y

regular fields

Cleared areas?

45.72 125 240

611c

6.54074

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Adjfields are curving shape but regular - wood edge contemp? Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.425485880206 Cluster

n/a

Y N Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

2

50 5 190

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Broad Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

664.1

WOOD NUMBER 707355

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N

Y

0

0

N

Y N

50 0.4

N Y

0 1

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Brayford

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element ham

Name group

4

0

239

710355

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

n/a

20

wood Any footpaths short?

60

N

n/a

Y N Y

38.825

45.72 125 240

611c

regular fields

Cleared areas?

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Cut into by fields - or cd be odd shaped bit is planting contemp with fields. . Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.019288996720 Cluster

n/a

Y N Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

50 5 200

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Churchway Hams Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

664.2

WOOD NUMBER

N

Y

0

20

N

Y N

40 0.4

N Y

0 0

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

524 Wine personal name

ley/ly/leigh

Brayford

Name group

240

Other

Number of quarries in wood 5

0

n/a

60

wood Any footpaths short?

40

Y

n/a

Y N N

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 100 250

611c

1.47867

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Cd be internal divs along contours as well? NO FPs. Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.734594894845 Cluster

n/a

Y N Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 6 200

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Winsley Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

665

WOOD NUMBER 713355

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N

n/a

0

0

Y

N Y

50 0.6

N N

10

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

Brayford

Number of quarries in wood 0

n/a

70

wood Any footpaths short?

20

N

n/a

N N Y

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 100 260

611c

1.78168

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element Other

241

Note 40 Little Comfort (1809) barren or unproductive or poss ruined building

Name group

Notes: Cd be contemp or predate curvy fields - they stopped at this slope. Odd that bdary with fields undefined. Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.023987513462 Cluster 5

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

Y N Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

1

0 5 220

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Little Comfort Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

666

WOOD NUMBER 713357

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N

Y

0

0

Y

N Y

40 0.5

N Y

10

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

346 Shearecombe 1632 poss shire valley

combe

North Molton

Name group

4

0

n/a

60

0

N

n/a

N N Y

242

715357

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners, tenure, value

Number of quarries in wood

Any footpaths short?

wood

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 200 260

611c

2.75833

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Cd be contemp with Sherracombe farm - flattish land included. Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.689564163102 Cluster

Any footpaths with wandering route?

2

Y N N

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

3

0 5 220

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Sherracombe Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

667

WOOD NUMBER

N

Y

0

30

Y

N Y

40 0.25

N N

25

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland n/a

North Molton

Number of quarries in wood

EPNS:

Ekwall

Name element

243

718357

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

117 ColeShill poss OE coll hill, Welsh coll hazel. No ref to charcoal!Tithe gives Cold Hill.

Name group

5

0

Y

40

wood Any footpaths short?

15

N

n/a

Y N Y

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 100 300

611c

9.36649

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Compare well df edges with wds to N. Cd be contemp with fields - or predate. Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.144744240229 Cluster

Any footpaths with wandering route?

2

Y N Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Number of footpaths in wood

1

0 6 210

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Colehill Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

668

WOOD NUMBER

N

Y

0

20

Y

N Y

90 0.6

2 Y Y Y N Y

0 5 Y

Number of aspects

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

North Molton

Number of quarries in wood

527 OE withig willow

346 Withiyete 1333

Ekwall

EPNS:

Name element

Name group

244

Tree species

4

0

Y

30

wood Any footpaths short?

50

N

n/a

Y N Y

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 175 260

611c

9.53065

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Was this wood at one time smaller? Internal div cd be old edge - continues into Beara. Score on PCA (1st factor) 1.039010133955 Cluster

0 6 190

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Withygate Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

669

WOOD NUMBER 713354

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

0

20

Y

N Y

70 0.342857142857143

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

N Y

0 5

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

North Molton

EPNS:

32 dat of OE bearu grove, wood

Name group

Name element

Ekwall

Cluster 4

0

245

708354

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Topography or natural characteristics

Number of quarries in wood

Y

10

wood Any footpaths short?

50

N

n/a

Y N Y

regular fields

Cleared areas?

0 150 250

611c

11.2085

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: As Withygate 669. Cd be old leat? Score on PCA (1st factor) 0.687455473490

n/a

N N Y

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

Any footpaths with wandering route?

1

0 6 180

Number of aspects

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown podzolic soils

Beara Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

670

WOOD NUMBER

Y

Y

0

40

Y

N Y

70 0.4

N Y

0 14 Y

Is any part of boundary a road?

Internal divisions?

Percentage of wood boundary which adjoins: moorland

Number of footpaths in wood

Any footpaths with wandering route?

347 Bremerigge DB OE bremel bramble ridge

EPNS:

Name group

Note 63 Bremeridge bramble ridge

4

1

246

690290

Any other features in wood?

Any footpaths long?

other land

irregular fields

Y

Y

25

75

N

Y N

70 0.154838709677419

Any part of boundary straight? Is any part of boundary a river? Does any part of boundary coincide with parish bounday?

Height range (m) Slope at mid point

Name type Wood

NGR

Identity of users or owners, tenure, value

Number of quarries in wood

Y

0

wood Any footpaths short?

0

N

Y

Y Y Y

regular fields

Cleared areas?

76.2 775 180

541j

63.1549

Is any part of boundary other feature?

Other boundaries fully defined? Any part of boundary convex? Any part of boundary follow FP?

Size (ha)

Distance to parish boundary (m) Distance between contours (m) Highest contour (m)

Ekwall

Name element

South Molton

Soil Association

PARISH

Notes: Adjoins Castle Hill deer park. Same name as mansion. Score on PCA (1st factor) 2.246643649763 Cluster

n/a Y Y

4

Number of aspects

Boundary with other woods fully defined? Any part of boundary concave? Does any part of boundary follow contour?

50 12 110

Distance to river(m) Number of contours Lowest contour (m)

Typical brown earths

Bremridge Wood

WOOD NAME

Soil Type

826

WOOD NUMBER

Appendix V W ood size distribution byparish Eachchartshowsthesizeofwoodsinhectaresonthehorizontalaxis.Thenumberofwoodsineachsizeband appearsontheverticalaxis. Part1Complete parishes PARISH:

Bratton Fl emi ng

PARISH:

5

Chal l acombe

3.5

3.0 4 2.5 3

2.0

1.5

2

1.0 1

Std. Dev= 2.95

Mean = 2.59

N = 18.00

0

Std. Dev= 2.28

.5

Mean = 3.41

N = 6.00

0.0 13 6.

38 4.

63 2.

8 .8

2 .0 10

07 9.

11 8.

16 7.

20 6.

30 4.

25 5.

34 3.

39 2.

43 1.

8 .4

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Brendon

PARISH:

30

Charl es

10

8 20 6

4 10 2

Std. Dev= 9.34

Std. Dev= 8.22 Mean = 6.28

Mean = 5.43 N = 27.00

0

N = 17.00

0

5 .5 27 6 .1 25 6 .7 22 6 .3 20 7 .9 17 7 .5 15 8 .1 13 8 .7 10

39 8.

99 5.

59 3. 20 1.

4 .1 40

2 .4 35

9 .6 30

7 .9 25

5 .2 21

3 .5 16

1 .8 11

08 7.

36 2.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Brushford

PARISH:

12

Counti sbury

10

10

8

8 6 6 4 4 2 2

Std. Dev= 1.07

Std. Dev= 4.63

Mean = 1.58

Mean = 4.64 N = 19.00

0

N = 26.00

0

6 .0 16

7 .1 14

8 .2 12

9 .3 10

50 8.

61 6.

247

72 4.

SIZEHA

83 2.

4 .9

49 4.

96 3.

43 3.

90 2.

38 2.

85 1.

32 1.

9 .7

6 .2

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Culbone

PARISH:

1.2

Dunster

8

1.0 6 .8

.6

4

.4 2 Std. Dev = 50.43

.2

Std. Dev = 8.26

Mean = 50.13

Mean = 7.28

N = 3.00

0.0

N = 14.00

0 8 .1 30

4 .5 25

9 .8 20

5 .2 16

1 .6 11

96 6.

32 2.

25 1. 10

5 .7 78

5 .2 56

5 .7 33

5 .2 11

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Cutcombe

PARISH:

16

East Buckland

3.5

14

3.0

12 2.5 10 2.0 8 1.5 6 1.0

4 Std. Dev = 5.12 2

Mean = 3.97

N = 37.00

0

N = 12.00

0.0 97 7.

91 6.

84 5.

78 4.

72 3.

66 2.

59 1.

3 .5

4 .0 22 2 .1 20 1 .2 18 9 .2 16 7 .3 14 6 .4 12 4 .5 10

62 8.

71 6.

79 4.

6 .9

87 2.

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Std. Dev = 2.34

.5

Mean = 5.19

SIZEHA

Dulverton

PARISH:

60

Exford

10

50

8

40 6 30 4 20

2

Std. Dev = 9.80

10

Std. Dev = 2.03

Mean = 6.65

Mean = 1.68

N = 81.00

0

N = 18.00

0 07 8.

02 9.

12 7.

17 6.

22 5.

27 4.

248

32 3.

SIZEHA

37 2.

42 1.

7 .4

8 .0 75 3 .2 70 9 .3 65 5 .5 60 0 .7 55 6 .8 50 2 .0 46 7 .1 41 3 .3 36 8 .4 31 4 .6 26 0 .8 21 5 .9 16 1 .1 12 27 7. 42 2.

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Exmoor

PARISH:

1.2

High Bray

20

1.0

.8

10

.6

.4

.2

Std. Dev = .53

Std. Dev = 9.05

Mean = .87

Mean = 6.47 N = 27.00

0

N = 6.00

0.0

4 .1 40

2 .4 35

9 .6 30

7 .9 25

5 .2 21

3 .5 16

1 .8 11

08 7.

36 2.

51 1.

28 1.

04 1.

1 .8

8 .5

5 .3

2 .1

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Exton

PARISH:

16

3.5

14

3.0

12

Loxhore

2.5

10 2.0 8 1.5 6 1.0

4 Std. Dev = 4.61 2

Std. Dev = 5.40

.5

Mean = 4.03

Mean = 5.97

N = 35.00

0

N = 10.00

0.0

8 .5 17

3 .2 15

9 .8 12

5 .5 10

20 8.

86 5.

52 3.

17 1.

4 .0 24 2 .1 22 9 .1 20 7 .2 18 5 .3 16 2 .4 14 0 .5 12 8 .5 10

65 8. 73 6.

81 4.

6 .9

88 2.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Hawkridge

PARISH:

7

Luccombe

30

6

5 20 4

3 10 2 Std. Dev = 21.50

Std. Dev = 10.42

1

Mean = 11.30

Mean = 10.22

N = 31.00

0

N = 13.00

0

19 0. 12 58 0. 11 96 0. 10 5 .3 91 3 .7 81 2 .1 72 0 .5 62 8 .8 52 7 .2 43 5 .6 33 4 .0 24 2 .4 14 81 4.

4 .1 40

2 .4 35

9 .6 30

7 .9 25

5 .2 21

3 .5 16

1 .8 11

08 7.

36 2.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

249

PARISH:

Luxborough

PARISH:

8

Minehead

14 12

6

10 8

4 6 4

2 Std. Dev = 13.99

Std. Dev = 5.53

2

Mean = 4.54

Mean = 13.39 N = 21.00

0

N = 24.00

0

5 .0 20 4 .1 18 3 .2 16 2 .3 14 1 .4 12 0 .5 10

59 8.

68 6.

86 2.

77 4.

5 .9

1 .1 50 4 .3 45 7 .5 40 0 .8 35 2 .0 31 5 .2 26 8 .4 21 0 .7 16 3 .9 11

16 7.

39 2.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Lynton & Lynmouth

PARISH:

14

7

12

6

10

5

8

4

6

3

4

Minehead W ithout

2 Std. Dev = 6.63

2

Std. Dev = 25.62

1

Mean = 5.32

Mean = 13.75

N = 30.00

0

N = 10.00

0

8 .2 80

3 .8 70

9 .3 61

4 .9 51

0 .5 42

6 .0 33

1 .6 23

7 .1 14

72 4.

4 .5 32 3 .1 30 2 .7 27 1 .3 25 0 .9 22 9 .4 20 8 .0 18 7 .6 15 6 .2 13 5 .8 10 44 8. 03 6.

62 3.

21 1.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Martinhoe

PARISH:

5

50

4

40

3

30

2

20

1

10

Std. Dev = 6.81

Std. Dev = 8.93

Mean = 7.35

Mean = 6.56

N = 14.00

0

North Molton

N = 66.00

0

SIZEHA

250

0 .1 60 9 .2 55 8 .4 50 7 .6 45 7 .8 40 6 .0 36 5 .2 31 4 .4 26 3 .6 21 3 .8 16 2 .0 12

21 7. 40 2.

6 .5 22

9 .1 20

1 .8 17

4 .4 15

6 .0 13

9 .6 10

31 8.

94 5.

56 3.

19 1.

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Oare

PARISH:

12

Selworthy

16 14

10 12 8 10 8

6

6 4 4 Std. Dev = 16.10

Std. Dev = 8.53

2

2

Mean = 6.05 N = 19.00

0

Mean = 10.10 N = 22.00

0

1 .1 50 4 .3 45 7 .5 40 0 .8 35 2 .0 31 5 .2 26 8 .4 21 0 .7 16 3 .9 11

39 2.

16 7.

6 .1 35

7 .4 30

8 .7 25

9 .0 21

1 .4 16

2 .7 11

03 7.

34 2.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Parracombe

PARISH:

14

Stoke Pero

5

12 4 10 3

8

6

2

4 1

Std. Dev = 5.60

2

Std. Dev = 10.49

Mean = 3.49

Mean = 9.72

N = 19.00

0

8 .1 30

4 .5 25

9 .8 20

5 .2 16

1 .6 11

96 6.

32 2.

7 .0 20

1 .7 17

5 .3 15

9 .9 12

3 .6 10

26 8.

90 5.

54 3.

18 1.

SIZEHA

PARISH:

N = 9.00

0

SIZEHA

Porlock

PARISH:

12

3.5

10

3.0

Stoke Rivers

2.5

8

2.0 6 1.5 4 1.0 Std. Dev = 63.16

2

Std. Dev = 2.52

.5

Mean = 35.81

Mean = 3.13

N = 19.00

0

N = 12.00

0.0 97 7.

91 6.

84 5.

78 4.

72 3.

251

66 2.

SIZEHA

59 1.

3 .5

52 5. 27 56 1. 25 60 7. 22 65 3. 20 69 9. 17 73 5. 15 77 1. 13 81 7. 10 5 .8 83 0 .9 59 4 .9 35 8 .9 11

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Timberscombe

PARISH:

20

Winsford

14 12

10 8 10 6 4 Std. Dev = 5.02

Std. Dev = 6.65

2

Mean = 4.54

Mean = 2.91 N = 25.00

0

N = 26.00

0

5 .0 30 4 .6 27 4 .2 25 4 .8 22 3 .4 20 3 .0 18 3 .6 15 2 .2 13 2 .8 10

41 8.

01 6.

61 3.

20 1.

6 .0 25 7 .6 22 8 .2 20 0 .9 17 1 .5 15 3 .1 13 4 .7 10

35 8.

97 5.

58 3.

19 1.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Trentishoe

PARISH:

5

Withypool

6

5

4

4 3 3 2 2 1

Std. Dev = 3.03

1

Std. Dev = 3.03

0

N = 14.00

Mean = 3.80

Mean = 3.67

N = 12.00

0

7 .0 12

1 .2 10

36 8.

50 6.

64 4.

79 2.

3 .9

8 .0 10

25 8.

42 6.

58 4.

75 2.

2 .9

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Twitchen

PARISH:

10

5

8

4

6

3

4

2

Wootton Courtenay

1

2

Std. Dev = 4.99

Std. Dev = 2.10

Mean = 3.71

Mean = 4.17

N = 7.00

0

N = 19.00

0

9 .0 15

7 .7 12

5 .4 10

12 8.

252

80 5.

SIZEHA

48 3.

16 1.

97 8.

92 7.

86 6.

81 5.

75 4.

69 3.

64 2.

58 1.

3 .5

SIZEHA

Part 2 Incomplete parishes PARISH:

Arlington

PARISH:

8

Brompton Regis

40

6

30

4

20

2

10 Std. Dev = 6.48

Std. Dev = 9.26

Mean = 5.16

Mean = 6.23

N = 17.00

0

N = 43.00

0

3 .1 45

8 .3 40

3 .6 35

8 .8 30

8 .3 21

3 .1 26

3 .6 16

8 .8 11

13 7.

38 2.

6 .5 22

9 .1 20

1 .8 17

4 .4 15

6 .0 13

31 8.

9 .6 10

94 5.

56 3.

19 1.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Bampton

PARISH:

3.5

Carhampton

10

3.0 8 2.5 6

2.0

1.5

4

1.0 2

Std. Dev = 1.71

.5

Std. Dev = 13.01

Mean = 2.88

Mean = 9.40

N = 8.00

0.0

N = 16.00

0

3 .1 45

8 .3 40

3 .6 35

8 .8 30

8 .3 21

3 .1 26

3 .6 16

8 .8 11

13 7.

38 2.

96 6.

89 5.

82 4.

75 3.

68 2.

61 1.

4 .5

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Bishop' s Nympton

PARISH:

1.2

Combe Martin

2.5

1.0 2.0 .8 1.5 .6 1.0

.4

Std. Dev = 1.23

.2

.5

Std. Dev = .52

Mean = 4.07

Mean = .84

N = 2.00

0.0

N = 4.00

0.0 46 1.

14 1.

253

1 .8

SIZEHA

9 .4

6 .1

58 4.

75 2.

2 .9

SIZEHA

PARISH:

East Anstey

PARISH:

7

16

6

14

Kentisbury

12

5

10 4 8 3 6 2

4 Std. Dev = 6.40

Std. Dev = 6.21

1

2

Mean = 4.82 N = 13.00

0

Mean = 2.94 N = 15.00

0 1 .2 25

3 .6 20

4 .0 16

6 .4 11

88 6.

29 2.

6 .5 22

9 .1 20

1 .8 17

4 .4 15

6 .0 13

9 .6 10

31 8.

94 5.

56 3.

19 1.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Filleigh

PARISH:

6

Landkey

2.5

5 2.0 4 1.5 3 1.0

2

Std. Dev = 7.19

1

.5

Std. Dev = .92

Mean = 7.82

Mean = 7.47

N = 11.00

0

N = 3.00

0.0 56 7.

19 6.

81 4.

44 3.

06 2.

9 .6

1 .2 25

3 .6 20

4 .0 16

6 .4 11

88 6.

29 2.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Goodleigh

PARISH:

2.5

5

2.0

4

1.5

3

1.0

2

.5

Morebath

1

Std. Dev = 4.16

Std. Dev = 1.78

Mean = 5.11

Mean = 1.77

N = 4.00

0.0

N = 9.00

0 96 5.

88 4.

79 3.

254

71 2.

SIZEHA

63 1.

4 .5

90 9.

70 7.

50 5.

30 3.

10 1.

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Molland

PARISH:

5

Swimbridge

8

4 6

3 4 2

2 1

Std. Dev = 5.99

Std. Dev = 5.90

Mean = 5.38

Mean = 5.16

N = 10.00

0

N = 11.00

0 8 .5 17

3 .2 15

9 .8 12

5 .5 10

20 8.

86 5.

52 3.

17 1.

3 .4 22

9 .7 19

5 .1 17

1 .5 14

7 .8 11

24 9.

60 6.

96 3.

32 1.

SIZEHA

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Oakford

PARISH:

5

2.5

4

2.0

3

1.5

2

1.0

1

Treborough

.5

Std. Dev = 4.91

Std. Dev = 6.29

Mean = 4.88

Mean = 8.54

N = 8.00

0

5 .2 20

5 .7 15

5 .2 11

75 6.

25 2.

0 .6 12

1 .3 10

02 8.

73 5.

44 3.

15 1.

SIZEHA

PARISH:

N = 5.00

0.0

SIZEHA

South Molton

PARISH:

1.2

West Anstey

5

1.0

4

.8 3 .6 2 .4 1

Std. Dev = 40.28

.2

Std. Dev = 4.98

Mean = 34.67

Mean = 4.78

N = 2.00

0.0

N = 7.00

0 0 .6 12

1 .3 10

02 8.

255

73 5.

SIZEHA

44 3.

15 1.

6 .5 76

9 .6 54

1 .8 32

4 .9 10

SIZEHA

PARISH:

West Buckland

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 Std. Dev = 2.26

.5

Mean = 3.50 N = 10.00

0.0 97 8.

92 7.

86 6.

81 5.

75 4.

69 3.

64 2.

58 1.

3 .5

SIZEHA

PARISH:

Withycombe

12

10

8

6

4

Std. Dev = 11.07

2

Mean = 6.17 N = 13.00

0

4 .1 40

2 .4 35

9 .6 30

7 .9 25

5 .2 21

3 .5 16

1 .8 11

08 7.

36 2.

SIZEHA

256

Appendix VI Descriptionsofwoodsgrouped byscoresin principalcomponentsanalysis(1st component) Thi s appendi x summari ses t he feat ures ofa sampl e ofwoods,ordered by t hei rscores on t he fi rstcomponenti n pri nci palcomponent sanal ysi s,whi chwerel i st edi nTabl e3. 6.Thei ndi vi dualwoodswerechosenatrandom from t he nch.In t he st udy area dat abase. The descri pt i on oft hei rfeat uresi sderi ved from t hei rdepi ct i on i nt he 1st OS 6 i description ofeach wood,thereference‘EN :Y/N’showswhetherthewood isincluded in theinventory ofancient nchunl essot herwi sest at ed. woodscompi l edbyEngl i shNat ure(EngNat). ‘OS’referstothe1stOS 6i Pair1

Pair3

WorthyWood(485,Porl ock) Topography:St eepsl opesabovePorl ockW ei r;parti son rivervalley. Feat ures:Veryl i mi t edexcursi oni nt oi nt eri or.OSshows gravelpi t sandquarry. Sharesnamewi t hmanorhouse. Twol anesl eadi nt owoodfrom fi el dst oSW . Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ ground veget at i on: t rees very mi xed, wi t h rhododendrons,ash,mapl e,sweetchest nut ,oak,l ot sof st umps. Concl usi ons:No cl ues as t o pasthi st ory,exceptt hat wood boundary coul d have been respect ed by regul ar fi el ds t o SW . The l anes suggestt ransportneeded for somet hi ng. In vi ew ofproxi mi t yt o Porl ock (wi t h bark house),i tcoul d have been expl oi t ed forbark. Present t reessuggestl at erl andscapi ng. 1stOS 6inchsheet:XXXIIINE,XXXIV NW . EN:Y

SmythaparkWood(608. 2,Loxhore) Topography:Ri verval l ey Feat ures:Sharesnamewi t hset t l ement .Cont ai nsquarry. Boundariesarenoti ceabl yst rai ght . Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ groundveget at i on: OS showsasdeci duouswi t ha st ri pofconi ferononeedge. Concl usi ons:Rel at i onshi pwi t hfi el dssuggest swoodhas been subjectto clearance,especi al l y on downsl opesi de, nearriver. 1stOS6i nchsheet :X NW EN:Y

Shillett Wood(488,Porlock) Topography: W at ercourse val l ey; on sl opes adjoi ni ng t wost reams(unusual ). Feat ures: Foot pat hs go t hrough i ti n di rect i on of adjoi ni ngmoor(Porl ockCommon). Boundari es:Boundari est o moorcompl et el y undefi ned. Ot herboundari esarewat ercourses. Trees/ groundveget at i on:OS showsasdeci duous. Concl usi ons:Expl oi t edascl assi cExmoorwoodpast ure? 1stOS 6inchsheet:XXXIIINE,XXXIV NW . EN:Y ‘Pair’2 Pitt Plantation (487. 2,Porlock) Topography:Sl opesof2 ri verval l eysandfl at t erground above. Feat ures:Sharesnamewi t hset t l ement . Hugenumberof t racks.OS showsseveral‘t umul i ’i nsi de.Somehasnow beencleared. Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ groundveget at i on:Coni fer. Concl usi ons: M odern pl ant at i on on former moor/ commons. Some of t he t racks and pat hs coul d rel at et oi t spastascommon. 1stOS 6inchsheet:XXXIIISE. EN:N

257

Burrow Wood(290,Wi nsf ord) Topography:Ri verval l ey. Feat ures:Partoft hi swood encroacheson t o moorand coul d be a l at e pl ant at i on. There are some st rai ght i nt ernaldi vi si onson l and cl oset o ri ver,whi ch coul d be fi el ds creat ed from cl eared woodl and whi ch t hen revert edt owood! Boundari es:Al ldefi ned(evenwi t hmoor). Trees/ ground veget at i on: OS shows part on moor as coni fer;restasdeci duous. Concl usi ons: Di ffi cul t . Coul d have seen waves of expansi onandcont ract i oni npast . 1stOS6inchsheet:LVIINW EN:Y Pair4 Li ttl eHi l lPl antati on (95,MineheadWithout) Topography:Fl att o gent l y sl opi ng l and some di st ance from watercourse. Features:Paths.Veryirregularshape. Boundari es:Al ldefi ned. Trees/ ground veget at i on: OS shows as mi xed coni fer anddeci duous. Concl usi ons:Coul d bel at epl ant at i onandcont emporary wi t hadjoi ni ngfi el ds,whi charefai rl yregul ar. 1stOS 6inchsheet:XXXIV NE EN:N Bougham Wood(185,Ti mberscombe) Topography: On sl opi ng l and some di st ance from wat ercourse. Feat ures:An ext remel y smal lsl i verofwood. Shares namewi t hset t l ement .

Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: This area has several small, scattered woods of this kind. It could at one time have been part of Timberscombe Wood but was detached from it by clearance. As it is so small, it does not appear on English Nature’s inventory –but it could be old. 1st OS 6 inch sheet : XLVI NE EN: N

Conclusions: Difficult to see whether established when adjoining fields laid out, or whether it is remnant of more extensive wood which has been cleared. Probably former? 1st OS 6 inch sheet: LVII SW EN: N

Pair 5 Charlestown Barton Wood (748, Charles) Topography: Steep river valley with road Features: Large wood. Shares name with settlement. Possible internal division. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: Charles is old settlement with one of the rare ‘Celtic’ names. This wood is large enough to have served a sizeable settlement. It could have been larger in the past, as the adjoining regular fields could be on cleared land. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: XIV NE EN: Y South Lydcott Wood (695, High Bray) Topography: Slope above river Features:Very small. Adjoining fields could have been laid out on cleared land and this wood could be remnant of former long stretch of woodland in this valley. Other small woods with this character nearby. Shares name with settlement. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: May have been part of Lydcott Wood to north and became detached when fields laid out. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: X SE EN: N Pair 6 Lyncombe Wood (549, Lynton & Lynmouth) Topography: River valley Features: Shares name with settlement. Could formerly have adjoined moor, as adjacent fields are regular and adjacent to moor. Boundaries: All defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous. Conclusions: This wood could have been formed when the adjoining fields were laid out –so probably late. 1st OS 6 inch sheet: VII NW EN: N Little Birchcleeve Wood (333, Hawkridge) Topography: Steep slopes above river and road. Features: Adjoins fields and moorland in valley. Boundaries: Those with moor are undefined, those with fields are defined. Trees/ground vegetation: OS shows as deciduous.

258

Appendix VII Featuresrecorded in reconnaissance surveyofwoodsin Barle case study Part1-Platforms Wood name

Wood no

Feature no

Feature description

Feature Type

NGR

Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood

301.3 301.3 301.3 301.3

6 9 15 17

Platform Platform Platform Platform

88975 88917 88697 89110

29713 29690 29588 29480

M ounseyWood 301.4 M ounseyWood 301.4 M ounseyWood 301.4 M ounseyWood 301.4 DibbleWood 301.5 DibbleWood 301.5 DibbleWood 301.5 DibbleWood 301.5 M ill Ham Wood 335.5 HorseWood 335.4 HorseWood 335.4 HorseWood 335.4 NineAcreCopse332

9 12 13 14 3 5 6 11 7 1 3 4 3

Platform Platform Platform Possibleplatform next to track Possibleplatform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Possibleplatform Platforms (2,poss. 3) Poss. platform Poss. platform Poss. platform Poss. platform

Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform Platform

88550 88670 88652 88452 88439 88325 88234 88543 88121 87800 87852 87845 87090

29780 29550 29459 29489 29934 30000 30033 30111 30050 30507 30383 30295 30700

Part 2 - Other features Wood name

Wood no

Feature no

Feature description

Feature Type

NGR

AshwayHat Wood

330

1

Poss. structure

86393

AshwayHat Wood

330

2

Industrial

86304 31546

AshwayHat Wood

330

3

Industrial

86200

31500

AshwayHat Wood

330

4

Boundary

86156

31687

AshwayHat Wood AshwayHat Wood AshwayHat Wood AshwayHat Wood AshwayHat Wood

330 330 330 330 330

5 6 7 8 9

Earthworks of poss. structure Quarryand associated track Rock dumpand gapin hedge Former hedgebank & ditch Irregular pits (9 or more) Riversidetrack Quarryand ass. track Small pit inquarry Faint traces of bank

Unknown Track Industrial Industrial Boundary

86386 86405 86439 86435 86480

31895 31888 31827 31808 31620

Ashwick Wood

301.3

1

Unknown

89087

29747

Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood

301.3 301.3

2 3

Track Industrial

89058 89081

29738 29647

Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood

301.3 301.3 301.3 301.3 301.3 301.3 301.3

4 5 7 8 10 11 12

M ounds and hollows (poss. natural) Old track Quarryand associated track Sunkentrack Internal bank and ditch Contour track Scoopbesidetrack Poss. bank & ditch Boundarybank Scoopand mound

Track 88769 Internal boundary88771 Track 89125 Industrial 89055 Internal boundary88707 Boundary 88739 Unknown 88722

29901 29834 29610 29621 29870 30028 29919

259

31591

Ashwick Wood

301.3

13

Ashwick Wood Ashwick Wood

301.3 301.3

14 015-1

Mounsey Wood Mounsey Wood Mounsey Wood Mounsey Wood Mounsey Wood

301.4 301.4 301.4 301.4 301.4

1 2 4 5 6

Mounsey Wood

301.4

7

Mounsey Wood Mounsey Wood Mounsey Wood

301.4 301.4 301.4

8 10 11

Dibble Wood Dibble Wood Dibble Wood Dibble Wood Dibble Wood Dibble Wood

301.5 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.5 301.5

1 2 4 7 8 9

Dibble Wood

301.5

10

Mill Ham Wood Mill Ham Wood Mill Ham Wood Mill Ham Wood Mill Ham Wood

335.5 335.5 335.5 335.5 335.5

Mill Ham Wood

Water pump in scoop

Modern water management Footbridge Bridge Track/ leat with associated Path bank

88695

29877

88693 88697

29840 29588

Bank and ditch Rectangular pit Rectangular pit Contour track Quarry scoop and associated track Old footpath (close to track marked on OS) Hedge bank on boundary Track to Mounsey Castle Hedge bank

Boundary Industrial Industrial Path Industrial

88637 88424 88390 88370 88380

29352 29353 29355 29510 29550

Path

88492

29714

Boundary Track Boundary

88580 88638 88662

29800 29753 29722

Track (on OS) Scoop next to track Scoop, poss. quarry Contour path Track with bank/ wall Earthwork remains of probable structure Contour path (poss. same as 7)

Track Industrial Industrial Path Track Structure

88600 88439 88382 88200 88140 88259

29802 29927 30018 30091 30040 30090

Path

88478

30041

1 2 3 4 5

Contour track Hedge bank on boundary Scoop (poss. natural) Internal boundary bank Large pit/scoop

30132 30420 30317 30206 30101

335.5

6

Leat/track

Track 88031 Boundary 88024 Poss. industrial 88017 Internal boundary 88000 Water managmt/87927 industrial Water managmt 87850

Horse Wood

335.4

2

Track

Track

87827

30531

Slade Wood

335.3

1

Internal boundary87845

30550

Slade Wood Slade Wood Slade Wood Slade Wood Slade Wood

335.3 335.3 335.3 335.3 335.3

2 3 4 5 6

Poss. internal boundary Bank/ wall Contour track Unfinished wall/hedge Stone dump Contour track Track (outside wood Boundary)

Track 87570 Internal boundary 87646 Unknown 87550 Track 87655 Track 87575

30680 30715 30720 30796 30722

Nine Acre Copse Nine Acre Copse

332 332

1 2

Track 87216 Water managmt 87213

30599 30604

Track Bank next to river

260

30190

Appendix VIII Featuresrecorded in surveysofwoodsin Hornercase study Thefeat uresrecordedduri ngvari oussurveysarel i st edbel ow.Part1 l i st sal lpl at formsandPart2 l i st sot herfeat ures. Key: HW 94 HW 95 EW ,SW ,HW HW 02 PRN SM R

(M cDonnel l1994) (Berry1995) (Jul eff2000) W riter’ssurvey Recordnumberi nori gi nalsurvey Numberoffeat urei nSM R mai nt ai nedbyExmoorNat i onalPark

Part1-Platforms NGR

toNGR SM R

89404350

115816

Survey PRN

Description

HW 94 3

Charcoalburni ngpl at form &pat honnort hsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort hsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort h-westsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form atwestendofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort h-westsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort h-eastsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort hsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort hsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort h-eastsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort hsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form onnort hsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form ont henort hsi deofCl out sham Bal l Charcoalburni ngpl at form atwestendofCl out sham Bal l

89304340 115817 89744367 115818 89284356 115820 89404356 115821 89934361 115823 89574346 115824 89494341 115825 89894351 115827 89554350 115828 89534344 115829 89484347 115833 89394342 115834 88314403-88454403 115843

HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94 HW 94

4 5 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 16 20 21

88824367 88914359 90044360 89894325

115857 115871 115704 115707

HW 95 HW 95 EW EW

214 226 4 7

90104342

115708

EW

8

90114339

115709

EW

9

89864299

115713

EW

13

89834296

115715

EW

15

89244281

115722

EW

22

89534215 89744367

115727 115746

EW EW

27 46

87524337

115757

SW

9

87764387

115765

SW

17

87714378

115766

SW

18

HW 95 201

Charcoalburni ngpl at form & pat h,nort h-westendofSt oke W ood Charcoalplatform,adjacentto856,PricksladeCombe Pl at form (charcoal ?)i nmi ddl eofTenAcreCl eeve Ellipticalplatform onlowerwestfacingslopeofParsonsW ood Largeellipticalplatform onE facingslopeofCloutsham Ball beyondwoodl andedge Ellipticalplatform onmi dwestfacingslopeofParsonsW ood, RB ofRedGi rt Sub-ci rcul arpl at form onmi dwestfaci ngsl opeofSi deway W ood,LB ofRedGi rt Ellipticalplatform onsteep, lower NE facingslopeofHollow Combe Possibleplatform,ellipti calwithunevensurface,onN facing sl opeofSi dewayW ood Largeellipticalplatform onmi d-N-facingslopeoflowerAller Combe Smallellipticalplat form atheadofAllerCombe Ellipticalplatform ontrackway,N-facingslope,Cloutsham Bal l Ellipticalplatform onwoodlandedge,W -facingslopeof ParsonsW ood,St okePero Rect angul arpl at form (perhapsforcharcoal ),upperSW -faci ng sl opeofW i l mersham W ood Sub-rect angul arpl at form (perhapsforcharcoal ),upperSW -

261

87904397

115770

SW

22

87074375

115776

SW

28

87104300

115777

SW

29

88024374

115781

SW

33

88004382 88154392 88304402

115783 115784 115786

SW SW SW

35 36 38

89334412

115800

HW

5

89404412

115801

HW

6

89324407 89474401

115803 115806

HW HW

8 11

89414402

115809

HW

14

89314400

115810

HW

15

89604385

115811

HW

16

HW02 HW02 HW02 HW02 HW02 HW02

4 5 6 7 8 9

89394439 89344437 89274436 89164437 89114435 89064436

facing slope of Wilmersham Wood Large circular platform at junction of paths on SW-facing slope of Wilmersham Wood Large elliptical platform close to river on left bank of Lang Combe beyond woodland edge Platform at confluence 2 streams on very steep E facing slope, Old Wood Poss circular platform on gentle upper NW-facing slope, Stoke Wood Sub-circular platform on lower NW-facing slope of Stoke Wood Sub-circular platform on lower NW-facing slope of Stoke Wood Elliptical platform at end of trackway 785 on steep lower slope of Stoke Wood Elliptical platform (poss charcoal) on moderate upper SE-facing slope, Horner Wood Elliptical platform, E-facing slope of Horner Wood, between Granny' s and Flora' s Rides Circular platform, SE-facing slope, Horner Wood Platform on Lord Ebrington' s Path, lower SE-facing slope of Horner Wood Sub-circular platform on moderate SE-facing slope, Horner Wood Possible platform trampled by deer, mid-S-facing slope, Horner Wood Large platform (possibly charcoal), close to large iron working site, valley bottom, Horner Wood Platform in Yealls Combe Platform in Yealls Combe Platform in Yealls Combe Platform in Yealls Combe Platform in Yealls Combe Platform in Yealls Combe

Part 2 - Other features NGR

to NGR SMR

898438 115814 898437 115815 896436 115819 89724306 115822 89704320 115826 89744330 115830 89844350 115831 89494347 115832 89654332 115835 89724408 115836 89854403 115837 89814403 115838 89674387 88804391-88514393 115844 88804387-88254374 115845 88604391-88634388 115846 88414385-88604366 115847 88714383 115848

Survey PRN

Type

HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW94 HW95

Uncertain Cairn at north end of Cloutsham Ball Uncertain Earthwork at north end of Cloutsham Ball Industrial Track, north-west side of Cloutsham Ball Industrial Quarry, East Water Valley Industrial Quarry at south end of Cloutsham Ball Agricultural Cairn on the ridge of Cloutsham Ball Agricultural Cairn on the ridge of Cloutsham Ball Uncertain Mound on the north side of Cloutsham Ball Uncertain Linear cairn at west end of Cloutsham Ball Water mngement Earthwork at north end of Cloutsham Ball Uncertain Linear feature at north end of Cloutsham Ball Industrial Quarry at north end of Cloutsham Ball Industrial Metal working site with dam

1 2 6 9 13 17 18 19 22 23 24 25

Description

HW95 202

Track/path

Terraced path, west end of Stoke Wood

HW95 203

Track/ path

Priest' s Path, Stoke Wood

HW95 204

Track/path

Terraced path, north-east end of Stoke Wood

HW95 205 HW95 206

Track/path Agricultural

Small terraced path, east end of Stoke Wood Building platform, north-east end of Stoke

262

Track/path Agricultural Boundary Track/path Track/path Agricultural Uncertain

Wood Track, north end of Stoke Wood Platform, top of Prickslade Combe Boundary bank, top of Stoke Wood Holloways by Horner Water Holloway, foot of Prickslade Combe Field boundary, Prickslade Combe Platform in field, Prickslade Combe

HW95 213

Boundary

Parish boundary, Ten Acre Cleeve

HW95 215

Track/path

HW95 216 HW95 217

Industrial Boundary

88734378 115861 89044377 115863 88714391-88684397 115864 88674398 115865 88284413 115866 88874358 115867 88614342 115345 88334374-88574348 115869 88794376 115870 89994399 115702

HW95 217/1 HW95 219

Uncertain Industrial

Terraced path, south-west end of Ten Acre Cleeve Quarry at top of Ten Acre Cleeve Woodbank, north-west end of Ten Acre Cleeve Stone structure adjacent to 860 Quarry adjacent to main valley track

HW95 HW95 HW95 HW95 HW95

Industrial Track/path Industrial Industrial Agricultural

Quarries in valley south-west of Rowbarrow Track south-west of Rowbarrow Quarry scoop opposite Reed Mead Two quarries at top of Ten Acre Cleeve Barn at top of Prickslade Combe

90074386

115703

EW

3

90124362-90154365 115705

EW

5

90214342

115710

EW

10

89904308

115711

EW

11

90104311-90124313 115712

EW

12

89774299

115716

EW

16

89634302

115717

EW

17

89524305-89614306 115718

EW

18

89234305

115719

EW

19

89184293

115720

EW

20

89134292

115721

EW

21

89254255-89324298 115723

EW

23

88614389 115849 88574346 115850 88334378 115851 88454406 115852 88754384 115853 88744377 115854 88744378 115855 88794359-88854379 115856 88654367-88864365 115858

HW95 HW95 HW95 HW95 HW95 HW95 HW95

88974354 88744377

115859 115860

207 208 209 210 211 212 212/1

220/1-5 220/6 221 222 223

HW95 224 HW95 225 EW 2

Boundary Fieldbank above Stoke Wood Track/path Track at north-west end of Prickslade Combe Leat/water mngment Drain structure in valley below Parsons Wood, close to start of Winder Path Boundary, track/path Boundary wall and sunken path from The Priestway to Winder Walk, Parsons Wood Woodland featureAlignment of 5+ oak standards perp to upslope woodland edge, Parsons Wood Uncertain Rectang.scoop & narrow platform on Boys Path, above woodland edge (?viewpoint) Charcoal deposit Charcoal deposit on floodplain close to river edge, East Water valley Woodland featureAlignment of pollards perp to woodland edge following gully, Sideway Wood Findspot Large lump of dense iron ore on lower N facing slope of Sideway Wood Earthwork cairn Rubble cairn on right bank of East Water on valley floor E of Allercombe Meadow Leat/water mngment Drainage channel from Allercombe Meadow to East Water Slag deposit Iron smelting slag at woodland edge below Cloutsham Farm Earthwork cairn Low rubble cairn on valley floor, left bank of East Water Uncertain Poss.stone-lined path/channel at bend in road from valley floor to Cloutsham Farm Track/path

263

Trackway running along valley bottom of Aller Combe

89354237

115724

EW

24

Earthwork

Low bank & ditch going upslope beyond wood edge SW-facing slope of Aller Combe

89534215-89074243 115725

EW

25

89124293

115726

EW

26

Leat/water mngment Leat running from head of Aller Combe to Sweetworthy enclosure Quarry Quarry scoops upslope of road to Cloutsham Farm

89374302-89524306 115729

EW

29

Boundary/Agric Walled and banked meadow in East Water valley, known as Allercombe Meadow"

89294298-89154252 115732

EW

32

Boundary

Enc. wall & ditch, rt bank Aller Combe, upslope to Sweetworthy enc.(continues 733)

89274301-89304312 115733

EW

33

Boundary

Boundary wall and bank from East Water valley to Cloutsham Farm

88754270-88854276 115734

EW

34

Boundary

Field bank & wall along contour above wood edge, Allercombe and Sweetworthy enc.

88854276-89104265 115735

EW

35

Boundary

89124250

115736

EW

36

89074286

115737

EW

37

88944278

115738

EW

38

88724279-88784273 115739

EW

39

Track/path

88444247-88454220 115741

EW

41

88474267

115742

EW

42

Leat/water mngment Leat from top of combe to stone-lined header pond at woodland edge, left bank of Sweetworthy Combe Earthwork cairn ?Field clearance cairn at woodland edge, Nfacing slope of East Water at Bagley"

88144263-88124253 115743

EW

43

88154261

115744

EW

44

Stone and earth linear bank in field above woodland, Bagley Combe Leat/water mngment Leat or narrow track following contour above woodland, Bagley Combe

89604350-89834382 115745

EW

45

Track/path

Wide trackway with shallow gradient connecting charcoal platforms, Cloutsham Ball

89724387-89714402 115747

EW

47

Track/path

882425

115748

EW

48

Boundary

Revetted trackway with shallow gradient, Nfacing slope, Cloutsham Ball Previously unrecorded boundary banks and walls at Bagley deserted farmstead

87524470-87604459 115749

SW

1

Track/path

87884403

115751

SW

3

Uncertain

87954407-88004416 115752

SW

4

Boundary

Field bank(?), western extension of 734? In woodland and pasture above Allercombe Earthwork Low circular earthwork feature on moorland SE of Sweetworthy enclosure Uncertain Short dug trench with downslope spoil on lower N-facing slope of Allercombe Wood Earthwork cairn Stony cairn on N-facing slope of Allercombe Wood Sunken trackway climbing NW-facing slope of Sweetworthy Combe

Earthwork

264

Trackway, ?former road, Pool Bridge upslope to woodland edge at Pool Combe Recent hedge clearance cairn on wood edge, SE facing slope of Wilmersham Wood Former wood boundary with bank & tree-line,

top of E-facing slope, Wilmersham Wd Former woodland boundary marked by earth bank, N-facing slope of Pool Combe Stone-revetted river bank, Stoke Pero river close to confluence with Horner Field boundary + entrance, Black Cleeve at confluence of Horner Water and Stoke Pero river Low earth bank on woodland edge, NE end of Bagley Wood, Stoke Pero Low bank along lower slope of Parsons Wood, Stoke Pero

87654436

115753

SW

5

Boundary

88254405

115754

SW

6

Structure

88254405

115756

SW

8

Boundary

87474327

115758

SW

10

Boundary

87394335

115759

SW

11

Boundary

87324313-87404332 115760

SW

12

Leat/water mngment Leat along lower slope of northern end of Bagley Wood, Stoke Pero

87374315-87464329 115763

SW

15

Boundary

Former wood boundary, bank & tree-line (like 752), top of W-facing slope, Bagley Wd

87384312-87474329 115764

SW

16

Agricultural

87714378

115767

SW

19

Slag deposit

87604371

115768

SW

20

Findspot

87884402

115769

SW

21

Findspot

87254305

115771

SW

23

Uncertain

87234306

115772

SW

24

Uncertain

Ridge & furrow along contour above wood edge (763) Bagley Wood, Stoke Pero Dispersed scatter of iron smelting slag on wood edge path below Wilmersham Farm Smithing hearth slag on woodland edge path below Wilmersham Farm and NE of 767 Frag. iron ore (poss roasted), upper slope of SW-facing slope, Wilmersham Wood Rubble spread on level area above river (poss. structure) assoc with 772, Bagley Wd Rubble spread and low bank adj to river (poss structure) assoc with 771, Old Wood

87004250-87454308 115773

SW

25

Leat/water mngment Long leat (700m) frm Lang Combe along edge of Bagley Wd to fields S of Stoke Pero

87254307-87304314 115774

SW

26

Structure/Agric Small enclosure and assoc rectangular rubble structures in valley bottom, Old Wood

87134302-87254325 115775

SW

27

Boundary

Former wood boundary, low earth bank like 752 top of SE facing slope of Old Wood

88014361-88154365 115778

SW

30

Track/path

Wide trackway along woodland edge, E of Stoke Pero lane

88324377-88574355 115779

SW

31

Track/path

88504368

115780

SW

32

88424390

115782

SW

34

88354402

115785

SW

37

88104394

115787

SW

39

87974387

115788

SW

40

87354333

115790

SW

42

Path with bank and tree-line marking woodland edge N-facing slope, Stoke Wood Boundary Former wood boundary, line of coppices upslope of N-facing wood edge, Stoke Wood Uncertain Narrow sunken path/drainage gully down steep, mid N-facing slope of Stoke Wood Track/path Track above RB of Horner Water & Stoke Pero river, NW-facing slope of Stoke Wood Charcoal deposit Charcoal deposit on floodplain, RB of Stoke Pero river Charcoal deposit Charcoal deposit and rubble scatter around cleared 'floor', RB of Stoke Pero river Boundary Bank along base of SE-facing slope of Old Wood at Stoke Bridge

265

87264332-87344333 115791

SW

43

Boundary

87304342

115792

SW

44

Boundary

87134470-87504470 115793

SW

45

Track/path

86954447

115794

SW

46

87054480-87154480 115795

SW

47

Boundary

87704469

115797

HW

2

Quarry

87504472-87604483 115798

HW

3

Boundary

87554472

115799

HW

4

Uncertain

88904382-88974419 115802

HW

7

88844418

115804

HW

9

Woodld feature 8m-wide (fire)break, valley bottom to woodland edge, S-facing slope, Rowbarrow Earthwork cairn Small ?clearance cairn on woodland edge, Sfacing slope, Rowbarrow

88844418-88954418 115805

HW

10

Woodld feature Line ?planted coppice marking wood edge crossing 804, S-facing slope of Rowbarrow

89614389-89354402 115807

HW

12

Boundary

?Boundary ditch running from valley bottom to upper SE-facing slope of Horner Wood

89594386-89524386 115808

HW

13

Boundary

?Boundary ditch (like 807) from valley bottom to mid- SE-facing slope of Horner Wd

89354382-89204367 115812

HW

17

Track/path

Revetted trackway with gentle gradient, lower S-facing slope of Horner Wood, East of Goss's Rocks

89074385-89054375 115813

HW

18

Boundary

89524511

HW02 1

89544484 89544484

HW02 2 HW02 3

88864431 89074460

HW02 10 HW02 11

89714547

HW02 12

Bank running up S-facing slope of Old Wood near Stoke Bridge Field banks running up SE-facing slope of Old Wood near Stoke Bridge

Wide terraced track lined with trees from Pool Bridge to wood edge E of Little Combe Structure/Agric Three+ platforms and assoc. blding rubble of rec.abandnd farm, head of Little Combe Low wall on edge of floodplain, RB Horner Water near confluence with Little Combe Small quarry scoop beside road from Pool Bridge to Ley Hill Bank and wall from Pool Bridge to woodland edge at E end of Whitburrow Wood Large rectangular ?marker stone beside road from Pool Bridge to Ley Hill

?Boundary ditch running upslope from valley bottom, lower S-facing slope, West of Goss's Rocks Agricultural Banked enclosure at eastern end of Rey Combe Industrial Quarry close to track next to Horner Water Track/path Path 7m downslope of quarry close to Horner Water Boundary Bank on wood edge at Horner Gate Woodland featureAlignment of trees (double row) set at angle to low bank Agricultural Banked (?incomplete) enclosure, walled in part, close to path next to Horner Water

266

Appendix IX Tree SurveyDocumentation

267

InstructionsforTreeSurvey M akesurethatyouhave: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi ) vi i )

asupplyofrecordsheets achartoftreetypes aclipboard awaterproofwallet pencils asmal lt apemeasure al arget apemeasure

Youwillbeworkinginagridsquare.Ineachsquareyouwillcounttreesandrecord information,usingonesheetpergridsquare(plusanycontinuationsheets)inthe followingway: 1. M akesureyouknow whatyourgridsquarenumberis.M arkitontherecord sheet,alongwithyournameandthedate. 2. Foreachtree: i) decidewhatthetreenumberis(thefirsttreeyoulookatineachgridsquare willbetree1,thesecondwillbetree2 andsoon) ii)markitsposition(withacross)onthegraphpapersheetattachedtothe recordsheet,whichshowsthegridsquare iii)writethetreenumbernexttothecrossonthegraphpaper iv)turnbacktotherecordsheetanddeci det het reeTYPE –uset hel ami nat ed chartshowingthedifferenttypes v) recordthetype,usingthenumbersshownonthelaminatedcharte. g.if thetreeisacoppicestool,itstypeis3 vi)recordthespecies–itwillprobablybeoak vii)lookattheform ofthetrunkandbranches–recordthem asSforstraight orT fortwistedintheappropriatecolumns viii)measurethegirthofthetrunk(atchestheight)orstool(justabovethe swelloftheroots) incentimetresandrecordintherelevantcolumn ix)ifthetreeisacoppice,countcompleteandcutshootsandmeasurethe girthofthelargestshoot(whethercompleteorcut)andrecordintherelevant columns x)i ft het reei sapol l ard,measureandrecordtheheighttothebolling xi)addanyotherinformation–suchaslumpygroundsurface, natureofothervegetation. W orkalongthegridsquareinasystematicmanner,sothatyouavoidmissingtrees orcountingthem twice.

268

1, 1 3, 1 3, 2 3, 3 3, 4 4, 1 6, 1 6, 2 7, 1 7, 2 7, 3 8, 1 8, 2 9, 1 9, 2 9, 3 9, 4 9, 5 10, 1 11, 1 11, 2 11, 3 11, 4 12, 1 12, 2 12, 3 12, 4 12, 5 12, 6 12, 7 12, 8 12, 9 13, 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 3 3 3 3 4 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13

TreeID Grid sq.

Area

1 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

Tree no.

4 3 1 3 4 6 6 3 2 1 1 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 2 3 3 1 4 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 3

Type

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Bi rch Oak

Oak

Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak

Oak

Oak

Spec.

310. 00 130. 00 320. 00 130. 00 230. 00 210. 00 230. 00 70. 00 82. 00 210. 00 280. 00 190. 00 180. 00 95. 00 154. 00 155. 00 120. 00 274. 00 105. 00 202. 00 140. 00 130. 00 260. 00 170. 00 435. 00 285. 00 420. 00 125. 00 103. 00 165. 00 155. 00 95. 00 130. 00 S T

T T S S T

S S S S S

T

T

T T T

S T T

T

T

S T

S

S

S S S S

S S T

S

S

4 2 4 2 12

0 82. 00 1 200. 00 3 115. 00 3 0

269

5

2 4 4

145. 00 3 80. 00 3 100. 00 2

50. 00

0

103. 00 2

130. 00 1

5

0

153. 00 4

172. 00 2

95. 00

130. 00

170. 00

Notes

M osscovered-di ffi cul tt omeasureanyt hi ng.

Hast wo' pol es'bot h120cm i ngi rt h

Girth of Trunk Branch Girth of Number Number Height to trunk form form l argest compl ete cut bol l ing (cm) pol e pol es pol es (cm)

Appendix X Tree surveydata

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

13,2 13,3 13,4 13,5 13,6 13,7 13,8 13,9 14,1 14,2 14,3 14,4 14,5 14,6 14,7 14,8 14,9 14,10 14,11 14,12 14,13 14,14 14,15 14,16 14,17 15,1 15,2 15,3 15,4 15,5 15,6 15,7 16,1 16,2 16,3 16,4 16,5 16,6 16,7 16,8 16,9

13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 6 1 3 1 7 2 7 1 6 7 3 7 1 6 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 Oak Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

Oak

120.00 170.00 117.00 220.00 275.00 130.00 100.00 240.00 70.00 270.00 220.00 220.00 210.00 85.00 65.00 120.00 180.00 220.00 155.00 60.00

240.00 60.00 140.00 260.00 240.00 130.00 80.00 55.00 217.00 120.00 270.00 111.00 250.00 73.00 96.00 85.00 160.00 120.00 64.00 100.00 S

S S

S T

T S S

S T S S

T T T

T T T T

S T

S

S S S

S S S S S

S S S T

S T S

T

S S S

S

2 2 2 1

97.00 30.00 95.00 38.00

1

2

4 2 1 3

270

70.00 2 70.00 1 115.00 2

100.00 100.00 80.00 80.00

38.00 1 147.00 2 100.00 3 60.00 70.00 70.00

38.00

85.00

1

2 2 2

2

140.00 35.00 110.00 90.00 155.00 80.00 55.00 55.00 91.00

2 1 2

1 3

2 4 3 1 2 0

0

0

0 2 2

1 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 5

Rotten

Rotten Rotten Rotten

Fallen tree/ rotted stool As tree 3 Very rotten

Just small stump - impossible to get much info. Fallen stump Just small stump - impossible to get much info.

Fallen - 2 complete poles, 1 broken. Ivy from about 2.5 m up. Small stump Small stump Small stump

Ivy from about 2m up.

16,10 17,1 17,2 17,3 17,4 17,5 17,6 17,7 17,8 18,1 18,2 18,3 18,4 18,5 19,1 19,2 19,3 20,1 20,2 20,3 20,4 21,1 21,2 22,1 23,1 23,2 24,1 25,1 26,1 26,2 27,1

28,1 29,1 29,2 30,1 31,1 31,2 32,1 32,2 33,1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

28 29 29 30 31 31 32 32 33

16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 26 27

1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

1 6 6 6 1 1 6 6 1

1 1 1 1 1 7 1 6 7 3 1 1 3 3 6 1 7 1 3 5 6 4 7 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 7

Oak Oak Oak Oak Thorn Holly Oak Oak

Oak Thorn Thorn Oak Thorn Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak

Oak

Oak Oak

Oak Oak

Oak Oak

Oak

Oak Oak Oak

330.00 140.00 280.00 260.00 195.00 410.00 135.00 190.00 190.00

300.00 205.00 180.00 190.00 160.00 170.00 255.00 90.00 45.00 248.00 40.00 300.00 185.00 110.00

200.00 290.00 220.00 160.00 180.00 130.00 270.00 135.00 60.00 79.00 163.00 266.00 200.00 150.00 220.00 180.00

S S S S T T T S T

T T S S S S T

T S T

S

S T

S S

T S

T S T S S

T T T S T S T T T

T T S T S T T

S S T

S

T T

T T

T T

T T T T T

271

0

97.00

2

0 0 3

1

2 110.00 2 70.00 2

195.00 2

2

3

120.00 2 140.00 5

3

0

3

4

0 0

4

3 3 2 3 0

153.00 2 0 110.00 3

100.00 3

25.00 1 85.00 2 102.00 4 0 40.00 1

3 3 2 2 2 1 100.00 3

140.00 150.00 130.00 80.00 90.00

240.00

Could be another 2-pole ?coppice, as 2 main branches. A 2 pole coppice.

This stump is on edge of a platform with large standard in adjacent square 6 Cut pole is doubtful:one of the odd 2-pole 'coppice' On edge of bank. On edge of bank. Has ?galls - could be pollard? Like tree 1 in square 28, a 2-pole ?coppice Another 2-pole ?coppice Could be separate trees growing together

Ivy at 2m Ivy at 1.8m

Rotten and fallen

Rotten and fallen

Old infilled badger sets in this square

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

33,2 34,1 34,2 34,3 34,4 34,5 34,6 35,1 35,2 36,1 36,2 36,3 36,4 36,5 36,6 37,1 37,2 37,3 37,4 37,5 37,6 38,1 38,2 38,3 38,4 38,5 38,6 38,7 38,8 39,1 39,2 39,3 39,4 39,5 39,6 39,7 39,8 39,9 39,10 39,11 40,1

33 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 40

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1

6 2 1 5 2 1 1 6 7 2 2 1 2 6 5 1 1 1 3 7 7 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 7 3 1 4 3 2 Oak

Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

120.00 70.00 260.00 250.00 100.00 180.00 220.00 300.00 140.00 100.00 200.00 200.00 410.00 90.00 170.00 180.00 400.00 250.00 100.00 90.00 80.00 80.00 200.00 160.00 210.00 280.00 210.00 250.00 310.00 140.00 110.00 170.00 270.00 130.00 120.00 80.00 95.00 260.00 200.00 210.00 165.00 T T

S T T T T S

S

S S

T T

T S

T

T T

T T T

T

T T T T

T T S S

T S T T T T T T

T

T T T S S

T T S

T T S T T T S S

2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2

2 3 4 2

272

100.00

170.00 3 110.00

80.00 120.00 140.00 100.00 80.00 30.00 70.00 80.00 80.00 60.00 70.00

95.00 98.00 110.00 117.00

1 1 2 5

3 0 3 3

1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2

3 2 1 0 2

3 2 1

1 1

90.00 2 140.00 2

70.00 105.00 55.00 150.00

0 4

120.00 3 150.00 3

50.00

65.00

40.00

Rotten Could be singled stub pollard - ht to bolling 70cm

Fallen tree with 2 broken poles.

Rotten - demolished when 4 fell.

Girth is of trunk, not stool. Stool is 215cm girth. Buried, cannot see poles. Collapsed stool Fallen/collpased - has badger set underneath it.

Impossible girth Fallen tree - could be a standard or singled coppice.

2 pole coppice 2 pole coppice

40,2 40,3 40,4 40,5 40,6 40,7 40,8 40,9 40,10 41,1 41,2 41,3 41,4 41,5 41,6 41,7 41,8 41,9 42,1 42,2 42,3 42,4 42,5 42,6 42,7 42,8 42,9 42,10 42,11 100,1 100,2

100,3 100,4 100,5 100,6 100,7 100,8 100,9 100,10 100,11

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 100 100

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2

3 4 6 6 6 7 6 7 6

1 3 2 1 2 7 2 2 6 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 7 2 7 2 1 7 7 1 2 6 4 7 6 1 220.00 Field maple Oak 140.00 Thorn 60.00 Oak 145.00 270.00 Thorn 70.00 75.00 Thorn 50.00

230.00 300.00 Oak 160.00 Oak 300.00 Oak 250.00 150.00 50.00 Oak 50.00 Oak 78.00 Oak 150.00 Oak 115.00 130.00 Oak 150.00 Oak 230.00 Oak 210.00 Oak 150.00 140.00 Oak 90.00 Oak 95.00 145.00 Oak 160.00 Oak 180.00 140.00 80.00 Oak 215.00 Oak 80.00 Oak 35.00 Oak 210.00 65.00 Hazel/birch Hazel 215.00

Oak

T T T T S T

S S T S 60.00 S

T

T

T S

S

T T

S T

T

T T T T

S

T T T T

T S S S T S S S T

T T S T

T T T

T S T

180.00 S S S

T

T

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

T

273

S 90.00

70.00

10

3 1

110.00 1 70.00 3

80.00 100.00 70.00 70.00 105.00 90.00 85.00

115.00 3 90.00

100.00 2

0

0

2 2

0 0 1 2 0 2 3 4 0

4

1

Very large stool

This tree has a prop holding up branches sign of orchard-like practice. Impossible to see poles. 170.00 Looks like pollard - on edge of track

Fallen tree - could be type 2. 155.00 Could be standard

Could be singled stub pollard. Fallen tree.

Fallen tree.

Could be singled stub pollard

Very rotten, moss covered

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

100,12 100,13 100,14 100,15 100,16 100,17 100,18 100,19 100,20 1,1 1,2 2,1 2,2 2,3 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,7 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 6,1 6,2 6,3 6,4 7,1 7,2 7,3

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 6 6 2 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 6 2 6 6 6 2 2 1 1 6 1 6 2 2 2 6 1 6 3 1 2 6 6

25.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 35.00 30.00 85.00 35.00 170.00 200.00 18.00 294.00 Birch 105.00 Hazel 120.00 Birch 170.00 Hazel 100.00 Hazel 75.00 Hazel 65.00 Birch 194.00 Hazel 70.00 Oak 180.00 Hazel 22.00 Oak 88.00 Hazel 60.00 Hazel 50.00 Hazel 88.00 Hazel 55.00 Oak 170.00 Hazel 70.00 Oak 270.00 Birch 100.00 Birch 100.00 Birch 110.00 Oak 160.00 Hazel 132.00 Hazel 62.00 Hazel 68.00 Hazel 102.00 Oak 330.00 Hawthorn Hawthorn

Thorn Thorn Thorn Thorn Thorn Thorn Thorn Thorn Oak Oak Hazel

T T T T T T T T S T S S S S T T S S S S S S S S S S S T S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S T T S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 20.00 20.00

1

1 3 2 3 1 1 1 4

22.00 23.00 17.00 18.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

274

60.00 1 82.00 12 190.00 1 S S

2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1

2

42.00 15.00 94.00 22.00 23.00 15.00 110.00 32.00

80.00

2 2 1

0

3 2 2

0

0 0 0

0.00

0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

0

Impossible to tell species

In the field hedge bank.

Fallen tree - branch has rooted?

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

7,4 7,5 7,6 7,7 7,8 8,1 8,2 8,3 9,1 9,2 9,3 9,4 10,1 10,2 10,3 10,4 10,5 10,6 10,7 11,1 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,5 11,6 11,7 1,1 1,2 1,3 2,1 2,2 2,3 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 4,1 4,2 4,3

7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4

4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

6 6 2 2 7 1 1 6 1 6 7 1 3 1 7 3 6 2 1 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 6 5 6 3 7 7 7 6 7 7

Blackthorn Hawthorn Hazel 48.00 Hazel 75.00 115.00 Hazel 145.00 Hazel 160.00 Oak 52.00 Hazel 140.00 Hazel 45.00 110.00 Hazel 190.00 136.00 Oak 278.00 140.00 136.00 Oak 193.00 Oak 200.00 Hazel 65.00 Oak 260.00 Oak 92.00 Hazel 25.00 230.00 Holly 18.00 Oak 60.00 Oak 85.00 Oak 278.00 Oak 60.00 Oak 180.00 Oak 60.00 Oak 73.00 Oak 240.00 Oak 240.00 Oak 130.00 Oak 180.00 Oak 110.00 Oak 150.00 Oak 95.00 Oak 150.00 Oak 80.00 Oak 80.00

S S S S S S S S S T

S T S T T T T S S T S

S S T

S

18.00 12.00 S S S T S S S S T

S T S T T T T T S S S S

S S S

S

275

90.00

110.00 2

210.00 1 18.00 2

2

2

1 0

2

0

50.00

3

0 1

0 0

0 4 0

3

5 3

1 1

65.00 3 30.00 0 120.00 2

55.00

48.00 48.00

S S 15.00 26.00

90.00

5.00

Looks fallen, not cut. Could be 2 pole coppice.

Doubtful pollard - could be natural.

Could be coppice with growth.

Fallen.

Could be stool - but moss covered

Moss covered - impossible to see details.

Recently lopped

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4,4 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6 5,7 6,1 6,2 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,8 6,9 6,10 6,11 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,7 7,8 7,9

4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7 7 7 6 6 7 6 7 6 6 7 3 2 6 2 1 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 2 6 7 6

Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak Oak

90.00 110.00 80.00 100.00 300.00 40.00 110.00 70.00 140.00 180.00 120.00 110.00 95.00 85.00 70.00 280.00 205.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 120.00 70.00 70.00 135.00 80.00 50.00 95.00 140.00 Divided trunk - could be 2 pole coppice? Divided trunk - could be 2 pole coppice?

T

T

T

S S S

276

80.00

1

0

2 0

70.00 1 105.00 2

T

2 0

1

S S S T

S S S T

50.00 95.00

T S

T S

Tree with sucker (looked like coppcie or even 2 trees)

Could be a root. Very rotted - could be a root, not stump.

Could be natural, not coppiced, divided trunk (as ors?)

Trunk splits into 2.

Very decayed.

S

S

On edge of path Very decayed - could have been much bigger.

T T

T S

BIBLIOGRAPHY Published primary sources Beaulieu Buckland Cart FA Cart PB Coroner1315 Defoe DomesdayD DomesdayS Donn1765 EngNat FFDev1 FFDev2 FFSom1 FFSom2 FFSom3 FFSom4 Husbandry Kirby Lacy1420 LaySub1327 MVB Nomina OEDXII PostDissD SomPleas1 Trent TudorSub VCHSom Walt er West cot e

Account Book of Beaulieu Abbey Cartulary of BucklandPriory Cartulary of Forde Abbey Cartulariesof St.Peter’sPriory,Bath Coroner’sRoll 1315-1321 Defoe’sBritishTour Domesday Book (Devon) Domesday Book (Somerset) Donn’sM apof Devon 1765 EnglishNature’smapof ancient woodland Feet of FinesforDevon (1196-1272) Feet of FinesforDevon (1272-1369) Feet of FinesforSomerset (1196-1307) Feet of FinesforSomerset (1307-1326) Feet of FinesforSomerset (1347-1399) Feet of FinesforSomerset (1399-1460) Husbandry 1280-1300 Kirby’sQuest 1286 Registerof EdmundLacy 1420-1455 ExchequerLay Subsidy of 1327 Recordsof M erchant Venturersof Bristol Nomina Villarum1315-16 OxfordEnglishDictionary Particularsof Grantsin Devon by the Augmentation Office Somersetshire Pleas Trent’sDescription of Somerset 1633 Somerset Subsidiesof 1558& 1581 Victoria History of Somerset W alterof Henley 1276-85 W estcote’sView of Devon 1630

(Hockey 1975) (W eaver1909) (Hobbs1998) (Hunt 1893) (Stevens1985) (Defoe 1724) (M orris1985) (Thorn & Thorn 1980) (Ravenhill 1965) (EnglishNature 2003) (Reichel 1912) (Reichel etal.1939) (Green 1892) (Green 1898) (Green 1902) (Green 1906) (Oshchinsky 1971) (Dickinson 1889b) (Dunstan 1968) (Dickinson 1889a) (M cGrath1952) (Dickinson 1889c) (Simpson & W einer1989) (Youings1955) (Chadwyck Healey 1897) (Bates1900) (W ebb 2002) (Page 1911) (Oshchinsky 1971) (Oliver& Jones1845)

Cartographic sources M apof Bremridge W ood(1672) DRO 1262M /E4/1,(Ravenhill & Rowe 2002a,2002b) Donn’sM apof Devon (1765) (Ravenhill 1965) Day & M asters’mapof Somerset (1782) (Harley & Dunning1981) M apsof Earl Lovelace’sestate (1741-1840) SRO DD/CCH/3/3 AlexanderLaw’smapof the Holnicote estate (1809) DRO 1148m/ add The Greenwoods’maps: Somerset (1822) DRO 316M / EM 12-17,(Harley & Dunning1981) Devon (1827) University of ExeterLibrary Rare Books Collection

FirstEditionOrdnance Survey atthe scale of1inch:1mile (1809): Devon andSomerset Sheets74,75,82,83.

(Harley & O’Donoghue 1977)

277

First Edition Ordnance Survey at the scale of 6 inches: 1 mile (1888-91): Somerset sheets XXIISE, XXIISW, XXXIISE, XXXIIISW, XXXIIISE, XXXIIINE, XXXIIINW, XXXIV NW, XXXIV SW, XXXIV NE, XXXIV SE, XXXV NW & NE, XXXV SW, XLIV SE, XLIV NE, XLV NW, XLV SE, XLV NE, XLV SW, XLVISW, XLVISE, XLVINE, XLVINW, XLVIINW, XLVIISW, LVINW, LVISE, LVI NE, LVIISW, LVIINW, LVIISE, LVIINE, LXVIINE, LXVIISW, LXVIISE, LXVIINW. Devon sheets ISE, IISW, IISE, IIINW & NE, IIISE, IIISW, V NE, V SE, VISE, VINE, VINW, VISW, VIISE, VIISW, VIINW, VIINE, IX NE, X NW, X NE, X SE, X SW, XISW, XINW, XISE, XIV NE, XIV NW, XIV SE, XIV SW, XV NE, XV SE, XV SW, XV NW, XVISW, XVINW, XVISE, XXIIINE.

Tithe maps and apportionment awards: SRO Culbone (1838), Dulverton (1839), Stoke Pero (1839), Luccombe (1840), Porlock (1841) DRO High Bray (1838), North Molton (1840), South Molton (1846)

M odern Ordnance Survey maps: Explorer OL9 (1995, 2002) (1:25,000) Travel Map Road 7 (2003) (1:250,000) Sheet 127 (1997) (1:25,000) Explorer 114 (1997) (1:25,000) SS 73 NW (1973) (1:10,000) SS 84 NE, 84 SE (1973) (1:10,000) Soils of South West England (1983) (1:250,000)

Geological Survey: Sheet 294 (1997) (1:50,000), Sheet 278 (1997) (1:50,000), Sheet 293 (1982) (1:50,000)

278

Secondary sources Aldred, O. 2001: Somerset and Exmoor National Park Historic Landscape Characterisation Proj ect 1999-2000. Somerset County Council, Taunton.

Atkinson, M. 1997: Exmoor’s Industrial Archaeology, Exmoor Books, Dulverton. Bailey, T. C. and Gatrell, A. C. 1994: Interactive Spatial Data Analysis. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.

Alexander, K. 2003: Ancient trees in cultural landscapes – their importance as hosts to relict old forest species, in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts,Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 45.

Bates, E. H. (ed.) 1899: Two Cartularies of the Benedictine Abbeys of Muchelney and Athelney in the County of Somerset. Somerset Record Society Volume XIV, London.

Allan, J. and Langman, G. 2002: A Group of Medieval Pottery from Haycroft Farm, Membury, Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society 60, 59-73.

Bates, E. H. (ed.) 1900: Thomas Gerard of Trent 1633: The Particular Description of Somerset. Somerset Record Society, Volume XV, London.

Archbold, W. A. J. 1892: The Somerset Religious Houses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bechmann, R. 1990: Trees and Man:The Forest in the Middle Ages. Paragon House, New York (translated by K.Durham).

Arguin, M. and Saumier, D. 2000: Conjunction and linear non-separability effects in visual shape coding, Vision Research 40, 3099-3115.

Bell, M. and Limbrey, S. (eds.) 1982: Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Armstrong, L. 1978: Woodcolliers and Charcoal Burning. Coach Publishing House Limited and The Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, Sussex.

Beresford, M. 1954: The Lost Villages of England. Lutterworth Press, London.

Ashford, P. J. 1984: The Structure of Land Ownership and Occupation in the Vale of Porlock (Somerset) 1760-1850. Unpublished B. Phil. dissertation, Open University. Ashford, P. J. 2003: The ‘port’ of Porlock Weir, Somerset 1540-1837. Unpublished.

Beresford, M. W. 1964: Dispersed and Grouped Settlement in Medieval Cornwall, Agricultural History Review 12, 13-27. Beresford, M. and Hurst, J. 1971: Deserted Medieval Villages. Lutterworth Press, Woking.

Ashford, P. J. 2004: Woodland Management and the Woodland Product Trade around Porlock, Exmoor Review 45, 49-53.

Bernard, V. 1998: L’Homme,le Bois et la Forêt dans la France du Nord entre le Mésolithique et le Haut Moyen-Age. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Astill, G. 1988: Rural Settlement: the Toft and the Croft, in G. Astill and A. Grant (eds.), The Countryside of Medieval England, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 36-61.

Berry, N. 1995: Horner Wood 1995:An Archaeological Survey of Stoke Wood and Ten Acre Cleeve, prepared for the National Trust (Holnicote Estate Office).

Aston, M. 1983: Deserted Farmsteads on Exmoor and the Lay Subsidy of 1327 in West Somerset, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 127, 71-104.

Berry, N. undated: An evaluation of the potential of landscape archaeology in the Parish of Selworthy,West Somerset. Unpublished report held on Somerset SMR file.

Aston, M. 2000: Monasteries in the Landscape. Tempus Publishing, Stroud.

Berryman, R. D. 1998: Use of the Woodlands in the Late Anglo-Saxon Period. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

Atherden, M. 1999: Introduction, in M. A. Atherden and R. A. Butlin (eds.), Woodland in the Landscape: Past and Future Perspectives, Leeds University Press, Leeds, 1-8.

Billingsley, J. 1798: A General View of the Agriculture of Somerset. R. Crutwell, Bath.

279

Binding, H. 1995: Some Aspects of Exmoor’s Recent Economic History, in H. Binding (ed.), The Changing Face of Exmoor, Exmoor Books, Tiverton, 59-67.

Camden, W. 1610: Britannia. Bishop & Norton, London. Cameron, K. 1961: English Place Names. Batsford, London.

Bintliff, J. 1999: Settlement and territory, in G. Barker (ed.), The Companion Encyclopaedia of Archaeology, Routledge, London, 505-545.

B. T.

Campbell, B. M. S. 1995: Ecology Versus Economics in Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Century English Agriculture, in D. Sweeney (ed.), Agriculture in the Middle Ages, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 76-108.

Bintliff, J. and Sbonias, K. (eds.) 1999: Reconstructing past population trends in Mediterranean Europe (3000 B.C. – A. D. 1800). Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Campbell, B. M. S. 2000: English Seigneurial Agriculture 1250-1450. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Birrell, J. 1987: Common rights in the medieval forest: disputes and conflicts in the thirteenth century, Past and Present 117, 22-49.

Cannon, J. (ed.) 2002: The Oxford Companion to British History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Birrell, J. 1996: Peasant deer poachers in the medieval forest, in R. Britnell and J. Hatcher (eds.), Progress and problems in medieval England, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 68-88.

Cantor, L. 1982: The English Medieval Landscape. Croom Helm Limited, London. Cantor, L. 1983: The Medieval Parks of England: a Gazetteer. Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough.

Blanchard, I. S. W. 1981: Lead mining and smelting in medieval England and Wales, in D. Crossley (ed.), Medieval Industry, Council for British Archaeology, London, 72-84.

Chadwyck Healey, C. E. (ed.) 1897: Somersetshire Pleas from the Rolls of the Itinerant Justices. Somerset Record Society, Volume II.

Bond, J. 1994: Forests, Chases, Warrens and Parks in Medieval Wessex, in M. Aston and C. Lewis (eds.), The Medieval Landscape of Wessex, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 115-158.

Chadwyck Healey, C. E. H. 1901: The History of the part of West Somerset comprising the parishes of West Luccombe, Selworthy, Stoke Pero, Porlock, Culbone and Oare. Henry Sotheran & Company, London.

Bond, J. 2003: Monastic Landscapes. Tempus, Stroud. Bowden, M. (ed.) 2000: Furness Iron. English Heritage, Swindon.

Chenery, S., Phillips, E. and Hagerty, G. 2001: An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish red ware pottery, Medieval Ceramics 25, 45-53.

Bradley, A. G. 1926: Exmoor Memories. Methuen & Co., London. Britnell, R. H. 1996: The Commercialisation of English Society 1000-1500. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Cherry, J. 1991a: Pottery and Tile, in J. Blair and N. Ramsey (eds.), English MedievalIndustries: Craftsmen, Techniques and Products, The Hambledon Press, London, 189-209.

Broad, J. and Hoyle, R. 1997: Bernwood: the Life and Afterlife of a Forest. University of Central Lancashire, Preston.

Cherry, J. 1991b: Leather, in J. Blair and N. Ramsey (eds.), English MedievalIndustries: Craftsmen, Techniques and Products, The Hambledon Press, London, 295-318.

Brunning, R. 2000: Wood as an archaeological resource: the Severn Estuary evidence, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 11, 175-185.

Clarkson, L. A. 1966: The Leather Crafts in Tudor and Stuart England, Agricultural History Review 14, 25-39.

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. 2001: Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows. Routledge, Hove, East Sussex.

Clarkson, L. A. 1974: The English Bark Trade, Agricultural History Review 22, 136-152.

Burton, S. H. 1952: Exmoor. Westaway, London.

280

Cleere, H. and Crossley, D. 1985: The Iron Industry of the Weald. Leicester University Press, Avon.

Crossley, D. 1994: The Wealden Glass Industry Revisited, Industrial Archaeology Review 17, 6474.

Coleman-Smith, R. and Pearson, T. 1988: Excavations in the Donyatt Potteries. Phillimore & Co., Chichester.

Curtis, L. F. 1971: Soils of Exmoor Forest. The Soil Survey, Harpenden.

Collins, R. and Gerrard, J. (eds.) 2004: Debating Late Antiquity in Britain AD 300-700. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

Curtis, L. F., Courtney, F. M. and Trudgill, S. T. 1976: Soils in the British Isles. Longman Group, London.

Collinson, J. 1791: The History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset. Cruttwell, Bath.

Darby, H. C. and Welldon Finn, R. (eds.) 1967: The Domesday Geography of South-West England. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Corcos, N. 2002: The Affinities and Antecedents of Medieval Settlement. BAR Publishing, Oxford.

Dark, P. 2000: The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium A.D.. Gerald Duckworth & Co., London.

Costen, M. 1988: The Late Saxon Landscape, in M. Aston (ed.), Aspects of the Medieval Landscape in Somerset, Somerset County Council, Bridgwater, 33-48.

Davies-Shiel, M. 1973: A little known late medieval industry, Part I. The making of potash for soap in Lakeland, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 72, 85-111.

Costen, M. 1992a: The Origins of Somerset. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Costen, M. 1992b: Dunstan, Glastonbury and the Economy of Somerset in the Tenth Century, in N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (eds.), St. Dunstan: His Life, Times and Cult, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 25-44.

Dawkins, R. 1986: The Blind Watchmaker. Group, London.

Costen, M. 1994: Settlement in Wessex in the Tenth Century: the Charter Evidence, in M. Aston and C. Lewis (eds.), The Medieval Landscape of Wessex, Oxbow, Oxford, 97-107.

Deacon, R. T. 1999: Deforestation and Ownership: Evidence from Historical Accounts and Contemporary Data, Land Economics 75, 341359.

Crabtree, K. and Maltby, E. 1975: Soil and Land Use Change on Exmoor, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 119, 38-43.

Defoe, D. 1724: A Tour Thro’ the whole island of Great Britain. Published in 1927, Peter Davies, London.

Penguin

De Gray Birch, W. 1902: History of Neath Abbey. John E. Richards, Neath.

Dickinson, F. H. (ed.) 1889a: The Exchequer Lay Subsidy XX Edward III. Somerset Record Society, Volume 3, London, 79-281.

Crockford, K. J. 1987: An Evaluation of British Woodlands for Fuelwood and Timber Production, unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Oxford.

Dickinson, F. H. (ed.) 1889b: Kirby’s Quest. Somerset Record Society, Volume 3, London, 1-52.

Cross, P. 1999: Coppices and Commoners: an Account of Richards Castle Woodlands, Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, Herefordshire 49, 364-378.

Dickinson, F. H. (ed.) 1889c: Nomina Villarum. Somerset Record Society, Volume 3. London, 53-78. Dixon, J. 1980: Carhampton. Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, Taunton. Dobson, D. P. 1931: The Archaeology of Somerset. Methuen, London.

Crossley, D. 1990: Post-Medieval Archaeology in Britain. Leicester University Press, Leicester. Crossley, D. 1993: White Coal and Charcoal in the Woodlands of North Derbyshire and the Sheffield Area, in P.Beswick and I. D. Rotherham (eds.), Ancient Woodlands: Their Archaeology and Ecology, Landscape Conservation Forum, Sheffield, 67.

Donkin, R. A. 1978: The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography of Medieval England and Wales. Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Toronto.

281

Douglas, D. C. 1932: Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds. Oxford University Press, London.

Ekwall, E. 1959: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (Fourth Edition). Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Drury, P. J. 1981: The production of brick and tile in medieval England, in D. Crossley (ed.), Medieval Industry, Council for British Archaeology, London, 126-142.

Ellison, A. 1983: Medieval Villages in South-East Somerset. Western Archaeological Trust (Survey No.6), Bristol. English

Dufraisse, A. 2002: Salt Springs Exploitation in Franche-Comté (France): Contribution of Charcoal, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 667-675.

Nature 2003: nature.org.uk/pubs/gis.

www.english-

Essex, S. 1995: Woodland in the National Park, in H. Binding (ed.), The Changing Face of Exmoor, Exmoor Books, Tiverton, 68-83.

Dunsford, H. M. and Harris, S. J. 2003: Colonization of the Wasteland in County Durham, 1100-1400, Economic History Review LVI, 34-36.

Evans, F. 2003: The Age of Wood, in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 166-175.

Dunstan, G. R. (ed.) 1968: The Register of Edmund Lacy, Bishop of Exeter 1420-1455: Registrum Commune, Volume III. Devon & Cornwall Record Society, Torquay.

Evelyn, J. 1664: Sylva. Published in 1972 by Scolar Press, Menston, Yorks.

Dyer, C. 1980: Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society: The Estates of the Bishopric of Worcester, 680-1540. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Everett, S. 1968: The Domesday Geography of Three Exmoor Parishes, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 112, 54-60.

Dyer, C. 1988: Documentary Evidence: Problems and Enquiries, in G. Astill and A.Grant (eds.), The Countryside of Medieval England, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 12-35.

Everitt, A. 1986: Continuity and Colonisation. Leicester University Press, Leicester. Everitt, A. 2000: Common Land, in J. Thirsk (ed.), The English Rural Landscape, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 210-235.

Dyer, C. 1989: ‘The Retreat from Marginal Land’: the Growth and Decline of Medieval Rural Settlements, in M. Aston, D. Austin and C. Dyer (eds.), The Rural Settlements of Medieval England, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 45-57.

Farmer, D. L. 1991: Marketing the produce of the countryside 1200-1500, in E. Miller (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume III 1348-1500, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 324-430.

Dyer, C. 2000: Woodlands and Wood-Pasture in Western England, in J. Thirsk (ed.), The English Rural Landscape, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 97-121.

The

Farmer, D. L. 1995: Woodland and pasture sales on the Winchester manors in the thirteenth century: disposing of a surplus, or producing for the market? in R. H. Britnell and B. M. S. Campbell (eds.), A commercialising economy: England 1086 to c.1300, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 102-131.

Exmoor.

Field, J. 1972: English Field-Names. David & Charles (Holdings) Limited, London.

Dyer, C. 2003: Making a Living in the Middle Ages. Penguin Books Limited, London. Eardley-Wilmot, H. 1983: Ancient Exmoor. Exmoor Press, Dulverton. Eardley-Wilmot, H. 1990a: Yesterday’s Exmoor Books, Exeter.

Finberg, H. P. R. 1951: Tavistock Abbey: A Study in the Social and Economic History of Devon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Eardley-Wilmot, H. 1990b: New Light on Old Travel Routes: Combwich Causeway and the Harepath, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeological and NaturalHistory Society 134, 187-192.

Finberg, H. P. R. 1952: The open field in Devon, in H. P. R. Finberg and W. G. Hoskins (eds.), Devonshire Studies, Jonathan Cape, London, 15-52.

282

Finberg, H. P. R. 1964: The Early Charters of Wessex. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

Fox, H. S. A. 1991a: The Occupation of the Land: Devon and Cornwall, in E. Miller (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume III 1348-1500, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 152-174.

Finberg, H. P. R. 1969: West-Country Historical Studies. David & Charles, Newton Abbot. Finberg, H. P. R. 1972: The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume I.II A.D. 43 - 1042. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fleming,

Fox, H. S. A. 1991b: Farming Practice and Techniques: Devon and Cornwall, in E. Miller (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume III 1348-1500, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 303-323.

A. 1994: Medieval and Post-Medieval Cultivation on Dartmoor: A Landscape Archaeologist’s View, DevonArchaeological Society Proceedings 52, 101-118.

Fox, H. S. A. 1994: Medieval Dartmoor as Seen Through Its Account Rolls, Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings 52, 149172.

Fleming, A. 1998: Swaledale: Valley of the Wild River. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Fox, H. S. A. 1996: Introduction: Transhumance and Seasonal Settlement, in H. S. A. Fox (ed.), Seasonal Settlement, Fox and others for the University of Leicester Department of Adult Education, Leicester, 1-23.

Fleming, A. 1999: Wood pasture and the woodland economy in medieval Swaledale, in M. A. Atherden and R. A. Butlin (eds.), Woodland in the Landscape: Past and Future Perspectives, Leeds University Press, Leeds, 26-42.

Fox, H. 1999: Medieval Farming and Rural Settlement, in R. Kain and W. Ravenhill (eds.), Historical Atlas of South-West England, University of Exeter Press, Exeter, 273-280.

Foard, G. 2001: Medieval Woodland, Agriculture and Industry in Rockingham Forest, Northamptonshire, Medieval Archaeology 45, 41-96.

Francis, P. D. 1986: A Record of Vegetational and Land Use Change from Upland Peat Deposits on Exmoor, Part 1: Background and Fieldwork, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 130, 1-10.

Fowler, M. J. F. 1988: The Standing Stones of Exmoor, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 132, 1-14. Fowler, M. J. F. and Needham, H. J. 1991: A ‘New’ Stone Row on Madacombe, Exmoor, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 135, 85-88.

Francis, P. D. and Slater, D. S. 1990: A Record of Vegetational and Land Use Change from Upland Peat Deposits on Exmoor, Part 2: Hoar Oak, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 134, 1-26.

Fox, A and Ravenhill, W. L. D. 1966: Early Roman Outposts on the North Devon Coast, Old Burrow and Martinhoe, Proceedings of Devon Archaeological Society 24, 3-39.

Francis, P. D. and Slater, D. S. 1992: A Record of Vegetational and Land Use Change from Upland Peat Deposits on Exmoor, Part 3: Codsend Moors, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 136, 9-28.

Fox, H. S. A. 1973: Outfield cultivation in Devon and Cornwall: a reinterpretation, in M. Havinden (ed.), Husbandry and Marketing in the South West 1500 - 1800, University of Exeter, Exeter, 19-38.

Fyfe, R. M. 2000: Palaeochannels of the Exe Catchment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Exeter.

Fox, H. 1989: Peasant farmers, patterns of settlement and pays: transformations in the Landscapes of Devon and Cornwall during the later Middle Ages, in R. Higham (ed.), Landscape and Townscape in the South West, University of Exeter Press, Exeter, 41-73.

Fyfe, R. 2003: Sherracombe Ford and North Twitchen Springs, Exmoor: Analysis of pollen and microscopic charcoal from mires associated with Sherracombe Ford. Unpublished interim report for the Exmoor Iron Project.

283

Fyfe, R. M., Brown, A. G. and Rippon, S. 2003: Mid- to late-Holocene vegetation history of Greater Exmoor, UK: estimating the spatial extent of human-induced vegetation change, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 12, (published on web site www.springerlink.com/app/home).

Goodburn, D. 2000: Wooden remains as an archaeological resource: some insights from the London ‘wetlands’, Archaeology in the Severn Estuary 11, 187-195. Gover, J. E., Mawer, A. and Stenton, F. M. 1931: The Place-Names of Devon Part I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fyfe, R. M., Brown, A. G. and Rippon, S. 2004: Characterising the late prehistoric, ‘RomanoBritish’ and medieval landscape, and dating the emergence of a regionally distinct agricultural system in South West Britain, article accepted by the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Gover, J. E., Mawer, A. and Stenton, F. M. 1932: The Place-Names of Devon Part II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fyfe, R. M. and Rippon, S. 2004: A landscape in transition? Palaeoenvironmental evidence for the end of the ‘Romano-British’ period in south west England, in R. Collins and J. Gerrard (eds.), Debating Late Antiquity in Britain, BAR Series 365, BAR Publishing, Oxford, 33-42. Gaimster, D. and Gilchrist, R. (eds.) 2003: The Archaeology of Reformation 1480-1580. Maney Publishing, Leeds.

Grace, N. and Richardson, I. 2001: Luccombe, Ley Hill, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 143, 172-3. Gray, H. St. George, 1906: The Stone Circle on Withypool Hill, Exmoor, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 52 (Part 2), 42-50. Gray, H. St. George, 1928: The Porlock Stone Circle, Exmoor, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 74, 71-77.

Gale, R. 2001: Horner Wood, Exmoor: the Analysis of Charcoal Fuel Deposits from a 16th – 17th [Century] Iron-Working Mill. Unpublished report for the Exmoor Iron Project.

Gray, H. St. George, 1931: Rude Stone Monuments of Exmoor (Somerset portion, Part III), Proceedings of SomersetArchaeology and Natural History Society 77, 78-82.

Gale, R. 2003: Wood-based industrial fuels and their environmental impact in lowland Britain, in P. Murphy and P. E. J. Wiltshire (eds.), The Environmental Archaeology of Industry, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 30-47.

Green, E. (ed.) 1892: Pedes Finium commonly called Feet of Fines for the County of Somerset: Richard I to Edward I (A.D. 1196 to A. D. 1307). Somerset Record Society Volume 6, Harrison & Sons, London.

Gelling, M. 1984: Place-Names in the Landscape. J. M. Dent, London.

Green, E. (ed.) 1898: Pedes Finium commonly called Feet of Fines for the County of Somerset: 1 Edward II to 20 Edward III (A.D. 1307 to A. D. 1326). Somerset Record Society Volume 12, Harrison & Sons, London.

Gelling, M. and Cole, A. 2000: The Landscape of PlaceNames. Shaun Tyas, Stamford, Lincolnshire. Gillard, M. 2000: The Exmoor Region in the Medieval Period: Rural Settlement, in B. Dix (ed.), North Devon and Exmoor: Report and Proceedings of the 146th Summer Meeting of the Royal Archaeological Institute, Archaeological Journal 157, 416-422.

Green, E. (ed.) 1902: Pedes Finium commonly called Feet of Fines for the County of Somerset: 21 Edward III to 20 Richard II (A.D. 1347 to A. D. 1399). Somerset Record Society Volume 17, Harrison & Sons, London.

Gillard, M. 2002: The medieval landscape of the Exmoor region: enclosure and settlement in an upland fringe. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Exeter.

Green, E. (ed.) 1906: Pedes Finium commonly called Feet of Fines for the County of Somerset: Henry IV to Henry VI (1399 to 1460). Somerset Record Society Volume 22, Harrison & Sons, London. Greene, J. P. 1989: Norton Priory: the archaeology of a medieval religious house. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gledhill, T. 1999: Medieval Woodland in North Yorkshire, in M. A. Atherden and R. A. Butlin (eds.), Woodland in the Landscape: Past and Future Perspectives, Leeds University Press, Leeds, 103-119.

284

Greswell, W. H. P. 1905: The Forests and Deer Parks of the County of Somerset, Athenaeum Press, Taunton.

Harrison, G. V. 1984: The South-West, in J. Thirsk (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume V 1640-1750, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 358-389.

Grinsell, L. V. 1970: The Archaeology of Exmoor. David & Charles, Newton Abbot.

Hart, C. 1971: The Industrial History of Dean. David and Charles, Newton Abbot.

Groves, C. 2003a: Horner Wood: Wood-Cores from Selected Oak (Pollards and Maidens) and Birch Trees at Cloutsham Ball. Unpublished report for the Exmoor Iron Project.

Harvey, B. F. 1977: Westminster Abbey and its estates in the Middle Ages. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Harvey, P. D. A. 1965: A Medieval Oxfordshire Village: Cuxham 1240 to 1400. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Groves, C. 2003b: Tree-rings and woodlands in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 122-126.

Harvey, P .D. A. (ed.) 1976: Manorial Records of Cuxham, Oxfordshire circa 1200-1359. Historical Manuscripts Commission JP23, London.

Hall, A. and Kenward, H. 2003: Can we identify biological indicator groups for craft, industry and other activities?, in P. Murphy and P. E. J. Wiltshire (eds.), The Environmental Archaeology of Industry, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 114-130.

Haslam, J., Biek., L and Tylecote, R. F. 1980: A Middle Saxon Iron Smelting Site at Ramsbury, Wiltshire, Medieval Archaeology 24, 1-68. Hatcher, J. and Bailey, M. 2001: Modelling the Middle Ages: The History and Theory of England’s Economic Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hallam, O. 1978: Vegetation and Land Use on Exmoor, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 122, 37-52. Halstead, P. 1998: Ask the fellows who lop the hay: leaf fodder in the mountains of north-west Greece, Rural History 9, 211-234.

Heal, V. 1995: Investigating and Interpreting the ManMade Exmoor Landscape, in H. Binding (ed.), The Changing Face of Exmoor, Exmoor Books, Tiverton, 52-58.

Hamilton Thompson, A. 1949: The Abbey of St. Mary of the Meadows, Leicester. Edgar Backus, Leicester.

Hendry, G., Bannister, N. and Toms, J. 1984: The Earthworks of an Ancient Woodland, Bristol and Avon Archaeology 3, 47-53.

Hammersley, G. 1973: The Charcoal Iron Industry and Its Fuel, 1540-1750, Economic History Review 26, 593-613.

Hey, D. 2000: Moorlands, in J. Thirsk (ed.), The English Rural Landscape, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 188-209.

Harley, J. B. and Dunning, R. W. (eds.) 1981: Somerset Maps, Somerset Record Society Volume 76, Taunton.

Hey, D. 2003: Woodland Transport: the evidence for Derbyshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 4-9.

Harley, J. B. and O’Donoghue, Y. (eds.) 1977: The Old Series Ordnance Survey Maps of England and Wales Scale 1 inch to 1 mile, Volume II: Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, Harry Margary, Kent.

Higham, R. A. 2000: Some Features of North Devon in the Middle Ages, in B. Dix (ed.), North Devon and Exmoor: Report and Proceedings of the 146th Summer Meeting of the Royal Archaeological Institute, Archaeological Journal 157, 411-416.

Harris, E., Harris, J. and James, N. D. G. 2003: Oak: A British History. Windgather Press, Macclesfield. Harris, K. and Smith, W. 1991: Glastonbury Abbey Records at Longleat House: A Summary List. Somerset Record Society (Volume 81), Taunton.

285

Hillam, J. and Morgan, R. A. 1981: What value is dendrochronology to waterfront archaeology?, in G. Milne and B. Hobley, (eds.), Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe, Council for British Archaeology, London, 3946.

Hunt, W. (ed.) 1893: Two Cartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath, Somerset Record Society Volume 7, Harrison & Sons, London. Hunter, J. R. 1981: The medieval glass industry, in D. Crossley (ed.), MedievalIndustry, Council for British Archaeology, London, 143-150.

Hobbs, S. (ed.) 1998: The Cartulary of Forde Abbey. Somerset Record Society Volume 85, Taunton.

Hussey, D. 2000: Coastal and River Trade in PreIndustrial England: Bristol and its Region 1680-1730. University of Exeter Press, Exeter.

Hockey, S. F.(ed.) 1975: The Account Book of Beaulieu Abbey. Royal Historical Society, London.

James, N. D.G. 1981: A History of English Forestry. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Hodder, I. and Orton, C. 1976: Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hooke,

Jones, M. 1999: Sheffield’s Woodland Heritage. Sheffield City Libraries, Sheffield.

D. 1989: Pre-Conquest Woodland: its Distribution and Usage, The Agricultural History Review 37(2), 113-129.

Jones, M. 2003: South Yorkshire’s Ancient Woodlands: Past, Present and Future in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 11-24.

Hooke, D. 1990: Worcestershire Anglo-Saxon CharterBounds. Boydell Press, Woodbridge. Hooke, D. 1994: Pre-Conquest Charter Bounds of Devon and Cornwall. Boydell Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk.

Jones, R. and Page, M. 2003: Characterizing Rural Settlement and Landscape: Whittlewood Forest in the Middle Ages, Medieval Archaeology 47, 53-83.

Hooke, D. 1998: The Landscape of Anglo-Saxon England. Leicester University Press, London.

Juleff, G. 2000: Horner Wood: Report on the Archaeological Survey of the East Water Valley, Stoke, Wilmersham and Pool Woods, and Horner Wood, prepared for the National Trust (Holnicote Estate Office).

Hoskins, W. G. 1954: Devon. Collins, London. Hoskins, W. G. 1955: The Making of the English Landscape. Hodder & Stoughton, London.

Juleff, Hoskins, W. G. 1960: The Westward Expansion of Wessex. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

G. 2001: Exmoor Unpublished draft.

Iron

Project

Design.

Kain, R. J. P. and Oliver, R. R. 1995: The Tithe Maps of England and Wales. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hoskins, W. G. 1963: The Highland Zone in Domesday Book, in W. G. Hoskins (ed.), Provincial England, Macmillan, London, 15-52.

Kain, R. J. P. and Prince, H. C. 1985: The Tithe Surveys of England and Wales. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Howard-Davis, C. 1987: The Tannery, Rusland, South Cumbria, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 87, 237-248.

Kain, R. and Prince, H. C. 2000: Tithe Surveys for Historians. Phillimore & Co. Limited, Chichester.

Howes, J. G. 1889: Notes on Exford, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 35, 37-45.

Kelley, D. W. 1996: Charcoal and Charcoal Burning. Shire Publications Limited, Princes Risborough.

Hugo, T. 1860: The History of Taunton Priory. J. R. Smith, London.

Kenyon, G. H. 1967: The Glass Industry of the Weald. Leicester University Press, Leicester.

Hunn, J. R. 1994: Reconstruction and Measurement of Landscape Change: a Study of Six Parishes in the St. Albans Area. Tempus Reparatum, Oxford.

Kershaw, I. 1973: Bolton Priory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

286

Keynes, S. and Lapidge, M. 1983: Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources. Penguin Books Limited, London.

Manly, B. F. J. 1994: Multivariate Statistical Methods: a Primer. Chapman & Hall, London. Marshall, P. D. 2003: Reconstructing the environmental impact of past metallurgical industries, in P. Murphy and P. E. J. Wiltshire (eds.), The Environmental Archaeology of Industry, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 10-18.

Linnard, W. 1978: Bark Stripping in Wales, Folk Life 16, 54-60. Linnard, W. 1982: Welsh Woods and Forests: History and Utilization. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

Marshall, W. 1796: The Rural Economy of the West of England. G. Nicol, London. Reprinted in 1970 by David & Charles (Publishers) Limited, Newton Abbot.

Lister, J. A. and Pinches, A. L. 1986a: Devon Inventory of Ancient Woodland (Provisional). Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

Mawer. A (ed.) 1924: The Chief Elements used in English Place-Names. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lister, J. A. and Pinches, A. L. 1986b: Somerset Inventory of Ancient Woodland (Provisional). Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

Menear, S. 1997: Trees and Woodland on Exmoor: A Guide to Conservation and Management. Exmoor National Park Authority, Dulverton.

MacDermot, E. T. 1939: A History of the Forest of Exmoor. David & Charles (Holdings), Newton Abbot (1st edition published in 1911;reprinted in 1973).

Miles, R. 1967: Forestry in the English Landscape. Faber & Faber, London.

McDonnell, R. 1994: Horner Wood: A Report on the Preliminary Archaeological Field Assessment of Two Sample Areas, prepared for the National Trust (Holnicote Estate Office).

Miles, R. 1972: The Trees and Woods of Exmoor. The Exmoor Press, Dulverton. Miller, E. 1951: The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McDonnell, R. 1995: Hawkridge Ridge Wood: an Archaeological Assessment for Management Purposes, prepared for the Exmoor National Park Authority.

Miller, S. 2001: Charters of the New Minster, Winchester. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Moffat, B. 1986: The environment of Battle Abbey estates (East Sussex) in medieval times: a reevaluation using analysis of pollen and sediments, Landscape History 8, 77-93.

McDonnell, R. 1999: A Preliminary Archaeological Assessment of Eleven Woodlands in the Barle Valley – Hawkridge Area of Exmoor, prepared for the Exmoor National Park Authority.

Moorhouse, S. A. 1981: The medieval pottery industry and its markets, in D. Crossley (ed.), Medieval Industry, Council for British Archaeology, London, 96-125.

McDonnell, R. and Faxon, K. 2002: Culbone Woodlands: a Preliminary Archaeological Survey for Management Purposes, prepared for the Exmoor National Park Authority.

Morris, J. (ed.) 1985: Domesday Book: Devon. Phillimore, Chichester.

McGrath, P. (ed.) 1952: Records Relating to the Society of Merchant Venturers of the City of Bristol in the Seventeenth Century. Bristol Record Society XVII, Bristol.

Morris, C. 2000: Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Wood and Woodworking in AngloScandinavian and Medieval York. Council for British Archaeology, York.

McIntosh, M. K. 1986: Autonomy and Community: the Royal Manor of Havering, 1200–1500. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Muir, R. 2000a: The New Reading the Landscape. University of Exeter Press, Exeter.

Maltby, E. 1995: Soil Development and Ecological change on Exmoor, in H. Binding (ed.), The Changing Face of Exmoor, Exmoor Books, Tiverton, 33-42.

Muir, R. 2000b: Pollards in Nidderdale: a Landscape History, Rural History 11, 95-111.

287

Murphy. P. and Wiltshire, P. E. J. (eds.) 2003: The Environmental Archaeology of Industry. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Postles, D. 1995: The Surnames of Devon. Leopard’s Head Press, Oxford. Postan, M. 1972: The Medieval Economy and Society. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Neilson, N. (ed.) 1928: Cartulary and Terrier of the Priory of Bilsington, Kent. Oxford University Press, London.

Quinnell, H. 1997: Excavations of an Exmoor Barrow and Ring Cairn, Proceedings of Devon Archaeological Society 55, 1-38.

Newman, P. (ed.) 1996: The Archaeology of Mining and Metallurgy in South-West Britain. Peak District MinesHistory/ Historical Metallurgy Society, Matlock Bath.

Rackham, O. 1979: Documentary evidence for the historical ecologist, Landscape History 1, 2933.

Nicholls, B. 1996: The economic and social power of two landed families in nineteenth century rural Devon, with particular reference to their provision of labourers’ housing. Unpublished M. Phil.dissertation, University of Exeter. O’Brien,

Rackham, O. 1980: Ancient Woodland (1st Edition). Edward Arnold, London. Rackham, O. 1986: The Woods of South-East Essex. Rochford District Council, Rochford.

M. and Lyman, R. 2000: Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Rackham, O. 1987: The History of the Countryside. J. M. Dent, London. Rackham, O. 1989: The Last Forest: The Story of Hatfield Forest. J. M. Dent and Sons, London.

Oliver, G. and Jones, P. (eds.) 1845: A view of Devonshire in MDCXXX, with a pedigree of most of its gentry by Thomas Westcote, Gent., William Roberts, Exeter.

Rackham, O. 1990: Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape. Orion Books, London. Rackham, O. 1994: Trees and woodland in Anglo-Saxon England: the documentary evidence, in J. Rackham (ed.), Environment and Economyin Anglo-Saxon England, Council for British Archaeology, York, 7-11.

Orwin, C. S., Sellick, R. and Bonham-Carter, V. 1997: The Reclamation of ExmoorForest. Exmoor Books, Dulverton. Oshchinsky, D. 1971: Walter of Henley and other Treatises on Estate Management and Accounting. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Rackham, O. 2003: Ancient Woodland (2nd Edition). Castlepoint Press, Dalbeattie.

Page, J. L .W. 1890: An Exploration of Exmoor. Seeley & Co., London.

Raftis, J. A. 1957: The Estates of Ramsey Abbey. Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, Toronto.

Page, W. (ed.) 1911: The Victoria History of Somerset Volume 2. Constable & Company Limited, London.

Ravenhill, M. R. and Rowe, M. M. (eds.) 2002a: Devon Maps and Map Makers: Manuscript Maps before 1840, Volume I. Devon and Cornwall Record Society, Exeter.

Parker, F. H. M. 1910: Inglewood Forest Parts V and VI, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society ns X, 1-28.

Ravenhill, M. R. and Rowe, M. M. (eds.) 2002b: Devon Maps and Map Makers: Manuscript Maps before 1840, Volume II. Devon and Cornwall Record Society, Exeter.

Parsons, M. A. 1997: The woodland of Troutbeck and its exploitation to 1800, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 97, 79-100.

Ravenhill, W. L. D. (ed.) 1965: Benjamin Donn A Map of the County of Devon 1765, reprinted by Devon & Cornwall Record Society & the University of Exeter, Exeter.

Pearce, S. 2004: South-western Britain in the Early Middle Ages. Leicester University Press, London.

Ravn, M. 2003: Death Ritual and Germanic Social Structure (c. AD 200-600). BAR Publishing, Oxford.

Peterken, G. 1981: Woodland Conservation and Management. Chapman and Hall, London.

288

Reichel, Rev O.J. 1912: Devon Feet of Fines, Volume I Richard I – Henry III 1196-1272, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, Exeter.

Schove, D. J. and Lowther, A.W. G. 1957: Tree-rings and medieval archaeology, Medieval Archaeology 1, 78-95.

Reichel, Rev O.J., Prideaux, F. B. and Tapley-Soper, H. 1939: Devon Feet of Fines, Volume II 1 Edward I – 43 Edward III 1272-1369, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, Exeter.

Schumer, B. 1984: The Evolution of Wychwood to 1400: Pioneers, Frontiers and Forests. Leicester University Press, Leicester. Searle, E. 1974: Lordship and Community: Battle Abbey and its Banlieu 1066-1538. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto.

Riley, H. and Wilson-North, R. 2001: The Field Archaeology of Exmoor. English Heritage, Swindon.

Searle, E. and Ross, B. 1967: Accounts of the Cellarers of Battle Abbey 1275-1513. Sydney University Press, Sydney, Australia.

Rippon, S. 1999: The Rayleigh Hills in south-east Essex: patterns in exploitation of a woodland landscape, in L. S. Green (ed.), The Essex Landscape: in Search of its History, Essex County Council, Chelmsford, 20-28. Roberts,

Shennan, S. 1997: Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Shennan, S. 2002: Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution. Thames & Hudson Ltd., London.

B. K. 2001: Woodlands in England, Geographical Journal 167, 163-173.

Roberts, B. K. and Wrathmell, S. 2000: An Atlas of Rural Settlement in England. English Heritage, London.

Shaw, H. 2003: Woodland History in East Glen Affric from fine resolution pollen analysis, in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 11-24.

Roberts, B. K. and Wrathmell, S. 2002: Region and Place: A Study of English Rural Settlement. English Heritage, London.

Short, B. 2000: Forests and Wood-Pasture in Lowland England, in J. Thirsk (ed.), The English Rural Landscape, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 122-149.

Robertson, A. J. (ed.) 1939: Anglo-Saxon Charters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Robinson, D. M. 1980: The Geography of Augustinian Settlement. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Shorter, A. H. 1971: Paper Making in the British Isles. David and Charles, Newton Abbot. Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C. 1989: The Oxford English Dictionary Volume XII. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Ross, C. R. 1968: The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey Volume I. Oxford University Press, London. Sabin, A. (ed.) 1938: Two Compotus Rolls of Saint Augustine’s Abbey Bristol. Bristol Record Society Volume 9,Bristol.

Sinclair, G. 1970: The Vegetation of Exmoor. The Exmoor Press, Dulverton. Smith, A. H. (ed.) 1956: English Place-Name Elements Part II, English Place-Name Society Volume XXVI. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sabin, A. (ed.) 1960: Some Manorial Accounts of Saint Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol. Bristol Record Society Volume 22,Bristol. Satchell, J. E. 1984: A History of Meathrop Woods Part 2 – The Middle Ages to the Present, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 84, 85-98.

Smith, R. A. L. 1943: Canterbury Cathedral Priory: A Study in Monastic Administration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smith, T.P. 1985: The Medieval Brickmaking Industry in England 1400 – 1450. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Savage, J. 1830: History of the Hundred of Carhampton. William Strong, Bristol. Schofield, B. 1927: Muchelney Memoranda. Somerset Record Society Volume 42, Frome.

289

Smout, C. 2003: ‘To stand in them is to feel the past’: Pinewoods and Birchwoods in the Scottish Uplands in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 32-36.

Thirsk, J. (ed.) 1967: The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume IV 1500 - 1640. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thirsk, J. (ed.) 1984: The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume V.I 1640 – 1750: Regional Farming Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Snooks, G. D. 1995: The dynamic role of the market in the Anglo-Norman economy and beyond, 10861300, in R. H. Britnell and B. M. S. Campbell (eds.), A commercialising economy: England 1086 to c.1300, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 27-54.

Thomas, A. N. 1940: The Triassic Rocks of North-West Somerset, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 51(1), 1-43.

Stamper, P. 1983: The medieval forest of Pamber, Hampshire, Landscape History 5, 41-52.

Thorn, C. and Thorn, F. (eds) 1980: Domesday Book: Somerset. Phillimore, Winchester.

Stamper, P. 1988: Woods and Parks, in G. Astill and A. Grant (eds.), The Countryside of Medieval England, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 128-148.

Tinsley, H. 2001: Modern pollen deposition in traps on a transect across an anthropogenic tree-line on Exmoor, southwest England, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 117, 153-158.

Stephan, J. 1970: A History of Buckfast Abbey. Burleigh Press, Bristol.

Tipping, R. and McCulluch, R. 2003: Woodland Management: How much can we identify in long term pollen records?, in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 154.

Stevens, D. 1985: A Somerset Coroner’s Roll 13151321, Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset XXXI, 451-471. Straker, V. and Crabtree, K. 1995: Studies on Exmoor: Past Potential, in H. Binding Face of Exmoor, Exmoor 51.

Palaeoenvironmental Research and Future (ed.), The Changing Books, Tiverton, 43-

Tobin,

S. 1995: The Cistercians: Monks and Monasteries of Europe, Herbert Press, London.

Travis, J. 2001: Smuggling on the Exmoor Coast 16801850. Exmoor Society, Dulverton.

Stratford, M. 1994: Charcoal Burning in the 17th Century: A Brief History and Practical Guide. Stuart Press, Bristol.

Tsouvalis, J. 2000: A Critical Geography of Britain’s State Forests. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Straw, A. 1995: Aspects of the Geomorphology of Exmoor, in H. Binding (ed.), The Changing Face of Exmoor, Exmoor Books, Tiverton, 1325.

Tubbs, C. R. 1968: The New Forest: an Ecological History. David and Charles, Newton Abbot. Tyers, I., Hillam, J. and Groves, C. 1994: Trees and woodland in the Saxon period: the dendrochronological evidence, in J. Rackham (ed.), Environment and Economy in AngloSaxon England, Council for British Archaeology, York, 12-22.

Sumner, H. 1917: The Ancient Earthworks of the New Forest. Chiswick Press, London. Sumner, H. 1928: J. Norden’s Survey of Medieval Coppices in the New Forest AD1609, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 10(2), 95-117.

Vancouver, C. 1808: A General View of the Agriculture of Devon. Reprinted in 1963 by David & Charles, Newton Abbot.

Teverson, R. 1995: Horner Wood NNR Management Plan, prepared for the National Trust (Holnicote Estate Office).

Vera, F. W. M. 2000: Grazing Ecology and Forest History. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Teverson, R. 1997: Hawkcombe Woods: Management Plan, prepared for the Exmoor National Park, Dulverton.

Vera, F. W. M. 2003: Oak, the footmark of ghosts, in D. Rotherham and C. Handley (eds.), Working and Walking in the Footsteps of Ghosts, Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, 37-40.

290

Wager, S. J. 1998: Woods, Wolds and Groves. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Williams, M. 2003: Deforesting the Earth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Watkin, A. (ed.) 1947: The Great Cartulary of Glastonbury, Volume I. Somerset Record Society Volume 59, Frome.

Wilson, H. 1995: The Coastal Geomorphology of Exmoor, in H. Binding (ed.), The Changing Face of Exmoor, Exmoor Books, Tiverton, 2632.

Watkin, A. (ed.) 1952: The Great Cartulary of Glastonbury, Volume II. Somerset Record Society Volume 63, Frome.

Worth, R. H. 1906: 25th Report of the Barrow Committee, Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association 38, 57-66.

Watkin, A. (ed.) 1956: The Great Cartulary of Glastonbury, Volume III. Somerset Record Society Volume 64, Frome.

Wyndham, K. S. H. 1979: In Pursuit of Crown Land: the Initial Recipients of Somerset Property in the mid Tudor Period, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society 123, 65-73.

Watts, M. 2002: The Archaeology of Mills and Milling. Tempus, Stroud.

Youings, J. (ed.) 1955: Devon Monastic Lands: Calendar of Particulars for Grants 1536 – 1558. Devon & Cornwall Record Society New Series Volume 1.

Watts, V. (ed.) 2004: The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Waugh, F. V. 1970: Cobweb Models, in K. A. Fox and D. Gale Johnson (eds.), Readings in the Economics of Agriculture, George Allen & Unwin, London, 89-108.

Zell, M. 1994: Industry in the Countryside. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Weaver, F. W. 1906: Cleeve Abbey, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Society LII (Part II), 1-41. Weaver, F. W. (ed.) 1909: A Cartulary of Buckland Priory, Somerset Record Society Volume XXV. Harrison & Sons, London. Webb, A. J. (ed.) 2002: Two Tudor Subsidy Assessments for the County of Somerset: 1558 and 1581-2, Somerset Record Society Volume 88. Taunton. Welldon Finn, R. and Wheatley, P. 1967: Somerset, in H. C. Darby and R. Welldon Finn (eds.), The DomesdayGeography of South-West England, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 132222. Wheeler, M. 1955: Still Digging. London.

Michael Joseph,

Whybrow, C. 1967: Some Multivallate Hill-forts on Exmoor and in North Devon, Proceedings of Devon Archaeological Society 25, 1-18. Whybrow, C. 1970: Antiquary’s Exmoor. The Exmoor Press, Dulverton. Williams, D. H. 1969: The Welsh Cistercians: Aspects of their Economic History. Hughes and Son, Ltd., Pontypool.

291