Gnarled, stunted and often more than 1,000 years old, how come yews still pepper the fell sides and churchyards when more beautiful species got brutally erased?
That is only a small part of the story. Although it is true that much forest was lost in the Neolithic and Bronze ages, even more was lost in the early industrial revolution. For example most of the trees in the southern and western lakes were cleared to be used for charcoal for iron smelting in Ulverston and Barrow. Massive amounts of charcoal was shipped out of the Cumbrian Irish Sea ports to be used in the 18th century furnaces. This happened over a period of only 25 years,, thousands of acres of forest was lost. It was when the trees had gone that forced the new industries to come up with the alternative of coal/coke.
It is true that more forests were cut down in Cumbria during the Industrial Revolution. But, although the amount felled was a lot, it did not compare in any way with the deforestation of the previous 6,000 years. In addition, Government figures suggest the losses during the 19th century have more or less been replaced by modern planting efforts.
Thank you for your comment and I do appreciate your detailed attention to the issue. However, my piece is designed to address a big misconception which is driving some strange rural policies and opening farmers up to some unfair criticism. The actual facts, by which I mean satellite imaging and pollen surveys, show that by approximately 1,000 BC, deforestation in Cumbria was largely complete, driven by the need to clear land for farming, grazing animals, and settlements. This process began as early as 6,000 BC when people transitioned from hunting and gathering to farming and reached a peak in the Bronze Age. By the time the Romans came the proportion of forested land in England was 13 %, more or less what the same percentage as it is today in the Lake District. Cumbria is, as it happens, slightly more forested than the rest of England where the proportion of woodland is 11%
I think the early deforestation, although undeniably did happen, is exaggerated in scale. There was another large scale tree clearance when the mass herds of Scottish Highland cattle were driven down from the Highlands every year. They were then fattened up after their long journey in Cumbria. This was extremely lucrative for Cumbrian farmers and changed the farming almost overnight. This event along with the early industrial charcoal burning and its attendant parliamentary enclosures are both under-estimated in their impact on Cumbrian woodland. The switch to sheep only came after railways cut out Cumbria from the cattle journey south.
I am afraid I do not agree with you. I have researched this for three of four pieces posted on my site and also for material published in my books. People find it very difficult to grasp how long 6,000 years is, how many farmers have worked these lands and also the extent to which clearing trees to create farmland was a life and death issue until the early 20th century. We are a very old densely populated country. We have been chopping down trees since the last ice age.
That is only a small part of the story. Although it is true that much forest was lost in the Neolithic and Bronze ages, even more was lost in the early industrial revolution. For example most of the trees in the southern and western lakes were cleared to be used for charcoal for iron smelting in Ulverston and Barrow. Massive amounts of charcoal was shipped out of the Cumbrian Irish Sea ports to be used in the 18th century furnaces. This happened over a period of only 25 years,, thousands of acres of forest was lost. It was when the trees had gone that forced the new industries to come up with the alternative of coal/coke.
It is true that more forests were cut down in Cumbria during the Industrial Revolution. But, although the amount felled was a lot, it did not compare in any way with the deforestation of the previous 6,000 years. In addition, Government figures suggest the losses during the 19th century have more or less been replaced by modern planting efforts.
Thank you for your comment and I do appreciate your detailed attention to the issue. However, my piece is designed to address a big misconception which is driving some strange rural policies and opening farmers up to some unfair criticism. The actual facts, by which I mean satellite imaging and pollen surveys, show that by approximately 1,000 BC, deforestation in Cumbria was largely complete, driven by the need to clear land for farming, grazing animals, and settlements. This process began as early as 6,000 BC when people transitioned from hunting and gathering to farming and reached a peak in the Bronze Age. By the time the Romans came the proportion of forested land in England was 13 %, more or less what the same percentage as it is today in the Lake District. Cumbria is, as it happens, slightly more forested than the rest of England where the proportion of woodland is 11%
I think the early deforestation, although undeniably did happen, is exaggerated in scale. There was another large scale tree clearance when the mass herds of Scottish Highland cattle were driven down from the Highlands every year. They were then fattened up after their long journey in Cumbria. This was extremely lucrative for Cumbrian farmers and changed the farming almost overnight. This event along with the early industrial charcoal burning and its attendant parliamentary enclosures are both under-estimated in their impact on Cumbrian woodland. The switch to sheep only came after railways cut out Cumbria from the cattle journey south.
I am afraid I do not agree with you. I have researched this for three of four pieces posted on my site and also for material published in my books. People find it very difficult to grasp how long 6,000 years is, how many farmers have worked these lands and also the extent to which clearing trees to create farmland was a life and death issue until the early 20th century. We are a very old densely populated country. We have been chopping down trees since the last ice age.