0415151406.Routledge.Interpreting.the.Landscape.Landscape.Archaeology.and.Local.History.Jul.1997

More free books @ www.BingEbook.com

www.BingEbook.com

INTERPRETING

THE

LANDSCAPE


www.BingEbook.com


www.BingEbook.com

INTERPRETINGTHE

LANDSCAPE

Landscape Archaeology andLocal History

Michael Aston

London and New York


www.BingEbook.com

Acknowledgements I am particularly grateful to Graham Webster, theGeneral Editor, and Peter Kemmis Betty ofBatsford for their encouragement during thewriting of this book. At times they had more faiththan I did.

Very many people have helped with thecompilation of material, in discussion and aid withillustrations. My colleagues in the Extra-MuralDepartment of Bristol University—Joe Bettey,Michael Costen and Bob Machin—providedstimulating discussion, while David Bromwich(Local History Librarian, Somerset CountyCouncil) and John Chandler (Wiltshire CountyCouncil) went to great lengths to find referencesand bibliographical details for me. Joe Bettey alsogave much useful advice on the final text.

Many people kindly gave me information andillustrations. I hope I have acknowledged them allin the text, but I would particularly like to

mention Martin Bell, Andrew Fleming, Bob Croft,Desmond Bonney, James Bond, Chris Gerrard,John Hurst, Chris Taylor, David Hall, DaveAustin, Roy Canham, Ann Beard, Peter Wade-Martins, Rupert Bruce-Mitford, Barry Cunliffe,Chris Dyer, Stanley West, Oliver Rackham, DavidWilson, Edward Price, Rob Iles, June Sheppard,Trevor Rowley, Brian Paul Hindle, Della Hooke,Jim Bolton and Nick Tweddle. Gordon Kelsey andhis colleagues did sterling work on thephotographs and line drawings.

I owe much to Carinne Allinson. Not only didshe type from a nearly illegible manuscript, but hereditorial skills contributed greatly to thecompletion of the book.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this book to myparents, who for so long have had to live with fieldarchaeology and landscape history—perhaps thiswill give them some idea of what it is all about.

© Michael Aston 1985 First published 1985 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, in any form or by any means, withoutpermission from the Publisher. ISBN 0-203-44212-1 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-75036-5 (Adobe eReader Format)ISBN 0-415-15140-6 (Print Edition) Originally publishedby B.T.Batsford Ltd


www.BingEbook.com

Contents

List of illustrations 6

Preface 8

Introduction 9

1 How do we know what we

know? 13

2 Early landscapes 21

3 Estates and boundaries 32

4 Status in the landscape 44

5 Deserted villages and after 53

6 Surviving villages 71

7 Farms and hamlets 82

8 Sites and patterns 91

9 Land uses 103

10 Field systems 120

11 Communications—the links

between 138

12 What does it all mean? 149

Bibliography and references 154

Index 165


www.BingEbook.com

6

1 Some of the more obvious relationships in thelandscape

2 Submerged forest off Minehead in Somerset3 Changes following woodland clearance4 Kiln Combe, near Eastbourne in Sussex5 The Sweet Track north of Wallway Farm, Meare

parish in Somerset6 Maps of Dartmoor showing reave systems7 Cropmarks at Foxley Farm, Eynsham in

Oxfordshire8 The experimental Iron Age farm at Butser in

Hampshire9 The early estate at Withington in Gloucestershire

10 Early estates at Bath and Brent in Somerset11 The relationships and arrangements within a

theoretical multiple estate12 A caput and Saxo-Norman estate based on Nether

Stowey in Somerset13 The estates of Evesham Abbey in Worcestershire14 The Wansdyke in Wiltshire15 Parish units in the Til and Avon river valleys in

Wiltshire16 Parish boundaries converging on Ready Token in

Gloucestershire, Rymer in Suffolk and Dunsmorein Warwickshire

17 Parishes with deserted settlements inNorthamptonshire

18 Secklow hundred meeting place, Milton Keynes inBuckinghamshire

19 The influence of the Taunton fairs in theseventeenth century

20 Bredon church in Worcestershire21 East Stoke church, Stoke sub Hamdon in Somerset22 Deserted medieval villages in England in 1966 and

197723 West Quantoxhead or St Audries deserted village

in Somerset24 Shrunken villages in Leicestershire25 Deserted settlements in the Midlands26 Village and garden earthworks at Hardington in

Somerset27 Naseby in Northamptonshire28 Stallingborough in Lincolnshire

29 Burton Dassett in Warwickshire and Mudford inSomerset

30 Wharram Percy deserted village in Yorkshire31 Plans of Anglo-Saxon settlements32 Furnells, Raunds in Northamptonshire33 Wheldrake in Yorkshire34 Thornton Dale and Hutton Buscell in Yorkshire35 Thornton Le Beans in Yorkshire36 Thrislington village in County Durham37 Village forms—principles of classification38 Marston Magna in Somerset—village plan analysis39 The settlements in Bishopstone, near Salisbury in

Wiltshire40 Biddestone village in Wiltshire41 Map of the Shrewton settlements in Wiltshire42 Maps of Weasenham St Peter in Norfolk43 Brixworth in Northamptonshire44 Mawgan Forth in Cornwall, Ribblehead in

Yorkshire and Simy Folds in Durham45 Bagley and Sweetworthy, Luccombe in Somerset46 Lettaford hamlet, North Bovey in Devon47 Hound Tor, Dartmoor in Devon48 Drainage at Brean in Somerset49 Chalton in Hampshire50 Processes of change in rural settlement51 A settlement in relation to local resources52 Diagram to show changing settlement sites53 Changes in the disposition of Romney and

Walland Marshes54 Air photograph of the lost river Siger in Somerset55 Roman settlements near Oundle in

Northamptonshire56 Roman settlements around Bath in Avon57 Early settlements on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire58 Deserted settlements in Hanbury in Worcestershire59 Land uses surrounding a settlement60 Land uses at Deerhurst in Gloucestershire61 Land uses at Ashington in Somerset62 Distant resources shared by numerous parishes63 Reconstruction of woodland structure under

classical coppice management, as used in theMiddle Ages

64 The Forest of Neroche in Somerset

List of illustrations


www.BingEbook.com

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

7

65 Plans of medieval parks66 Trowlesworthy Warren on Dartmoor in Devon67 Vermin trap at Trowlesworthy Warren on

Dartmoor in Devon68 Pillow mound at Bryncysegrfan, Llanfair

Clydogan in Dyfed69 A duck decoy in operation in the nineteenth

century70 Floated meadows at Lower Woodford in Wiltshire71 Water leats at Tolland in Somerset72 Map of England showing enclosure of common

field in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries73 Air photograph of ridge and furrow earthworks,

Husbands Bosworth in Leicestershire74 The formation and use of ridge and furrow75 Medieval settlement in Frocester in

Gloucestershire76 Fields at Bleadon in Avon77 The development of fields at Marden in

Herefordshire78 The turf dyke at Wheldrake in Yorkshire

79 The field system at Hound Tor on Dartmoor inDevon

80 Different types of enclosure at Charlton onOtmoor in Oxfordshire

81 Areas of England without common or common field82 Enclosure of commons and wastes by

Parliamentary Act in England83 The enclosure of the Forest of Neroche in Somerset84 The enclosure of Milton under Wychwood in

Oxfordshire85 Movements of timber and wood in the medieval

countryside86 The abandoned harbour at Lilstock in Somerset87 The itineraries of King John and Edward I88 Salt ways from Droitwich in Worcestershire89 Church paths in West Penwith in Cornwall90 The communication patterns in south-east Somerset91 Population in Britain 3000 BC-AD 150092 Stages of landscape development93 A settlement in its landscape94 A prehistoric craftsman and a medieval peasant


www.BingEbook.com

8

This book is written for those who want to know aboutthe English landscape, whether they are archaeologists,historians, geographers or anyone interested in ourpast, and for all those who may wish to do some localhistory research, a parish survey or a local study. Itdraws attention to recent research and studies in theEnglish landscape and shows how these are relevant tothe local researcher’s own interests. It attempts not onlyto review recent literature and articles (sometimespublished in obscure places) and to make availablemore widely and easily the ideas contained withinthem, but also to develop some new ideas, clarifycurrent knowledge and ideas and show how research isproceeding. Its aim is to throw some light on thecomplicated processes that have shaped the Englishlandscape.

Furthermore, it is hoped that it will make thoseengaged in all aspects of local research think moredeeply about their studies and begin to see them againstthe wider background of landscape studies. There is atendency to look at particular or individual landscapefeatures and see only details, but we need to think moreabout involved historical and natural processes andlook at examples of how other places have developedelsewhere. This may teach us something about our ownarea of study. Attention will also be drawn to thoseaspects of sites and features in the landscape whichhave not previously been fully appreciated—features

PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION

I have taken the opportunity of a reprint of Interpretingthe Landscape to correct errors in spelling, referencesand so on, drawn to my attention by reviewers andreaders. The publishers, and in particular Peter Kemmis

Preface

Betty, have kindly allowed me to update thebibliography and references to include materialpublished up to Spring 1992 and I hope this aspect ofthe book, which proved so useful in the originaledition, will therefore continue to be of value.

Such is the pace of research into the history of thelandscape in Britain that a completely revised edition ofthis book will be necessary in a few years time. whichare common enough but generally overlooked in thetext books, like pillow mounds and duck decoys.

Many text books published today tend to give theimpression that the author has personally carried outthe huge amount of research needed to compile thevolume; alternatively, the reader is bombarded withpages of indigestible references. In this book I hope tohave adopted a more honest approach. It is an amalgamof the research of many people and, wherever possible,I have credited individuals with their work in the text.In general, my own research has covered the Midlands(Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Oxfordshire) andthe West Country (Somerset, Avon, Gloucestershire andWiltshire); for other areas I have had to rely on theresearch of colleagues, for which I am most grateful.

The bibliographies for each chapter do not give allthe relevant references on the subject. What I have triedto do is to direct the reader to the most significant andimportant books and articles, which will in turn lead toa multitude of further papers. These bibliographiesshould be regarded as a door to further, more detailed,studies.

Finally, I hope this book is written in a style mostpeople can understand. I have tried to make it easy toread, but if at times it seems direct, personal or evencolloquial, this is because it is my job to communicateby teaching and this is the way language is used today.


www.BingEbook.com

9

Most people are interested in the past to some degreeand almost everyone wants to know something aboutthe locality in which they live. Most areas have localstories of Roman roads, ghosts, plagues, undergroundtunnels, civil war battles, and the comings and goingsof medieval monks, Cromwell and Elizabeth I. There isusually little truth in these stories, but their recountingshows something of attitudes and concerns about thehistory of particular local environments.

Nearly everywhere in this country has a local historywritten about it, often in the nineteenth or earlytwentieth century, and frequently by the local vicar,schoolteacher, or landed worthy. Invariably, thesehistories are concerned with the church, the manor, andthe important families but, whilst interesting inthemselves, these studies do not answer some of thebasic questions asked about a place today. Indeed, suchquestions were not even thought of in the past. So,something more rigorous is needed for those of us whoare concerned about the history behind the familiarscene. We want to know how old the church is and atwhat period most of the buildings were constructed, orwhy the hedges look as they do or why the road takesthe particular course it does. Other questions may seemmore awkward: when and why was this village or thatfarm first built there; what do those bumps and hollowsmean in that field, or even, where did earlier people findtheir water or what sort of agricultural system did theyemploy?

Such questions cannot be easily answered for mostof the parishes and villages in Britain, but the fact thatthey are being asked shows that, over the last quarter ofa century, a new way of looking at the landscape andour everyday surroundings, whether town or country,has developed. We owe our initial awareness ofquestions about the landscape to people like ProfessorsWilliam Hoskins and Maurice Beresford. A generationof research in archaeology, economic history, historicalgeography and local history, as well as related subjectslike historical ecology and place names, is nowbeginning to put forward explanations for some of the

features mentioned above. For a few places, the storybehind what we see around us is beginning to emergeand this will have clear implications for studies in otherplaces. Over the next few decades much more will belearnt.

It is the aim of this book to put some of thesequestions about the landscape and its development intoperspective by looking at research widely scattered overEngland. Where work has been done and ideasdeveloped, these will be discussed. Some of these ideaswill be useful and relevant elsewhere in the country,perhaps a village or parish under study locally, even ifthe place originally examined is many miles away.Frequently, it will not be possible to answer some of ourquestions at the moment. It is unlikely that the workdone so far will be relevant everywhere, but two thingsare certain: that research carried out in Yorkshire willhave important implications for the local historian orfieldworker in Somerset, and that an awareness ofproblems posed and work undertaken elsewhere mayprompt inquiry into aspects of the landscape hithertounsuspected or overlooked in our own locality. If thisbook succeeds in making us more aware, making usthink and question, and putting our own ‘LittleTwittering’ into some larger-than-local-history context,the future for landscape studies will indeed be fruitfuland exciting.

If we look at our surroundings, we are confrontedby a great variety of landscape features. Most of us nowlive in towns and much of our environment is urban orsuburban. Yet until the nineteenth century, most of thetowns and cities of Britain were small; even in the innersuburbs we may live in what was countryside until 80or 90 years ago, and much of the framework of thoseareas is rural rather than urban.

Over the last ten years I have lived in five differentenvironments. In Birmingham, the row of terracedhouses, built around the turn of the century, was allthat existed in a road which ran between fields in 1840and was not built up until the 1930s, ’50s and ’60s. Thelast piece of infilling is just beginning. Even so, the rear

Introduction


www.BingEbook.com

INTRODUCTION

10

fence of the garden there reflected an old (how old?)field boundary and opposite the front of the house wasa nineteenth-century brickyard with its pit, later used asan orchard and then as a lorry-breaker’s yard. Wherewas our medieval parish church, where were the farmsworking the fields, and why did the road, running as itdid through fields, have such a sinuous S-shapedcourse?

At Milton under Wychwood in Oxfordshire I livedin a new bungalow in a village. It was a vast thrivingplace with many new housing estates, garages, schoolsand shops. The new estate was infilled in the rear of theolder village properties and, when I came to dig thegarden, quite some time after settling into the house, Icame across the well-ploughed field soil of the formeropen field strips and a telltale scatter of medievalpottery sherds. My journey to work took me through alandscape created in the 1850s when the old open fieldswere enclosed and new farms, roads, field boundaries,and even stream courses were laid out. To me, thegenerally unattractive appearance of the village, andhence, I suspect, its rapid expansion, was largely due tothis total landscape reorganisation just over 100 yearsago (Fig. 84).

In Taunton I lived in a row of large fine terracedhouses by the railway station, which had been at theedge of the town until the 1930s. This isolated rowmust have looked impressive across the fields. Indeed,the outline of the plots owed its shape to the pre-existing fields, although the buildings may have beengenerated by the Great Western Railway enterprise,begun in that part of the West Country by Brunel inthe 1840s. My journey to work there took me over apattern of medieval roads conditioned by the presenceof a possible late Saxon bridge, Norman castle andmedieval town.

For a year I lived on the edge of Oxford in aquarryman’s house which had a small carved lion overthe door. It was near Headington Quarry, famous for itsquarrymen and morris dancers. The plot of land onwhich it stood was the result of ‘squatting’, orencroachment on a piece of waste or underused land,for across the end of the house ran the old road fromOxford to London. The road is now fixed by tarmac,but in earlier times it must have wandered amongst themud and potholes between wide hedges. Nearby therewere patches of woodland formerly used by Oxfordcolleges to supply their timber for building andfirewood, and the hedges, with their great banks andrich botanical species, indicated old fields.

In Bristol I lived in the inner suburbs in an old stonehouse of Tudor date. This was part of a larger house,now demolished, which looks splendid on the oldphotographs and earlier nineteenth-century prints.Land for several miles around was attached to it in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and outlines offields and the stone walls of its gardens have

conditioned the plots built on in the 1890s and early1900s and the road developments up to the 1930s.

I now live in Sandford, a small nondescriptbungaloid village outside Bristol. The bungalow inwhich I live is only 20 years old, but it has an oldholloway in front linking Sandford to the main villageof Winscombe, and the plot on which it stands is veryirregular in shape. One of the property boundaries is anold hedge on a stony bank and this forms part of aseries of parallel boundaries running for miles acrosscountry linked to a hillfort 3 kilometres (2 miles) away.

The past is all around us then, a truism whichdeserves to be repeated because it is so true; whether welike it or not, in this country we do live in a museum.Yet how are we to disentangle and understand it? Someof the likely developments have been indicated above aswell as some of the sources which can be used. We shallnow look more closely at the landscape and see whatwe can make of it.

Let us go first to the countryside, because, as hasalready been mentioned, most of Britain wascountryside until as little as 100 years ago, and alsobecause the elements we are going to examine are moreobvious to see, though not necessarily more easy tounderstand, than those in the towns and suburbs. Onany car journey in the countryside, fields defined byhedges or walls form the dominant view. Roads runbetween fields; tracks, footpaths and bridleways crossand join, and every so often a farm is passed. In villagesand hamlets we see buildings of all shapes, sizes, agesand functions, with yards, gardens, plots and paddocksaround, behind and between them. At the end of thevillage the church frequently provides a focus for ourattention; it may have a manor house next to it or standalongside a stately mansion. If we have come anydistance, we may have crossed streams or perhaps ariver, and spent some time climbing up or down hills.We may have noticed areas of unenclosed common-land, old quarries, perhaps the ruins of a castle orabbey, or an old mill or factory in a deep valley.Signposts will tell us the names of the farms and villagesand indicate the nearest towns.

What are we to make of all these features, wherethey are situated and how they are arranged? There areclearly many ways of subdividing them and each of usmay have a logical way of ordering the study of such alandscape, but in this book we are going to look at thelandscape more from how it has functioned than how itlooks. As we shall see, this will clarify many of theproblems of why the landscape looks like it does andthus make it easier for us to study the changes whichhave resulted in the present complex pattern.

The basic shape of the land has geological andgeomorphological origins, but our concerns are withthe activities of people over many generations. First andforemost, people must have somewhere to live, even if itis only a temporary encampment, and so our main


www.BingEbook.com

INTRODUCTION

11

concern will be with settlements, a difficult word withmany meanings. Here we shall consider villages,hamlets and farms: how they originate, what theyconsist of, how they change, and what they look liketoday. Secondly, people need to eat, and most of thelandscape has been organised in the past to enable themaximum amount of food to be produced. Farming,fields and agricultural operations spring to mind andmost land has been used for food production to agreater or lesser degree in the past. Land use is thereforea central theme, with discussion about how land hasbeen used at different times, what field systems havebeen employed, and the ways of operating them, andhow these patterns have changed through time.

The links between villages, farms and their fields,and between towns and the countryside are clearlyevident in the landscape. Roads, tracks, rivers, and the

small harbours and ports on rivers, estuaries and thecoast were vital for moving goods about in the past.Towns often provided the points of exchange for thesegoods, and the fairs and markets with which we are sofamiliar today have a long history, although originallythey were very different in character. So, focal places,where special goods or services could be obtained, formanother less obvious, but equally important, element inthe landscape.

Other aspects of earlier societies are not so obviousuntil a little thought is focused on them. Churches are afamiliar element in the landscape, some of the mostattractive and frequently the oldest buildings in anyarea. As burial places they were the successors togenerations of earlier cemeteries and they provided thelocal religious focus, while the castle, manor house orstately home provided the administrative focus.

1 Some of the more obvious relationships in the landscape. The example shown here is based on the medieval period, but theinterrelationships depicted, between the settlement under study, its lands, other local settlements and the local town applyequally to all other periods.


www.BingEbook.com

INTRODUCTION

12

Monasteries also had this latter administrative functionin addition to their religious activities.

Recognition of these different aspects should help usto sort out what we see in the landscape. The obviousfeatures of hedges, woods, buildings and fields are partof the way the landscape was used. Some aspects of thelandscape have become specialised topics; buildings arethe preserve of experts in vernacular architecture andhistoric buildings, but we can use the results of theirresearch to help us understand our local landscape.Similarly, industrial archaeologists can point to theremains of early industrial activity and processes in thelandscape and, even if we do not understand themechanics or the chemistry, we can use theirinformation in our studies also.

Finally, we must remember that the Britishlandscape is very old in the sense that people have beenliving in it and using it for many thousands of years. Itused to be thought that their influence before theAnglo-Saxon period was minimal and that prehistoricpeople had made little impact on their environment andleft little trace of their activities. As we drive aroundmuch of the country this still appears to be true, but,over the last 30 years, fieldwork by archaeologistsfollowing motorway schemes, collecting pottery fromfields, and looking for earthworks has shown that thelandscape was very well developed even by 2000 BC,and air photographs taken by archaeologists show thatvast areas were covered by dense patterns of settlementsand their fields well before the Roman conquest. Inmany areas little can be seen of this, but it certainlyexists over wide areas. In any landscape study we need

to be aware of what might lie hidden beneath the soiland how this may have influenced the layout of whatwe see around us, generally attributed to later periods.We shall, therefore, be looking at what we now knowof prehistoric and Roman landscapes and how theymight have influenced the framework of our presentsurroundings.

When Professor W.G.Hoskins wrote The Making ofthe English Landscape in 1955, he said (p. 14) ‘TheEnglish landscape itself, to those who know how to readit aright, is the richest historical record we possess.’ Sincethen, study after study has shown how much can belearnt. We now know that the landscape as created andused by people is much older than we ever thought, withperhaps as much as 12,000 years of intense activityrepresented. We know that its development has beenmore complex than we ever imagined, with manycombinations of and interrelationships between thefactors mentioned above. Change, rather than stability,has tended to be the order of the day. The idea of anunchanging landscape since time immemorial has hadto be replaced now by one of great dynamism. If wecould see the English landscape developing over the last6000 years in a speeded-up film, it would certainlyresemble an ants’ nest, with not only the ants movingabout at a great pace engaged in many jobs, but the nestitself being shifted constantly! This ants’ nest which isthe English landscape will be examined in this book tosee how it has developed and what we can learn from it;but first we must look at the sources of informationavailable to us to begin the investigation of the locallandscape.


www.BingEbook.com

13

The fact that there is likely to be an earlier local historyof any particular parish has already been mentionedand will certainly be useful. What other sources arethere for the history of the landscape? Where should wego to consult them or find out more, and what can weexpect to learn from them? There are really five maincategories of information—archaeology, aerialphotography, maps, local history and related studies—and in this chapter we shall look at each of these andsee what they can tell us.

ARCHAEOLOGY

A certain amount may be known about the archaeologyof the area to be examined, and much else can be learntfrom other sources discussed below. Most people donot realise that for most of the country no detailedarchaeological fieldwork has ever been carried out andthat there has usually been little, if any, recentexcavation on any of the known archaeological sites inany area. The present lack of resources and the fewarchaeologists mean that this situation is not likely toalter in the near future and therefore a very realcontribution can be made by the local fieldworkercarrying out a parish survey or piece of landscapehistory research.

The Archaeology Division of the Ordnance Survey(which is now part of the Royal Commission onHistorical Monuments (England)) has, over the years,compiled a monumental record of most of the knownsites and finds in the country. If such archaeologicalfeatures as hillforts, barrows, castle mounds ormonastic sites exist in an area, these will be recorded onthe OS Archaeology Division Record cards. The centralrepository is in Southampton, but there is anothercomplete set in London (National Monuments Record)and there is usually a county set in the CountyMuseum, Record Office, Local History Library, or withthe County Archaeologist. The OS records, however,do not record extensive areas of earthworks or earlylandscape features associated with the post-Romanperiod, and they are not concerned with the myriad odd

features encountered in fieldwork which go so far toaid understanding of landscape development.Nevertheless, the record provides a good starting pointif there are any major field monuments in the areaunder study.

Most counties now have some sort of Sites andMonuments Record, usually housed in the CountyPlanning Department or the County Museum, and thistends to be based on the OS Archaeology Divisionrecords with further information added. Such recordscontain detailed 6-inch OS maps marked up withsymbols of early sites and historic landscape features,together with collections of aerial photographs, groundsurveys, references to museum collections, and so on.They provide a direct introduction to the existence ofother material about the sites in an area and where thiscan be found, and the people in charge can often sayhow up-to-date parts of the record are and which areasof a county need more fieldwork, aerial survey andlocal history research.

How can these records aid our work ofunderstanding the landscape? It is useful to know thatthere are field monuments of the Bronze or Iron Ages,or that a Roman villa has been found, or that there is aNorman church next to a motte and bailey castle, sinceeach of these sites has implications for the landscape.Visits to them will often reveal further, less obvious,field evidence which has not so far been appreciated.Similarly, a collection of early pottery listed in such arecord may indicate a site which can only be more fullyunderstood when further investigation takes place. Therecord, then, can provide a beginning or base point forfurther work.

References to previous excavations contained insuch records may be particularly useful. Even casualreferences to collections of pottery of a particular dateor type, or the recorded depth of the bedrock in acertain spot, may help to indicate landscape changes.More detailed or large-scale recent excavations arelikely to have revealed a great deal of informationabout the local landscape. This is particularly truewhere excavations have been accompanied by pollen or

1

How do we know whatwe know?


www.BingEbook.com

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW?

14

snail analysis or other environmental sampling, orwhere specialists have contributed reports on the localgeology, soil or geomorphological changes or thebotanical history of the area.

Palaeo-environmental evidence is becomingincreasingly important and has great implications forthe study of landscape history. Even though nothingmay have been done on your area, it is important toappreciate the potential. Unless an expert isconducting research in your area it is unlikely that youwill be able to learn much of the detail of localchanges, although much more will be known of theenvironmental changes in the landscape in future fromthis type of data than from almost anything else,especially for the earlier periods. The chapter onprehistoric and Roman landscapes will show just howmuch can be found out.

The archaeological evidence so far discussed willprovide a general background to the major fieldmonuments and archaeological sites in the area and, ifwe are lucky, more detailed information from theoccasional excavation or piece of environmentalresearch will help. How can we supplement this, obtaina fuller picture and see the relationship of individualsites to the rest of the landscape? Various methods willbe described below, and further excavation will addmuch new information. Fieldwork, simply andeffectively carried out, will certainly provide one of themost cost-effective sources of additional information.Unlike excavation, it is non-destructive, leaving muchof the evidence intact for future generations ofresearchers.

FieldworkFieldwork at its most basic involves walking across thelandscape recording features seen on the ground. In thissection we are concerned with man-made features, butit is often difficult to separate these from naturalaspects. It is thus advisable to record geological andbotanical information as well; more will be said of thislater.

Certain basic preparations need to be made beforecommencing fieldwork. Before work can begin,permission must be obtained from the farmer orlandowner, and it is worth spending some timeexplaining to the owner what you are trying to achieve.Contacts and friendly introductions can smooth thepath and gain access to some of the more privateestates.

While compasses and survival kit are not generallynecessary in this country, good footwear and warmwaterproof clothing are essential. Since the bestfieldwork is carried out in the winter (for reasons whichwill be explained below), rubber Wellington boots withseveral layers of socks are the best footwear: it isinevitable that streams and boggy ground will beencountered and stout walking shoes are not adequate.Similarly, layered clothing is best, because with exertion

and our unpredictable climate a well-padded anorak issometimes too heavy or too warm. A thin and a thickpullover, with a windproof and/or waterproofoverlayer is best, enabling the maximum combinationof layers for warmth and protection against wind orrain or both. Waterproof trousers that reduce to apocket-sized parcel are also advisable.

Maps will be discussed below in more detail, but forfieldworking the 6-inch (1:10000) is the best widelyavailable scale, although the 2½-inch (1:25000) shouldbe carried for the general locality and the 25-inch(1:2500) map for detail of a small area. With the wideavailability of photocopying machines, it is useful tohave copies of the relevant bits of the map to mark onin the field. With modern maps there are copyrightproblems and so, as will be explained below, the firstedition OS 6-inch maps of the 1880s are generally used.It is a pity that the OS do not produce a 12-inch to themile (i.e. 1:5000) map, since this would be ideal,combining the detail of the large-scale maps with thepage size of the 2½-inch or 1-inch maps. If you haveaccess to map reducing or enlarging facilities, andparticularly if you are working in an urban or suburbanarea, this is a scale well worth considering.

In order to protect such maps while wroking in thefield, plastic dockets of A4 size or thereabouts shouldbe carried, together with a board to write on. It is notworth buying anything expensive, because a piece ofhardboard which can go in the plastic docket withsome metal clips (foldback not bulldog) is cheaper andmuch better. A notebook, or better still sheets of paperwhich can be filed together or separately, with aselection of pencils, hard and soft, coloured crayons, apenknife and rubber, should also be carried. Plasticbags will be needed for finds of pottery and otherobjects picked up from ploughed areas. Driving to thearea in which you are interested is quite acceptable,but there is no substitute for walking across thelandscape.

Your records should be intelligible to anyone else ifthey are to be of any value. Always work as if you areabout to drop dead—date and sign your work, put onscales, north signs and adequate keys; complete cross-referencing should be clearly marked. Days later youmay not remember what it all means.

EarthworksSo, what are we looking for? Almost anything you seemay be useful, but there are obvious categories ofevidence. Earthworks provide perhaps the greatestsource of information, particularly for the more recentperiods. Almost any bump, lump or hollow hassomething to tell us, even if it is of little significance.There are, however, a few rules of thumb to remember.Firstly, even though the mound or feature you havefound, recorded, and even surveyed, may look like atypical example of a certain type of site, without furtherresearch (or even excavation) it is usuallyimpossible to


www.BingEbook.com


15

tell. The few field archaeological manuals that areavailable lead one to think that every mound isexplicable, although usually only four out of fivefeatures recognised on any reconnaissance are easilyidentifiable as particular types of archaeologicalfeature.

Secondly, areas of earthworks, while lookinghomogeneous today, may in fact have originated atwidely different times for varying reasons. A site whichat first seems to be a monastic complex, with goodquality earthworks but no standing building, may infact have earthworks of an abandoned village whichpredate the monastery, and the terraces and gardens ofa post-dissolution mansion all mixed up with theobvious monastic earthworks. The present view is likelooking at the stars—in one view many ages are seen(Fig. 26).

Finally, to work in isolation from the field evidencealone is likely to prove misleading. Adequatepreparation with the maps indicating field names, localgeology and something of the local history of the areacan help avoid some of the worst ‘elephant traps’ ofexplanation into which we are all liable to fall fromtime to time.

There are a number of text books which assist in theidentification of archaeological field monuments andareas of early landscape and it is not a skill easily taughtin a book like this one. The best advice for thefieldworker is to be persistent, visiting as many types offield monuments, in as many different seasons andparts of the country as possible. If sites are visited thatare already well recorded and even fully excavated, itwill prove easier to recognise similar features andlandscapes in other areas. Later chapters will assist insuch work, but without the acquired expertise andappropriate local background research, it is easy to bemisled.

Round moundsLet us take, as an example, the case of round mounds.Most archaeological textbooks and manuals on fieldtechniques give the impression that all round earthenmounds that a fieldworker may encounter are roundbarrows of the prehistoric Bronze Age. This is partlybecause there are many of them, especially in the areastraditionally of interest to field archaeologists, such asthe chalk uplands of Wessex and Sussex and otheruplands like the Peak District and the North YorkshireMoors. It is also a reflection of the interest of mostfieldworkers (certainly until the 1950s) in theprehistoric and Roman evidence, almost to theexclusion of everything later, and also of the focus ofattention on specific archaeological sites rather thanwider landscape implications.

In fact, there are many features in the landscapewhich end up as round mounds and most of them arenot prehistoric burial mounds! Indeed, since the workof Leslie Grinsell (cataloguing barrows county by

county across southern England), it is unlikely thatlarge numbers of such sites will be found from now on;those that do turn up are likely to be degraded ordamaged examples. What else, then, can round earthenmounds represent, and how can the fieldworker getclues to their original or previous use?

A host of recent activities has resulted in roundmounds being constructed. In the Second World War,for example, ‘decoy towns’ were built to attract enemybombers away from city targets. One of these remainsat Black Down on the Mendips, south of Bristol. Here,parallel lines of small mounds about im (39 in) inheight run for long distances across the heathland.Nearby is a large air-raid shelter, and the lines ofmounds run confusingly through a prominentprehistoric barrow cemetery! The site was one of anumber of decoys in the West Country and fires were liton the mounds to create the impression from above ofpathfinders’ flares and burning buildings. Not far awayon North Hill at Minehead in Somerset another piece ofmoorland has many larger earthen mounds, some withhollows in the top. This looks like a large spread-outbarrow cemetery, but there are triangular ‘courses’ andthe remains of a tank turret and shells to indicate thesite’s real use as a Second World War tank-trainingrange. The most prominent earthworks were mobiletarget tracks with underground blockhouses at oneend. It is, thus, important to recognise that featuresfrom the 1939–45 war have now become‘archaeological’, and care in interpretation needs to beapplied by the fieldworker.

From earlier crises, and more primitive methods ofsolving them, came beacons. In the West Country manyhilltops were used for signalling purposes and the firesor fire baskets were often placed on mounds.Confusingly, some barrows were used for this purpose,such as Cothelstone Beacon and Westbury Beacon inSomerset, and it is not clear how much, or little, of theearlier structure was disturbed. Frequently, the beaconuse has entered the local folklore to the exclusion ofearlier and later use of the sites.

This use and re-use of sites at all periods poses veryreal problems for the fieldworker. Without excavationit is impossible to say what, or how many, uses a roundmound may have had. For example, in the Middle Agesround mounds were built for early castles and tosupport windmills. In either case, earlier barrows couldhave been used for the later structure. Thus, atBrinklow in Warwickshire there is a fine motte andbailey castle of Norman date, but its motte stands on aridge and may originally have been the ‘low’ or burialmound of the place name. Many early mottes of smallNorman castles were interpreted on early OS maps asbarrows, and though it is impossible to tell withoutexcavation, the context of some of these sites maybesignificant. Less substantial earthworks demarcatingthe bailey and other subsidiary enclosures may havegone unnoticed. Yet, even if they are disguised under


www.BingEbook.com


16

later hedges or within present-day properties, they canoften still be detected and recorded. Field names help,but the main feature is that many of them are near toearly churches and sometimes associated with villageearthworks. A small mound 1–2 metres (3–6 feet) highat Rochford in Worcestershire is almost certainly asmall castle motte, even though it is nearly cut in half bythe river Teme and has had fruit trees planted on it. Itstands next to the local church, which has a fine ‘Treeof Life’ tympanum over the Norman doorway.

Similarly, windmills were invariably built on hills,or at least locally prominent spots—just the sort ofplaces to find earlier barrows. At Stoke St Gregory inSomerset a fine mound on a hill overlooking theLevels could easily be a barrow. As at other windmillsites, the local field name Windmill Hill and thecharacteristic cross-shaped hollow in the top help ininterpretation. The latter feature is the ghost of the‘cross-trees’ used to support the post mills, butbarrow-robbing, with treasure-hunting holes dug inearlier times into the centres, could result in a similarfeature being formed.

The conversion to Christian use of earlier pagansites often meant the incorporation of earlier featuresinto churchyards. Maxey Church in Northamptonshireis almost certainly built on a barrow, one of several inthe locality. The others are now ploughed out andappear as cropmarks, or have been dug away in gravelextraction. However, at Berwick in Sussex a roundmound sits in the churchyard next to the medievalchurch—probably an earlier pagan feature taken overin early missionary activity.

A number of other mounds formed the meetingplaces of the hundred courts in the eleventh and twelfthcenturies and perhaps earlier. Frequently, this fact isreflected in the later hundred names, such asSwanborough in Wiltshire and Secklow inBuckinghamshire (Fig. 18). Occasionally the moundremains, as at these sites, and also at King’s Standing bySutton Park on the outskirts of Birmingham.

Medieval fishponds are increasingly beingrecognised. Although usually dry, they remain asgrassed hollows, sometimes with prominent dams.Again, the context is important, for a number haveround mounds in the bottom which would have beenislands when the pond was full of water. At Steeton inYorkshire one such mound was dug in the mistakenbelief that it was prehistoric in date! Such islands wereused as refuges for ducks and other water birds.

Also from the Middle Ages there are instances ofmounds being used as archery butts, as at WoldNewton in Yorkshire, or as gibbet mounds, as atCaxton in Cambridgeshire. Again, it is usually unclearwhether this is a later use of an earlier site. Similarly, atLow Ham in Somerset, a low mound with a slight ditcharound it is shown on an eighteenth-century map as‘Dovehouse in decay’ and evidently was the base of acircular medieval stone dovecote. Other mounds on

village and major sites may also have been dovecotes,but this particular example may have persisted as afolly or gazebo for the nearby mansion.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries very manymounds were built. The vogue for formal gardensnecessitated the construction of prospect mounds,viewing platforms, and supports for seats,summerhouses, trees and shrubs (Fig. 26). A classicexample is Lyveden in Northamptonshire, where themounds are terraced with spiral paths. A moremundane example is Car Colston in Nottinghamshire,where two ordinary round mounds with a pondbetween form the prospect to a fine eighteenth-centuryhouse once lived in by Robert Thoroton, the countyantiquarian. At Hatch Beauchamp in Somerset severalmounds on a ridge mark the gardens of the lostBelmont House—it would be easy to interpret thesemounds as prominent barrows. Elsewhere inlandscaped parks other round mounds may beencountered. Ice houses, when ruined, look likebarrows or small mottes, but the brick passages anddomes of the ice chamber usually reveal their truepurpose.

Industrial activity has also produced manyintriguing earthworks. Early mining, in particular, wascarried out via ‘bell pits’ and some of these again looklike barrows. Confusion is easy, as the siting of much ofthis mining in upland Britain means that round moundsand hollow doughnut-shaped mounds can beprehistoric circular houses (‘hut circles’), barrows,cairns, or mining activity—frequently a mixture ofeach! The Minnions area in Cornwall has extensive bellpits from copper and tin mining mixed up with theprehistoric Hurlers stone circles and accompanyingbarrows. In the Peak District many uplands, forexample Bonsall, are pitted with lead workings whichlook like rows of robbed-out cairns. At Holcombe inSomerset a number of early coal mining bell pits remainfrom the thirteenth century onwards, while at BentleyGrange in Yorkshire iron mining bell pits of medievaldate cover earlier ridge and furrow, providing superbfield evidence for the relative dates.

The lesson with round mounds, as with otherearthworks, is that great care and attention has to begiven to them as features in the landscape wheneverthey are encountered. Without excavation, it may beimpossible to say what they are definitely, but thecontext of them, their setting, and useful hints like fieldnames, all help to decide what they might be. Thisexamination of round mounds serves to demonstratethe problems in interpreting features which may lookalike, but have very different origins.

Arable land and findsFieldwork on ploughed land is most likely to producescatters of finds, especially pottery sherds. There arenow several useful manuals explaining how to searchfields systematically, carefully record the finds made,


www.BingEbook.com


17

and understand what the finds mean. Initially, the newfieldworker looking for pottery tends to pick up onlypieces of ‘willow pattern’ plate or blue and whiteWoolworth’s crockery. Early pottery is much lessobvious and the buff, grey and beige sherds take someidentifying in plough soil. Studies have shown thatdull, dry days after rain are likely to be the mostproductive.

Visits to local museums and reference to textbookswill show the sort of Roman and medieval potterylikely to be found. Prehistoric and Saxon pottery ismuch rarer and tends to be more friable; it is easilydestroyed by plough action and weathering.

It is not possible here to explain all the types ofpottery likely to be encountered, and a specialist in thepottery of the area will usually need to be consulted atthe local museum to give more than an approximateguess at the age of any sherds found. However, a fewpoints need to be mentioned. Firstly, the search shouldbe systematic in 10 metre (33 feet) or so strips, witheverything which is not natural being picked up andrecorded. Secondly, the finds should be bagged up andproperly identified with field reference, date, finder,location, and so on. Thirdly, the condition of the potsherds found will be very important (Figs. 42 and 43).Large sherds of freshly broken pottery are more likelyto indicate a former settlement site than small abradedsherds, which are more likely to have been ploughedover many times and must in many cases be the result of‘manuring’ in earlier times, with domestic rubbishbeing brought out to the fields with dung, straw, and soon. Such small, broken, abraded sherds may thusrepresent the fields rather than the settlement, hence thearchaeologist’s great interest in the condition andnumber of sherds (you might expect more on asettlement), as well as the dating.

Pottery is not the only material found in plough soil.Metal objects are frequently picked up, including piecesof bronze and iron, as well as coins. Much, however, isoften of recent date, representing bits of horse fittingsand pieces of agricultural machinery. Since pottery andstone objects tell us most about previous humanactivity on a site, metal detectors are not likely to bevery informative, unless one is only interested invaluable loot. Stone objects may include flint or chertflakes and implements and the same care needs to beapplied as with pottery. Careful recording of all piecesfound, waste flakes as well as implements, enablesprehistorians to distinguish different types of sites fromdifferent periods, from settlements to campsites, withareas of arrowhead finds perhaps indicating huntinggrounds.

Great familiarity with the locality is needed torecord all that can be seen in plough soil and tointerpret it correctly, but, as with other aspects offieldwork, it is practice rather than teaching whichachieves most. The secret is to separate out the ‘natural’features, such as subsoil or drift-deposited material,

from anything ‘archaeological’ (introduced by man),and then interpret what such material might mean.Areas of broken bricks might indicate former gateentrances, and darker soil may mark the sites of ditchesor hedges of recently removed field boundaries; butequally, burnt clay or daub together with darker soiland patches of charcoal might indicate an earliersettlement or kiln site. It is often difficult to be certain,but the evidence should be carefully recorded andstudied.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

It is difficult to emphasise enough how important aerialphotographs are for the study of a landscape. Little realprogress will be made without recourse to at least a fewpictures and it is therefore important right from theoutset to establish what air pictures are available for anarea and how useful they are likely to be. There arebasically two types of air picture (obliques andverticals) and two sources (those taken forarchaeological reasons and those taken for otherpurposes). Vertical photographs provide a‘photographic map’, taken looking down over a pieceof country (e.g. Fig. 26), whereas obliques give a bird’s-eye view (e.g. Figs. 24 and 25). Both are useful,obliques frequently showing sites in great detail, whileverticals enable mapping of such features as ridge andfurrow.

There are two national repositories of aerialphotographs taken primarily for archaeologicalpurposes. In Cambridge the collection built up byProfessor St Joseph and continued by David Wilsonincludes hundreds of thousands of oblique views ofmost of the major field monuments and areas ofarchaeological interest. These are indexed by civilparish, and copies (and searches) can be made. Thecollection of the Air Photographs Unit of the NationalMonuments Record is indexed by OS grid squares andcontains large numbers of cropmark sites and verticalpictures (e.g. Fig. 66). Again, copies can be ordered andsearches made.

For any square mile of Britain, hundreds, if notthousands, of air photographs have probably beentaken in the past. Certainly, since 1945, vertical airphotograph coverage will exist for most areas, andthere may be pre-war photographs for some areas.Some of the earliest and most useful material was takenby the RAF between 1944 and 1948. This series wastaken for local government purposes and, becausegreatareas were photographed in winter in low sunlight, it isparticularly useful for landscape studies. Since thatdate, flights for local authorities (for planning andhighways purposes) and by the statutory undertakers(gas, electricity, water boards, etc.), as well as maprevision by the Ordnance Survey, have resulted in largenumbers of vertical air pictures being taken. To beginany study such sources need to be located and access


www.BingEbook.com


18

arranged. Frequently, such surveys can be seen byapplication to the above organisations or via theCounty Archaeologist, who will know of the localsources. The use to which all such photographs can beput will be indicated throughout this book. Principally,however, they are used to record changes in thelandscape, and earthworks and features revealed bylow sunlight, and cropmarks. Earlier photographs will,of course, show landscape changes that have takenplace particularly well.

MAPS

After fieldwork and aerial photographs, maps form thethird pillar on which successful landscape studies arebuilt. Before the Ordnance Survey came into existence,there were few printed large-scale maps in Britain, butthere are three major sources of early large-scalemanuscript maps. The main Tithe Commutation Act of1836 resulted in many parishes in Britain beingsurveyed on a large scale with a detailed accompanying‘award’ being compiled, listing information about theparish, township or tithing. The tithe map, therefore,provides a good basic document for landscape study. Itcan be used to produce maps and information on landownership, tenancy, land use and value, and, perhapsmost importantly, it gives field and land parcel namesand shows in detail a landscape before the effects of thenineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is useful tocompile a 6-inch scale version of the tithe map onplastic tracing film for the area under study. Thisenables dyeline copies to be made, on which differentclasses of information can be plotted, and also tithemaps of different parishes can be more easilycompared, since the originals occur at a variety ofscales. For other areas, enclosure maps of the lateeighteenth and nineteenth centuries can be used in thesame way.

Estate maps, especially of pre-tithe date, can also beused in this way and, since they are available for someareas back to the sixteenth century, these are frequentlyextremely important sources (Fig. 27). Sometimes onlysmall areas are shown, and 6-inch scale versions willhelp in comparison between different sources anddates.

From the early nineteenth century, mapmaking bythe Ordnance Survey becomes of increasingimportance. Even though the earliest maps at one inchto one mile are rather too small to give more than themajor outlines, they can be compared with earlier mapsat about the same scale (such as the Greenwood maps[1822] and Day and Masters maps [1782] forSomerset, and Andrews and Drury maps [1773] forWiltshire); frequently, the two inches to one mile fieldsheets from which these first OS maps were compiledare accessible in local Record Offices. However, it iswithout doubt the larger scales that the landscapehistorian will find most interesting. In particular, the

first edition OS 6-inch maps should be mentioned,which are by far the most useful maps to thefieldworker (e.g. Figs. 39, 40 and 41). There is usually aset of them in the local Record Office and copies can bemade very cheaply without copyright infringement,enabling a complete coverage to be built up of the areaunder study. These maps are some of the finestproduced, showing in great detail buildings, roads,hedges (often with tree species), stream courses, parishand other boundaries. Nothing the Ordnance Surveyproduces today on this scale is as good and so, asmentioned above, this is really the best basis forfieldwork and rural landscape history study in thiscountry.

For more built-up areas and more detailed survey,the larger scale 25-inch (now 1:2500) and 50-inch(1:1250) maps are available from the late nineteenthcentury onwards. The modern versions of these mapsgive a wealth of detail, but again the older maps aremore useful, with their record of places before themajor changes of this century.

LOCAL HISTORY

There is a wealth of material published on the sourcesand use of local history material; Record Offices andLocal History Libraries provide easy access to suchmaterial, and their staffs will readily give advice on theuses of the source material. However, a few generalpoints need to be made on the use of local historymaterial in any local landscape study. Firstly, much thatis of interest to and forms the basis of the work of thelocal historian is often of little or no interest to thestudent of landscape history. Unless the documentsrefer to a feature or change in the landscape, they canprobably be considered irrelevant. Documents whichgive good topographical detail, such as manorial courtrolls, surveys and extents, are, however, of greatimportance. The stock-in-trade of many localhistorians—genealogical material, parish registers, andthe mass of nineteenth-century documentation—tends,on the other hand, to be of very limited interest to thoseinvolved in the study of the history of the landscape.

Secondly, much local history, as carried out in thepast, was rather more the magpie-like collection of factsthan problem-orientated research. Proper landscaperesearch needs to ask and, wherever possible, answer,questions. If a document or piece of local historicalresearch helps in such work, then it should be used; ifnot, it should be put aside. An outstanding exception tothe somewhat conventional approach to local historycan be seen in the work of the editors of the VictoriaCounty History (VCH) volumes at present underway.Working to a predetermined plan of manorial andestate history, economic history, church history, theseprovide a wealth of easily accessible publishedmaterial—a superb source of local landscape study,where they are available. Some counties are more


www.BingEbook.com


19

advanced than others, but the student of landscapehistory is fortunate if he or she works in a regionrecently fully researched by the VCH.

A third source of documentation, and one of verygreat importance, is place names. Most place-nameexperts stress that this is a very difficult source ofinformation to use and recent work by scholars in thisfield is dramatically altering our ideas on place names,so that books and articles written as recently as tenyears ago are now likely to be out-of-date. As with theVCH, where there has been a recent volume publishedby the English Place Name Society (e.g. Berkshire orCheshire), a mine of useful material becomes available,together with the latest assessment; but elsewhere therecan be problems. In some counties, active work is beingconducted by carefully supervised groups or PhDstudents. Clearly, as part of any landscape study, placenames should be carefully collected, together with datesand sources of information. Assessment andinterpretation should only be attempted, as withpottery sherds and earthwork interpretation, with thehelp of an expert if the worst mistakes are to beavoided.

Although oral history is important as a source ofrecent change, its use needs to be strictly vetted. Localknowledge of the landscape can be invaluable, andfarmers in particular can usually give a wealth of adviceon good and poor land, former cottage sites, alterationsthey have made, and finds that have been reported; allof this information should be collected and recorded.However, local people often have a fund of biased andpoorly authenticated hearsay which, if too much note istaken of it, will confuse the serious researcher. Ingeneral, the local tradition concerning what hashappened in the locality, particularly beyond a coupleof generations ago, is the least reliable source ofinformation and should be treated with greatscepticism.

OTHER SOURCES

The study of the history of the landscape is much likeother branches of the past. The student needs to readwidely and to be skilled in several different disciplines.So far, we have considered archaeological, field andhistorical sources, but there are many other aspects ofthe landscape which are relevant to how people haveused it in the past, and even a slight knowledge of themwill aid understanding and interpretation of featuresdiscovered.

Change in the landscape has already been mentionedas a constant factor to be borne in mind. It might beassumed that any background material on the physicalappearance of the landscape would be constant. Onewould expect the form of the countryside, the drainagepattern, soil types, climate and, to some extent,vegetation to be reliable over long periods. As withman’s use of the landscape, however, these factors are

changing all the time. Climate is perhaps the leastinfluenced by people, but recent work has shown howeven slight alterations in temperature or precipitation,hardly noticeable within a lifetime, may have broughtabout long-term changes in the way people used thelandscape. This is a difficult field of study and thestudent is referred to the most recent publications in thebibliography.

While the overall appearance of the landscape basedon the geology and geomorphological processes withinit owes little to man, his interference with vegetationand drainage over the millennia has had widespreadlocal effects. Prehistorians and palaeo-environmentalists have found evidence of increasederosion of soil from hilltops and valley sides as a resultof clearance of woodland and soils left open to winterrains and frosts (Fig. 3). Many valleys have becomefilled with sediment, and river valleys have becomechoked with alluvium and colluvium brought down bystreams running rapidly off vegetation-free slopes. Suchchanges can be shown over long periods in prehistory,and they are still happening. Only our changingtechnology is capable of initiating, diverting andpreventing such ‘natural’ changes. It is well known thatsome rivers have less water in them now than in earliertimes (Fig. 54) and formerly busy harbours are nowchoked with silt and alluvium (Fig. 86).

The type and condition of the soil is increasinglyseen as the result of management or mismanagement byman. Following clearance of woodland and use forfarming, many soils became degraded, and thus themodern soil map may not reflect the situation 500,1000, or more years ago. When we use it to suggestareas of fertile land, well-drained country or boggyland, we need to be aware of change and to allow forthis, if possible, in our reconstruction of earlierlandscapes. Numerous excavations have shown betterquality soil under, for example, Bronze Age barrows,showing that the present landscape is not like it was atall times in the past. As with climate, this is a difficultarea to study, but some of the most useful books arereferred to in the bibliography.

Mention of vegetation should remind us that it is nowdifficult to envisage any part of the British Isles asundisturbed by the activities of people. It is now clearthat there is no primeval woodland left; everywhereclearances, whether in Anglo-Saxon, medieval orseventeenth-century times, must be reclearances (Fig.92). Pollen analysis demonstrates this very clearly.Nevertheless, the vegetation of a woodland, a hedge or agrassy field can, in the way Oliver Rackham has shownus, demonstrate man’s use of the area in the recent past.

In summary, then, it can be seen that in order tounderstand our local landscape there is much we needto know before we start work. We can make ourcontacts with the County Record Office, the CountyArchaeologist, and any other experts we may know. Wecan find our sources of air photographs and old maps


www.BingEbook.com


20

and get together our kit for fieldworking. But before webegin we should assess the problems of our locality andwhat information we are seeking. Only then will weknow how to proceed.

The landscape itself is very complex—a series ofinterconnecting systems, with people at the centre. Ithas always been so and we need to become, very earlyon in our work, allergic to simplistic explanations forfeatures we can see and changes we can infer. If we areprepared for complexity, we will make a more honestappraisal of how the piece of country we have chosendeveloped (Fig. 93).

Change and complexity are important concepts instudying our landscape, but we must also be aware of

the great length of time any part of the British Isles hasbeen occupied (Fig. 92). With the exception of periodicvisits in interglacial periods, we are now dealing withabout 12,000 years of continuous activity by people inBritain, and for about 10,000 years there is no knownhistory. Even for the last 2000 years, only 100–200years are adequately documented in some areas. Thusthe importance of prehistory must be stressed if anhonest landscape study is to be conducted. In that longperiod, perhaps only 3000–4000 years will have seenorganised settlements, field systems, trackways andreligious sites. We need to be aware of this long periodwhen the framework of the landscape was beingformed, and it is to this period that we now turn.


www.BingEbook.com

21

Although Britain has been occupied by man for morethan 25,000 years, in a form of intermittent visits overlong periods between glaciations, it is only for the last12,000 years or so that the country has beencontinuously occupied, with people moving intoBritain permanently to exploit what resources wereavailable. What sort of landscape did such Palaeolithic(Old Stone Age) and later Mesolithic (Middle StoneAge) people find and create, and what sort of economydid they practise?

With the retreat of the ice sheets, Britain was left as alandscape of glacial debris, alluvium and lakes,colonised initially by tundra vegetation. As the climateimproved, woodland dominated by birch and pinedeveloped, and by 8000 BC dense deciduous woodlandcovered almost all of the country. This very simplifiedpicture has been worked out by the detailed work ofpollen analysts studying fossil pollen grains from bogs,marshes and lakes. Of course, each of these landscapesof tundra, pine woodland and deciduous woodlandwas occupied by various types of animals, which intheir turn were hunted by man. The archaeologicalevidence for this hunting activity over very longperiods, from 12,000 to 4000 BC, consists of flintimplements and a few bone objects from both opensettlement sites and caves. Only rarely are other siteslike hunting bases recognised, usually from scatters offlints, and very few have ever been scientificallyexamined.

THE EARLIEST LANDSCAPES

It is difficult to imagine in detail what such landscapeslooked like, how they were used by people and in whatsort of activities these people were engaged. Untilrecently, indeed, any impact on the landscape in suchearly times was considered to have been minimal.However, new assessments of the evidence are paintinga radically different picture, emphasising the richness ofthe food and other resources available and the intensiveand extensive use of the land by Upper Palaeolithic andMesolithic communities (Fig. 52).

The range of equipment available to such peoplewas very wide. A variety of flint implements included

wood-, leather- and bone-working tools, and weapons,such as the microliths which formed parts of harpoonsand possibly spears. Of greatest interest, perhaps, arethe ‘tranchet’ axes (or ‘Thames picks’) which could beused for cutting down trees and preparing timber,leading to the possibility of extensive forest clearanceeven at this early date. (In this respect, fire was also ofgreat importance.)

Such early communities were not only dependenton animals for food and raw materials, but their life-style was probably determined to a large extent by theseasonal movements of these animals betweendifferent grazing areas. Various authors have arguedfor seasonal camps and settlements based on theanimal resources available—in the uplands in thesummer and on the coast and lowlands in the winter.What is perhaps of greater interest is the suggestedmanagement of such herds, with men clearing areas toencourage browse and grassland formation in order toattract animals, and a more symbiotic relationshipdeveloping. It may well be, in fact, that clearance ofwoodland was taking place sporadically in theMesolithic period (8000–4000 BC) to facilitatehunting by encouraging animals to frequent certainplaces and that this, together with the seasonalmovements of herds, determined very early patterns ofsettlement, communication and territorialorganisation of the landscape.

As will be indicated below, it is rarely wise toconsider a single place in isolation. In this period, therecognition of early flint scatters on the uplands or thecoast, or the location of a settlement site, whether in acave or not, can rarely be divorced from othercontemporary sites in the vicinity, even if widelyseparated. Professor Graham Clark has suggested, forexample, that the dwellers on the Mesolithic site at StarCarr in Yorkshire were exploiting not only the lake onwhich it was situated, but also the lowland of the Valeof Pickering to the west, the Yorkshire wolds to thesouth, and the North Yorkshire Moors to the north. Awide range of habitats and resources was thus availablewithin one or two hours’ walk.

In Somerset, reconstruction of the earliertopography of the county has led Christopher Norman

2

Early landscapes


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

22

to suggest a range of rich resources available atdifferent seasons, with men and animals moving fromthe rich pasture and woodland of the Somerset Levelsin summer to the uplands of Exmoor, the Quantocksand the Mendips in spring and autumn. The woodlandseverywhere would have provided game, animals formeat and other resources like bone and leather, fruit,berries, nuts, fungi, and so on, while the uplands mayhave provided natural or artificially created grazing forhorses, deer, wild cattle, wild pigs, and a host of smalleranimals. Roger Jacobi has described a vivid picture ofhunters around Cheddar Gorge using the many shallowaccess valleys from the Levels to the top of the Mendipsas ambush points for animals moving to and fro overthe seasons, and it is noticeable how many of theMesolithic sites located by Joan Taylor and RebeccaSmart are at the top end of shallow valleys in the frontof the Mendips and close to former springs.

In such an economy, and also in the earlier phases ofprimitive agricultural communities, the coast and thelarger river valleys provided very rich sources of foodfor small bands of people; many Mesolithic sites havebeen recognised in such areas. However, the coastline

has altered drastically in the last 10,000 years. Britainfinally became cut off from the Continent at the Straitsof Dover around 6500 BC, although it may have beensomewhat later between East Anglia and northernEurope via the Dogger Bank. Many of the Mesolithiccoastal sites are now submerged in southern Britain orraised on ‘raised beaches’ in the north. This means that,although upland sites may be detectable everywhere, inthe south only part of the early settlement pattern canbe retrieved.

Thus it can be seen that the records of UpperPalaeolithic and Mesolithic flints, few and sparse asthey may be to the local researcher, may, together withpalaeo-environmental information and some idea ofsuch early hunting, fishing and gathering life-styles,lead to a real appreciation of how the landscape wasused by people in these early periods in the area understudy. It is at least likely that this movement of peopleacross the landscape, between favoured settlement sitesand camps beside rivers, on the coast and in shelteredupland spots, may have determined many of theterritorial and communication patterns more easilyobserved later on.

2 Submerged forest off Minehead in Somerset. Well down the beach at low tide can be seen the bases of tree boles and the peatof the former forest floor. These provide dramatic evidence of sea level changes since Mesolithic times.


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

23

The potential for the first management of the‘wildwood’ may have been under-appreciated byresearchers in the past, so that by the time the firstpeople with a knowledge of agriculture arrived fromEurope in the period before 4000 BC, the landscapemay already have been greatly altered. As we have seen,there may have been extensive and managed clearancesof grassland and scrub within the woods. It is alsopossible that seasonal meeting places had already beendetermined for the exchange of goods and people aswell as social intercourse. Such places probablydominated recognised territories, over which certaingroups exercised precedence in hunting and gathering,with leaders to reinforce the definition of such areas.Thus in some areas much of what we see in laterlandscapes may have been determined in outline before4000 BC.

AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES

What is arguably the most significant event to affectthe British landscape occurred some time before 4000BC. The introduction of domesticated crops andanimal husbandry from France and northern Europemarked the beginning of the Neolithic period (NewStone Age). This was to have a profound effect on thedevelopment of settlement, land use and thelandscape. Improved polished stone implements, suchas axes, meant that a greater impact could be made onthe naturally forested wildwood landscape. Theevidence from pollen analysis indicates phases ofclearance, regeneration, and further clearance. Insome cases, such clearance was followed by soildeterioration, but elsewhere the soil structure was notadversely affected and rich green grasslands withshrubs eventually prevailed. We can date the clearanceof stable upland environments such as the chalklandsof Wessex and Yorkshire and the Jurassic limestonesof the Cotswolds and elsewhere to this period. Inother places clearance was to begin a process ofdegradation which has never been reversed. In a realsense, the open moorlands of Cornwall, Devon,Somerset, Yorkshire and elsewhere are a product ofman’s mismanagement, particularly from the BronzeAge onwards; this will be discussed below.

The introduction of agriculture was accompanied bythe first major ‘engineering’ works in the landscape.From 4000 BC, man radically altered the landscape byconstructing large ceremonial, religious and burialmonuments in clearings created in the wildwood.Numerous turf-built barrows and mortuary enclosureshave been recognised on the chalk and limestoneuplands, together with the enigmatic causewayedenclosures for which numerous uses have beensuggested, ranging from settlement sites to vastnecropolises. These tombs and enclosures belonged toand were used by specific groups of people who werealso fully utilising the local countryside, partly for the

new pursuits of crop-growing and animal husbandry,but also continuing the earlier hunting, fishing andgathering activities.

Few attempts have been made to set these earliest ofmonuments into any sort of context, but stimulatingideas of their contemporary landscapes have beenproposed both by Colin Renfrew, who has argued thatthe tombs belonged to groups and therefore represent‘territories’, very much as the medieval church relatedto parish communities, and Graeme Barker and DerrickWebley, who have argued for the inhabitants ofcausewayed enclosures exploiting a variety of differentlandscapes, much as Bronze Age and later Iron Agecommunities did. They discuss the contemporaryenvironment from pollen and snail evidence, thetechnology for land clearance and working available toNeolithic people, and the implications of these aspectsfor local land use around such causewayed enclosuresas Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire, Hambledon Hilland Maiden Castle in Dorset, and Whitesheet Hill inWiltshire.

Despite some reservations, the model they proposesuggests a rational use of the land in the period to3000 BC and beyond, and, as in the Mesolithicdiscussion above, it implies changes in thedevelopment of the landscapes around these sites andat some distance from them, which may be importantto the landscape student if there is a causewayedenclosure in the vicinity of his study. Since aerialphotography of cropmarks has now shown that suchsites are widespread, particularly beneath a number oflater hillforts and in numerous river valleys, mostparts of southern Britain may well have been withinthe territory of, and exploited by, one or other of thesesites in Neolithic times.

The pollen record for the Neolithic period into theBronze Age, approximately 4000 to 1500 BC, showsan even greater degree of woodland clearance withmore extensive areas of grassland and some placestumbling down to scrub and waste. How was thisachieved and what were the implications for the waymen were using the landscape? What patterns wereestablished of significance for the landscapes of laterperiods?

An extensive programme of geological thin-sectioning of stone implements in various universitiesover the last 30 years has shown quite clearly thatbetween 3000 and 1500 BC there were a number ofheavily exploited sources of stone and flint which wereused to make axes and other implements. GreatLangdale in the Lake District, the source of a hard fine-grained rock, perhaps produced most, but otherimportant sources were western Cornwall, SouthWales, Graig Lwyd in North Wales, and the Midlands.In the south-east, rich bands of flint nodules wereextensively mined at sites in Wiltshire, Sussex andNorfolk—Grimes Graves being the most famousandaccessible site today. The production of axes from


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

24

these sites was on a prodigious scale, although weknow nothing of how they were traded and distributedall over England and Wales. In a couple of cases,however, it seems that there were secondary centres fordistribution: Humberside for Langdale axes and Essexfor Cornish axes.

The implications of these patterns, elucidatedprincipally by Bill Cummins and others, are only justbeginning to be appreciated. In landscape terms, theeffects were drastic and long-standing. Large areas werecleared and maintained in an open state. Even inmodern experimental exercises, the inexperienced useof such axes in tree-felling shows just how effective theycould have been. It is difficult to calculate comparativefigures for how earlier people worked, but, in a recentexperiment in Denmark, three men cleared 500 squaremetres (600 square yards) of birch forest in four hoursand more than 100 trees were felled. The impact ofclearance by men using stone axes can be appreciatedfrom this, although we must consider that the use offire may have been even more important.

SOIL CHANGES

Rather more important in the long term were thechanges which could be initiated by such widespreadforest clearance. In forested landscapes in temperateclimate rain is intercepted by the tree cover and onlyreaches the ground slowly by percolation through thevegetation. It moves slowly through the soil and anyminerals and salts essential to the soil structure, likecalcium, which are leached out, are recycled via theroot system back to the vegetation. Water is alsodelivered slowly and constantly to local streams, whichconsequently carry little sediment, since the soil isbound by tree roots. In such conditions, a brown forestsoil seems to have developed widely from late glacialtimes through to the Bronze Age.

Several important changes begin after extensiveclearance, and the effects can be exacerbated by man’suse of the land for intensive agriculture. More openexposure of the cleared soil results in greater effectsfrom heavy rain: much rain will run off open surfacesdownslope, carrying soil with it, especially where theroot structure cannot prevent this. This material iswashed down into streams, which will consequentlycarry heavier loads of silt, vary more in their regimebetween swollen and normal, and deposit masses ofalluvium elsewhere in their valleys as this materialsettles out. More water percolating through the soil islikely to leach out minerals which may not be easilyreplaced; calcium may be removed and, where thebedrock cannot replace the material essential to the soil‘crumb-structure’, permanent damage and degradationmay result. Heavy rainfall and the leaching out of ironsalts may result in the formation of iron pans andpodsolised soils; these are poorly drained and may leadto the formation of upland bogs and blanket peat.

Research by soil, scientists, pollen analysts,geographers and archaeologists now indicates quiteclearly that many areas of Britain owe not only theirappearance but also their very soils to man’s activitiesin the past. In North Yorkshire many barrows werebuilt on a fertile rich brown-earth soil, which only laterdeveloped into the poor heathland podsol soil whichcovers the moors today, and similar changes occurredon other uplands. In Dartmoor, extensive clearance andexploitation by Bronze Age people from 2500 to 1000BC (Fig. 66) accelerated natural changes which resultedin extensive poor soils and blanket bogs; thiseventually, possibly under the impetus of heavierrainfall, necessitated the abandonment of the mooruntil the late Saxon period. The heathlands to the westand south-west of London were drastically affected byclearance of their natural woodland, and their thin,sandy, sterile soils are the result of the earlier soil beingdestroyed.

3 Changes following woodland clearance (after John Evans, Martin Bell, and others)


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

25

If such areas were damaged beyond recall in theseveral millennia from 4000 BC onwards, why were allthe areas cleared in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages notso affected? Areas such as the chalklands and theJurassic limestones seem to show little evidence of soildegradation, while the field monuments indicate thatthey were densely settled. One answer seems to be thatthe subsoil, with its rich lime base, maintained the soilstructure, preventing deterioration and loss of fertilityand retaining the interest and yields of early farmers.Once cleared, these areas remained important, and arestill fertile and valuable today.

LANDSCAPE CHANGES

Changes have occurred throughout prehistory, andthere are important aspects for the local researcher toconsider. Recent work in the chalk valleys of Sussexand Wessex by Martin Bell has shown how muchchange there has been. Soil erosion, run off, and soilmovement downhill on the chalk uplands, togetherwith solution of the chalk subsoil beneath, has resultedin major changes in soil quality and depth over the lastfew thousand years. Much of this material has ended upas the bedload of streams or as infill deposited alongthe valley bottoms. The cumulative effect has been toremove much of the archaeological evidence forsettlement from the slopes and uplands, leaving behindonly the remnants of flint implements and pottery andthe deepest post holes. In the adjacent valleys infillingoccurred, with the consequent gradual burial of anysites which may have existed there.

Martin Bell located settlements of the Beaker periodof the Bronze Age in these sediments, suggesting thatperhaps many more lie buried in valleys elsewhere. Thisis a possibility which has not previously beencontemplated. The contemporary barrow groups ofsuch valley settlements might be expected to be sited onthe hills, where they do indeed survive in largenumbers. Don Spratt’s work in North Yorkshire has ledhim to suggest such an arrangement. Bob Smith’sresearch in Wiltshire, developing some of theimplications of the above, has begun to locate anddefine some of the valley settlements. He can show thatsilting and sediments over such sites, together with latererosion and obscuring by medieval sites, have removedmany of the traces of such prehistoric valleysettlements. For the local researcher, the implication isthat the surviving field monuments of the prehistoricperiod are only a part, perhaps a small part, of thecontemporary Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape,and that local topographical changes of soils, relief, andsedimentation might have buried or removed othermore important parts of such settlement evidence. It isbecoming more and more likely that the main centres ofpopulation exploiting the countryside were in thevalleys and that the evidence is largely obscured by later

(or continuously used?) settlements on roughly thesame sites (Fig. 57).

The use of models, such as we have seen above, helpsto clarify the relationship between what we can see andwhat we can only surmise. Models provide thepossibility of predicting where we might findsettlements and indicate some ways in which thecontemporary landscape might have been exploited.The major field monuments, which are betterdocumented, almost certainly provided the foci in thelandscape, around which such subsistence settlementswould have been placed and to which they would havelooked for some specialised goods and services. Again,the local researcher needs to be aware of the potentialevidence and relationships which may have existed inhis area of study, whether the sites are well representedor not at all.

4 Kiln Combe, near Eastbourne in Sussex. A dry chalklandvalley under excavation showing layers of hillwash overlyinga series of occupation sites. The original valley floor lies at thebottom of the section; successive settlements have been buriedby soil washed off the hills nearby into the valley. There are nosurface indications of these settlements but many valleys mustcontain sites hidden in the same way; they can only be foundby such large-scale trench digging. (Photograph by BrendaWestley, by permission of Dr Martin Bell)


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

26

THE INTENSITY OF SETTLEMENT ANDLAND USE—THE SOMERSET LEVELS

What other evidence is there of man’s use of thelandscape in these early periods, and what can it tell us?Research in the Somerset Levels over the last fewdecades has produced a mass of evidence of prehistorictimber trackways built to cross the lowlying marshyland between the uplands of the Mendips and Poldensand islands in the Levels. The earliest of these, theSweet Track, is an elaborate plank walkway runningfrom near Shapwick to Westhay. A variety of types ofwood was used in its construction, ranging from smalldiameter poles to large pieces of split trees. John Coles,Bryony Orme, and members of the Somerset LevelsProject have estimated that this must have involved the

exploitation of extensive woodland from whichmaterials were taken out to be fitted into the track—planks from the same tree occur in different parts of thetrack. Later trackways involved large quantities ofcoppiced poles and rails (as in the hurdles used in theWalton Heath track) and, in the Meare Heathtrackway, a reused timber structure—possibly a house.The former, according to Dr Oliver Rackham, indicatesthat areas of woodland were being carefully managedas coppices with standards in the Neolithic and BronzeAges to produce the poles for rails and hurdles and thetimber for the heavier tracks. Such sophisticatedlandscape management has hardly been contemplatedbefore at this early date (Fig. 63).

What, then, if anything, is so special about theSomerset Levels? Firstly, we only know of the existenceof these structures because of the waterlogged nature ofthe peat in which they are found, since without suchconditions they would have rotted away anddisappeared. Secondly, we have little information onthe sites at each end of the trackways, since onlyscatters of flints have been found on the higher, drier,islands and uplands. The situation is like having a pieceof the M1 motorway but no information about theexistence of London or Birmingham. Thirdly, the Levelswere clearly of great use to people with a limitedtechnological and economic capacity. In the winter, theflooded areas provided abundant fish and wildfowlwhich could be hunted, and in the summer, in the drierareas, there was rich open grassland for cattle andsheep, reeds, wood and timber for building andconstruction, and wild animals and birds, as well asabundant fruits and seeds which could be hunted andcollected.

In fact, the archaeology of the Levels is probablynot exceptional in England, except in the state ofpreservation of the normally ephemeral woodenevidence. This is not to suggest that there weretrackways everywhere (although they probably remainto be found elsewhere in Somerset, and records existof others from the bogs of Lancashire), but that theexploitation of the landscape implied by them existedvery widely. The elaborate construction of some of thetrackways, the careful management of the landscapeand organisation of both human and natural resourcesto produce them, certainly implies well-organisedcommunities. Perhaps there was a much largerpopulation in the area than has previously beensupposed, with more intensive or extensive use of thelandscape by 2000 BC than is generally assumed. It isunlikely that so much work would have gone into theconstruction of trackways for just casual huntingvisits into the marshes. John Coles has suggested amodel for this area demonstrating the variety of landuses available to prehistoric communities in the Levelsregion and, as we will see later, this implies a situationmuch in evidence and more easily proven in theMiddle Ages.

5 The Sweet Track north of Wallway Farm, Meare parish inSomerset. Excavations by the Somerset Levels Projectthrough the overlying peat have revealed the Sweet Track, aprehistoric trackway dating to around 4000 BC. It consists ofa raised plank walkway supported by an underlying rail andangled pegs. It has been traced for over 3 kilometres (2 miles)between Westhay village and the Polden Hills to the south.Such structures imply considerable exploitation of thelandscape at this early date. (Photograph copyright SomersetLevels Project)


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

27

By around 1500 BC we can construct a generalpicture of how the landscape may have been used,based on the work of pollen and environmentalanalysts, soil scientists, archaeologists, and ‘prehistoricgeographers’. Despite the survival of thousands of fieldmonuments of this early prehistoric period, most ofthem represent burial, religious and ritual structures;there is little evidence for fields or settlements. As wehave seen, some of this may be the result of notappreciating all the functions of the known sites untilrecently, but it seems mainly to be the result oflandscape changes. Nevertheless, there is a consistencyin the models suggested by John Coles, Don Spratt,Graeme Barker, Derrick Webley, and others. Eachsuggests the location of the settlements in favourablelowland situations with access to a variety of differenttypes of land in different environments, with areas ofupland, pasture or woodland at some distance, and themain areas of arable and pasture near to the settlements(Fig. 59). On wetter areas there was seasonal pasture,marsh for fish and wildfowl, and still plenty ofprovision for hunting and gathering of naturalresources. In each case, the surviving field monumentsare seen as only part of the original picture, with‘obvious’ sites such as barrows probably occurring onthe boundaries of territories attached to particularcommunities.

In any piece of country under study there will almostcertainly be insufficient evidence to reconstruct thesettlement and land use patterns of early prehistory,such as are described above. At the very least, thesemodels suggest what might have existed and how thefew sites that have been detected may be interpreted.More importantly, such ideas help to predict whereother evidence should be sought.

For the later prehistoric period, rather moreevidence is now available from Dartmoor and themajor river valleys of what early landscapes looked likein the 2000 years or so before the Roman Conquest,and how such early arrangements conditioned the later,more easily recognised, post-Roman countryside.

DARTMOOR

Dartmoor is one of the few examples in Britain of analmost complete Bronze Age landscape. Various typesof settlements have been distinguished, from isolatedfarmsteads in their own fields on the east side of themoor, through enclosed ‘hamlets’ with paddocks and‘gardens’ (Fig. 66), to a few unenclosed and extensivesettlements which look like villages. In addition to thissettlement evidence, there is the suggestion of bothpastoral areas—where few field boundaries have beenrecognised—and enclosed, presumably arable, areaswhere patterns of rectilinear fields can still be seen. Inmany parts of the moor contemporary burial andreligious sites remain in the form of barrows, cists,

stone circles and stone rows. As one walks overDartmoor, a clear view of settlement and land use in theBronze Age is possible.

In such a well studied and carefully recorded area, isthere anything new that can be said about this BronzeAge landscape? We have already seen that theappearance of Dartmoor is man-made; followingwoodland clearance the soil degraded, and eventuallyblanket bog, and possibly a cooler and wetter climate,led people to abandon permanent settlements there anduse the moor solely as temporary seasonal pasture (andlater for mining).

What has not been appreciated until recently,however, is that it is possible to see many of the landboundaries of the territorial divisions and ‘estates’ ofthis period on Dartmoor. These are called reaves and,while they have been known for a long time, their age,extent and probable purpose have only recently beenrecognised. Research by Andrew Fleming, GeoffreyWainwright and others has shown that there areseveral types of reaves. Some are built with stone,others with turf and peat, and some may originallyhave had timber fences on the top (and beneath). Somerun across the moor, apparently randomly, but in factoutlining large areas which seem to relate to the majorriver valleys. Thus, they might have been defining‘territories’ encompassing high moor, upland, valleyland, and good land lower down, off the present mooritself.

Elsewhere it looks as if whole sections of the moorwere divided up, in a very deliberate, possibly planned,way, with parallel boundaries running for miles acrosshigh tors and deeply cut valleys. This can be seen in theDartmeet area especially. It is as if surveyors hadworked out what they were going to do and then laidout the plan on the landscape, ignoring the difficulttopography of the area.

In a number of cases, these parallel systems finish atterminal reaves (which also look deliberately laid out)at right angles to the rest. The areas beyond theseterminal reaves contain burial and religiousmonuments which in some cases must be earlier; soperhaps some respect of older features is implied, anaspect which can be seen elsewhere where barrows andbarrow cemeteries seem to have been avoided ratherthan ignored when the later fields were laid out.

Such large-scale, apparently planned and organised,land division has not been suggested before, but otherexamples are now being identified. Much of Wessex,for example, is covered with late prehistoric fieldsystems, of perhaps late Bronze Age date, which arevery regular in form, some clearly not related to theirlocal topography. Also, air survey by Derek Riley oversouth Yorkshire and north Nottinghamshire hasidentified regular brickwork-like patterns of early fieldsover many square miles of country. Other examplesexist in Essex, Sussex, and in some of the big rivervalleys.


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

28

Although most prehistoric settlements and fieldsystems were less regular than these examples, theyclearly predominate in some areas and were the normalway of subdividing the landscape. Do such areasrepresent prehistoric colonisation? Was the landscapeplanned and then the divisions built? And how muchmore can be recognised elsewhere of such systems? Onething seems clear, that such patterns did not exist onlyin the present largely abandoned marginal uplands, butalso over great areas of the country. In some casesrelatively modern fields can be seen to reflect these earlyarrangements and it seems, in areas of old (orcontinuously) enclosed land, that much of the basicframework of the landscape may be prehistoric. Wemust therefore allow for this even if we cannot alwayssee it.

CROPMARKS AND RIVER VALLEYS

There are other aspects of early settlement not easilyappreciated and these relate particularly to the majorriver valleys of the Thames, Severn, Warwickshire Avonand Trent which are the sources of extensive supplies ofgravel. Here, aerial photography taken under droughtconditions during the summer months is revealinghundreds of square miles of ploughed out prehistoric(and later) landscapes which survive below soil level,but which are only evident as marks in the growingcrops. It is now wrong to think of such areas as havingmany individual sites, because, as with the uplands,what we are seeing and recording are completelandscapes.

Such cropmarks occur because soil moisturedeficiency in gravel subsoils shows up the earlierfeatures. Where the gravel ends and some othergeological material begins which is not conducive tocropmark formation, the cropmarks do not appear.This does not mean that those areas were not occupied,however, and, although settlements were less denselypacked away from the well-drained, easily-workedgravel, they certainly existed, as is shown by fieldworkand excavations in advance of road schemes. Again, theimplication is clear—we have to think of buried sites intheir landscapes, which will only be detected via

6 Maps of Dartmoor showing reave systems. The left-handmap shows the main systems of land divisions from thesecond millennium BC around the moor, while the right-handone shows in detail the systems on the east side of the moornear Dartmeet. These reaves survive in marginal land todaybut they can also be traced running off down intocontemporary fields still used; how much of the rest of thelandscape overlies such early land divisions? (By permissionof Andrew Fleming and the Prehistoric Society)


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

29

redevelopment projects and cropmarks on airphotographs. Some finds of flints and pottery mayindicate such sites, but more frequently the patterns oflater hedges, boundaries and roads must reflect theseearlier arrangements, even if we cannot be certain.

BEFORE THE ROMAN CONQUEST

The general impression of the prehistoric landscape (orlandscapes, as there was much variety) in the centuriesbefore the Roman Conquest is clear. We have toenvisage a well-used and well-developed landscape withwidespread settlement of farmsteads and hamlets, withwell-defined fields and a range of land uses, includingmanaged woodland and organised pasture. Settlementwas denser in some areas than in others, although sucha division may only be recognised, as suggested by PeterFowler, from late Bronze Age times onwards. To gainthe best impression of such a landscape, a visit to the

Butser Ancient Farm Research Project near Petersfieldin Hampshire is advised. Here, all the archaeologicalevidence and vague cropmarks from air pictures havebeen transferred into a three-dimensional workingmodel with buildings, structures, fields, crops androads. It was into such a landscape that a foreign alienculture stepped in AD 43 when Claudius decided tosend the Roman army into Britain.

ROMAN LANDSCAPES

It is still difficult to assess accurately what effect theRoman Conquest and the subsequent period ofRoman occupation had on the development of thelandscape. Clearly, large numbers of new featureswere introduced, new types of settlement wereconstructed and new activities were carried out, but400 years is a relatively short period in the life of theEnglish landscape and to describe the Roman era as

7 Cropmarks at Foxley Farm, Eynsham in Oxfordshire. These cropmarks show at least three earlier landscapes before theenclosure landscape of 1802–7 produced the present pattern of roads and field boundaries. The circles are ditches of ploughed-out Bronze Age barrows. Around and between these are the ditches of late prehistoric farmsteads, roads and field boundaries.Overlying these are traces of ridge and furrow, the arable field systems of the Middle Ages which probably destroyed theprehistoric landscape. Some of the darker patches represent deeper topsoil and geological features. (Major Allen photographNo. 520 taken 10th June, 1933; copyright Ashmolean Museum)


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

30

an interlude may, therefore, be correct in landscapeterms.

For the first time, Britain saw properly constructedroads built with military precision—Watling Street,Foss Way, Icknield Street and Ermin Way. Recentstudies, however, have shown that many of them mustbe later than the landscapes and minor roads theycross; in any case, they represent the motorways of theRoman period, and most of the country’s landcommunication network was probably still in the formof lanes and tracks, as it had been before and would beagain (Fig. 90).

Military forts were an innovation, but following themove of the Roman army to the west and north, theyceased to have their former landscape importance.Their status probably relates more closely to the majordevelopment in the Roman period—that of increasedurbanisation with a very commercially-based economy.Most of the Roman towns and cities created seem tohave been developed from earlier forts; in origin theirsites represent strategic and tactical decisions taken byRoman military commanders.

In the countryside, life must have continued for along time as it always had done. The basic frameworkof rural settlement was augmented and manyfarmsteads were rebuilt and romanised, their peopleusing Romano-British pottery, Roman coinage andother objects, and utilising the new features of dressedmasonry, mortar, man-made roofing materials, heatingsystems, and mosaics—rectilinear planned buildingsbecame the norm.

Although much of the economy was still atsubsistence level, especially in the west and north, themonetary system and the existence of markets in townsmeant that some estates could develop a morecommercial economy, perhaps specialising in cattle orarable production. Such a situation is implied for someof the villas studied by Sarah Wool in the Cotswoldsand by Ann Ellison and John Harriss in ruralsettlements in Sussex and Wiltshire.

Such a well-developed economy led to the greaterexploitation of geological resources, and the Englishlandscape witnessed quarrying of stone and ores on ascale not seen before—in the Forest of Dean (coal and

8 The experimental Iron Age farm at Butser in Hampshire. The reconstruction of the Iron Age round house at Butser and thereplica farmstead attached to it gives a good impression of what a late prehistoric farm and its fields might have looked like. Theresearch conducted there indicates great sophistication in farming and management of the landscape around 300 BC. Such afarmstead needed at least 48 hectares (120 acres), made up of 8–12 hectares (20–30 acres) grazing, 4–6 hectares (10–15 acres)for hay, 8 hectares (20 acres) of woodland, and the rest for arable, trackways and waste.


www.BingEbook.com

EARLY LANDSCAPES

31

iron), Derbyshire and the Mendips (lead), Cornwall(tin) and Dolaucothi in Wales (gold)—although mostareas were worked and reworked later on and it isusually impossible to isolate the Roman element.

The high level of technical ability of Romanengineers, together with the well-developed commer-cial economy, meant that major civil engineeringschemes could also be undertaken for the first time inthe landscape. Some of the mining operations showthis, and the Fens have Roman canals, embankments,and elaborate water systems. The same can now be seenin the Somerset Levels, and the aqueducts supplyingRoman towns at Dorchester, Leicester and elsewhere.How many more Roman engineering schemes are therestill to be recognised in the landscape?

In the late and post-Roman periods, this commercialeconomy was disrupted and abandoned, returning toits former subsistence level. The features which had

distinguished the Roman interlude—the roads, towns,and villas—were abandoned or their functions werechanged; industrial activities collapsed. Yet somethingvery basic remained in the landscape which was of greatimportance in later periods. Increasingly in some areasit can be seen that settlement sites occupied in theRoman period continued through post-Roman times toform the basic framework of medieval and modernvillages and hamlets. Of even greater importance is thefact that it seems that many of the Roman estates, theholdings belonging to villas and towns, continued intothe post-Roman period and beyond to emerge as thebasic administrative units of late Saxon and medievalEngland. This will be further discussed, but it isperhaps ironic that all the distinguishing, concretefeatures in the landscape from this period shoulddisappear, but that the invisible ownership elementshould persist.


www.BingEbook.com

32

In this book we will be discussing mainly featureswhich are easily seen in the landscape, from desertedvillages to fields and churches. Yet much of the historiclandscape, and one very important element inparticular, is not visible, though its influence isenormous. This is ownership. Who owns which bit ofland and what they decide to do with it has always beenof critical importance, and our landscape is the result ofcountless human decisions taken by individuals in thepast. So land ownership and management are veryrelevant to our theme of landscape study and historicalreconstruction: the estates belonging to particularindividuals or corporate bodies, and the boundarieswithin which they lie are important factors to beelucidated for any area. Such considerations will applyat all periods, in prehistory as in documented history. Itwill probably be useful, therefore, to use theterminology of Fig. 93 and think of estates andterritories, rather than the more familiar but restrictedterms such as baronies, parishes, manors, tithings,hundreds, etc., although there is a clear relationshipbetween them all.

It is important to define the estates and territories inthe landscape under study, at different times, and toshow how they have changed through time. We willneed, therefore, to define estate arrangements and theunits of land within them. In particular, and mostimportantly, we shall need to think about the origin ofthese blocks of land as cohesive units, and the date ofdefinition of the boundaries. In most cases we will beasking when a particular parish or set of parishboundaries was first defined, and if that was the date ofits origin or if it is older. Fortunately, there is a lot ofresearch being conducted into this topic now and newideas and information are constantly emerging.

ESTATES

The basic modern administrative units broadlycorrespond to the parishes, manors, tithings andtownships of the medieval and later landscape. Theseoccupy relatively small areas of land and are frequentlyassociated with a village, several hamlets, or a scatter of

farmsteads. They are usually clearly related to theparish church (Fig. 17).

Recent research, however, has drawn our attentionincreasingly to the larger units in the landscape. Theseare often difficult to define from earlier periods, buttheir importance as the basic building blocks of theadministrative landscape can hardly be over-estimated.The first recent study showing the possibilities andimplications of such ‘estates’ was that of Withington inGloucestershire by Professor Finberg. In a masterful,seminal study he suggested that the parish ofWithington, which occupies a large area in theCotswolds, was in essence a Roman estate centred on avilla and several contemporary settlements. The landattached to the villa emerges as a seventh-century estatejoined to a minster belonging to the See of Worcester,and its later history, with minor changes to the estateand its boundary, can be documented through theMiddle Ages to the present modern civil parish.

This was considered revolutionary at the time it waswritten (1955), but case study after case studyelsewhere in the country now suggest the same basicpattern of large estates. Peter Sawyer has suggested thatsome of the earliest surviving charters of the Anglo-Saxon period refer to such estates and hence for someareas in the seventh century the early estate structurecan be defined. The counties with the most charters areKent, Somerset and Worcestershire, and here largeblocks of land were defined from the seventh centuryonwards, particularly when they were granted fromkings to early monasteries.

Was the seventh century the date of origin of suchestates, or were they in some way related to earlier landarrangements? Glanville Jones thinks that they may goback to pre-Roman times in many cases; June Sheppardhas shown that the estate at Marden in Herefordshire,which has Roman settlements, a Saxon palace site, anda ninth-century minster on the site of the initial burialof St Ethelbert, was almost certainly the estate attachedto Sutton Walls, the pre-Roman hillfort in the areawhich was reoccupied in post-Roman times (Fig. 77).At Brent in Somerset a piece of land was defined in thelate seventh century when it was granted to

3

Estates and boundaries


www.BingEbook.com

9 The early estate at Withington in Gloucestershire.Professor Finberg was able to show that this largeparish in the Cotswolds was almost certainly aRoman estate transferred intact to the Bishop ofWorcester in the seventh century. It continued in thatownership for almost 1000 years. Further researchhas shown similar persistence of land units in theCotswolds from Roman times, a situation whichseems general across England and Wales. (Bypermission of Leicester University Press)


www.BingEbook.com

ESTATES AND BOUNDARIES

34

Glastonbury Abbey. The bounds described include theformer River Siger (Fig. 54) as well as the obvioustopographical features of the Rivers Severn and Axe.This estate persisted into the Middle Ages as BrentHundred, but there is an important Roman site atLakehouse Farm and a magnificent hillfort on BrentKnoll. The theoretical territory attached to this hillfort,as suggested by Ian Burrow, is very similar to the landdefined in the seventh-century charter, and it is thuspossible that the estate of the hillfort persistedthroughout the Roman period to emerge as a land unitbelonging to Glastonbury Abbey until the sixteenthcentury. The long corporate ownership by the abbeyenables us to see the early arrangement; the charterdetails survive and the ‘focal place’ of each period canbe defined. This is true for the estates of othercorporate bodies like abbeys and bishoprics, but weneed to know how common this situation was.

Glanville Jones has conducted most research intothe arrangement of early estates, and his work hasenormous implications for any landscape studies if thebasic administrative framework is to be understood. Hedraws attention to what he calls multiple estates, that islarge areas of land made up of smaller units—theterritories referred to later. Such estates were centred ona caput or head manor, and all other settlements on theestate were subsidiary to it. Their lower status is shownin the customary services and goods they had to supplyto the main caput—services including building andmaintaining the lord’s hall, bower, and possibledefences, and goods rendered including lambs, wool,cattle and honey. Glanville Jones’ ideas were based

initially on studies of medieval Wales, where it wasformerly assumed that a dispersed settlement pattern ofpastoral farms had been the norm. However, hisresearch, based on the Book of Iorwerth and othersources, suggests a very hierarchical society, with manybond hamlets engaged in arable farming as well ascattle raising, and dependent on a head ‘court’.

Research on Yorkshire suggests the same sort ofearly arrangements, with the large estates there beingcalled shires (the equivalent of the maenor in medievalWales and what Glanville Jones terms the discrete estateor federal manor in England). Examples discussed byGlanville Jones are widespread: Wakefield andAldborough in Yorkshire; Hitchin in Hertfordshire;Selsey and Findon in Sussex; Amesbury,Brokenborough, Cannings and Britford in Wiltshire;Cartmel in Cumberland; and Heighington in Durham.

What, then, are the characteristics of these earlyestates and what features must we look for if we are todefine the landscape arrangements in the pre-Conquestperiod? Firstly, the whole estate was based on a headplace or caput. What this would have looked like issometimes difficult to imagine—it may have been nomore than a larger-than-average farmstead, or it mayhave been a palace such as those found at Yeaveringand Cheddar. Usually accompanied by a village orhamlet, such a caput may be called a villa regalis, butthe terms aula, mansio and maerdref are also used. It isessentially the lord’s hall. The name of this caput isusually the same as the whole estate and it is oftenrecorded very early on. Characteristically, the name istopographical in form—referring to a river, hill, or

10 Early estates at Bath and Brent in Somerset. Land at Bath was granted to a monastery by Osric in AD 676. The estate isprobably reflected in the 100 hides of land of Bath hundred shown in the map.

Brent was granted to Glastonbury Abbey in AD 663 or 693 by Ine, King of the West Saxons. The bounds are described asthe Rivers Axe and Severn, the Termic stream and the River Siger. The unit of land persisted as a hundred into the Middle Ages.The Siger river can still be traced on the ground and from the air (see Fig. 54).


www.BingEbook.com


35

major natural feature—although ‘tun’ may sometimesbe added. Examples in Somerset include Chew andChewton, both named after the River Chew; Frome,after the river of the same name; Taunton, after theRiver Tone; and North and South Petherton, after theRiver Parrett. In Wiltshire the old county capital,Wilton, is similar in form, named after the River Wylye.

Some caputs can be seen to be the logical successorsto Roman and pre-Roman sites, the latter remaining ashillforts which may have been reoccupied in post-Roman times. Most caputs were in the lowlands, inriver valleys surrounded by good quality fertile land,rather than in inhospitable uplands, and many wereimportant manors by the time of Domesday Book(1086), usually in royal ownership or that of someother great body, such as a bishop or an ancient abbey.They were sometimes the heads of administrative unitsknown as hundreds—hundredal manors with some ofthe characteristics of a town, and they may have hadthe minster church, upon which the churches elsewhereon the estate were dependent. These focal places will bediscussed in the next chapter.

Around these caputs there would have beendependent settlements with bondmen to work thelord’s land (called the Mayor settlements in Wales).Caputs were usually on the best land, initially with aninfield/outfield system. The rest of the estate was madeup of other bond settlements, each with its own infield/outfield system and dependent on the caput. Thisdependence is demonstrated in the subsidiary status oftheir churches, which were daughter churches to theminster. A much more important demonstration of thislower status, however, is the rents and services paid bydependent settlements to the caput. Customary duesrecorded in the early Middle Ages sometimes give a clueto this.

Such discrete estates occupied large areas of landand included many settlements. Any particularsettlement under study may have been a very minorplace on such a large estate with the caput of the estatesome distance away. Nevertheless, the Englishlandscape is about status and hierarchies, and it isimportant to get some idea of which places were ofgreater or lesser importance locally

11 The relationships and arrangements within a theoretical multiple estate (based largely on the research of Glanville Jones).


www.BingEbook.com


36

Many of these discrete estates made use of extensiveareas of distant or upland resources of pasture orwoodland. Glanville Jones cites a number of exampleswhere scattered farmsteads existed in extensivetemporary grazing in mountains and marshland, andwhere forest areas were shared between numerous vills.This intercommoning by a number of vills seems to beanother indicative factor of early estates and has beenused by Della Hooke and William Ford in their study ofsuch estates in the Midlands. A good example inSomerset is Withiel Florey, granted to the Tauntonestate in the tenth century as ‘pasture’ on Brendon Hill.

Thus we have to allow for a series of large units inthe landscape from the seventh century onwards. Theseestates were centred on some of the most significantplaces in the landscape, with all other settlementsdependent on them, and may be reflected later on in thelands of old established monasteries and bishoprics, orin some hundredal arrangements. Elsewhere, laterchanges will have obscured much of this early pattern,making it difficult to reconstruct the early framework.

Late Saxon developments in estatesBy the tenth century we can see from the detailedboundary clauses contained in charters that the earlier

estate arrangements are already becoming obscure. Therefounding of monasteries and the continual grantingaway of land by the crown resulted in fragmentation ofthe earlier large units and recombination of land undernew ownership. An example of this has been discussedby Robert Dunning in Somerset. Within the ancientroyal estates (and later hundreds) of Cannington andNorth Petherton, a large holding had been assembledby 1066 belonging to the Saxon Alfwy. It cut across theboundary between the two hundreds and was latercentred on the Norman castle at Nether Stowey. Muchof the holding was transferred to Alfred D’Epaignesafter the Norman Conquest as a barony.

In general, estate development has not been studiedfor the pre-Conquest period—there are not enoughdocuments and the field evidence is enigmatic.However, it would be useful if attempts could be made,as shown here, to relate later hundredal arrangementsto early estates and then see if the disintegration ofthese can be shown before the Norman Conquest.Estates in the Church’s ownership from an early datecan be expected to have greater continuity, but therewere still considerable changes before 1066. Layestates, by contrast, are likely to show perhaps greaterdiversity, but there may be less information from whichto reconstruct the pre-Conquest arrangements.

12 A caput and Saxo-Norman estate based on Nether Stowey in Somerset. The map shows the estates of Alfwy in the periodbefore the Norman Conquest and those of Alfred d’Epaignes afterwards. There is a close correlation between the two. Theestate was later called the Barony of Stowey and based on Nether Stowey castle right), a massive Norman ringwork with thebase of a keep and several baileys. Beneath this Norman castle may be the remains of an earlier fortified residence. (Photographby Alan Wilson)


www.BingEbook.com


37

Early medieval estates—baroniesFollowing the Norman Conquest in 1066 there was oneof the greatest reorganisations of estates this countryhas ever seen. Large numbers of Saxon landownerswere replaced by new Norman lords, and their holdingswere often, although as the above example shows notentirely, redistributed without reference to theirprevious arrangements. For the eleventh and twelfthcenturies new estates developed centred on newcaputs—the castles and monasteries of NormanEngland, with their lands spread across the landscapein manors and vills. With the exception of the estates ofthe anciently-established monasteries, these newbaronies do not reflect the earlier estate arrangements.Yet, alongside the new ownership pattern, thearrangement of hundreds still persisted and, althoughthere were changes in the early medieval period, theolder pattern of estates is still often reflected inhundredal arrangements.

There have been a number of studies of thedevelopment of estates attached to monasteries whichpersisted through to the sixteenth century. However,baronies associated with castles or the greater landedlay families have not been studied other than from a

legalistic or genealogical point of view. An exception isthe estate of the Mortain family in the later eleventhcentury, centred on Castle Neroche and their fortress atMontacute in Somerset, which was studied by BrianDavison.

With their abundant documentation, monasticestates are rather easier to study. James Bond, forexample, has looked at the estates of both Abingdonand Evesham Abbeys, and clearly shown the variety oftopographical features which can still be distinguishedon their scattered estates. Such research can usuallyidentify particular features such as barns, dovecotes ormanor houses and show the distribution of estates inoutline; but it will only be with very fulldocumentation, or dogged persistence, that smallerpieces of land belonging to such estates can bedistinguished. For Oxford and some other medievaltowns where the documentation is particularly goodthis can be achieved, but it is usually very difficult in thecountryside.

Post-medieval estatesFollowing the dissolution of the monasteries in theperiod 1530–1540, another wholesale redistribution of


www.BingEbook.com


38

land took place and much of the post-medievallandscape, although by no means all, can be related tothe estates created at that time. Some of today’swellknown large estates were created then, likeLongleat, from the land of an Augustinian Priory, andLord Montague’s property at Beaulieu, on the lands of

a Cistercian monastery. In general, the abundantdocumentation for both these former monastic estatesand the lands of the powerful late medieval families likethe Hungerfords of Berkshire and Wiltshire means thatthe layout and arrangements of their estates can bereconstructed with relative ease and confidence. Maps

13 The estates of Evesham Abbey in Worcestershire. The map shows the extent of the estates of the important ancientBenedictine Abbey at Evesham scattered over surrounding counties, and the principal features detectable on such estates.(Reproduced by permission of James Bond)


www.BingEbook.com


39

in great quantity and superb detail become availablefrom the sixteenth century onwards, and detailed estaterecords of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies aid discussion of changing estate structureand policies which is impossible in earlier times. A goodexample of what can be achieved is Susanna Wade-Martin’s research on the Holkham estate in Norfolk,

This section has attempted to show that moreresearch is needed into the make-up of multiple estatesin the earliest periods for which documents exist. Thearrangement of these dictates so much of what we see inthe landscape today. By comparison, the elucidation ofownership of estates in the late Saxon period (by 1066),the Norman period (1086 onwards), and the MiddleAges is relatively easy, especially for ecclesiasticalestates. The abundant records and maps of post-medieval and modern times mean that much of theestate structure for these periods can be seen in greatdetail. By then, however, the main outlines have been inexistence for a very long time, and it is these earlierarrangements about which we really need to knowmore and where future research should beconcentrated.

BOUNDARIES

Dating the boundaryWithin large estates, most of the administration ofland, certainly in later periods, was conducted throughparishes. A lot of parish boundaries were first defined

in charters of the late Saxon period. Frequently, theboundaries of the areas of land are described and theserefer to topographical features which can sometimesstill be found in the landscape. These bounds oftenshow that a particular parish, township, or tithing wasthe same in the tenth century as in the nineteenth, andwe become aware of the remarkable persistence ofboundaries.

In the past, we have tended to assume that these firstdescriptions of blocks of land and their bounds werevery close in date to the original definition of suchestates or territories. As with place names, however, thismay not be true. A discrete block of land may have beenin existence for a long time before it was first describedin a written document. Is there any way, then, that wecan get any idea as to how old some of our boundariesmight be? Clearly, where a boundary exists on theground as a physical feature (a bank, ditch, or hedge) itcan be examined archaeologically and some datingevidence may become available. It is more useful if theboundary feature can be related to a more closelydatable field monument, so that the relative dates canbe shown. So far, this has rarely been done. Similarly,considerations of a settlement’s territory and associatedland uses, which will be discussed later, may givecircumstantial clues to the age of a block of land andindicate the possibility that current boundaries couldbe of Roman, late prehistoric, or even earlier origin.

The most interesting research so far, however, andthat which points the way to the possibilities in other

14 The Wansdyke in Wiltshire. The Wansdyke probably dates from the seventh century AD and was a boundary between theSaxon kingdoms of Wessex to the south and Mercia. It cuts across parish boundaries leaving small areas of some parishes, suchas Alton Priors and Barnes, isolated behind the dyke. It is unlikely that such boundaries were not defined by the time Wansdykewas built or it would probably have been used as a boundary feature: the boundaries may even be of prehistoric date. (Bypermission of Desmond Bonney—from Peter Fowler (ed) Archaeology in the Landscape Adam and Charles Black, 1972)


www.BingEbook.com


40

areas, is the work in Wessex by Desmond Bonney. Henoted the incidence of barrows reused as Saxoncemeteries and other Saxon burials on or near parishboundaries in Wessex. The figure of over 40 per centseems too high to be merely chance and he suggestedthat burials were being placed on boundaries, and thathence, because the dates of the burials were knownfrom the types of grave goods, the boundaries must beof sixth- or seventh-century date at the latest. Thiswould mean, in Wessex, that a large number of laterparishes were already defined in the post-Romanperiod and that the well-known pattern of stripparishes was also there by that date (Fig. 15).

Further interesting relationships were noted whenthe Wansdyke, which runs across Wiltshire, wasstudied in relation to parish boundaries near Aveburyand Bishops Cannings. This impressive linearearthwork running east-west is reckoned to be adivision between the lands of Mercia to the north andWessex to the south, and probably dates from the sixthor seventh century. Interestingly, it cuts across severalparishes, so that in some cases very small areas ofparish land are isolated behind the massive earthworksof the dyke. Surely, Desmond Bonney argued, if theparish boundaries had been defined after theconstruction of the earthwork, they would have used itas the ‘natural’ boundary—much like motorways andrailways have been used more recently to define newlocal authority boundaries. The implication is that theparish boundaries were already there in the early Saxonperiod when the dyke was built. We are already beyonddocumentary description of such features in the earlySaxon period.

Is it possible, however, to point to even earlierexamples of boundaries? Desmond Bonney followedhis initial research by an examination of parishboundaries associated with Roman roads and lateprehistoric linear earthworks. He argued that thedistribution of Iron Age and Roman sites on theGrovely ridge near Salisbury suggested territorieswhich were reflected in the later parish boundaries.Along the crest of the ridge, the parish boundaries runbetween these earlier sites following one of thenumerous Grims ditches, a bank and ditch of probablelate prehistoric date. This might mean that the parishboundary was defined by later prehistory at least, but itmight also indicate that definition occurred later usinga well-defined pre-existing feature. Some support,however, is given to the former possibility by the factthat an equally welldefined Roman road also runsalong the ridge, providing another possible line for theboundary ‘surveyors’ to use. Why did they choose theditch and not the road? Was it because the boundarieswere already laid out when the Roman road was built?Elsewhere in Wiltshire, particularly between theRoman towns of Verlucio (Sandy Lane) and Bath,parish boundaries follow the Roman road, so theycould be Roman (possibly with a new area beingcolonised and estates being created) or later.

There are, however, instances where parishboundaries seem clearly to pre-date Roman roads. InSomerset, Roger Leech has drawn attention to thepatterns of parish boundaries and roads south ofIlchester on the Foss Way. The fact that virtually all ofthem cross the Roman road, which was created in thefirst century AD, suggests that at least some of thesefeatures were there in the landscape before the road wasbuilt; here, as elsewhere, it looks as if the road was putin arbitrarily across the landscape with little heed toexisting features, much as when new roads andmotorways are built today. A similar sort of pictureemerges in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, where theFoss Way cuts across parish boundaries in theMalmesbury area. Katherine Barker, who has inventedthe term hercology for the study of boundaries,suggests that a very regular pattern of boundaries wasin existence before the Roman road was constructed.

It seems likely from this evidence, and byimplication from studies discussed later, that manyparish and other boundaries had already been definedby the later prehistoric, Roman and early post-Romanperiods. How true is this generally? It is likely thatfurther research will reveal more examples, and so closeattention needs to be paid to the earlier certainboundaries of any territories and estates in the areaunder study.

Land unitsWe are accustomed to think of boundaries from anadministrative and legal point of view. Thus, there areparish boundaries defining land attached to aparticular church; more recently, civil parishes, whichin many cases only vaguely now relate to religiousparishes, have been defined for administrativepurposes. These have a long and complex history ofdevelopment, but no definitive book has yet beenwritten on them—it is one of the great needs forstudents of the developing landscape.

It is clear, however, that these religious and civilboundaries are a lot older than any association withchurches or local authorities. They relate in fact muchmore closely to economic and agricultural units, albeitoften within larger estates and holdings. In many cases,what we see defined within these boundaries are unitsof land with a variety of land uses for the support ofone or more settlements. In many areas, there were evenmore boundaries in the landscape than are used today,or were even apparent in the nineteenth century ontithe and other estate records. Desmond Bonney hasbeen able to show this for the Enford area of Wiltshire,where the territory of each small settlement can betentatively defined, even though most of theirboundaries never emerge as more than tithingarrangements, if that. A similar case can be seen inShrewton, where the identification of each separate villwithin the estate begs the question as to the likelyboundaries of each separate unit. Long linear field


www.BingEbook.com


41

banks or persistent field boundaries can often besuggested as something more than just divisions in thefields.

Because so many of our boundaries are economicrather than administrative, it is most important that thepatterns of settlement at different periods are identifiedand the likely land uses within them postulated. Onlythen will it be possible to suggest that much of theinvisible ownership landscape is there in the form oflandscape features and is of greater antiquity than hasbeen formerly thought.

There remains the problem of detached pieces ofparishes (and, in some cases, of counties [Fig. 13]) orfragmented boundaries on the edges of some estates.Very often there seems to be no logical reason whysmall bits of one parish should be isolated, surroundedby the land of another. The explanation seems to bethat of late ownership changes, but usually no plausiblereason can be suggested. For larger areas and for moredistant detached portions of parishes, a likelyexplanation is distant resources of either woodland orseasonal pasture shared with other villages. Much ofthe Somerset Levels and the Fens was shared outbetween the parishes around, and small blocks wereallocated as detached portions at the time of enclosureor drainage (Fig. 62). Similar detached portions can be

shown for land in the Arden Forest in Warwickshirebelonging to parishes in the south of the county. Thesame can be seen with the ownership of land inNeroche Forest in Somerset. A few examples remain ofpieces of land still in no single ownership, such asmeadowland shared between Axminster andKilmington parishes in Devon alongside the river Axenear Newenham Abbey, common land on Dartmoorshared between Bridestowe and Sourton parishes, andmeadow alongside the River Avon in Wiltshire sharedbetween the parishes of Broughton Gifford andMelksham Without. No doubt there are others.

The course of the boundaryIt is worth paying considerable attention to the physicalremains of a parish boundary, especially if an Anglo-Saxon charter with boundary clauses exists or the pieceof land can be defined in its present outline at an earlydate. River and stream courses are favourite lines, usedextensively as boundaries in the past. Changes ofstream course can sometimes be inferred where ameandering parish boundary leaves the present streamit is following but rejoins it further along its course.Straightening of water courses, together with mill andfishpond construction, may be an explanation, andoccasionally the old course can be seen as a dry riverbed

15 Parish units in the Til and Avon river valleys in Wiltshire. Each of the medieval (and earlier?) settlements in this area hasa long thin land unit attached. Such units are economic in origin, reflecting the allocation of different types of land—downland,meadow and arable—to each hamlet. Only later were some (but not all) adopted as parochial and manorial units.


www.BingEbook.com


42

in the fields with the boundary still following it. This isthe case at Gotherington in Gloucestershire, whereexamination of the present stream, in a straight gulleyperched on the valleyside, led to the identification of anundocumented, previously unsuspected, water mill site.

The relationship between parish boundaries andwater mill sites is an interesting one, since specialarrangements are frequently made to incorporate a milland its water courses within a particular land unit. Agood example is the mill sites of Norton Malrewardand Norton Hawkfield, south of Bristol, studied byBob Williams, where a long tongue of land projectsfrom Norton Malreward into the land of NortonHawkfield to include the mill. Now that the mills havegone, only the parish boundary remains as evidence. In

many cases, this association of boundaries with millsmeans either that the mills were in existence when theboundaries were defined (thus indicating an increasednumber of Anglo-Saxon mill sites and a more extensiveinterference with river courses than we formerlythought), or that special arrangements were made toalter parish boundaries when new mills were built.Such changes should be documented, but few examplesseem to be known.

Parish boundaries also tend to follow hilltop ridges,ridgeways, barrows and other earthworks. Sometimes,as in south-east Somerset, Dunsmore in Warwickshire,Ready Token in Gloucestershire, and Rymer,Breckland, in Norfolk, they come together at somecommon feature, such as an upland pond in a generally

16 Parish boundaries converging on Ready Token in Gloucestershire, Rymer in Suffolk, and Dunsmore in Warwickshire. Ateach of these localities a resource is shared in common among several settlements. Access to the resource is reflected in thepattern of parish boundaries. Ready Token and Dunsmore were upland pastures, while Rymer was a mere or shared pond in themiddle of common pasture and woodland in the Breckland. (After W.G.Hoskins and others)


www.BingEbook.com


43

waterless area, an area of upland waste, or a piece ofshared woodland.

We are accustomed from the literature to think ofparish boundaries, particularly early ones, as beingdefined by huge banks and ditches. In thisfieldworker’s experience, boundaries betweenparishes are frequently very unimpressive, often nodifferent to general field boundaries in the vicinity,and were it not for the fact that the boundary line isknown, the field evidence would in many cases notsuggest it. Hedges with few shrub species, wire fences,or even no features at all, can all mark the edge ofearly documented parishes. However, considerableearthworks do sometimes exist and these are, ofcourse, well worth recording.

In a number of instances, actual boundary stonesremain, or have been recorded in the recent past.Sometimes, these are fine monuments with letters ornumbers carved on them indicating the names ofparticular parishes or estates. On Dartmoor, they existon the open moorland, demarcating not only parishesbut also areas of grazing attached to particular villages.The early OS maps record them and they can often beretrieved from obscurity by fieldwork in examining thebottoms of hedges and the sides of ditches. FredAldsworth has drawn attention to the careful recordingof such boundary features by the Ordnance Surveysurveyors in the nineteenth century and the existence oftheir records as ‘mere books’.

Where the boundary follows features like streams,ridgeways, Roman roads, or other clear features, therewill be little problem in explaining the course of theboundary and the pattern of the parish’s area.Nevertheless, there are usually many changes ofdirection and odd features which cry out forexplanation. One pattern often referred to is the seriesof dog-legs many parish boundaries have, which showsthat the boundaries follow existing or former blocks ofstrips in the open fields. Sometimes, earthworks ofridge and furrow or narrow early enclosed stripsremain to give some clue to the course, but elsewherethe boundary itself must be the clue to the formerexistence of such an arrangement. If nothing else, sucha pattern shows that the territory of a particularsettlement was farmed to the limits when the boundarywas defined, and again, if that boundary can be shown

to be of a particular date, then something of early landuse can be stated.

Long tongues of land reaching out to mills havealready been mentioned, as have projections givingaccess to upland pasture or a pool, but other extensionsmay sometimes show the former existence of asettlement. This is particularly true where each parishwas formerly a cohesive unit, but later amalgamationsresulted in the ‘stalk’ of one on the side of another.

In general, then, we need to try to explain theearliest arrangement of the basic administrative landunits in our study area and see if it can be identified asbeing of pre-Roman, Roman, or later date. The courseof the boundary should be examined critically andquestions asked as to why it follows the features it does,what sort of land is enclosed, and why the land unit isthe shape it is. Detailed fieldwork around the boundaryis rarely wasted.

17 Parishes with deserted settlements in Northamptonshire.In each case the present parish encompasses several medievalland units. Although numerous settlements are deserted orshrunken, their land is indicated by the obvious way piecesare ‘tacked on’ to main land units. (After Chris Taylor andRoyal Commission on Historical Monuments (England))


www.BingEbook.com

44

As stated in the Introduction, this book is mainlyconcerned with ordinary settlements (be they villages orfarmsteads) engaged in producing food from the land.However, it should be clear in looking at any landscapethat some places are, or have been, more importantthan others. Today we see this in terms of which placeshave the shops, local school, or perhaps the parishchurch. By implication, we are suggesting that there is ahierarchy of places, or similarly that a particular placehas a certain status in the local community. Thischapter will therefore look at status in the landscape,since this hierarchy and the differences in status are soevident and mean so much in terms of why thelandscape looks like it does.

At all times in the past, certainly as far back as theNeolithic period, there have been particular places towhich surrounding settlements have looked forspecialised goods and services. Though most ruralsettlements practised a predominantly subsistenceeconomy, they needed certain goods and commoditiesfrom elsewhere which they could not providethemselves, and they were usually dependent on andsubsidiary to somewhere else in terms of ownership,administration, and religious provision.

Geographers are familiar with the concept of thecentral place—a locally or regionally important centrefulfilling a number of functions for the settlementsaround. Such places always have a high status in thelocal settlement hierarchy and frequently occupy acentral position geographically; they most obviouslymanifest themselves in the form of towns and cities. Forlong periods in the past, however, towns and cities didnot exist, and yet many, if not most, of the functionswhich major urban centres fulfil today were still carriedout in the landscape. We shall look at these functions ina moment, but it will be useful to think in terms ofcertain places in the landscape being the foci for singleactivities rather than a whole range of functions. Anyone such focal place would thus have only onefunction, rather than the range of functions of thegeographers’ central place. Both focal and central

places were important in the past and the concept isuseful in explaining much in the landscape today.

FOCAL PLACES AND THEIR FUNCTIONS

AdministrativeA number of distinctive functions can be recognisedwhich certain places carried out instead of or inaddition to the ubiquitous farming activities. Of these,control of the landscape is perhaps the most important,and hence at all times the administration or orderedmanagement of the land was carried out from certainplaces, which may have been chiefs’ residences, tribalcapitals, kingly, lordly, or religious establishments. Wecan often recognise these sites in the landscape fromwhich such administration may have been conducted.The control of resources by the landowner usuallymeans that the sites are impressive, dominant, and havehad a lot of labour and/or money invested in them. It islikely that the Neolithic causewayed enclosures andhenges, late Bronze Age enclosures, and Iron Agehillforts of prehistory fulfilled this role to some extent.In Roman times the cities and major towns certainlydid, and on a local scale many villas must have done soas well. In post-Roman times, reoccupied hillforts andhilltops were probably the focal administrative pointsfor their regions, and by late Saxon times royal palacessuch as Cheddar, Yeavering, and the newly-discoveredsite at Malmesbury were important royal centres, aswere the old established monasteries.

In the medieval period many towns wereadministrative centres, especially the larger ones of thelater Middle Ages, and this role has continuedthrough to the present day with the county towns anddistrict centres. However, the large number of castleserected in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Fig. 12)and the hundreds of new monasteries founded duringthe same period also became the administrativecentres of their estates, even if only for brief periods.Their extensive lands were organised and run fromthese focal places, which often appear relatively

4

Status in the landscape


www.BingEbook.com

STATUS IN THE LANDSCAPE

45

insignificant today. It is possible to see each monasteryand castle, then, as the centre of operations within itsarea. Where excavations have been carried out, ordetailed research conducted, we can see this centralrole manifested in the type and size of buildings on thesite. The administrative function is demonstrated bythe exchequers, bookrooms, and muniment stores ofmany sites, while produce from the estates was storedin large barns and granaries. Such aspects are theequivalent of the offices and warehouses of manyorganisations today.

In the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries largeestates were usually run from the main residence of thelandowner—particularly the large country house orstately home (Fig. 23). Nowadays, the administrationof the landscape is increasingly carried out morecentrally from office blocks in cities, controlling theextensive lands of pension fund and other estates, andlocally from estate offices by agents.

This theme of administration in the landscape hasnot been studied to any great extent, and yet we havealready seen that definition of estates is of criticalimportance in understanding the local landscape. Inearlier times, each major estate would have been run bybailiffs and reeves, from a focal point on the estate. TheDomesday Book gives a good indication of the status ofcertain places as caputs at the heads of estates in theeleventh century. In medieval times, each abbey andcastle can be seen as the administrative head or caput ofits scattered holdings.

Recently, several studies have tried to see suchmedieval sites in context. Brian Davison looked at theCount of Mortain’s lands in the West Country basedon the castles of Neroche and Montacute in Somerset;James Bond has examined the estates of EveshamAbbey in Worcestershire (Fig. 13) and AbingdonAbbey in Oxfordshire, and John Blair has discussedthe endowments of Lewes Priory in Sussex before1200. Monastic estates have thus receivedconsiderable attention, including those in foreignownership, such as Marjorie Morgan’s study of theEnglish lands of Bec Abbey in Normandy, which wereall administered from Ogbourne St George inWiltshire. As John Blair says for Lewes, ‘the creationof a group of holdings within a convenient radius andaccessible from one manorial centre must have beenan act of policy by the priory or its patrons’. We cansee, therefore, by studying estates and theiradministrative caputs, deliberate acts of estate policywhich have always had a dramatic effect on thelandscape. Maps showing monastic estates or baronialholdings (although few of the latter have beenattempted) serve to demonstrate the administrativefocal place function of such sites as motte and baileycastles, ringworks, or small monastic complexes; atthe same time the dependent or lower status of othersettlements and surrounding lands is demonstrated bytheir relatively peripheral position.

JudicialMany of these administrative caputs also had judicialfunctions, an arrangement with which we are notfamiliar today. For more recent times we have theevidence of county gaols, lock-ups, courthouses,prisons, particularly of the Victorian era, which arewell documented and have generally survived.However, there is not much evidence of this judicialactivity in the landscape before the Middle Ages,although it must have been there and some places wereobviously more significant than others in itsinstigation. In medieval times well-documented courtactivities were carried out at the caputs alreadydiscussed.

In earlier times and into the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies, many of the basic administrative and judicialactivities were carried out through the arrangement ofhundreds, hundred courts, and hundredal manors—courts being held at hundred meeting places, wherethree men for every tithing or vill had to attend at three-weekly intervals. The origin, arrangements andworking of these hundreds are very complicated andthe role of the hundred meeting place as a focal place,and the court as a central place, has hardly begun to beconsidered. Many hundred meeting places were atancient sites in the landscape like barrows or stones,where they could have taken place for millennia, whileothers were at places which had other functions as well,such as centres of royal or ecclesiastical estates whichcoincided with hundredal arrangements. Yet others

18 Secklow hundred meeting place, Milton Keynes inBuckinghamshire. This low mound was the hundred meetingplace of Secklow hundred in Buckinghamshire. It is the onlysuch site to have been excavated so far and has been shown tobe of medieval date at least. (Reproduced by permission ofBob Croft and Milton Keynes Archaeology Unit)


www.BingEbook.com


46

were situated in, or later moved to, places whicheventually became towns with a full range of centralplace functions. The Secklow hundred mound inMilton Keynes is the only hundred meeting place whichhas been excavated, and no study has been carried outwhich might indicate that in addition to the courtsother activities may have taken place, like markets andfairs, the collection of customs and dues, or religiousceremonies.

Local research can often locate the hundred meetingplace for each hundred. In a recent study in Somerset,these included stones for Whitstone, Stone andBempstone hundreds; trees for Catsash andHorethorne hundreds; and topographical features,such as Abdick hundred—probably Abbot’s ditch. InWiltshire, the mound at which Swanborough hundredmet is still there, while outside Birmingham near SuttonColdfield a low mound, significantly named King’sStanding, marks the site of the local hundred meetingplace.

The role of the hundred meeting point as a focalplace in the late Saxon and early medieval landscapehas remained largely unappreciated, althoughR.H.Britnell has recently discussed the potential.Hundreds and hundredal arrangements persisted inmost areas for a long time, eventually emerging as theadministrative units of the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies (until 1974).

ExchangeThe third important focal place function is exchange,currently a fashionable word in archaeological texts. Itis used to encompass the whole range of activitieswhereby goods of one sort or another are moved aboutbetween sites in the landscape. Such exchange mighttake place by using money, by bartering for othergoods, or as gifts, but in each case a change inownership of the goods takes place. In our economy,where we are so familiar with money, it is difficult forus to envisage any other ways in which goods can beacquired, but in the past all sorts of mechanisms wereemployed and the same is true in the Third Worldtoday.

The definition of which places have previously beenused for exchange activities will again lead to theidentification of higher status sites. At all periods theremust have been recognised places in a locality wheregoods could have been acquired or disposed of. It maybe that causewayed enclosures and henges of theNeolithic period were used in this way, and currentideas about hillforts suggest that they should also beviewed in this light. Roman towns and cities clearly hadthe same role in the commercial, money-based economyof that time.

We should not, however, imagine that suchexchange activities had to take place in a permanentlyoccupied urban settlement. Indeed, early exchangeactivities could not have done, since towns did not

exist before late prehistoric times, and in later timesperiodic markets and fairs provided many of theopportunities for trade. We do not know how earlysome of these markets and fairs were established or ifthere were equivalents in Roman and prehistorictimes.

It is not the intention of this book to examine towns,but from the ninth century onwards, trade andcommerce and the associated industrial and craftactivities increasingly took place in or were controlledby towns. Richard Hodges has drawn attention to thebeginnings of this process in the post-Roman periodwith the establishment of emporia. Following thecollapse of the Roman economy, we can distinguish there-emergence of commercial activity at these emporia,which were close to royal centres, connected to areas ofproduction and consumption abroad, and based largelyon luxury goods like gold, silver, jewels, furs and wine.Such sites are frequently on rivers, estuaries, or thecoast, and examples include Southampton (Hamwih),York (Eorforwic), London (Londonwic), Fordwich inKent, and Sandwich and Ipswich in Suffolk. They seemto have been under royal patronage and to havecomprised industrial activities, craftsmen, and artisans,as well as merchants and traders. Such places were notreally urban in this early period and possessed fewother central place functions. More of them probablyremain to be identified, particularly where there wereimportant royal centres in Saxon times.

In the later Saxon period it was the royal estates,particularly the caputs, which developed exchangenetworks, especially when towns were developed. Theking initially, and later other high-status landownerssuch as the bishops and major abbots, controlled themovement of goods between and within their estates,developing a number of markets and fairs. Some arerecorded in Domesday Book (1086), while others mayhave existed but are unrecorded. Indeed, in the pre-Conquest period, coins were produced at numerousmints to facilitate the transactions carried out at suchcentres.

The privilege of holding a market or fair wasextended down the social hierarchy as the MiddleAges progressed, and the royal records are full ofreferences to grants of markets and fairs as theeconomy developed. How well these grants reflect theamount of exchange activity in the landscape is notclear, since some grants seem never to have been takenup and others clearly did not persist. Some markets,and many fairs, were important and regular activitieswithout any apparent legal status. Only very detailedresearch will establish whether the legal definition of aparticular market or fair reflected its economicimportance in a region. It is an important aspect oflocal research to establish the identity and location ofany markets and fairs, not only for the exchange ofgoods, but also as a background to the pattern ofcommunications in an area.


www.BingEbook.com


47

We know very little of what went on in these places,from either archaeological or historical evidence, butR.H.Britnell has suggested that most markets were‘closely related to the growth of local trade betweenfood producers, craftsmen and tradesmen’. However,most luxury goods, such as gold, silver, wine and furs,

were acquired either by recourse to the major cities ofLondon, Bristol or York, or to one of the more ancientfairs, such as Stourbridge near Cambridge.

So little archaeological research has been conductedon the ‘foreign’ goods from excavations on townsites—goods like querns, hones, and pottery—that little

19 The influence of the Taunton fairs in the seventeenth century. These maps show the origins of the sellers of horses andcattle and the buyers at the fairs. The fairs served mainly western Somerset but their influence was felt all over the south-westpeninsula and South Wales. (By permission of Christopher Gerrard)


www.BingEbook.com


48

can be said for activities at markets and fairs in theMiddle Ages beyond the relatively poor documentaryevidence. It is only in the post-medieval period thatmovements of goods, crops, and animals to and frommarkets and fairs can be seen in any detail and someidea obtained of the importance of certain places in thedistribution of items across the landscape. Forseventeenth-century Somerset, J.H.Hamer has shownthe influence of White Down fair near Crewkerne, andChristopher Gerrard has shown that two fairs atTaunton held only a few weeks apart had a majorinfluence on the trading of cattle and horses in the WestCountry. For the more recent past, enormous amountsof information are available to show the changingeconomic importance of different localities in thelandscape.

EcclesiasticalDefinition of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in thelandscape and the status of particular sites at differentdates is another difficult aspect, currently the subject ofmuch research. The disposition of cathedrals from theearliest times onwards is well known, and early orimportant monastic sites can usually be identified,supported by estates in the ways already discussed.

However, clarifyng which churches were important atparticular dates is much more problematical. Many oldestablished monasteries acted as minsters, or the majorchurches serving particular estates. There may havebeen other churches of lower status on such estates aswell. By late Saxon times, however, there were manylesser minsters serving estates, with their canonsvisiting outlying ‘daughter’ and dependent churchesand chapels. Many of the latter, while subsidiary instatus, were also private or proprietary, belonging to alocal landowner and situated next to the manor house.

There are few original documentary sources, but anumber of churches are mentioned in Domesday Book(1086). While this is a very unsatisfactory source ofinformation on early churches, as Peter Sawyer hasshown, research in counties like Wiltshire and Somersetsuggests that some, if not most, of those mentionedwere minsters. This is particularly true if they hadallocations of land and an estate attached. Many suchminsters were on royal or major ancient ecclesiasticalestates, often at the caputs of such estates.

At the local level, it is important to look at theinterrelationships between churches, especially any thatindicate status in the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the past.Mother churches tended to guard their privileges

20 Bredon church in Worcestershire. This fine large Romanesque building indicates the former importance of the church atBredon. It was a minster for the large episcopal estate with dependent Chapelries at Bredon’s Norton, Mitton andWestmancote. (By permission of National Monuments Record, Royal Commission on Historic Monuments (England))


www.BingEbook.com


49

jealously and even in the nineteenth century somedaughter churches and chapels were still dependent insome respects on the more ancient or more importantmother church. Burial was the most cherished right,although baptism (and hence possession of a font) andmarriage were also important.

Several examples can be seen in the Midlands of thisearly ecclesiastical organisation. Bredon church inWorcestershire had dependencies at Bredon’s Norton,Mitton and Westmancote. The fine Romanesque workremaining at Bredon is an indication of its importancein the twelfth century. Fladbury in Worcestershire haddependencies at Wyre Piddle, Throckmorton,Bishampton and Ab Lench. There are also examples inKent, where Maidstone, Newington and Milton eachhad a host of dependent churches and chapels. InSomerset, examples include St Andrew’s near Ilchester,North Petherton, and Keynsham (now in Avon), whileclose relationships between mother and daughterchurches existed on the royal estates at SouthPetherton, Crewkerne, and Chewton Mendip.

At Chew Magna, south of Bristol, eighteenth-century records show the minster’s influence veryclearly, even at such a late date, and although noAnglo-Saxon masonry remains, the earlier dependentstatus of surrounding churches can still be seen. In thevestry book for 1752 it is reported that CharlesWallis, Sexton, ‘appeared at the vestry and beingstrictly examined touching the bounds of thechurchyard do acknowledge and declare to the best ofhis memory that:

the westgate with part of the wall as far as aparticular upright stone in the said wall, between thesaid gates and the standing stile and steps belongs toChew Stoke and is repaired by the parishionersthereof; the other part home to the poor house isrepaired by the parish of Chew Magna; the east sideis repaired and half of the wall and stile by the parishof Stowey; the other by the parish of Norton… Thenorth side is repaired by the parish of Dundry.’

It is interesting to note in this example how thedependent churches were responsible for themaintenance of sections of the churchyard wall of themother church; similar examples exist elsewhere.

Some idea of status has to be obtained, therefore, ifthe local ecclesiastical hierarchy is to be understood.For example, there are many fine early fonts,particularly of Norman date, showing that by that datemany places had acquired rights of baptism. However,the right of burial as the preserve of the more importantchurches remained stronger and persisted longer. Muchevidence in the landscape points to this, includingchurch paths (Fig. 89) and known routes by whichcoffins were carried. Outside Ablington inGloucestershire, for example, is a coffin stone, locallyreputed to be where coffins were laid while the bearers

rested on their way to the church at Bibury, where largelate Saxon and Romanesque parts remain of theminster church.

Most churches, however, were of relatively lowstatus. Our ideas of how these originated and fitted intothe early Church hierarchy are only just developing, butalready the pattern is becoming clearer. If all of theevidence for early church sites is put together, we cansee that these were widespread before 1066. RichardMorris has suggested, in fact, that there were manythousands of small churches in England in the lateSaxon period. Some were no doubt replacements forperiodic meetings at pagan sites or in cemeteries withcrosses. Not all, however, survived, and of those thatdid, not all became parish churches.

In the west, large numbers of chapels are knownwhich never became parish churches, but which areclearly pre-twelfth century in origin and had burialand baptism rights by that time. Over the rest of thecountry, the large number of medieval chapels, mostof which have not survived, may well be of pre-Conquest date, and they represent a fullerecclesiastical landscape than has formerly beenconsidered.

Along with earlier ideas of colonisation of thelandscape, it was assumed that original churches hadbeen supplemented with additional chapels of ease asneeded. No doubt in some cases this was true, but asresearch has indicated a much denser pattern ofsettlement in earlier periods, and as continuity seems tobe the norm, the role of churches has requiredreexamination.

It now seems probable that there were morechurches in late Saxon and early medieval times thanwas formerly thought. As with settlements, changes ofstatus have occurred in a poorly-documented period—the tenth to twelfth centuries. During this time,churches were frequently the private property of a locallord, they were part of the resources of an estate, andany revenue from them could be used by the owner.This is why Domesday Book does not refer to manychurches which are known to have existed from otherevidence.

Several churches have been excavated which wereundocumented and previously unsuspected, such as atRaunds in Northamptonshire (Fig. 32). Elsewhere,churches seem to have lost their status and gone out ofuse. Examples include Odda’s chapel at Deerhurst inGloucestershire, the Saxon church of St Lawrence atBradford on Avon, and the newly-discovered site,probably St Helen’s, at Malmesbury in Wiltshire.

It is noticeable how early excavations of previouslyunsuspected churches were usually interpreted as thechurch having been moved, as at Eaton Socon inBedfordshire and Potterne in Wiltshire. Recent ideassuggest that any late Saxon hamlet or earlier manorialcentre might be expected to have its own church. What,then, happened to them all?


www.BingEbook.com


50

During the twelfth century, bishops began toexcercise greater jurisdiction and, beginning withArchbishop Lanfranc, there was increasing pressure toget private churches out of the landowners’ control andunder episcopal control. This happened at the sametime as parishes were being formed, and it seems tohave resulted in the extinction of many churches, notonly as private property but also as working churches.Others were selected, and it is not known how, as theparish church for an area, in which the sacraments ofbaptism, marriage and burial were allowed. Some seemto have been rebuilt on a larger scale, presumably tocater for a more centralised population; an examplemay be Wharram Percy in Yorkshire. The rest wereeither converted to dwellings, such as Raunds whichbecame a manor house, or demolished, or downgradedin status to chapels of ease.

Thus the research so far on the origin of parishchurches leads us to suspect that a lot of early churchesdisappeared in the reforms and rationalisations of theearly Middle Ages. In some ways, this developmentmay well have followed the development in settlements.As well as major settlements with minsters, hamlets andfarms may well have had their own small churches.With agglomeration of settlements, some villagechurches were downgraded and abandoned; othersbecame our parish churches.

Churches in the landscapeApart from indicating status, each church representsperhaps the most important local focal place for anysettlement, and we might spend a lot of time studying itin our local research. It has much to tell us of how thelocal landscape has developed, and we can read theclues, if we know how to examine the building and itssurroundings. Dr Joe Bettey has drawn attention to thethree main aspects we should examine—the site,structure, and fittings—all of which can providevaluable clues to the history of the local landscape.

SiteThe site may offer important clues to the origin of thechurch: many reflect conversion to Christianity offormer pagan sites. Early missionaries under Mellitus inAD 602 were exhorted by Pope Gregory to utiliseearlier pagan sites when new churches were built, sothat people could continue to use those places theywere accustomed to frequent. This may explain theinteresting siting of some churches close to or insideprehistoric monuments. Obvious examples are atAvebury in Wiltshire and Knowlton in Dorset, butMaxey church in Northamptonshire may be built on abarrow, at Berwick in Sussex there is a large mound,probably a barrow, in the churchyard, and at Rudstonin Yorkshire there is a large prehistoric monolith nextto the chancel of the church. Similarly, churches onhilltops, dedicated to St Michael (the Archangel) or St

Catherine, may be on previously pagan sites. Proximityto significant springs or wells may also indicate use ofan early site.

Some churches are no doubt of Roman ancestry.Where villas have been found near to or beneathchurches, as at Rivenhall in Essex or Cheddar inSomerset, there is at least good circumstantial evidencefor continuity on the site. Elsewhere, villas haveproduced evidence of Christianity, with examples atHinton St Mary in Dorset and Chedworth inGloucestershire. At Woodchester in Gloucestershire thechurch sits over part of, and in the same alignment as,the vast Roman palace there. Wherever a medievalchurch is found in close proximity to a villa, it is nowvalid to question the origin of the church as a possibleChristian structure in late/post-Roman times. Finds ofRoman coins and pottery within the graveyard mayindicate a similar relationship. Near Roman towns, it ishighly likely that original churches were founded asmausolea or temples in graveyards outside the Romansettlement proper. St Alban’s abbey is perhaps the bestexample, but others probably include St Andrew’s atNorthover, outside the Roman town of Ilchester inSomerset, and Fordington in Dorchester.

In the post-Roman period, new churches were builtin Kent and the south-east after the activities ofAugustine. Elsewhere, all over the north, the Midlands,and the south, various ‘saints’ established monasteriesand cathedrals as Christianity spread. Most of thesewere at important royal or administrative centres, andmany of the churches were in the form of minsters ormissionary centres.

In the west and Wales, large numbers of churcheswere developed as a result of late/post-RomanChristianity by so-called ‘Celtic Saints’. Many areindicated by dedications, but the circular churchyards,oratories, holy wells and inscribed memorial stones andcrosses all indicate how widespread such Christian siteswere by the time of the Norman Conquest.

StructureAnalysis of the structure of a church by reference to thearchitectural styles and fabric will give us some idea ofhow the building has developed. Detailed three-dimensional structural analysis of church buildings ishelping to reveal great complexity in theirdevelopment. It is no longer adequate just to produce aplan of a church: all walls and elevations need to beexamined closely, since most churches are built,developed and extended over a long period.

It is important to remember that a standing structuresuch as a church can be read in the same way as anarchaeological section: features cutting into oroverlying others can be used to construct relative datingrelationships. This can be clearly seen at St Oswald’s inGloucester, where the many phases of development aremore clear in elevation than plan, and where, ironically,the earliest masonry is up above arches put in at a later


www.BingEbook.com


51

date. Other examples include Marston Magna inSomerset, where there are three undated phases ofmasonry before the Norman windows were insertedinto the north wall of the chancel. This may have been adrastically altered Saxon church; there are Saxonwindowheads elsewhere in the fabric, but the Normanwindows clearly do not date the fabric of the northchancel wall. Other good examples are Bulmer inYorkshire, Studley in Warwickshire, and Stoke subHamdon in Somerset. The fabric has to be read withcare in order to understand the evolution of thebuilding, which is clearly going to be impossible wherechurches have plastered interiors or stuccoed exteriors.Windows and doors of particular style are no means ofdating whole sections of a church, as inserts andalterations are common.

Having examined the fabric of a church, what canthis tell us of the local landscape? Firstly, building was

always expensive and so periods of activity may wellrepresent periods of prosperity. On the other hand,churches with poor workmanship, of small size, andaltered rather than rebuilt, may well indicate poorlocalities, or a lack of interest in the church. Thus, agood example of an undisturbed Anglo-Saxon churchmight be an architectural masterpiece, but in landscapeterms it shows no wealth or inclination to rebuild later.Medieval man was not appreciative of antiquity orgreat art—so lack of wealth rather than concern forconservation is the reason for survival; the same appliesfor any period. At the other end of the scale, rebuildingon a large scale in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuriesin East Anglia, Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershirerepresents great prosperity at that time.

Within the church itself, different parts mayrepresent different degrees of interest. The chancelbelonging to the rector may not be in the same style as

21 East Stoke church, Stoke sub Hamdon in Somerset. A good example of a medieval parish church with many buildingperiods and styles represented. A highly-decorated elaborate Romanesque building of nave and chancel has had thirteenth-century tower and transept added. In the fifteenth century the nave was raised and battlements added. A new perpendicularchurch was not provided in the fifteenth century, as most local investment went to the now demolished St Nicholas chapel atWest Stoke. (Photograph by Alan Wilson)


www.BingEbook.com


52

the nave maintained by the parishioners, reflectingdifferences in wealth or involvement. Even in thosechurches where the rector was a monastery, there maybe a variety of interest displayed, from greatostentation where the monastery has been concerned tomaintain its property, to neglect where the church is ona distant or poor estate, or where the monastery itselfwas poor.

FittingsThe fittings within and around the church can also beused in a similar fashion. We have already seen thatpossession of an early font is a significant indication; anearly, large or well-used graveyard could be viewed inthe same way. The graveyard is an important landscapefeature, since in many cases it represents the burialplace of most of the local population over a millenniumor more, and is the logical successor to prehistoricbarrow groups and Roman cemeteries. Its memorialstell of wealth and poverty, while its size and situationrelate to the foundation of the church and its status.Sometimes, the churchyard wall was maintained byother people. We have seen this at Chew Magna, butalso in Somerset, at both Creech St Michael andLocking, stones in the churchyard wall indicateobligations to maintain the church wall by farms in theparish. How common was this in the rest of thecountry?

Many churches have evidence of continuing interestin pagan themes. Fertility, for example, is wellrepresented by green men and other themes by sheela-nagigs and other grotesque figures on both the insideand outside of churches. Even after a thousand years ormore, evidence of pagan beliefs is still widespread inchurches.

Inside the church, the degree of elaboration andostentation of both architecture and fittings indicatesstatus and wealth in the community. Frequently thetombs, chapels, hatchments, private pews, and so on,indicate a local wealthy family. Elsewhere, the povertyof the fittings and lack of restoration point to a small orpoor population.

Churches are full of such clues to their localimportance and relative importance in their immediateregion. If we take the four parishes of Coberley,Winstone, Elkstone, and Brimpsfield on the Cotswoldsin Gloucestershire as examples, several points can bedemonstrated.

At Brimpsfield, a very unusual church sits on its ownaway to the east of the present village. There was also asmall priory at Brimpsfield, but it is not certain if thechurch was the priory church. However, pieces ofNorman and medieval masonry can be seen in a nearbybarn and in local field walls, and to the east of thechurch is a round mound, probably the motte of anabortive or adulterine castle. Next to the church is alarge earthen ringwork, clearly a castle of some

importance in the Norman period with substantialdefences remaining today. This ringwork is the mostimpressive of a series of earthworks stretching awaywest of the church towards the village. On the groundthese are very confused, but they show on the airpictures as probable remains of structures connectedwith the priory and an earlier area of the village.Clearly, then, the church reflects the important earlymedieval status of Brimpsfield with its castle andpriory, whilst also providing an indicator that thecentre of gravity of the village has shifted westwardsover the last 800 years.

Nearby at Coberley, the austere church isaccompanied only by a farm, a deserted mansion site,and some garden earthworks. There were othermedieval settlements in the area to the east of thechurch and at Upper Coberley, and this dispersedsettlement pattern is reinforced by the possible site of acastle and other earthworks at Dowman’s Farm, half amile west of the church.

At both Elkstone and Winstone there are churcheswith substantial Saxo-Norman and Norman remains.Elkstone is now only a small settlement with a largefarm to the south. Yet the church is a very elaboratestructure with evidence of a Norman nave andelaborate stone-vaulted chancel. Between them is athird cell, represented inside by a stone-vaulted unitand outside by a strong buttress on the north side.These indicate the remains of a tower, and, togetherwith the corbels and tympanum, suggest a very finechurch in the twelfth century. Why was it neverdeveloped afterwards, except for the addition of anelaborate west tower?

In the adjacent parish of Winstone, however, there isalso evidence of an early church, particularly obviousinside from the chancel arch and blocked northdoorway and window, but the quality of the work hereis not so fine. The church now stands relatively isolatedwith settlement earthworks to west and east. The mainvillage is away to the west, with areas of shrinkage onits south side. At some date, presumably after thetwelfth century, the village moved or was movedwestwards and its gridplan suggests this may have beenplanned. The church was not much developed after thatdate, but its origins lie not only within an earlier area ofsettlement, but also in its position adjacent to a spring,one of the headwaters of the Duntis Bourne. It maypossibly have begun as a baptistry or succeeded a cultcentre at the spring head. Like Brimpsfield church on itshilltop, this church’s site may predate any of the otherlocal churches, even though the fabric is not asimpressive at first glance.

These examples demonstrate how the church canbe used as a source of information in the landscape.Not only can it serve as an indicator of status, but itcan also throw some light on changing settlementdevelopments, which will be examined in thefollowing chapters.


www.BingEbook.com

53

A great deal of our interest in the developing landscapeis centred on the settlements within it. An enormousamount of research has gone on in the last few decadesinto how and when settlements originated and howthey have changed over time. In the next three chapterswe shall look at deserted villages, where recent studiesbegan, and surviving villages, which are the subject ofrenewed and vigorous interest. We shall also look at theCinderellas of settlement studies—hamlets andfarmsteads, which have received little attention but areof immense importance because they are widespreadand because they are clearly related to both the originsand the decline of villages.

THE STUDY OF DESERTED VILLAGES

We can trace the current state of our knowledge aboutvillage origins and changes back to the 1940s. At thattime several scholars, notably William Hoskins andMaurice Beresford, were drawing attention to thelarge number of deserted medieval settlements whichcould be seen in the landscape. Despite the scepticismof many historians at the time, Beresford eventuallydrew together all his findings in The Lost Villages ofEngland, published in 1954. It is difficult for us toimagine now, but at the time this was a revolutionarybook, not only because it put a new type ofarchaeological field monument, the deserted medievalvillage (DMV), firmly on the map, but also because itheralded a new era in the study of rural settlements inthis country. The Deserted Medieval Village ResearchGroup (now the Medieval Villages Research Group),which was formed in 1952 as a multi-disciplinaryresearch body, drawing in geographers, historians, andarchaeologists as well as natural scientists, hasrevolutionised our concepts of rural settlementchanges over the last 2000 years. The Group’s long-standing excavations at Wharram Percy in the EastRiding of Yorkshire have greatly contributed to thiswork (Fig. 30).

In 1954 Beresford listed 1353 sites of desertedvillages; by 1968 the number had risen to 2263; in

1976 this was updated to 2813. Some counties likeWorcestershire, Shropshire, Lancashire and Somerset,which in 1966 had few or no sites, can now be seen tohave just as many sites as the ‘classic’ deserted villageareas of Warwickshire, Oxfordshire,Northamptonshire and Yorkshire, where the sites werefirst located.

What do these sites tell us about settlement in thelandscape? Firstly, they show that the pattern of villagesand hamlets seen on the map today is incomplete andthat, contrary to earlier ideas about medievalsettlement, in some areas a large number of former siteshas disappeared. This is an indication of how muchchange has taken place in the past. The fact that moresites have been identified as time passes shows thatarchaeological distribution maps only depict theactivities of individual archaeologists or field societiesup to any particular date, rather than the total pictureof deserted medieval villages!

Following the identification of these sites, furtherwork has suggested many reasons for theirdisappearance. The Black Death and subsequentoutbreaks of the plague account for the smallestnumber of desertions, despite all the local traditions.Early research drew attention to the creation orextension of Royal Forests in the twelfth century, theestablishment of Cistercian monasteries also in thetwelfth century, and in particular the enclosure ofarable land for pasture in the fourteenth, fifteenth andsixteenth centuries, all of which were oftenaccompanied by well-documented evictions ofpeasants. The removal of whole communities for thecreation of parks began in the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies, and hundreds, if not thousands, of instancescan be cited from the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies.

Such apparently obvious explanations for thedesertion of a settlement are, however, too simplistic.As with much else in the landscape, the reality is morecomplex. Frequently, the villages which were desertedwere already very small and dependent on anotherlarger and more stable settlement. They were, in fact,

5

Deserted villages and after


www.BingEbook.com


www.BingEbook.com

22 Deserted medieval villages in England in 1966 and 1977. In 1966 large numbers of deserted villages had been discoveredin the Midlands and the north. Some counties appeared to have few or no sites. By 1977 many more sites had been discovered,especially in Cumbria, Lancashire and the Welsh borderland. Such maps are a reflection of the activity of archaeologists ratherthan the actual distribution of sites. (By permission of the Medieval Village Research Group)


www.BingEbook.com

23 West Quantoxhead or St Audrie’s deserted village in Somerset. A good series of maps shows the gradual disappearance ofthis village as the parkland was extended and the road system diverted, This example could be paralleled by numerous others.It shows the gradual change in a village in post-medieval (rather than medieval) times resulting in the removal of the village toa new site (rather than total desertion). There are no tell-tale earthworks or foundations in the area where buildings are clearlyshown in 1761–1840.


www.BingEbook.com

DESERTED VILLAGES AND AFTER

57

often the unimportant places in the local settlementhierarchy, founded late on poor land and marginal interms of agricultural production. As with other aspects

of the landscape, it was the slow, largely undocumentedsocial and economic changes that spelt the death ofsuch settlements, not at a single stroke but over a long

24 Shrunken villages in Leicestershire. Air photographs of Tugby (top) in Leicestershire (BLC 43 taken on 28th November1972) and Cold Newton (bottom) in Leicestershire (BLC 64 taken on 28th November 1972). These pictures show thecharacteristic earthworks of partly deserted settlements between present farms, cottages, houses and gardens. (By permission ofCambridge University Aerial Photography Committee)


www.BingEbook.com


58

period. For the Midlands, Christopher Dyer hasassembled impressive evidence for the processes bywhich small ailing settlements shrank and disappeared.His evidence indicates sites of low status disappearingboth before and after the Black Death, with relativelyfew being eliminated by the well-recorded activities ofrapacious landlords.

The distribution maps of DMV sites also beliesimplistic explanation. As work has progressed, it canbe seen that every part of the definition of DMVs can besubjected to debate. Even in 1954, Beresford drewattention to the existence of shrunken villages, where,despite the continued presence of a church, shop, pub,Post Office and many houses, there are also earthworksindicating that the village has formerly been larger orhas moved. We know that shrunken village earthworksare very common, perhaps the most common of allarchaeological field monuments, and that they mustindicate shrinkage and movement of settlements at alltimes. We now have to think of a range of possibilitiesin settlements, from those which have completelysurvived to those which are completely deserted, withall shades in between.

Secondly, we must beware of the term ‘medieval’. Itis not difficult to show from documents that most ofour villages were in existence in the Middle Ages, butmany were certainly not deserted until after 1500.Most may have been there in the pre-Norman period,although whether as fully developed villages or not willbe discussed below. Even where the name is recordedearly on, however, we cannot be sure that we aredealing with the same site, bearing in mind themovement implied above. Desertion, shrinkage andmovement can take place at any period.

Finally, the term ‘villages’ needs to be considered.Most settlements outside the Midlands are not largenucleated collections of farms and cottages. Many donot have churches, manor houses and mills; indeedmost of the countryside today is worked from singlefarms isolated in the middle of their own holdings.Many areas in the Middle Ages did not have truevillages. In Cornwall, parts of Devon, westernSomerset, and the Welsh borderlands, in particular,medieval settlement was predominantly in the form ofhamlets and farmsteads. In these areas we should notexpect to find deserted, shrunken or moved villages,but the equivalent for hamlets and farms, and this isindeed the case with hundreds of such sites identifiedon Dartmoor and in west Somerset, for example; thiswill be discussed further in Chapter 7.

Thus, a consideration of earlier work on DMVs hasled us to the conclusion that the settlement patterns weactually see on the maps and in the landscape consist ofa range of settlements, at various stages of developmentat all periods; everything, in fact, from survivingmedieval villages to totally abandoned farm sites. Itwould be impossible to depict accurately all thenuances of settlement development on any but the

largest scale maps, such is the complexity and variety inthe landscape.

FINDING DESERTED VILLAGES

What, then, should the researcher look for in thesettlements in his area, and how should he set aboutanalysing what he finds? Firstly, it should be possible tofind out what is already known from the local Sites andMonuments Record or Royal Commission forHistorical Monuments/Ordnance Survey records. Themost important deserted villages and other abandonedmedieval settlements will probably be listed already bythe Medieval Village Research Group and there maywell be surveys and air photographs available.

For most areas, and particularly for the smallersettlements, little work will have been done and herethe local historian or archaeologist can easily add newsites and information to the record. Air photographs,particularly verticals, are likely to show villageearthworks which can then be checked on the ground.Familiarity with the local history of the area is veryimportant, as detailed local knowledge, both on theground and with the available documents and oldmaps, will ensure that all remaining features of suchdeserted settlements will be found. In any locality astart can be made by checking any easily availabledocuments which list settlements. If a place is missingon the map which is mentioned in Domesday Book(1086) or any of the lay subsidies or poll taxes, this is apossibility for a deserted settlement. In addition, thoseparishes covered by the Victoria County History, oreven local histories, may well have other valuabledetails available. However, it is from fieldwork, oldmaps with field names, and the examination of airphotographs that most progress will be made.

If we look at a typical Midland deserted village sitewith the aid of air photographs and maps, we can seethat it is made up of certain features which occur againand again on such sites, the most distinctive being thesunken holloways marking the courses of old roads andpaths. Parts of these may still be in use or have ponds ormarlpits in them, but they are generally easy torecognise. Smaller paths and lanes frequently lead offthe main holloway, but even this may be narrow andinsignificant by modern standards. Occasionally such aroad is cambered with ditches along each side. If youare very unlucky, such holloways will be the onlyrecognisable features on your site.

The other obvious features are likely to be theplatforms lying alongside the holloways, on which thefarms and cottages formerly stood. These will be largeembanked areas, only half to one metre (two or threefeet) above the road in most cases, with roundedcorners and perhaps slightly hollowed centres. Only onthe best sites will any house platforms remain, that iswhere the buildings actually stood. Sometimes a fewstones stick out of the grass to indicate this, but clumps


www.BingEbook.com


59

of nettles give a general indication of former areas ofoccupation and of dung in houses and farmyards,because of the build up of phosphates in the soil.

Ditches and lanes frequently divide up the platforms, sothat a rough plan can be seen of the former crofts lyingalong the lanes.

25 Deserted settlements in the Midlands. Air photographs of two typical deserted medieval settlements in the Midlands—(top) Moreton (Dinton parish) in Buckinghamshire (BKZ20 taken on 23rd November 1972) and (bottom) Cotes de Val(Gilmorton parish) in Leicestershire (AZU6 taken on 29th October 1969). Both show characteristic ‘village’ earthworks, wereformerly hamlets, and have present-day farmsteads associated with them. (By permission of Cambridge University AerialPhotography Committee)


www.BingEbook.com


60

All around such a site there would formerly have beenfields and other areas of land use. If the area is pastureand has been little disturbed, it may be possible to pickout areas of ridge and furrow, and the junction betweenthe arable fields and the rear of the village closes may bedetected. In many cases there is a hefty bank and ditchmarking the village boundary, but in others this may bemarked only by a slight change in level or by thecontinuous line of the rear of the platforms. Elsewhere,the platforms may run out into former meadowland neara stream or river. The definition of this village boundaryis important, since it indicates the plan of the settlement,and some idea can then be gained of the size of the sitein relation to its fields.

So far we have been looking at earthworksparticular to deserted settlement sites. However, theremay also be other features commonly found on othermedieval sites, and there may occasionally be buildings.Moated sites indicating a former manor or grange arecommon, as are sites of fishponds, remaining as drygrassy hollows, or linear banks indicating the formerdams. Occasionally a mill site may be recognised.

It is not generally appreciated that very manysettlement sites exhibit earthworks of several periods.We know at Wharram Percy in Yorkshire, for example,that the medieval village was fitted into a prehistoricand Roman field system (Fig. 30), and at Hound Tor onDartmoor the medieval hamlet was built around aBronze Age settlement and its fields (Fig. 47). Many ofthe deserted and shrunken villages in Gloucestershire(including Hawling and Hullasey) lie across the ends ofprehistoric fields which have been ploughed outbeyond the village earthworks.

Christopher Taylor has recognised many cases ofsettlement remains intermixed with monastic and post-medieval earthworks. He cites Pipewell Abbey inNorthamptonshire, where the earthworks of a desertedvillage mingle with the remains of the Cistercianmonastic site. It is not uncommon to have the outworksof an earthen castle associated with settlement remains,as at Rockingham in Northamptonshire or Kilpeck inHerefordshire.

What is often not realised is that many desertedsettlements have interesting and largely unappreciatedpost-medieval remains as well, such as mansion sites.Many earthwork complexes turn out in fact to havevery little settlement evidence, i.e. village or hamletremains, but rather more garden or landscapingremains (Fig. 26), or indications of activities such asrabbit farming. Settlements emparked in the eighteenthor nineteenth centuries tend not to survive too well asearthworks, but abandoned sixteenth- or seventeenth-century garden schemes often incorporate remains ofvillage earthworks. Many such examples have beenrecognised in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, andelsewhere.

Sometimes, as at Chesterton in Warwickshire,obvious features remain. The house has disappeared

there, although it is shown on an eighteenth-centurymap complete with avenues, ponds, and gardens, andtoday a fine eighteenth-century brick gateway, enclosedgarden and levelled lawn remain. The stumps of thelarge trees of the avenue can also be seen, but the site ofthe large house is marked only by slightly hummockyground, though there may well be cellars beneath. AtHardington in Somerset there are only a few traces of

26 Village and garden earthworks at Hardington inSomerset. The air photograph and earthwork plan show theremains of village earthworks south of the church andextensive garden and park remains (since destroyed) to thenorth-west. They are at slightly different scales.


www.BingEbook.com


61

the village, which is said to have gone by 1584, butuntil recently there were very fine earthworks of aseventeenth-century garden landscape, with terraces,tree mounds, and park banks. The church and a gazeboor feasting house still remain. Elsewhere, extensivepillow mounds show that the site was used as a rabbitwarren later on.

At Wormleighton, studied in great detail byProfessor Harry Thorpe, the fishponds must have beenbuilt after the village had been abandoned, as theyoverlie the village street. Other earthworks probablyindicate an irrigation or leat system built in thesixteenth century to help the Spencer family’s ranchingactivities. These later uses for deserted village sites needto be appreciated if the full landscape story is to beunderstood.

Apart from earlier and later earthwork features,there may also be buildings. Churches often remain,either complete, ruined, or only in part (e.g. tower orchancel), and, together with the extent of thegraveyard, they may give useful information about asite. There may also be one or more farms, cottages, orbarns associated with the earthworks, as the majorityof deserted villages are not entirely abandoned. Theseshould be examined for early features, such asarchitectural fragments incorporated into them, and anassessment made of their original date, any changesthrough time, and former uses. The recognition ofRomanesque or Gothic details in such buildings,however, should not automatically be associated with aformer church or chapel, as small manor houses andother secular buildings often had windows anddoorways in these styles. The interpretation of buildingdetails is a specialised aspect of studying the landscape,but careful recording by drawings or photographs mayenable experts to give some guidance as to date orformer use.

At High Meadow in the Forest of Dean a ratherpoor set of earthworks indicates a settlement shown ona map of 1608. The adjacent farmstead includes abuilding with a number of fine sixteenth- andseventeenth-century doorways and windows, now usedas a barn. This must be the former manor house of thesettlement, which was downgraded in the eighteenthcentury and replaced by a larger house with its owngardens and park. These in their turn have nowdisappeared, leaving only earthworks of terraces andlawns. Almost any small feature in a building or even afield wall may say something of the structures that oncestood on such sites. Elsewhere, particularly in theMidlands, there is widespread evidence for theoverploughing of portions of deserted settlement sites,such as at Onley in Northamptonshire, where cleartraces of ridge and furrow show a change of use fromvillage to arable land.

So far, we have been looking at the rather moreimpressive remains of former villages. In most cases,however, such well-defined features do not remain and

only vague areas of earthworks are visible. Some ofthese have been disturbed in the past, making analysisvery difficult, especially where the site has beenbulldozed and ploughed, leaving only slight changes ofcolour in the ploughsoil and scatters of potsherds. Suchsites can be useful, however, as a collection of potterymay indicate earlier occupation on a site than could bediscerned when it was pasture or a field of unploughedearthworks. At Ashington in Somerset, for example, ahandful of Roman sherds was found when the desertedvillage site was ploughed, showing that there had beena Romano-British settlement on the same site as themedieval village.

Over much of the country, therefore, the localresearcher should expect to find only slight traces ofsettlement remains, not as extensive or as impressive asthose usually published. Many of these sites were notvillages at all, but hamlets. In Somerset, the majority ofthe 500+ deserted settlements identified so far wereformerly small hamlets of two or three farms and notlarge nucleated villages. Zany was such a settlement,located during the construction of the M5 motorwaynear Taunton, and now covered by the Taunton DeanService Station. Another was Playstreet in Bickenhall,now a ploughed site littered with medieval and laterpotsherds and rooftiles, but with only slightearthworks.

The location of such deserted hamlets is animportant task for the local fieldworker, since for manyareas they were the most characteristic feature of thesettlement pattern, although they are usually not aswell documented as villages, churches and manorhouses, nor are their remains as impressive orextensive.

SHRUNKEN VILLAGES

Much more common than deserted sites are the slighttraces of former areas of habitation adjacent topresentday settlements (Fig. 24). Even villages andhamlets which are quite large today may have areas ofearthworks adjacent to them, showing where buildingsformerly stood. The characteristic earthworks ofholloways, platforms and house sites may berecognisable, as well as areas of nettles and traces ofstone or brick foundations. More often the remains willbe very slight, but most villages would formerly havehad farms or cottages occupying what today are oftengrassy paddocks in gaps along the streets. Localtradition may indicate where cottages stood untilrecently, but the fieldworker should be aware thatmuch earlier structures may also have occupied thesame sites.

Many villages and hamlets display, in the form ofearthworks, evidence of a change of site or plan. Thismay range from small areas of earthworks within or atone end of a settlement, to large areas of earthworkswith only a few farms and cottages in use today. South


www.BingEbook.com

27 Naseby in Northamptonshire. Plan of the village in 1630 (left) and earthworks in the present settlement (right). The earlymap shows the disposition of streets and houses which exist now only as earthworks. The plans are at slightly different scales.


www.BingEbook.com

(Crown copyright: reproduced by permission of Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England))


www.BingEbook.com


64

Bradon and Maperton in Somerset are typical ofhundreds of examples. At the former there is now onlya farm and two or three cottages. This looks today likea small hamlet in the parish of Puckington, where thereis an important village, but South Bradon had a church

of St Mary Magdalene until the sixteenth century atleast and was a separate parish until the nineteenthcentury. The extent of the parish is shown on the tithemap of 1845 and the church site is known from burialsdug up in a potato patch in 1953. There is also a mill

28 Stallingborough in Lincolnshire. Plan of a severely shrunken settlement. Extensive earthworks show formersettlement areas. Today there is only a scatter of cottages along the surviving road. (Crown copyright: reproducedby permission of Paul Everson and Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England))


www.BingEbook.com


65

site, though only the stone foundations and the sluicegate remain, together with the supply leat which nowcarries most of the water of the River Ile. The clearestevidence of shrinkage, however, is in the form ofplatforms which surround the remaining buildings.One area has impressive stone footings and may wellrepresent a manor site.

South Bradon is listed in Domesday Book and inmost medieval tax lists. Its people were not killed off bythe Black Death, nor was it enclosed for sheep in thefifteenth or sixteenth centuries; it just died graduallyover a long period. Its history is largely unknown, butthe story is there in the earthworks, church site andlocal landscape.

Maperton is still a civil parish with the churchsurviving and many cottages and farms. Yet on theeastside of the village there is a field of earthworksindicating lanes and cottage sites, and elsewhere theremains of a village boundary bank and crofts.Maperton is still there, but it has lost large areas ofsettlement and has changed its plan to some extent. Theshrinkage is so extensive that local archaeologists referto the earthworks as a ‘deserted village’.

In Northamptonshire, Christopher Taylor hasmapped large numbers of shrunken settlements withextensive areas of earthworks. There, it can be shownthat it is impossible to understand the plans ofpresentday villages without reference to the abandonedroads and former areas of farms and cottages which

remain as earthworks. Examples are numerous, butNaseby has both extensive earthworks and an earlymap of 1630 showing the layout of the village at thatdate; as Christopher Taylor remarks in the RCHMVolume III for Northamptonshire, ‘the extensiveearthworks show clearly that the relatively simplelayout of the present village is the result of complexchanges which are by no means understood’.

At Stallingborough in Lincolnshire, Paul Eversonhas recorded vast areas of earthworks, including somefrom air photographs which are now destroyed. Thissurvey shows that the present lanes and cottages areonly the remnants of an extensive settlement occupyingat least 28 hectares (70 acres).

There is a great need to study the context of suchdeserted or shrunken settlements, since it is only when aregion is studied in its entirety that we can get someidea of the changes which have taken place insettlements and the settlement pattern in the area. In themodern parish of Mudford in Somerset there wereformerly eight separate settlements. One of these,Stone, was probably never more than the farm it istoday—it is mentioned as such in 1086. All of theothers were hamlets, however, with the parish church atMudford (or Mudford Monachorum), while NetherAdber and Hinton formerly had chapels. Of these sevenplaces, two have completely disappeared—NetherAdber now has only two houses, built in the nineteenthand twentieth centuries, and Mudford Terry has none.

29 Burton Dassett in Warwickshire and Mudford in Somerset. These maps show both the number of settlements in eachparish and the amount of desertion and shrinkage. Some sites have disappeared completely, others are shrunken, while somesurvive intact. (Burton Dassett after C.J.Bond)


www.BingEbook.com

30 Wharram Percy deserted village in Yorkshire. The complex earthworks of a deserted settlement which have been thesubject of a long campaign of excavations. (By permission of the Medieval Village Research Group)


www.BingEbook.com


67

West Mudford, Mudford Sock and Up Mudford areseverely shrunken with extensive areas of earthworks.Only Mudford itself is reasonably intact.

Because of the clear survival of settlementearthworks and areas of ridge and furrow in this part ofSomerset, together with the very good RAF airphotographs of 1947, we can see the extent and plan ofall these settlements. They vary in size from a singlefarm at Stone to the extensive sites at Up Mudford andNether Adber, and in plan from the irregular Hinton tothe regular Mudford Sock and Mudford. There are fewindications in the documents as to when and why eachof the settlements was affected, but at least in thesixteenth century we know that there was a shortage ofland to provide food to feed everyone. The lands of thelord of the manor at Hinton were reallocated to thepeasants in the sixteenth century, and the manor house,now remaining as a moated site, was abandoned. Here,and at Mudford, the peasants decided in the sixteenthcentury to enclose the open fields and reallocate land,but there is no dramatic single or well-documentedevent to explain the picture we can see in the landscapetoday.

At Burton Dassett in Warwickshire a similar picturecan be built up (Fig. 29). Of five former settlements,only Knightcote and Dassett Northend survive asvillages. Burton, which has the large medieval church, isa very small hamlet; Temple Hardwick has been‘recolonised’ by an army depot; Dassett Southend has afarm, a ruined medieval chapel of St James, and apriest’s house, and is now threatened by theconstruction of the M42 motorway. There are extensiveearthworks at Dassett Southend indicating animportant market settlement in the fourteenth century,and further earthworks at Burton. In the fifteenthcentury there were some evictions in the parish orderedby Sir Edward Belknap, but the overall story, as workedout by James Bond, is very complex and no singlereason can be found to explain what can be seen in thelandscape.

These two examples show just how complex havebeen the changes affecting villages in the landscape inthe past. In most cases, such changes are poorlydocumented, if they are recorded at all. Yet in order tounderstand the present pattern and appearance ofsettlements, allowance has to be made for varyingdegrees of change occurring in the past. Complexityand change are the predominant factors in the Englishlandscape; the above examples are not exceptional andsimilar instances can be found in all the Englishcounties.

WHARRAM PERCY

The work over the last 30 years at Wharram Percy inthe East Riding of Yorkshire demonstrates how muchcan be learnt from consistent detailed research on onesite about the development of the English landscape

and of a site in its local setting. It is increasingly likelythat many of the lessons learnt at Wharram Percy applyto settlements elsewhere in the country. It is important,therefore, that the implications of the work there arefully understood, though we must be careful not toassume as much for every settlement we study.

Wharram Percy lies in the Yorkshire Wolds in a dryvalley near Malton. It was mentioned in DomesdayBook, badly affected by the Black Death in 1350, anddepopulated in the fifteenth century. The earthworks ofthe village have always been known: they wererecorded by the Ordnance Survey surveyors in thenineteenth century and then re-discovered by MauriceBeresford in the late 1940s. In the 1950s, he and JohnHurst began excavations on the site and these havecontinued ever since. The work at Wharram Percyreflects the development of medieval rural settlementstudies in England and our understanding of theimplications of the development of the landscape overthe last 30 years.

The aim initially was to examine medieval peasanthouses and to obtain some archaeological informationfor the date of desertion. Later, the church wasexcavated and more recently the mill, fishpond, manorsites and boundaries have all been examined. Work isnow proceeding on the fields and the prehistoric andRoman background. It was realised at an early stagethat the earthwork plan belied a very complex situationand that there were clearly at least two phases ofdevelopment. The church occupies an interesting site inrelation to the rest of the village, and the manor sitescan now also be seen to be very complex.

After more than 30 years’ work at Wharram Percy, itis possible to give a general account of what happenedon the site, and, in view of the detailed work there, thismay have implications for studies elsewhere. Theearliest excavation showed the typical plan of peasantdwellings—longhouses—with cattle in one end andpeople in the other. These are found generally overEngland in the Middle Ages, although survivingexamples are now found only in Wales and the WestCountry. No doubt most settlements had longhouses inthe early Middle Ages. At Wharram Percy they hadbeen rebuilt of perishable materials—wood, wattle,turf—in almost every generation, only later havingsubstantial foundations. Different alignments wereadopted in a very irregular fashion. The plotboundaries defining the crofts on which these housesstood also changed, although the early impression ofgreat change and lack of order has now been revised toone of combination and division of consistent units.The earliest area of crofts may have been situated on abluff west of the church, while an extended area waslater laid out to the north around a triangular green,with an earlier Norman manor house going out of useat the same time. It is likely that the whole village wasdeliberately planned, possibly with a revitalised fieldsystem, since solskifte, a regulated field system, has


www.BingEbook.com


68

now been traced at Wharram Percy. The date when thiswould have occurred is not known, but it was probablyin the late Saxon or early medieval period.

The northern manor house was formerly thought tobe secondary to the Norman one, but it now seems thatthey were originally a pair. The church began in late

31 Plans of Anglo-Saxon settlements: West Stow in Suffolk, Chalton and Cowdery’s Down in Hampshire. These plans showrecent excavations of Anglo-Saxon settlements abandoned before the medieval period. Not all the structures are contemporary,so that at each phase there would have been only a small group of buildings—more like farmsteads or hamlets than villages (Bypermission of Stanley West, Tim Champion and Martin Millett)


www.BingEbook.com


69

Saxon times and developed over a long period, finallybeing made redundant in the 1960s, when part of itcollapsed. Its site has not altered and the chancel arch(the division between the parishioners’ area [the nave]and the rector’s area [the chancel]) has remained in thesame position for 1000 years or more, notwithstandingadditions, alterations, and demolitions.

Many of the boundaries surrounding the villageearthworks have been sectioned, and surprisingly somehave turned out to be of prehistoric and Roman date. Itis thus apparent, as has been indicated elsewhere, thatnot all of the earthworks are contemporary with oneanother; indeed, the basic outline of the settlementseems to have been determined by land divisions laiddown several thousand years previously. How muchmore of the landscape possesses this ancientframework? We have already seen how persistent earlyboundary features can be, but perhaps we haveunderestimated the extent of these earlier divisions.Cropmarks and pottery scatters of the prehistoric and

Romano-British settlements contemporary with theseearly land divisions have been located at several pointswithin the later village complex at Wharram Percy:each appears to represent a farmstead site.

This latter point is an important consideration,because the earliest ‘village’ of Wharram Percy hasproved very elusive. Not only can no prehistoric orRoman nucleated settlement be found, but Saxonsettlement in the area seems to have consisted of ascatter of farms (vills or manors) with an isolatedchurch between them. This may have been the situationat the time of Domesday Book, and it may be that anucleated village was not established until late Saxontimes or the twelfth century. This nucleated settlement,the crofts west of the church and the northernextension, seems to have been deliberately planned,since the widths and lengths of the crofts are veryconsistent, with continuous front and rear propertylines. This arrangement continued until the desertion ofthe village in the fifteenth century, when the settlement

32 Furnells, Raunds in Northamptonshire. This composite plan shows all the features revealed in the recent campaign ofexcavations. These date from the sixth to the fifteenth centuries; there are also prehistoric and Roman features. There is noevidence that this settlement was ever a village—it is really a complex of manor houses with ancillary buildings. The churches,one on top of another, with their cemeteries, date from the tenth to twelfth century. They were attached to manors, which arelabelled, and were succeeded by another in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. (By permission of Alan Hannan andNorthamptonshire County Council Archaeology Unit)


www.BingEbook.com


70

pattern reverted to its former arrangement of isolatedindividual farms.

It can be seen, therefore, that there has been anucleated village at Wharram Percy for only 400 yearsor so out of at least 2000 years, and that, in effect, thevillage as a form of settlement was an aberration, thesingle farm being the normal settlement from which theland was worked. It is also likely that the common openfield system in use in the Middle Ages was only in useduring the lifetime of the nucleated village; this will bediscussed elsewhere.

The implications of the work at Wharram Percy areof enormous interest for our understanding of howsettlements and the landscape developed. Is suchevidence available anywhere else and is it possible tosuggest a general model of settlement developmentwhich may apply to local studies elsewhere in thecountry?

OTHER SITES

There have been excavations on other sites, but thesehave added further complications. One surprise hasbeen the lack of Saxon settlements beneath themedieval villages which have been excavated. Indeed,although many settlements of the pagan Saxon periodand a few of the middle and late Saxon periods havebeen excavated, they are in general not directlyassociated with ‘modern’ villages. Neither do they havethe sort of plans and features which accord with ourearlier ideas of what a Saxon village should look like.

At West Stow, for example, the settlement wasestablished in the early Saxon period and abandoned inthe seventh or eighth century. It consisted of a line oftimber post-built ‘halls’ and numerous sunken-flooredbuildings; there is no formal plan and little can be seenof streets or boundaries. At contemporary Mucking, twoSaxon cemeteries were found to accompany a widelydispersed scatter of sunken-floored buildings—the samesituation occurred at Eynsham in Oxfordshire. AtChalton in Hampshire and Cowdery’s Down nearBasingstoke, the buildings were more regularly laid outbut not extensive enough to be called villages, while atCatholme in Staffordshire and Thirlings inNorthumberland, the earlier settlements had not only

been abandoned, but probably forgotten when areas ofridge and furrow were laid out over the top.

None of these sites had the classic village green andplan which we expected, and all were found by accidentin open country, away from medieval settlements. Inmany parts of the country there has clearly been a shiftof settlement in Saxon times and the implication of thisis that a number of Saxon settlements remain to befound, away from the medieval villages, in what areformer open field areas. The local fieldworker needs togive serious consideration to this if he attempts toexplain the pre-medieval settlements in his area.Sometimes field names can help, particularly wherethey have habitative elements within them, such as -tunendings. William Ford cites examples of field nameswith the elements -worth, -thorp, -cote and -tun inWarwickshire. He suggests that Cleyhemsugworth inFarnborough, Weresworth in Tanworth andBosseworth in Warwick were all former settlements.Elsewhere in Warwickshire excavation of fields namedNorton and Ditchingworth (in Brailes) and Baldicote(in Tredington) revealed evidence of early occupation.This method would probably provide a fruitful line ofenquiry elsewhere.

The example of Raunds in Northamptonshiredemonstrates other difficulties. This is a large villagewith earthworks on the periphery which wereexcavated initially by David Hall in advance ofredevelopment for houses. The first trench revealed alate Saxon grave slab in the cemetery of anundocumented Saxon church. Later excavations haveshown a long sequence of development from a lateSaxon farm or manorial complex with two phases ofchurches, to a medieval manor house. What appearedto be merely an area of shrinkage on the edge of thevillage has, therefore, turned out to be very importantin the history of settlement in the area—a smallindependent hamlet with its own church which waseventually abandoned. Another small manor liesnearby and there is still a church in the village. It is notknown whether these were contemporary and whetherthe settlement of this area was in the form of hamletsbefore the village was created. The implications of thesedevelopments will be discussed in the next twochapters.


www.BingEbook.com

71

Now that we have looked at Wharram Percy desertedvillage and seen something of the 30-year longexcavations there, we should look at other studies andexcavations on village sites which seem to suggest thesame developments implied at Wharram Percy. In thischapter we shall look at such topics as village planningand regulation, the origins of villages, polyfocalvillages, and whether pre-village elements can bedistinguished.

PLANNED VILLAGES

The idea that villages might have been planned, or atleast regulated in their growth, is a relatively new one.Towns, which have been more intensively studied andfor which there is generally more documentary andcartographic information, were thought to be organicor haphazard creations until recently. Exceptions were

known, of course, like Salisbury, Winchelsea andLudlow, where deliberately created towns were welldocumented and where the regular gridiron streetpattern suggested town planning. In 1967 MauriceBeresford published New Towns of the Middle Agesand established beyond reasonable doubt that largenumbers, certainly hundreds, of towns had beencreated de novo in the early Middle Ages on green fieldsites or next to existing villages.

Professor Conzen has shown us how to analysetown plans to reconstruct their phases of developmentand discrete planned units. From this work the ideathat the physical arrangement of an urban settlementreflects planning has now been accepted. It is but ashort step to relate the same topographical analysis tovillage plans and to suggest, from their regularity andconsistency, that they may also have been planned. Inmany cases, the plans of known planned towns are no

6

Surviving villages

33 Wheldrake in Yorkshire. Plan of the 16 original units making up the early medieval planned village. (By permission of JuneSheppard)


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

72

different in extent, size or arrangement from those ofthe most regular villages. The difference between townsand villages was one of status, with the town havingparticular privileges, but ‘There is no extantdocumentary record that explicitly describes theestablishment of even one regular village plan…’(Sheppard 1976). Some villages are, however, failedplanned medieval towns, as is evident in their layout,areas of earthworks and documentary references.

June Sheppard was probably the first to drawattention to a planned village. In 1966, in her study ofWheldrake, outside York, she drew attention to theregular nature of the village. She showed that the planmust be earlier than 1300, when a new road was addedto it. Looking in detail at the fiscal assessment of thesettlement around 1200, she came to the conclusionthat the village was originally planned between 1066and 1086, when it consisted of 16 crofts, eight on eachside of the village street.

The idea of planned Norman villages was founddifficult to accept by scholars at that time, but sincethen further evidence has been found, particularly inthe north of England. In 1970, Pamela Allerston, forexample, looked at villages in the Vale of Pickering andwas able to show that some with very regular plans hadcome into existence in the early Middle Ages andreplaced an earlier arrangement of scattered hamlets.Thus, at Appleton le Moors the very regular two rowsof the village were there by the fourteenth century,replacing the two earlier settlements of Appleton andBaschebi. At Spaunton the regular two-row village hadoriginated by the thirteenth century, replacing a hamlet450 metres (490 yards) away which was remembered inthe field names ‘old field’ and ‘tofts’. A new field systemof three fields also replaced the infield/outfield system.

Pamela Allerston came to the conclusion that therewas good evidence in Yorkshire for village planning,

and suggested the period from 1070 to the end of thethirteenth century for the origin of many villages. Insome cases she suggested that there had beencoalescence of settlements, with the abandonment ofthe earlier pattern of hamlets and combining of landsand holdings. From this she deduced that the earlierarrangements had been of hamlets with infields, but,following growth in population, settlements had beenreplanned on new sites with the coalescence ofpopulation and lands.

In Durham, Brian Roberts has been studying villageplans and has now extended his research to othernorthern counties, as well as looking at England’svillage plans generally. For the north, he finds evidenceof village planning by c.1200 on well-documentedestates like those of the Bishop of Durham. Often thesevillages have two rows with square or rectangularvillage greens, and the regular plan of the crofts isrelated to early fiscal arrangements in the townships.

When and why were so many northern villagesplanned? Again, the research of June Sheppard inYorkshire suggests something of the timing and theoccasion of village planning in that area. She looked at100 village plans and assessed them as regular or partlyregular. One opportunity for village planning in thenorth of England followed William the Conqueror’s‘harrying of the North’ in the 1060s. Large numbers ofvills which are now still in existence are described as‘waste’ in Domesday Book (1086). June Sheppard didnot make a direct correlation between waste vills andregular plans on the basis of the limited evidenceavailable. Rather, there is the strong suggestion that thereplanning took place on the sites with higher statusowners, such as abbots and the Archbishop of York.

The next likely period for the initiation of plannedvillages would be the eleventh to mid twelfth centuries,as demonstrated by June Sheppard when she looked at

34 Thornton Dale and Hutton Buscel in Yorkshire. Two villages made up of individual hamlets, each separately named.Pamela Allerston’s research suggests many villages developing from hamlets in the twelfth century. The hamlets are recorded inDomesday Book in 1086. (After Pamela Allerston, with permission)


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

73

village plans in relation to early fiscal arrangements.Discussing the use of the 18-foot (5.5-metre) perch formeasuring plots, the fiscal assessment in DomesdayBook and the 1284 Kirby’s Quest knights’ fees, sheexamined in detail the plans of Hemingborough,Thornton le Beans and Upper Poppleton, and showedthat the plans of these and other villages seem to berelated to early feudal arrangements. Brian Robertsargues a similar case for village planning in Durham.There, 66 per cent of villages have regular plans, withtheir crofts aligned in rows. Most seem to havedeveloped between 1130 and 1200, but on some estatesthe process must have been complete by 1183 when theBolden Book was compiled. Only one regular plannedvillage has been excavated (Thrislington in CountyDurham, by David Austin) and this showedarchaeologically that the plan was earlier than 1200.

The evidence, then, indicates village planning in thenorth from the early Middle Ages. Although MauriceBeresford suggests a late thirteenth-/early fourteenth-century date for East Whitton, in Yorkshire, andexcavations generally have shown regular plansreplacing less regular layouts in the thirteenth andfourteenth centuries (see, for example, Wawne inYorkshire and Holworth in Dorset), the favouredperiod is the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Otherpossible reasons for this will be discussed below, but in1976 June Sheppard suggested that we need to paymore attention to the correlation between land tenureand social structure in the feudal system of thesesettlements, since there seems to be some relationshipbetween ownership, devastation in 1069–70, and newplanning in the north. ‘It seems feasible therefore that

subinfeudated and honorial vills may have differed invillage planning policies…suggesting that it was underhonorial administration that they [regular villageplans] were most likely to be established.’ In otherwords, not for the first time, it was the estate policiespursued by a particular landowner which produced thenorthern village plans.

What about village plans in the Midlands and southof England? There are very many villages with regularrectilinear plans, and we should perhaps now regardthese as planned villages, even if we are ignorant ofwhen the planning took place. Large numbers ofvillages, however, have very complex plans which atfirst sight defy description and explanation, both on theground and on the maps. We can see two major aspectsin them—firstly, their complexity. Brian Roberts, in hisanalysis of village plans, has drawn attention to therange of village types and attempted to classify themaccording to their plan units. Thus, we have basicshapes of agglomerations and rows, the degree ofregularity, presence or absence of greens, andcomposite or polyfocal plans. Many villages haveseveral of these elements.

These different units and elements have ledChristopher Taylor to suggest that many of our villagesare polyfocal, that is, they have a number of discretecentres within them which are joined (or separated) byother properties, open spaces, or abandoned crofts.Thus, a settlement might have a church, a manor house,a village green, road junction, and/or pond as foci.Classic examples can be found at Wollaston inNorthamptonshire and Fenny Compton inWarwickshire. In fact, very large numbers of villages

35 Thornton le Beans in Yorkshire. June Sheppard’s plan indicating the early measurement used, probably the 18-ft (5.5-m)perch, to lay out the crofts in the village. The number of perches used is indicated. This planning probably took place in the lateeleventh or twelfth century. (By permission of June Sheppard)


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

74

have this sort of plan, and the idea of polyfocal centresin villages has proved a useful concept in village plananalysis.

Marston Magna in Somerset provides a usefulexample of some of the ideas which can be generated bythis method. The plan and air photograph show thatthe village consists of two main units. These can be seenon the modern OS maps and the tithe map, and theycan be picked out on the ground from changes in leveland property boundaries. The first unit is centred on StMary’s church and consists of a large rectangle, alignednorth-south, east-west. Except in the southeast corner,the properties in this unit are at right angles to thenorth-south road, and the overall rectilineararrangement of the plan is clear. A stream flowswestwards across the centre of the unit, and this isfollowed rather irregularly on its north side by the road

from Corton Denham to Little Marston. The southernpart of this unit is occupied by the fine earthworks of amoated manor site in a field called Court Garden,seventeenth-century houses, one of which is a formermanor house, and Marston House, the nineteenth-century successor. This unit is separated from the fieldsof ridge and furrow all around the village by a break ofslope or change of level of 1 metre (39 in) or more inheight. On the south side is a prominent boundarybank, next to the moat.

The second unit encroaches on the southeast cornerof the first and consists of a slightly raised rectilinearplatform with rounded corners, aligned on the eastwestroad but at a different angle to the first unit. Marstonwater mill occupies the north-west corner of thissecond unit, and its leat flows along the western half ofthe south side and the west side. Properties within this

36 Thrislington village in County Durham. This example of a planned northern village, which later became deserted, has beenpartially excavated by Dave Austin. His work revealed the manor house and chapel and some of the farmsteads. These and theearthworks show regular plots along the street with village boundary bank and ridge and furrow beyond. (By permission DavidAustin)


www.BingEbook.com

37 Village forms—principles of classification. Brian Roberts’ scheme for village plan classification is based on basic shapes,degree of regularity, and presence or absence of a green. Polyfocal plans are shown to consist of several basic forms. (Bypermission of Brian Roberts)


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

76

unit are long and rectangular and there are traces ofridge and furrow in them.

Marston Magna lies in a flat lias clay area of southSomerset, and its name suggests marshy surroundings.The stream crossing the village enters the parish fromRimpton to the east and is immediately diverted fromits meandering course into an embanked channel whichruns across country to the mill mentioned above. Thearea to the west of this stream diversion is poorly

drained, embanked today, but contains the earthworksof the deserted settlement of Netherton.

What can we make of this pattern and can wesuggest dates for the elements within it? The church ofSt Mary contains good evidence for a Saxo-Normanbuilding, including two Saxon windowheads (not insitu) and herring-bone masonry punctured by Normanwindows. It was clearly there by the eleventh century,and stands aligned on the stream and road and the

38 Marston Magna in Somerset: village plan analysis. This preliminary analysis of the plan of the village suggests that it mayhave originated as a series of enclosures. Such examination owes a lot to town plan analysis as developed by Professor Conzen,and indicates all sorts of possibilities to be examined in future research.


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

77

alignments of the first unit. We can guess at the relativedating of the units, but unit one makes most sense as asecondary feature, since it seems to be butted on to unittwo, with banks overlaid south of the mill. If unit one isearlier, we would need to postulate the completeremoval of any earthworks in the north-west corner ofunit two, although this could have happened.

The mill site and its supply leat must surely havebeen constructed on the outline of unit two—the courseof the leat would be strange if it was earlier and hadconditioned the shape of unit two. It would have beendifficult to develop Netherton as a settlement before thebuilding of the mill leat enabled the draining of thestream from its marshy site. It would thus seem thatunit two pre-dates unit one and that the mill was laidout after unit two. Netherton was probably developedlater (it is first recorded in 1327). The date of unit onemight be eleventh-century at least, so how much earlieris unit two?

The moated site and its fishponds also offerinteresting problems. Although the complex is situatedin unit one, its alignment relates to unit two, and thus

the earthworks in their present form (but notnecessarily the house they enclose) should date from thesame period as unit two. The digging of the moats onthis alignment caused problems, since the earthworkson the south-west corner became tangled with theboundary bank of unit one. This type of analysis andthe problems revealed provide useful lines of enquirytowards unravelling the complexity of how villageplans have developed and at what periods.

The second important feature about survivingvillages and their plans is the factor of change. TheEnglish landscape is constantly developing and altering,and villages are no exception. It is clearly important toestablish what the earliest plan of a village was, sincethere have often been many post-medieval changes. Oldmaps help, especially if they go back to the sixteenth orseventeenth centuries, and surveys of earthworks canalso show early elements. In Cambridgeshire, JackRavensdale has been able to show from documentaryreferences how the village plans of Cottenham,Landbeach and Waterbeach have changed anddeveloped over the centuries. Some roads have been

39 The settlements in Bishopstone, near Salisbury in Wiltshire. This early 6 inch to 1 mile map by the Ordnance Survey showsthe six settlements in Bishopstone parish. Each was formerly a separate hamlet with its own fields and some had their ownchurch or chapel. They are (left to right, top to bottom) Flamston, Netton, Bishopstone, Croucheston, Faulston and Throope.Bishopstone and Faulston have extensive areas of shrunken village earthworks, (Reproduced from the 1886–88 OrdnanceSurvey Maps)


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

78

lost, whilst others have been created or moved, andfeatures previously thought stable, like village greens,can be shown to be recent additions to some plans. Asimilar analysis has been made for Kibworth Harcourtin Leicestershire.

Change is also implicit in the idea of polyfocalvillages, since the suggestion is that such plans areproduced by filling in properties between existing orearlier centres. The idea again emerges of dispersedfarms or hamlets around which villages grow. Some ofthese centres clearly had separate names at one time andsome must have had their own churches. In Yorkshire,for example, Thornton Dale is composed of the hamletsof Formanby, Rozeby, Thornton, and the lostLeidthorp; and Hutton Buscel consists of Hutton,Newton, and Preston (Fig. 34). In Northamptonshireand Warwickshire, the separate hamlet names are oftennot evident, but the suffix -end may be added todifferent parts of the village. Elsewhere, the suffix -tunindicates in the place name the former existence of afarm or hamlet.

Some of the most spectacular examples can be foundin Wiltshire, where not only do the names of separateelements remain or can be relatively easily traced, butfrequently the individual churches attached to eachhamlet are still in existence, or were until recently. Inthe Ebble valley near Salisbury, for example, the parishof Bishopstone has two main centres. One, around theparish church, was Bishopstone proper (with Throope),but the agglomeration of buildings 1 kilometre (½mile) away to the west consisted of four separatesettlements. Only Croucheston and Faulston are nownamed (the others were Flamston and Netton), but atleast two of them had their own medieval chapels.There were thus originally six separate hamlets in thisstretch of the valley. Nearby, Bower Chalke is similar,and so is Broad Chalke, with hamlets called Gurston,Knapp, possibly Middleton, and several unnamedelements.

Some Wiltshire villages have several surviving orknown church sites attached to former hamlets. Theattractive village of Biddestone, for example, which at

40 Biddestone village in Wiltshire. This settlement appears to be the ‘classic’ English village with green, duck pond, manorhouse and church. It is built of Cotswold stone. Closer examination, however, suggests that it originally consisted of twohamlets, each with a manor house and a church, with an open common between. Biddestone St Peter retains its manor but haslost its church—part of it was taken to nearby Castle Combe. Biddestone St Nicholas has become the village church.(Reproduced from the 1889 Ordnance Survey Map)


www.BingEbook.com

41 Map of the Shrewton settlements in Wiltshire. Shrewton, between Devizes and Salisbury, is now thought of as one largevillage. Originally, however, it consisted of eight hamlets which have had varying fortunes. Elston is deserted and has lost itschurch; Shrewton and Maddington survive with regular, probably planned, layouts and churches; Bourton and Abbaston havegone; Homanton and Rollestone (with a redundant church) are severely shrunken, and Netton (unlabelled, west of Chalk Hill)has been resettled with modern housing. This is a very good example of a polyfocal village and shows how a collection ofhamlets can agglomerate into a large complex village. (Reproduced from the 1889 Ordnance Survey Map)


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

80

first sight consists of a village green, church andsixteenth- to seventeenth-century buildings—almostthe classic village—can be shown on analysis to consistof two elements, each with a manor and church,between which the green developed. The westernhamlet has survived with the present parish church ofSt Nicholas. A manor house remains of the easternhamlet, but the church of St Peter has been demolished;part of it remains in the grounds of CastleCombemanor house nearby. Several other villages inthe county have or had one or more churches. Chitterneformerly had both All Saints and St Mary’s, and Altonhad St Mary’s at Alton Barnes (an Anglo-Saxonchurch) and All Saints at Alton Priors. There are otherexamples elsewhere, such as Swaffham Priors andBurwell in Cambridgeshire.

Perhaps the most spectacular example of a polyfocalvillage anywhere in England is Shrewton in Wiltshire,where the individual hamlets can be seen with theirchurches, both extant and lost. What appears to be onevillage (and is marked as such on modern maps and onthe road signs) can in fact be seen to consist of no lessthan eight separate hamlets—Elston (largely deserted,with a former chapel), Shrewton (from which thevillage has taken its name), Maddington, Netton,

Rollestone (largely deserted with a redundant church),Homanton (deserted), Addestone (deserted) andBourton (deserted). These hamlets were mostly calledWinterbourne in 1086, and distinguished by theirseparate owners—they were on the probable formerroyal estate of Winterbourne, possibly centred onWinterbourne Stoke (Fig. 15). The -tun element of theirplace names suggests they were hamlets once, whilemany of the place names indicate their former owners:Maddington belonged to the ‘maidens’, the nuns ofAmesbury Abbey; Shrewton to the Sherrif; Addestoneto the Abbot of St Peter’s, Winchester. Interestingly,some names are of a relatively late date: Elston is ‘Elias’(Giffard’s) tun’ and Rollestone is ‘Rolf’s tun’, bothtwelfth-century names. Churches remain atMaddington, Shrewton, and Rollestone, while Elstonformerly had a chapel which may once have been achurch. We can no longer be certain, however, thatthere were never churches at the other hamlets,especially with the example of Raunds inNorthamptonshire before us.

Change and complexity in village plans andsettlement development can also be seen in Norfolkfrom the research of Peter Wade-Martins. Despite thepresent bleak, prairie-like appearance of much of East

42 Maps of Weasenham St Peter in Norfolk. Dr Peter Wade-Martins’ fieldwork and research into early maps hasdemonstrated that the settlement area in Saxon times was nucleated around the church. It was only in late medieval and latertimes that the settlement around a former commo-n developed, giving the mislead-ing impression of an original nucleated‘green’ village. (After Peter Wade-Martins, with permission, from East Anglian Archae-ology 10, 1980)


www.BingEbook.com

SURVIVING VILLAGES

81

Anglia, it has two major advantages for the fieldarchaeologist. There was a well developed and long-lived post-Roman pottery industry in the area (basedon St Neots, Stamford and Ipswich) and this meansthat, because the area is intensively ploughed, scattersof potsherds are revealed on former settlement sites.Using early maps, Peter Wade-Martins has been ableto show that the present scattered settlements andsmall fragmentary villages are merely the remnants offormer late Saxon settlements and medieval nucleatedvillages. The sites and forms of these have constantlybeen changing, so that often what appears as anucleated village around a green can be shown to bethe last, and a relatively late, development in thelandscape. Good examples include Horningtoft andLongham, but Weasenham St Peter shows the sameprocess.

From both deserted village sites and survivingnucleated settlements, a very complex picture of changeand development is beginning to emerge. If we ignorethe majority of buildings in villages which invariablydate to the sixteenth century and later, we are left withsettlement plans of bewildering complexity. We must,however, now accept that these plans are developmentsfrom the original forms and that great changes mayhave taken place before we get to the earliestarrangement we can distinguish. Some element ofplanning and/or deliberate regulation is evident inmany settlements, and so we must pay attention toregular croft and property arrangements and consistent

front and rear property alignments. Earlier elements inmany cases seem to consist of much smaller settlements,either in the form of farmsteads or hamlets. Sometimes,these remain in the landscape or are incorporated intocomplex village plans; elsewhere, they were abandonedin what seems to have been wholescale replanning andresiting of villages. In many cases, these hamlets hadchurches which had survived to become parishchurches, or were demolished, or forgotten, as atRaunds.

In the north we have seen that this village planningmay have taken place in the eleventh and twelfthcenturies. However, where there are very regular fieldsystems it may have occurred earlier, perhaps in theScandinavian period. In the rest of the country wecannot be sure of the date, although the evidence beginsto suggest some time in the late Saxon period, thecenturies before the Norman Conquest. It is thus likelythat many (perhaps most) villages are relativelatecomers to the English landscape. They are certainlynot early Saxon, as was previously thought, but manywere in existence by the thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies; we can see this from the abundantdocumentation. It begins to look as if villages, likefields and land units and much else in the landscape,were largely defined in the hazy centuries before theNorman Conquest, developing from complex anddistant origins in earlier times. It is to the primevalforms of such settlements, together with concepts oftheir development, that we must now turn.


www.BingEbook.com

82

In the last two chapters we have been looking atdeserted and surviving villages. From this has emergedthe suggestion that villages were an aberration in thelandscape and that, in many cases, hamlets andfarmsteads predated the villages and in some wayrepresent a more normal form of settlement. Travellingthrough England it is at once apparent that a great dealof the settlement in the landscape is today not in theform of villages, nor was it for much of the past.Numerous small groups of farms, isolated farmsteadson their own land, cottages and roadside settlementspredominate.

Almost any substantial group of buildings withperhaps a shop, or village hall is today called a villageand this leads to great confusion, both for researcherslooking at earlier arrangements, and for the inhabitantsfor whom finer definitions are not needed. For ouranalysis, however, we need to be able to differentiatebetween what we call a village and those places whichare hamlets. We must recognise that villages in the pastwere nucleations of farms and cottages, generally in adiscrete unit of land, with a separate field system,managed communally so that all farmers andlandholders were interdependent on each other. Animportant factor also was the village’s ecclesiasticalindependence, with its own church, generally medieval.

A definition as strict as this, as we have already seen,means that many deserted medieval ‘villages’ werenever really villages at all. Similarly, most villages todaydo not qualify by these standards—most are suburbanor retirement centres, not more than half a dozenpractise communal agriculture, and most do not evenhave working farms in them. Yet the definition is usefulin drawing our attention to those agglomerations ofmore recent origin, those which have become importantin post-medieval times, acquiring a church and aseparate status, and the large numbers of hamlets whichhave never had any particular distinguishing featuresabout them. We must now look at these hamlets: whenthey originated, how they developed and how theymanaged the landscape.

THE ORIGINS OF HAMLETS

The earlier model for settlement development wasbased on the idea of a lot of villages established byAnglo-Saxon settlers clearing the land and creatingopen, common fields. To a large extent this was basedon an assumed chronology of place-name developmentwith the earliest names generally ending in -ton. Largenumbers of these settlements were listed in 1086 inDomesday Book and it was assumed, therefore, thatthey represented the primary Saxon settlement overmuch of England. Hamlets and farmsteads within theparishes of these villages were generally notdocumented before the twelfth or thirteenth centuriesand were therefore assumed to be secondary ordaughter settlements created as the populationexpanded, more land was cleared and farmed, and newsettlements were needed.

We have already seen how this model can beseriously questioned on many points. The chronologyof place-name developments was rejected by place-name scholars after seminal research by John McNealDodgson in 1966 and, to the extent that it has beenreplaced at all, place names are now seen to representthe hierarchical status of places in the landscape withno particular significance attached to when they arefirst recorded. The chronology of settlementdevelopment based on documents is wide open tomisinterpretation, since it relies entirely on the vagariesof documents surviving and the place under discussionbeing important enough to be mentioned. We havealready seen that many of the most important andsignificant developments in settlements took placebefore documents were generally available.

Archaeological and landscape studies have alsoshown the antiquity of many of the assumed secondaryhamlets. In Yorkshire, Pamela Allerston showed thatsome villages were replacements of earlier hamlets andothers were agglomerations of pre-existing centres (Fig.34). In the south, Christopher Taylor, David Hall andothers have shown that in pre-Roman, Roman andAnglo-Saxon times, the landscape was densely packed

7

Farms and hamlets


www.BingEbook.com

FARMS AND HAMLETS

83

with dispersed settlements. These may have beenfarmsteads or hamlets, but they were certainly not largeor extensive enough to be villages, whatever their statusor internal arrangements. Villages developed later,either as deliberate creations or as agglomerations ofhamlets.

We have seen how many of the excavations ofmedieval settlements have revealed no Saxonsettlements beneath, and that most of the Anglo-Saxonsettlements, despite the title used in excavation reports,are not villages but rather more like hamlets (Fig. 31).Excavations elsewhere have demonstrated that in pre-Norman times small hamlets and farmsteads werewidespread, occupying even the most inhospitableupland sites. Examples include Mawgan Forth inCornwall, Ribblehead in Yorkshire, and Simy Folds inDurham. In many parts of the country, but particularlyin the west, hamlets and farmsteads are the normalsettlement pattern today, with the few villages mostly ofpost-medieval development. Often churches areisolated, serving widely scattered farmsteads. In early

ethnic models of settlement origin it was assumed thatthis was a Celtic pattern of settlement, but could it bethat this pattern in fact represents the oldestarrangements in the landscape?

Some years ago, W.G.Hoskins argued that theDomesday Book entries for Devon referred to hamletsand farmsteads rather than villages, and that anyparticular vill comprised a whole series of villein farms.In Somerset, Roger Leech has shown that there was aRomano-British settlement about every 1 kilometre (½mile) across the landscape. This is particularly evidentaround Somerton, but can also be seen in the Bath area.Over much of medieval Somerset, to judge from thedocuments, the pattern was similar, leading RogerLeech to suggest that much of the settlement pattern inthe county is a survival from Roman times. Indeed,using archaeological and documentary evidence, it canbe postulated that, in parts of west Somerset inparticular, present-day settlements are the successors toprehistoric and Romano-British predecessors, even ifnot actually on the same site. North of Dunkery

43 Brixworth in Northamptonshire. The present nucleated village was preceeded by dispersed farmsteads in Roman and earlySaxon times. These sites are indicated by scatters of pottery in ploughed fields. (Crown copyright: reproduced by permission ofRoyal Commission on Historical Monuments (England))


www.BingEbook.com

FARMS AND HAMLETS

84

Beacon, for example, the well-preserved ringwork ofSweetworthy is next to the abandoned medieval farmsite—and possibly the Saxon predecessor which givesus the -worth element in Sweetworthy. As a result of asuperb air photograph by John White, the nearbydeserted Domesday site of Bagley can now be seen tohave a ringwork adjacent to it. Here, and elsewhere inthe south-west, the pattern of farmsteads today reflectsthe earlier pattern of dispersed settlement.

In both Devon and Somerset it is possible to showthat some of the surviving medieval farmsteadsrepresent former hamlets. Harold Fox has shown thisin the vast upland parish of Hartland, where manyfarms are the remains of former hamlets, while otherhamlets have disappeared completely. In Brompton

Regis in Somerset an interesting seventeenth-centurydocument shows us that what are now farmsteads wereformerly hamlets of several separate farmsteads withtenements and cottages.

Are there any examples which clearly show thesehamlets to be an early form of settlement? In Devonwe can see at least three clear cases. Lettaford in NorthBovey parish, consisting of three longhouses with laterfarm buildings, represents perhaps the best survivingexample. One longhouse has survived almost intactand can be leased for holidays from the LandmarkTrust; another is disguised, although the formerarrangements with cattle at one end and people at theother can still be distinguished; the third has beenrebuilt. They stand in a cluster next to a stream around

44 Mawgan Porth in Cornwall, Ribblehead in Yorkshire, and Simy Folds in Durham. The excavation of these sites has shownthat farmsteads and hamlets, often in inhospitable upland situations, were in existence by the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries.(By permission of Rupert Bruce-Mitford, A.King, Denis Coggins and others)


www.BingEbook.com

45 Bagley and Sweetworthy, Luaombe in Somerset. Air photograph of two late prehistoric ringworks associated with desertedfarmsteads of at least medieval date. Beyond Sweetworthy to the left are further ringworks and earthwork enclosures. Suchexamples suggest direct continuity of land use, if not actual settlement site, from prehistoric to medieval times in the west,(Copyright West Air Photography, Weston Super Mare, No. 27534)


www.BingEbook.com

FARMS AND HAMLETS

86

an open space, for which the term ‘village green’would be too grand. A later non-conformist chapel isthe only relatively recent addition to the hamlet,otherwise it demonstrates Brian Robert’s original‘rural nucleated cluster’ almost exactly (Fig. 50). Wedo not know, however, how old Lettaford is (the oldestlonghouse dates only to the sixteenth century) or whatits earlier arrangements were.

Babeny, near Dartmeet, is a partially desertedexample. There were originally three tenements, eachwith its own longhouse, yard and outbuildings. Onehas disappeared, but its ash house remains; another hasbeen rebuilt and is now the main farm. The third ispartly ruined, with the cattle end used as a barn, whileat the upper, living end a substantial fireplace, stackand bread oven remain. These farmsteads were ondifferent levels around an open space. There are theremains of a medieval stone-built water mill on thestream below.

Hound Tor is a deserted settlement in Manatonparish, high on the east side of Dartmoor, which wasexcavated some years ago and has been left open so thatvisitors can see it. Although called a village, anexamination of its plan on the ground shows that itconsists in fact of three or four farmsteads, almostidentical in their units, among their garden plots. Eachunit consists of a large longhouse, a smaller cottage orlonghouse, and a barn with a kiln. Excavations

suggested that the site was abandoned in the fourteenthcentury, possibly for climatic reasons, but that itoriginated in middle Saxon times. It may have begun asa seasonal steading, only later being permanentlyoccupied. Its original turf and timber buildings wereeventually replaced by stone ones.

To a very large extent, Hound Tor represents thearchetypal hamlet described by Harald Uhlig asrepresenting the original west European type ofsettlement—what would be called a drübbel inGermany or a clachan on the Celtic fringes—a hamletinhabited by relatives, working the land together. Weshall see later the suggestion that such hamlets wereoperating infield/outfield systems before the well-developed common field system of the high MiddleAges was introduced. Hound Tor shows this veryclearly, with its infield demarcated by corn ditches andendless pasture on the moor beyond.

COLONISATION

If many of the hamlets in the countryside are at leastpre-Norman in origin, rather than the homesteads ofearly medieval peasants colonising the landscape, canwe see any evidence for this colonisation, clearance,and the opening up of new areas to cultivation? Therewas clearly an increase in population from probably theninth and tenth centuries right through to the troubled

46 Lettaford hamlet, North Bovey in Devon. A hamlet with three farmsteads, two of which have surviving longhouses. Thebuildings cluster around an open space (the ‘green’) by a stream. (Reproduced by permission of Peter Beacham (ed) Devon’sTraditional buildings 1978)


www.BingEbook.com

FARMS AND HAMLETS

87

fourteenth century, but there are several ways in whichextra people can be fed and accommodated on the land.An improvement in technology leading to increasedefficiency in food production would have helped, but asyet there seems little evidence for this, unlessintensification of field systems to open common fields isa manifestation of this. Increase in individualsettlement size, together with greater intensification ofland use, would also accommodate more people;perhaps this is why many hamlets grew into villages orwhy polyfocal villages developed. Thirdly, new landcan be taken in, cleared and farmed, and newsettlements created.

Much of the evidence for settlement colonisation isbased on the first reference to a place in documents, butthis cannot now be accepted as a date for origin. It isalso based on the first appearance of identifiablepottery types, but this ignores the possibility ofaceramic phases when pottery was not made or used.Nevertheless, we can distinguish areas where new landwas being taken in and new settlements created. We areprobably wrong, however, to see this as happening on a

large scale or as a particularly significant developmentin many areas. England was already an old country bylate Saxon times, and the new evidence suggests arelatively large population utilising much of thelandscape to a greater or lesser degree. Any majorphases or colonisation are as likely to have taken placein the seventh, eighth or ninth centuries, as PeterSawyer has suggested, and therefore to beundocumented, as they are to have happened in thethirteenth century, when we hear of them for the firsttime from surviving records.

Domesday Book makes it clear that large areas werewooded and that waste and underused land waswidespread in 1086. We cannot assume that such areaswere unsettled, however, since areas of woodland oftenbelonged to other places which are better documented.These places are mentioned in the eleventh century,while the dependent settlements in the woods may notbe first mentioned until the twelfth or thirteenthcenturies. This may well be true for the Weald, as PeterSawyer shows. Nevertheless, some wooded areas weremore intensively settled and used as time went on. Brian

47 Hound Tor, Dartmoor in Devon. A hamlet settlement of three or four farmsteads, each consisting of a longhouse, smallhouse or cott, and ‘corn dryer’ surrounded by yards, gardens and paddocks. Such a settlement may be thought of as the modelfor early hamlets all over western Europe. (By permission of Guy Beresford and the Medieval Village Research Group)


www.BingEbook.com

FARMS AND HAMLETS

88

Roberts has been able to show how the Forest of Ardenin north Warwickshire was systematically settled in thetwelfth and thirteenth centuries, with hundreds of newmoated farmsteads being created. At Gannow Green inFrankley in Worcestershire the woods were cleared,trees burnt, and the area levelled with clay before amoated farmhouse was built.

Colonisation also occurred in the north, inYorkshire and in the Pennine Valleys. Again, these

areas were not empty. Simy Folds (Fig. 44) was thereby the seventh century, high up in Durham, and manyplaces already existed in the uplands of Yorkshirewhen the new monastic ‘colonisers’ arrived. Indeed,the activities of the Cistercian monasteries in thetwelfth century demonstrate how full the landscapewas by that date, when they had to create artificiallythe wild, inhospitable landscape they preferred. Innorth Warwickshire, Stoneleigh Abbey had to moveCryfield hamlet, and Combe Abbey destroyed twohamlets called Smite; further examples are documentedby Robin Donkin. Elsewhere, depopulation can onlybe inferred. The hamlets of Bordesley and Osmerley inWorcestershire ceased to exist when Bordesley Abbeywas established. A settlement at Witham in Somersetmay have been disturbed when the first Carthusianhouse in England was founded in the late twelfthcentury in the apparently empty Selwood Forest. AtPipewell in Northamptonshire, earthworks remain ofthe pre-existing hamlet, mixed up with earthworks ofthe Cistercian abbey buildings. If the uplands andwoodlands were apparently settled by the twelfthcentury, other colonisation probably merely filled inthe gaps.

Elsewhere, new land was reclaimed and newsettlements eventually founded. Around the coast, inlowlying and fen areas, embanking, drainage andimprovement resulted in much new land being openedup in Lincolnshire, the Fens, the south-east, and theSomerset Levels. Again, the assumption has been thatthis took place in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,because that is when documents mention the activitiesof lords and peasants in these areas. In the clay belt ofSomerset along the coast, however, the land wasalready drained and productive by the eleventh century.This can be seen in Domesday Book and reflects muchactivity by the tenants of the Abbots of Glastonburyand the Bishops of Wells. The process must be post-Roman, because the Roman land surface over much ofthe area is buried by approximately 1 metre (3–4 foot)of marine clay. The process of drainage and enclosurewas probably occurring in a piecemeal fashion allthrough the late Saxon period. Indeed, it is tempting tosee it as a tenth- and eleventh-century activity, after thereorganisation of the abbey at Glastonbury by StDunstan. The farmsteads and hamlets thus created mayhave been used initially as temporary steadings, buteventually a number were permanently occupied. Theywere never very significant, few are well-documented,and many are now abandoned, but they represent, inthe old and densely occupied county of Somerset, oneof the few cases where an area was colonised andsettled.

We need to look carefully and critically, therefore, atareas where colonisation de novo into an emptylandscape is assumed. We now know that there was alarger population, more sites in earlier periods, andgreater continuity of land use, if not actual settlement

48 Drainage at Brean in Somerset. This air photograph showsa landscape drained and reclaimed from late Saxon to earlymedieval times. The Roman landscape is buried, so thepresent pattern of drainage ditches and abandoned streamcourses must have been created in more recent times. Theabandoned moated settlement in the centre may have begunas a seasonally-used steading.


www.BingEbook.com

49 Chalton in Hampshire. Diagram to illustrate changing settlement patterns and forms over the last 2000 years. The blocksshow nucleated settlements with desertions and shifts of site; the circles show farmsteads, agglomerating into villages and beingcolonised from villages. The end result of farms and hamlets has a complex ancestry. (Reproduced by permission of BarryCunliffe)

50 Processes of change in rural settlement. Brian Roberts’ diagram attempts to show how nucleated rural settlements mayhave developed from a variety of simple early types. Only by such analysis can the bewildering variety of village and hamletforms begin to be understood. This diagram should be compared with Fig. 37. (Reproduced by permission of Brian Roberts)


www.BingEbook.com

FARMS AND HAMLETS

90

sites, into later periods, and therefore there was lessopportunity for colonisation and the creation of newsettlements. The situation can be seen either assuccessive waves of colonists from old establishedcentres filling in the landscape with daughtersettlements, or as a scatter of settlements, some ofwhich develop while others remain unaltered. Theformer idea represents the older model, the latter thenewly emerging picture. The truth, however, is likely tolie somewhere in between.

Perhaps there were some early villages around thecaputs in the oldest, or most continuously settledplaces. All around, the general pattern was probablyone of hamlets, some larger, some small, in varyingdensities. Some of these developed into villages, othersremained the same, yet others disappeared or shrank tofarmsteads or even smaller hamlets. In some areas

woodland, waste or upland pasture was cleared anddeveloped and new settlements established. Any area,in fact, may display a wide variety of settlements at allstages of development at any one time. There have beenfew attempts to show this, but Barry Cunliffe’s diagramof Chalton settlements and the series of changes shownfor Bullock Down in Sussex are interesting analyseswhich deserve to be emulated.

The picture of settlement development in thelandscape, then, is a dynamic picture of greatcomplexity, great age and constant change, but we onlysee it at one time. Unless we study villages, hamlets andfarmsteads as dynamic, changing, developing entities,we will miss the significance of the form and function ofthem when we see them at a particular date. In thissense, Brian Roberts’ complex diagrams attempt toclarify the difficulties of interpretation.


www.BingEbook.com

91

Having looked at the development and decline ofsettlements, let us now look at why the settlements arewhere they are and the patterns they make in thelandscape. People are always asking why a particularvillage or farm is sited where it is and so, sooner orlater, the landscape historian will have to give thisquestion some consideration. In this chapter, we shalllook at the actual physical position of settlements, theirsites in relation to the geography and topography of anarea, and in relation to other settlements in the vicinity.We must also be aware that very important culturalfactors will also be involved in choice of site for asettlement and that this is related to the overallsettlement pattern in an area. In the past much ink hasbeen spilt on this problem, but little progress made.This was formerly the preserve of geographers, whorelated the sites of villages and hamlets very closely toareas of drift geology, or the outpourings of abundantsprings. They are not now so physically deterministic,but others, some place-name scholars andarchaeologists for example, are now in danger of thesame simplistic reasoning.

Most of the work of geographers on settlementlocation, that of Von Thunen, Christaller and Weberfor example, has concentrated on settlements as part ofa hierarchy of places linked to trading patterns. Anydiscussion of siting has, therefore, concentrated onsuch factors as communication links, defensivepositions and local bridging points. All of this is veryrelevant and important when considering why someplaces became towns and perhaps why a castle wasbuilt in a particular place, but it is not so relevant topeople in an agricultural community whose mainconsideration would be disposition of the localresources. Some geographers have considered thisaspect and we will look at their work in a moment, butour basic concern, when considering settlement sites, ismore likely to be the relationship to local land uses andaccess to resources. I emphasise this point becausepopular topographical books still tend to suggest thatany particular place is sited where it is for defencereasons, or because it is near a source of water.

We do not know and we will probably never knowwhy any particular settlement is placed exactly where itis. We are not told directly in documents why one sitewas chosen rather than another, and, as yet, no one hasdeveloped the insight of the prehistoric, Anglo-Saxonor medieval colonist to understand fully the reasonswhy he used a particular bit of the landscape as he did.However, there are ideas, hypotheses and techniques ofanalysis which can help us make an intelligent guess.We need to consider the site from at least two points ofview: firstly, its context in the local region, particularlyin relation to contemporary sites, and secondly, theactual physical site.

Michael Chisholm has considered the problem ofthe site of a settlement in relation to surroundingresources which are exploited for subsistence. Heproposed a model which attempted to ‘weight’ variouscommodities used by settlers to a greater or lesserdegree, including land use, which will be consideredfurther below. Water was considered most importantand given a weighting of 10. Certainly, water is used agreat deal in settlements, not only for drinking bypeople and animals, but also for various crafts andsimple industrial processes, and as a source of power. Itis heavy and a constant supply is useful, so positioninga settlement near a constant source is desirable.However, there are large numbers of settlements,particularly in earlier periods, which are not near water,and so it is obviously not an essential consideration(Fig. 57).

Societies with the technology to dig wells enlargetheir number of potential settlement sites. In Britain, inparticular, there can be few areas where water is notavailable at a shallow depth. Modern man mustremember that in earlier times people washed lessfrequently and that, however chauvinistic we may findit today, women were usually available to fetch waterwhenever it was needed, even over a distance of severalmiles. Different levels of technology (which also implieseconomic surpluses available to implement them),together with different social values in earlier times,might mean that water was less important than we

8

Sites and patterns


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

92

think. Nevertheless, for many late Saxon and medievalsettlements, if not earlier ones, it is clearly a factorwhich influenced the choice of where to settle. Thus,streams, rivers, and particularly springs and wells havebeen important considerations in settlement siting.

Mention of ‘different levels of technology’,‘different social values’ and ‘economic surplusesavailable’ serves to demonstrate some of the aspectswhich must be evaluated in any consideration ofsettlement siting. Rather than any physicallydeterministic or geological reasons, we need to consider

the social and religious organisation of the originalsettlers, their technological capability (i.e. what toolsand techniques they had knowledge of) and whether,like us, they saw their economy in terms of least effort/cost-benefit or whether some aesthetic or non-practicalconsideration was equally important. In other words,there is a choice in settlement sites which depends onvalue-judgements and what people want to do. Theconsiderations and factors thought important will varyat different times in different places.

We can best illustrate this with two absurdexamples. The first concerns growing strawberries onSnowdon! We do not do this, but we could—and thereasons we could, but do not, tell us a lot about thefactors involved in decisions about activities in thelandscape, including settlement siting. We live in asociety which greatly enjoys strawberries—ouraesthetic appreciation of them is high and we will go togreat lengths to acquire them. We have the technologyto grow them anywhere. We can move glasshouses,power, light, heat and soil anywhere to produce them.We could even grow them on Snowdon. But becauseeconomically, in terms of effort and expense in andprofit or return out, it would not be sensible, we growthem where it is cheapest to do so. However, if weworshipped a goddess who lived on Snowdon andadored strawberries, then non-practical, non-economicideas might dictate that we did grow them on themountain top.

The second example concerns the availability ofresources such as coal and iron. The geologicalavailability of these is used by geographers andhistorians as a strong argument for why settlements aresited near them when engaged in mining them, or whena particular industry which uses them as a raw materialhas to be nearby. It is usually conveniently overlookedthat there was settlement in the area beforehand and

51 A settlement in relation to local resources. MichaelChisholm’s model shows a village with the surroundingresources it uses. These are ‘weighted’ in a way likely toreflect the importance attached to them by the villagers.Logically the village should be sited to reflect the higherweightings. (With acknowledgement to Professor MichaelChisholm Rural Settlement and Land Use, 3rd edition 1979,Hutchinson)

52 Diagram to show changing settlement sites. These maps attempt to show settlements in relation to changing land uses andtopography. Different factors are considered important at different periods and settlements are sited accordingly to minimiseeffort and maximise return.


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

93

that for most of man’s life on earth neither iron norcoal has been particularly important. This is not to saythat man can mine coal where it does not occurgeologically, or that some settlements do not originatebecause of the existence of some material which theinhabitants extract; what it does mean is that peoplethemselves determine what is exploited and how theydeal with the extraction. No doubt Palaeolithic manlived on coal deposits and Bronze Age man lived oniron deposits, but, until people appreciate the use ofsuch materials, they are of no interest to them. We canuse as an example the mining of xyzkqu, which is usedin zyxuqk machines. This has not yet been discoveredand we do not know what the machines are for—ratheras nineteenth-century people did not know aboutplutonium and nuclear reactors—so we do not knowwhat such developments will lead to in terms ofaesthetic and economic considerations, and eventuallythe effects on the landscape and the settlements in it.What we can say is that the landscape and the resourcesare already there as background noise and it will bepeople who decide on the importance of the newmaterial and how, or even if, it is used. It will be theiraesthetic appreciation, economic system andtechnological abilities which will be the realdeterminants on any settlement changes that take placeas a result of exploiting the new material.

SUBSISTENCE

The same sort of criteria would have been applied,perhaps unconsciously, in the past. In general, groupsof people apply the ‘least effort’ principle to achieve alivelihood, using the technology they have available toovercome difficulties. In a mainly subsistence economy,the site of a particular place will be largely related to theuses of the land around to maintain the crops andanimals which produce the food to sustain life. In ourclimate, at this latitude, the choice is relatively limitedand a complex system of arable crops and domesticatedanimals has developed, needing different types ofland—broadly classed as arable, pasture, meadow,waste and woodland. Each of these will be consideredin more detail in the next chapter.

The siting of a settlement is very closely connectedwith the decision to use the land around for subsistenceagriculture. There will inevitably be a number of actualphysical sites that could be chosen and, while we cannever know what criteria were applied, a good springor a good view, or a particular happening which wasnever recorded may all have influenced the choice ofsite. The technique of ‘site catchment analysis’ attemptsto see settlements in their economic regions like this.

In addition to such economic considerations, therewould be other physical factors: people have usuallyavoided living on slopes that are very steep, difficult tobuild on and traverse; they have also avoided marshy orfloodable areas (Fig. 52).

What is really needed, though, are some rules ofthumb that represent a summation of reasoning aboutsettlement sites, and B.J.Garner of the GeographyDepartment of Bristol University has provided these in‘some underlying regularities’ in models aboutsettlements. He considers, for example, that:

1 The spatial distribution of human activity reflects anordered adjustment to the factor of distance. Withoutconcentrations of activity at a given place at a giventime there would be no patterns, no spatial or arealdifferentiation. How far away resources, othersettlements or influencing factors occur is thereforefundamental to settlement siting. Following on fromthis:

2 Locational decisions are taken in general so as tominimise the frictional effects of distance. Put anotherway, people are usually trying to gain the maximumreturn for the minimum effort, in settlement siting as inmuch else.

3 All locations are endowed with a degree ofaccessibility, but some locations are more accessiblethan others. Accessibility is difficult to define, but aplace is clearly located in relation to systems of landusage, relationship to other places and methods oftransport. There are thus, as in other concepts here,variables which need to be considered.

Geographers have traditionally been concerned withthe relationship between settlements and the physicaland/or natural background. Where they haveconsidered human reasons these have tended to besimplistic explanations of defence or relationships tofield systems and land uses. Any settlement is sited,however, in its region and in some relationship to theother settlements in the hierarchy. It may also havedifferent siting relationships to some of these than thepurely exploitative patterns indicated above. Again,B.J. Garner has considered these and suggested threepremises:

1 There is a tendency for human activities toagglomerate to take advantage of scale economies,meaning the savings in costs by concentrating activitiesat common locations. This happens even in the farm inrelation to its fields, but it is more obvious with thevillage in relation to its territory or the town in relationto its region. Prehistorians have rationalised thisrecently in the absence of documentary evidence bylooking for different ‘activity areas’ within settlementsand such concepts as food processing, craft areas, foodstorage areas, etc. could usefully be developed for sitesin the historical period.

2 The organisation of human activity is essentiallyhierarchical in character. There are always centres orhead places and subsidiary centres. Not all places areequal, and their siting must be considered in relation to


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

94

other places to which they look for social, economic,religious or administrative relationships. Such factorscan be discussed in relation to communications andlocal central places, but they are important in siting aswell. Following on from this:

3 Human occupance is focal in character; the nodesabout which human activity is organised areagglomerations of various sizes. Each of these premisescan be seen acting to a greater or lesser degree in thesiting of any particular settlement. Equally, the humanconsiderations of where a settlement is placed in aregion are as important as the physical characteristicsof the landscape which must be allowed for.

DEFENCE

A defensive position is often suggested as the reason fora settlement’s site, especially where the site isimpressive. Clearly some places, especially a number offortified towns, were sited to take advantage of easily-defended positions. It is doubtful, however, if defencewas ever the only reason, or even the dominant reason,for the siting of mainly subsistence settlements. It maybe, though, that after all the locations best related tolocal land uses had been considered, the mostdefensible site was selected if local considerationsdictated that a better-defended site might be a goodidea. One can only see such decisions, though, againstthe social and political conditions of the time whensuch a choice was made, and in the light ofcontemporary warfare and weaponry. Such a site, onceselected, may remain by inertia, occupied in thelandscape on the old site, although changing defenceand siege technology and political climates might meanthat it is never again truly defensible.

INDUSTRY AND MINING

So far, we have considered settlement siting in relationto water, economy-subsistence, and defence. Each ofthese relates to a community producing food from itslands in the most convenient way, having regard toeconomies of effort and the expertise available. As hasalready been said, if mining or industrial activity isinvolved rather than agriculture, we can expectsettlements nearby to minimise the access time and costof transporting materials. Mining can only take placewhere the commodity is available, although transportof and returns on the exploited material will alwaysdictate if resources are mined or not, together withwhether people think the resources important or not.Industrial location depends not only on a good watersupply or plentiful, cheap, raw materials, but also oncapital, surplus wealth, and, perhaps above all,someone to start the activity—entrepreneurial spirit.Would there have been an Industrial Revolutionwithout Darby and others, even with the coal and iron?

Other considerations of siting relate rather more totowns, and they are not considered in this book. Focalplaces have already been considered, but much of thediscussion in the past on settlement sites hasconcentrated on places which were in some way incompetition with others for trade, communication orexchange activity. This is not the same as the problemsexperienced by a group of peasants and farmersminimising their efforts to gain a livelihood from theland around.

Finally, there is the factor of inertia. We have alreadylooked at the movement of settlements, changes in planand form etc. in the landscape, but nevertheless formost of today’s settlements the criteria which appliedwhen the settlement originated are no longer relevant.There is a lot of inertia in the landscape with placespersisting even after their former economic base hasdisappeared. It is possible to regard villages like this,particularly in functional terms. Whenever they werefounded and however they were organised, thesereasons have now disappeared. In many parts of thecountry, villages are dormitory and retirement centres;the farms that now work the land are for the most partout in their fields away from the villages. Inertia haskept the sites occupied, but functionally many of themare not related to their countryside surroundings.

CHANGES IN THE POST-ROMANLANDSCAPE AND SETTLEMENT SITING

There is increasing evidence that both the Romans andmedieval man were capable of large-scale engineeringschemes resulting in great changes in the landscape.Almost every river and stream valley demonstrates theability of early medieval people to move rivers, divertstreams (Fig. 48), and construct elaborateembankments for mills and ponds. This aspect will beexamined below, since it is of great interest andimportance in any local landscape.

What we are concerned with, however, are thechanges which have occurred in the local siteconditions of many settlements. It is impossible toenvisage the original siting of a settlement, and thereasons behind that siting, without someconsideration of whether conditions have altered sincethe place was founded. We are all aware that streamsdry up, valleys fill with silt (Fig. 3), and that changescan occur along the coast, but we perhapsunderestimate how great these changes may have beenin the last 1000 years. In some cases, the collapse ofRoman technology, and the economic structure whichsupported it, marks a clear break between what wentbefore and the developments through to the presentday. Attention has been drawn to this in particular byClaudio Vita Finzi.

The fate of Dunwich, a cathedral city which hasbeen eroded by the sea in Suffolk over the last 1000years, is generally well known. Other areas can also be


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

95

quoted, like Winchelsea in Sussex, which was destroyedby storms and the French to be refounded in 1288 byEdward I on a hill nearby. Selsey in Sussex has alsodisappeared in the post-Roman period. More localchanges can be seen in the examination of the towns ofSussex by Fred Aldsworth and David Freke. They showthat the sites of Shoreham, Seaford, Pevensey, Hastings,Rye and Winchelsea can only be understood in thecontext of considerable, and in some cases drastic,coastal changes in the last 1000 years.

At Hastings and Shoreham great erosion ofprojecting headlands has removed most of the castleof the former and half of the town of New Shorehamat the latter. At the other places, retreat of the sea andsilting of shallow valleys and estuaries has left themalmost literally high and dry, with their presentsituation completely divorced from their originalsiting. At Hastings, one inlet is now infilled; Rye,formerly on a peninsula, is now 3 kilometres (2 miles)inland. The inlets behind the spit at Seaford are nowinfilled; at Shoreham, the early harbour is now siltedup, and at Winchelsea, the sea which destroyed theearlier site has now abandoned the second. Elsewherein this region places like Arundel, Burpham andPevensey, which were originally surrounded by tidalmarshes, are now left stranded in areas of richmeadow pasture.

All of these are part of coastline changes which havebeen carefully studied around Romney Marsh andWalland March by Barry Cunliffe and others. Theyhave charted complex changes since 1000 BC, showingthat even in the last 1500 years the area has evolvedfrom a series of tidal inlets, through the development ofspits and dunes, to the triangular area that it is today,with the vast recent pebble dumps of Dungeness. Suchchanges can be seen off the Kent coast with thecementing of the Isle of Thanet to the mainland and thesilting up of the Wantsum Channel in post-Romantimes. Since then, the Saxon shore forts of Richboroughand Reculver have been left inland in changed contexts,the former surrounded by dry land, the latter half-eroded by the sea.

It is clear, then, from these examples and others inYorkshire and Norfolk, where numerous towns andvillages have disappeared, that, following coastalerosion by the sea and extensive silting of estuaries andshallow coastal areas, the context of many sites is nowvery different. Two other aspects are relevant to thistheme: the formation of sand dunes and the drying outof low-lying marsh areas.

All along the north coast of Cornwall and the southcoast of Wales there are extensive sand dunes. Theseareas look wild and unaffected by man, until they areclosely examined. We can then see that such areas havedeveloped fairly recently, and very largely at theexpense of man-made landscapes. In the west, forexample, there is a scatter of abandoned farmsteadsand church sites stretching from St Ives Bay in Cornwall

to North Devon. Sites at Gwithian in Cornwall includea medieval and possibly earlier chapel, a medieval farm,and pre-Norman fields, as well as many prehistoricsites. Mawgan Forth, also in Cornwall, was foundburied in sand (Fig. 44). Chapels have also been lost allalong the coast, the most spectacular being atPerranporth in Cornwall where not only the early (howearly?) St Pirans Oratory, but also the later medievalchurch have been abandoned to the rising sand. InSouth Wales the medieval town of Kenfig hasdisappeared, leaving only slight traces of castle andbuildings. In North Wales, sand dunes have affected thenew medieval town of Newborough and the old royalestate of Aberffrau in Anglesey.

All around the coast the story is similar. Erodedcliffs and headlands have taken away towns, villages,castles and churches; sand dunes have buried villagesand churches; silted up estuaries and shallow seas havedeprived sites of their former importance and evenlivelihood. Failures like Newton in Poole harbour andAlnmouth in Northumberland owe their misfortunes tonatural, even if man-induced, changes.

We have already mentioned the marshes of Sussexand Kent as examples of areas drying out. This hasusually resulted in richer grassland and a different landuse, frequently to the benefit of local settlements, but ithas also deprived local centres of former defensive ornavigable areas of water or marsh. The story of theFens in post-Roman times is one of sea retreat, dryingout and reclamation (Fig. 62), and, in studying thesettlements of the area as Christopher Taylor and DavidHall have done, it is important to know the position ofthe sea, sea defences and main drainage at anyparticular period.

In the Somerset Levels there have been greatchanges since the Roman period (Fig. 48).Throughout post-Roman times, areas have beendrained and reclaimed, a story unravelled by MichaelWilliams, and considerable large-scale physicalchanges have taken place. Much of the Romanlandscape is now buried by up to 1 metre (1 yard) ofalluvial silt, on to which later settlements have beenbuilt and into which have been dug thousands of milesof drainage leats. Along the coast is a wide belt of sanddunes with a man-made sea defence incorporated intothem. Roger Leech has drawn attention, however, to alost river, the Siger, to the south of Brent Knoll, and airphotographs reveal extensive abandoned rivermeanders and stream courses in the lower RiverParrett area. As yet the picture of modifications to thedrainage, build-up of sand dunes and coastal change isvery difficult to understand in this area. It is clearlyrelated to man’s activities inland in draining thewetlands, cutting peat and altering the courses of therivers Brue, Axe and Parrett. As elsewhere, thechanges which seem natural can be shown to havebeen initiated or exacerbated by man, even on such alarge scale.


www.BingEbook.com

53 Changes in the disposition of Romney and Walland Marshes. These maps show Romney and Walland Marshes developedfrom 1000 BC to AD 1250. Although the changes here have been dramatic, they are merely an extreme example of naturalchanges generally around the coast. The final map shows the area now. (By permission of Barry Cunliffe)


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

97

Inland changes to sites over the last 1000 years donot seem to have been so drastic. Forest clearance inearlier times clearly initiated great changes which havebeen discussed already (Fig, 3). Even in the medievalperiod, hillwash, increased sediment in rivers, andobstructions in them such as fish weirs and mills haveall had an effect. It is unlikely that any river improvedin the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuriesbears much relationship to its earlier regime. Medievalwater engineering is now known for many sites, shownparticularly well at Rhuddlan in North Wales, RievaulxAbbey in North Yorkshire and Kenilworth Castle inWarwickshire, but smaller schemes too have resulted ingreat changes.

Landslips, earthquakes and faulting are noteveryday occurrences in this country and do not usuallyhave to be allowed for in settlement siting. However,some natural change has gone on and is still going on inthe country, and physical changes need to be

anticipated in any local study. This, together with anappreciation of the steeper slopes, soil erosion and thelocal changes in level and aspect, make for a finerassessment of the subtler aspects which may have beenof great significance to the original selector’s choice ofsite for the particular settlement under study.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

Like the siting of settlements, attempts to examine andunderstand the patterns, and the distribution ofsettlements across the landscape, have traditionallybeen the preserve of geographers. Most of this workhas concentrated on the historical period, using readilyavailable sources of information, and looking in detailat particular localities. As has already been noted,however, most of this research has been on villages,rather than the more difficult scattered settlements; theatypical patterns, such as the strings of villages in

54 Air photograph of the lost River Siger in Somerset. The course of the former river is revealed after heavy rain as a 0.3 m (1ft) deep channel near to Burnham on Sea in October 1960. This river is mentioned in an Anglo-Saxon charter in the seventhcentury, but it is not known when it disappeared. It may have lost water through changes in the peat levels inland and beenblocked off from the sea by sand dunes. (By permission of Douglas Allen Photography, Bridgwater)


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

98

chalkland valleys, have received a disproportionateamount of attention (Fig. 15).

With the large numbers of early sites that have nowbeen recognised in the landscape, particularly thosecropmarks and pottery scatters of prehistoric andRomano-British date, archaeologists have also becomeinterested in patterns of early settlement. Therecognition of Saxon settlements, not under medievalvillages but in open sites which were later abandoned,has also indicated that settlement patterns themselveshave altered and the desertion of individual settlementswithin the pattern, even in quite recent times, meansthat settlement patterns are as dynamic and changing asthe settlements themselves. What we are clearly seeingin some areas is roughly the same group of peopleexploiting the same local landscape for theirsubsistence requirements over a long period, but withsuccessive generations living on different sites atdifferent times. Changing preferences will be shown insiting, and occupation will tend to move about withinan area. The settlement pattern will changecorrespondingly over time (Fig. 52).

Such an observation is important because it can beassumed, as has already been discussed, that there areonly certain sites which can be occupied in an area andtherefore the settlement pattern should be predictable.To some extent this is true, since Michael Chisholm’sresearch has shown that subsistence land use results insettlements being not more than 1 kilometre (½ mile) orso from most of their land (Fig. 59) and hencesettlements should perhaps be expected to be 1–2kilometres (½–1 mile) apart. However, many morevariables are involved in settlement siting and patterns.In particular, habitats which appear inhospitable at oneperiod may be quite acceptable and considered normalat another.

Let us look, then, at some examples of settlementpatterns in different areas. In a very stimulating book,Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Ian Hodder and CliveOrton have assembled many of the ideas andtechniques for examining settlement patterns. There arefour main points we need to consider, particularly forthe earlier, undocumented settlements.

Firstly, before documents are available which give ageneral comparison and assessment at one date acrossan area (like Domesday Book or a medieval LaySubsidy) it is very difficult to know whether all the siteswe are comparing as part of our settlement pattern arecontemporary. Examination of pottery scatters mighthelp in this, and in some ways we can consider pieces ofpottery as documentary references. They show us thatsomething is there at that time, although they tell usnothing of origins, date of abandonment, use of thesite, or its importance. Researchers of medievalsettlements would do well, perhaps, to regard theirscanty documentary references—often only the nameand owner of a site at a particular date—in the same

way that the Romanist looks at his sherds and theprehistorian his flint scatters.

Secondly, as already mentioned, someconsideration must be given to the status of the sitesbeing compared in the pattern. Just as today there aretowns, villages, hamlets and farmsteads, so there werein the past. Some idea of relative size and hierarchicalorganisation is important, although withoutearthworks or clearly defined areas of finds this isoften difficult to assess. Thirdly, permanence andseasonally of occupation are important. Some of thesites under consideration may be of the same date andstatus, but they may be occupied for part of the year,or for a few years only.

Finally, and most importantly, we need to be sure ofthe reliability of the information. Are we, in fact,comparing like with like, even allowing for the abovefactors? Christopher Taylor has given perhaps the bestexample of this in a study of settlements in the NeneValley. His distribution map of sites suggests a strangepattern, with some sites along the main river and othersaround the confluences of several streams some milesaway. Attempts to explain this pattern would befraught with difficulties. A second map, however,shows the controlling factors which include areaswhere no fieldwork or air survey was possible—inother words, areas where at present it is impossible toassess whether sites exist or not. Areas of woodlandand permanent pasture are mapped together with built-up areas as inaccessible to archaeologists. In all areaswhere evidence of sites can be found, the pattern is clearand dense, suggesting, in fact, that this is probably thecase over the whole area. Any attempts to explain thefirst map without the controls indicated on the secondwould be nonsensical. More such studies andindications of the limits of the information are clearlynecessary before settlement patterns can be fullyunderstood.

Having discussed the above ideas for the sites in anarea, various analyses can then be tried out to examinethe relationships between settlements which could haveinteresting and important implications. Ian Hodderand Clive Orton discuss analyses of randomness insettlement patterns, as well as various uniform andclustered patterns, much of which rests on ‘nearestneighbour’ analysis. Many of the theories and modelsproposed can be shown to have application to observable patterns of settlement on the ground. We can takean example to demonstrate some of the implications ofthese ideas and the additional information which canemerge.

It is difficult to gauge accurately what the densitiesand patterns of prehistoric settlement might have been.Usually we do not know all the sites, and we do notknow if they were all contemporary or only usedseasonally. However, in well-studied areas such aswestern Cornwall, the Wessex chalklands, and the


www.BingEbook.com

55 Roman settlements near Oundle in Northamptonshire. The first map shows the position of sites discovered by fieldworkand aerial photography in recent years. It would be easy to assume certain reasons for the pattern and density of thesesettlements in certain areas—along the River Nene and around the headwaters of a side stream—were it not for the factorsdepicted on the second map. These show that everywhere that the landscape has been examined, evidence of sites has beenfound, though there is reason to believe that there may be sites in the areas that are inaccessible to archaeologists. (Bypermission of Christopher Taylor)


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

100

major river valleys, settlement is dense and even, fullyexploiting the local resources.

For the Roman period, settlement patterns areperhaps a little more precise. The large amount offieldwork in the past and the early attention toclassical matters mean that, in some areas, perhaps allof the Romano-British sites that formerly existed havebeen recognised—especially as fine pottery,metalwork and stone foundations were more easily

noted by early antiquaries. Around Somerton inSomerset, for example, Roger Leech suggests that allthe settlements that existed in late Roman times havebeen located over the last several centuries, and so thepattern we see is probably a true reflection of the stateof affairs in the Roman era, showing farmsteads andhamlets 1–2 kilometres (½–1 mile) apart, scatteredevenly across the landscape. A similar pattern can beseen around Bath, where, over the last 200 years and

56 Roman settlements around Bath in Avon. Large numbers of sites have been located in the last 200 years showing asettlement pattern evenly spread across the uplands around Bath at a density of one site for every 1 km (⅝ mile) or so. Gapsprobably represent sites not yet discovered rather than a lack of Romano-British settlements.


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

101

more, changes in the landscape have been noted bylocal antiquaries with all discoveries being carefullyrecorded. The high status of the visitors to Bath, theirclassical education, complemented by the Grand Tour,again indicates that all that can be recovered probablyhas been. The only major gaps in an otherwise evenpattern of settlements are the present villages, and it islikely that many if not most of these are on earliersites.

For the medieval period there is more information.Not only do documents name sites, but often settlementearthworks remain and areas of ridge and furrow,meadow, and so on demonstrate where it is unlikelythat there has been settlement. Also, we can usually saywhether it is a farmstead or a village which is underexamination. In river valleys like the Avon, Til (Figs.15, 39 and 41), Ebble, Piddle, Gussage and Tarrant inWiltshire and Dorset, dense settlement was almost

continuous down each side of the valleys, and a similarpattern can be seen in south-east Somerset. In suchareas the gaps are of great interest—were theresettlements there, and, if not, why not? We must becareful not to assume that this ‘beads on a string’pattern is the norm, because in such areas there isfrequently abundant prehistoric and Romano-Britishsettlement on the dry and now abandoned chalkuplands. This may not just be a change in location andhence in pattern, since there may be contemporarysettlements beneath the present villages, an aspect BobSmith is examining in the Wiltshire valleys. In areaswhere farmsteads are the normal form of settlement,the pattern is very dense on good land, such as atHanbury in Worcestershire, and less dense in uplandareas such as Exmoor and Dartmoor. Even in theseareas, though, the farmsteads or small hamlets arerarely more than 1–2 kilometers (½–1 mile) apart.

57 Early settlements on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire. Modern settlement in this area is confined to villages in the Avon and Tilvalleys. It is generally assumed that this is the ‘natural’ place for settlements in such dry chalkland environments. Yet sites of allperiods exist on the uplands away from running water; no doubt more remain to be identified. The valley settlements areprobably only the surviving part of an early settlement pattern which was once more widespread. (The areas outlined with dotsare shown in Fig. 15.)


www.BingEbook.com

SITES AND PATTERNS

102

The consistency of this distance, and the patternimplied by it, is remarkable, as Michael Chisholmremarks:

A point which emerges…is the frequency with whichthe same orders of magnitude keep on recurringamong people of widely different technicalachievements and inhabiting areas with markedlydifferent physical characteristics. Any distance up toabout a kilometre from the dwelling is of such littlemoment for any specialised systems of irrigation andgarden farming that little adjustment is called for ineither the pattern of settlement or of land use.Beyond about 1km the costs of movement becomesufficiently great to warrant some kind ofresponse…

Generally, then, we should perhaps think of settlementsbeing 1–2 kilometres (½–1 mile) apart as the norm.Where farmsteads are grouped together, and in poorerland perhaps, the distances may be greater. In certaintopographical regions, linear patterns may develop ifwater is at a premium, as in the chalk valleys, or iffactors other than subsistence are important, such asroads or water routes. The relationships betweensettlement patterns, local land use and communicationnetworks will be discussed in the next chapters.

58 Deserted settlements in Hanbury in Worcestershire. Thismap shows an unfamiliar settlement pattern in great contrastto areas of villages. As a result of detailed fieldwork, largenumbers of abandoned farmsteads have been found in thissingle Midland parish, formerly in the Forest of Feckenham.The pattern is dense along a close mesh of small roads andtracks. (By permission of Christopher Dyer and StephenBassett)


www.BingEbook.com

103

The majority of the English landscape is occupied bycrops growing in fields. These crops still provide thesustenance for animals and people, and hence, aftersettlements, the land use of the countryside is of mostimportance to the landscape historian: effective use ofthe land has always formed the basis of survival.Several problems immediately present themselveswhen we look at the land around any settlement.Firstly, how old is the pattern of fields which we seeboth in the landscape and depicted on the maps?Secondly, is this the earliest pattern in this area and, ifnot, can we detect anything of the previousarrangement? Thirdly, if no early arrangements can beseen in the form of earthworks, cropmarks orsoilmarks, can we still ascertain something of how theland was used in the past?

Let us take the last point first, because land useitself, irrespective of how the fields are arranged orunder what system they are worked, has interestingimplications. In our temperate climate, land use can bedivided into four main categories: arable areas, wherecrops such as cereals and legumes can be grown,generally well drained and fertile with relatively easilyworked soils; at most times in the past rotation wasemployed, alternating one crop with another, and cropswith pasture where cattle, sheep, goats, horses and soon grazed; meadowland where hay was grown forwinter fodder; and woodland to provide the wood andtimber. Arable will be discussed in the next chapter.

In some regions there was permanent lowlandpasture, particularly in fenland and level areas whichwere liable to be under water for some of the year, orwhere the risk of flooding was endemic. Such areaswere not often used for arable, until later drainageoperations ensured that water could be kept off thefields for most of the year. These were in contrast toupland permanent pasture, where arable farming couldonly be undertaken infrequently, in specialcircumstances. These upland areas may have been inthe form of downland, with good quality grassland, orrough upland pastures, such as the commons and

wastes of the higher mountainous regions. The termwastes, as used in early documents, is in modernparlance a misuse of the word, as they also existed atlower levels where arable and pasture might beexpected. In the past, waste was not useless, butprovided fuel, building materials and industrialmaterials, as well as rough grazing.

Most settlements set aside special areas for use asmeadowland. This meadowland or mead land wasusually low-lying and damp for much of the year, but itproduced an abundance of grass which was cut for hay.This provided valuable winter fodder for animals takenindoors or kept in pens or crew yards over the winter,when the grass in the pasture had stopped growing.Meadow areas were also used as pasturage when thehay crop had been removed.

These basic land uses of arable, pasture and meadowwere, of course, supplemented at different times. Notonly were there extensive wastes or commons in someareas, but also rough woodland, unreclaimed land andundeveloped land to a greater or lesser extent wooded,which is the natural vegetation for cool temperate areaslike Britain. These areas provided extra (sometimesdistant) resources and also reserves of land forcolonisation as population increased, and new, morehighly developed farming methods were employed. Ithas been said that the history of the landscape ofBritain is ‘one long assart’ (clearance). This is an over-simplification, but the relative areas of and therelationship between the main land uses outlined aboveand the wildwood is always an important considerationfor any period for the landscape historian.

There is another aspect which must also be carefullyconsidered. To the urban dweller, all woods look thesame, but in landscape terms we must be careful todistinguish between the wildwood (the remnant orsuccessor of the natural or semi-natural woodland ofBritain—which certainly does not exist anywhere todayand probably has not since the Roman period) andwoods which have been to a greater or lesser degreemanaged for the production of timber and wood (Fig.

9

Land uses


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

104

63). These latter would also have had a role as pasture,particularly for pigs or for cattle and horses in moreopen areas of woodland.

There are interesting relationships between theseland uses. Areas of upland pasture and areas of wastecan be used for both arable and more intensive pastureas circumstances dictate, though some acidic uplandwastes require draining and liming first. Withoutadequate drainage, lowland pasture can be used forlittle else. However, when flooded, these areas providea wealth of fish and wildfowl for food and sport, aswell as rushes and reeds for building and furnishing.Similarly, areas of meadow can be used for little elsewithout massive investment in drainage, and hay crops

and rich pasture seem to have been too valuable toconsider using this land in any other way. In otherareas, however, land could be used for arable, arableand pasture, pasture, or wood, and how it was useddepended to a large extent on the proximity ofsettlements and in what sort of economy the localfarmers were engaged.

The relationship between these different land usesdepends on a number of factors. The local topography,soil types, relative areas of upland and lowland will allbe important considerations, but ultimately the abilityof a community to feed itself will be the deciding factor;in a subsistence economy, at any period, land will beused to the best advantage. We have looked at the

59 Land uses surrounding a settlement. This diagram shows the types of land and their probable disposition around asettlement, together with some of the interrelationships between land use, animals and crops.


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

105

different types of land and seen roughly what could bedone with them. If we now look at the different animalsand crops that have been available over severalthousand years, we will begin to see how basic systemsof land exploitation worked in the landscape.

Animal resourcesThe main animals kept were cattle, sheep and goats,pigs, fowl and, to a lesser extent, horses. Cattlerequired good quality pasture and plentiful hay if theywere to be kept over the winter, which they generallywere. They could also be taken on to rough pasture, todistant resources, or even kept in woodland (theirnatural habitat), though milkers would not be takentoo far from the settlement. They provided traction(pulling carts, ploughs, harrows etc.), meat, leather, anda host of other resources like bone (for glue), grease,sinews, together with milk (for butter and cheese tostore) and manure—either deposited on or taken out toarable fields.

Sheep could be kept on poorer land and also takento wastes, commons and distant resources. Theyprovided meat, wool, milk and cheese, and alsomanure—very important in some areas where they werefolded overnight on arable land. Pigs had to be keptnear to the farmstead, probably in nearby closes, butthey could be taken to wastes and pasture and, ofcourse, woodland, where traditionally they ate acornsand beechmast. They were important for meat (thoughnot milk—which has never been adequately explained)and manure.

Fowl, including ducks, geese, chickens and alsopigeons, were kept near to the settlement in closes andopen spaces. They provided meat, eggs, probablyfeathers and, when available in large enough quantities,manure. Horses have to be considered initially as statussymbols and later as draught and transport animals aswell. However, they required good pasture andplentiful hay and would probably always have beenkept in closes near to the farmsteads. Apart from theirstrength and status, their manure would have beenuseful; but was their meat eaten?

Other animal resources were very important. Fish,for example, were widely used. Sea fish would becaught all around the coast and estuaries, perhaps formost of the year, and traded some distance inland. Nearto large rivers and lakes, fishing would always havebeen a major activity, particularly for salmon and theubiquitous eels. Elsewhere, fishponds were constructedfor breeding fish or as stock ponds or stews for holdingfish caught in rivers and pools until they were needed.

Wild animals have always formed part of the diet,depending on the existence of any natural habitat in thelocality of the settlement. Wildfowl, such as ducks andgeese, were caught, and deer, boar and hares werehunted. Rabbits were bred specially and do not seem tohave been common until relatively recently. To whatextent bears, wolves, beavers, otters, hedgehogs,

badgers and so on were important as food resources atdifferent dates is not yet known.

Plant resourcesIn addition to the cultivated crops, we need to allowfor a wide range of wild plant resources. Moreattention is now being paid to the sort of plantsavailable for food and other uses as a by-product of theway people used the land. Woodland harboured herbsfor medicines and food and also several edible varietiesof mushroom. Hedgerows produced berries, fruits, andherbs: the lore concerning these products would havebeen common knowledge in former times when theywere more widely used.

The cereals grown would have formed the staple ofthe diet, with wheat, barley, oats and rye all beingrepresented in the archaeological and historicalrecords. They were grown in many combinations, sothat we frequently get references to drage (barley andoats) and maslin (wheat and rye). In economic terms,arable farming was a very labour-intensive activity witha lot of field work involving preparation of the land,sowing, weeding, harvesting and processing. Labourwas the greatest input, but we must also remembermanure, especially if the area was cropped annually.The latter would not only include animal manure butalso marl, sand, seaweed where available, ash, and ahost of other materials, not all of which were beneficial.Other field crops included peas and beans before thesixteenth to seventeenth centuries and, later on,numerous new introductions, some of which wouldhave been grown earlier as garden produce but whichwere grown on a larger scale from the seventeenth andparticularly eighteenth centuries. These crops weresometimes rotated with grass, depending on the type offield system employed.

Meadowland was used primarily for the growing ofgrass for hay production but would also producereeds (for floor-covering, roofing and containers) andosiers (for building work and containers as well ashurdles for fencing). Closes in and adjacent to thesettlements have already been mentioned. Thesewould have contained garden-like areas for growingvegetables, herbs for flavouring, dyes and medicines,fruit trees and space for hives—honey being animportant commodity and mentioned as goodsrendered from some estates.

A diagram can be used to depict the links betweensettlements and the various land uses which have beendiscussed, together with the possibility of distantresources, in a predominantly subsistence economy(Fig. 59). Not only might such a diagram act as achecklist of the types of land use to look for in a studyof any area, but it may also serve to prompt questionsabout the working of the basic agricultural economicunits which make up the English landscape. As we shallsee later, such a diagram can be related very closely toother aspects of the landscape (Fig. 93).


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

106

For a settlement which is more involved withcommercial activities, different factors will come intoplay. Provision of particular products for a local marketwill change the balance of land uses, and other factorsmay also alter over time. This latter point raises a wholerange of issues related to economics and availabletechnology. Under normal conditions, people willusually do what requires least effort for the maximumreturn. However, conditions are rarely standard, andsuch factors as population increase, soil fertility, slope,drainage and proximity to markets will all help todetermine how land is used. A preference for aparticular crop, and other aesthetic considerations, aswell as an innate conservatism, may be much morerelevant than our intensely practical approaches allow.

Similarly, how much capital and what technology isavailable, together with the decision on whether to usethem or not, will also determine whether a particularcourse of action is taken.

We must always be aware of the ability of people tochange the environment, either deliberately or byaccident, and of the likelihood that the appearance ofthe landscape today may not be the same as it was halfa millennium ago, when different land uses may havebeen appropriate. Thus, any attempt to analyse theformer land use around a settlement needs to take intoaccount more than just the present physical nature ofthe land: changes may have taken place in any periodunder the influence of the technical abilities, and socialand economic conditions prevailing at any time.

60 Land use at Deerhurst in Gloucestershire. Most of the land above the 10-m (35-ft) contour line has at some time been usedfor arable cultivation; over much of the area this is marked by ridge and furrow, visible as earthworks and soil marks on airphotographs. Extensive areas of meadow exist alongside the River Severn and in the south of the parish. The arable would haveprovided pasture areas under rotation but there is also a series of drove ways linking the settlements with the floodable land.

The early estate of the Deerhurst Saxon monastery was centred partly on the Severn valley and partly on the Cotswolds,where there were extensive sheep runs and probably woodland. In the Severn valley the area to the west of the river containedmuch rough land for pasture and woodland. To the east there was extensive arable.


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

107

TWO CASE STUDIES OF LAND USE

The case of Deerhurst in Gloucestershire may serve as auseful example to show what can be learned aboutearly land use and also to indicate some of the pitfalls.During the research project into the architectural andarchaeological development of the Saxon church of StMary at Deerhurst, a survey was undertaken of thelocal parishes and the former Saxon estate of themonastery centred on St Mary’s. It was hoped that sucha survey would throw some light on the contemporarylandscape in the late Saxon period and perhaps locateearthworks associated with the early monastery.Although large areas of ridge and furrow andnumerous previously unrecorded field monumentswere discovered, little of definite pre-Norman datecould be indicated.

Yet the topography of Deerhurst parish and theearly estate suggests particular land uses for certainareas. For example, there is a wide flood plainalongside the River Severn and a great embayment offlat land covered by drainage ditches south of Apperleyin Deerhurst. It is most unlikely that either of theseareas has been used for arable in the last 1500 years,and this is confirmed to some extent by field namesrecorded on the earliest maps (of the early nineteenthcentury) and in medieval documents. The flat area tothe south was drained at some time in the eighteenthcentury and a canal was built across it.

Much of Deerhurst parish consists of islands or nearislands, rising above this floodable land. Thedistribution of ridge and furrow shows the extent offormer arable land within the area, and, where it isabsent in the field or on the air photographs, it cansometimes be shown to have existed. We can thus seethat the whole of the rest of the parish could be used forarable. No doubt it was also used for pasture, either inrotation with arable or when areas were abandonedfrom arable cultivation. Much of the ridge and furrowhas survived because the areas are now semi-permanentpasture. It is not possible to indicate with confidenceareas of former woodland, although some of the steepwooded bluffs along the river may have been so used,and there are no upland areas of permanent roughpasture.

Despite these reservations, we can say something ofthe landscape of the Saxon Deerhurst estate, because,even without the fine detail, we can see vast areas ofarable and pasture in the Severn Valley, areas ofwoodland and waste to the west over the river, andupland pasture on the Cotswolds to the east in adetached part of the estate. The work of Martin Bellelsewhere, however, indicates that the landscape and itsuse can change, and we need to be aware of this forearlier periods. From AD 1000 over much of Englandthis type of simple land use evaluation exercise can beusefully employed to provide a functional backgroundto any settlement under study.

The other example, at Ashington in Somerset,indicates further lessons. This small parish, east of theRoman, Saxon and medieval town of Ilchester, has noobvious archaeological monuments to attract thefieldworker (Fig. 90). However, it does have distinctareas of relief and there are very good air photographsof the area, taken by the RAF in 1947, which show thatthere was formerly an extensive deserted village nearthe present church and manor house and that most ofthe parish was covered with ridge and furrowearthworks. Most of the village site has now beenploughed, and medieval potsherds can be picked up inabundance; almost all the ridge and furrow has beenlevelled. The air photographs, however, enable us tomap the former extent of these features.

To the north and east of the village there is extensivemeadowland along the river Yeo, with no earthworksexcept drainage ditches. In the south of the parish isAshington Wood, and field examination of this showsthat there are no ridge and furrow earthworks inside, soit was never part of the open arable fields, and it has alarge bank and ditch surrounding it, characteristic ofmedieval woodland boundaries. The ground flora, andto some extent the coppice and standard trees remaining,suggest that this is an area of ancient woodland.

For Ashington, therefore, we can suggest the basicland uses of the medieval parish, with meadowland,arable, pasture and woodland all represented. Duringthe survey a medieval water mill site was also located,traced from the now dry but substantial mill leat, withthe stonework of sluices and mill buildings surviving inundergrowth at the end of a track from the village.

We can, however, understand something of the waythis land was used in more detail. Michael Chisholm, indiscussing the siting of settlements, has shown a generalconsistency in the use of land around settlements, withpaddocks close at hand, arable immediately adjacent,and resources such as pasture and woodland at somedistance. This relationship of land usage to settlement isconditioned primarily by the intensity of effort put intodifferent land uses and their distance from thesettlement. Thus it is important to have paddocks andgardens close to farmsteads, for overnight penning ofanimals, and garden crops for use in cooking; but boththe latter and the arable need a lot of manure from thefarmstead and are also intensively worked in terms ofman hours. Economy of effort in walking dictates thatsuch land should not be too far away. Woodlands,however, can be at some distance, as people will onlyneed to fetch firewood, poles, and so on for tools andfencing, or timber for construction, periodically.Similarly, extensive pastures can be at some distance,since animals can be walked there and kept there forsome time by herdsmen. Meadowland should not betoo far away, though it need not be adjacent to thesettlement. However, the proximity of manysettlements to streams and rivers means that themeadowland is frequently close by.


www.BingEbook.com

61 Land use at Ashington in Somerset. This example shows very simply the disposition of arable/pasture, meadow andwoodland in a typical English parish.


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

109

Ashington can be seen to fit very neatly into MichaelChisholm’s model of ideal land use around asettlement; indeed, most of the villages in south-eastSomerset do (Fig. 90), as do many thousands acrossEngland. The often quoted examples of the linearparishes in Lincolnshire and Wiltshire (Fig. 15) are soarranged that each of the land uses, and access to them,is equal for all settlements.

Through such models, some understanding can begained of the way in which many settlements formerlyoperated in their local landscape. Even without detailsof field systems and earthwork remains some attemptcan be made to see how early farmers were exploitingthe resources available to their settlement. AtAshington we can see the areas of ridge and furrow,part of which would be ploughed and planted withcereals and legumes in open fields, while the rest wouldbe fallow and down to grass—this would have beenfenced off and grazed by cattle and sheep. Along theriverside, hay would have been cropped several timesthrough the summer, and then, at the end of thesummer, the animals who had been on the fallow wouldbe turned on to both the meadowland and the stubbleof the arable before coming into the paddocks by thevillage over the winter, to be stall-fed on the hay cutfrom the meadow.

The cereals grown would have been taken down thelong lane to the water mill to be ground for flour, whilstvegetables, poultry and perhaps pigs would have beenraised in the crofts behind each farmstead in the villagestreet. Pigs may have spent some time with theswineherd in the distant woodland, but part of thewood would have been cropped for fuel, poles, woodfor repairs to buildings, fences, implements and so on,while a few trees may have been cut down forconstructional work on the bridge over the Yeo or tobuild a new house. Incidentally, this picture of theworking of Ashington suggests all sorts of local routesto and fro across the parish in performing these variousactivities. Such visual pictures, and thinking oneselfinto the functioning of landscapes, is essential if anytrue understanding is to be achieved.

DISTANT RESOURCES

In the documented medieval period, we know thatcommunities often used distant resources, such asextensive pasture or woodland, on a communal orseasonal basis, sometimes involving travel over quitelong distances. This transhumance to distantresources is often thought of only in connection withmore primitive and foreign communities, but it wascertainly common in Anglo-Saxon and medieval timesand must have been in earlier periods as well (Figs. 11,59 and 93). David Clarke suggested use of resourcesover a very wide area by the lake village atGlastonbury in the Iron Age, and John Coles suggests

that the pattern of land use in the Levels shown byMichael Williams for the medieval period probablyhas a prehistoric ancestry.

Transhumance needs to be acknowledged as a factorwhen attempting to understand the functioning of anysettlement or parish under study. It is often reflected inparishes or estates with detached portions elsewhere, orareas shared in common with neighbouring parishes.Elsewhere, there are clear documentary references tolong-distance links between various places. Suchdistant resources usually comprised woodland,commons and wastes and sometimes meadowland.

WoodlandWe have already seen that not only was forest thenatural primeval vegetation of Britain, but also thatenormous areas had been felled to create arable land bythe Bronze Age and that woodland managementprobably existed by the Neolithic period. Thepreservation qualities of the Somerset Levels havedemonstrated to us a wide range of prehistoricwoodworking skills and the uses to which wood wasput, not only for use in trackways (Fig. 5), hurdles, andso on, but also for making artefacts. The apparentmanagement of woodland to produce trees and woodof specific sizes and to meet demand is demonstrated inthe structures dating from around 3500 BC which havebeen excavated in the Levels. Even at this early date,therefore, we have to allow for managed areas ofwoodland, as well as wildwood, in the landscape. PeterReynolds has shown how much woodland was neededto provide fuel and building materials continually foran Iron Age farmstead of c.300 BC in southernEngland—some 8 hectares (20 acres) (out of 52hectares [130 acres]). Such evidence at least suggeststhat, after the initial vast prehistoric clearances,conservation of woodland was necessary andwoodland management would have been widespread.Regeneration of forest clearly occurred in the post-Roman period—but it was regeneration over areaswhich had either been managed woodland or arable(Fig. 92).

Woodland has, therefore, been managed for a verylong time and we shall examine this further in amoment. However, it must be pointed out that thetraditional explanation for the destruction ofwoodland from the late prehistoric period onwards toprovide fuel for ironworking (and salt boiling in theMidlands) fails to take into account the fact that suchactivity is more likely to have engendered conservationand careful management of woodland resources ratherthan wholesale clearance. The resulting openlandscapes are more likely to be the result ofovercropping and failure to allow sufficient time forregeneration to take place.

Oliver Rackham has shown how complextraditional woodland management was, in contrast tomodern forestry, in that a self-generating system was


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

110

employed so that the resources of wood and timberwere infinitely renewable and two types of ‘crop’ weretaken. The first crop, taken out at intervals of 30 yearsor more, was that of standard trees for timberproduction. These trees included oak, ash and mapleand the timber was needed for construction—ofbuildings, boats, carts, defences, and so on.

The second crop was of underwood and coppice,with felling taking place at intervals of seven years orso. A system of rotation was used for this crop, withcoppices being taken from a different part of the woodeach year. A wide variety of species was used, but hazel(which coppices naturally) was particularly important.These shrubs were cut off at ground level so that stoolsdeveloped from which new shoots emerged—the stools

can therefore be of very great age, having been throughmany cycles of cutting. In order for the shoots to growand mature they have to be protected from browsinganimals, and hence woodbanks are common features ofwoodland archaeology. These would originally havebeen topped with a fence of dead wood or a live hedgeto keep the animals out. The line of such a woodbankmay be marked by pollarded trees, which have, ineffect, been coppiced at a higher level, above the reachof cattle. The coppicing produced wooden poles andrails for firewood, fencing, implement making,constructional work such as wattles, and small-sizematerial for a host of uses around the farmstead andhouse. It also produced wood for charcoal burning—the only fuel used extensively for industrial activities

62 Distant resources shared by numerous parishes: the Somerset Levels and the Fenland. In both the Somerset Levels (left)and the Fenland (right) of eastern England many places had rights to the low-lying seasonally flooded grasslands. This valuableresource was shared communally before recent enclosure and drainage: communities were prepared to travel considerabledistances with their herds to get to the rich pasturage. (Reproduced by permission of Cambridge University Press, Dr MichaelWilliams and Professor H.C.Darby from M.Williams The Draining of the Somerset Levels, 1970; H.C.Darby The ChangingFenland, 1983)


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

111

before coal became more intensively mined and morewidely available.

We have already mentioned that woodland could belocated at a distance from the settlement, as onlyinfrequent visits needed to be made. Timber forconstruction needs to be acquired only from time totime, and enough firewood can be collected in onejourney to last several months. Nevertheless, theseapparently simple arrangements belie more complexinterrelationships (Fig. 85): not all places had access tosufficient wood stocks, and owners of well-woodedland would not only supply their own estates but alsosell wood to less-wooded estates. This is demonstratedby Oliver Rackham in his study of Hayley Wood.

In the last decade a new branch of field archaeologyhas developed—woodland archaeology. In addition tothe palaeo-environmental research in woods andforests, and the current interest of nature conservancyagencies in maintaining the plant and animalcommunities within them, there is the recognition thatthere are many field ‘monuments’ to be recorded andunderstood within ancient woodland. Most woodshave a multitude of banks, ditches and enclosuresrelating to their former management, which can beshown to have developed at different times. There maybe charcoal pans where charcoal burners campedperiodically to use the wood from the area around toproduce charcoal. Saw pits have been recognised insome woods—a late medieval one was excavated inWetmoor, part of the former Horwood inGloucestershire. All sorts of other strange andinexplicable manmade features have been recognised,the most exciting of which are pre-woodland

settlement, field and burial sites which have beenengulfed by the trees. Several examples were found inwoods on the line of the M3 motorway in Hampshire.

The former management of woodland has resultedin many complex patterns and administrativearrangements, and great complexity may be expectedfrom the documentary and topographical records. Theuse and appearance of the land depend in so many caseson the period under discussion and the intensity ofmanagement, and many more detailed studies areneeded of present and former woodland areas.

Royal forests and parksThe term ‘royal forest’ always conjures up the wrongpicture. Many forests, like Dartmoor, Exmoor and thePeak District, were not wooded, and manyencompassed vast areas of fields and settlements. Theterm refers to the law applied to these areas, which wasdesigned to maintain and encourage wild animals,principally deer, and the greenery on which theydepended. Since most royal forests were subject tocommon rights held by surrounding settlements, therewas a tendency for the woodland to degrade to woodpasture, and eventually common, unless it wasspecifically managed in the ways already described.Many areas did indeed degrade in this way, which canbe seen particularly from later maps. Around manyforests and other parts of the country, parks werecreated to maintain areas of wood pasture for grazinganimals and deer. Elaborate banks and ditches wereoften constructed, with timber pales on top and deerleaps to encourage deer to enter (but not escape). In

63 Reconstruction of woodland structure under classical coppice management as used in the Middle Ages. As well as thestandards (oak, crab apple, ash, and maple) there are two areas of coppice. The left-hand area was felled last winter and is nowsprouting from coppice stools. The right-hand area has five seasons’ growth and is ready for felling, although it may be left forseveral more seasons, (After Oliver Rackham with permission)


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

112

addition to earthworks, field names often indicateparks, and sometimes curvilinear field boundaries canbe seen on maps and air pictures.

Within the forests themselves a number of featuresshould be looked for. There may be lodges or parkkeepers’ houses (often with moats and fishponds), ridesor open access ways through separate coppices or fells(felled in rotation and often embanked) and areas ofopen land or common. Frequently, the latter havefunnel-shaped access ways on to them and formerforest from the enclosed areas around. Good examplescan be seen at Hatfield Forest in Essex and NerocheForest in Somerset (Figs. 64 and 83). Even after all theforest and common has been enclosed, this often leavescharacteristic triangular field boundary arrangements.

Commons and wastesFar more settlements had access to areas of commonand waste than is generally acknowledged in booksabout the English landscape (Fig. 82). Huge areas ofopen land were evident until enclosure from the

seventeenth century onwards; large areas of common,former royal forests and openly grazed rough woodpasture areas disappeared in early nineteenth-centuryacts. In general, those areas have not been studied to seeeither how they evolved to their final pre-enclosurestate or how they were utilised by surroundingsettlements.

Perhaps the most commonly used distant resourceswere upland rough pasture and common in use atsummertime by settlements surrounding the upland.Dartmoor in Devon and Exmoor and Mendip inSomerset were all used like this. Dartmoor was used bythe inhabitants of both Devon and Cornwall until AD850, after which date common rights began to developfor the Moor, protecting the rights of all but the peopleof Barnstaple and Totnes (who were excluded after AD900), while allowing the area to be hunted by theWessex kings. It became a royal forest in Normantimes, but, after its disafforestation in 1239, somesettlement took place. In the parishes of Dartmoorvarious farms held venville rights (from fines villarum).Venville tenants paid a certain, very small, fixed rent to

64 The Forest of Neroche in Somerset. This map shows the probable appearance of the royal forest before enclosure in theseventeenth and nineteenth centuries. The central area was an extensive open common of wood pasture. Around this are the‘funnel’ access ways from enclosed land, evident as intakes from surrounding settlements. All around are parks. Notice thepotteries at Donyatt.


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

113

the king or duchy, and were allowed free pasture on thecommons and forest by day, but had to pay extra if theyremained in the forest by night. The numbers of

animals were supposed to be limited to the numbertheir farms could support in winter. They could alsotake from the forest all they needed for fuel, building,

65 Plans of medieval parks. This selection shows typical medieval parks with their characteristic curvilinear boundaries andtypical features within them, such as lodges, moats and fishponds.


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

114

hedging, and so on. Other rights were held by thehouseholders of the rest of Devon, who were classed as‘strangers’ or ‘foreigners’ and were allowed todepasture beasts on the commons of Devonsurrounding the forest, without payment, and ontheforest only on payment of certain small fees. Thissystem was recorded in 1269, but was already wellestablished.

On Exmoor, a similar legal distinction was madebetween the royal forest and surrounding commons,clearly seen on ‘The Map of Exmore’ of 1675. As onDartmoor, there were ancient tenements, in Withypooleand Hawkridge, and complex arrangements for thenumber of cattle which could be agisted on thecommons. There is a similar early map of Mendipshowing the upland pasture surrounded by the villages

and hamlets which had rights of common over the area.On Mendip, lead mining was also important and, likeDartmoor’s tin industry, this was closely regulated.

Other upland pasture with such regulationsincludes the Clee Hills, where Trevor Rowley has beenable to explain the many routeways as a reflection ofthe straker routes of commoners herding animals fromlowland settlements to upland pastures. As we shallsee, such pasturage was increasingly valuable (andhence subject to regulation) and this was part of ageneral concern from the Middle Ages onwards withproviding sufficient grass and fodder for animals allthrough the year.

Commons nearer to settlements were used for avariety of purposes. Pasture for horses, cattle, sheep,pigs, geese and ducks was very important, and any

66 Trowlesworthy Warren on Dartmoor in Devon. The vertical air photograph shows at least three superimposed landscapes:round houses, pounds and enclosures of the Bronze Age; a farmstead, fields, enclosures and tin streaming of the medievalperiod (if not earlier); and a warren of the Middle Ages and later. The main features of the warren are shown on the map andconsist of the warren house, pillow mounds and vermin traps, some of which are more evident on the ground. (Air photographby permission of Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) SX 5664/1/15)


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

115

ponds would probably have held fish. However, asimplied for Mendip, digging took place for stone, sand,gravel and clay, for building and other purposes, andminerals like iron and coal were extracted if they wereavailable. Several important medieval and later potteryindustries were located in such areas—Leafield andNettlebed in Oxfordshire, Minety in Wiltshire, andDonyatt in Somerset, for example. Turf and peat couldbe cut and dried for fuel and building materials, roughwood was used for firewood and construction, andreeds, rushes and bracken were gathered for bedding,roofing, flooring and building. The term ‘waste’applied to such areas gives the wrong impression, andthe tidy enclosed appearance of many of these formerlandscapes today makes it difficult to appreciate theirimportance to earlier people. Like woodland, suchareas have their own archaeology—and their owncharacteristic field monuments. Two will be describedhere: pillow mounds and former rabbit warrens, anddecoys for taking wildfowl.

Rabbit breedingAll over England there are enigmatic earthworks calledpillow mounds by archaeologists, although they are

more cigar- or bolster-shaped. They can occurassociated with ridge and furrow and villageearthworks, but they are more widespread on uplandareas like Dartmoor, where hundreds of them arescattered across the upland pasture. After much debateit seems that these were built for rabbits to live andbreed in so that they could be caught for meat and fur.This may have been done in the Middle Ages, but manywarrens seem to date from the sixteenth centuryonwards. Their construction and use indicatespermanent pasture, thus they presumably representabandoned areas when occurring on village and fieldsites.

While the pillow mounds, either isolated or ingroups, are the most obvious field monuments, otherfeatures should be looked for. There was often awarrener’s house with sheds where feed, nets, and otherequipment would have been kept, and sometimes aboundary, rather like a park pale, can be distinguishedaround the warren area. Much more difficult to find,although probably widespread, are the cross-shapedvermin traps, built to intercept predators like rats andweasels. They are fully described in operation byHansford Worth on Dartmoor, where they remain as


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

116

stone-built structures. Others exist in the hillfort whichbecame Dolebury Warren outside Bristol, and a fineearthwork example, all of 15 centimetres (6 inches)high, remains on Minchmhampton Common nearStroud in Gloucestershire. There must be more of thesewarrens and their associated structures in the landscapeand they represent interesting early aspects of pastureland use. Only one seems to be securely dated: that atBryncysegrfan, Llanfair Clydogan in Dyfed, which wasexcavated and found to have stone tunnels within it;radiocarbon dating suggests a date around AD1375±60.

67 Vermin trap at Trowlesworthy Warren on Dartmoor in Devon. The low granite walls of the cross-shaped vermin trap aredifficult to distinguish in the boulder-strewn landscape. The figure stands at the trap site: behind is a pillow mound. The trap isbuilt into the wall of a Bronze Age enclosure.

68 Pillow mound at Bryncysegrfan, Llanfair Clydogan inDyfed. The excavation of this pillow mound revealed anetwork of artificial burrows and nests dug into theunderlying subsoil. Radiocarbon dating suggests a fourteenth-century date for construction. (By permission of DavidAustin)


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

117

Duck decoysLowland areas were not only important for pasture;seasonal flooding of such areas attracted large numbersof wildfowl which were an important source of food insuch localities for a very long time. When these areas,were drained and enclosed, less water accumulated onthem and there was less natural habitat suitable forvisiting ducks and other water fowl. From theseventeenth century onwards, attempts were made tocreate artificial pools with trapping systems, but it wasnot until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries thatideas became at all sophisticated. The result was theduck decoy, consisting of an artificial pool with pipesleading off which were covered with nets and lined withscreens. Small dogs were used to decoy the ducks, andlarge numbers were taken each winter. In some parts ofthe country, such as eastern England and the SomersetLevels, the dry grassy hollows left by such decoys arewidespread. Together with circular and rectilinearstock watering ponds, they form distinctive elements oflowland landscapes.

MeadowsFrom the sixteenth century onwards, variousimprovements were made to increase the amount ofgrass and hay that could be produced from low-lyingmeadowland. These developments are best knownfrom the chalkland valleys of Wessex, but they certainlyexist elsewhere, although they are poorly recorded, if atall. Water was conducted into the meadow viaartificially constructed channels and elaborate sluicegates and allowed to flow across the grass. It was notallowed to stand, merely to percolate through the roots,and channels were dug to conduct the water away intoanother meadow or back into the stream or river. Suchfloated meadows produced early grass for sheep,especially young lambs, and were frost-free in earlyspring, as the running water was not as cold as the grassitself.

This system was well developed by the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries, with complex regulations tocontrol the use of the water. The elaborate earthworksof the meadows, which look like ridge and furrow, still

69 A duck decoy in operation in the nineteenth century. A ‘pipe’ running off the main pool is covered with a net on metalhoops and is lined with screens. The decoyman is supervising a small dog which is enticing the ducks up the pipe to the traps atthe end. (From Payne-Gallwey The Book of Duck Decoys, 1886)


www.BingEbook.com

LAND USES

118

exist over vast areas, but few are now used. It was partof a wider agricultural system with sheep pastured onthe rich meadow grass then walked to be folded onfallow arable areas overnight, where their dung helpedto maintain fertility on the thin chalkland soils.

A similar system was also used in the West Countryon steep hillsides from the seventeenth centuryonwards. There, springs would be tapped at theirsource and conducted along a horizontal leat on thehillside. No outlet was provided and, once the leat wasfull, the water was allowed to overflow down thehillside via sluice gates or boards, raising thetemperature of the frosted land to that of the springwater and encouraging the grass to grow early—againto help feed sheep and lambs in the early spring. AtHolnicote in Selworthy parish in Somerset, a modifiedplough was kept to clean out the gutters of the waterleats, while the Knight family, who reclaimed Exmoorforest in the nineteenth century, kept records of watertemperatures, showing clearly the effect of slightlywarmer spring water on the growth of the grass. Suchwater leats are widespread and, again, are generallypoorly recorded. The slight channels have beeninterpreted as mill leats, paths and sheep walks; theassociation with a spring (or springs) is critical, as is thefact that there is no outlet.

Each of these developments represents anotheraspect of the wide variety of new techniques and ideasbeing employed in land use management from thesixteenth century onwards. Frequently, localresearchers come across such features, but there is littlepublished to help explain them.

70 Floated watermeadows at Lower Woodford in Wiltshire.This sketch map shows a watermeadow system probably ofseventeenth-century date and still operative. ‘The systembecomes live at point 4, with the first of a series of hatches onthe main carriage which enable the intervening sections to beisolated. In the early part of the year there is usually enoughwater coming down the river to enable most of the system tobe drowned at once. At other times water may have to be usedmore sparingly and only one part flooded at a time. In thepast the needs of others up and down stream have also had tobe considered…By lowering the paddles at the next lowerhatch a section of the main carriage can be filled so that thewater spills into the carriers. These are trenches cut along thetop of the ridges from which the water spills down the sides,or panes, to create the moving film required.’ (By permissionof M.Cowan from Floated Water Meadows in the SalisburyArea, South Wiltshire Industrial Archaeology Society,Historical Monograph 9, 1981)


www.BingEbook.com

71 Waterleats at Tolland in Somerset. These channels along the hillside were used in the same way as watermeadows. Waterfrom the springs, which can be seen marked by boggy patches, was conducted along the waterleats which have no outlet. Itoverflowed the banks, watered the hillsides (encouraging early growth of grass) and was conducted away in the stream in thevalley bottom.


www.BingEbook.com

120

Having looked at different land uses, it remains todiscuss how these were arranged into particular fieldsystems. There was an enormous range of possibilitiesin the way animals could be managed and arable areascould be organised in the past. It is worth emphasisingthis, because the literature on fields and field systems isdominated by the common field system of theMidlands, much like settlement studies have beendominated by considerations of the village. Thischapter will not attempt to describe all the variations,as almost every parish and township was different, butwe shall be concerned with origins, main types and howthese altered into the modern or present landscape. Letus begin with the common open fields of the Midlands.

The Midland systemGonner’s map of the enclosure of common fields in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries demonstrates thelocation and demise of the common field systems.These were based on two or three large open fieldswhich were unenclosed and unhedged. They weredivided into furlongs and these were sub-divided intostrips owned by individual tenant farmers. Later, moreand more fields were developed by sub-dividing largerones or re-arranging the furlongs. These fields werefarmed in common, with all the farmers jointly agreeingon cropping, rotation, use for pasture, and so on.

This system is particularly associated with nucleatedsettlements, and characteristically with the village. Theplaces that worked this system often ended up withlittle or no woodland, pasture or waste within theirterritories, although they usually had meadow orupland grass for sheep runs. In order to accommodateanimals, a system of rotation had to be employed notonly to rest, fallow and manure the land, but to provideland and grass for animals within the settlement’sboundaries. This latter point is important, since withextensive pasture or waste it would not have beennecessary to alternate arable with pasture in a rotationsystem; the arable could have been continuouslycropped and manured and the animals could have been

accommodated elsewhere. This type of Midland fieldsystem has been well studied and examples arenumerous: Middleton on the Wolds and Wold Newtonin the East Riding of Yorkshire, Chellington inBedfordshire, Padbury in Buckinghamshire, Elford inStaffordshire, and so on.

Whatever the earliest arrangements of fields,furlongs and strips might have been, by the time we getdetailed descriptions in documents and clear viewsfrom maps, this system had become very complex, withnumerous fields, combinations of strips into singleownership and elaborate rotation arrangements. Mosttownships, even within the Midland system, had theirown variations on this general theme. At Milton underWychwood in Oxfordshire, for example, there wereopen fields with strips, but there was also an area ofmeadow, heath and downland (Fig. 84).

Field evidenceFieldwork and examination of air photographs in theseareas of former common fields will often show vastareas (or formerly vast areas where recent ploughinghas been intensive) of ridge and furrow earthworks.There have been many spurious explanations of howand why this was formed (including attempts toincrease the surface area of a field!), but it now seemsthat in most areas it indicates former arable and that itserves both to drain the land, particularly on heavyclays, and to demarcate ownership of strips by theprovision of ditches and furrows. Maurice Beresfordwas able to show that ridge and furrow is connected tothe strip system in the open fields, even though therewas not a direct correlation of ridge to strip, severalridges usually making up one holding.

In such common field areas, the ridge and furrow ischaracteristically long, wide, high-backed and reversedS in plan—the aratral curve. Much discussion has takenplace on how this was formed and worked. Thesearguments have centred on whether it came about bythe action of the plough or was constructed by hand,and whether the plough would maintain the shape, or

10

Field systems


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

121

whether the reversed S came about through continuousploughing. This question is not yet resolved, but somehand-and-spade construction may have been involved,while ploughing with heavy medieval ploughs wouldhave maintained the profile.

Not all areas of ridge and furrow, however, are likethe large medieval earthworks. At present at least five

types can be recognised, each different and apparentlyrepresenting other periods and field systems. Theearliest ridge and furrow to be recognised so far is atHen Domen in Powys and Gwithian in Cornwall. Thelatter was buried in a sand-blow in pre-medieval times,whereas the former was covered by the earthworks of acastle built in 1070, or thereabouts, after it had been

72 Map of England showing enclosure of common field in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. While being a very oldmap, this still shows best the main areas of common open field arable remaining to be enclosed up to the late nineteenthcentury. Notice that such enclosure extended into West Somerset, the Welsh Borders, Sussex, East Anglia, and as far north asNorthumberland. The main concentration is, however, in Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Buckinghamshire andCambridgeshire. (From E.C. K.Conner Common Land and Enclosure, 1912)


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

122

abandoned as arable for some time, had becomeovergrown and been used as a hunting area; it couldthus be of tenth-century date or earlier. Both areas havenarrow, very slight and irregular ridges, and similarexamples have been found elsewhere (on the Somersetuplands, for example), often apparently of earlymedieval date and associated with infield/outfieldsystems. Secondly, there is the classic ridge and furrowalready described. In at least one example, at Frocesterin Gloucestershire, we seem to have a transition fromthe earlier narrow to the later wider ridges, in this caseassociated with settlement changes and the obliterationof Roman villa earthworks.

The case study of Frocester, GloucestershireThe Frocester area probably began in late prehistorictimes as farmland dependent on the nearby hillfort of

Uleybury. In Roman times there were at least threevillas in the vicinity, including one under the church ofSt Peter and another next to the medieval manorbelonging to Gloucester Abbey. By late Saxon timesthere was a minster church at St Peter’s and, from theeleventh to thirteenth centuries, at least eight separatefarmsteads are indicated by scatters of pottery sherdsacross the parish. There may be more, since, althoughthe north-east area of the parish is clearly a blank, thenorth-west is still under pasture—covered in medievalridge and furrow. It is only the change from pasture toarable since the 1960s that has revealed the sites ofthese early medieval farms, which were formerlycovered by later medieval ridge and furrow. Thepresent, slightly shrunken, village developed aroundthe road junction west of the Manor Court, probablyfrom the thirteenth century onwards. We seem to haveat Frocester a late Saxon/early medieval settlementpattern of scattered farms and an isolated minsterchurch, much like we have already seen elsewhere. Onlyin the thirteenth century does a more nucleated villageappear.

Something important happened in the earlymedieval period at Frocester, and Mr Edward Price,who has done most of the detailed fieldwork in thisarea, has found important evidence of field systemchanges in excavating the Roman villa south of thefarm. The villa site was not overploughed for centuries,but all around its site are the scratch marks of thepointed ploughs in use until the thirteenth century.Then there was not only a change in headland positionand type of ploughing, but also in type of ploughshare,all suggesting perhaps a re-allocation or rearrangement

73 Air photograph of ridge and furrow earthworks,Husband’s Bosworth in Leicestershire. This picture shows thecharacteristic earthworks of ridge and furrow with the ridgesof variable width, length and orientation, although invariablyreversed ‘S’ in outline. Notice how the earthworks are cut bythe railway and overlain by the field boundaries. (CopyrightCambridge University Committee for Aerial PhotographyAEV 19, 31st May 1962)

74 The formation and use of ridge and furrow. The medievalplough, as shown in the Luttrell Psalter, consisted of the beamsupporting a coulter which cut the sod vertically, a sharecutting horizontally and a mouldboard which turned the soilover. The ploughteam consisted of oxen in pairs (up to eight)with the plough, ploughman and a man (or boy) to encouragethe team of oxen.

The common fields were ploughed in strips by such teamsand, since the mouldboard threw the soil to the right, theteam had to work clockwise around the strip to maintain aridge of soil (A). The ploughteam could be of considerablelength, and problems could develop in getting the plough tothe end of the strip (B). The team could be trampling the cropin the adjacent furlong. The solution was to turn the team atthe end of the strip on to the headland, while still pulling theplough, before turning back down the strip (C). In theory, theteam could be turned to the left or the right. Ridge and furrowin reversed S form (E) seems universal rather than that shownin D. The reason may be that, with the plough alreadythrowing soil to the right, there would have been too manyforces acting on the ploughman if the team also moved to theright (D). At least in E the pull of the plough to the right issomewhat compensated for by the team turning to the left. Itis easy enough to turn the team on the headland in either case.

No doubt some experimentation by archaeologists wouldhelp to indicate if the hypothesis shown here for the use ofridge and furrow is likely to be correct.


www.BingEbook.com


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

124

of fields. This evidence suggests important changes infields as well as settlements in the early Middle Ages—in this case the thirteenth century. The villa wasoverploughed; the ridges and furrows were wider andmore prominent.

At Frocester in the Middle Ages there was anundeveloped open field system; up to 60 landholdersshared strips in 12 open fields, some of which may havebeen cleared from woodland (as at Nockholte—OakWood). Their pasture, however, was held individuallyand there was an increasing tendency towards thesixteenth century for strips in the open fields to beenclosed. There was very little meadowland, althoughsome of the former arable in low-lying situations mayhave reverted to pasture after the fourteenth century,but what there was was held in strips (doles) or smallembanked enclosures down by the streams. In one areathe pressure of arable land use in the early Middle Agescan be seen clearly: ordinary ridge and furrow on gentleslopes merges gradually into a series of strip lynchets onthe steep slopes below the Cotswolds. Thisdemonstrates, as at Mere in Wiltshire and SouthCadbury in Somerset, that strip lynchets are merely

strips in the open fields, in this case the Upfield ofFrocester, transferred to steeper slopes.

A third type of ridge and furrow can be seen in areasnot ploughed and developed until the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries, when horse ploughing and the useof more elaborate machinery, including steam ploughs,produced narrow, low, but very regular ridges. There isnot usually any problem in recognising these lateregular earthworks.

Then there are two oddities. The spade-built and -worked lazybeds of the north and west often look likeridge and furrow on air photographs, but the heapednature of the ridges and the fact that they run togetherforming a reticulated mass shows them to be different.There are also the low-lying, low ridges of areas like theSomerset Levels (Fig. 48). These were clearly intendedas drainage earthworks principally (as in part was ridgeand furrow), but such areas were used for arable, as isshown by records and the implications of plough teamsfor such areas in 1086. As we have already seen,watermeadows also resemble ridge and furrow,although their purpose was quite different.

ORIGINS OF OPEN FIELD SYSTEMS

It is very much easier to say how common fields wereextinguished than to say how open field systems cameinto existence. A few common fields still survive in adebased form, so the system is not entirely extinct; thefamous examples are Laxton in Nottinghamshire,Braunton in Devon, Portland in Dorset and Soham inCambridgeshire. Generally speaking, however, enclosurefrom the Middle Ages onwards was gradual andpiecemeal by agreement among the tenants, culminatingin the enclosure acts of the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies which extinguished such systems to produceour more familiar landscapes; this will be discussed later.

We can, at the moment, envisage four or fivepossible origins or models for how such systems mighthave developed, although these are only theoreticalconcepts. The first is a racial or ethnic model, first putforward by H.L.Gray when he attempted to show howfield systems varied across the country, and seemed toreflect what was thought of the origins of settlements inthose areas. Thus, as villages were thought to be Saxon,and assumed to have common fields, so it was reasonedthat common fields must have been a Saxonintroduction from north Europe. We now know thatcommon field systems did not exist in the country oforigin of the settlers at that time, so this idea is nolonger tenable. Similarly, it was assumed that the Celticpopulation remained in the west, where apredominantly enclosed and individual field systemwas found. All these ideas were modified by C.S. andC.S.Orwin in what we might call a colonisation model.They argued that Saxon settlers clearing woodland andestablishing settlements would have had to work

75 Medieval settlement in Frocester, Gloucestershire. Theabandonment of many farmsteads and the development of thevillage at Frocester seem to have been associated withalterations in the fields, including the development of largerscale ridge and furrow (After E. Price, with permission)


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

125

together, and hence a communal field system woulddevelop. Further assarting, adding more land, wouldalso take place communally and the spoils would beshared out, but we have already seen that, by lateRoman times, not much woodland needed to be clearedand settlements probably had a more continuous lifethan has previously been thought.

In fact, there must be some element of colonisationin the development of field systems, but it probablytook place later, in the pre-Norman period, and from adifferent basis. With farming, people are always drivenby a persistence of the agricultural year. If crops are notplanted and animals supervised, there is no harvest andpeople starve and die. What happens at the top of thehierarchy is unimportant: kings, popes and rulers canchange, whole political structures can alter, but if thepeasants do not plant, tend and harvest crops, then lifecannot go on. What we must envisage, then, is a case ofland always being cultivated right through fromprehistoric to medieval times. It may not be the sameareas, although good quality land would always befarmed. As populations fell, some land would beabandoned, to be recolonised later when there weremore mouths to feed.

The actual areas used in medieval and prehistorictimes will be the same in some places and we should be

able to see prehistoric and medieval fields mixed uptogether. This idea of a continuity model leads us to oneof the most difficult problems in the history of theEnglish landscape—how and whether the pattern of so-called Celtic fields was developed into the system ofmedieval open fields and common field systems seenover much of the country by the late Middle Ages.Celtic or prehistoric fields, as we have seen, formed aregular rectilinear pattern of small square fields with, inplaces, prominent lynchets and clearly defined accessways. Much of the medieval field pattern consisted ofopen fields made up of blocks of strips, often in theform of ridge and furrow bundled together intofurlongs.

How did the one change into the other, as it surelymust have done over much of Britain? We might expectto find the pattern of small square Celtic fieldsdeveloped into long fields and strip systems byoverploughing baulks and lynchets, but the evidence isvery elusive both in the field and on air photographs.The problem was stated by Peter Fowler andChristopher Taylor in 1978, but few examples havebeen cited which illustrate the changeover. Airphotographs of the Upper Thames Valley imply, in avery few cases, medieval field systems beingincorporated into pre-existing patterns of prehistoric

76 Fields at Bleadon in Avon. The whole area above the Levels was probably formerly divided up by early boundaries intofields. These have been obliterated in the open field areas but a number of strip boundaries in the medieval fields seem to reflectthe earlier field arrangements. (After Rob Iles, with permission)


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

126

and Romano-British ditches, and other examples havebeen demonstrated in Tormarton in Avon, Garrow Torin Cornwall and perhaps Malham and Grassington inYorkshire.

BleadonA very clear example of this incorporation, however,exists at Bleadon, now in Avon (formerly in Somerset),on the west end of the Mendips near Weston SuperMare. The present parish has three clearly definedzones of land with upland on the Mendip top, sidelandsand lowlying floodable meadows and hams along theRiver Axe. On the sidelands there are extensive andwell-preserved areas of Celtic fields in a zone which hasbeen permanent pasture for many centuries. On the topthe area is now ploughed, but enough remains to showCeltic fields in this area, as in other parts of the top ofMendip. Behind Bleadon village and near Shiplatehamlet there were formerly two small areas of medievalopen fields. A particularly detailed thirteenth-centurycustumal describes the working of land in the parish,and the earliest maps show strips in these areas. Thelowland bowls of land behind Bleadon and Shiplatecontain the best land in the parish—deep rich loamsmade up of hillwash, above the wetland of the levels.These areas are sheltered from the west and south-westwinds and open to the sun from the south.

On the ground, the area around Bleadon villagedisplays a number of earthworks, some well preservedand others almost ploughed out. With the help of airphotographs these can be plotted on a map and shownto represent further areas of prehistoric fields below thesurviving portions and overlain by the later strips of themedieval open fields. Indeed, it is clear that the stripsnearest the village have been formed by overploughingthe cross-banks demarcating the square fields to formlong thin strip fields.

This example illustrates a number of points whichwe might expect to find in the landscape, but which arerarely detected. Firstly, there is a well preserved andextensive prehistoric/Romano-British field systemsurviving as earthworks in permanent pasture.Secondly, this can be seen to extend into the area of bestland in the parish, coming down, in fact, to the edge ofthe levels and also on to the dry plateau top of theMendips. Thirdly, the later fields fit into the earlierpattern, implying perhaps some continuity of land useand adaptation rather than replacement of the earliersystem. If this can be seen at Bleadon, why cannot it beseen elsewhere? Work at Deerhurst in Gloucestershirefailed to provide convincing evidence, but such a stateof affairs must exist, logically, in many places. Perhapswe are seeing the evidence without appreciating it. Nearto Bleadon it is possible that parts of the parishes ofChristen, Uphill and Cheddar may have the same sortof features. It may be that the south-west, with itsintensive early land use evolving into not so intensive,but nevertheless full-developed medieval field systems

provides ideal circumstances to appreciate thechangeover. In the Midlands, certainly, the impressionis of all earlier evidence swept away by intensivemedieval land use.

Such an impression may, however, be wrong if themodel suggested by Harold Fox proves to be accurate.We can call this an evolutionary model, since it assumesgradual and developing complexity from relativelysimple, earlier systems. It builds very much on the ideasof Joan Thirsk, who tried to distinguish the essentialelements of the common field system and to see whenand how these combined and developed into what canbe seen most clearly in the well-documented and well-mapped immediate post-medieval period. Shedistinguished four essential characteristics of the fully-developed Midland system of common fields:

1 Arable and meadow divided into strips among thecultivators, each of whom may occupy a number ofstrips scattered about the fields.

2 Arable and meadow thrown open for commonpasture by the stock of the cultivators after harvest andin fallow times.

3 Common pasturage of waste with rights to gathertimber, turf, etc.

4 The ordering of all these activities regulated by anassembly of the cultivators—generally the manorialcourt.

Two of these characteristics are recorded relativelyearly on. Common pasturage goes back to the earliestdocuments, and strips in arable fields are attested in thelaws of King Ine of Wessex (compiled between AD688–694). Common grazing after fallow andcommunally agreed crop rotations and managementappear later. Joan Thirsk concludes: ‘with someassurance, then, we can point to the twelfth and thefirst half of the thirteenth centuries as possibly thecrucial ones in the development of village-organizedcommon-field systems’, the earliest case of regulatedcropping by a whole village being Cotes inLincolnshire, dated 1156–7, and the firstunmistakeable statement about commoning by a wholevillage, Stanbridge and Tilsworth in Bedfordshire, from1240. This period represents the time from whichdocuments are becoming more generally available, so itmay not represent the beginnings of the system (as wehave seen with reference to villages) but merely the firstdocumentary references.

Harold Fox has extended the argument andsuggested that, as with villages, we should probablylook for a late Saxon origin for the full system, possiblyin the ninth or tenth centuries. He suggests that on largeestates, with an intermixed economy between hamlets,each settlement would probably have provided for itsown subsistence needs from a simple infield/outfieldsystem, using the infield for its crops and the outfield asextensive pasture for its animals. Some hamlets would


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

127

have provided special commodities depending on theirtopographical situation, and would thus have renderedsheep, cattle or cereals to the caput of the estate;sometimes this would be reflected in their place names(Fig. 11). With the break-up of these early units, as hasbeen discussed, it became necessary for each hamlet toprovide all its own needs from its own lands. Althoughnot initially a problem, as the population grew andmore land was taken into cultivation, the limits to theland would eventually be reached and, in the absence ofextensive land elsewhere, the pasturage, eliminated toprovide new areas of arable, would have to be providedby occasionally fallowing some arable for the animals.

This is an attractive model showing the complexityof the Midland system developing alongside populationincrease and the development of the village form ofsettlement from the late Saxon period onwards. Itsuggests evolution from simpler beginnings and impliesthat all stages of change, from simple to complex,should be found in the landscape at different times: thisis, in fact, what is seen.

Finally, there is a fifth model of development, wheresudden change takes place and a whole new system iscreated or deliberately planned. This may, of course,have happened anyway, as every new field system has tohave a first year following the decision to change.However, planned field systems can be seen mostclearly in a number of northern examples, in Yorkshirein particular. For the Holderness area, Mary Harveyhas shown exceptionally even layouts of fields withlong strips, very regularly arranged in furlongsassociated with apparently unplanned villages. It isdifficult to imagine that such fields were notdeliberately planned and the impression is of the sameregularity which is implied in the ‘sun-division’(solskifte) arrangement of strips recognised inScandinavia and increasingly in northern England. Inthis system the arrangement of the strips in the openfields reflects the arrangement of the homesteads alongthe village street—neighbours in the street were alsoneighbours in the fields. Again, it is difficult not tothink of deliberate planning behind such a system. Theincidence of sun-divison and its full implications havestill to be worked out, but it seems to have beenwidespread and may reflect a distant memory to thedeliberate creation of common field systems fromearlier types of field systems.

If such an evolutionary development of field systemsis likely, with deliberate creation of some of the morecomplex or regular systems later on, it ought to bepossible to recognise all the stages of development fromprimitive examples through to the complex commonfield examples already mentioned. This does, indeed,seem to be the case. In many areas there are hamletswhich have shared arable strips and meadow, butindependently-held pasture in enclosed fields, withcommon waste and woodland elsewhere. The variety istotal and the local researcher should accept that this is

the case. He should try to explain the system at aparticular time, and then consider earlier arrangements,if this is possible, and how more recent patternsemerged. It is no longer necessary to try to understandthe fields of any particular settlement as a fully-fledgedcommon field system, with all the strips and furlongs inthe open fields and a fully-developed court system toregulate the activities. All sorts of variation arepossible.

At Hanbury in Worcestershire (Fig. 58) the arablewas worked and regulated in common, and so was themeadow, but all the other types of land were heldindependently by farmers, some of whom lived along astreet (not really a village), while others lived in isolatedfarms across the landscape. At Marden inHerefordshire, a group of hamlets farmed much of theparish in common, but June Sheppard suggested thatthe furlongs with their strips had evolved from coreareas, with more arable strips being added, presumablyfrom pasture and waste, as time passed. At Wheldrakeshe was able to show that the common fields developedrelatively late from an earlier enclosed open fieldaround the village. This is reflected in a surviving turfdyke which surrounds the land immediately adjacent tothe village. Later common open fields were developedbeyond.

Brian Roberts, in his study of the village ofCockfield in Durham, has suggested that the plannedrow of farmsteads north of the village green replaced ahamlet located near to the surviving farm of the manorhouse. This earlier hamlet had an oval infieldsurrounded by a large bank attached to it. It is not clearhow the later field system developed from this.

What, then, did the earlier or original field systemslook like? We have already seen in the discussion ofland use what, in theory, the system should be. It shouldhave arable close at hand, pasture, waste and woodsome way off, and meadowland available. Alan Bakerand Robin Butlin, in summarising their enormoussurvey of field systems in Britain, were in no doubt: ‘ontheoretical grounds, it is possible to consider what formone might expect these early field systems to have takenand on an empirical basis to examine to what extent thesurviving evidence and interpretations provideconfirmation of these expectations. Both lines ofenquiry converge towards the view that an early formof settlement and agrarian organisation was the hamletand its associated infield-outfield system’. They suggestthat a small group of farmsteads, held by farmers whowere related, would form the settlement, while nearbylay the intensively cultivated, well manured andcontinuously cropped infield, perhaps divided intostrips between individuals—open but not held incommon. In the outfield, plots of land would bebrought into cultivation from time to time and thenabandoned. Thus, short periods of two to eight yearscultivation would be followed by six to 25 years offallow pasture.


www.BingEbook.com


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

129

Aspects of this system were very widespread.Finberg, writing in 1969, said there was evidence of itin Northumberland, Cumberland, Sherwood Forest,Warwickshire, Norfolk and the East Riding ofYorkshire, while Clapham said ‘There can be littledoubt that, if we knew medieval England completely,we should meet plenty of it’; Professors Beresford andSt Joseph describe an example at Carburton inNottinghamshire.

The difficulty for the local fieldworker lies inrecognising infield/outfield in the local area when therehave been so many subsequent changes. Place nameslike—field in a non-common-field area might help, as

might—innox or similar words, where ‘its sense isclear; it is used in the thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies of land temporarily enclosed from the fallowand put under cultivation…it is in the counties ofWiltshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire andSomersetshire that this word…is most common’.‘Oldfield’ or ‘Oldland’ names might also indicateearlier infields. It is possible that chemical analysis offields might show up where the infield was; if it waspermanently manured, the phosphate content shouldbe much higher than the unmanured outfield.Frequently, however, later agricultural practices willhave rendered this approach unreliable.

77 The development of fields at Marden in Herefordshire.June Sheppard suggests that the extensive areas of open fieldarable evident in AD 1300 (right) were developed from coreareas attached to hamlets in the eleventh century (left). Insome cases the expansion of arable at the expense of wasteseems to be reflected in the pattern of strips in the open fields(below). Types 2a and 2b furlongs may represent originalregular blocks of arable, with types 1 and 3 being infilled lateron. (After June Sheppard, with permission)

78 The turf dyke at Wheldrake in Yorkshire. June Sheppardsuggests that the common open fields of this village developedfrom an infield close in to the settlement. This wasdemarcated by a ‘turf dyke’, a massive field bank which canstill be traced around much of the village. (After JuneSheppard, with permission)


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

130

Hound TorThe settlement at Hound Tor on Dartmoor seems to bethe sort of place where such an analysis might work,

since the site has been little disturbed since thefourteenth century when the settlement was abandoned(Fig. 47). We have already seen that this deserted

79 The field system at Hound Tor on Dartmoor in Devon. Around the medieval settlement (see Fig. 47) enclosures defined bystone walls and ‘corn ditches’ indicate the infield, which has slight terraces and traces of narrow, slight ridge and furrow. To theeast is a wooded valley with springs. To the west are granite tors and extensive upland pasture—the outfield. There was somenineteenth-century farming here but the land seems to have been abandoned for arable farming in the fourteenth century. (AfterMedieval Village Research Group, with permission)


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

131

hamlet may represent an early, but typical, form ofsettlement, and in many ways its field system conformsto what we might expect of a basic infield/outfieldsystem. Around the three or four farm complexes lieseveral areas of vague strips and terraces demarcated bylarge embanked and walled boundaries with ditchesbeyond. These are called ‘corn ditches’ locally, andseem to be the division between the infield and theoutfield. The latter consists of the large areas of roughpasture with tors and granite boulders scattered about,while below are steeper slopes with springs and openwoodland. The main site faces east and is thus shelteredfrom prevailing winds. The subsidiary medieval farmsite, Hound Tor II, also has a corn ditch.

These sites are high and marginal, being at 360metres (1150 feet) above sea level, and this led GuyBeresford to suggest that they were abandoned forlargely climatic reasons. There are, however, other sitesin the south-west with the same sort of infield/outfieldsystems which continued in use to the nineteenthcentury at least. Examples include Bagley (Luccombe inSomerset), Holmoor (Exford in Somerset), Babeny(Dartmoor in Devon) and Leaze (Bodmin Moor inCornwall). The question must remain, however, of howwe can recognise the earliest phases of our fields in aheavily utilised countryside, and whether the model ofHound Tor is really applicable generally, even in pre-common field stages of development in the late Saxonperiod. Only much more detailed local research willeventually reveal the answers.

ENCLOSURE

The field systems discussed so far will seem strange tomost people, since we are used to seeing an enclosedlandscape of hedged and walled fields. How thislandscape came about is much easier to understand,because it is well documented and a great deal ofresearch has already been undertaken. It is important torealise that there are two main types of enclosure, onefurther sub-divided into two. We are usually dealingeither with the enclosure of former open and commonarable lands (Fig. 72), or the enclosure of waste,pasture or common (Fig. 82). With the former, theenclosure can have taken place either in a piecemealfashion, over a long period, and generally in ahaphazard, unplanned and unsystematic way, or as aresult of a specific or general Act of Parliament. For theformer—enclosure by ‘agreement’ (although‘disagreement’ might be more appropriate, since theremust have been much haggling over how it was doneand who had what)—there may be few, if any,documents or maps, and the landscape is probably thebest and most reliable source. With the latter,commissioners were appointed, surveys carried out,maps drawn and detailed allocations made (Fig. 84).

Areas of early enclosure from arable frequently havepatterns of fields and roads reflecting the pre-existing

strip patterns. Fields are long and narrow, as atBrassington in Derbyshire, often still with areas of ridgeand furrow inside, and hedges are reversed S in shape.Even where all else has been removed, these hedgeshapes will show former arable areas and enclosuredirectly from the strips. Sometimes cropmarks orparchmarks show up the earlier patterns, as atDeerhurst in Gloucestershire or Worton in Oxon. Theroad pattern also reflects the earlier arrangement, withlanes following thick hedges and turning at right anglesacross former headlands. The farmsteads of such areasoften remain in the villages or hamlets, but, where theyhave been resited on the farm fields, their architectureoften reflects the original date of construction. Thus, allover the West Country there are sixteenth- andseventeenth-century farm buildings, for example SaiteFarm (Batcombe in Somerset), with good architecturaldetails reflecting the date of enclosure and resiting offarmsteads.

By contrast, areas enclosed by an Act of Parliamenthave very regular patterns of roads and fieldboundaries. Where earlier patterns can bedistinguished, they have often been totally ignored bythe commissioners drawing up the new landscape on amap. Field boundaries are straight and direct, and thefields enclosed are generally square or rectangular (Fig.80). Roads too are often straight, frequently re-alignedolder trackways, and have wide margins, measured anddefined in the award. Examples are numerous, sincethousands of enclosure Acts, awards and maps weremade. In this way, large areas of the East Midlands(Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire,Oxfordshire, and so on) were created in their presentform in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and thefarmsteads built out on the new land reflect these datesin their names, such as Quebec House, Hanover Farm,Bunker Hill Farm and Jericho Lodge, and in theirarchitectural materials and style.

Areas of forest, pasture and waste had always beenenclosed from at least late Saxon times. Over much ofthe country, the patterns of irregular hedges, windinglanes and scattered farms reflect this process ofpiecemeal fencing or hedging of an area to make fields.Where trees were felled and the roots dug out, assartswere created (from the French essarter—to grub up—and reflected in field names like ‘sarts’ or ‘serts’). Thefarmsteads created either have late medievalarchitectural details (as do many in the former ArdenForest of Warwickshire) or their names and/ordocumentary records show that they were in existenceby the twelfth or thirteenth century, at least.

This process of piecemeal enclosure of waste and thecreation of holdings held in severalty—every farmerhaving a discrete separate holding—continued rightthrough to the eighteenth century. By around 1800,however, there were still large areas of unenclosedpasture, wood pasture and woodland in former royalforests, and wild open upland areas used for seasonal


www.BingEbook.com


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

133

pasture. During the first half of the nineteenth century,most of these areas were enclosed, allotted, and dividedup and new farmsteads created. Vast areas lost theappearance they had had for hundreds of years andvery quickly assumed the appearance we see today andwhich we think of as natural. In Somerset, thelandscapes of the Mendips, the Black Downs, theBrendon Hills and the old Neroche and Exmoor Forestswere all created at this time. Elsewhere, the forests ofPeak in Derbyshire, Needwood in Staffordshire and

Wychwood in Oxfordshire were all enclosed, andextensive areas of Lancashire were ‘improved’.

In these former wooded and wood pasture areas, thelandscape can still be distinctive with a high incidenceof old oaks and pollarded trees. Hedges may be thickand rich in species, even though the field boundaries arestraight and the roads run direct between wide vergesfrom one old forest gate to another. The farms, again,are distinctive by their names and architectural styles.The straight walls and roads of the uplands with the

80 (left) Different types of enclosure at Charlton on Otmoorin Oxfordshire. All over this air photograph can be seentraces of medieval arable strips in the form of ridge andfurrow. In the middle distance they survive as earthworksbetween the hedges of Mansmoor Closes which wereprobably enclosed, by agreement, shortly before 1622. In theforeground the regular field boundaries indicate enclosure byParliamentary Commissioners (in 1858) of former commonfield arable: the ridge and furrow is largely ploughed out. Inthe distance, Wendlebury Meads, a former area ofmeadowland, was enclosed in 1801. (Air photography byTrevor Rowley, reproduced with permission)

81 Areas of England without common or common field.Gonner’ maps of the ends of the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies to a large extent reflect areas of the country whichwere enclosed early, before Parliamentary Acts of Enclosure(see Fig. 72). Some of these areas were enclosed into smallfields in the Middle Ages (if not earlier) but others were theresult of enclosure by agreement in the Tudor and subsequentperiods. (From E.C.K.Gonner Common Land and Enclosure,1912)


www.BingEbook.com

82 Enclosure of commons and waste by Parliamentary Act in England. To a large extent Gonner’s map representsParliamentary enclosure of former commons, wastes and the upland pastures of old royal forests and other areas in England.These areas were principally pasture and were not the important arable areas. (From E.C.K.Gonner Common Land andEnclosure, 1912)


www.BingEbook.com

83 The enclosure of the Forest of Neroche in Somerset. Thelandscape of the former royal forest of Neroche, south-east ofTaunton in Somerset, demonstrates the effect ofParliamentary enclosure of a vast common area. In 1800–1810 the common was surrounded by piecemeal medievalassarting and small-scale seventeenth-century enclosures.Roads ran irregularly across this common and there werenumerous squatter settlements on it and around the edges.The enclosure of 1830 divided up the area into regular closesand encouraged the development of a regular planned roadnetwork.


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

136

helter belts around ‘model’ farmsteads are alsocharacteristic.

Milton under WychwoodThis village and parish in Oxfordshire represents manyof the points discussed here. The open fields were notenclosed until after 1850, so there is a good tithe mapshowing the strips and furlongs in the common fieldsand an enclosure map of 1850 showing the oldarrangement and the proposed new enclosed landscape.After that date, the fields were enclosed with hedgesand stone walls. Bits of the parish mixed up with theadjacent parish of Shipton under Wychwood wererationalised, and the old pattern of irregular lanesreplaced by straight new roads between wide hedges.Eventually, new farmsteads were moved out on to theformer open fields to work their land more directly, forexample High Lodge Farm and Springhill Farm. Butenclosure went far beyond this. The formermeadowland which had been divided into lots at thenorth end of the parish by the River Evenlode was

enclosed, the heathland nearby was enclosed and HeathFarm established on it, and the downland on theCotswold fringe to the south was also enclosed. Whathad been a fine large green at the north end of thevillage was reduced to less than a quarter of its formersize and, as a final measure, the opportunity was takento straighten out all the streams to prevent flooding.

The impact of enclosure and attendantdevelopments in a parish could be drastic and result inlandscapes which condition our aesthetic appreciationof the places themselves today. Milton is not attractiveand has been extensively developed with new estates,shops, schools, etc. It is not a conservation area and isnot on the tourist routes, yet it is typical of thousandsof parishes in how and when its landscape developed.

Hedge datingFollowing suggestions by Max Hooper, it looked likelythat, some years ago, the number of woody speciesmight be used to indicate the age of a particular hedgeand that this could be used to work out the stages ofenclosure in an area. The biological reasoning behind

84 The enclosure of Milton under Wychwood in Oxfordshire. Before the enclosure of1850 there were areas of arable (instrips), downland (i.e. upland pasture), heath (lowland pasture) and meadow, in doles by the river. After enclosure, new fieldswere laid out, new farms built and a new road network created. The green was made smaller and even the streams werestraightened.


www.BingEbook.com

FIELD SYSTEMS

137

this was never satisfactorily explained, but manystudies, in the east of England particularly, seemed tosuggest a close correlation between the number ofspecies and the date the hedge was planted.

In the west, such a method really does not seem towork at all. It is not possible to rely on the number ofspecies and expect an accurate date, although certainspecies such as spindle and wayfaring tree do tend tooccur only in known older hedges, while youngerhedges tend to have hawthorn, blackthorn and elder.Where dates of enclosure are known, species counts canbe made and compared.

There are two important points to be made here.Since there does not seem to be a direct correlationbetween numbers of species and date in many instances,it is much more important to work out the date of

enclosure from documents and maps, and then look atthe actual hedge and assess not only the number butalso the type of species represented. Secondly, enclosurein more recent times has been closely related to theactivities of nurserymen supplying shrubs at the time ofthe enclosure. John Harvey has already done importantresearch into early nurseries. In Somerset, there werefew nurserymen even in the nineteenth century, and soenclosure in Neroche Forest seems to have involveddigging up shrubs in the woods—hedges begin witheight to ten species! In the east of the country,nurserymen were very active in supplying thousands ofquicksets (hawthorns) for hedges at the time ofenclosure in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,and so hedges here generally have only one or twospecies.


www.BingEbook.com

138

We have now examined settlements, the landscapearound them, the important places in that landscape,and the administrative framework within which allthese features were arranged. It now remains only toexamine the physical links between all these elements—the communication pattern. In this chapter we shalllook at land transport particularly, but we should notforget that, in the past, water often provided a moreconvenient and usually a cheaper means of movingbulky goods—river, estuarine and coastalcommunication was of greater importance in earliertimes.

We shall not deal in this chapter with thedevelopment and use of either the canal or the railwaynetwork. These are mainly developments of theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they do notrepresent insurmountable problems of definition orexplanation in the landscape and there is abundantliterature on their origin, development and use.Similarly, later road developments will be only cursorilydiscussed. Turnpike roads have not yet receivedadequate attention as features in the landscape andthere is no one suitable text book about theirtopographical development. The eighteenth- andnineteenth-century military roads in the north will alsonot be discussed, and neither will Roman roads, forwhich there is abundant literature.

A great deal of rubbish has been written in the pastabout roads, particularly Roman roads and ridgeways.It has been all too easy in the long winter evenings to sitdown in an easy chair in front of the fire with a 1-inch(now 1:50000) Ordnance Survey map and draw instraight sections of roads, paths and parish boundaries,and suggest possible and probable road links across thelandscape. Little attention is paid to why a particularroad might have gone this way or that, what it was usedfor and which settlements it was linking.

Our main task as parish survey researchers and fieldarchaeologists is to try to understand what the existingpatterns of communication mean. We want to knowwhen the pattern came into existence, how it has

evolved, changed and been adapted, and why someparts of it have become derelict. Most importantly, wewant to know what purposes the network served atdifferent dates. In this respect, identifying thefunctional role will prove, as with other landscapefeatures, the most fruitful line of enquiry.

Communication in the past, before the age oftelephones and television, implied people or goodsmoving about in the landscape. Therefore, we need toknow why there was this movement—the reasons fortravel and the movement of goods and commoditiesfrom one place to another. Clearly identifiable reasonscan be found very easily. Goods, cattle, agriculturalproduce, stone, wood, timber, and a host of othermaterials were moved from their place of production toa place of use or consumption. This movement could bevia a market or fair, or it could be straight fromproducer to consumer, particularly if the same personor organisation owned or controlled each end of thelink. Oliver Rackham has shown, in his classic study ofHayley Wood, how wood and timber moved about thelandscape both within estates in the same ownershipand between estates, from land with wood to woodlessconsumers. In order to understand anything of themovement of goods and commodities in the past,therefore, we must not only see which materials arebeing moved, but we must look at the way they weremoved (by waggon, water, on foot), the amount ofmovement, and, particularly, we must identify thesource and the destination.

Moving goods was always more difficult, althoughflocks and herds could walk, of course. The latterneeded relatively wide, flat and direct routes if travelover any distance was not to be problematical, withplenty of herbage so they could graze en route. Othercommodities could/be moved by waggon and cart or bypack animals on land, or by water. Pack animals musthave been very important in the past and a familiarsight in the landscape, as they could use the same routesas foot travellers and horsemen; their great flexibility,together with little investment in expensive equipment

11

Communications—the links between


www.BingEbook.com

COMMUNICATIONS–THE LINKS BETWEEN

139

like waggons, meant they were very popular. The actualwidth of many known medieval roads in villages andelsewhere, together with the numerous narrow ‘packhorse’ bridges, particularly in the West Country and thenorth, shows their former extensive use. St Ives inCornwall is reputed not to have seen a wheeled vehicleuntil the early nineteenth century—all goods werecarried by pack animal or taken by sea around thecoast. Much could be moved in this way and we mustimagine lanes full of beasts bearing firewood, cereals,milled flour, vegetables and fodder, as well as ourconventional image of donkeys laden with wool packs.

Carts (two-wheeled) and waggons (four-wheeled)were also used; manuscript illustrations make this clearand, for certain goods in lowland Britain away fromrivers large enough for transport, there was probablyno alternative, particularly if the roads were adequate.

Nevertheless, carts and waggons were expensive itemsand we must not imagine that there were many of them.In the sixteenth century the Prior of Worcester, WilliamMore, spent a lot of time and money having a new farmwaggon built and it was clearly not an everyday event,nor was it cheap.

Water transport, where it was available, was cheaperand easier to use for moving bulky loads. We tend toforget in our highly motorised society how importanteven the smallest rivers were for transport in the past.Small boats and barges could bring goods well up riverinland. The Thames is very small at Cricklade inWiltshire today, but it was navigable that far in thepast, and the Severn was used well up river beyondShrewsbury in Shropshire. In the nineteenth century,coal was still brought to Ilchester in Somerset up theriver Yeo, which is now little more than a ditch. Little

85 Movements of timber and wood in the medieval countryside. Oliver Rackham’s diagrams show the complex movements ofwood and timber in the Middle Ages, and imply much use of medieval roads. (After Oliver Rackham, with permission)


www.BingEbook.com


140

research has been carried out on this aspect, althoughfamous vessels such as Thames Sailing Barges andSevern Trows are well known.

Two aspects probably dictated whether rivers couldbe navigated. Firstly, the sorts of vessels in use—theirsize, draught, and so on. How far, for example, could acoastal or sea-going vessel of Saxon or medieval timespenetrate inland up river before the load would need tobe transferred to a shallower draught vessel? Vessel sizewould be important and, in general, sea-going vesselsbecame larger. This factor alone meant that they couldnot get as far inland. However, a second factor mayhave been of even greater importance: it seems likelythat rivers may have become less usable over timeanyway, especially if they carried more and more siltwashed off arable land. The area of arable land wouldhave been expanding until the early fourteenth centuryand so we would expect to find more run-off of soilafter heavy rains and in the winter from late Saxontimes onwards. Did this in fact affect river disposition,

silting and regime? Moreover, did this, together withvessel size, affect the use of inland ports? Many riversmay have had more abraided courses in pre-medievaltimes. Did river control, particularly the canalising ofrivers into one main channel, mean that access wasmaintained? These and other questions would all meritfuture local research.

The same sort of problems relate to coastalcommunication. As well as a host of river jetties andtranshipment points, almost any small cove, beach orinlet around the coast would have been used in earliertimes for the loading and unloading of goods. InSomerset, Minehead was once an important port, withlinks to Ireland, and along the same coast there is thesilted-up harbour of Dunster, and the smallnineteenth-century harbours at Porlock and Lilstock.At the latter there are the remains of a stone-built jettyand locked harbour, together with several ruinedbuildings. It would be impossible to get a vessel of anysize into this now, but coal and corn were formerly

86 The abandoned harbour at Lilstock in Somerset. The entrance to the nineteenth-century harbour from the sea is nowblocked by a bank of pebbles. Stne walls still line the dock and the remains of the harbour gates can be seen.


www.BingEbook.com


141

imported, while limestone and lime went out from thelimekiln on the quay.

People moved about for a great variety of reasons,but the same general aspects outlined above still apply.The administration of estates, the links betweenholdings of a barony or between monastic estates,would all have occasioned movement of officials. Theking and his retinue were regularly on the move,visiting estates and landowners, administering royalestates, and issuing documents and charters fromparticular royal castles and other centres. Theadministration of justice involved movement, and, aswe have seen, hundred meetings, baronial courts,markets and fairs all involved people crossing thelandscape. We tend to forget also the social aspects—visiting relatives and friends in nearby villages andtowns. Visits to shrines, churches and monasteries onsaints’ days often involved many people; organisedlong-distance tours or pilgrimages are evident in manyparts of Europe, with well-defined routes coming intoexistence.

How, then, was all this movement carried out? Onland, of course, people either walked or they rode onhorseback (or donkey, or pony), and so roads did notneed to be wide and considerations such as howstraight or steep they were did not have greatimportance. At all times the steeper slopes and boggyground would have been avoided and as much travel aspossible would have been done in a direct line on thelevel and when it was dry underfoot. Later on, somepeople travelled by litter or coach and more attentionto particular routes was then important. Steep inclines,in particular, would be difficult, as would ground liableto be muddy after rain. We know relatively little aboutvehicles in earlier periods, particularly those fortransporting people, although there are a fewmanuscript drawings.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Some of the problems and ideas about communicationhave now been outlined, but where can we get furtherinformation about early routes? Excavation in generalis of little use in this area of enquiry, although it canproduce the evidence of goods and commodities beingmoved about in the landscape which can bestdemonstrate trading links, and, by implication, theroutes used. Most early roads were not ‘constructed’ assuch; their surfaces wore down and hence any directlyassociated datable material is usually either eroded orout of context. The study of early ships, however, canbe useful and much has been learnt about changingvessel technology from the remains of quays and jettiesfound in excavations.

Fieldwork is immensely useful in any study of earlyroutes. Abandoned routes can be recognised asholloways—the characteristic worn-down lanes withsteep sides which are common on medieval sites and

can often be traced up hillsides and through woods. Onsteep hillsides, numerous holloway routes may be seenand here, as elsewhere, alternative lines often exist—asone lane became boggy or impassable, another wasopened up. Frequently, a multitude of tracks developed,as at Walkers Hill near Alton and Posten Hill nearMarlborough, both in Wiltshire, or Twyford Down inHampshire. Elsewhere, terraced ways, partly cut intothe slope on the uphill side and built-up on thedownhill side, also remain. In a few cases raisedroadways can be seen which must have been in someway constructed. There are cambered roads, forexample, in the deserted villages of Fresden andSheldon in Wiltshire, and there was a similar case at adeserted village site in Odstock parish in Somerset.Other earthworks appear as causewayed roads whereside ditches have been dug to drain an area. Numerousditched drove or access ways can be seen in the wetlowlands of Somerset, particularly along the coastalclay belt, and many of Romano-British date formerlyexisted in the Fens of eastern England.

The fieldworker should be aware also of causewayswhich have gone out of use and may remain asprominent earthworks. Several Roman bridgeabutments have been recognised in this way (forexample, Hunwich Gill and Stockley Gill in Durham),and there is an unfinished abandoned eighteenth-century turnpike road in Worcestershire—the abortivePershore Road which was completed in Birmingham—running across several meadows near the villages ofFlyford Flavell and Naunton Beauchamp as a massiveembankment.

So far, we have been discussing abandoned or relicfeatures in the landscape, but most of the presentpattern of lanes and paths is medieval, if not earlier, indate. We should, therefore, look at the total picture ofroads, lanes and paths in use today in our area of study,in addition to any abandoned holloways and tracks, toget a complete picture of communication over a longperiod. Where this has been done, as for example atHanbury in Worcestershire (Fig. 58) (by StephenBassett and Christopher Dyer), the density of routesand the degree of access to land is very great.

Documents can help in reconstructing earlier roadpatterns, and, of course, place names (together withfield and local names) provide further references. Thereare numerous local names referring to roads and paths,of which herepath, or ‘army road’, is the most obvious.A study of any parish will reveal names of ridgewaysand old paths, as well as possible ‘streets’ suggestingRoman roads. In Warwickshire, Hobs Ditch namesnear Henley in Arden were found, on excavation, toindicate a Roman road.

‘Way’ names merit closer attention, since earlyvillage names are not generally called after roads.However, Broadway in Somerset lies on a wide long-distance route traceable across south Somerset intoDevon, down the Blackdown Hills ridgeway. Before the


www.BingEbook.com

87 The itineraries of King John and Edward I. Such maps show the travels of medieval kings and imply which roads androutes were most heavily used. The map, top left, shows all the journeys of King John in Britain, while top right shows routestravelled three times or more. Bottom left shows Edward I’s travel. Notice how much he travelled in Wales (and also Scotland—not shown). Bottom right shows routes used three times or more during his reign. (After Brian Paul Hindle Medieval Roads[Shire], with permission)


www.BingEbook.com


143

successful draining of the Levels to the north this wouldhave been the most direct dry-land route to the WestCountry.

More common, however, are field and place nameswith—ford as a suffix—a crossing place through astream or river. Usually this was where particular localtopographical features produced a hard bed whichcould be easily waded. Place-name evidence is difficult,as has already been discussed, but such names doclearly tell us something of an area, if only that at thatpoint a route crossed a stream or river. Generally, suchplaces should be seen in a local or regional context andseen together with an assessment of local route ways. Insouth-east Somerset, for example (Fig. 90), there areonly two—ford village names, Mudford and Sparkford;both are significant, as the crossing points of localroutes over the Rivers Yeo and Cam respectively.

Maps provide abundant information about earlyroutes, but there are few medieval maps of Britain. TheMatthew Paris Map of 1250 shows only one route,Dover to Newcastle, but the Gough Map of about 1360shows many roads radiating out from London. Thus,by the fourteenth century, the two major elements ofBritish land transport are already established—thedominance of London as the centre of the network andthe importance of the later Great North Road. Nationaland county maps become increasingly available fromthe sixteenth century onwards. Many show roads, butperhaps of greatest significance for major routes isOgilvy’s road book of 1675. This shows in linear stripsdetails of many important roads in the late seventeenthcentury. Locally, maps become increasingly commonfrom the sixteenth century, with large numbers for theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Any particular onemay have useful information about local routes.

Finally, the various itineraries are of significance.There are even a few Roman itineraries which tell ussomething of the situation in late Roman Britain. TheAntonine Itinerary of the late third or early fourthcentury, and the seventh-century RavennaCosmography have both been used in this way. BrianPaul Hindle has used the chronicles of medieval kingsto reconstruct the most heavily-used royal roads in theMiddle Ages and has produced maps for the reigns ofJohn, Edward I and Edward II. Locally, it may bedifficult to pick out which road is being used, indeedthere may be several alternatives, but nationally thepicture is clear. London is the focus, as we wouldexpect, with the route north to York and Newcastlebeing very dominant. Other major routes run east toDover and west to Bristol, and in the south-east there isa dense network of roads used by the kings. Few royalvisits were made west of Exeter, into Wales, or north ofChester.

From the fifteenth century onwards a host ofitineraries become available. William Worcester’sitinerary of the fifteenth century and John Leland’s ofthe 1540s are well known, but there are also the travelsof Celia Fiennes (1685–1703), Daniel Defoe (1722–

1724) and William Cobbett (1822–1830). Each ofthese people gives information about local topographyand frequently a description of the countryside around,whether it is enclosed or not, and the existence ofparticular estates.

There is thus a mass of material available fromwhich to reconstruct and understand earlycommunication links. From documents, maps, airphotographs and fieldwork, something of the links inthe landscape can be seen. How are we to explain theresulting pattern? It was stated above that we shouldnot study the lines of communication in isolation—thishas been the problem with much of the work done inthe past. In this book I have been at pains to try to seethe landscape as a series of functional units withcomplex interrelationships. Not only are they complexat one time, but they are constantly changing throughtime. It is against this background that communicationsmust be seen and, at its most basic, we need to identifythe settlements of any period and the reasons whycontact was needed between them. From such a stancethe complex and sterile arguments about earlier Romanmilitary routes, signalling between hillforts, and muchelse that has been discussed in the past becomeirrelevant, especially when faced with the question ofwhy early people needed to do such things.

We can examine communication patterns in thelandscape at four different levels—the national (whichwe shall not discuss further), the provincial (overseveral counties), the regional (across several parishes),and the local (within a particular territory). At eachlevel different activities were pursued and differentcontacts needed and created.

Provincial linksProvincial communication has been studied indirectlyby a number of people. It can be recognised very earlyin the prehistoric period with the trade in stone axes.Known stone production sites can be seen all overwestern Britain, with flint sources in the south-east.Through petrological analysis of stone by thinsectioning, axes found in one place can be traced tosources of stone elsewhere. The implications from thisevidence for long-distance contact—or even trade—have only just begun to be considered. Similardevelopments can be seen with early potteryproduction. In the Neolithic period, sources of temperfor clay were exploited in Cornwall for fine pots usedall over southern England; analysis of pottery atGlastonbury in Somerset has shown that, by the IronAge, outcrops of rock all over the south-west werebeing used for temper in the clay. Other long-distancelinks involving iron, stone and luxury goods have beenidentified at recently-examined sites like HengistburyHead in Dorset and Danebury in Hampshire.

Such provincial traffic can be identified at allperiods. The movement of such items as pottery, salt,iron, exotic stone goods like hones and millstones, and


www.BingEbook.com


144

luxury items has always gone on. Much of this materialmoved from one county to another, from the coastinland (either up rivers or overland), and over longdistances. It is more useful to speculate on likely routesbetween places of production and consumption thanjust to look at the routes in one locality in isolation. Allof this traffic implies that the; self-sufficient settlementwas a rarity. As Maurice Beresford puts it: ‘Assisting inthe carriage of the millstones is often found incustumals as an obligation of tenants. In villagesremote from suitable stone, the organisation of asupply of millstones presupposes a long-distance tradeand transport capable of handling such heavy loads.Thus, every millstone upsets the concept of self-sufficient village economies.’

The implications of the movement of such goods hashardly begun to be considered, particularly, andironically, for the well-documented medieval and post-medieval periods. Where, for example, did all themillstones produced at Lundy Island or from the PenPits near Stourhead in Wiltshire go? Many millstonesare known to have been imported from the Forest ofDean via Bridgwater and distributed over Devon,Somerset and Dorset in the sixteenth century. Thisinformation is contained in; port books and showsBridgwater as a transhipment point with river and roadtransport beyond that. There is scope for further workon such documentary sources as port books (and fairbooks and other little-appreciated sources). Similarly, a

great deal more petrological analysis of pottery,millstones, and other exotic stones (hones, bricks, stoneroofing tiles, and clay tiles) is needed, even for thehistoric period.

At the provincial level, exchange of goods took placeat fairs and the more important markets. It is oftendifficult to gauge the importance of these in thelandscape, but a study of White Down in Somersetshows links with Wiltshire, Devon, Weymouth inDorset and Llantwit Major in Wales. Horses fromIreland were also frequently traded in the West Countryin the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Similar butmore detailed information comes from the fair books ofTaunton Fair and has been studied by ChristopherGerrard (Fig.19). Access to such markets and fairswould inevitably be on direct overland routes, andthese were probably of great antiquity. It is not difficultto draw attention to these, but it is usually impossibleto date accurately a particular ridgeway or long-distance valley road. Even more difficult is the task ofassessing the relative importance of coastal and rivercommunications in such traffic.

Two aspects have, however, been studied whichshow the potential. Firstly, salt produced at Droitwichin Worcestershire and in Cheshire was taken overlandto widely-scattered manors which had rights in thebrine pits. Local place names incorporating ‘salt’ or‘saltway’ can be used to reconstruct the routes by whichthe commodity was moved. This trade is documentedfrom the late Saxon period onward, but is probablymuch older.

Secondly, the dominance of London from the earlymedieval period onward, if not before, led to distantareas concentrating on cattle production to supply thecapital with meat, leather, and other animal products.Wales, the West Country and the north of England,predominantly regions with a long-standing pastoraleconomy, produced animals which were then walkedoverland to markets in the south. Such drove roads ordriftways have been studied superficially in many areas.Landscape features such as pub names, and thespectacular building at Stockbridge in Hampshire,which has signs outside it in Welsh, can be instanced,and the wide routes with ample grass fodder on theverges can be traced for miles. The Welsh Way inGloucestershire is such an example, but usually nosingle route was predominant and a network of theseroads must be envisaged.

Regional linksMore progress can be made in identifying regionalcommunications. Within any county, at about thehundred level, much communication can be seen withinthe landscape—access to minsters, caputs, markets,fairs, castles, monasteries, baronial centres, largehouses and towns. Regional exchange of goods and theprovision of services for places around the main centresshould produce a stellar pattern of roads and tracks,

88 Salt ways from Droitwich in Worcestershire. This mapshows the places with salt rights in the brine pits at Droitwichand the named salt ways in the Midland counties. (After DellaHooke ‘The Droitwich Salt Industry’ in David Brown et al(eds) Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 2,British Archaeological Reports British Series 92 (1981) withpermission)


www.BingEbook.com


145

and such routes are closely connected with the use ofcentral places, as discussed earlier. In a prehistoriccontext, these routes can be seen as cropmarks,frequently linking individual farm sites to the morelocal centres such as hillforts, and in Somerset there arethe internationally important timber trackways of theNeolithic and Bronze Ages (Fig. 5). These seem to belinking upland settlements with other centres andlowland resources in the Levels themselves.

This latter movement, transhumance over wideareas, results in much of the regional road pattern.Movement of cattle and sheep to upland or lowlandseasonal pasture can be instanced in many parts of thecountry. Somerset has already been mentioned and thelinks between villages and the Levels have been studiedby Michael Williams. Trevor Rowley studied thestraker routes on the Clee Hills and a more localexample exists in Deerhurst in Gloucestershire—manymore could be cited.

Many of these routes wander across country andwere used for a variety of purposes. Diversions ofwellestablished old routes, however, did occur. Allthrough the late Saxon and early medieval periodstowns were created, as discussed by Maurice Beresford.Frequently, the establishment of a new town wasaccompanied by the diversion of existing routes intothe new market place. This can be seen at Thame inOxfordshire and Montacute in Somerset, with widerimplications for Devizes in Wiltshire. Eleanor Carus-Wilson has shown for Stratford on Avon how a newtown can influence the local landscape, although shedid not consider the displacement of routes.

The building of some new towns was accompaniedby new bridge construction, making redundant manylong-established and well-used fords and ferries. Thebuilding of Abingdon bridge is cited as an example,since it seems to have led directly to the decline ofnearby Dorchester on Thames. In Wiltshire, thebuilding of Harnham bridge at Salisbury has beenstudied by John Chandler; it contributed to the declineof Wilton, which had been formerly the most importanttown in the area. Bridges have often been studied asbuildings and ancient monuments, but their role asinfluences in the local communication pattern hasapparently been overlooked.

In the same way, the construction of causeways tocarry roads over low-lying and boggy areas also hadconsiderable impact on local communications,although medieval roads seem generally not to havebeen surfaced and little attention was paid to elaborateconstruction or careful maintenance. The earlyconstruction of a clay causeway south of Oxfordprobably influenced the development of that town, andthe same may have happened at Langport in Somerset.A spectacular late medieval example is Maud Heathscauseway in Wiltshire, linking villages in a poorly-drained clay area with the market at Chippenham. Footpassengers, at least, could reach the market dryshod atall times of the year.

Local linksAt the local level there was, of course, considerablemovement within any land unit, be it parish, township,or tithing. Routes from all settlements or individualfarms to the church can often be picked out as ‘churchpaths’. In Cornwall, these are frequently marked bygranite crosses, such as the examples seen in St Buryanand elsewhere near Lands End. Most local movementwas, however, from farmstead to fields. This is soobvious and has been taken so much for granted that ithas hardly ever been studied. Detailed studies of largenucleated villages with extensive open fields have,however, shown that there was a dense network oftracks between blocks of strips and along headlandsacross the parish. Christopher Taylor instancesStanford, Raunds, Stanwick and Hargrave inNorthamptonshire and other examples can be seen atDeerhurst in Gloucestershire (Fig. 60) and in south-eastSomerset (Fig. 61). In an enclosed landscape the densitywas as great—the example of Hanbury inWorcestershire has already been mentioned (Fig. 58).As well as daily access to fields, it was necessary to goless frequently to areas of woodland and the mill.

With enclosure, particularly parliamentaryenclosure of an open landscape, new lines ofcommunication were often created, old onesrationalised and some destroyed. Professors Beresfordand St Joseph show this dramatically for Padbury inBuckinghamshire and an equally spectacular examplecan be seen at Milton under Wychwood in Oxfordshire

89 Church paths in West Penwith in Cornwall. These paths,frequently marked by granite crosses, linked outlyingfarmsteads with the parish church. They provide one of themost obvious links in communication in the landscape. (AfterI.S.Maxwell Historical Atlas of West Penwith, 1976, withpermission)


www.BingEbook.com


146

(Fig. 84). Along with all the other changes of theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, road alteration canbe seen to be as dramatic as the changes in field andsettlement patterns.

Having recorded all this material for an area andsorted out why and when certain routes might be used,there may still remain a problem of explanation. As hasbeen said before, and implied throughout this book, theEnglish landscape is very old and is a palimpsest offeatures of different dates. We can work outtheoretically what our communications might look likeat each of the levels we have discussed and see if itrelates to the actual patterns on the ground. In manycases it will, but there will be anomalies. Mostanomalies will be caused by earlier features still havingan influence in a later landscape—inertia again. This iseasy to say but difficult to prove. If, however, thepredominant road network of an area does not closelyrelate to the present settlement and land use pattern of aparish, then such an explanation may be likely. In thesecases, the evidence might suggest much earlierarrangements in the landscape which had notpreviously been suspected and for which no evidenceother than patterns of roads, paths and boundariesexists. Warwick Rodwell has shown such an example inEssex, where much of the road pattern (and otherdivisions) seems to be of probable Roman date, while inSomerset, Roger Leech has shown that much of therural road system was also probably there by Romano-British times. Some of our roads and tracks in thelandscape may well be older than we think, and there isprobably more prehistory in most landscapes than wasformerly imagined.

THE EXAMPLE OF SOUTH-EASTSOMERSET

In the area east of Ilchester there is a bewilderingpattern of roads and tracks. The existence of the largehillfort at South Cadbury means that there would havebeen lanes leading out from this all over its territory inthe prehistoric period. The exact area of land attachedto this fortified centre is not known, but Ian Burrowsuggests a theoretical territory as far as Ilchester, wherethe land of the next hillfort at Ham Hill began, andnorthwards to the land of Dundon hillfort.

Similarly, Ilchester would have lain at the centre of aregion. We can see the new straight Roman roads laidout with military precision running north, south-west,south and south-east from the town, and a furtherpossibility is the road east towards Wiltshire. Theseroads cut across the landscape apparently ignoring theunderlying pattern of roads and tracks. Are theseearlier then than the Roman roads?

All over this region there is a dense scatter ofmedieval settlements, surviving as modern villages,hamlets and farmsteads, partially deserted or shrunken,or completely deserted (as at Nether Adber). From field

and air photograph evidence the contemporarylandscape of these settlements can be reconstructedwith areas of arable/pasture, meadowland along therivers, ancient woodland, and a few areas of uplandpasture. Most of the roads, lanes and paths in existencenow must have related to the links between thesesettlements and these areas of different land use. Wemight expect, therefore, a stellar pattern with pathsrunning out from the settlements to their fields withinthe territory of each settlement, and these can bedefined. Because there are earlier patterns relating tothe late prehistoric and Roman periods, we shouldexpect some roads and lanes relating to them still to bein this landscape, either as relict features or surviving inuse. Since Ilchester was also the local administrativeand marketing centre for this region from the lateSaxon period onwards, each settlement should in facthave a direct link with it. Both South Cadbury and laterIlchester were also of more than local significance intheir heyday, so more direct long-distance overlandroutes are also to be expected.

We can thus develop a theoretical framework for theregion, against which we can examine the realsituation. Do the present and reconstructed past linesof communication fit in with this? Even a cursoryexamination will show that it does not. There is, ingeneral, a set of north-south and east-west alignmentsboth of the roads and parish and field boundarieswhich even now appears in places to be veryinconvenient to the medieval settlements. This can beseen particularly at Limington, Little Marston, NetherAdber and Chilthorne Domer. The expected pattern isnot really in evidence.

Secondly, there are a number of major lines acrossthe landscape which were not anticipated—the presentA 303 is one which cuts across the parishes and theirroads. This is probably a pre-Roman trackway linkingup with the dry overland routes across the limestoneand chalk to the north and north-east of SouthCadbury. Similarly, the route south of South Cadbury isprobably a long-distance route, as predicted. Threefurther alignments deserve consideration—the twoangled sections near Rimpton/Marston Magna and thaton the east side of Queen Camel. These cut across allother alignments and seem inexplicable at the moment.The other alignment, marked by roads and boundaries,runs in a great arc centred on Ilchester 3–5 kilometres(2–3 miles) away. This is respected by many otherfeatures and must be a very early line in this landscape.It cannot be proved (probably ever) but it could be aterritorium boundary for Ilchester’s town land in theRoman period.

Finally, let us consider the general underlyingpattern of this area. As has been stated, it runs north-south east-west and persistent alignments can be seenacross the lands of Adber, Limington, Draycot andAshington. These lines could represent earlier roadsassociated with, for example, a Roman field system,


www.BingEbook.com

90 The communication pattern in south-east Somerset. The first map shows the known prehistoric and Roman sites in theregion (A). In the later prehistoric period there were important hillforts at South Cadbury, Ham Hill (off to the west) andDundon (to the north). The straight lines define the theoretical territories (Theissen polygons) of these hillforts. Within theseterritories little is known of the contemporary settlements, so not much can be suggested of the roads and tracks. At the end ofthe prehistoric period an oppidum was developed at Ilchester to be succeeded by the Roman town itself, the centre of a regionwith a number of known sites; there must be others to be found. By the medieval period large numbers of settlements can beidentified (B). The theoretical territories attached to these can be suggested (again by Theissen polygons) and within these thereshould be stellar patterns of roads and tracks running out from each settlement to the borders of its territory.

The actual situation is very different (C) with many straight and curved road alignments apparently running in awkwardcourses and directions. The pattern of territorial units (shown as parish, estate, manor and tithing boundaries) is not asexpected, and within them the expected stellar pattern of lanes is not evident.


www.BingEbook.com


148

or they could be older. With reave systems of lateBronze Age being found on Dartmoor, and earlieroverall alignments in such areas of Wessex and Essexbeing discussed, this underlying pattern could verylikely be of prehistoric date. It must be emphasised,however, that this is unproven, and perhapsunprovable.

This particular example has perhaps shownsomething of the way a pattern of roads, lanes and

tracks can be examined in an area. Only by examiningsettlements of different dates, likely lines between themand related land uses can much progress be made.Other features like field and parish boundaries need tobe included to help to expand the range of possibilitiesexamined. Even then, there will always be anomalieswhich at present defy explanation. Much, however, islikely to emerge of previously unsuspected elements, asin this example.


www.BingEbook.com

149

In this chapter we shall try to assess what we now knowabout the way the landscape has developed, whatproblems remain, and which useful pieces of researchwill help to solve these problems and perhaps indicateareas and topics where more intensive effort is neededto solve difficulties of interpretation and understandingin the landscape.

Following on from Christopher Taylor’s threepoints—the great age of the man-made landscape, itscomplexity, and the amount of change within it—wecan now suggest the major phases through which thedevelopment of the landscape seems to have passed(Fig. 92). Such a ‘model’ will inevitably be simplistic,generalised, and will need to be changed and refined aswork progresses. It is offered here as a subject fordiscussion and not as a fixed, solidly-cast idea; itshould certainly not be regarded as a new dogma toreplace the old. Let us look at this model in some detail,beginning with the two most important factors—population and its relationship to open land.

POPULATION

Whether the population is rising or falling, and at whatrate, and what the demographic structure is at any onetime are all fundamental to the impact of people on thelandscape. Without improvements in technology, moremouths to feed has always meant more land undercultivation and thus greater impact on waste andwoodland resources. Conversely, a falling populationshould lead to some areas, probably less fertile and lessproductive, being abandoned and the regeneration ofwoodland over former fields.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect to assess for anyarea is the population size at any time. The largernumber of early sites now known, the evidence ofclearance from pollen analysis and other environmentalevidence, and the results of air survey all suggest higherpopulations and denser concentrations of people in thepast than was formerly thought. There are no figures

indicating population size available before the eleventhcentury, and it is not until the nineteenth century thatanything approaching reliability is reached.Nevertheless, some authors have ventured to putforward figures for various periods. Jim Bolton, forexample, argues that a figure of six to seven million ismore likely for the population of England in the pre-Black Death period (early fourteenth century) than theconventionally accepted two to three million, whichitself is higher than formerly accepted by historians.

Peter Fowler, in looking at the evidence for the lateprehistoric and Roman periods, suggests a populationof up to five million in the late Roman period, fallingback to three to four million in the eighth century. Hisgraph suggests one million or less by the late BronzeAge (c.1000 BC), but, on the evidence of the landscape,this could be an underestimate. We can thus suggest ageneral population rise from late prehistory onwards,with noticeable increases in the Roman period and inthe late Saxon/early medieval period (and possibly inthe late Bronze Age). The greatest rise, of course, hasbeen from the sixteenth century until the present day.There were significant declines at the end of the Roman

12

What does it all mean?

91 Population in Britain 3000 BC—AD 1500; the two linesrepresent the likely maximum and minimum levels. (AfterPeter Fowler and Jim Bolton, with permission)


www.BingEbook.com

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

150

period and in the late fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies.

FOREST AND LAND USE

Against the background of these demographic changes,environmental evidence shows increasing and morepermanent forest clearance and the creation of openland, particularly from the second millenniumonwards. By the late prehistoric and Roman periods thelandscape was probably as clear of wildwood as in theearly fourteenth century. In the centuries after theRoman period there was clearly widespread forestregeneration and it is this woodland which thedocuments and place-name evidence tells us was beingcleared in the late Saxon and early medieval periods. Itis worth wondering how many earlier suchregenerations and reclearances there had been.

CLIMATE

As little as 1°C (1.8°F) average change in temperaturecan have a marked effect on the way people are able touse the landscape, particularly in upland areas.Similarly, increases or decreases in rainfall can makesome areas difficult to manage. In a predominantlysubsistence economy this can make life very difficultand even lead to starvation if crops fail and livestock

dies. In a more commercial market-orientatedeconomy, such marginal areas may not be able tocompete with lower, dryer or more fertile areas in termsof production, or to raise capital from the sale ofproduce in order to buy in food and other essentialsfrom other areas.

It is always difficult to be certain of the effects thatslight climatic changes might have had, but a great dealof research has been undertaken and the generalclimatic background over thousands of years inprehistory is generally understood, with markedchanges in weather in the historic period also outlined.The climate seems to have become warmer and milderfrom about 10,000 BC, with first tundra vegetation andthen birch and pine woodland eventually giving way tomixed oak forest. The increasing warmth reached itsoptimum c.3000 BC, to be followed by graduallycooler and wetter weather by the Iron Age, except for awarmer and drier spell in the late Bronze Age. It wasprobably relatively warmer and drier in the late Saxon/early medieval period, followed by mini ice ages in thefourteenth century and the period from the sixteenth tothe nineteenth centuries.

TECHNOLOGY

An assessment of the technological level of people (orwhat they could achieve with the knowledge and

92 An outline of the stages of landscape development and how they are related to conventional prehistoric periods,population dynamics, the areas of forest and types of archaeological monuments. This diagram should be regarded as a basis fordiscussion and further research and not as a definitive statement of developments over the last 7000 years.


www.BingEbook.com


151

equipment at their disposal) at any particular point intime is very difficult to achieve. The archaeologicalrecord does not help in this since implements,machinery and tools in use before the eighteenthcentury have rarely survived. The problem can bedemonstrated by the lack of any complete ploughs orards surviving from the medieval and earlier periods, asshown by Sian Rees. In addition, early agriculturaltechniques and practices are little understood; forexample, the complex processes associated with grainproduction alone are invariably not recognisable onarchaeological sites, as demonstrated by GordonHilman.

Yet improvements in crop types, farming practicesand processing can have a great impact on the way landis used and how many people can be supported on it.Outline figures are beginning to be discussed by bothprehistoric archaeologists (Mercer, 1981) and medievalhistorians (Bolton, 1980), and they are frequently givenfor the early historic period (Cobbett). We might expectthe introduction of manuring with farmyard waste anda second, winter, cropping to have led to an increase incrop production and hence population numbers.However, we might also expect greater erosion of soilafter frost and rain due to the fields being ploughed andstanding almost bare in winter, leading also to changesin river and stream regimes. In addition, different typesof plough and the introduction of other farmimplements might lead to greater or more efficientproduction. More research is needed on this topicbefore much can be said with confidence.

SETTLEMENT AND LAND USE

Looked at against this background of natural andtechnological changes, what can we say about howpeople lived, what sort of settlements they inhabited,and what field systems they employed (Fig. 92)? Formost periods, we can now suggest that the dominanttype of settlement has been the farmstead and hamletwith enclosed fields. It is more difficult to see thedynamic changes involved—although this becomeseasier for the historical, and particularly the recent,periods—but certain familiar and well-studied aspectssuch as villages and the common field system can nowbe seen as atypical. One of the main problems is toexplain how, when and why villages developed; ofequal significance, and probably intimately connectedwith this problem, is to understand how common fieldagriculture evolved from earlier systems. A whole rangeof problems is encapsulated in these statements.

For any area under study we need to explain thechanging settlement pattern. The current model ofdispersed settlement agglomerating to nucleatedvillages and then changing to the farmsteads we see inthe present landscape needs to be examined anddiscussed for many areas. We need to explain howmuch of the dispersed settlement pattern is ‘original’,

i.e. pre-Norman or even pre-Roman, and how much isthe result of more recent developments. We should alsoask perhaps when did the present settlement patternoriginate as we see it in the landscape and on recentmaps, and what are the stages through which it haspassed. We must ascertain whether the pattern was everin the form of nucleated groups of farmsteads workingthe land in common, rather than dispersed farms acrossthe landscape working the holdings individually, inseveralty. In other words, when have farms beengrouped into hamlets and villages, and when have theybeen dispersed over the landscape?

In studies of land use, much can be learned fromfieldwork and documents about the field systems of theMiddle Ages; there is a vast amount of literature as wellas many primary documents and maps on enclosure inthe post-medieval period. Yet we still do notunderstand the origin of the common field patterns,manifested in strips and as ridge and furrow in thelandscape. We should ask when and how these patternsand arrangements emerged and how they are related,functionally as well as topographically, to the earlierpatterns of squarish or rectangular prehistoric fields.Are such systems related to the infield/outfieldarrangements, and which was more common? Beforethese questions can be answered we must learn torecognise traces of infield/outfield systems in thelandscape.

Even if little can be said of this change for mostparishes, much can often be deduced of overall land usepatterns in earlier times—provided we bear in mindhow much people have influenced the landscape, howmuch ‘natural’ change is occurring all the time, and thatearlier landscapes are often buried from view. The ratioof arable land to pasture is fundamental to land use andvaries with changing economic circumstances. Periodsof predominantly arable production and pastoralismneed to be defined and what effects these may have hadon settlements. In any case, we need to allow for distantresources such as pasture, woodland and waste.

FOCAL PLACES AND ESTATES

We have already seen that there is a hierarchy of placesin the landscape and not everywhere is of equalimportance. Glanville Jones has taught us how to lookat early estate arrangements, to recognise large blocksof land in discrete ownership and, within these, to lookfor the caput or head place and the subsidiary units(Fig. 11) Our parish or area of study does not and didnot exist in isolation—it was part of a largerarrangement, a complex system of interlinked places.We can often see this clearly from the sixteenth centuryonwards, and we may be able to learn much from theMiddle Ages if the documents are available.

If we are interested in origins, the earlierarrangements have to be elucidated, bearing in mindthat the structure of estates changes through time.


www.BingEbook.com


152

Hundredal arrangements may help us to see earlierestates, particularly on ecclesiastical estates belongingto bishops or early monasteries. Domesday Book maytell us something of the distribution of estatesbelonging to particular owners in 1086. Perhaps theplace under study was a royal caput in the seventh oreighth centuries or a hundredal manor in the eleventhcentury, or it may have had a castle, monastery or greathouse in the Middle Ages or later. It may be possible toreconstruct the estates dependent on it if this was thecase. From an ecclesiastical point of view, we shouldask whether it had a minster or mother church ormerely a proprietary church or chapel of ease tosomewhere more important. The church, that moststudied but least understood of landscape features,often provides abundant clues to these landscaperelationships in its size, building periods and degree ofelaboration.

PARISH HISTORIES AND PARISHSURVEYS

Most of the research on the English landscape has beencarried out by people looking at individual parishes.Frequently, such research has been dull or of littleinterest to the landscape historian, as was mentioned inChapter 1. More recently, however, a number ofresearchers have made their parish studies morelandscape orientated and have attempted to explainwhat can be seen around them as well as the historybehind it. This movement began after the Second WorldWar, with groups of people under the direction ofVictor Skipp and others looking at areas aroundBirmingham in an attempt to explain the framework ofthe suburbs. I have no doubt that their research was notthe first, nor indeed the finest, but it is typical ofattempts, more common now in the mid 1980s, to tryto explain from documents and maps, and to a lesserextent from fieldwork, why a particular parish lookslike it does.

Parish surveys, however, developed specifically as atool of archaeologists. Faced with increasingdestruction and disturbance of known archaeologicalsites, and the realisation that there must be manymore features to be located, archaeologists set upprojects involving fieldwork and simple documentaryresearch. The results have been spectacular. Researchin Cornwall, where parish surveys really started underthe auspices of the Cornwall Archaeology Society, hasshown how many barrows and early settlementsremained to be located and catalogued even in thatwell-researched county. Around Bristol, the work ofthe Bristol and Avon Archaeological Research Grouphas proved almost as spectacular, and work is well inhand in other counties like Oxfordshire and Devon. Insome parts of the country the work has not onlyconcentrated on the location and recording offeatures—everything from prehistoric flint scatters to

pill boxes - but some attempt is also being made tohighlight landscape changes, with attention being paidto hedge patterns and areas of woodland. Some of therecent surveys from Somerset, such as those conductedin the parishes of Wambrook and Luxborough, showthis approach well.

A further development which deserves mention,because its potential for understanding developmentsin the landscape is so great, is that of researchconducted by farmers on their own land. The farmer’sintimate knowledge of his land, together with hisconstant attention to it and the fact that he can takedecisions about what to do with it (including whetherto excavate it archaeologically or not) mean thatpotentially, if he has an interest in field archaeology, agreat deal can be found out. The fact that decades, oreven generations, can be spent examining relativelysmall areas of land, rather than the short transientresearch projects carried out by most of us, means thatprobably all those data which can be retrieved andrecorded will be.

It is, of course, not known how much of this work isgoing on—and generally it has only emerged when aparticular farmer’s efforts have been combined withthose of an archaeologist; even less has, as yet, beenpublished. Yet several examples will suffice to showwhat can be achieved. Eddie Price’s work on Frocesterin Gloucestershire has already been mentioned (Fig.75). This has lasted for several decades and his sons arenow interested and involved as well. Some of hisresearch has already been mentioned, but sites of allperiods have been located, from early prehistory tomedieval times. In Norfolk the long researches of JohnOwles on Witton have recently been published byAndrew Lawson in a fine monograph. On CranborneChase, Richard Bradley of Reading University isworking with Martin Green, a local farmer, on areassessment of Pitt Rivers’ sites and new fieldwork inthe area. Not far away, Barry Cunliffe has for yearsbeen working with John Budden on the Chalton area ofHampshire. Of all the work discussed so far, this lastpiece of research has reached a point at which phases oflandscape development are now being suggested. BarryCunliffe has tried to show not only what the landscapemight have looked like around Chalton at the followingdates—7000–2500 BC, 2500–1000 BC, 1000–0 BC,AD 0–500, AD 500–1000, AD 1000–1500– but alsowhat changes have taken place in settlement form andsiting over this long period. His diagram shows notonly nucleated and dispersed settlements, but changesof site, desertions, shifts and. shrinkages over a 2000—year period (Fig. 49). This study is a model of what isneeded for all areas.

Two final points need to be emphasised in ourendeavours to study and understand the landscape.Firstly, it has been stressed all through this book thatwe need to, indeed we must, look at the landscape atany period as a complex working system which has


www.BingEbook.com


153

93 A settlement in its landscape. This diagram is a development of Figs, 1 and 51, and it attempts to show simply some of thecomplex relationships in the landscape which have been discussed in this book. Like Fig. 92, it should he regarded as a basis fordiscussion and further research rather than a definitive statement. It is not intended to apply to any particular period.

many interlinked aspects, each dependent on theothers, and all subject to change: the landscape is adynamic and evolving system like much else in nature. Ihave tried to isolate certain elements from this anddiscuss the ways in which they have altered, the factorsinfluencing the changes, and when and why suchdevelopments may have occurred. Much of this hasbeen patchy; there is a great deal we still do not knowand, conceptually, our approaches to how we study thelandscape are still developing.

94 A prehistoric craftsman and a medieval peasant. Peoplelike these laboured to create the landscape as we see it today.With all our attention to details we can easily forget theefforts of millions of ordinary people over thousands of years.(By permission of Nick Tweddle of Somerset County Museumand the President and Fellows of Corpus Christi College,Oxford)


www.BingEbook.com


154

Because of the complexity of the landscape, theelements within it, how it is changing, and the forces atwork within it, we need a model on which to base whatwe already know and to help us isolate areas ofignorance and to structure our future research. Fig. 93is offered as a first step: it attempts to show a settlementat any period from prehistory to the nineteenth centuryin relation to other settlements in the area, local anddistant land uses, the larger estate structure, local focalplaces and distant centres, and the communicationlinks between all of these. Something of potentialchange is indicated within it, but on the two-dimensional page this is difficult! If nothing else, such amodel can act as a check-list for any local study, so that,in accounting for each item in the diagram, attentioncan be drawn to items and features which at first sightdo not appear to be of significance.

Finally, there is man, or more correctly men, womenand children. It is all too easy to become so embroiledwith earthworks, air photographs, maps, documents,

potsherds, and hedges, that we lose sight of what it isall about. One criticism, sometimes valid, of thearchaeologist (and recently of the landscapearchaeologist) is that he has lost sight of the people inthe mass of data collected: I hope this is not true. I keepas my vision the late thirteenth-century peasant, sittingby his fire, drying his boots and cooking his supper (theactivity for February [!] from Corpus Christi College,Oxford, manuscript 285), and the prehistoric manbuilding the Sweet Track. They must speak for themillions like them, from prehistory right through to ourown time. It was their kind who not only dug theditches and constructed the buildings, but who forgenerations felled woodland, ploughed land andharvested crops. We must not lose sight of them and oftheir labours. Our studies must be of people in thelandscape, how they have lived, worked, died andworshipped over millennia. Unless we appreciate this,we are not looking at the real forces in the landscape,and our own relationship with it will be the poorer.

Introduction

The most important book on the general theme, though verymuch out of date in the early chapters, is still:W.G.HOSKINS The Making of the English Landscape

(Hodder and Stoughton, 1955 plus reprints)Other very relevant studies are:M.W.BERESFORD History on the Ground (Lutterworth,

London, 1957; reprinted Alan Sutton, Gloucester, 1984)MICHAEL ASTON and TREVOR ROWLEY Landscape

Archaeology— An Introduction to Fieldwork Techniqueson Post-Roman Landscapes (David and Charles, 1974).

ALAN BAKER and J.B.HARLEY (eds) Man Made the Land(David and Charles, 1973)

H.C.DARBY (ed) A New Historical Geography of EnglandBefore 1600/After 1600 (2 vols, Cambridge UniversityPress, 1973 and 1976)

W.G.HOSKINS Fieldwork in Local History (Faber and Faber,1967)

W.G.HOSKINS Local History in England (Longmans, 1959)RICHARD MUIR Shell Guide to Reading the Landscape

(Michael Joseph, 1981)There are also relevant chapters in:ALAN ROGERS (ed) Group Projects in Local History

(Dawson, Folkestone, 1977)ALAN ROGERS and TREVOR ROWLEY (eds) Landscapes

and Documents (Bedford Square Press, London, 1974)Important recent articles include:CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ‘The Making of the English

Landscape—25 years on’ The Local Historian Vol. 14 No.4 (1980)

MICHAEL ASTON ‘The Making of the English Landscape—the next 25 years’ The Local Historian Vol. 15 No. 6(1983)

The 1988 edition of W.G.Hoskins The Making of the EnglishLandscape (Hodder and Stoughton)

MICHAEL REED The Landscape of Britain (Routledge,1990)

TOM WILLIAMSON and LIZ BELLAMY Property andLandscape: a social history of land ownership and theEnglish countryside (George Philip, London, 1987)

S.R.J.WOODELL (ed) The English Landscape: Past, Present,and Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985)

1—How do we know what we know?

Good introductions to archaeology include:PETER FOWLER Approaches to Archaeology (A. & C.

Black, 1977)DAVID MILES An Introduction to Archaeology (Hyperion,

Ward Lock, London, 1978)KEVIN GREENE Archaeology: An Introduction (Batsford,

1983)General fieldwork is covered in:ERIC S.WOOD Collins Field Guide to Archaeology (Collins,

1963 and later editions)ORDNANCE SURVEY Field Archaeology (HMSO 1963 and

later editions)W.G.HOSKINS Fieldwork in Local History (Faber and Faber,

1967)CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Fieldwork in Medieval

Archaeology (Batsford, 1974)

Bibliography and references


www.BingEbook.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

155

MICHAEL ASTON and TREVOR ROWLEY LandscapeArchaeology: An Introduction to Fieldwork Techniqueson Post-Roman Landscapes (David and Charles, 1974)

More specifically:JOHN M.STEANE and BRIAN F.DIX Peopling Past

Landscapes—A Handbook Introducing ArchaeologicalFieldwork Techniques in Rural Areas (CBA1978)

P.J.FASHAM, R.T. SCHADLA-HALL, S.J.SHENNAN andP.J.BATES Fieldwalking for Archaeologists (HampshireField Club and Archaeological Society 1980)

GLENN FOARD ‘Systematic Fieldwalking and theInvestigation of Saxon Settlement in Northamptonshire’World Archaeology Vol. 9 No. 3 (1978) pp. 357–374

For air photographs and aerial photography see:D.R.WILSON (ed) Aerial Reconnaissance for Archaeology

CBA Research Report No. 12 (1975)G.S.MAXWELL (ed) The Impact of Aerial Reconnaissance

on Archaeology CBA Research Report No. 49 (1983)D.R.WILSON Air Photo Interpretation for Archaeologists

(Batsford, 1982)M.W.BERESFORD and J.K. ST JOSEPH Medieval England:

An Aerial Survey (Cambridge University Press, 1979)S.S.FRERE and J.K.ST JOSEPH Roman Britain From The Air

(Cambridge University Press, 1983)RICHARD MUIR History From the Air (Michael Joseph,

1983)COLIN PLATT Medieval Britain From the Air (Guild

Publishing, London, 1984)For maps see:J.B.HARLEY Maps for the Local Historian—A Guide to the

British Sources (Standing Conference for Local History,1972)

J.B.HARLEY and C.W.PHILLIPS The Historians Guide toOrdnance Survey Maps (Standing Conference for LocalHistory, 1964)

H.P.R.FINBERG and V.H.T.SKIPP Local History: Objectivesand Pursuit (David and Charles, 1967)

W.G.HOSKINS Local History in England (Longman 1959)ALAN ROGERS (ed) Group Projects in Local History

(Dawson, Folkestone, 1977)JOHN WEST Village Records (Macmillan, 1962)W.B.STEPHENS Sources for English Local History

(Cambridge University Press, 1973)ALAN ROGERS (ed) Approaches to Local History

(Longman, 2nd edition, 1977)R.W.DUNNING Local History for Beginners (Phillimore

Chichester, 1980)PHILIP RIDEN Local History: A Handbook for Beginners

(Batsford, 1983)Recent important research on place names is contained in

county volumes published by the English Place NamesSociety. See also:

MARGARET GELLING Signposts to the Past: Place Namesand the History of England (Dent, 1978)

MARGARET GELLING Place Names in the Landscape(Dent, 1984)

ClimateANTHONY HARDING Climatic Change in Later Prehistory

(Edinburgh University Press, 1982)M.L.PARRY Climatic Change, Agriculture and Settlement

(Dawson, Folkestone, 1978)C.D.SMITH and MARTIN PARRY (eds) Consequences of

Climatic Change (Dept. of Geography, University ofNottingham, 1981).

Environment

JOHN G.EVANS The Environment of Early Man in theBritish Isles (Elek, 1975)

IAN SIMMONS and MICHAEL TOOLEY (eds) TheEnvironment in British Prehistory (Duckworth, 1981)

MARTIN JONES and GEOFFREY DIMBLEBY (eds) TheEnvironment of Man: The Iron Age to the Anglo-SaxonPeriod British Archaeological Reports, British Series 87(Oxford, 1981)

J.G.EVANS, SUSAN LIMBREY and HENRY CLEERE TheEffect of Man on The Landscape: The Highland ZoneCBA Research Report No. 11 (London, 1975)

SUSAN LIMBREY and J.G.EVANS (eds) The Effect of Manon the Landscape: The Lowland Zone CBA ResearchReport No. 21 (London, 1978)

G.W.DIMBLEBY The Development of British Heathlandsand Their Soils Oxford Forestry Memoirs No. 23(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1962)

WINIFRED PENNINGTON The History of BritishVegetation (English University Press, London, 1974)

SIR HARRY GODWIN History of the British Flora: AFactual Basis for Phytogeography (Cambridge UniversityPress, 2nd edition, 1975)

D.WALKER and R.G.WEST (eds) Studies in the VegetationalHistory of the British Isles (Cambridge University Press,1970)

OLIVER RACKHAM Trees and Woodland in the BritishLandscape (Dent, 1976)

OLIVER RACKHAM Ancient Woodland: its History,Vegetation and Uses in England (Edward Arnold, 1980)

TIMOTHY DARVILL Prehistoric Britain (Batsford, London1987)

MARTIN JONES England before Domesday (Batsford, 1986)IAN LONGWORTH and JOHN CHERRY (eds) Archaeology

in Britain since 1945 (British Museum, London, 1986)ANTHONY BROWN Fieldwork for Archaeologists and

Local Historians (Batsford, London, 1987)COLIN HASELGROVE, MARTIN MILLETT and IAN

SMITH (eds) Archaeology from the Ploughsoil: studies inthe collection and interpretation of field survey data(University of Sheffield, 1985)

A.J.SCHOFIELD (ed) Interpreting Artefact Scatters:contributions to ploughzone archaeology (Oxbowmonograph 4, Oxford, 1991)

DEREK RENN Norman Castles in Britain (John Baker,London, 1973)

RICHARD HOLT The Mills of Medieval England (BasilBlackwell, Oxford, 1988)

R.A.ADKINS and M.R.PETCHEY ‘Secklow Mound andother meeting place mounds in England’ ArchaeologicalJournal 141 1984 pp. 243–251

MICHAEL ASTON (ed) Medieval Fish, Fisheries andFishponds inEngland BAR British Series 182 1988

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR The Archaeology of Gardens(Shire Archaeology, Princes Risborough, 1983)

A.E.BROWN (ed) Garden Archaeology Council for BritishArchaeology Research Report 78 1991

PHILIP RIDEN Local History: A Handbook for Beginners(Batsford, London, reprinted 1992)

PHILIP RIDEN Record Sources for Local History (Batsford,London 1987)

STEPHEN FRIAR The Batsford Companion to Local History(Batsford, London 1991)

MARGARET GELLING ‘Towards a Chronology for EnglishPlace-Names’ in Della Hooke (ed) Anglo-SaxonSettlements (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1988) pp. 59–76


www.BingEbook.com


156

MICHAEL COSTEN The Origins of Somerset (ManchesterUniversity Press, 1992)

2—Early landscapes

General books on prehistory:RICHARD BRADLEY The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain

(Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978)COLIN RENFREW (ed) British Prehistory: A New Outline

(Duckworth, 1974)COLIN RENFREW Before Civilization: the Radio Carbon

Revolution and Prehistoric Europe (Penguin, 1973)J.V.S.MEGAW and D.D.A.SIMPSON (eds) Introduction to

British Prehistory (Leicester University Press, 1979)For the environment see:IAN SIMMONS and MICHAEL TOOLEY The Environment

in British Prehistory (Duckworth, 1981)For the earliest periods:J.GRAHAM and D.CLARKE Star Carr: a Case Study in Bio-

archaeology (Addison-Wesley Modular Publications,1972)

CHRISTOPHER NORMAN ‘Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers9000–4000 BC’ in M.Aston and I.Burrow (eds) TheArchaeology of Somerset (Somerset County Council,Taunton, 1982)

ROGER JACOBI ‘Ice Age Cave Dwellers 12000–9000 BC’ inM. Aston and I.Burrow (eds) The Archaeology ofSomerset (Somerset County Council, Taunton, 1982)

R.M.JACOBI ‘The Environment of Man at Cheddar 11–10000 Years Ago’ in Somerset Archaeology and NaturalHistory Vol. 126 (1982)

JOAN TAYLOR and REBECCA SMART ‘An Investigation ofSurface Concentrations: Priddy 1977’ in Bristol and AvonArchaeology Vol. 2 (1983)

PAUL MELLARS ‘Ungulate Populations, Economic Patterns,and the Mesolithic Landscape’ in J.G.Evans, SusanLimbrey and Henry Cleere (1975)

R.M.JACOBI ‘Population and Landscape in MesolithicLowland Britain’ in S.Limbrey and J.G.Evans (eds) (1978)

For axes see:SONIA COLE The Neolithic Revolution (British Museum—

Natural History, 1963)T.H.MCKCLOUGH and W.A.CUMMINS Stone Axe Studies

CBA Research Report No. 23 (London, 1979)For soil changes see:SUSAN LIMBREY Soil Science and Archaeology (Academic

Press, London, 1975)JOHN EVANS The Environment of Early Man in the British

Isles (Elek, London, 1975)G.W.DIMBLEBY The Development of British Heathlands

and Their Soils Oxford Forestry Memoirs No. 23(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1962)

MARTIN BELL ‘Valley Sediments and EnvironmentalChange’ in M.Jones and G.Dimbleby (eds) (1981)

MARTIN BELL ‘Valley Sediments as Evidence of PrehistoricLand Use on the South Downs’ in Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society Vol. 49 (1983) pp. 119–50

For territories see:G.BARKER and G.WEBLEY ‘Causewayed Camps and Early

Neolithic Economies in Central Southern England’ inProceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol. 44 (1978) pp.161–86

R.MERCER Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic Landscape(Edinburgh University Press, 1980)

D.A.SPRATT ‘Prehistoric Boundaries on the North YorkshireMoors’ in Graeme Barker (ed) Prehistoric Communities inNorthern England: Essays in Economic and SocialReconstruction (University of Sheffield, 1981)

For models see:D.L.CLARKE (ed) Models In Archaeology (Methuen, 1972)RICHARD CHORLEY and PETER HAGGETT Socio-

Economic Models in Geography (Parts I and III of Modelsin Geography) (Methuen, 1968)

For the Somerset Levels see:J.M.COLES and B.J.ORME Prehistory of the Somerset Levels

Somerset Levels Project (1980) and Somerset LevelsPapers 1–10 (1975–1984, continuing)

For Dartmoor see:VALERIE MAXFIELD (ed) Prehistoric Dartmoor in its

Context (Devon Archaeological Society, 1979)ANDREW FLEMING ‘The Prehistoric Landscape of

Dartmoor Part 1 South Dartmoor’ in Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 44 (1978) pp. 97–123

ANDREW FLEMING ‘The Prehistoric Landscape ofDartmoor Part 2 North and East Dartmoor’ inProceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49 (1983) pp. 195–241

ANDREW FLEMING ‘The Dartmoor Reaves: BoundaryPatterns and Behaviour Patterns in the Second MillenniumBC’ in Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society37 (1979) pp. 115–30

G.J.WAINWRIGHT and K.SMITH ‘The South DartmoorProject 1976–79’ in V.Maxfield (ed) (1979)

For early land allotment see:H.C.BOWEN and P.J.FOWLER (eds) Early Land Allotment

British Archaeological Reports 48 (1978)D.N.RILEY Early Landscape from the Air: Studies of Crop

Marks in South Yorkshire and North Nottinghamshire(University of Sheffield, 1980)

For river valleys and cropmarks see:GRAHAM WEBSTER and BRIAN HOBLEY ‘Aerial

Reconnaissance over the Warwickshire Avon’Archaeological Journal 121 (1964)

also Avon Severn Valleys Research Project Annual Reports 1(1963) to 5 (1968) Council for British ArchaeologyRegional Group 8

ALAN HUNT ‘Archaeology in the Avon and Severn Valleys—aReview’ West Midlands Archaeology No. 25 (1982)

For the Thames Valley see:DON BENSON and DAVID MILES The Upper Thames

Valley: An Archaeological Survey of the River Gravels(Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit, 1974)

TIMOTHY GATES The Middle Thames Valley: AnArchaeological Survey of the River Gravels (BerkshireArchaeological Committee, 1975)

ROGER LEECH The Upper Thames Valley inGloucestershire and Wiltshire: An Archaeological Surveyof the River Gravels (Committee for Rescue Archaeologyin Avon, Gloucestershire, and Somerset, Bristol, 1977)

For the Iron Age see:PETER FOWLER The Farming of Prehistoric Britain

(Cambridge University Press, 1983)ROGER MERCER (ed) Farming Practice in British

Prehistory (Edinburgh University Press, 1981)BARRY CUNLIFFE and TREVOR ROWLEY (eds) Lowland

Iron Age Communities in Europe British ArchaeologicalReports International Series (Supplementary) 48 (Oxford,1978)


www.BingEbook.com


157

BARRY CUNLIFFE Iron Age Communities (Longman, 1974)For Roman landscapes see:DAVID MILES (ed) The Romano-British Countryside—

Studies in Rural Settlement and Economy BritishArchaeological Reports 103 (Oxford, 1982)

PETER CLACK and SUSANNE HASELGROVE (eds) RuralSettlement in the Roman North CBA Group 3 (DurhamUniversity, 1982)

S.S.FRERE and J.K.S. ST JOSEPH Roman Britain from theAir (Cambridge University Press, 1983)

SARAH WOOL Fundus and Manerium: a Study ofContinuity and Survival in Gloucestershire from Romanto Medieval Times unpublished PhD Thesis (BristolUniversity, 1982)

ANN ELLISON and JOHN HARRISS ‘Settlement and LandUse in the Prehistory and Early History of SouthernEngland: a Study Based on Locational Models’ inD.L.Clarke (ed) Models in Archaeology (Methuen, 1972)pp. 911–62

C.W.PHILLIPS (ed) The Fenland in Roman Times RoyalGeographical Society Research Series 5 (1970)

For a general account of settlement development all throughthe prehistoric period (and beyond) see:

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Village and Farmstead: A Historyof Rural Settlement in England (George Philip, 1983)

BRYONY and JOHN COLES Sweet Track to Glastonbury(Thames and Hudson, London, 1986)

BRYONY and JOHN COLES People of the Wetlands(Thames and Hudson, London, 1989)

ANDREW FLEMING The Dartmoor Reaves (Batsford,1988)

KEVIN GREENE The Archaeology of the Roman Economy(Batsford, 1986)

JULIAN RICHARDS Stonehenge (Batsford, 1991)FRANCIS PRYOR Flag Fen (Batsford, 1991)

3—Estates and boundaries

H.P.R.FINBERG Roman and Saxon Withington: A Study inContinuity Leicester University, Department of EnglishLocal History Occasional Paper No. 8 (1955)

P.H.SAWYER From Roman Britain to Norman England(Methuen, 1978)

JUNE A.SHEPPARD ‘The Origin and Evolution of Field andSettlement Patterns in the Herefordshire Manor ofMarden’ Department of Geography, Queen Mary College,University of London, Occasional Papers No. 15 (1979)

GLANVILLE JONES ‘Settlement Patterns in Anglo-SaxonEngland’ Antiquity XXXV (1961). This article discussesthe basic idea of caputs and then relates them particularlyto earlier hillforts as well as the possibility of earlierorigins. There is frequent reference to the early Welsharrangements.

GLANVILLE JONES ‘Early Territorial Organization inEngland and Wales’ Geografiska Annaler XLIII (1961).This article discusses continuity and the arrangements in‘Celtic’ society and there is much discussion on the make-up of the multiple estate. Examples from Wales andYorkshire are cited, together with a discussion of placenames.

GLANVILLE JONES ‘Basic Patterns of SettlementDistribution in Northern England’ Advancement ofScience Vol. 18 No. 72 (1961). Based on the north, andespecially Yorkshire, this article seeks to show greatcontinuity and inequality in society from prehistoric tomedieval times. It discusses place names and

characteristics of the multiple estates. There are manyYorkshire examples.

GLANVILLE JONES ‘Multiple Estates and Early Settlement’inP. H.Sawyer (ed) English Medieval Settlement (EdwardArnold, London, 1979). This article discusses the Book ofIorwerth and its theoretical estate organisation for Walesin the thirteenth century, together with the examples ofAberffraw in Anglesey, Malling in Sussex and Burghshirein Yorkshire. There is much about the functioning of amultiple estate.

R.W.DUNNING ‘The Origins of Nether Stowey’ SomersetArchaeology and Natural History 125 (1981) pp. 124–6

B.K.DAVISON ‘Castle Neroche: An Abandoned NormanFortress in South Somerset’ Somerset Archaeology andNatural History 116 (1972) pp. 16–58

C.J.BOND ‘The Estates of Evesham Abbey: A PreliminarySurvey of Their Medieval Topography’ Vale of EveshamHistorical Society Research Papers Vol. IV (1973) pp. 1–61

C.J.BOND ‘The Reconstruction of the Medieval Landscape:The Estates of Abingdon Abbey’ Landscape History(1979) pp. 59–75

SUSANNA WADE-MARTINS A Great Estate at Work: TheHolkham Estate and its Inhabitants in the NineteenthCentury (Cambridge University Press, 1980)

See also the important but difficult essay by CHARLESPHYTHIAN-ADAMS ‘Continuity, Fields and Fission: TheMaking of a Midland Parish’ (Claybrooke inLeicestershire) Leicester University, Department of EnglishLocal History Occasional Papers 3rd Series No. 4 (1978)

For Anglo-Saxon charters see:P.H.SAWYER Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and

Bibliography Royal Historical Society Guides andHandbooks No. 8 (1968)

Regional volumes:H.P.R.FINBERG ‘The Early Charters of Devon and Cornwall’

Leicester University, Department of English Local HistoryOccasional Papers No. 2 (1953)

C.R.HART The Early Charters of Northern England and theNorth Midlands (Leicester University Press, 1975)

CYRIL HART ‘The Early Charters of Essex: The SaxonPeriod’ and ‘The Early Charters of Essex: The NormanPeriod’ Leicester University Department of English LocalHistory Occasional Papers Nos. 10 & 11 (both 1957)

H.P.R.FINBERG The Early Charters of Wessex (LeicesterUniversity Press, 1964)

C.R.HART The Early Charters of Eastern England (LeicesterUniversity Press, 1966)

H.P.R.FINBERG The Early Charters of the West Midlands(Leicester University Press, 1961)

See also English Place Names Society volumes for particularcounties, and:

M.GELLING Signposts to the Past (Dent, 1978)—especiallyChapter 8, Boundaries and Meeting Places.

M.GELLING Place Names in the Landscape (Dent, 1984)D.BONNEY ‘Early Boundaries in Wessex’ in P.J.Fowler (ed)

Archaeology and the Landscape (John Baker, London,1972)

D.BONNEY ‘Early Boundaries and Estates in SouthernEngland’ in P.H.Sawyer (ed) English Medieval Settlement(Edward Arnold, 1979)

For origins of parishes, i.e. ecclesiastical land units, see:G.W.O.ADDLESHAW The Beginnings of the Parochial

System University of York, Borthwick Institute ofHistorical Research, St Anthony’s Hall No. 3 (1953)

G.W.O.ADDLESHAW The Development of the ParochialSystem from Charlemagne (768–814) to Urban II (1088–


www.BingEbook.com


158

1099) University of York, Borthwick Institute ofHistorical Research, St Anthony’s Hall No. 6 (1954)

F.G.ALDSWORTH ‘Parish Bounds on Record’ The LocalHistorian Vol. 15 No. 1 (1982)

N.GREGSON ‘The multiple estate model: some criticalquestions’ Journal of Historical Geography 11 1985 pp.339–51

DELLA HOOKE ‘Early Medieval Estate and SettlementPatterns: The Documentary Evidence’ in Michael Aston,David Austin and Christopher Dyer (eds) The RuralSettlements of Medieval England (Basil Blackwell, Oxford1989) pp. 9–30

ANN GOODIER ‘The Formation of Boundaries in Anglo-SaxonEngland: A Statistical Study’ Medieval Archaeology28 1984 pp. 1–21

FREDERIC A.YOUNGS JR Guide to the LocalAdministrative Units of England 1—Southern EnglandRoyal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 10 1980

RICHARD MORRIS Churches in the Landscape (Dent,London 1989)

JOHN BLAIR (ed) Minsters and Parish Churches: the LocalChurch in Transition 960–1200 Oxford UniversityCommittee for Archaeology Monograph 17 1988

4—Status in the landscape

For geographical work see:J.A.EVERSON and B.P.FITZGERALD Settlement Patterns

(Longman, 1969)M.G.BRADFORD and W.A.KENT Human Geography

Theories and Their Applications (Oxford University Press,1977)

RICHARD J.CHORLEY and PETER HAGGET (eds) Socio-Economic Models in Geography (Methuen, 1967)

MICHAEL CHISHOLM Rural Settlement and Land Use 3rdedition (Hutchinson, 1979)

For focal places see:M.ASTON ‘Post-Roman Central Places in Somerset’ in E.

Grant (ed) Archaeology and the Concept of Centrality(1985)

For earlier sites see:BARRY CUNLIFFE and TREVOR ROWLEY (eds) Oppida:

The Beginnings of Urbanism in Barbarian Europe BritishArchaeological Reports Supplementary Series 11 (Oxford,1976)

R.BRADLEY and A.ELLISON Ramshill: A Bronze AgeDefended Enclosure and its Landscape BritishArchaeological Reports 19 (Oxford, 1975)

IAN BURROW Hillforts and Hill-top Settlement in Somersetin the First to Eighth Centuries AD British ArchaeologicalReports British Series 91 (Oxford, 1981)

PHILIP RAHTZ The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at CheddarBritish Archaeological Reports British Series 65 (Oxford,1979)

BRIAN HOPE TAYLOR Yeavering: An Anglo-British Centreof Early Northumbria (HMSO, London, 1977)

DEREK RENN Norman Castles in Britain (John Baker,London, 1968)

DAVID KNOWLES and R.NEVILLE HADCOCK MedievalReligious Houses: England and Wales (Longman, 1971)

SUSANNA WADE-MARTINS A Great Estate at Work: TheHolkham Estate and its Inhabitants in the NineteenthCentury (Cambridge University Press, 1980)

BRIAN K.DAVISON ‘Castle Neroche: An AbandonedNorman Fortress in South Somerset’ SomersetArchaeology and Natural History 116 (1972) pp. 16–58

For monastic estatesC.JAMES BOND The Estates of Evesham Abbey: A

Preliminary Survey of Their Medieval Topography’ Vale ofEvesham Historical Society Research Papers Vol. IV(1973) pp. 1–61

C.JAMES BOND ‘The Reconstruction of the MedievalLandscape: The Estates of Abingdon Abbey’ LandscapeHistory (1979) pp. 59–75

JOHN BLAIR ‘The Surrey Endowments of Lewes PrioryBefore 1200’ Surrey Archaeological Collections Vol.LXXII (1980) pp. 97–126

MARJORIE MORGAN The English Lands of the Abbey ofBec (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1946)

R.A.DONKIN The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography ofMedieval England and Wales (Pontifical Institute ofMedieval Studies, Toronto, 1978)

F.M.PAGE The Estates of Crowland Abbey: A Study inManorial Organisation (Cambridge University Press,1934)

SANDRA RABAN The Estates of Thorney and Crowland: AStudy in Medieval Monastic Land Tenure University ofCambridge, Department of Land Economy OccasionalPapers No. 7 (1977)

S.F.HOCKEY Quarr Abbey and its Lands 1132–1631(Leicester University Press, 1970)

BARBARA HARVEY Westminster Abbey and its Estates inthe Middle Ages (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977)

CHRISTOPHER DYER Lords and Peasants in a ChangingSociety: The Estates of the Bishopric of Worcester 680–1540 (Cambridge University Press, 1980)

For hundreds see:H.M.CAM The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls (Methuen,

1930)O.S.ANDERSON The English Hundred Names (Lund, 1934)O.S.ANDERSON The English Hundred Names; The

Southwestern Counties (Lund and Leipzig, 1939)For exchange see:T.K.EARLE and J.E.ERICSON Exchange Systems in

Prehistory (Academic Press, 1977)RICHARD HODGES Dark Age Economics: The Origins of

Towns and Trade AD 600–1000 (Duckworth, 1982)R.H.BRITNELL ‘English Markets and Royal Administration

Before 1200’ Economic History Review 2nd series Vol. 21No. 2 (1978)

R.H.BRITNELL The Proliferation of Markets in England1200–1349’ Economic History Review 2nd series Vol. 34No. 2 (1981)

Also, markets in various counties are discussed in:B.E.COATES ‘The Origin and Distribution of Markets and

Fairs in Medieval Derbyshire’ DerbyshireArchaeologicalJournal 85 (1965) pp. 95–111

G.H.TUPLING ‘The Origin of Markets and Fairs in MedievalLancashire’ Transactions of Lancashire and CheshireAntiquarian Society 49 (1933) pp. 75–94

J.H.HAMER ‘Trading at St White Down Fair 1637–1649’Somerset Archaeology and Natural History 112(1968) pp. 61–70

A particularly useful study for showing exchange systems inthe Middle Ages is:

STEPHEN MOORHOUSE ‘Documentary Evidence and itsPotential for Understanding the Inland Movement ofMedieval Pottery’ Medieval Ceramics Vol. 7 (1983) pp.45–87

For ecclesiastical aspects see:H.M. and J.TAYLOR Anglo-Saxon Architecture Vols. 1–3

(Cambridge University Press, 1965–1978)


www.BingEbook.com


159

MARGARET DEANSLEY The Pre-Conquest Church inEngland (A. & C. Black, 1961)

DELLA HOOKE Anglo-Saxon Landscapes of the WestMidlands: the Charter Evidence British ArchaeologicalReports British Series 95 (Oxford, 1981)

COLIN PLATT The Parish Churches of Medieval England(Secker and Warburg, 1981)

M.ASTON ‘Post-Roman Central Places in Somerset’ inE.Grant (ed) (1985)

M.D.ANDERSON History and Imagery in British Churches(John Murray, 1971)

RICHARD MORRIS The Church in British ArchaeologyCouncil for British Archaeology Research Report No. 47(1983)

PETER ADDYMAN and RICHARD MORRIS TheArchaeological Study of Churches Council for BritishArchaeology Research Report No. 13 (1976)

J.H.BETTEY Church & Community: The Parish Church inEnglish Life (Moonraker, Bradford on Avon, 1979)

W.RODWELL The Archaeology of the English Church(Batsford, 1981)

ERIC GRANT (ed) Central Places, Archaeology and History(University of Sheffield 1986) especially M.Aston ‘Post-Roman Central Places in Somerset’ pp. 49–77

T.UNWIN ‘The Norman aggregation of estates and settlementin eleventh-century Nottinghamshire’ Landscape History9 1987 pp. 53–64

R.A.ADKINS and M.R.PETCHEY ‘Secklow Hundred moundand other meeting place mounds in England’Archaeological Journal 141 1984 pp. 243–251

JOHN BLAIR (ed) Minsters and Parish Churches: The LocalChurch in Transition 950–1200 Oxford UniversityCommittee for Archaeology Monograph 17 1988

J.H.BETTEY Church and Parish: A Guide for LocalHistorians (Batsford, London 1987)

P.WARNER ‘Shared churchyards, freemen church buildersand the development of parishes in eleventh-century EastAnglia’ Landscape History 8 1986 pp. 39–52

5—Deserted villages and after

M.W.BERESFORD The Lost Villages of England(Luttermouth, London, 1954, reprint Alan Sutton,Gloucester, 1983)

W.G.HOSKINS ‘Seven Deserted Village Sites inLeicestershire’ Transactions of the LeicestershireArchaeological Society XXII (1944–45) pp. 241–64

M.W.BERESFORD ‘The Deserted Villages of Warwickshire’Transactions of the Birmingham Archaeological SocietyLXVI for 1945 (1950) pp. 49–106

Recent research includes:C.C.TAYLOR Village and Farmstead: A History of Rural

Settlement in England (George Philip, 1983)R.MUIR The Lost Villages of Britain (1982)R.T.ROWLEY and J.WOOD Deserted Villages (Shire

Archaeology, Aylesbury, 1982)K.J.ALLISON, M.W.BERESFORD and J.G.HURST ‘The

Deserted Villages of Oxfordshire’ Leicester University,Department of English Local History Occasional PapersXVII (1965) pp. 1–47

K.J.ALLISON, M.W.BERESFORD and J.G.HURST ‘TheDeserted Villages of Northamptonshire’ LeicesterUniversity, Department of English Local HistoryOccasional Papers XVIII (1966) pp. 1–48

C.C.DYER ‘Deserted Medieval Villages in the WestMidlands’ Economic History Review 2nd series Vol.XXXV No. 1 (Feb 1982)

For Cistercian desertions see:R.A.DONKIN The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography of

Medieval England and Wales (Pontifical Institute ofMedieval Studies, Toronto, 1978)

For finding deserted villages see:M.ASTON and R.T.ROWLEY Landscape Archaeology: An

Introduction to Fieldwork Techniques on Post-RomanLandscapes (David and Charles, 1974)

C.TAYLOR Fieldwork in Medieval Archaeology (Batsford,1974)

Case studies: M.ASTON ‘Gardens and Earthworks at Hardington and Low

Ham, Somerset’ Somerset Archaeology and NaturalHistory 122 (1978) pp. 11–28

H.THORPE ‘The Lord and the Landscape, IllustratedThrough the Changing Fortunes of a Warwickshire Parish,Wormleighton’ Transactions of the Birmingham andWarwickshire Archaeological Society 80 (1965) pp. 38–77

M.ASTON ‘Deserted Settlements in Mudford Parish, Yeovil’Somerset Archaeology and Natural History Vol. 121(1977) pp. 41–53

C.J.BOND ‘Deserted Medieval Villages in Warwickshire andWorcestershire’ in T.R.Slater and P.J.Jarvis (eds) Field andForest: An Historical Geography of Warwickshire andWorcestershire (Geo Books, Norwich, 1982)

Wharram Percy: JOHN HURST (general editor) Wharram: A Study of

Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds Vol. 1 (1979) Societyfor Medieval Archaeology Monograph No. 8

M.W.BERESFORD and J.G.HURST ‘Wharram Percy: A CaseStudy in Microtopography’ in P.H.Sawyer (ed) MedievalEnglish Settlement (Edward Arnold, 1979). This accountcan now be seen to be wrong in parts.

The most up-to-date accounts are:J.G.HURST ‘The topography of Warram Percy Village’ in B.

K.Roberts and R.E.Glasscock Villages, Fields andFrontiers British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 185 Oxford 1983)

J.G.HURST ‘The Wharram Research Project Results to 1983’Medieval Archaeology XXVIII (1984) pp. 77–111

Understanding of the site increases, however, year by year.Saxon settlements:S.E.WEST ‘The Anglo-Saxon Village of West Stow: An

Interim Report of the Excavations 1965–68’ MedievalArchaeology XIII (1969) pp. 1–20

P.V.ADDYMAN and D.LEIGH ‘The Anglo-Saxon Village atChalton, Hampshire: Second Interim Report’ MedievalArchaeology XVII (1973) pp. 1–25

MARTIN MILLETT with SIMON JAMES ‘Excavations atCowdery’s Down, Basingstoke, Hampshire 1978–81’ TheArchaeological Journal 140 (1983) pp. 151–279

S.LOSCO-BRADLEY and H.M.WHEELER ‘Anglo-SaxonSettlement in the Trent Valley: Some Aspects’ in MargaretFaull (ed) Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement (OxfordUniversity Department for External Studies, Oxford,1984)

See also:P.J.FOWLER ‘Agriculture and Rural Settlement’ pp. 23–48


www.BingEbook.com


160

P.A.RAHTZ ‘Buildings and Rural Settlement’ pp. 49–98; bothin D.Wilson (ed) The Archaeology of Anglo-SaxonEngland (Cambridge University Press, 1976)

For Raunds see:G.E.CADMAN ‘Raunds 1977–1983: An Excavation

Summary’ Medieval Archaeology XXVII (1983) pp. 107–22

GRAHAM CADMAN and GLEN FOARD ‘Raunds:Manorial and Village Origins’ in Margaret Faull (ed)(1984)

B.E.VYNER (ed) Medieval Rural Settlement in North-EastEngland Architectural and Archaeological Society ofDurham and Northumberland Research Report 2 1990

MAURICE BERESFORD and JOHN HURST WharramPercy: Deserted Medieval Village (Batsford, London1990)

R.D.BELL and M.W.BERESFORD and others WharramPercy: the Church of St Martin Vol. 3 of J.G.Hurst andP.A.Rahtz (eds) Wharram: A Study of Settlement on theYorkshire Wolds Society for Medieval Archaeology Mon.11 1987

STUART WRATHMELL Domestic Settlement 2: MedievalPeasant Farmsteads Vol. 6 of Wharram York UniversityArchaeology Publications 8 1989

D.WINDELL, A.CHAPMAN and J.WOODIWISS FromBarrows to Bypass: Excavations at West Cotton, Raunds,Northamptonshire, 1985–1989 NorthamptonshireCounty Council 1990

DELLA HOOKE (ed) Anglo-Saxon Settlements (BasilBlackwell, Oxford 1988)

G.BERESFORD Goltho: The development of an earlymedieval manor c.850–1150 English Heritage Arch. Rep.4 1987

6—Surviving villages

For all settlement studies, the following are useful:C.TAYLOR Village and Farmstead: A History of Rural

Settlement in England (George Philip, 1983)B.K.ROBERTS Rural Settlement in Britain (Dawson,

Folkestone, 1977)TREVOR ROWLEY Villages in the Landscape (Dent, 1978)M.W.BERESFORD New Towns of the Middle Ages: Town

Plantation in England, Wales and Gascony (Lutterworth,London, 1967)

M.R.G.CONZEN ‘Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study inTown-Plan Analysis’ Institute of British Geographers No.27 (1960)

M.R.G.CONZEN ‘The Use of Town Plans in the Study ofUrban History’ in H.J.Dyos (ed) The Study of UrbanHistory (Edward Arnold, 1968)

For detailed village and village planning studies:JUNE SHEPPARD ‘Pre-enclosure Field and Settlement

Patterns in an English Township—Wheldrake, near York’Geografiska Annaler 48 (1966) pp. 59–77

PAMELA ALLERSTON ‘English Village Development:Findings from the Pickering District of North Yorkshire’Institute of British Geographers Transactions 51 (1970)pp. 95–109

BRIAN ROBERTS ‘The Regulated Village in NorthernEngland: Some Problems and Questions’ GeographicaPolonica 38 (1978) pp. 245–52

BRIAN ROBERTS ‘The Anatomy of the Village: Observationand Extrapolation’ Landscape History Vol. 4 (1982) pp.11–20

BRIAN ROBERTS ‘The Study of Village Plans’ LocalHistorian Vol. 9 No. 5 (Feb 1971) pp. 233–41

BRIAN ROBERTS The Green Villages of County Durham: AStudy in Historical Geography Durham County LibraryLocal History Publication No. 12 (1977)

JUNE SHEPPARD ‘Metrological Analysis of Regular VillagePlans In Yorkshire’ Agricultural History Review 22 (1974)pp. 118–35

JUNE SHEPPARD ‘Medieval Village Planning in NorthernEngland: Some Evidence from Yorkshire’ Journal ofHistorical Geography 2 (1976) pp. 3–20

M.W.BERESFORD and J.HURST Deserted Medieval Villages(Lutterworth, London, 1971)

BRIAN ROBERTS Village Plans Shire Archaeology Aylesbury27 (1982)

C.TAYLOR ‘Polyfocal Settlement and the English Village’Medieval Archaeology XXI (1977) pp. 189–93

J.RAVENSDALE Liable to Floods: Village Landscape on theEdge of the Fens AD 450–1850 (Cambridge UniversityPress, 1974) especially ‘Village Patterns’, pp. 121–50

CECILY HOWELL Land, Family and Inheritance inTransition: Kibworth Harcourt 1280–1700 (CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983) especially Chapter 7, ‘VillageMorphology and Buildings’

J.E.B.COVER, ALLEN MAWER and F.M.STENTON ThePlace Names of Wiltshire English Place Name Society Vol.XVI (1939, reprinted 1970)

PETER WADE-MARTINS ‘The Origins of Rural Settlementin East Anglia’ in P.J.Fowler (ed) Recent Work in RuralArchaeology (Moonraker, Bradford on Avon, 1975)

PETER WADE-MARTINS ‘Fieldwork and Excavation onVillage Sites in Launditch Hundred, Norfolk’ East AnglianArchaeology 10 (1980)

The most recent study with current ideas is:DELLA HOOKE (ed) Medieval Villages: A Review of Current

Work (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,1985)

B.K.ROBERTS The Making of the English Village: A study inHistorical Geography (Longman, Harlow 1987)

D.AUSTIN The Deserted Medieval Village of Thrislington,County Durham: Excavations 1973–1974 Society forMedieval Archaeology Monograph 12 1989

M.ASTON ‘Settlement Patterns and Forms’ in M.Aston (ed)Aspects of the Medieval Landscape of Somerset (SomersetCounty Council, Taunton, 1988) pp. 67–81

M.ASTON ‘The development of medieval rural settlement inSomerset’ in R.Higham (ed) Landscape and Townscape inthe South West Exeter Studies in History 22 University ofExeter 1989 pp. 19–40

7—Farms and hamlets

For the general background, see especially:C.TAYLOR Village and Farmstead (George Philip, 1983)

Chapter 10B.K.ROBERTS Rural Settlement in Britain (Dawson,

Folkestone, 1977) Chapter 6For place names see:JOHN MCNEAL DODGSHON ‘The Significance of the

Distribution of the English Place-name in ‘-ingas’, ‘-inga’in South-East England’ Medieval Archaeology X (1966)pp. 1–14

MARGARET GELLING Signposts to the Past (Dent, 1978)For farmstead studies:R.L.S.BRUCE-MITFORD ‘A Dark Age Settlement at


www.BingEbook.com


161

Mawgan Porth, Cornwall’ in R.L.S.Bruce-Mitford (ed)Recent Archaeological Excavations in Britain (Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1956)

A.KING ‘Gauber High Pasture, Ribblehead—An InterimReport’ in R.A.Hall (ed) Viking Age York and the NorthCouncil for British Archaeology Research Report No. 27(1978)

D.COGGINS, K.J.FAIRLESS and C.E.BATEY ‘Simy Folds:An Early Medieval Settlement Site in Upper Teesdale’Medieval Archaeology 27 (1983) pp. 1–26

W.G.HOSKINS ‘The Highland Zone in Domesday Book’ inProvincial England (Macmillan, 1965)

R.LEECH ‘Roman Town and Countryside’ in M.Aston and I.Burrow (eds) The Archaeology of Somerset (SomersetCounty Council, Taunton, 1982)

M.ASTON ‘Deserted Farmsteads on Exmoor and the LaySubsidy of 1327 in West Somerset’ Somerset Archaeologyand Natural History 127 (1983) pp. 71–104

ANGUS J.L.WINCHESTER ‘Deserted Farmstead Sites atMiterdale Head, Eskdale’ Transactions, Cumberland andWestmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 79(1979) pp. 150–5

CATHERINE D.LINEHAN ‘Deserted Sites and RabbitWarrens on Dartmoor, Devon’ Medieval Archaeology X(1966) pp. 113–44

GUY BERESFORD ‘Three Deserted Medieval Settlements onDartmoor: A Report on the Late E.Marie Minter’sExcavations’ Medieval Archaeology XXIII (1979) pp. 98–158

HAROLD FOX ‘Contraction: Desertion and Dwindling ofDispersed Settlement in a Devon Parish’ in MedievalVillage Research Group 31 Annual Report (1983) pp. 40–2

HARALD UHLIG ‘Old Hamlets with Infield and OutfieldSystems in Western and Central Europe’ GeografiskaAnnaler Vol. XLIII (1961) pp. 285–312

For colonisation see:PETER SAWYER ‘Medieval English Settlement: New

Interpretation’ in Peter Sawyer (ed) English MedievalSettlement (Edward Arnold, 1979)

R.A.DONKIN ‘Changes in the Early Middle Ages’ in H.C.Darby (ed) A New Historical Geography of EnglandBefore 1600 (Cambridge University Press, 1973)

MICHAEL WILLIAMS ‘Marshland and Waste’ in L.Cantor(ed) The Medieval English Landscape (Croom Helm,London, 1982)

BRIAN ROBERTS ‘A Study of Medieval Colonisation in theForest of Arden, Warwickshire’ Agricultural HistoryReview XVI (1968) pp. 101–13

BRIAN ROBERTS ‘The Historical Geography of MoatedHomesteads: The Forest of Arden, Warwickshire’Transactions of the Birmingham and WarwickshireArchaeological Society 88 (1976–77) pp. 61–70

R.A.DONKIN The Cistercians: Studies in the GeographyofMedieval England and Wales (Pontifical Institute ofMedieval Studies, Toronto, 1978) especially Chapters 2and 4

M.WILLIAMS The Draining of the Somerset Levels(Cambridge University Press, 1970)

For settlement evolution studies:B.CUNLIFFE ‘Saxon and Medieval Settlement Pattern in the

Region of Chalton, Hampshire’ Medieval ArchaeologyXVI (1972) pp. 1–12

PETER DREWETT et al ‘The Archaeology of Bullock Down,Eastbourne, East Sussex: The Development of a

Landscape’ Sussex Archaeological Society Monograph 1(1982) especially Chapter XI

Brian Roberts has written much on settlement developmentand his ideas are summarised in:

B.K.ROBERTS ‘The Anatomy of the Village: Observation andExtrapolation’ Landscape History 4 (1982) pp. 11–20

D.AUSTIN, G.A.M.GERRARD and T.A.P.GREAVES ‘Tinand agriculture in the middle ages and beyond: landscapearchaeology in St Neot Parish, Cornwall’ CornishArchaeology 28 1989 pp. 5–251

HAROLD FOX ‘Peasant farmers, patterns of settlement andpays: transformations in the landscapes of Devon andCornwall during the Later Middle Ages’ in RobertHigham (ed) op. cit. (chap. 6), pp. 41–73

C.DYER ‘Dispersed settlements in medieval England. A casestudy of Pendock, Worcestershire’ Medieval Archaeology34 1990 pp. 97–121

C.DYER Hanbury: Settlement and Society in a WoodlandLandscape (Leicester University Press 1991)

A.E.BROWN and C.TAYLOR ‘The Origins of DispersedSettlements, some results from fieldwork in Bedfordshire’Landscape History 11 1989 pp. 61–81

8—Sites and patterns

The best general study is:MICHAEL CHISHOLM Rural Settlement and Land Use: An

Essay in Location particularly the 3rd edition(Hutchinson, 1979)

For site catchment analysis see:CLAUDIO VITA-FINZI and E.S.HIGGS ‘Prehistoric

Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: SiteCatchment Analysis’ Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 36 (1970 pp. 1–37

A.ELLISON and J.HARRIS ‘Settlement and Land Use in thePrehistory and Early History of Southern England: AStudy Based on Locational Models’ in D.L.Clarke (ed)Models in Archaeology (Methuen, 1972) pp. 911–62

B.J.GARNER ‘Models of Urban Geography and SettlementLocation’ in R.J.Chorley and P.Haggett (eds) Socio-Economic Models in Geography (Methuen, 1967) pp.303–60

Changes in the Post-Roman landscape are discussed in:CLAUDIO VITA-FINZI Archaeological Sites in Their Setting

(Thames and Hudson, 1978)FRED ALDSWORTH and DAVID FREKE Historic Towns in

Sussex: An Archaeological Survey (Sussex ArchaeologicalField Unit, 1976)

BARRY CUNLIFFE ‘The Evolution of Romney Marsh: APreliminary Statement’ in F.H.Thompson (ed)Archaeology and Coastal Change Society of AntiquariesOccasional Paper (New Series) 1 (1980) pp. 37–55

M.W.BERESFORD The Lost Villages of England(Lutterworth, London, 1954)

M.W.BERESFORD New Towns of the Middle Ages(Lutterworth, London, 1967)

TREVOR ROWLEY (ed) The Evolution of MarshlandLandscapes Oxford University Department of ExternalStudies, 1981)

H.C.DARBY The Medieval Fenland (Cambridge UniversityPress, 1940)

H.C.DARBY The Draining of the Fens (Cambridge UniversityPress, 1956) 2nd edition

H.C.DARBY The Changing Fenland (Cambridge UniversityPress, 1983)


www.BingEbook.com


162

M.WILLIAMS The Draining of the Somerset Levels(Cambridge University Press, 1970)

Settlement patterns are discussed in:I.HODDER and C.ORTON Spatial Analysis in Archaeology

(Cambridge University Press, 1976)J.A.EVERSON and B.P.FITZGERALD Settlement Patterns

(Longman, 1969)CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR ‘Roman Settlements in the Nene

Valley: The Impact of Recent Archaeology’ in P.J.Fowler(ed) Recent Work in Rural Archaeology (Moonraker,Bradford on Avon, 1975)

ROGER LEECH ‘Roman Town and Countryside’ in M.Astonand I.Burrow (eds) The Archaeology of Somerset(Somerset County Council, Taunton, 1982)

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Village and Farmstead: A Historyof Rural Settlement in England (George Philip, 1983)

BRIAN ROBERTS Rural Settlement in Britain (Dawson,Folkestone, 1977) especially Chapter 4, ‘Patterns ofVillage Settlement’

9—Land use

For animals, crops and related topics see:ROGER MERCER (ed) Farming Practice in British

Prehistory (Edinburgh University Press, 1981)For medieval diet see:CHRISTOPHER DYER ‘English Diet in the Later Middle

Ages’ in T.H.Aston, P.R.Coss, C.Dyer and J.Thirsk (eds)Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour ofR.H.Hilton (Cambridge University Press, 1983)

JOHN HARVEY ‘Vegetables in the Middle Ages’ GardenHistory Vol. 12 No. 2 (Autumn 1984) pp. 89–99

For honey and hives see:EVA CRANE The Archaeology of Beekeeping (Duckworth,

1983)For the use of distant resources see:MICHAEL CHISHOLM Rural Settlement and Land Use

(Hutchinson, 3rd edition, 1979)DAVID CLARKE ‘A Provisional Model of an Iron Age Society

and Its Settlement System’ in D.L.Clarke (ed) Models inArchaeology (Methuen, 1972)

J.M.COLES and B.J.ORME Prehistory of the Somerset LevelsSomerset Levels Project (1980)

MICHAEL WILLIAMS The Draining of the Somerset Levels(Cambridge University Press, 1970)

For woodland:OLIVER RACKHAM Trees and Woodland in the British

Landscape (Dent, 1976)OLIVER RACKHAM Ancient Woodland: Its History,

Vegetation and Uses In England (Edward Arnold, 1980)OLIVER RACKHAM Hayley Wood: Its History and Ecology

(Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Naturalists Trust Ltd,1975)

See also Somerset Levels Papers 1 (1975) to 10 (1984) andcontinuing, especially:

OLIVER RACKHAM ‘Neolithic Woodland Management inthe Somerset Levels: Garvin’s, Walton Heath andRowland’s Tracks’ Somerset Levels Papers 3 (1977) pp.65–71

For royal forests see Oliver Rackham’s books (above, 1976and 1980) and:

C.R.YOUNG The Royal Forests of Medieval England(Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1979)

For individual forest studies:

K.P.WITNEY The Jutish Forest: a study of the Weald of Kentfrom 450 to 1380 AD (Athlone Press, London, 1976)

CRISPIN GILL (ed) Dartmoor: A New Study (David andCharles, 1970)

EDWARD T.MCDERMOT A History of the Forest ofExmoor revised edition (David and Charles, 1973)

L.M.CANTOR ‘The Medieval Forests and Chases ofStaffordshire’ North Staffs Journal of Field Studies Vol. 8(1968)

See also:L.CANTOR (ed) The English Medieval Landscape (Croom

Helm, London, 1982)For parks see:L.M.CANTOR and J.HATHERLEY ‘The Medieval Parks of

England’ Geography Vol. 64 (1979) pp. 71–85L.CANTOR (ed) The English Medieval Landscape (Croom

Helm, London, 1982) Chapter 3O.RACKHAM Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape

(Dent, 1976) Chapter 8For commons see:W.G.HOSKINS and L.DUDLEY STAMP The Common Lands

of England and Wales (Collins, 1963)R.T.ROWLEY ‘Clee Forest—A Study in Common Rights’

Transactions of Shropshire Archaeological Society Vol.LVIII part 1 (1965) pp. 48–67

For rabbits see:JOHN SHEAIL Rabbits and Their History (David and

Charles, 1972)R.HANSFORD WORTH Worth’s Dartmoor (David and

Charles, 1967) plates 28–9 and pp. 157–62M.W.BERESFORD and J.K.S. ST JOSEPH Medieval England:

An Aerial Survey 2nd edition (Cambridge University Press,1979) pp. 68–72.

For duck decoys see:SIR RALPH W.F.PAYNE-GALLWEY The Book of Duck

Decoys, their Construction, Management and History(J.Van Voorst, London, 1886)

For meadows and watermeadows see:J.H.BETTEY Rural Life in Wessex 1500–1900 (Moonraker,

Bradford on Avon, 1977)ERIC KERRIDGE The Farmers of Old England (Allen and

Unwin, 1973)NIGEL HARVEY The Industrial Archaeology of Farming in

England and Wales (Batsford, 1980)J.H.BETTEY ‘Sheep, Enclosures and Watermeadows in

Dorset in 16th and 17th Centuries’ in M.Havinden (ed)Husbandry and Marketing in the South West 1500–1800(Exeter University, 1973)

J.H.BETTEY ‘The Development of Water Meadows in DorsetDuring the 17th Century’ Agricultural History Review 25(1977) pp. 37–43

MICHAEL COWAN Floated Meadows in the Salisbury AreaSouth Wiltshire Industrial Archaeology Society—Historical Monograph 9 (1982)

C.S.ORWIN and R.J.SELLICK The Reclamation of ExmoorForest (David and Charles, new edition 1970)

GRENVILLE ASTILL and ANNIE GRANT (eds) TheCountryside of Medieval England (Basil Blackwell,Oxford 1988)

OLIVER RACKHAM The History of the Countryside (Dent,London 1986)

LEONARD CANTOR The Medieval Parks of England: AGazetteer (Loughborough University of Technology 1983)

DAVID ALDRED Cleeve Hill: The History of the Commonand its People (Alan Sutton, Stroud 1990)


www.BingEbook.com


163

10—Field systems

For the development of ideas see:H.L.GRAY English Field Systems (Harvard University Press,

1915)C.S. and C.S.ORWIN The Open Fields (Clarendon Press,

Oxford, 1938)JOAN THIRSK ‘The Common Fields’ and ‘The Origin of the

Common Fields’ in R.H.Hilton (ed) Peasants, Knights andHeretics, Studies in Medieval English Social History(Cambridge University Press, 1976)

A.R.H.BAKER and R.A.BUTLIN (eds) Studies of FieldSystems in the British Isles (Cambridge University Press,1973)

ROBERT A.DODGSHON The Origin of British FieldSystems: An Interpretation (Academic Press, 1980)

TREVOR ROWLEY (ed) The Origins of Open FieldAgriculture (Croom Helm, London, 1981)

For specific examples, which are legion, see:DENNIS R.MILLS (ed) English Rural Communities: The

Impact of a Specialised Economy (Macmillan, London,1973)

M.W.BERESFORD and J.K. ST JOSEPH Medieval England:An Aerial Survey (Cambridge University Press, 2ndedition, 1979)

The latter discusses the field evidence, as do:DAVID HALL Medieval Fields (Shire Archaeology, Aylesbury,

1982)CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Fields in the English Landscape

(Dent, 1975)MAURICE BERESFORD ‘Ridge and Furrow and the Open

Fields’ Economic History Review 2nd Series Vol. 1 No. 1(1948) pp. 34–45

P.J.FOWLER ‘Agriculture and Rural Settlement’ in DavidWilson (ed) The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England(Cambridge University Press, 1976)

P.BARKER and J.LAWSON ‘A Pre-Norman Field System atHen Domen, Montgomery’ Medieval Archaeology Vol.XV (1971) pp. 58–72

P.FOWLER and A.C.THOMAS ‘Arable Field of the Pre-Norman Period at Gwithian’ Cornish Archaeology 1(1962) pp. 61–84

For early fields see:H.C.BOWEN and P.J.FOWLER (eds) Early Land Allotment

British Archaeological Reports 48 (1978). This includes C.TAYLOR and P.FOWLER ‘Roman Fields into MedievalFurlongs’ pp. 159–62

HAROLD FOX ‘Approaches to the Adoption of the MidlandSystem’ in T.Rowley (ed) (1981). This is a most importantarticle.

MARY HARVEY ‘The Origin of Planned Field Systems inHolderness, Yorkshire’ in T.Rowley (ed) (1981)

MARY HARVEY ‘The Morphological and Tenurial Structureof a Yorkshire Township—Preston in Holderness 1066–1750’ Queen Mary College, London, Occasional Papers inGeography Vol. 13 (1978)

MARY HARVEY ‘Regular Field and Tenurial Arrangementsin Holderness, Yorkshire’ Journal of HistoricalGeography 6 part 1 (1980) pp. 3–16

For solskifte or sun division see:GEORGE C.HOMANS English Villagers of the 13th Century

(Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1941; reprintedNorton, London, 1973)

SÖLVE GÖRANSSON ‘Regular Openfield Pattern inEngland and Scandinavian Solskifte’ Geografiska AnnalerVol. XLIII (1961) pp. 80–104

JUNE SHEPPARD ‘The Origins and Evolution of Field andSettlement Patterns in the Herefordshire Manor ofMarden’ Department of Geography, Queen Mary College,London, Occasional Papers No. 15 (1979)

JUNE SHEPPARD ‘Pre-Enclosure Field and SettlementPatterns in an English Township, Wheldrake near York’Geografiska Annaler Vol. 48 Series B (1966) part 2 pp.59–77

B.K.ROBERTS ‘Townfield Origins: The Case ofCockfield,County Durham’ in T.Rowley (ed) (1981)

H.P.R.FINBERG ‘The Open Field in Devon’ in West CountryHistorical Studies (David and Charles, 1969)

The ‘innox’ quotation is from:J.E.B.GOVER, ALLEN MAWER and F.M.STENTON The

Place Names of Wiltshire (Cambridge University Press,1939) being English Place-Name Society Vol. XVI (p. 134)

For Hound Tor see:GUY BERESFORD ‘Three Deserted Medieval Settlements on

Dartmoor: A Report on the late E.Marie Minter’sExcavations’ Medieval Archaeology XXIII (1979) pp. 98–158

For enclosure see:E.C.K.CONNER Common Land and Enclosure (Macmillan,

1912)W.E.TATE The English Village Community and the Enclosure

Movements (Gollancz, 1967)M.WILLIAMS ‘The Enclosure and Reclamation of Waste

Land in England and Wales in the 18th and 19thCenturies’ Transactions, Institute of British GeographersVol. 51 (1970) pp. 55–69

MICHAEL TURNER English Parliamentary Enclosure: ItsHistorical Geography and Economic History (Dawson,Folkestone, 1980)

GILBERT SLATER The English Peasantry and the Enclosureof Common Fields (Constable, 1907) No. 14 Studies inEconomics and Political Science

For hedge dating see:W.G.HOSKINS Fieldwork in Local History (Faber and Faber,

1967) although the list of species is suspectE.POLLARD, M.D.HOOPER and N.W.MOORE Hedges

The New Naturalist (Collins, 1974)Hedges and Local History (National Council for Social

Service, London, 1971)GEOFFREY HEWLETT ‘Stages in the Settlement of a

Downland Parish: A Study of the Hedges of Chelsham’Surrey Archaeological Collections Vol. LXXII (1980) pp.91–6. This uses hedges and hedge dating critically with auseful discussion.

JOHN HARVEY Early Nurserymen Phillimore, Chichester(1974)

DAVID HALL ‘The Late Saxon Countryside: Villages andtheir Fields’ in Della Hooke (ed) op. cit. (chap. 5), pp. 99–122

D.R.WILSON ‘Alterations to Ridge and Furrow: SomeExamples Illustrated’ pp. 183–190 and David Hall ‘FieldSystems and Township Structure’ pp. 191–205 both inMichael Aston, David Austin and Christopher Dyer (eds)op. cit. (chap. 3)

M.ASTON ‘Land Use and Field Systems’ in M.Aston (ed) op.cit. (chap. 6) pp. 83–97

11—Communications—the links between

A great deal has been said in the past about communications,but little that has been published is any good. There are no


www.BingEbook.com


164

good books on early sea and river communications. Forroads, the best are:

CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Roads and Tracks of Britain(Dent, 1979)

BRIAN PAUL HINDLE Medieval Roads (Shire Archaeology,Aylesbury, 1982) with a very good bibliography

BRIAN PAUL HINDLE ‘Roads and Tracks’ in L.Cantor (ed)The English Medieval Landscape (Croom Helm, London,1982)

Roman roadsR.W.BAGSHAWE Roman Roads (Shire Archaeology,

Aylesbury, 1979)I.D.MARGARY Roman Roads in Britain (John Baker,

London, 1967)Medieval roadsM.W.BERESFORD and J.K.S. ST JOSEPH Medieval England:

An Aerial Survey (Cambridge University Press, 1979) pp.273–84 ‘Roads’

C.T.FLOWER ‘Public Works in Medieval Law’ SeldonSociety 32 & 40 (1915 and 1923)

H.GOUGH Itinerary of King Edward the First throughout hisreign, AD 1272–1307 exhibiting his movements from timeto time, so far as they are recorded…2 vols. (Paisley,Alexander Gardner, 1900)

BRIAN PAUL HINDLE ‘The Road Network of MedievalEngland and Wales Journal of Historical Geography 2(1976) pp. 207–21

BRIAN PAUL HINDLE ‘Seasonal Variations in Travel inMedieval England’ Journal of Transport History 4 (1978)pp. 170–8

J.A.A.J.JUSSERAND English Wayfaring Life in the MiddleAges (Unwin, 1889)

G.H.MARTIN ‘Road Travel in the Middle Ages’ Journal ofTransport History 3 (1976) pp. 159–78

F.M.STENTON ‘The Road System of Medieval England’Economic History Review 7 (1936) pp. 1–21

Medieval mapsBRIAN PAUL HINDLE ‘The Towns and Roads of the Gough

Map’ The Manchester Geographer 1 (1980) pp. 35–49

12—What does it all mean?

C.TAYLOR ‘The Making of the English Landscape—25 YearsOn’ The Local Historian Vol. 14 No. 4 (Nov. 1980). Areview of what has been learned as has been discussedalready. Followed by:

M.ASTON ‘The Making of the English Landscape—The Next25 Years’ The Local Historian Vol. 15 No. 6 (May 1983)

PopulationJ.L.BOLTON The Medieval English Economy 1150–1500

(Dent, 1980) pp. 48–65

P.J.FOWLER The Farming of Prehistoric Britain (CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983) pp. 32–6

Forest and land useJOHN EVANS The Environment of Early Man in the British

Isles (Elek, London, 1975)WINIFRED PENNINGTON The History of British

Vegetation (English Universities Press, London, 1974)HARRY GODWIN History of the British Flora (Cambridge

University Press, 1975)D.WALKER and R.G.WEST (eds) Studies in the Vegetational

History of the British Isles (Cambridge University Press,1970)

ClimateH.H.LAMB ‘Climate from 1000 BC to 1000 AD’ in M.Jones

and G.Dimbleby (eds) The Environment of Man: The IronAge to the Anglo-Saxon Period British ArchaeologicalReports British Series 87 (Oxford, 1981)

C.D.SMITH and M.PARRY (eds) Consequences of ClimaticChange (Dept. of Geography, University of Nottingham,1981)

M.L.PARRY (ed) Climatic Change, Agriculture andSettlement (Dawson, Folkestone, 1978)

TechnologyA difficult area with little written of any use. Peter Reynold’s

research at Butser has opened our eyes to a range of newpossibilities of how much early people were capable of.

P.J.REYNOLDS Iron Age Farm: The Butser Experiment(Colonnade, British Museum, 1979)

General accounts and ideas are discussed in:LYNN WHITE Medieval Technology and Social Change

(Oxford University Press, 1962)M.HODGEN Change and History: A Study of Dated

Districts of Technological Innovations in England (VikingFund Publications, New York, 1952)

SIAN REES ‘Agricultural Tools: Function and Use’; GORDONHILMAN ‘Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices fromCharred Remains of Crops’; and P.ROWLEY-CONWY‘Slash and Burn in the Temperate European Neolithic’ all inRoger Mercer (ed) Farming Practice in British Prehistory(Edinburgh University Press, 1981)

PETER LIDDLE Community Archaeology—A Fieldworker’sHandbook of Organisation and Techniques LeicestershireMuseums, Art Galleries and Records Service 1985

The series by Bedfordshire County Council PlanningDepartment Conservation Section for example number 5:

STEPHEN R.COLEMAN Cranfield Bedfordshire ParishSurveys, Historic Landscape and Archaeology 1986

see also: The Shapwick Project: A Topographical andHistorical Study Reports for 1988, 1989 and 1990 editedby M.Aston and M.Costen, Department for ContinuingEducation, Bristol University

V.RUSSETT Marshfield: An Archaeological Survey of a SouthernCotswold Parish (Avon County Council, Bristol, 1985)


www.BingEbook.com

165

abbeys (see monasteries)Aberffrau (Anglesey), 95Abingdon (Oxon), 37, 45, 145Ablington (Gloucs), 49activity areas, 93administration, 40, 44–5, 73, 140air photographs, 17, 28, 58, 97, 98–9, 107,

120, 132–3, 143, 146, 149Aldborough (Yorks), 34Aldsworth, Fred, 43, 95Allerston, Pamela, 72, 82Alton (Wilts), 80Amesbury (Wilts), 34animal resources, 103–5, 120Antonine Itinerary, 143Appleton le Moors (Yorks), 72aqueducts, 31arable, 27, 59, 93, 103, 107, 109, 118, 120,

122, 126, 127, 131, 140, 151archaeology, 13, 39, 50, 73, 107, 150archery, 16architecture, 50–2, 61, 76, 107, 131, 133Arden forest (Warks), 41, 87, 131Ashington (Somerset), 61, 107–9Austin, David, 73Avebury (Wilts), 40, 50Avon, river(s), 28, 41Axe, river(s), 34, 41, 97, 126Axminster (Devon), 41

Babeny (Devon), 86, 131Bagley (Luccombe, Somerset), 83, 85, 131Baker, Alan, 127Barker, Graeme, 23, 27Barker, Katherine, 40barns, 37, 45, 61, 86baronies, 32, 37, 140barrows, 15, 23, 26, 39, 42, 45, 50, 52, 152Bassett, Stephen, 141Bath (Avon), 34, 40, 83, 100–1beacons, 15Beaulieu (Hants), 38Bec (Normandy), 45Bell, Martin, 25, 107bell pits, 16Bentley Grange (Yorks), 16Beresford, Guy, 131Beresford, Professor Maurice, 9, 53, 67, 71,

73, 120, 129, 144, 145, 146Berwick (Sussex), 16, 50Bettey, Joe, 50Bibury (Gloucs), 49Biddestone (Wilts), 78Birmingham (West Midlands), 9, 16, 141, 152

Bishops Cannings (Wilts), 34, 40Bishopstone (Wilts), 78Black Death, 53, 64, 67, 149Black Down (Mendips), 15Blair, John, 45Bleadon (Avon), 125–6Bolden Book, 73Bolton, Jim, 149Bond, James, 37, 45, 67Bonney, Desmond, 39–40Bonsall (Derbys), 16Bordesley (Worcs), 88boundaries, 32, 36, 39–43, 67, 68–9, 146boundary stones, 43Bradford on Avon (Wilts), 49Bradley, Richard, 152Brassington (Derbys), 131Braunton (Devon), 124Bredon (Worcs), 48–9Brendon Hills (Somerset), 36, 133Brent (Somerset), 32–4, 97Bridestowe (Devon), 41bridges, 91, 109, 139, 141, 145Bridgwater (Somerset), 144Brimpsfield (Gloucs), 52Brinklow (Warks), 15Bristol (Avon), 10, 47, 143, 152Britford (Wilts), 34Britnell, R.H., 46, 47Broadway (Somerset), 141Brokenborough (Wilts), 34Brompton Regis (Somerset), 84Bronze Age, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 93, 109, 149–

50Broughton Gifford (Wilts), 41Brue, river, 97Bryncysegrfan (Dyfed), 116Budden, John, 152Bullock Down (Sussex), 90Bulmer (Yorks), 51burial rights, 49Burrow, Ian, 34, 146Burton Dassett (Warks), 65, 67Burwell (Cambs), 80Butlin, Robin, 127Butser (Hants), 29, 109 canals, 31, 107, 140Cannington (Somerset), 36caputs, 34–5, 37, 45, 46, 90, 94, 127, 144,

151–2Carburton (Notts), 129Car Colston (Notts), 16Cartmel (Cumberland), 34Carus-Wilson, Eleanor, 145

Castle Combe (Wilts), 78Castle Neroche (Somerset), 37, 45castles, 15, 16, 36–7, 44–5, 52, 60, 91, 121,

141, 144, 152cathedrals, 48, 50Catholme (Staffs), 70cattle, 48, 84, 103, 105causewayed enclosures, 23, 44, 46causeways, 141, 145Caxton (Cambs), 16Celtic saints, 50cemeteries, 39, 49, 50, 52, 61, 70central places, 44–6, 94, 145Chalton (Hants), 68, 70, 90, 152Chandler, John, 145chapels, 48–9, 61, 65, 67, 78–80, 84, 95, 152charcoal, 111charters, 32, 36, 39, 41, 141Cheddar (Somerset), 22, 34, 44, 50, 126Chedworth (Gloucs), 50Chellington (Beds), 120Chesterton (Warks), 60Chew, river, 35Chew Magna (Somerset), 35, 49Chewton Mendip (Somerset), 35, 49Chippenham (Wilts), 145Chisholm, Michael, 91–2, 98, 102, 107, 109Chitterne (Wilts), 80Christen (Avon), 126churches, 23, 35, 48–52, 58, 61, 67, 69, 70, 73,

76, 78–80, 82, 83, 107, 122, 152church paths, 49, 145Clapham, A.W., 129Clark, Professor Graham, 21Clarke, David, 109clearance, 19, 21, 23, 24, 82, 86–7, 97, 103,

109–10, 124, 149–50Clee Hills (Salop), 114, 145climate, 19, 86, 131, 150coal, 92–3, 111, 114, 139coastal change, 94–7Cobbett, William, 143Coberley (Gloucs), 52Cockfield (Co Durham), 127coins, 30, 46, 50Cold Newton (Leics), 57Coles, Professor John, 26, 27, 109colluvium, 19, 25, 95, 97colonisation, 28, 49, 86–90, 103, 124–5Combe Abbey (Warks), 88common fields (see open fields)common, 103, 109, 111–15, 126, 127, 131communications, 21, 47, 91, 94, 109, 138–48contemporaneity, 98, 100continuity, 49–50, 83, 90, 125, 126

Index


www.BingEbook.com

INDEX

166

Conzen, Professor M.R.G., 71Cornwall, 23, 30Cotes (Lincs), 126Cotes de Val (Leics), 59Cothelstone Beacon (Somerset), 15Cotswolds, 23, 30, 32, 52, 107, 124cottages, 58, 61, 84, 86Cottenham (Cambs), 77Cowdery’s Down (Hants), 68, 70Craig Llwydd (Wales), 23Cranborne Chase, 152Creech St Michael (Somerset), 52Crewkerne (Somerset), 49Crickley Hill (Gloucs), 23cropmarks, 28, 69, 98, 103, 131, 145crosses, 49, 50, 145Cryfield (Warks), 88Cummins, W., 24Cunliffe, Professor Barry, 90, 95–6, 152customary dues, 35, 46, 127 Danebury (Hants), 143Dartmeet (Devon), 27Dartmoor (Devon), 24, 27, 41, 43, 58, 101,

111–15, 130–1, 148Davison, Brian, 37, 45Dean, Forest of (Gloucs), 30, 144Deerhurst (Gloucs), 49, 106–7, 126, 131, 145decoy towns, 15defence, 91, 93, 94, 95Defoe, Daniel, 143Denmark, 24Derbyshire, 30deserted villages (see settlement desertion)Devizes (Wilts), 145dissolution (of monasteries), 37distant resources, 36, 41, 87, 103, 105, 109–

10, 112, 145, 151Dodgson, John McNeal, 82Dogger Bank, 22Dolaucothi (Wales), 30Dolebury Warren (Avon), 116doles, 124Domesday Book, 35, 45, 46, 48, 49, 58, 64,

67, 72, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 98, 152Donkin, Robin, 88Donyatt (Somerset), 115Dorchester (Dorset), 31Dorchester on Thames (Oxon), 145dovecotes, 16, 37Dover (Kent), 22, 143drainage, 19, 41, 77, 88, 90, 95, 97, 103, 104,

106, 107, 117, 120Droitwich (Worcs), 144drove roads, 114, 138, 144duck decoys, 117duck mounds, 16Dundon (Somerset), 146dunes, 94–7, 121Dunning, Robert, 36Dunsmore (Warks), 42Dunster (Somerset), 140Dunwich (Suffolk), 95Durham, Bishops of, 72Durham Co, 72, 73Dyer, Christopher, 57, 141 East Anglia, 22, 117East Whitton (Yorks), 73Eaton Socon (Beds), 49Elford (Staffs), 120Elkstone (Gloucs), 52Ellison, Ann, 30embanking, 88, 94emporia, 46

enclosure, 41, 43, 53, 64, 67, 90, 112, 115,117, 124, 127, 131–7, 143, 146

Enford (Wilts), 40–1engineering projects, 23, 30–1, 94–5, 97entrepreneur, 94Ermin Way, 30Essex, 24, 28, 148estate policy, 45estates, 27, 30–1, 32–40, 44, 48, 72, 73, 107,

109, 126, 138, 140, 143, 151–2Evesham (Worcs), 37–8, 45excavation, 13, 116, 141exchange, 46–8, 94, 143, 144Exmoor, 21, 101, 111–14, 118, 133Eynsham (Oxon), 70 fairs, 46–8, 138, 141, 144farmers (modern), 19, 122, 152farmsteads, 27, 34, 50, 52, 58, 61, 69, 70, 78,

81, 90, 93, 94, 95, 101–2, 122, 131, 133,136, 145, 151

fences, 43Fenny Compton (Warks), 73Fens, 31, 41, 88, 95, 117, 141Feudal system, 73field names (see place names)fields and field systems, 27–8, 60, 67, 81, 82,

86, 93, 95, 103, 105, 109, 112, 120–37, 145,148, 151

fieldwork, 14, 41–3, 52, 58–61, 74, 80, 98–9,100–2, 107, 120, 122, 126, 141, 143, 146, 152

Fiennes, Celia, 143Finberg, Professor H.P.R., 32, 129Findon (Sussex), 34fiscal assessment, 72, 73fishponds, 16, 41, 60, 67, 77, 105, 112Fladbury (Worcs), 49Fleming, Andrew, 27flint implements, 21, 22, 25, 28, 98, 152floated meadows, 117–8, 124Flyford Flavell (Worcs), 141focal places, 23, 25, 34–5, 44–5, 50, 94, 151–2fonts, 49, 52Ford, William, 36, 70Fordington (Dorset), 50Fordwich (Kent), 46Forests, Royal, 53, 111–14, 133Foss Way, 30, 40Fowler, Professor Peter, 29, 125, 149Fox, Harold, 84, 126Freke, David, 95Fresden (Wilts), 141Frocester (Gloucs), 122, 124, 152Frome (Somerset), 35furlongs, 120, 125, 127, 146 Gannow Green (Worcs), 87gardens, 16, 52, 60, 61, 86, 105, 107Garner, B.J., 93Garrow Tor (Cornwall), 125geology, 19, 91–3geomorphology, 19Gerrard, Christopher, 48, 144Gibbets, 16Glastonbury, 109, 143Glastonbury Abbey, 34, 88, 90Gloucester Abbey, 122Gotherington (Gloucs), 41Grassington (Yorks), 125graveyards (see cemeteries)Gray, H.L., 124Great Langdale (Cumbria), 23Green, Martin, 152green men, 52

greens (village), 67, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 81, 84,127, 136

Gregory, Pope, 50Grimes Graves (Norfolk), 23Grinsell, Leslie, 15Grovely (Wilts), 40Gwithian (Cornwall), 95, 121 Hall, David, 70, 82, 95Hambledon Hill (Dorset), 23Ham Hill (Somerset), 146hamlets, 27, 49, 50, 58, 61, 70, 72, 78–81, 88,

90, 101, 126, 127, 130–1, 151Hanbury (Worcs), 101–2, 127, 141, 145harbours, 19, 140, 141Hardington (Somerset), 60Harriss, John, 30harrying of the north, 72Hartland (Devon), 84Harvey, John, 137Harvey, Mary, 127Hastings (Kent), 95Hatch Beauchamp (Somerset), 16Hatfield Forest (Essex), 112hay, 103–5, 109, 117Hayley Wood (Cambs), 111, 138Headington (Oxon), 10hedges, 39, 43, 105, 131–7Heighington (Co Durham), 34Hemingborough (Yorks), 73Hen Domen (Powys), 121henges, 44, 46Hengistbury Head (Dorset), 143hercology, 40High Meadow (Forest of Dean, Gloucs), 61hillforts, 32, 35, 44, 46, 122, 145, 146Hilman, Gordon, 151Hindle, Brian Paul, 142–3Hinton St Mary (Dorset), 50Hitchin (Herts), 34Hobs Ditch (Warks), 141Hodder, Ian, 98Hodges, Richard, 46Holcombe (Somerset), 16Holderness (Yorks), 127Holkham (Norfolk), 38Holmoor in Exford (Somerset), 131Holnicote (Selworthy, Somerset), 118Holworth (Dorset), 73holy wells, 50Hooke, Della, 36Hooper, Max, 136Horningtoft (Norfolk), 81horses, 48, 105Hoskins, Professor W.G., 9, 12, 53, 83Hound Tor (Devon), 60, 86–7, 130–1Humberside, 24hundred meeting places, 16, 45–6, 141hundreds, 16, 32, 34–7, 45, 144, 152Hungerford family, 38Hunwich Gill (Co Durham), 141Hurst, John, 67Hutton Buscel (Yorks), 72, 78 icehouses, 16Icknield Street, 30Ilchester (Somerset), 40, 49, 50, 139, 146–8industry, 16, 94Ine, King of Wessex, 126inertia, 94, 146infield/outfield, 35, 72, 86, 122, 126, 127–31, 151intercommoning, 36lorwerth, Book of, 34Ipswich (Suffolk), 46iron, 92–3, 109, 114, 143


www.BingEbook.com

INDEX

167

Iron Age, 23, 143, 150 Jacobi, Roger, 22Jones, Professor Glanville, 32, 34–6, 151 Kenfig (Wales), 95Kenilworth Castle (Warks), 97Kent, 32, 50Kibworth Harcourt (Leics), 77Kilmington (Devon), 41Kilpeck (Here), 60King’s Standing (Birmingham, West Midlands),

16, 46Knight family, 118Knowlton (Dorset), 50 Lancashire, 26, 133Landbeach (Cambs), 77landscape changes, 13, 21, 25, 94–7, 106, 15land use(s), 23, 26, 39, 41, 43, 90, 91–3, 103–

19, 126, 151Lanfranc, Archbishop, 50Langport (Somerset), 145Lawson, Andrew, 152Laxton (Notts), 124lazybeds, 124lead, 114Leafield (Oxon), 115Leaze (Bodmin Moor, Cornwall), 131Leech, Roger, 40, 83, 95, 100, 146legal aspects, 40, 45–6, 111, 141Leicester (Leics), 31Leland, John, 143Lettaford (Devon), 84, 86Lewes Priory (Sussex), 45Lilstock (Somerset), 140‘Little Twittering’, 9local history, 18local tradition, 9, 19, 61Locking (Avon), 52lodges, 112London, 46, 47, 143, 144Longham (Norfolk), 81longhouses, 67, 84, 86Longleat (Wilts), 37Low Ham (Somerset), 16Lundy Island, 144lynchets, 124, 125Lyveden (Northants), 16 maenor, 34Maiden Castle (Dorset), 23Maidstone (Kent), 49Malham (Yorks), 125Malmesbury (Wilts), 40, 44, 49manor houses, 37, 48, 49, 50, 58, 60, 61, 64,

67, 70, 73, 74, 78, 107, 122, 127manors, 32, 34, 37, 144, 151mansions, 60, 61, 74, 144, 152manure, 17, 105, 107, 118, 127, 129Maperton (Somerset), 61, 64–5maps, 14, 15, 18, 38–9, 43, 58, 61, 77, 80,

107, 114, 120, 131, 136, 143, 152Marden (Here), 32, 127–9markets, 30, 46–8, 67, 106, 138, 141, 144, 145marsh, 95–7, 103Marston Magna (Somerset), 51, 74, 76–7Mawgan Forth (Cornwall), 83–4, 95Maxey (Northants), 16, 50meadow, 41, 59, 93, 101, 103–5, 107, 109,

117–19, 120, 124, 126, 127, 136Melksham (Wilts), 41Mellitus, 50Mendips, 22, 26, 30, 112, 126, 133Mercia, 39–40

Mere (Wilts), 124mere books, 43Mesolithic, 21, 22Middleton on the Wolds (Yorks), 120mills, 41–2, 58, 60, 61, 67, 74, 77, 94, 107, 145millstones (see querns)Milton (Kent), 49Milton under Wychwood (Oxon), 10, 121,

136, 146Minchinhampton (Gloucs), 116Minehead (Somerset), 15, 140Minety (Wilts), 115mining, 94Minnions (Cornwall), 16minsters, 32, 35, 48–9, 50, 122, 144, 152moats, 60, 67, 74, 77, 87, 112monasteries (including abbeys and priories), 36–

7, 44–5, 48, 50, 52, 60, 87, 107, 140, 144, 152Montacute (Somerset), 37, 45, 145More, William, Prior of Worcester, 139Moreton (Bucks), 59Morgan, Marjorie, 45Morris, Richard, 49Mortain, Count of, 37, 45mortuary enclosures, 23Mucking (Essex), 70Mudford (Somerset), 65, 67, 143multiple estates (see estates) Naseby (Northants), 62–3, 65National Monuments Record, 13, 17Naunton Beauchamp (Worcs), 141Needwood, Forest of (Staffs), 133Nene, river, 98–9Neolithic, 23, 25, 26, 44, 46, 109, 143Neroche (Somerset), 41, 112, 133, 135, 137Nether Stowey (Somerset), 36–7Netherton (Somerset), 76–7Nettlebed (Oxon), 115nettles, 58Newborough (Anglesey), 95Newcastle upon Tyne (Northumb), 143Newington (Kent), 49Norfolk, 80Norman, Christopher, 21Norman Conquest, 36–7, 50North York Moors, 15, 21Norton Malreward (Avon), 42, 49Nottinghamshire, 27nurserymen, 137 Ogbourne St George (Wilts), 45Onley (Northants), 61open fields, 43, 67, 69, 70, 72, 86, 120–7, 131,

136, 151Ordnance Survey, 13, 18, 43, 58, 67Orme, Bryony, 26Orton, Clive, 98Orwin, C.S. and C.S., 124Osmerley (Worcs), 88Owles, John, 152ownership, 32–9, 41, 46, 73, 120, 138, 151Oxford (Oxon), 37, 145 Padbury (Bucks), 120, 146paganism, 50, 52palaces, 32, 34, 44, 50palaeo-environmental evidence, 14, 19–20, 21,

111, 149–50Palaeolithic, 21, 22, 93parishes, 23, 32, 39–43, 50, 82, 107, 109, 136,

145, 152parks, 16, 53, 60, 61, 111–15Parrett, river, 35, 97

pasture, 27, 36, 41, 43, 86, 93, 98–9, 103–5,107, 109, 113–16, 120, 122, 124, 126–9,131, 133, 151

Peak District, 15, 16, 111, 133peat, 26, 97, 115Pen Pits (Stourhead, Wilts), 144Perranporth (Cornwall), 95Petherton, North and South (Somerset), 35, 36,

49, 149Pickering, Vale of (Yorks), 21, 72pilgrimage, 141pillow mounds, 60, 114–16Pipewell Abbey (Northants), 60, 88Pitt-Rivers, General, 152place names (including field and localnames), 15, 16, 19, 34–5, 39, 58, 70, 72, 74,

76, 78–80, 82, 107, 112, 127, 129, 131, 133,136, 141, 143, 144, 150

planning, 27–8, 67, 69, 71–3, 81, 127plant resources, 103–5Playstreet (Bickenhall, Somerset), 61ploughing (see arable)Poldens (Somerset), 26pollen, 21, 23, 149polyfocal villages, 73–4, 77–80, 86ponds, 42, 73, 94, 114, 117population, 26, 51–2, 72, 82, 86–7, 90, 103,

106, 125, 127, 149–51Porlock (Somerset), 140Portland (Dorset), 124Posten Hill (Marlborough, Wilts), 141Potterne (Wilts), 49pottery, 17, 25, 28, 47, 50, 61, 69, 80, 87, 98,

107, 115, 122, 143, 144Price, Edward, 122, 152priories (see monasteries)prisons, 45 Quantocks (Somerset), 21quarrying, 30, 94querns, 47, 143–4 rabbits, 60, 105, 114–16Rackham, Oliver, 20, 26, 110–11, 138–9Raunds (Northants), 49, 50, 69–70, 80, 145Ravenna Cosmography, 143Ravensdale, Jack, 77Ready Token (Gloucs), 42reaves, 27, 148Reculver (Kent), 95Rees, Sian, 151Renfrew, Professor Colin, 23Reynolds, Peter, 109Rhuddlan (Wales), 97Ribblehead (Yorks), 83–4Richborough (Kent), 95ridge and furrow, 16, 43, 59, 61, 65, 70, 74,

101, 107, 109, 115, 120–4, 130–1, 151ridgeways, 42–3, 138, 141, 144Rievaulx Abbey (Yorks), 97Riley, Derek, 27Rivenhall (Essex), 50Rivers, 19, 41, 92, 94–7, 109, 138–40, 144, 151roads, 30, 40, 43, 73, 77, 102, 131, 138, 141,

143, 144Roberts, Brian, 72, 73, 84, 87, 89–90, 127Rochford (Worcs), 16Rockingham (Northants), 60Rodwell, Warwick, 146Roman sites, 29, 32, 40, 46, 50, 52, 61, 67, 68,

69, 83, 88, 95, 98, 100–1, 122, 138, 141,143, 146–8

Romney Marsh (Kent), 95–6round mounds, 15Rowley, Trevor, 114, 145


www.BingEbook.com

INDEX

168

Royal Commission on HistoricalMonuments(England), 13, 58

Rudston (Yorks), 50Rye (Sussex), 95Rymer (Norfolk), 42 St Albans (Herts), 50St Augustine, 50St Buryan (Cornwall), 145St Catherine, 50St Dunstan, 90St Ethelbert, 32St Ives (Cornwall), 139St Joseph, Professor J.K.S., 17, 129, 146St Michael, 50St Oswald’s (Gloucs), 51Saite Farm (Batcombe, Somerset), 131Salisbury (Wilts), 145salt, 109, 143–4Sandford (Avon), 10Sandwich (Suffolk), 46saw pits, 111Sawyer, Professor Peter, 32, 48, 87Saxon settlements, 68–70, 81, 83, 98Seaford (Sussex), 95seasonality, 21, 22, 27, 41, 86, 90, 98, 100,

109, 112, 133, 145Secklow (Bucks), 16, 46Second World War, 15Selsey (Sussex), 34, 95Selwood Forest, 88settlement agglomeration, 50, 72, 82, 151settlement desertion, 43, 53–70, 80, 86, 88,

101–2, 107, 122settlement patterns, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 41,

52, 53–61, 65, 83, 91–102, 122, 151settlement plans, 59, 61, 65, 70, 71–81settlement shrinkage, 57–8, 61–7, 70settlement sites, 61, 70, 81, 90, 91–102, 94–7,

152–3Severn, river, 28, 34, 139sheela na gigs, 52Sheldon (Wilts), 141Sheppard, June, 32, 71–3, 127ships, 140, 141shires, 34Shoreham (Kent), 95Shrewton (Wilts), 40–1, 79–80Siger, river, 34, 95, 97Simy Folds (Co Durham), 83–4, 87site catchment analysis, 93Sites and Monuments Record, 13, 58Skipp, Victor, 151Smart, Rebecca, 22Smite (Warks), 88Smith, Bob, 25, 101snails, 23Snowdon (Wales), 92Soham (Cambs), 124soil, 19, 24, 97, 103, 104, 106soil deterioration, 23, 151Somerset Levels, 22, 26, 31, 41, 88–90, 95,

109, 117, 145Somerton (Somerset), 83, 100Sourton (Devon), 41Southampton (Hants), 46South Bradon (Somerset), 61South Cadbury (Somerset), 124, 146Sparkford (Somerset), 143Spaunton (Yorks), 72Spencer family, 60Spratt, Don, 25, 26springs, 22, 52, 91–3, 118–19

Stallingborough (Lines), 64–5Stanbridge and Tilsworth (Beds), 126Star Carr (Yorks), 21status, 34–5, 44–6, 48, 49, 52, 53, 57, 72, 82,

98, 105, 151Steeton (Yorks), 16Stockbridge (Hants), 144Stockley Gill (Co Durham), 141Stoke St Gregory (Somerset), 16Stoke sub Hamdon (Somerset), 51stone axes, 23–4, 143Stoneleigh Abbey (Warks), 88Stourbridge (Cambs), 47Stratford on Avon (Warks), 145strips, 43, 120, 122–7, 131, 145, 151Studley (Warks), 51subsistence, 31, 91, 93–4, 104–5, 126, 150sun division or solskifte, 67, 127Sussex, 15, 25, 28, 30Sutton Walls (Here), 32Swaffham Priors (Cambs), 80Swanborough (Wilts), 16, 46Sweetworthy (Somerset), 83, 85systems, 20, 105, 127, 149–53 Taunton (Somerset), 10, 35, 36, 47–8, 144Taylor, Christopher, 60, 65, 73, 82, 95, 98–9,

125, 145, 149Taylor, Joan, 22technology, 86, 91–3, 94–5, 106, 149–51territories, 21, 23, 27, 32, 34, 39–40, 43, 120, 146Thame (Oxon), 145Thames, river, 28, 139Thanet, Isle of (Kent), 95Thirlings (Northumb), 70Thirsk, Joan, 126Thornton Dale (Yorks), 72, 78Thornton le Beans (Yorks), 73Thornton, Robert, 16Thorpe, Professor Harry, 60Thrislington (Co Durham), 73–4tin, 112tithes, 18, 40tithings, 32, 39–40, 45, 145Tone, river, 35Tormarton (Avon), 125towns, 30, 31, 35, 37, 44, 46, 50, 71–2, 91, 93,

94, 144, 145townships, 32, 39, 120, 145trackways, 26, 145transhumance (see distant resources and

seasonality)Trent, river, 28Tugby (Leics), 57Twyford Down (Hants), 141 Uhlig, Harald, 86Uleybury (Gloucs), 122Uphill (Avon), 126Upper Poppleton (Yorks), 73 vegetation, 19, 20venville, 112–3Verlucio (Wilts), 40vermin traps, 115–16Victoria County History, 19, 58village origins, 69, 78, 83, 86, 94, 127, 151village plans (see settlement plans)villages, 27, 34, 58, 82, 93, 94, 120, 124, 144, 151villas (Roman), 30, 32, 44, 50, 122Vita Finzi, Claudio, 95 Wade-Martins, Peter, 80

Wade-Martins, Susanna, 38waggons, 138–9Wainwright, Geoffrey, 27Wakefield (Yorks), 34Wales, 34, 50Walkers Hill (Alton, Wilts), 141Walland Marsh (Kent), 95–6Wansdyke, 39–40Wantsum Channel (Kent), 95warrens, 114–16Warwickshire, 41, 70waste, 72, 87, 93, 103–4, 107, 109, 112–15,

120, 126, 127, 131, 149Waterbeach (Cambs), 77waterleats, 60, 117–19water meadows (see water leats and floated

meadows)water supply, 91, 94, 102, 117Watling Street, 30Wawne (Yorks), 73Weald (Kent), 87Weasenham St Peter (Norfolk), 80–1Webley, Derrick, 23, 27weirs, 97wells, 91–2Wells, Bishop of, 88Welsh Way (Gloucs), 144Wessex, 15, 23, 25, 27, 39–40, 117, 148Westbury Beacon (Somerset), 15West Quantoxhead (Somerset), 56West Stow (Suffolk), 68, 70Wetmoor (Gloucs), 111Wharram Percy (Yorks), 50, 53, 60, 66–9Wheldrake (Yorks), 71–2, 127White Down (Somerset), 48, 144Whitesheet Hill (Wilts), 23wildwood, 20, 23, 103, 109, 150Williams, Bob, 42Williams, Michael, 95, 109, 145Wilson, David, 17Wilton (Wilts), 35, 145Wiltshire, 30, 35, 39–41, 78Winchelsea (Sussex), 95windmills, 15, 16Winstone (Gloucs), 52Winterbourne Stoke (Wilts), 80Witham (Somerset), 88Withiel Florey (Somerset), 36Withington (Gloucs), 32–3Witton (Norfolk), 152Wold Newton (Yorks), 16, 120Wollaston (Northants), 73woodbanks, 107, 110Woodchester (Gloucs), 50woodland (some managed), 26, 27, 41, 42, 87–

8, 93, 98–9, 103–5, 107, 109–11, 115, 120,127, 133, 138, 145, 149–50

Wool, Sarah, 30Worcester, Bishop and See of, 32Worcester, William, 143Worcestershire, 32Wormleighton (Warks), 60Worton (Oxon), 131Wychwood (Oxon), 133Wylye, river, 35

Yeavering (Northumb), 34, 44York (Yorks), 46, 47Yorkshire, 23, 27, 34Yorkshire Wolds, 21 Zany (Somerset), 61


www.BingEbook.com