I’m reading a book on the history of trees in American. They discuss the significance of lumber in early America, including very tall, straight conifers for ship masts.
My question is very specific - exactly how did 17th century Americans cut and transport these very large trees?
A little additional research mentions that the export of masts increased in the 1650s, although there had been at least 2 previous export shipments. Each mast might weigh 15-20 tons.
The American felling axe was eventually developed in the 18th century. I’ve read a considerable amount about the difficulty of felling timber and clearing stumps well into the 18th century.
I’m presuming oxen were required to move such large trees to water, but I also believe oxen were expensive and limited in number in the early 1600s America. The population was pretty small as well - how many were involved in lumber, as opposed to other trades? How many oxen/men would it take to move a 15 ton, 100’+ tree? How “clear” would the ground need to be to move it? How large would the river need to be to transport it?
Considering all of these factors, I’m thinking there would be a limited number of tall straight conifers that were uphill from and close to large rivers. I welcome all thoughts/cites.
I’m no lumber expert but I know a fair amount about wooden boats and the Navies of the time. There weren’t that many masts heading from Colonies back to England. They were indeed selected for the relatively easy ability to cut & float.
The Lumber industry didn’t really take off until the 1700s in the Americas. Mostly in New England.
I know the Dutch would go to the NJ Meadowlands to harvest white cedar for their boats. I imagine a lot of masts came from the Hudson River but that is just conjecture. Back then collecting masts for the smaller Dutch trade ships was probably pretty simple.
In the late 1800s and the first half of the 1900s, the most common method was the high-wheel loader , which was a set of wheels over ten feet tall that the log or logs were strapped beneath. Oxen were at first used with the high-wheel loaders, but in the 1930s tractors replaced the oxen.
Of course, a ship’s mast could not be broken into smaller, more transportable sections as it needed to be whole, so I would guess these were identified and treated with greater care, but also did not come from the deep forest far from rivers or roads.
I’m far from an expert, and assume I’ll know more when I’m done with this book. But this kinda dovetails my various interests in trees and all things botanical, pre-revolution America, age of sailing ships.
This article talks about masts being shipped out in the 1650s. Also talks about cost factors related to tolls and such needed to pass Denmark to get to Baltic forests for masts, and restrictions of what the colonies could sell where. So, for example, they could sell barrel wood to the Canaries…
Still trying to get my head around folk in 1660 wrangling a 150’ 15 ton tree…
Keep in mind, with block and tackle men can move such burden. If you find the trees convenient to rivers, then nothing about it should be insurmountable. Almost all sailors were well verse with block and tackles in the 1600s. Trees in the colonies were extremely abundant at that point.
I’ve worked a little on the Clearwater, a Hudson River Sloop of 106’. I was fortunate enough to be there to help with the mast. We did it without a crane. The main mast is about 90’ (with a smaller topmast of about 18’).
I’m a rank amateur (and geek) and have taken down a 40’ spruce with an axe, small chainsaw and a come-along and some strong rope. Skilled, hardy men of that time working as a team were clearly able to handle far more.
So take the tree down in such a way it is pointing toward the water.
Clean off the branches.
Use block and tackle to slowly haul it into the water and possible some of the branches or other small logs as rollers.
People have been moving really big and heavy things long distances for millennia (see: Stonehenge; Egyptian and New World pyramids). The 300+ ton obelisk at the Vatican was moved from Egypt to Rome by Caligula in 37 AD and relocated to the Vatican by Pope Sixtus V in 1586. Just need enough motivation and manpower.
Good explanation, What Exit. Marvin - one thing that I was stumbling over was the manpower. Not only was population pretty small, but most of them were working on “survival” industries. It isn’t as tho there were thousands of slaves/religious zealots/whatever around to haul Stonehenge/pyramid sized objects.
I just read a couple Master and Commander novels. What I found most striking was the amount of damage even the victorious ships incurred, and the ongoing efforts of repairing/rebuilding them.
I dunno about back in the 17th century, but in living memory, logs were mostly felled in the winter and dragged by oxen or horses over frozen ground, which offers less friction.
Is it possible that the supply manifests of the London Companies ships are preserved? We could deduce from their supplies how they may have constructed the original dwellings and fort at Jamestown. The Wikipedia article indicates that the initial Jamestown expedition made immediate attempts to gather resources for export, namely gold (pyrite as it turned out) and timber.
Depending exactly where the tree was and where the main processing mills and timber yards were located all of the things quoted above were used. The trees that were preferred were largely selected because they were the right species and size but also in the right location. A tree that could be felled and slid down into a river was ideal. If not then there is a premium placed on reducing it to a more manageable mass [top and tail, no limbs] in situ before it is sent out on a drag or jinker [wheel sets stuck under the tree at different points].
What was required for spars was very different for lumber. Felling a tall thin tree so that it did not spring a fracture which made it useless for any future use as a mast was tricky.
If you want to know about how trees were turned into lumber, there were standard reduction methods that turned a cylinder of wood into the most optimal series of square and rectangular section beams and boards. This had to take account of the differing quality of wood from surface to heart, the likely level of twisting and distortion as it seasoned and eventual use.
A lot of this is learned through doing over generations. I assume the northern hemisphere timber varieties were reasonably similar that skills and knowledge were reasonably transferrable to North America. When rainforest and southern hemisphere hardwoods like the ironbarks were enoucntered, a lot of that had to be re-learned.
That’s so weird I had to follow that up. And I agree.
The book was self-published by Lulu. Google Books gives the date as 2015 but there are no dates inside in the preview. It appears to be nothing but copied Wiki text and hundreds of Wiki images.
Section 2.8.3 Transporting Logs and section 2.8 in its entirety appears to be taken from that Wiki Logging page, including every footnote that appears in the references. (Some pages are not in the preview). Going back, 2.7.3, Driftwood Sculptures, is entirely taken from the Wiki page Driftwood. In both cases, the pictures also come off of Wiki. Doing more poking around, I found that he’s honest about that, incidentally. Chapter 4, Text and Image Sources, give the Wiki page copied for each section.
I’ve heard about such books, but I’ve never seen one, and I hadn’t realized they were made with so much care. That’s a handsome product.
It’s not on Amazon but Lulu.com lists it for $40.00. If you didn’t realize what it was, that’s totally worth it. Maybe even if you knew it was all WIki articles, it might be worth it not to have to look up everything yourself. Maybe.
Ha! The jokes on me! All I needed to do is read a few more pages in the book I’m reading - American Canopy by Eric Rutkow.
They had to cut a roadway to the watercourse. Then they created a springy bed of smaller trees to cushion the fall. They rigged the trees on 15/ high wooden wheels connected by heavy chains and axles - called baulking. Then they pulled the with “enormous teams of oxen.”
I have a book on “Industrial Archeology” which mentions the steel industry in New Jersey. Before there was substantial coal mining, steel was made with wood from about 1800. They would build huge blast furnaces, a cone with a ramp up to the top. They denuded the forests for miles around, chop it into manageable sizes and back wagonloads up to the top of the ramp and dump them into the furnace. When there was no lumber left for miles around, it was cheaper to build a new furnace in a better location. Supposedly the remains of some such furnaces can be found in the New Jersey area and farther afield.