Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:21:50.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farming in the Anglo-Saxon landscape: an archaeologist's review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

P. J. Fowler
P. J. Fowler
Affiliation:
The Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Almost exactly forty years ago, Evert Barger published his survey entitled ‘The Present Position of Studies in English Field Systems’. It is a measure both of his percipience and of an underlying stasis in this field of scholarly enquiry that, even after the academic dynamism which has characterized agrarian studies so much in the two most recent decades, Barger's paper is still, if suitably edited rather than completely recast, by no means entirely superseded. Indeed, in some respects large parts of the evidence, the research and the published sources on which he drew for his synthesis are not only as relevant today as they were in 1938 but could even be said to be more fashionable now.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 9 , December 1980 , pp. 263 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 EHR 58 (1938), 385–411.Google Scholar

2 Maitland, F. W., Domesday Book and Beyond (1897; 3rd ed., London, 1960, used), p. 38Google Scholar; cf. ‘much more remains to be done before we shall be able to construe the testimony of our fields and walls and hedges…’ (Ibid. p. 40) and ‘the science of village morphology is still very young…’ (p. 428), but ‘we must call to mind the numerous hints that our map gives us of village colonization… every instance of colonization, every new settlement in the woods, gave scope for the introduction of novelties, such scope as was not to be found in after days when men stood thicker on the soil and all the best land was already tilled’ (p. 425). Roberts, B. K., Rural Settlement in Britain (London, 1979Google Scholar), generally, and Taylor, C., Fields in the English Landscape (London, 1975Google Scholar) and Rowley, T., Villages in the Landscape (London, 1978Google Scholar), topically, provide recent informed discussions of Maitland's concerns.

3 Barger, ‘Studies in English Field Systems’, pp. 385–6.

4 Place-Name Evidence for the Anglo-Saxon Invasion and Scandinavian Settlements, ed. K. Cameron, EPNS (Cambridge, 1975Google Scholar), and Gelling, M., Signposts to the Past: Place-Names and the History of England (London, 1978Google Scholar) synthesize references and recent work.

5 Most recently, e.g., Phythian-Adams, C., Continuity, Fields and Fission: the Making of a Midland Parish, Univ. of Leicester, Dept of Eng. Local Hist. Occasional Papers 3rd ser. 4 (Leicester, 1978).Google Scholar

6 E.g., Ellison, A. and Harris, J., ‘Settlement and Land Use in the Prehistory and Early History of Southern England: a Study based on Locational Models’, Models in Archaeology, ed. Clarke, D. L. (London, 1972), pp. 910–62Google Scholar, and Fowler, P. J., ‘Agriculture and Rural Settlement’, The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Wilson, D. M. (London, 1976Google Scholar; cited henceforth as ArchASE), pp. 23–48.

7 Hoskins, W. G., Local History in England (London, 1959Google Scholar) and Fieldwork in Local History (London, 1967Google Scholar); Landscapes and Documents, ed. A. Rogers and T. Rowley (London, 1974Google Scholar); Taylor, C. C., Fieldaork in Medieval Archaeology (London, 1974Google Scholar); and Fowler, P. J., Approaches to Archaeology (London, 1977Google Scholar), chs. 2 and 6.

8 Unintentionally illustrated, through publication delay, by ArchASE.

9 Taylor, C. and Fowler, P., ‘Roman Fields into Medieval Furlongs?’, Early Land Allotment in the British Isles, ed. Bowen, H. C. and Fowler, P. J., BAR 48 (Oxford, 1978).Google Scholar

10 See the annual summaries of excavations, MA 1 (1957Google Scholar) onwards.

11 Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, The Scientific Treatment of Material from Rescue Excavations (London, 1978Google Scholar) (‘The Dimbleby Report’).

12 Fowler, P. J., ‘The Distant View’, Aerial Reconnaissance for Archaeology, ed. Wilson, D. R., Council for Brit. Archaeology Research Report 12 (London, 1975), 154–8.Google Scholar

13 Beresford, M. W. and Joseph, J. K. S. St, Medieval England: an Aerial Survey (Cambridge, 1958; 2nd ed., 1979Google Scholar); cf. Crawford, O. G. S. and Keiller, A., Wessex from the Air (Oxford, 1928).Google Scholar

14 C. S., and Orwin, C. S., The Open Fields (Oxford, 1938; 3rd ed., 1967Google Scholar used); Hoskins, W. G., The Making of the English landscape (London, 1959Google Scholar); and Finberg, H. P. R., The Local Historian and his Theme and Roman and Saxon Withington, Univ. of Leicester, Dept of Eng. Local Hist. Occasional Papers 1 and 8 (Leicester, 1952 and 1959).Google Scholar

15 Bowen, H. C., Ancient Fields: a Tentative Analysis of Vanishing Earthworks and Landscapes (London [1961]).Google Scholar

16 Taylor, Fields in the English Landscape.

17 E.g., Hilton, R. M., ‘The Content and Sources of English Agrarian History before 1500’, Agricultural Hist. Rev. 3 (1955), 3–19Google Scholar; Jones, G. R. J., ‘Early Territorial Organisation in England and Wales’, Geografriska Annaler 43 (1961), 174–81Google Scholar; Taylor, C., ‘Whiteparish’, Wiltshire Arch. and Nat. Hist. Mag. 62 (1967), 79–102Google Scholar, and ‘Strip Lynchets’, Antiquity 40 (1967), 227–83Google Scholar; Thirsk, J., Preface, , 3rd. ed. of Orwin and Orwin, Open Fields, pp. v–xvGoogle Scholar, with refs.; Wilson, D. M., ‘Anglo-Saxon Rural Economy: a Survey of the Archaeological Evidence and a Suggestion’, Agricultural Hist. Rev. 10 (1962), 65–79Google Scholar; and, now, several articles in the new journal Landscape Hist. 1 (1979).Google Scholar

18 Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles, ed. A. R. H. Baker and R. A. Butlin (Cambridge, 1973Google Scholar); Deserted Medieval Villages, ed. M. W. Beresfordand J. G. Hurst (London, 1971Google Scholar); Early Land Allotment, ed. Bowen and Fowler; The Agrarian History of England and Wales, ed. H. P. R. Finberg 1.2 (Cambridge, 1972Google Scholar); Anglo-Saxon Settlement and Landscape, ed. T. Rowley, BAR 6 (Oxford, 1974Google Scholar); Medieval Settlement, ed. P. H. Sawyer (London, 1976Google Scholar); and ArchASE.

19 E.g.. Arnold, C. J., ‘Early Anglo-Saxon Settlement Patterns in Southern England’, Jnl of Hist. Geography 3 (1977), 309–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Austin, D. H., ‘Fieldwork and Excavation at Hart, Co. Durham, 1965–75’, AAe 5th ser. 4 (1976), 69–132Google Scholar; Brown, A. E. et al. , ‘Some Anglo-Saxon Estates and their Boundaries in South-West Northamptonshire’, Northamptonshire Archaeology 12 (1977), 155–76Google Scholar; Cunliffe, B., ‘Saxon and Medieval Settlement-Pattern in the Region of Chalton, Hampshire’, MA 16 (1972), 1–12Google Scholar; Drury, P. J. and well, W. J. Rod, ‘Investigations at Asheldham, Essex: an Interim Report on the Church and the Historic Landscape’, AntJ 58 (1978), 133–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Godwin, H., ‘History of the Natural Forests of Britain: Establishment, Dominance and Destruction’, Philosophical Trans. of the R. Soc. of London 13 (1975), 47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jensen, G. F., ‘Place-Names and Settlement History: a Review with a Select Bibliography’, NH 13 (1977), 1–26Google Scholar; Jones, G. R. J., ‘Historical Geography and our Landed Heritage’, Univ. of Leeds Rev. 19 (1976), 53–78Google Scholar; Morris, C. D., ‘Northumbria and the Viking Settlement: the Evidence for Landholding’, AAe 5th ser. 5 (1977), 81–103Google Scholar; Sheppard, J. A., ‘Pre-Conquest Yorkshire: Fiscal Carucates as an Index of Land Exploitation’, Trans. of the Inst. of Brit. Geographers 65 (1975), 67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wade-Martins, P., ‘The Linear Earthworks of West Norfolk’, Norfolk Archaeology 36 (1974), 23–38.Google Scholar

20 E.g., Taylor, Fieldwork in Medieval Archaeology, and Aston, M. and Rowley, T., landscape Archaeology: an Introduction to Fieldwork Techniques in Post-Roman Landscapes (Newton Abbot, 1974).Google Scholar

21 Aerial Reconnaissance for Archaeology, ed. Wilson; Aerial Archaeology 1 (1977Google Scholar–); and Hampton, J. N. and Palmer, R., ‘Implications of Aerial Photography for Archaeology’, ArchJ 134 (1977), 157–93.Google Scholar

22 See generally on settlements, Rahtz, P., ‘Buildings and Rural Settlement’, ArchASE, pp. 49–98.Google Scholar

23 Cf. Maitland, , Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 596Google Scholar, envisaging, in innocence of air photography, that ‘a century hence [i.e. in the 1990s] instead of a few photographed village maps, there will be many‘.

24 It is obviously unnecessary, and would be inappropriate, to attempt to discuss the whole topic of documentary evidence here. This section merely suggests two points in so far as they relate to farming in the early English landscape. Among the many relevant studies, Finberg, H. P. R., ‘Anglo-Saxon England to 1042’, Agrarian History, ed. Finberg, 1.2, 385–525Google Scholar, summarizes the specifically agrarian documentary evidence before 1042 and Sawyer, P., Prom Roman Britain to Norman England (London, 1978Google Scholar), esp. ch. 3, provides an important discussion. I am grateful to Professor Sawyer for allowing me to read this chapter in proof; it has enabled me to avoid, within the necessarily limited scale of this essay, developing similar arguments about some aspects, particularly population size and the ‘filling up’ of the early English landscape rather earlier than has often been proposed previously.

25 E.g., Hill, R., ‘Some Parish Boundaries in Hampshire’, Medieval Settlement, ed. Sawyer, pp. 61–5Google Scholar, and D. Bonney, ‘Early Boundaries and Estates in Southern England’, Ibid. pp. 72–82.

26 This suggestion was thought unlikely by non-archaeological participants at an Oxford seminar on ‘open field’ origins in November 1978. There was little awareness, however, of the sheer extent and complexity of the archaeological landscape evidence now known to exist, primarily from air photography. On those grounds alone the suggestion should be seriously considered, even if it is not likely on tenurial or linguistic grounds. The Berkshire Downs are perhaps an area where the thesis could be tested; cf. Gelling, M., The Place-Names of Berkshire, EPNS 49–51 (Cambridge, 1973, 1974 and 1976Google Scholar), and Richards, J. C., The Archaeology of the Berkshire Downs: an Introductory Survey (Reading, 1978Google Scholar). That ‘ancient’ features were picked out in the boundaries of Anglo-Saxon charters is not, of course, in dispute; but, if barrows and Roman roads, why not relict elements of that most ubiquitous of former land uses, farming? Cf. Ford, W. J., ‘Some Settlement Patterns in the Central Region of the Warwickshire Avon’, Medieval Settlement, ed. Sawyer, pp. 274–94.Google Scholar

27 The two ‘classic’ studies are Passmore, J. B., The English Plough (Oxford, 1950), esp. pp. 3–6Google Scholar and pls. 1 and 11, and Payne, F. G., ‘The Ploug h in Ancient Britain’, ArchJ 104 (1947). 82–111Google Scholar, esp. 103–7.

28 The seven are in London, British Library, Harley 603; BL Cotton Julius A. vi and Cotton Tiberius B. v; Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17. 1; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 11 (two); and the Bayeux Tapestry.

29 Colvin, H. M. (‘A Medieval Drawing of a Plough’, Antiquity 27 (1953), 165–7Google Scholar) discussed an annotated drawing of such a plough, dated by him to the late thirteenth century.

30 Payne, F. G., ‘The British Plough: some Stages in its Development’, Agricultural Hist. Rep. 5 (1957), 74–84Google Scholar, argues strongly for a fixed mould-board plough in Roman Britain and rather assumes (p. 79) that the type continued in unbroken use during the post-Roman centuries, reappearing archaeologically with a tenth-century(P) symmetrical share from Thetford. This example may well be Viking in origin and in any case need have no bearing on the type of cultivating implement being used by pagan Anglo-Saxons 400 years earlier. Payne's conclusion in his earlier paper (‘The Plough in Ancient Britain’, p. 109) still seems more appropriate: referring to the popular idea that the Anglo-Saxons brought the ‘heavy plough’ with them, he comments that ‘the plough assigned to (them) in modern writings is a product of the modern imagination’.

31 The negative evidence could be interpreted as implying that the Anglo-Saxons came equipped with, if anything, wooden implements, whatever their type. An ard seems most likely. the evidence from Roman Britain has been discussed most recently in my contribution concerning a wooden share from an ard, Parrington, M., The Excavation… at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon…, Council for Brit. Archaeology Research Report 28 (London, 1978), 82–8.Google Scholar

32 Fowler, P. J. and Thomas, A. C., ‘Arable Fields of the Pre-Norman Period at Gwithian,’ Cornish Archaeology 1 (1962), 61–84Google Scholar, and Barker, P. A. and Lawson, J., ‘A Pre-Norman Field System at Hen Domen’, MA 15 (1971). 58–72Google Scholar- I reviewed the Gwithian evidence and Barker reported on further areas of slight ridge-and-furrow in the Hen Dome n area at a symposium in Oxford in November 1978, from which the papers are to be published.

33 Fowler, ‘Agriculture’, ArchASE, pp. 49–98.

34 Early Land Allotment, ed. Bowen and Fowler.

35 Respectively Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Portcbester Castle II: saxon, Soc. of Antiquaries, Report of the Research Committee 33 (London, 1976), 61–2Google Scholar; Biddle, M., ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1971: Tenth and Final Interim Report’, AntJ 55 (1975), 295–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and information kindly supplied by the excavator, P. Ashbee.

36 Rahtz, ‘Buildings’, ArchASE, pp. 49–98.

37 Trent Valley Archaeol. Research Committee Report 8 (1974; per Nottingham University).

38 Mucking, : AntJ 48 (1968), 210–30, and 54 (1974), 183–99Google Scholar; West Stow: MA 13 (1969), 1–20Google Scholar; Bishopstone: Sussex Archaeol. Collections 115 (1977Google Scholar); and Chalton, : MA 16 (1972), 13–31, and 17 (1973), 1–25.Google Scholar

39 Hope-Taylor, B., Excavations at Yeavering (London, 1979Google Scholar), and Rahtz, P. A., ‘The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar, Somerset’, MA 6–7 (1962–1963), 53–66Google Scholar, and The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar, BAR 65 (Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar

40 See the annual summaries, MA 1 (1957Google Scholar) onwards.

41 Fowler, Approaches to Archaeology, ch. 2.

42 As in Taylor, ‘Whiteparish’, pp. 79–102, and Phythian-Adams, Continuity.

43 Clutton-Brock, J., ‘The Animal Resources’, ArchASE, pp. 373–92.Google Scholar

44 Fowler, , ‘Agriculture’, Arch ASE, pp. 46–7Google Scholar. For a major bone report, see now Cunliffe, Portchester II, pp. 262–96.

45 The rest of this paper develops my last paragraph in ‘Agriculture’, ArchASE (p. 46). This is made possible by, to a very large extent, the goodwill of, and information obtained at, the Faunal Remains Laboratory of the Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, University of Southampton, in particular during a stimulating week in September 1978. I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to the work and generosity of, in particular, J. Coy, M. A. Monk and F. J. Green and their colleague at the Southampton Archaeological Research Committee, J. Bourdillon. Dr J. Renfrew has encouraged my interest in this research based on the university, including that of her own post-graduate students. All the material referred to will be properly published elsewhere over the next few years, and detailed, duplicated reports on completed AMHB work are available for consultation through the directorate's laboratory at Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 1AB.

46 Clutton-Brock, ‘The Animal Resources’, ArchASE, esp. pp. 374 and 378–82Google Scholar. The phrase quoted is somewhat contentious.

47 Holdsworth, P., ‘Saxon Southampton: a New Review’, MA 20 (1976), 26–61Google Scholar; Cherry, J. F. and Hodges, R., ‘The Dating of Hamwih: Saxon Southampton Reconsidered’, AntJ 58 (1978), 299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Holdsworth, P., Saxon Southampton: Excavations in Melbourne Street 1971–4, Council for Brit. Archaeology Research Report 33 (1979Google Scholar), esp. the bone report by J. Bourdillon and J. Coy, pp. 31–48.

48 J. Bourdillon, ‘The Animal Bone of Hamwih: some Comparisons’, Proc. of the Third International Archaeozoological Conference (forthcoming).

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 MA 19 (1975), 228Google Scholar, and Haslam, J., ‘Excavations of a Mid-Saxon Iron-Smelting Site at Ramsbury, Wilts.’, MA 24 (1980Google Scholar). The following data are from the specialist bone report by J. Coy, who kindly allowed their use well in advance of publication.

52 Fowler, , ‘Agriculture’, ArchASE, pp. 46–7Google Scholar; cf. Bartley, D. D., ‘Palaeobotanical Evidence’, Medieval Settlement, ed. Sawyer, pp. 226–35.Google Scholar

53 Much of the following owes a great deal, especially the detailed analyses, to M. A. Monk, ‘The Plant Economy and Agriculture of the Anglo-Saxons in Southern Britain: with Particular Reference to the “Mart” Settlements at Southampton and Winchester’(unpubl. M.Phil. dissertation, Southampton Univ., 1978), and F. J. Green, ‘Medieval Plant Remains: Methods and Results of Archaeobotanic Analysis from Excavations in Southern England with Especial Reference to Winchester and Urban Settlement of the 10th-15th Centuries’ (unpubl. M.Phil, dissertation, Southampton Univ., 1979). I am extremely grateful to both for the use of the theses and numerous other typescripts containing their original research and for permission to synthesize and select from their work. Green discusses ‘mineralization’, ‘Phosphatic Mineralisation of Seeds from Archaeological Sites’, Jnl of Arch. Science 6 (1979), 279–84Google Scholar, and daub and baked clay, ‘Medieval Plant Remains’, 240–52. The Fladbury data are from Monk, ‘Plant Economy’; the site is listed, Rahtz, , ‘Gazetteer of Anglo-Saxon Domestic Settlement Sites’, ArchASE, p. 419.Google Scholar

54 Monk, ‘Plant Economy’, p. 308.

55 Ibid. following J. R. B. Arthur, Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report, no. 1861; cf. Rahtz, , ‘Gazetteer’, ArchASE, p. 423.Google Scholar

56 Monk, ‘Plant Economy’, p. 294, following Jones, A. (Rogerson, A., ‘Excavation on Fuller's Hill, Great Yarmouth’, East Anglian Archaeology. Report no. 2 (Norfolk) (Norfolk Archaeological Unit, Gresscnhall, 1976), pp. 131–246.Google Scholar

57 Monk, ‘Plant Economy’, p. 325.

58 Moore, P. D., ‘Pollen Analysis of a Buried Soil at Hen Domen’, MA 15 (1971), 69–70.Google Scholar

59 Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester: Tenth Report’, pp. 326–8.

60 Green, ‘Medieval Plant Remains’, p. 125, and Winchester Stud. 10, ed. J. Renfrew (forthcoming).

61 Green, F. J., app. 5, Heighway, C. M.et al. ‘Excavations at 1, Westgate Street, Gloucester, 1975’, MA 23 (1979), 159–213, at 186–90.Google Scholar

62 Green, ‘Medieval Plant Remains’, pp. 84 and 232–3.

63 S. Applebaum, ‘Roman Britain’, Agrarian History, ed. Finberg 1.2, ch. 7, provides a detailed discussion of the crops and plants of Roman Britain.

64 Monk, ‘Plant Economy’, p. 353.

65 Referenced sporadically throughout, Agrarian History, ed. Finberg 1.2, 385–52)Google Scholar.

66 Now argued strongly on the basis of both historical and archaeological evidence by Sawyer, Roman Britain to Norman England, esp. ch. 3; cf. above, n. 24.

67 Biddle, M., ‘Towns’, ArchASE, pp. 99–150Google Scholar, provides a general survey with 545 footnotes, to which might now be added his ‘The Development of the Anglo-Saxon Town’, Topografia urbana e vita cittadina nell' alto medioevo in Occidente, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 21 (Spoleto, 1974Google Scholar), and, for a continental summary, European Towns: their Archaeology and Early History, ed. M. W. Barley (London, 1977).Google Scholar