The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
Middle Ages: rural settlement and manors • 249 • have resulted in the survival of waterlogged or charred timbers. In general, scientific methods have had only a limited impact on medieval archaeology in the field, although undeniably, and as with sites of all periods, they assume a much greater importance in the laboratory when finds are subject to microscopic study and analysis. Techniques that are routinely used outdoors include archaeomagnetic dating, where burnt clay features such as kilns, ovens and hearths are encountered, but rarely radiocarbon dating because the very broad date brackets do not offer a ‘tighter’ date than that given by, say, pottery. A medieval villager lived in a landscape of whose administrative complexity he was probably more aware than his modern-day equivalent. Each Sunday he would go to the church of his parish, the place where ultimately he would be buried. To that church he owed a tenth—a tithe— of all he produced on his holding, whether it be grain, hay or lambs. Once in a while, especially if doing duty as churchwarden, he might see the archdeacon, representative of the bishop and the greater Church beyond. During his life he would undoubtedly occasionally become aware of other systems of administration: of royal officials such as the county sheriff, tax collectors and travelling justices; of the county Quarter Sessions where, from the later fourteenth century, Justices of the Peace dealt with matters including murder, assault and riot; of the county coroner to whom matters including suspicious deaths and discoveries of treasure had to be reported; of the Church’s courts for those accused of moral and ecclesiastical offences; and of Forest courts, to which those who lived in the extensive areas deemed forest came if charged with poaching deer, damaging trees, or bringing land into cultivation without permission. The administrative unit most familiar to the villager, however, was the manor. Essentially this was the estate on which he lived and held his land. To its owner, the lord of the manor, in return for his holding he owed a money rent or labour services, that is a set number of days’ work on the lord’s own land. Although there were considerable variations both regionally and over time in the classes of peasantry and their obligations, by and large a distinction can be made between those who were ‘free’—that is those, usually the minority, who owed only a money rent for their holding and in whose lives the lord had relatively little opportunity to interfere—and those servile tenants who were obliged to do labour services and who, at least in theory, often held their farm only during their own lifetime, after which it passed back to the lord to be reallotted. In many parts of the country, such men were called ‘copyholders’, that is they held their house and land according to an agreement made in the manor court of which they received a written copy. Such courts, termed ‘courts baron’, were held at regular intervals, perhaps monthly, and were at the heart of rural life. For here not only was the surrender and transfer of holdings dealt with but also the regulation of agricultural land and the appointment of officials. Those might include a hayward to look after fences and the manor’s grazing land and, most importantly, a reeve, responsible for collecting any dues owed to the lord and acting as the main channel of communications between the lord and his tenants. Parish and manor were therefore entirely separate: the first was the territory that supported a church through the payment of tithes, while the second was a lay estate comprising the land of the lord and that of his tenants. Both varied greatly in size and complexity, and many parishes, especially those established earlier rather than later in the era of parish formation in the later Saxon period, contained several manors. That having been said, it was perhaps commonest for parish and manor to be co-extensive—that is to have the same boundaries—reflecting the origin of so many parish churches as the private or estate chapel of a local lord. Those frameworks, an appreciation of which is essential for the student of medieval society, have long been well understood; they survived little changed until the earlier nineteenth century and have been, and remain, the subject of intensive enquiry by historians. What then has archaeology to contribute to the study of rural settlement?
• 250 • Paul Stamper The first point that can be made is that, traditionally, few historians exhibited any interest whatsoever in material culture, whether it be the layout of a village’s fields, the design of its houses or the range of their contents. That was especially so with regard to peasant society, which was assumed to be (in every sense) rude, crude and unworthy of scholarly investigation. In fairness to historians (and this is the second point), medieval documentary sources tend anyway to touch only indirectly on these matters. Even after the making of written records proliferated in the thirteenth century, narrative and descriptive passages of ordinary life are few and far between, and most documents are terse, factual memoranda: of the transfer of property, of misdemeanours and punishments, and of grants of permissions. If these do mention, say, a house, a mill, or a pig, it is rare for there to be any descriptive gloss given. Furthermore, although the mention or otherwise of items in documents can indicate the date of change—when windmills first appeared or when large-scale goat keeping declined—they rarely offer direct explanation. Archaeology’s ultimate access to a much larger dataset, and to one with a degree of detail denied the historian, makes the investigation of explanation far more feasible. That such an approach is now possible owes much to a small number of scholars who, between the early 1950s and the 1980s, not only established the techniques for studying the medieval countryside but also gathered much of the evidence and formed many of the interpretations that underpin our understanding of it (Hurst 1986). Although as early as the 1840s John Wilson had excavated a medieval village, Woodperry, Oxfordshire, recording foundations, pottery and small finds, his lead was not followed up; only in the 1930s, when Martyn Jope excavated a peasant house at Great Beere, Devon, and Rupert Bruce-Mitford began to dig at the deserted village of Seacourt, Oxfordshire, was there a renewed interest in the possibilities such excavations offered. With survey, a similar pattern can be seen, of early landmarks not pursued. From the 1850s, Ordnance Survey surveyors were occasionally mapping in some detail medieval settlement remains, although these aroused little comment, while in 1924, O.G.S. Crawford published the first air photograph of a deserted medieval village, Gainsthorpe, Lincolnshire. In terms of more holistic landscape work, there was very little, although John Hurst has drawn attention to the work of amateurs such as Ethel Rudkin in Lincolnshire, Helen O’Neil in Gloucestershire and Tony Brewster in Yorkshire, who brought to bear techniques including fieldwalking, air photography, experimental archaeology, and excavation in pioneering individual studies. Although it is to simplify matters, the publication of three books in the mid-1950s provided a vital catalyst for medieval landscape studies. In the 1940s, two economic historians, Maurice Beresford and William Hoskins, had independently begun to seek out on the ground and on air photos (the available number of which expanded hugely as systematic post-war surveys were released) medieval and later landscapes which they had encountered in documents and, in particular, on hand-drawn estate maps. Beresford’s Lost Villages of England appeared in 1954 and his History on the Ground in 1957, and Hoskins’ Making of the English Landscape in 1955. VILLAGES, HAMLETS AND HOUSES Among the most important points those books established, despite the scepticism of some senior colleagues, was that not only were large numbers of villages deserted in the Middle Ages but that their remains, readily identifiable as earthwork house platforms, hollow ways and banks and ditches, were to be seen in many parts of the country, sometimes in profusion. However, when the historians attempted to excavate individual houses, the results were disappointing, not least because of the primitive methods used. In one celebrated instance, Beresford searched for walls with a gargantuan coke shovel borrowed from the local railway stationmaster.
- Page 213 and 214: • 198 • Julian D.Richards the A
- Page 215 and 216: • 200 • Julian D.Richards and a
- Page 217 and 218: • 202 • Julian D.Richards by an
- Page 219 and 220: • 204 • Julian D.Richards Figur
- Page 221 and 222: • 206 • Julian D.Richards avail
- Page 223 and 224: • 208 • Julian D.Richards stage
- Page 225 and 226: Chapter Twelve Landscapes of the Mi
- Page 227 and 228: • 212 • John Schofield Other to
- Page 229 and 230: • 214 • John Schofield A second
- Page 231 and 232: • 216 • John Schofield Suburbs
- Page 233 and 234: • 218 • John Schofield archaeol
- Page 235 and 236: • 220 • John Schofield continuo
- Page 237 and 238: • 222 • John Schofield environm
- Page 239 and 240: • 224 • John Schofield particul
- Page 241 and 242: • 226 • John Schofield phenomen
- Page 243 and 244: Chapter Thirteen Landscapes of the
- Page 245 and 246: • 230 • Roberta Gilchrist until
- Page 247 and 248: • 232 • Roberta Gilchrist multi
- Page 249 and 250: • 234 • Roberta Gilchrist house
- Page 251 and 252: • 236 • Roberta Gilchrist Figur
- Page 253 and 254: • 238 • Roberta Gilchrist Welsh
- Page 255 and 256: • 240 • Roberta Gilchrist The a
- Page 257 and 258: • 242 • Roberta Gilchrist refer
- Page 259 and 260: • 244 • Roberta Gilchrist bowl,
- Page 261 and 262: • 246 • Roberta Gilchrist Aston
- Page 263: • 248 • Paul Stamper peasants.
- Page 267 and 268: • 252 • Paul Stamper Astill 198
- Page 269 and 270: • 254 • Paul Stamper Figure 14.
- Page 271 and 272: • 256 • Paul Stamper carpenters
- Page 273 and 274: • 258 • Paul Stamper ‘open’
- Page 275 and 276: • 260 • Paul Stamper replanning
- Page 277 and 278: • 262 • Paul Stamper projects (
- Page 279 and 280: Chapter Fifteen The historical geog
- Page 281 and 282: • 266 • Ian Whyte villages—te
- Page 283 and 284: • 268 • Ian Whyte Figure 15.2 M
- Page 285 and 286: • 270 • Ian Whyte LANDSCAPE App
- Page 287 and 288: • 272 • Ian Whyte gardens had b
- Page 289 and 290: • 274 • Ian Whyte The need of i
- Page 291 and 292: • 276 • Ian Whyte TOWNSCAPES Ur
- Page 293 and 294: • 278 • Ian Whyte Buxton, Derby
- Page 295 and 296: Chapter Sixteen The workshop of the
- Page 297 and 298: • 282 • Kate Clark writing duri
- Page 299 and 300: • 284 • Kate Clark Industrial a
- Page 301 and 302: • 286 • Kate Clark Archaeologic
- Page 303 and 304: • 288 • Kate Clark nevertheless
- Page 305 and 306: • 290 • Kate Clark production t
- Page 307 and 308: • 292 • Kate Clark Some rivers
- Page 309 and 310: • 294 • Kate Clark however, can
- Page 311 and 312: • 296 • Kate Clark have the maj
- Page 313 and 314: • 298 • Timothy Darvill never p
• 250 • Paul Stamper<br />
<strong>The</strong> first point that <strong>ca</strong>n be made is that, traditionally, few historians exhibited any interest<br />
whatsoever in material culture, whether it be the layout <strong>of</strong> a village’s fields, the design <strong>of</strong> its<br />
houses or the range <strong>of</strong> their contents. That was especially so with regard to peasant society, which<br />
was assumed to be (in every sense) rude, crude and unworthy <strong>of</strong> scholarly investigation. In fairness<br />
to historians (and this is the second point), medieval documentary sources tend anyway to touch<br />
only indirectly on these matters. Even after the making <strong>of</strong> written records proliferated in the<br />
thirteenth century, narrative and descriptive passages <strong>of</strong> ordinary life are few and far between,<br />
and most documents are terse, factual memoranda: <strong>of</strong> the transfer <strong>of</strong> property, <strong>of</strong> misdemeanours<br />
and punishments, and <strong>of</strong> grants <strong>of</strong> permissions. If these do mention, say, a house, a mill, or a pig,<br />
it is rare for there to be any descriptive gloss given.<br />
Furthermore, although the mention or otherwise <strong>of</strong> items in documents <strong>ca</strong>n indi<strong>ca</strong>te the date<br />
<strong>of</strong> change—when windmills first appeared or when large-s<strong>ca</strong>le goat keeping declined—they rarely<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer direct explanation. <strong>Archaeology</strong>’s ultimate access to a much larger dataset, and to one with<br />
a degree <strong>of</strong> detail denied the historian, makes the investigation <strong>of</strong> explanation far more feasible.<br />
That such an approach is now possible owes much to a small number <strong>of</strong> scholars who, between<br />
the early 1950s and the 1980s, not only established the techniques for studying the medieval<br />
countryside but also gathered much <strong>of</strong> the evidence and formed many <strong>of</strong> the interpretations that<br />
underpin our understanding <strong>of</strong> it (Hurst 1986). Although as early as the 1840s John Wilson had<br />
ex<strong>ca</strong>vated a medieval village, Woodperry, Oxfordshire, recording foundations, pottery and small<br />
finds, his lead was not followed up; only in the 1930s, when Martyn Jope ex<strong>ca</strong>vated a peasant<br />
house at Great Beere, Devon, and Rupert Bruce-Mitford began to dig at the deserted village <strong>of</strong><br />
Seacourt, Oxfordshire, was there a renewed interest in the possibilities such ex<strong>ca</strong>vations <strong>of</strong>fered.<br />
With survey, a similar pattern <strong>ca</strong>n be seen, <strong>of</strong> early landmarks not pursued. From the 1850s,<br />
Ordnance Survey surveyors were oc<strong>ca</strong>sionally mapping in some detail medieval settlement remains,<br />
although these aroused little comment, while in 1924, O.G.S. Crawford published the first air<br />
photograph <strong>of</strong> a deserted medieval village, Gainsthorpe, Lincolnshire. In terms <strong>of</strong> more holistic<br />
lands<strong>ca</strong>pe work, there was very little, although John Hurst has drawn attention to the work <strong>of</strong><br />
amateurs such as Ethel Rudkin in Lincolnshire, Helen O’Neil in Gloucestershire and Tony Brewster<br />
in Yorkshire, who brought to bear techniques including fieldwalking, air photography, experimental<br />
archaeology, and ex<strong>ca</strong>vation in pioneering individual studies.<br />
Although it is to simplify matters, the publi<strong>ca</strong>tion <strong>of</strong> three books in the mid-1950s provided a<br />
vital <strong>ca</strong>talyst for medieval lands<strong>ca</strong>pe studies. In the 1940s, two economic historians, Maurice<br />
Beresford and William Hoskins, had independently begun to seek out on the ground and on air<br />
photos (the available number <strong>of</strong> which expanded hugely as systematic post-war surveys were<br />
released) medieval and later lands<strong>ca</strong>pes which they had encountered in documents and, in particular,<br />
on hand-drawn estate maps. Beresford’s Lost Villages <strong>of</strong> England appeared in 1954 and his History<br />
on the Ground in 1957, and Hoskins’ Making <strong>of</strong> the English Lands<strong>ca</strong>pe in 1955.<br />
VILLAGES, HAMLETS AND HOUSES<br />
Among the most important points those books established, despite the scepticism <strong>of</strong> some senior<br />
colleagues, was that not only were large numbers <strong>of</strong> villages deserted in the Middle Ages but that<br />
their remains, readily identifiable as earthwork house platforms, hollow ways and banks and<br />
ditches, were to be seen in many parts <strong>of</strong> the country, sometimes in pr<strong>of</strong>usion. However, when<br />
the historians attempted to ex<strong>ca</strong>vate individual houses, the results were disappointing, not least<br />
be<strong>ca</strong>use <strong>of</strong> the primitive methods used. In one celebrated instance, Beresford searched for walls<br />
with a gargantuan coke shovel borrowed <strong>from</strong> the lo<strong>ca</strong>l railway stationmaster.