THE SITES
Owned and managed by the Lake District National Park Authority, Yewbarrow
(1129ha) is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation
(SAC). The wood is situated on a steep ridge of ground which becomes moorland on
the upper edges. It is old, sessile oak woodland made special by the extensive groves
of yew occurring on the slopes and crags and the stands of juniper adjacent to it.
Yew is uncommon on the more acid soils that dominate South Cumbria and the site contains
some of the largest stands so far identified in the area. Border Moss and Round Close
are west of Yewbarrow, on the flat, marshy land close to Rusland Pool, once a key
waterway for transportation of woodland and other industrial products to Morecambe
Bay.
Historically the sites were well-placed to provide materials for a number of local industries – charcoal for the local iron and gunpowder works, bark for tanning, potash for lye, timber for construction and wood for bobbins, tools, clogs etc. The late 18th century enclosure map indicates that a southern portion of Yewbarrow was carefully divided into eight narrow, descending strips – which perhaps suggests the value of woodland at the time. So much activity has left a wealth of archaeological features.
We had two key areas of focus:
1. To locate, describe and survey the archaeology across the woods.
2. To locate and detail significant trees and to alert the LDNPA of those needing attention.
A walk in the woods alongside a LDNPA archaeologist and the woodland manager gave us early and stimulating insights into the task.
Looking at maps indicated the scale of the task. Some parts of the woods had been mapped previously, others were unknown territory.We also had a copy of the Enclosure Map of 1789 obtained from a local historian showing the relationship between the Enclosure Wall and the wood boundaries.
Identifying expertise within the group. Having worked together before on the Woodland Heritage Champions Project we had built an understanding of the variety of skills and knowledge group members could bring to the task. This ranged from experience of working woodland to individual expertise in plants or trees, or local history.
The maps.
A large (c.2m long!) and beautifully drawn map of the Yewbarrow site provided an initial overview of patterns of tree growth and some identified pitsteads, buildings, boundaries and old walls. The map had neither date nor scale. Crags and declivities were indicated symbolically but there were no contour lines. Paths and tracks were marked but not the recently created path which runs the length of the wood.
Other more recent maps were obtained from the LDNPA and it became clear as we worked that good quality, large scale, grid-referenced maps were most useful. On these, it was possible to mark features as we discovered them and to build an emerging picture of each patch.
The terrain.
Ranging from precipitous slopes with steep crags to dense thicket or wet mosses these sites were demanding to work on. It quickly became clear that, with the exception of tree identification, most of the work would have to be done between October and April when the bracken had died back and leaves fallen. Pitsteads in particular can disappear almost without trace once the summer gets going.
a. We divided into pairs, each pair taking one or two sub-compartments of the woods, aiming to complete on-the-ground work through the winter months. An important feature of our work was the interim get-togethers when we walked each other’s patches, sharing finds, questions, problems and speculations. Others see things in different ways and it was always good to discuss and challenge interpretations and explanations! It was also helpful to realise that uncertainty is ‘OK’ and that to record something as a heap of stones is sometimes the best you can do.
b. Some group members sought further information from historical records. A local historian lent a copy of the Enclosure Deed and map and also an early map of Rusland Pool. A modest attempt by one group member to obtain further information from the local record office yielded little of direct relevance to these woods, though some useful general insights into the area as a whole.
How best to start.
a. There’s something both exciting and intimidating about surveying an entirely new and challenging area. One approach is to utilise the existing map, finding the pathways and other significant features such as walls or streams – which is fine if the map really does represent what is there! We found that the original survey map gave some clues but years of dilapidation, changes in vegetation, the development of a new footpath (unmarked on any maps) and the proliferation of deer paths made for lots of uncertainty.
b. Walking the boundary was a useful technique as this was one feature the map represented well. From there it was often possible to walk transects between the boundary wall and another identifiable feature, perhaps a rocky outcrop, stream or ridge, thus building the picture in ‘bite-sized chunks’. That said, even after several walks, it was possible to be completely baffled by the surroundings.
Understanding scale
There was no scale on the original survey map. The more recent maps came in various scales of which the 1:2500 was most useful. Even so, it took some while to learn what 1:2500 looked like on the ground, particularly where that ground was steep or ridged.
Generating accurate grid references was a matter of some concern but we became more skilful as we built the picture using a combination of mapped and found features, contours and boundaries. The purchase of a GPS which worked effectively in woods was a helpful addition to the kit, though it was always wise to check the reading against one’s own surmise.
Deciding what to record
Ancient woods such as these have been places of industry for centuries so there are remnants of activity all over. A found feature can be as clear as an abandoned building or fine revetted pitstead, others as obscure as a hollow in the ground, a heap of stones or an unusual looking mound. We were reassured that good practice was to record even the unlikely things at this stage.
Building the picture
Over time it became possible to discriminate patterns of industrial activity, for example:
if there was a hut base there would generally be a pitstead nearby
if there was a pitstead then there were often adjacent earthworks and hollows where soil and turf had been taken
if there was a pitstead at the top of the hill, there may well be two or three others further down the slope, sometimes connected by path/tram(?)ways
These understandings began to guide our looking, as did the expertise of group members. Those who had worked woods themselves gave us valuable insights into how their predecessors would have gone about things. We became more expert at discriminating old snigging (= horse extraction) routes, at deciding whether a flat area was indeed a pitstead given its position (Would it catch the wind? Was there water nearby?), at using the trees as indicators of activity (were there lots of coppice stools around?).
It was sometimes tempting not to clamber up a particularly steep or rocky section in the belief that no-one could conceivably have worked there but, as we discovered, features could be found in unlikely places. So great was the demand for charcoal at the peak of the industry that often very difficult territory was utilised.
Focus on the wood boundaries gave further insights. Various features seemed to be associated with the road in particular e.g. quarries, ‘pits’ which may have been for potash or white coal production, gateways and tracks. The proximity of the river also caused us to question whether some declivities could have been associated with river transport.
WHAT NEXT?
Surveying Yewbarrow and associated woodlands was a great learning experience. We aim to try to apply some of the learning to new woods. The challenge will be to keep our eyes and minds open to the differences we may well find there.
Yewbarrow Woods and the Ellersides,
Border Moss and Round Close Woods
Some of the Team members at the entrance to Yewbarrow Woods © R Champion
Considering the evidence of an old map © R Champion
On site speculation - a stone-lined pit: for what? By whom? When? © V Champion
1 The Sites
2. The Brief
3. Starting Points
4. The Complexities
5. The Strategy
6. The
Learning
Return to top of page
YEWBARROW IMAGES MENU
Click on the Album name below to select
- NB may require Java
Script to be enabled
Ancient & Veteran Trees
Archaeology
Interesting Trees
Management
Recording
South Lakeland
Woodland Heritage Group
Wildlife
Images © WEP and originators: R Champion, V Champion,
B Crawley, A Shepley Contact WEP for other than strictly educational use