Environment and Agriculture of Early Winchester 1803270667, 9781803270661, 9781803270678

Table of contents :
Cover
Pre-title Page
Frontispiece
Title Page
Publisher
Dedication
Sponsors
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS
Staff and Volunteers of the Winchester Research Unit
GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE
FOREWORD
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENT
1 INTRODUCTION by MARTIN BIDDLE and JANE M. RENFREW with contributions by FRANCIS J. GREEN and PATRICK OTTAWAY
2 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION by JANE M. RENFREW and PATRICK OTTAWAY
PART IITHE WRITTEN EVIDENCE
ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS FROM ANGLO-SAXON WINCHESTER by DEBBY BANHAM
4 AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER: THE DOCUMENTARY by DEREK J. KEENEEVIDENCE
5 GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER: THE CASTLE, WOLVESEY PALACE, AND AND EASTGATE HOUSE
by BEATRICE CLAYRE and MARTIN BIDDLE
6 FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350, IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE by JAN Z. TITOW
PART IIITHE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
7 POLLEN ANALYSIS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS IN WINCHESTER by ERWIN ISENBERG and JANE M. RENFREW
8 THE IDENTIFICATION AND UTILIZATION OF WOOD IN EARLY WINCHESTER by SUZANNE KEENE
9 THE ROMAN PLANT REMAINS1 by PETER MURPHY
10 THE PLANT ECONOMY AND VEGETATION OF ANGLO-SAXON WINCHESTER by MICHAEL MONK
11 PLANT REMAINS AND AGRICULTURE IN NORMAN AND LATER MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER by FRANCIS J. GREEN
12 ROMAN AND POST-ROMAN MOSS FROM LOWER BROOK STREET by DORIAN WILLIAMS and JANE M. RENFREW
13INSECT FAUNA FROM LOWER BROOK STREET
by PETER J. OSBORNE
14 CONCLUSION
by PATRICK OTTAWAY
Concordance of Samples
INDEX I: GENERAL INDEX
INDEX 2: INSECTS AND PLANTS
WINCHESTER STUDIES
Back cover

Citation preview

WINCHESTER STUDIES • 10 General Editor: Martin Biddle

Environment and Agriculture of Early Winchester

EDITED BY

MARTIN BIDDLE, JANE RENFREW AND PATRICK OTTAWAY

WINCHESTER STUDIES General editor: Martin Biddle

10

ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE OF EARLY WINCHESTER

The River Itchen and the vegetation of its water-meadows, looking south, June 2021

WINCHESTER STUDIES 10

ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE OF EARLY WINCHESTER Edited by MARTIN BIDDLE, JANE RENFREW, AND PATRICK OTTAWAY With contributions by Debby Banham, Martin Biddle, Beatrice Clayre, Francis J. Green, Erwin Isenberg, Derek Keene, Suzanne Keene, Michael Monk, Peter Murphy, Peter J. Osborne, Patrick Ottaway, Jane M. Renfrew, Jan Z. Titow, and Dorian Williams

ARCHAEOPRESS PUBLISHING  OXFORD 2022

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18–24 Middle Way Oxford OX2 7LG United Kingdom © Winchester Excavations Committee 2022 ISBN 978-1-80327-066-1 ISBN 978-1-80327-067-8 (eBook)

In memory of Leo Biek (1921–2002), founding father and first champion of environmental archaeology in this country

The work on which this book is based was supported by generous grants and gifts from The Lord Ashburton KG The Avocet Trust A. J. P. Ayres Jane Benson Julian Benson Charlotte Bonham Carter Charitable Trust Dudley Bryant Janie Cadbury Giles Clarke The Friends of Winchester College The Friends of Winchester Studies Richard W. Greaves Hampshire County Council The Headley Trust Robert Kiln Charitable Trust Sir Andrew Large The Linbury Trust J. L. Macdonald Nigel McNair Scott Sir Jeremy Morse Rupert Nabarro The National Science Foundation (USA) Finian O’Sullivan Richard and Margaret Petersen Julia Sandison Sir James Scott Charitable Trust St Swithun’s School WARG: Winchester Archaeology and Local History Chris Webb Winchester City Council The Warden and Fellows of Winchester College The Winchester Excavations Committee (general funds)

x PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Debby Banham, affiliated lecturer, Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, University of Cambridge Martin Biddle, Director of the Winchester Research Unit Beatrice Clayre, Research Associate with the Winchester Research Unit Francis J. Green,Visiting Fellow, Bournemouth University Erwin Isenberg, formerly of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany Derek J. Keene†, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London Suzanne Keene, Reader Emeritus in Museum Studies, University College London Michael Monk, formerly of the Department of Archaeology, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland Peter J. Murphy, formerly of English Heritage (now Historic England) Peter J. Osborne, formerly of the University of Birmingham Patrick Ottaway, Archaeological Consultant,York Jane M. Renfrew (Lady Renfrew of Kaimsthorn), Emeritus Fellow of Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge Jan Z. Titow, former Reader in Medieval Economic and Social History, University of Nottingham

Staff and Volunteers of the Winchester Research Unit who worked on this volume

Co-ordination and editorial Katherine Barclay Clare Chapman Ben Emery Sarah Jackson Pru Kemball Megan Kirkpatrick †Dorothy Long Eileen Power Caroline Raison Drawings Nigel Fradgely Simon Hayfield David Hyde Indexing Katherine Barclay Clare Chapman Ben Emery Susanne Haselgrove Pru Kemball Francis Morris

Photography R. C. Anderson Martin Biddle E. W. Cloutman J. S. Cloutman Pru Kemball †Robert K.Vincent, Jr. Text preparation Clare Chapman David Lloyd †June Lloyd Volunteers †Russell M. Davies Ben Emery Prunella Skinner Margery Woodland

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

A

s has been the case with other (but not all) volumes of Winchester Studies, the origin of this volume goes back to the very first season of excavations on the Cathedral Car Park site in 1961. It was immediately obvious then that the waterlogged and other anaerobic deposits preserved large quantities of organic materials which offered the possibility of adding a new dimension to the study of the city’s history, that of its environment through the last two thousand years. The recognition of this possibility lay not only in the richness of the materials evidently available. It lay more particularly in the vision which those of us who in the previous three years had studied in Professor Grahame Clark’s Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge had gained from the teaching of Eric Sidney Higgs (1908−76), the founder of the ‘Cambridge Palaeoeconomy School’. A farmer himself, Eric had the wealth of experience to grasp the possibilities offered by organic remains, whether of animal bones or plants, and made sure that we too realized what might be achieved. In the months after coming down from Cambridge in June 1961, it was inevitable that Eric’s teaching would inform the recovery of plant, animal, and human remains from the Cathedral Car Park site. It was inevitable too that this should have remained a characteristic of the excavations in Winchester over the next decade, of which over half a century later this book is the result. And what a delight that Jane Renfrew, herself a Cambridge-trained archaeologist and palaeoethnobotanist, should have agreed to be its editor. 12 April 2021 Martin Biddle

FOREWORD Jane M. Renfrew

T

hanks to the generosity of donors, publication of this volume is now finally achieved. It was originally conceived in the late 1970s after three of my M.Phil. students in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Southampton successfully completed their degrees. They were examining soil samples collected in Martin Biddle’s Winchester excavations of 1961–71, looking for seeds in order to reconstruct the environment and uses of plants in the city from Roman to later medieval times. Peter Murphy worked on the Roman samples, Michael Monk on those from Anglo-Saxon deposits, and Francis Green on those from later medieval deposits: the impressive results of their detailed analyses form Chapters 9, 10, and 11 of this book. Pollen analyses undertaken by Erwin Isenberg, published here in Chapter 7, shed light on the environment within the city, and these four studies formed the original core of the projected book. Subsequent studies on the uses of wood by Suzanne Keene, then a member of the Winchester Research Unit, the identification of mosses by Dorian Williams, and the remains of beetles by Peter Osborne, have filled out the picture. The detailed study of the modern natural environment of Winchester by Patrick Ottaway (PJO Archaeology) forms a valuable background context to these studies. Comparison of these results with medieval written records gives us a more complete understanding of these aspects of life in early Winchester. The earliest written record of Winchester plants is that of ones which may have been known to Ælfric of Eynsham (d. c.1010) when he was a pupil of Æthelwold (bishop of Winchester, 963−84). These are listed in his eleventh-century Nomina Herbarum, discussed here by Debby Banham in Chapter 3. Most of the historic records for the uses of plants in the city and its environs belong to the medieval period and have been reviewed here by Derek Keene, Assistant Director of the Winchester Research Unit and author of the Survey of Medieval Winchester (Winchester Studies 2), who had himself been one of the supervisors of the excavations on Lower Brook Street. The hints of medieval gardens within the city walls, especially those at the castle and at Wolvesey Palace, are discussed by Beatrice Clayre and Martin Biddle. It is not clear if the inhabitants of Lower Brook Street grew vegetables and herbs in their back yards, although some of the properties away from the High Street did have quite long yards or gardens. There is some evidence that the gardens of Wolvesey Palace saw the growing of vegetables including peas, beans, onions, leeks, and garlic, and the fruit trees cultivated there included apples, pears, and vines. Most of the agricultural produce was brought into the city from outside for the town’s markets and the mills.The main staples were wheat, barley, and oats; there are very few references to rye or to vegetables such as peas, beans, and vetches. Mixed crops of wheat and winter-sown barley (‘mancorn’) feature in some of the records of crops brought in from the extensive Hampshire

xvi

FOREWORD

estates of the bishopric and the cathedral priory, and these are discussed in detail by Jan Z.Titow. Crops of wheat and barley were also grown in the east and west fields of Wolvesey Palace, close to the city. The produce of these harvests was brought to the numerous mills inside or close to the city, or was sold in the market near the cathedral. Exotic imported spices and fruits were sold at the city’s St Giles’ Fair. It is in Section III on the archaeological evidence, that we get the fullest picture of the natural environment and of the cultivated crops available in the city. The discussions of finds of seeds from the various sites of the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and late medieval periods in Winchester show the wide range of wild species, reflecting the natural environment, and the more limited number of cultivated and gathered plants which made up the diet of the inhabitants and of their livestock. This evidence is based on discarded rubbish in pits of various kinds, rather than stores of foodstuffs, and also includes remains of animal fodder and bedding. Wild fruits were also being gathered from the countryside including crab apples, sloes, plums, cherries, blackberries, elderberries, and hazelnuts. Through the combination of all these sources of evidence, reported here in detail, we can begin to understand more fully the roles of agriculture and the environment in the development of Anglo-Saxon and later medieval Winchester.

CONTENTS List of illustrations List of tables List of abbreviations List of references  Acknowledgements

xvii xxii xxvi xxix xliii I. INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENT

1. 2.

INTRODUCTION by Martin Biddle and Jane M. Renfrew with contributions by Francis J. Green and Patrick Ottaway THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION by Jane M. Renfrew and Patrick Ottaway

1 26

II. THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE 3. 4. 5.

6.

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS FROM ANGLO-SAXON WINCHESTER by Debby Banham 39 AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER: THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE by Derek J. Keene 57 GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER: THE CASTLE, WOLVESEY PALACE, AND EASTGATE HOUSE by Beatrice Clayre and Martin Biddle 72 FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350, IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE by Jan Z. Titow 86 III. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

7. 8. 9. 10.

POLLEN ANALYSIS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS IN WINCHESTER by Erwin Isenberg and Jane M. Renfrew 139 THE IDENTIFICATION AND UTILIZATION OF WOOD IN EARLY WINCHESTER by Suzanne Keene 160 THE ROMAN PLANT REMAINS by Peter Murphy 167 THE PLANT ECONOMY AND VEGETATION OF ANGLO-SAXON WINCHESTER by Michael Monk 185

xviii

CONTENTS

PLANT REMAINS AND AGRICULTURE IN NORMAN AND LATER MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER by Francis J. Green 12. ROMAN AND POST-ROMAN MOSS FROM LOWER BROOK STREET by Dorian Williams and Jane M. Renfrew 13. INSECT FAUNA FROM LOWER BROOK STREET by Peter J. Osborne 14. CONCLUSION by Patrick Ottaway 

342 347 358

CONCORDANCE OF SAMPLES

366

INDEX 1: GENERAL INDEX INDEX 2: INSECTS AND PLANTS

375 382

11.

251

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS All illustrations are copyright Winchester Excavations Committee (WEC) unless stated in the caption. The majority of drawn illustrations were prepared by Simon Hayfield, although some were originally prepared by other Winchester Research Unit illustrators especially by Nigel Fradgely and David Hyde, and were subsequently revised by Simon. Illustrations drawn by Lesley Collett, originally for the Urban Archaeological Assessment for Winchester, are reproduced with the kind permission of Historic England and Winchester City Council. Site photographs were taken by staff of the Winchester Research Unit, including R. C. Anderson, Martin Biddle, E.W. Cloutman, J. S. Cloutman, Pru Kemball, and †Robert K.Vincent, Jr. Others are either by Patrick Ottaway or are individually acknowledged in the volume. Frontispiece The River Itchen and the vegetation of its water-meadows 1.1 The location of Winchester 2 1.2 The development of Winchester from the mid to late 2nd century B.C. to 1870  3 1.3 Winchester from the air 4 1.4 The excavation of the Cathedral Car Park in 1961 6 1.5 Winchester: showing the sites excavated by the Winchester Excavations Committee in 1961–71 from which the environmental samples were recovered 7 1.6 Winchester, Lower Brook Street, showing the sites excavated in successive years: 1962 through to 1970–1 9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 4.1

Relief map of Hampshire The solid geology of Hampshire The Itchen valley at Winchester: cross-section of its geological structure from west to east  Winchester, showing the streams and water-courses, and its mills Hampshire, showing the extent of woodland in Domesday Book The vegetation of the Itchen valley as in 1976 The River Itchen and the vegetation of its water-meadows, looking south, July 2019 Winchester: the pattern of land-use in the urban area c.1300 as reconstructed from the written records

27 28 30 33 35 36 37

59

xx

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

4.2 Castle Yard 1969: woven hurdling lying on top of Anglo-Saxon street 2  4.3 Winchester: plans showing the western end of the market area in c.i300, 1417, and c.1550

60 67

5.1

Winchester Castle: outline plans of the elements in the late 12th and 13th centuries 73 5.2 Winchester Castle: a ‘medieval’ garden recreated in 1986 outside the Great Hall 75 5.3 Winchester Castle: in the late 17th century, showing the plan of the palace, or King's House 77 5.4 Wolvesey Palace: plan of the West Hall of c.1110 79 5.5 Eastgate House and garden: detail from William Stukeley, Prospect of Winchester from the South, 9 Sep. 1723 80 5.6 Eastgate House and garden: detail from Samuel and Nathaniel Buck, The East Prospect of the city of Winchester, 1736  81 5.7 An Exact Plan Of a House and Garden in High-street near East-gate … in the City of Winchester, by William Godson, 1748 82 r 5.8 ‘The Seat of Henry Penton Esq ’ (Eastgate House). Engraving in the left margin of William Godson’s Map of Winchester, 1750 83 5.9 Rainham Hall, London Borough of Havering, built 1729, the garden front 84 5.10 Rainham Hall, built 1729, ground floor plan 85 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 9.1 9.2

Map of Hampshire showing the manors belonging to the bishopric of Winchester and to the priory of St Swithun 87 The bishop of Winchester’s Pipe Rolls for 1208 to 1350: extract showing the entry for the bishopric manor of Burghclere for 1232/3  88 The bishop of Winchester’s manor of Hambledon: graphs showing the annual fluctuation in tithes 118 Winchester: showing the location of the sites from which pollen samples were taken and the site of P.V. Waton’s sample on Winnall Moors Pollen calendar for England and Wales  P.V. Waton’s pollen diagram for Winchester  Winchester: showing the location of the sites from which samples of Roman deposits were taken Lower Brook Street 1971: plan showing the sources of the Roman deposit samples

140 154 157

168 171

9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xxi

Cathedral Green 1969: plan showing the source of the Roman deposit samples Cathedral Car Park 1961: plan showing the location of the Roman well Tower Street 1964: plan of the Iron Age structure showing the source of deposit samples Tower Street 1964: the circular Iron Age structure Lower Brook Street: fragment of pine cone of the stone-pine (Pinus pinea) from Roman Pit 217

172 176 177 178 182

i0.1 Winchester: showing the location of the sites from which samples of Anglo-Saxon deposits were taken 186 10.2 Nine of the plants in the Habitat Groups of which the seeds were commonly found in late Anglo-Saxon contexts 188 10.3 Lower Brook Street 1971, showing the location of the late Anglo-Saxon pits and other features from which deposit samples were taken 192 10.4 Lower Brook Street 1971: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined Pit 283 193 10.5 Lower Brook Street 1971: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined Pit 283 193 10.6 Lower Brook Street 1971: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined Pit 244 194 10.7 Lower Brook Street 1971: section of Pit 244 194 10.8 Lower Brook Street 1971: the size range of specimens of Prunus sp. 197 10.9 Lower Brook Street 1971: bar-graphs showing the numbers of taxa by Habitat Groups 207–11 10.10 Cathedral Green 1964–9: plan showing the sources of the late Anglo-Saxon deposit samples 218 10.11 Cathedral Green 1969: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined pit F. 265 219 10.12 Cathedral Green 1969: section of F. 265, showing the sources of the seed samples 219 10.13 Cathedral Green 1969: bar-graphs showing the numbers of taxa in the Habitat Groups227 10.14 Cathedral Car Park 1961: plan showing the sources of the Anglo-Saxon deposit samples  229 10.15 Castle Yard 1969: showing the surface of Anglo-Saxon Street 1 covered with wooden hurdles 231 10.16 Castle Yard 1969: bar-graphs showing the numbers of taxa in the Habitat Groups 236–238 10.17 Wolvesey Palace 1971: plan showing the location of the Middle Anglo-Saxon ditch F. 2583 from which samples were taken 242

xxii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

i1.1 Map of Winchester showing the location of the sites from which samples of medieval deposits were taken  252 11.2 Lower Brook Street: plan showing the locations from which BS Seeds 44–50 and 53–78 were taken 257 11.3 Lower Brook Street: general view of twelfth- to thirteenth-century levels 258 11.4 Cathedral Car Park 1961: plan showing the location of the pits from which samples were taken 276 11.5 Cathedral Car Park: stone-lined Pit 17 278 11.6 Cathedral Car Park: general view from the west of the west range of eleventh- to twelfth-century Building A, showing medieval Pits 15 and 16 280 11.7 Cathedral Car Park: remains of grape (Vitis vinifera) from Pit 16 280 11.8 Cathedral Car Park: remains of the extra-floral parts of cereals from Pits 21, 24, and 25 282 11.9 Cathedral Car Park: dominance bar-diagrams of plant groups 285 11.10 Cathedral Car park: remains of fruit and orchard crops 286 11.11 Cathedral Car Park: remains of bog bean (Menyanthes trifoliata) from Pit 16 287 11.12 Cathedral Car Park: remains of wild plants and ruderal 287 11.13 Cathedral Car Park: remains of a charred portion of the panicle of Timothy grass (Phleum cf. pretense) from Pit 21 288 11.14 Wolvesey Palace 1971: plan showing the location of the Norman ditch from which WP Seeds 5–7 were taken 290 11.15 Wolvesey Palace: plan showing locations from which WP Seeds 8–31 were taken 291 11.16 Wolvesey Palace: dominance bar-diagrams of plant groups 292 11.17 Wolvesey Palace: remains of coriander (Coriandrum sativum) from Pit 145  293 11.18 Castle Yard: plan showing the locations from which CY Seeds 58–9 and 72–6 were taken 301 11.19 Cathedral Green: plan of the tenth-century bell-casting pit (F. 33) 307 11.20 Cathedral Green: plan of the twelfth-century bell-casting pits (F. 98a and F. 98b) 308 11.21 Cathedral Green: twelfth-century bell-casting pits (F. 98a and F. 98b)  309 11.22 Cathedral Green: plan, section, and view of the thirteenth-century bell-casting pit (F. 226) 310 11.23 Cathedral Green: thirteenth-century bell-casting pit (F. 226) 311 11.24 Cathedral Green and Assize Courts South bell- and cauldron-mould bar diagram of plant groups 312 11.25 Flow-diagram showing the origin of materials used in bell-mould manufacturing 312 11.26 Cathedral Green, plant remains from bell-moulds 314 11.27 Cathedral Green, plant remains from bell-moulds  316

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

11.28 Lower Brook Street: analysis of the occurrence of Prunus species 11.29 Prunus species size analysis: Pit 23 at Cathedral Car Park 11.30 Lower Brook Street: remains of peach from Grave IX, St Pancras’ Church 

xxiii 328 329 330

12.1 Lower Brook Street 1971: plan showing the location of the late Roman and early Anglo-Saxon pits from which moss samples were taken  343 12.2 Lower Brook Street 1971: plan showing the location of late Anglo-Saxon pits from which moss samples were taken 345 13.1 Lower Brook Street 1971: plan showing the location of the late Anglo-Saxon pits from which BS Insects 1–11 were taken  348 13.2 Modern representatives of some of the more important insect species identified 355 14.1 Lower Brook Street: peach stone from Grave IX, St Pancras’ Church

365

LIST OF TABLES Hampshire manors of the bishopric of Winchester: relative importance of the main crops 6.2 Hampshire manors: relative importance of the main crops for the bishopric and cathedral priory estates 6.3a Bishopric manors in Hampshire: distribution of the irregularly grown crops 6.3b Cathedral priory manors in Hampshire: distribution of the irregularly grown crops 6.4 Hampshire manors of the bishopric of Winchester: receipts at the mills 6.5 Estimates of total peasant production based on the tithe figures at Hambledon church and Meon church  6.6 Annual fluctuations in total produce of peasant land based on the tithe figures at Hambledon church and Meon church 6.7 Early 13th-century quantities of the main crops and legumes in the surviving tithe records 6.8 Total area under seed for twenty-three Hampshire manors 1211–1347 6.9 Maximum estimated additions to peasant holdings in acres 6.10 Bishopric manors in Hampshire: yields per quantity of seed 1211–1349 6.1

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11

Dating of the pollen samples from Winchester Pollen from Lower Brook Street and Wolvesey Palace Pollen from the superimposed Anglo-Saxon streets at Castle Yard Pollen of the 10th century from Lower Brook Street Pollen of the early to ?mid-11th century from Lower Brook Street 1965–71 Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 13, late 11th to 12th century Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 12, 13th century Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 14, 13th century Pollen taxa identified from Winchester excavations, 1969–71 Pollen calendar for some of the taxa found at Winchester  Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 12, 13th century, analysis of core layers by dates of pollen rain 7.12 Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 14, 13th century, analysis of core layers by dates of pollen rain

92 100 101 103 106 115 116 120 124 126 132 141 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 153 155

156

LIST OF TABLES

xxv

7.13 Lists of species present in the pollen in each of the major periods of occupation 

158

8.1 Lower Brook Street: numbers of structural timbers by phase and taxon 8.2 Twigs, chips, and other non-structural wood: types present in each sample 8.3a-b Common names and Latin names of principal tree taxa

161 163 164

9.1 9.2 9.3

169 173

9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7a 9.7b 9.7c 9.7d

Lower Brook Street: plant remains from deposits of the 1st to 4th centuries  Cathedral Green: plant remains from deposits of the 1st to 2nd centuries Cathedral Car Park: plant remains of the 3rd to 4th centuries from Well 2 and the courtyard New Road: plant remains from ditch silts of the 1st to 4th centuries Tower Street: plant remains from deposits of the mid- to late 2nd century B.C. Taxa recovered as macrofossils from pre-Roman and Roman Winchester Scrub plants from Roman Winchester Dry grassland plants from Roman Winchester Wet grassland and waterside plants from Roman Winchester Arable weeds and ruderal plants from Roman Winchester

10.1 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the early to mid-10th century 10.2 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the mid- to late 10th century 10.3 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the mid- to late 10th century and 10th century 10.4 Lower Brook Street: seeds from Pit 283, mid- to late 10th century  10.5 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the first half of the 11th century 10.6 Lower Brook Street: seeds from the fill of Pit 266 of the first half of the 11th century 10.7 Lower Brook Street: seeds from the fill of Pit 244 of the first half of the 11th century 10.8 Cathedral Green: seeds from the fill of F. 265, a cess-pit close to the north wall of Old Minster, late 10th to late 11th century 10.9 Cathedral Green: seeds from the fill of F. 154, the well inside the east end of Old Minster, late 11th to early 12th century 10.10 Cathedral Green: seeds from deposits of the 10th and 11th centuries 10.11 Cathedral Car Park: seeds from the fills of Pits 2 (late 9th century) and 11 (10th century) 10.12 Assize Courts Ditch: seeds from Pit F. 4, late 10th to ?early 11th century 10.13 Castle Yard: seeds from the fills of Pits II and III of the early 10th century

175 175 178 179 183 183 183 184 195 198 200 202 204 205 214 220 222 223 229 230 231

xxvi

LIST OF TABLES

10.14 Castle Yard: seeds from occupation on N–S Anglo-Saxon Streets 1 (CY1), c.880–6, and 2 (CY2–12), early 10th century  10.15 Castle Yard: seeds from occupation on Anglo-Saxon Street 3, mid-10th century 10.16 Castle Yard: seeds from late 10th-century occupation on Anglo-Saxon Streets N–S 4 (CY 33–4) and E–W 5 (CY 35–6)  10.17 Castle Yard: seeds from occupation on Anglo-Saxon Streets E–W 8 (CY 37–8: early to mid-11th century) and N–S 8 (CY 39-47: mid-11th century to 1067)  10.18 Castle Yard: seeds from F. 33 10.19 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from F. 2583, an Anglo-Saxon ditch 10.20 Wolvesey Palace, F. 2583: the inter-room equivalence of layers from which bulk samples were taken 10.21 Plants from Anglo-Saxon Winchester 10.22 Wolvesey Palace: organic and iron content in deposits sampled from the Anglo-Saxon ditch F. 2583

234 234 235 239 240 241 243 244 250

11.1 Assize Courts North: seeds from early 11th-century deposits in Pit XIX and Pit XXIII 254 11.2 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the 11th to 12th centuries 259 11.3 Lower Brook Street: seeds from late 11th- to 12th-century deposits in Tenement XII and from 11th-century deposits at St Pancras’ Church 260 11.4 Lower Brook Street: seeds from late 12th- to mid 13th-century deposits in Pit 183, Pit 184 and Pit 197  264 11.5 Lower Brook Street: seeds from late 12th- to mid 13th-century deposits 267 11.6 Lower Brook Street: seeds from 13th-century deposits 270 11.7 Lower Brook Street: seeds from 15th- to 17th-century deposits  271 11.8 Cathedral Car Park: botanical samples from pits associated with the later domestic buildings of New Minster, c.1065–6 to c.1110  277 11.9 Cathedral Car Park: seeds from deposits of c.1065 to c.1110  277 11.10 Cathedral Car Park: seeds from Pit 16, c.1065 to c.1110  279 11.11 Cathedral Car Park: seeds from Pit 21, c.1065 to c.1110  283 11.12 Cathedral Car Park: seeds from Pit 23 and Pit 25, c.1065 to c.1110  284 11.13 Cathedral Car Park: seeds from Pit 24, c.1065–6 to c.1110284 11.14 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from Feature 1028, a Norman boundary ditch 293 11.15 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from deposits of c.1129 to the 14th century  294 11.16 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from deposits of the 14th to 15th century  295 11.17 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from Pit 145, 16th century  297 11.18 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from a floor deposit, Room 27, 16th century  298

LIST OF TABLES

xxvii

11.19 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from pit, F. 1002, 18th century  299 11.20 Castle Yard: seeds from F.ph. 25, Norman occupation deposits, pre-motte, 1067 to c.1071  302 11.21 Castle Yard: seeds from F. 30, Norman deposits, pre-motte, 1067 to c.1071 302 11.22 Castle Yard: seeds from Norman destruction, pre-motte, c.1071–2303 11.23 Castle Yard: seeds from later medieval deposits, early 12th century to early 16th century  304 11.24 Samples taken from bell-casting pits discovered at Cathedral Green, 1964–6  311 11.25 Cathedral Green: seeds found in bell-moulds 313 11.26 Presence or absence in the bell-mould samples of wild plants and cereals commonly present in oat crops 315 11.27 Assize Courts South: seeds found in a cauldron mould, 14th century  318 11.28 36 Middle Brook Street: plant remains from desiccated daub samples  320 11.29 Winchester: plants from medieval sites 322 12.1 Lower Brook Street: mosses from late Roman and early Anglo-Saxon pits 12.2 Lower Brook Street: mosses from Anglo-Saxon Pits 244, 266, and 283 12.3 Upper Brook Street 1959: mosses from a late 10th-century deposit

342 344 346

13.1 Lower Brook Street: contexts of samples containing insect fauna 13.2 Lower Brook Street: Insects 1–11, incidence of taxa 13.3 Lower Brook Street: insect families present in the samples with their common names

349 349 354

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Antiq J Antiquaries Journal ARCA ARCA Geoarchaeology – specialist consultancy, Department of Archaeology, University of Winchester Arch J Archaeological Journal BAR British Archaeological Reports BGS British Geological Survey BL British Library (all British Library documentary sources are fully referenced in the text) Cal Lib R Calendar of Liberate Rolls (in progress 1917– ) Cal Pat R Calendar of the Patent Rolls (HMSO. 1891-1986) Cal SP Dom Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Cal Treas Books Calendar of Treasury Books CBA Council for British Archaeology DNHAS Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society EAA East Anglian Archaeology EHR Economic History Review F. Feature (e.g. F. 2019) F.ph. Final phase frags Fragments G. Grave HCT Hampshire Cultural Trust HER Historic Environment Record (for Winchester), curated by WCC (cf. Ottaway 2017) HFC Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office HRO Hampshire Record Office,Winchester HRS Hampshire Record Society indet. Indeterminate I Interim See Biddle and Quirk 1962 II Interim See Biddle 1964 III Interim See Biddle 1965 IV Interim See Biddle 1966 V Interim See Biddle 1967b VI Interim See Biddle 1968 VII Interim See Biddle 1969 VIII Interim See Biddle 1970 IX Interim See Biddle 1972 X Interim See Biddle 1975a JAS Journal of Archaeological Science JBAA Journal of the British Archaeological Association Med Arch Medieval Archaeology nfi Not further identified

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xxix

n.r. Not recorded OED Oxford English Dictionary 3rd edn (2000) PBA Proceedings of the British Academy P.H. Post-hole PPG Planning Policy Guidance Note 16, 1990 P.ph. Provisional phase PRO Public Record Office (now The National Archives) Proc Hants FC Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, retitled Hampshire Studies as of vol. 51 (1996) Proc Prehist. Soc Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects SARC Southampton Archaeological Research Committee SNB Site note-book sp. Species ssp. Sub-species TBGAS Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society TNA The National Archives VCH Surrey See Malden 1912 WCA Winchester City Archives WCC Winchester City Council WCM Winchester City Museum WEC Winchester Excavations Committee, founded 1962 Winchester Annals See Luard 1865 WMS Winchester Museum Service (now part of Hampshire Cultural Trust) Wren Society VII See Bolton and Hendry (eds) 1930 WRU Winchester Research Unit WS 1 Martin Biddle (ed.), Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, Winchester Studies 1 (Oxford, 1976) WS 2 D. J. Keene, Survey of Medieval Winchester, in two parts, Winchester Studies 2 (Oxford, 1985) WS 3.i Francis M. Morris and Martin Biddle, Venta Belgarum: Pre-Historic, Roman and PostRoman Winchester, Winchester Studies 3.i (in prep.) WS 4.i Birthe Kjølbye-Biddle and Martin Biddle, The Anglo-Saxon Minsters of Winchester, Winchester Studies 4.i (in prep.) WS 4.ii Michael Lapidge, The Cult of St Swithun, Winchester Studies 4.ii (2003) WS 5 Martin Biddle et al., The Brooks and Other Town Sites of Medieval Winchester, Winchester Studies 5 (in prep.) WS 6.i Martin Biddle and Beatrice Clayre, Winchester Castle: Fortress, Palace, Garrison and County Seat, Winchester Studies 6.i (in prep.) WS 6.ii Martin Biddle, Wolvesey Palace, Winchester Studies 6.ii (in prep.) WS 7.i Katherine Barclay, Ceramics, Winchester Studies 7.i (in prep.) WS 7.ii Martin Biddle (ed.), Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester, Winchester Studies 7.ii (Oxford, 1990) WS 9.ii Mark Maltby (ed.), The Animals of Early Winchester, Winchester Studies 9.ii (in prep. WS 11 Martin Biddle and Derek J. Keene (eds), The British Historic Towns Atlas,Volume VI: Winchester, Winchester Studies 11 (Oxford, 2017)

xxx Site codes of WEC excavations included in this volume ACD Assize Courts Ditch ACN Assize Courts North ACS Assize Courts South BS Brook Street CACP Cathedral Car Park CG Cathedral Green CHG Colebrook House Garden COE City Offices Extension CY Castle Yard NR New Road OA Oram’s Arbour TS Tower Street WP Wolvesey Palace

LIST OF REFERENCES Aldsworth 1973–4 Fred G. Aldsworth, Towards a Pre-Domesday Geography of Hampshire: A Review of the Evidence, unpublished B.A. dissertation, Departments of Archaeology and Geography, University of Southampton (1973–4) Allen 1996 Michael J. Allen, ‘Landscape and land use: priorities in Hampshire 500,000 BC to AD 1500’, in David A. Hinton and Michael Hughes (eds), Archaeology in Hampshire: A Framework for the Future (Winchester, 1996) Allen 2000 Michael J. Allen, ‘Land use and economy: the later prehistoric and early Roman environment of Twyford Down’, in K. E. Walker and D. E. Farwell (eds), Twyford Down, Hampshire: Archaeological Investigations on the M3 Motorway from Bar End to Compton, 1990–93, HFC Monogr 9 (Winchester, 2000), 120–59 Amery (ed.) 1978 C. Amery (ed.), Three Centuries of Architectural Craftsmanship (London, 1978) Arthur 1965 J. R. B.Arthur, Report on Bell-Mould Material from Cathedral Green, Winchester, WRU rep 7/2/5/4 (unpublished in WRU archive, 1965)

Banham 2004 Debby Banham, Food and Drink in Anglo-Saxon England (Stroud, 2004) Banham 2014 Debby Banham, ‘Lectun and Orceard: a preliminary survey of the evidence for horticulture in AngloSaxon England’, in Gale R. Owen-Crocker and Brian W. Schneider (eds), The Anglo-Saxons: The World through their Eyes (Oxford, 2014), 33–48 Barclay (in prep.) Katherine Barclay, Ceramics, Winchester Studies 7.i (in prep.) Barney et al. 2006 S. A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach and O. Berghof (trans.), The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (Cambridge, 2006) Bates 1948 G. H. Bates, Weed Control (London, 1948) Benedictow 2004 O. J. Benedictow, The Black Death:The Complete History (Woodbridge, 2004) Bennett 1965 H. S. Bennett, Life on the English Manor (Cambridge, 1965)

Attenborough 1922 F. L. Attenborough, The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Cambridge, 1922)

Bertsch and Bertsch 1949 K. Bertsch and F. Bertsch, Geschichte unserer Kulturpflanzen (Stuttgart, 1949)

Ayers and Murphy 1983 Brian Ayers and Peter Murphy, ‘A waterfront excavation at Whitefriars Street car park, Norwich, 1979’, in Peter Wade-Martins (ed.), Waterfront Excavation and Thetford Ware Production, Norwich, EAA 17 (Gressenhall, 1983), 1–60

Beveridge 1936 William (Lord) Beveridge, ‘Wages in the Winchester manors’, EHR 7 (1936), 22–43

Baker 1966 A. R. H. Baker, ‘Evidence in the Nonarum Inquisitiones of contracting arable lands in England during the early fourteenth century’, EHR 2nd ser, 19 (1966), 518–32

Beveridge 1939 William (Lord) Beveridge, Prices and Wages in England from the Twelfth to the Nineteenth Century (London, 1939) Beveridge 1955 William (Lord) Beveridge, ‘Westminster wages in the manorial era’, EHR 2nd ser, 7 (1955), 18–35

xxxii

LIST OF REFERENCES

BGS 2002 BGS, Winchester, Solid and Drift, England and Wales, Sheet 299, 1:50,000 (2002) Biddle 1964 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1962–63. Second interim report’, Antiq J 44 (1964), 188–219 Biddle 1965 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1964. Third interim report’, Antiq J 45 (1965), 230–64 Biddle 1966 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1965. Fourth interim report’, Antiq J 46 (1966), 308–32 Biddle 1967 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1966. Fifth interim report’, Antiq J 47 (1967), 251–79 Biddle 1968 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1967. Sixth interim report’, Antiq J 48 (1968), 250–84 Biddle 1969 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1968. Seventh interim report’, Antiq J 49 (1969), 295–329 Biddle 1970 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1969. Eighth interim report’, Antiq J 50 (1970), 277–326

Biddle 1986 Martin Biddle, Wolvesey: The Old Bishop’s Palace, Winchester, Hampshire, English Heritage Handbook (London, 1986) Biddle (ed.) 1990 Martin Biddle (ed.), Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester, Winchester Studies 7.ii (Oxford, 1990) Biddle 2018 Martin Biddle, The Search for Winchester’s Anglo-Saxon Minsters (Oxford, 2018) Biddle 2020 Martin Biddle, ‘Winchester: a city of two planned towns’, in Alexander Langlands and Ryan Lavelle (eds), The Land of the English Kin: Studies in Wessex and Anglo-Saxon England in Honour of Professor Barbara Yorke, Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages 26 (Leiden, 2020), 26−49 Biddle 2021 Martin Biddle, ‘Wolvesey: Henry of Blois’s domus quasi palatium in Winchester’, in William Kynan-Wilson and John Munns (eds), Henry of Blois: New Interpretations (Woodbridge, 2021), 119–44 Biddle (in prep.) Martin Biddle, Wolvesey Palace, Winchester Studies 6.ii (in prep.)

Biddle 1972 Martin Biddle,‘Excavations at Winchester, 1970. Ninth interim report’, Antiq J 52 (1972), 93–131

Biddle and Clayre 2006 Martin Biddle and Beatrice Clayre, The Castle, Winchester: Great Hall and Round Table (3rd edn) (Winchester, 2006)

Biddle 1975 Martin Biddle, ‘Excavations at Winchester, 1971. Tenth and final interim report, parts I and II’, Antiq J 55 (1975), 96–126 and 295–337

Biddle and Clayre (in prep.) Martin Biddle and Beatrice Clayre, Winchester Castle: Fortress, Palace, Garrison and County Seat, Winchester Studies 6.i (in prep.)

Biddle (ed.) 1976 Martin Biddle (ed.), Winchester in the Early Middle Ages: An Edition and Discussion of the Winton Domesday, Winchester Studies 1 (Oxford, 1976)

Biddle and Keene (eds) 2017 Martin Biddle and Derek J. Keene (eds), The British Historic Towns Atlas, Vol. VI: Winchester, Winchester Studies 11 (Oxford, 2017)

Biddle 1983 Martin Biddle,‘The study of Winchester: archaeology and history in a British town, 1961–83’, Albert Reckitt Archaeology Trust Lecture, PBA 69 (1983), 93–135

Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2007 Martin Biddle and Birthe Kjølbye-Biddle,‘Winchester: from Venta to Wintancæstir’, in L. Gilmour (ed.), Pagans and Christians from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, BAR Int Ser 1610 (Oxford, 2007), 189–214

LIST OF REFERENCES Biddle and Quirk 1962 Martin Biddle and Roger Quirk, ‘Excavations near Winchester Cathedral, 1961. First interim report’, Arch J 119 (1962), 150–94 Biddle et al. (in prep.) Martin Biddle, Birthe Kjølbye-Biddle and Patrick Ottaway, The Brooks and Other Town Sites of Medieval Winchester, Winchester Studies 5 (in prep.) Biek 1959 Leo Biek, ‘Notes on the soil conditions conducive to the preservation of the ironwork’, in Richardson 1959, 107–8 Biek 1972 Leo Biek, untitled in A. ApSimon and E. Greenfield, ‘The excavation of a Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement at Trevisker, St Eval, Cornwall’, Proc Prehist Soc 58 (1972), 350–1 Bierbaumer 1975–9 Peter Bierbaumer, Der botanische Wortschatz des Altenglischen, 3 vols (Frankfurt am Main, 1975–9) Boase 1918 W. N. Boase, ‘Flax and flax fibre cultivation’, The Scottish Journal of Agriculture 1 (1918), 140–7 Bolton and Hendry (eds) 1930 A. T. Bolton and H. D. Hendry (eds), The Royal Palaces of Winchester,Whitehall, Kensington and St James’s (Oxford, 1930) Bosworth and Toller 1898 J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller, A Dictionary of AngloSaxon (Oxford, 1898) Braun-Blanquet 1932 J. Braun-Blanquet, Plant Sociology (trans. G. Fuller and H. Conrad) (London, 1932)

xxxiii

Buck and Buck 1774 Samuel Buck and Nathaniel Buck, Buck’s Antiquities; or, Venerable Remains of Above Four Hundred Castles, Monasteries, Palaces, etc.… in England and Wales (London, 1774) Cadbury et al. 1971 D. A. Cadbury, J. G. Hawks and R. C. Readett, A Computer Mapped Flora: A Study of the County of Warwickshire (London, 1971) Cameron 1993 M. L. Cameron, Anglo-Saxon Medicine (Cambridge, 1993) Campbell 1994 Gill Campbell, ‘The preliminary archaeobotanical results from Anglo-Saxon West Cotton and Raunds’, in Rackham (ed.) 1994, 65–82 Campbell et al. 1993 Bruce M. S. Campbell, James A. Galloway, Derek Keene and Margaret Murphy, A Medieval Capital and its Grain Supply: Agrarian Production and Distribution in the London Region c.1300 (London, 1993) Campbell et al. 2011 G. Campbell, L. Moffett and V. Straker, Environmental Archaeology:A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods, from Sampling and Recovery to Post-Excavation (2nd edn) (Portsmouth, 2011) Carruthers 2005 Wendy J. Carruthers, ‘Mineralised plant remains’, in Vaughan Birbeck with Roland J. C. Smith, Phil Andrews and Nick Stoodley, The Origins of Mid-Saxon Southampton: Excavations at the Friends Provident St Mary’s Stadium, 1998–2000 (Salisbury, 2005), 157–63

Brenchley 1920 W. E. Brenchley, Weeds of Farmland (London, 1920)

Carruthers 2011 Wendy J. Carruthers, ‘Charred and mineralized plant remains’, in Ford and Teague (eds) 2011, 363–73

Britton 1937 C. E. Britton, A Meteorological Chronology to A.D. 1450 (London, 1937)

Challinor 2011 Dana Challinor, ‘The wood charcoal’, in Ford and Teague (eds) 2011, 373–5

Brown and Meadows 2000 A. G. Brown and I. Meadows, ‘Roman vineyards in Britain: finds from the Nene Valley and new research’, Antiquity 74 (2000), 491–2

Champness et al. 2012 C. Champness, Stephen C. Teague and Ben M. Ford, ‘Holocene environmental change and Roman floodplain management at the Pilgrims’ School,

xxxiv

LIST OF REFERENCES

Cathedral Close, Winchester, Hampshire’, Hampshire Studies 67 (2012), 25–68 Cherry et al. 2005 B. Cherry, C. O’Brien and N. Pevsner, The Buildings of England: London 5, East (New Haven and London, 2005) Clapham et al. 1962 A. R. Clapham, T. G. Tutin and E. F. Warburg, Flora of the British Isles (2nd edn) (Cambridge, 1962) Clapham et al. 1968 A. R. Clapham, T. G. Tutin and E. F. Warburg, The Excursion Flora of the British Isles (Cambridge, 1968) Clapham et al. 1987 A. R. Clapham, T. G. Tutin and D. M. Moore, Flora of the British Isles (3rd edn) (Cambridge, 1987) Cobbett 1830 W. Cobbett, Rural Rides in the Counties of Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Hampshire ... and Hertfordshire (London, 1830) Cockayne 1866 T. O. Cockayne, Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England, Vol. 2 (London, 1866) Coleman (ed.) 1960 Olive Coleman (ed.), The Brokage Book of Southampton 1443–1444, Vol. 1 (Southampton, 1960)

Coope and Osborne 1967 R. G. Coope and Peter J. Osborne, ‘Report on the coleopterous fauna of the Roman well at Barnsley Park, Gloucestershire’, TBGAS 86 (1967), 84–7 Curl 1979 J. S. Curl, ‘Spas and pleasure gardens of London from the 17th to the 19th centuries’, Garden History 7(2) (1979), 27–68 Dansgaard et al. 1975 W. Dansgaard, S. J. Johnsen, N. Reeh, H. B. Clausen and C. U. Hammer, ‘Climatic changes, Norseman and modern man’, Nature 255 (1975), 24–8 Deedes (ed.) 1915−24 C. Deedes (ed.), Registrum Johannis de Pontissara Episcopi Wyntoniensis, A.D. MCCLXXXII–MCCCIV, Canterbury and York Society 19 (London, 1915) and 30 (London, 1924) Dennell 1978 R. W. Dennell, Early Farming in South Bulgaria from the Sixth to the Third Millennia BC, BAR Int Ser (Oxford, 1978) Department of the Environment 1990 Department of the Environment, Planning Policy Guidance Note: Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16) (London, 1990)

Colgrave and Mynors (eds and trans.) 1970 Bertram Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors (eds and trans.), Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford, 1970)

Depypere et al. 2007 L. Depypere, P. Chaerle, K. V. Mijnsbrugge and P. Goethgebeur, ‘Stony endocarp dimension and shape variation in Prunus section Prunus’, Annals of Botany 100 (2007), 1585–97 (available at Oxford Journals on-line)

Collis 1970 John Collis ‘Excavations at Owslebury, Hants.: a second interim report’, Antiq J 50 (1970), 246–61

de Vriend (ed.) 1984 Hubert Jan de Vriend (ed.), The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de Quadrupedibus (London, 1984)

Collis (in prep.) John Collis, Excavations in St George’s Street and the High Street, Winchester Excavations 1949–1960,Vol. 3 (in prep.) Colvin (ed.) 1973 H. M. Colvin (ed.), The History of the King’s Works,Vol. VI: 1782–1851 (London, 1973) Condit 1947 I. Condit, The Fig (Waltham, Mass., 1947)

Dick-Read 1997 Sara Dick-Read, ‘Another time, another place’, City of Winchester Trust News (Summer 1997) Dickson 1973 J. H. Dickson, Bryophytes of the Pleistocene: The British Record and its Chorological and Ecological Implications (Cambridge, 1973) Dimbleby and Evans 1974 G.W. Dimbleby and J. G. Evans, ’Pollen analysis and land snail analysis of calcareous soils’, JAS 1 (1974), 117−33

LIST OF REFERENCES Douglas and Greenaway (eds) 1953 D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway (eds), English Historical Documents,Vol. 2:AD 1042–1189 (London, 1953) Drew 1947 J. S. Drew, ‘The manor of Silkstead near Winchester, Hants.: an English translation of 66 compotus rolls (1267–1399)’, 3 vols (unpublished typescript, 1947) Duby 1974 Georges Duby, The Growth of the European Economy (trans. H. B. Clarke) (London, 1974) Dunne et al. 2017 Julie Dunne (and 15 other contributors), Organic Residue Analysis and Archaeology: Guidance for Good Practice (Historic England, 2017; https://historicengland. org.uk/images-books/publications/organic-residueanalysis-and-archaeology/) Evans and Williams 1991 John G. Evans and D.Williams,‘Land mollusca from the M3 archaeological sites – a review’, in Peter Fasham and Richard J. B. Whinney (eds), Archaeology and the M3, HFC Monogr 7 (Winchester, 1991), 113–42 Farmer 1956 D. L. Farmer, ‘Price fluctuations in Angevin England’, EHR 2nd ser, 9 (1956), 34–43 Farmer 1957 D. L. Farmer,‘Some grain price movements in thirteenthcentury England’, EHR 2nd ser, 10 (1957), 207–20 Finlay 1956 W. M. Finlay, Oats (Edinburgh, 1956) Ford and Teague (eds) 2011 Ben M. Ford and Stephen C. Teague (eds), Winchester, a City in the Making: Archaeological Excavations between 2002 and 2007 on the Sites of Northgate House, Staple Gardens and the Former Winchester Library, Jewry Street, Oxford Archaeology Monogr 12 (Oxford, 2011)

xxxv

Gneuss 2001 Helmut Gneuss, Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100 (Tempe, Ariz., 2001) Gneuss 2008 Helmut Gneuss, Ælfric of Eynsham: His Life, Times and Writings (Kalamazoo, Mich., 2008) Godson 1748 William Godson, An exact plan of a house and garden in High Street, near East Gate in … Winchester. HRO, 147M86W/1 Godson 1750 William Godson, Map of Winchester, engraved by R. Benning. Published at Basing near Basingstoke. HRO, W/K4/1/10/1 Godwin 1975 H. Godwin, The History of the British Flora (2nd edn) (Cambridge, 1975) Godwin and Bachem 1959 H. Godwin and K. Bachem, ‘Plant material’, in Richardson 1959, 109–13 Goodman 1934 F. R. Goodman, Winchester Valley and Downland (Winchester, 1934) Green 1979a Francis J. Green, ‘Collection and interpretation of botanical information from medieval urban excavations in southern England’, in U. Körber-Grohne (ed.), Festschrift Maria Hopf: zum 65. Geburtstag am 14. September 1979, Archaeo-physika 8 (Cologne, 1979), 39–55 Green 1979b Francis J. Green, Medieval Plant Remains, unpublished M.Phil. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton (1979)

Forest Products Research 1961 Forest Products Research, Identification of Hardwoods: A Microscope Key, FPR Bulletin 46 (London, 1961)

Green 1979c Francis J. Green, ‘Phosphatic mineralization of seeds from archaeological sites’, JAS 6 (1979), 279–84

Gale 1836 R. C. Gale, Municipal and Parochial Boundaries of the City and Borough of Winchester 1836. HRO, 11M59/ A2/2/1

Green 1982 Francis J. Green,‘Problems of interpreting differentially preserved plant remains from excavations of medieval urban sites’, in A. R. Hall and Harry Kenward (eds),

xxxvi

LIST OF REFERENCES

Environmental Archaeology in the Urban Context, CBA Res Rep 3 (London, 1982), 40–6 Green 1983 Francis J. Green, ‘The palaeobotanical evidence’, in Keith S. Jarvis, Excavations in Christchurch, 1969–80, DNHAS Monogr 5 (Dorchester, 1983), 98 Green 1984 Francis J. Green, ‘The archaeological and documentary evidence for plants from the medieval period in England’, in van Zeist and Casparie (eds) 1984, 99–114 Green 1985a Francis J. Green, ‘Plant remains in the modern soil and contamination from the surface’, in F. Pryor, C. French, D. Crowther, D. Gurney, G. Simpson and M. Taylor (eds), The Fenland Project, No.1: Archaeology and Environment in the Lower Welland Valley, EAA 27 (Cambridge, 1985), 41–2 Green 1985b Francis J. Green, Botanical Evidence from Osborne House, Romsey (unpublished rep in Romsey archive, HCT A, 1985) Green 1991 Francis J. Green,‘Landscape archaeology in Hampshire: the Saxon plant remains’, in Renfrew (ed.) 1991, 363– 77 Green 1992 Francis J. Green, ‘The palaeobotanical evidence’, in Ian P. Horsey and Keith S. Jarvis (eds), Excavations in Poole, 1973–1983, DNHAS Monogr 10 (Dorchester, 1992), 182–5 Green 1994 Francis J. Green,‘Cereals and plant foods: a reassessment of the Saxon economic evidence from Wessex’, in Rackham (ed.) 1994, 83–8 Green 1997 Francis J. Green, ‘Plant remains’, in Malcolm Lyne, Lewes Priory: Excavations by Richard Lewis, 1969–82 (Lewes, 1997), 171–2 Green 2004 Francis J. Green, ‘Sites in the western suburbs’, in Qualmann et al. 2004, 75–8

Green 2009 Francis J. Green, ‘Late Saxon, medieval and postmedieval plant remains’, in Serjeantson and Rees (eds) 2009, 14–26 Green 2010 Francis J. Green, ‘Roman plant remains from Winchester: evidence from the suburbs and defences’, in Mark Maltby, Feeding a Roman Town: Environmental Evidence from Excavations in Winchester (Winchester, 2010), 327–41 Green and Lockyer 1992 Francis J. Green and K. Lockyer, ‘Plant remains from buried soils, Romsey, Hampshire’, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73 (1992), 57–70 Green and Lockyer 1994 Francis J. Green and K. Lockyer, ‘Seeds, sherds and samples: site formation processes at the Waitrose site, Romsey’, in Rosemary Luff and Peter RowleyConwy (eds), Whither Environmental Archaeology?, Oxbow Monogr 38 (Oxford, 1994), 91–104 Green and Smith 2005 Francis J. Green and W. Smith, ‘Food packaging and plants: the archaeobotanical remains’, in Julie Gardiner with Michael J. Allen (eds), Before the Mast: Life and Death Aboard the Mary Rose (Portsmouth, 2005), 588– 602 Greguss 1945 P. Greguss, The Identification of Central European Dicotyledonous Trees and Shrubs, Hungarian Museum of Natural History Monogr 1 (Budapest, 1945) Grieve 1974 M. Grieve (ed. C. F. Leyel), A Modern Herbal (London, 1974) Grigson 1958 Geoffrey Grigson, The Englishman’s Flora (London, 1958) Grover 2012 Christine Grover, Hyde: from Dissolution to Victorian Suburb (Winchester, 2012) Grundy 1921 G. B. Grundy, ‘The Saxon land charters of Hampshire with notes on place and field names’, Arch J 2nd ser, 28 (1921), 55–173

LIST OF REFERENCES Grundy 1924 G. B. Grundy, ‘The Saxon land charters of Hampshire with notes on place and field names’, Arch J 2nd ser, 31 (1924), 31–126 Grundy 1926 G. B. Grundy, ‘The Saxon land charters of Hampshire with notes on place and field names’, Arch J 2nd ser, 33 (1926), 91–253 Grundy 1927 G. B. Grundy, ‘The Saxon land charters of Hampshire with notes on place and field names’, Arch J 2nd ser, 34 (1927), 160–340 Hagen 1992 A. Hagen, A Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Food: Processing and Consumption (Pinner, 1992) Hall 2009 Thomas N. Hall, ‘Ælfric as pedagogue’, in Magennis and Swan (eds) 2009, 193–216 Hall and Kenward 2011 Allan Hall and Harry Kenward,‘Plant and invertebrate indicators of leather production: from fresh skin to leather offcuts’, in R. Thomas and Q. Mould (eds), Leather Tanneries: The Archaeological Evidence (London, 2011), 9–32 Hall et al. 1983 Allan R. Hall, Andrew K. G. Jones and Harry Kenward, ‘Cereal bran and human faecal remains from archaeological deposits – some preliminary observations’, in Bruce Proudfoot (ed.), Site, Environment and Economy, BAR Int Ser 173 (Oxford, 1983), 85−105 Hallam 1972 H. E. Hallam, ‘The Postan thesis’, Historical Studies 15 (1972), 203−22 Hare and Qualmann 2021 John Hare and Ken Qualmann, ‘The new Bethell House’, in K. Qualmann, G. Scobie and J. Zant, Excavations at Hyde Abbey, Winchester, 1972–99 (Winchester, 2021), 41–6 Harvey 1981 John Harvey, Mediaeval Gardens (London, 1981) Hawthorne and Smith (eds) 1963 C. G. Hawthorne and C. S. Smith (eds), On Divers Arts: The Treatise of Theophilus (Chicago, 1963)

xxxvii

Healey 2009 A. di P. Healey, with J. P. Wilkin and X. Xiang, The Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus (Toronto, 2009) Helbaek 1952 H. Helbaek, ‘Early crops in southern England’, Proc Prehist Soc 18 (1952), 194–233 Hicks (ed.) 2015 Michael Hicks (ed.), English Inland Trade 1430–1540: Southampton and its Region (Oxford, 2015) Hill 2009 Joyce Hill,‘Ælfric: his life and works’, in Magennis and Swan (eds) 2009, 35–65 Hillman 1984 Gordon Hillman, ‘Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: the application of ethnographic models from Turkey’, in van Zeist and Casparie (eds) 1984, 1–41 Hilton 1966 Rodney H. Hilton, A Medieval Society: The West Midlands at the End of the Thirteenth Century (London, 1966) Howes 1948 F. N. Howes, Nuts: Their Production and Everyday Use (London, 1948) James 1935 M. R. James, The Canterbury Psalter (London, 1935) Jones 1975 Andrew K. G. Jones, ‘Botanical evidence’, in A. Rogerson (ed.), ‘Excavations at Fullers Hill, Great Yarmouth’, Norfolk Archaeology 36 (1975), 227 Jones 1984 Glynis Jones, ‘Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: ethnographic models from Greece’, in van Zeist and Casparie (eds) 1984, 43–61 Jones et al. 1991 Andrew K. G. Jones, P. Tomlinson, A. R. Hall, H. K. Kenward and J. Phipps, ‘Environmental evidence from the latrine pit (F5300): preliminary observations on a sample (code BRII 11399) from excavations at The Brooks site,Winchester’, in G. D. Scobie, J. M. Zant and R.Whinney, The Brooks,Winchester: A Preliminary Report on the Excavations 1987–88 (Winchester, 1991), 67–8

xxxviii

LIST OF REFERENCES

Keene 1977 Suzanne V. Keene, ‘An approach to the sampling and storage of waterlogged timbers from excavations’, The Conservator 1 (1977), 8–11

Kjølbye-Biddle and Biddle (in prep.) Birthe Kjølbye-Biddle and Martin Biddle, The AngloSaxon Minsters of Winchester, Winchester Studies 4.i (in prep.)

Keene 1981 Suzanne V. Keene, ‘Conservation and analysis’, in David A. Hinton, Suzanne Keene and Kenneth E. Qualmann, ‘The Winchester reliquary’, Med Arch 25 (1981), 50–9

Kloet and Hincks 1973 George Sidney Kloet and Walter Douglas Hincks, A Check List of British Insects (2nd edn) (London, 1973)

Keene 1985 Derek J. Keene, Survey of Medieval Winchester, in two parts, Winchester Studies 2 (Oxford, 1985) Keepax 1975 Carol Keepax, ‘Scanning electron microscopy of wood replaced by iron corrosion products’, JAS 2 (1975), 145–9 Keepax 1977 Carol Keepax, ‘Contamination of archaeological deposits by seeds of modern origin with particular reference to the use of flotation machines’, JAS 4 (1977), 221–9 Kelly 2000 F. Kelly, Early Irish Farming: A Study Based Mainly on the Law-Texts of the 7th and 8th Centuries AD (Dublin, 2000) Kenward and Hall 1995 Harry K. Kenward and Allan R. Hall, Biological Evidence from Anglo-Scandinavian Deposits at 16–22 Coppergate, The Archaeology of York 14/7 (London, 1995) Kenward and Hall 1997 Harry K. Kenward and Allan R. Hall, ‘Enhancing bioarchaeological interpretation using indicator groups: stable manure as a paradigm’, JAS 24 (1997), 663–73 Kenward et al. 2004 Harry K. Kenward, Allan R. Hall and Jane McComish, ‘Archaeological implications of plant and invertebrate remains from fills of a massive post-medieval cut at Low Fishergate, Doncaster, UK’, Environmental Archaeology 9 (2004), 61–74

Knörzer 1970 K. H. Knörzer, Novaesium IV: Pflanzenfunde aus Neuss (Berlin, 1970)

Römerzeitliche

Knörzer 1973 K. H. Knörzer, ‘Römerzeitliche Pflanzenreste aus einem Brunnen in Buzbach’, Saalburg-Jahrbuch 30 (1973), 71–111 Kosminsky 1956 E. A. Kosminsky, Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth Century (London, 1956) Kroeber 1970 A. L. Kroeber, ‘The native population of California’, in R. F. Heizer and M. A. Whipple (eds), The Californian Indians (Berkeley, Calif., 1970), 68–81 Kroll 1975 H. J. Kroll, Ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Ackerbau in Archsum auf Sylt: eine botanische Grobrestanalyse (unpublished, 1975) Lamb 1966 H. H. Lamb, The Changing Climate: Selected Papers (London, 1966) Lapidge 2003 Michael Lapidge, The Cult of St Swithun, Winchester Studies 4.ii (Oxford, 2003) Lapidge and Winterbottom (eds and trans.) 1991 Michael Lapidge and Michael Winterbottom (eds and trans.), Wulfstan of Winchester, The Life of Æthelwold (Oxford, 1991)

Kirby 1892 T. F. Kirby, Annals of Winchester College (London, 1892)

Latham et al. (eds) 1975–2013 R. E. Latham, D. R. Howlett and R. K. Ashdowne (eds), Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (Oxford, 1975–2013), available online at Logeion

Kitchin (ed.) 1892 G. W. Kitchin (ed.), Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of St Swithun’s Priory,Winchester (HRS, 1892)

Law 1987 Vivien Law, ‘Anglo-Saxon England: Ælfric’s Excerptiones de arte grammatica anglice’, Histoire

LIST OF REFERENCES Épistémologie Langage 9 (1987), 47–71; reprinted in her Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages (London and New York, 1997), 200–23 Lazzari and Mucciante 1984 Loredana Lazzari and Luisa Mucciante, Il Glossario di Ælfric: Studio sulle Concordanze, Quaderni di ‘Abruzzo’ 13 (Rome, 1984) Lendinara et al. (eds) 2011 Patrizia Lendinara, Loredana Lazzari and Claudia Di Sciacca (eds), Rethinking and Recontextualizing Glosses: New Perspectives in the Study of Late Anglo-Saxon Glossography (Turnhout, 2011)

xxxix

Magennis and Swan (eds) 2009 Hugh Magennis and Mary Swan (eds), A Companion to Ælfric, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 18 (Boston, Mass., 2009) Malden (ed.) 1912 H. E. Malden (ed.),The Victoria History of the County of Surrey:Volume 4 (London, 1912), British History Online http://www.british-history. ac.uk/vch/surrey/vol4 [accessed 22 January 2021] Maltby (in prep.) Mark Maltby, The Animals of Early Winchester, Winchester Studies 9.ii (in prep.)

Letts 1999 John B. Letts, Smoke-Blackened Thatch: A Unique Source of Plant Remains from Southern England (Reading, 1999)

McLean 1981 Teresa McLean, Medieval English Gardens (London, 1981)

Lewis and Short 1922 C. T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1922)

Miller and Hatcher 1978 Edward Miller and John Hatcher, Medieval England: Rural Society and Economic Change 1086–1348 (London, 1978)

Liebermann (ed.) 1903 Felix Liebermann (ed.), Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, Vol. 1:Text und Übersetzung (Halle, 1903) Lindsay (ed.) 1911 W. M. Lindsay (ed.), Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae sive origines libri XX (2 vols) (Oxford, 1911)

Milne 1791 Thomas Milne,‘plan of Winchester’, inset in Hampshire, or the County of Southampton, including the Isle of Wight, surveyed by Thomas Milne in the years 1788, 89 & 90. HRO W/K4/1/13

Long 1938a H. C. Long, Weeds of Arable Land, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Bulletin 108 (London, 1938)

Milner 1839 J. Milner, The History and Survey of the Antiquities of Winchester (3rd edn) (Winchester, 1839)

Long 1938b H. C. Long, Weeds of Grassland, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Bulletin 41 (London, 1938)

Monk 1977 Michael 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, unpublished M.Phil. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton (1977)

Loyn and Percival 1975 H. R. Loyn and John Percival, The Reign of Charlemagne: Documents on Carolingian Government and Administration (London, 1975) Luard 1865 H. R. Luard (ed.), ‘Annales de Wintonia ‘, in Annales Monastici 2 (London, 1865), 1–125 Mabey 1972 Richard Mabey, Food for Free (London, 1972) Mabey 1996 Richard Mabey, Flora Britannica (London, 1996)

Monk 1980 Michael A. Monk, ‘The seed remains’, in Philip Holdsworth (ed.), Excavations at Melbourne Street, Southampton, 1971–76, CBA Res Rep 33 (London, 1980), 128–34 Morris and Biddle (in prep.) Francis M. Morris and Martin Biddle, Venta Belgarum: Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman Winchester, Winchester Studies 3.i (in prep.)

xl

LIST OF REFERENCES

Murphy 1977 Peter Murphy, Early Agriculture and Environment on the Hampshire Chalklands c. 800 BC – AD 400, unpublished M.Phil. thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton (1977)

Ottaway 2018 Patrick Ottaway, ‘The Anglo-Saxon and later suburbs of Winchester’, in Patrick Ottaway and Ken Qualmann, Winchester’s Anglo-Saxon, Medieval and Later Suburbs (Winchester, 2018), 331–44

Murphy 1985 Peter Murphy, ‘The cereals and crop weeds’, in Stanley West, West Stow: the Anglo-Saxon Village, Vol. 1: Text, EAA 24 (Ipswich, 1985), 100–8

Ottaway et al. 2019 Patrick Ottaway, Ken Qualmann, Graham Scobie, and John Zant, Winchester’s Roman and Medieval Defences: A Report on Excavations 1974–86 and a Gazetteer (Winchester, 2019)

Murphy 1994 Peter Murphy, ‘Plant macrofossils’, in Brian S. Ayers, Excavations at Fishergate, Norwich, 1985, EAA 68 (Dereham, 1994), 54–8 Musty 1969 John Musty, ‘The excavation of two barrows, one of Saxon date, at Ford, Laverstock, near Salisbury, Wiltshire’, Antiq J 49 (1969), 98–117 Nicholson and Brightman 1966 Barbara Nicholson and Frank Brightman, The Oxford Book of Flowerless Plants: Ferns, Fungi, Mosses and Liverworts, Lichens and Seaweeds (Oxford, 1966) O’Corráin 1972 Donncha O’Corráin, Ireland before the Normans, The Gill History of Ireland 2 (Dublin, 1972) O’Riordain 1971 A. B. O’Riordain, ‘Excavations at High Street and Winetavern Street, Dublin’, Med Arch 15 (1971), 73– 85 Osborne 1983 Peter J. Osborne, ‘An insect fauna from a modern cesspit and its comparison with probable cesspit assemblages from archaeological sites’, JAS 10 (1983), 453–63 Oschinsky (ed.) 1971 D. Oschinsky (ed.), Walter of Henley (Oxford, 1971) Ottaway et al. 2012 P. J. Ottaway, K. E. Qualmann, H. Rees, and G. D. Scobie, The Roman Cemeteries and Suburbs of Winchester: Excavations 1971–86 (Winchester, 2012) Ottaway 2017 Patrick Ottaway, Winchester, St Swithun’s ‘City of Happiness and Good Fortune’: An Urban Archaeological Assessment (Oxford, 2017)

Paap 1984 N. A. Paap, ‘Palaeobotanical investigations in Amsterdam’, in van Zeist and Casparie (eds) 1984, 339–44 Parain 1966 C. Parain, ‘The agrarian life of the Middle Ages’, in M. M. Postan (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of Europe,Vol. 1 (London, 1966), 142–71 Pelling 2003 R. Pelling, ‘Archaeobotanical remains’, in Alan Hardy, Anne Dodd, Alan Dodd and Graham D. Keevill, Ælfric’s Abbey: Excavations at Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire, 1989–1992, Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr 15 (Oxford, 2003), 439–48 Pennell 1909 Rosalie F. Pennell, Account of the Parish of Hyde, Winchester, Past and Present (Exeter, 1909) Pheifer 1974 D. Pheifer, Old English Glosses in the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary (Oxford, 1974) Pierpoint-Johnson 1862 C. Pierpoint-Johnson, The Useful Plants of Great Britain (London, 1862) Pike and Biddle 1966 A.W. Pike and Martin Biddle,‘Parasite eggs in medieval Winchester’, Antiquity 40 (1966), 293–7 Platt 1973 Colin Platt, Medieval Southampton: The Port and Trading Community AD 1000–1600 (London, 1973) Porter (ed.) 2011 David W. Porter (ed.), The Antwerp-London Glossaries: The Latin and Latin–Old English Vocabularies from

LIST OF REFERENCES Antwerp, Museum Plantin-Moretus 16.2, and London, BL, Add. 32246 (Toronto, 2011) Postan 1962 M. M. Postan, ‘Village livestock in the thirteenth century’, EHR 2nd ser, 15 (1962), 219–49 Postan 1972 The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain, 1100–1500 (London, 1972) Postan and Titow 1959 M. M. Postan and J. Z. Titow, ‘Heriots and prices on Winchester manors’, EHR 2nd ser, 11 (1959), 392–411 Pritchard 1984 Frances A. Pritchard, ‘Late Saxon Textiles from the City of London’, Med Arch 28 (1984), 46–76 Qualmann and Scobie 2012 Ken Qualmann and Graham Scobie, ‘The western suburb’, in Patrick Ottaway et al. 2012, The Roman Cemeteries and Suburbs of Winchester: Excavations 1971– 1986 (Winchester, 2012), 133–73

xli

Renfrew et al. 1976 Jane M. Renfrew, Michael Monk and Peter Murphy, First Aid for Seeds, Rescue Publication 6 (Hertford, 1976) Renfrew 1991 Jane M. Renfrew (ed.), New Light on Early Farming: Recent Developments in Palaeoethnobotany (Edinburgh, 1991) Richardson 1959 Katherine Richardson, ‘Excavations in Hungate’, Arch J 116 (1959), 51–114 Riggs 1995 T. J. Riggs, ‘Carrot’, in J. Smartt and N. W. Simmonds, Evolution of Crop Plants (2nd edn) (London, 1995), 447–80 Robinson and Hubbard 1977 Mark Robinson and R. N. L. B. Hubbard, ‘The transport of pollen in the bracts of hulled cereals’, JAS 4 (1977), 197–9 Scobie 2019 Graham Scobie, ‘Henly’s Garage 1984 (HG84-85)’, in Ottaway et al. 2019, 105–26

Qualmann et al. 2004 Ken Qualmann, Helen Rees, Graham Scobie and Richard Whinney, Oram’s Arbour: The Iron Age Enclosure at Winchester, Vol. 1: Investigations 1950–1999 (Winchester, 2004)

Serjeantson and Rees (eds) 2009 Dale Serjeantson and Helen Rees (eds), Food, Craft and Status in Medieval Winchester:The Plant and Animal Remains from the Suburbs and City Defences (Winchester, 2009)

Quirk 1961 R. N. Quirk, ‘Winchester New Minster and its tenthcentury tower’, JBAA 3rd ser, 24 (1961), 13–54

Sibly 1812 Ebenezer Sibly, Culpeper’s English Physician and Complete Herbal (London, 1812)

Rackham 1975 Oliver Rackham, Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape (London, 1975)

Smith 1978 A. J. E. Smith, The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland (Cambridge, 1978)

Rackham 1994 James Rackham (ed.), Environment and Economy in Anglo-Saxon England, CBA Res Rep 89 (London, 1994)

Smith 2002 W. Smith, A Review of Archaeological Wood Analyses in Southern England, English Heritage, Centre for Archaeology rep 75/2002 (unpublished, 2002), available on-line at Archaeological Data Services

Rees et al. 2008 H. Rees, N. Crummy, P. J. Ottaway, and G. Dunn, Artefacts and Society in Roman and Medieval Winchester: Small Finds from the Suburbs and Defences, 1971–1986 (Winchester, 2008)

Smith 2013 David N. Smith, ‘Defining an indicator package to allow identification of ‘cess pits’ in the archaeological record’, JAS 40 (2013), 526–43

Renfrew 1973 Jane M. Renfrew, Palaeoethnobotany (Cambridge, 1973)

Smith and Gnudi (eds and trans.) 1959 C. S. Smith and M. T. Gnudi (eds and trans.), The Pirotechnia of Vannoccio Biringuccio (New York, 1959)

xlii

LIST OF REFERENCES

Stevenson 1929 W. H. Stevenson, Early Scholastic Colloquies (Oxford, 1929) Stukeley 1776 William Stukeley, Itinerarium Curiosum (2nd edn) (London, 1776) Swanton (ed. and trans.) 1985 Michael Swanton (ed. and trans.), Anglo-Saxon Prose (revised edn) (London, 1985) Symons (ed. and trans.) 1953 Dom Thomas Symons (ed. and trans.), The Monastic Agreement of the Monks and Nuns of the English Nation (Regularis concordia Anglicae nationis monachorum sanctimonialiumque) (London, 1953) Tangl (ed.) 1916 M. Tangl (ed.), Die Briefe des Heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae Selectae 1 (Berlin, 1916) Tansley 1911 A. G. Tansley, Types of British Vegetation (Cambridge, 1911) Tansley 1939 A. G. Tansley, The British Isles and their Vegetation (Cambridge, 1939) Teague 2011 Stephen Teague, ‘The Anglo-Saxon burh and the Anglo-Norman and later medieval city: overview and discussion of the evidence’, in Ford and Teague (eds) 2011, 187–211 Titow 1960 J. Z. Titow, ‘Evidence of weather in account rolls of the bishopric of Winchester, 1209–1350’, EHR 2nd ser, 12 (1960), 360–407 Titow 1962 J. Z. Titow, Land and Population on the Estates of the Bishop of Winchester, 1209–1350, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge (1962) Titow 1969 J. Z. Titow, English Rural Society, 1200–1350 (London, 1969) Tod 1924 W. M. Tod, Hints on Feeding (London,1924)

Tomlinson 1985 Philippa Tomlinson, ‘Use of vegetative remains in the identification of dyeplants from waterlogged 9th–10th century AD deposits at York’, JAS 12 (1985), 269–83 Tomlinson 1991 Philippa Tomlinson, ‘Vegetative plant remains from waterlogged 9th–10th century AD deposits at York’, in Renfrew (ed.) 1991, 109–19 Townsend 1883 F. Townsend, Flora of Hampshire (London, 1883) Tubbs 1978 C. R. Tubbs, ‘An ecological appraisal of the Itchen valley flood plain’, Proc Hants FC 34 (1978), 5–22 Usher 1974 G. Usher, A Dictionary of Plants Used by Man (London,1974) van Arsdall 2009 Anne van Arsdall, ‘Exploring what was understood by mandragora in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Peter Bierbaumer and Helmut Klug (eds), Old Names, New Growth: Proceedings of the Second Anglo-Saxon PlantName Survey Conference, University of Graz, Austria, 6–10 June 2007 (Frankfurt am Main, 2009), 57–74 Vancouver 1810 C. Vancouver, General View of the Agriculture of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (London, 1810) Vanderzee (ed.) 1807 G. Vanderzee (ed.), Nonarum Inquisitiones in Curia Scaccarii (Record Commission, 1807) van Zeist 1968 W. van Zeist, ‘Prehistoric and early historic food plants in the Netherlands’, Palaeohistoria 14 (1968), 41–173 van Zeist 1974 W. van Zeist, ‘Palaeobotanical studies of the settlement sites in the coastal area of the Netherlands’, Palaeohistoria 16 (1974), 226–371 van Zeist and Casparie (eds) 1984 W. van Zeist and W. A. Casparie (eds), Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Paleoethnobotany: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium of the International Work Group for Paleoethnobotany, Groningen, 30 May–3 June 1983 (Rotterdam, 1984)

LIST OF REFERENCES Vaughan et al. 1997 J. G. Vaughan, C. A. Geissler and B. E. Nicholson, The New Oxford Book of Food Plants (Oxford, 1997) Waddell 1966 Helen Waddell, The Wandering Scholars (7th edn) (London, 1966) Walton Rogers 2007 Penelope Walton Rogers, Cloth and Clothing in Early Anglo-Saxon England, AD 450–700, CBA Res Rep 145 (York, 2007) Waton 1982 P. V. Waton, ‘Man’s impact on the chalklands: some new pollen evidence’, in M. G. Bell and S. Limbrey (eds), Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology, BAR Int Ser 146 (Oxford, 1982), 75–91

xliii

Wilkinson and Hennessy 2004 Keith Wilkinson and S. Hennessy, An Assessment of the Archaeological Potential of Pleistocene Deposits in Hampshire (unpublished rep for Hampshire County Council in Winchester HER, 2004) Wilkinson and Marter 2007 Keith Wilkinson and P. Marter, Broadway, Winchester: Geoarchaeological Borehole Survey, ARCA rep 0607–9 (unpublished in Winchester HER, 2007) Willcox 1977 G. H. Willcox,‘Exotic plants from Roman waterlogged sites in London’, JAS 4 (1977), 269–82 Williams 1949 H. Williams, South London, The County Books (London, 1949)

Webster 1973 Leslie E.Webster,‘I. Pre-Conquest, Hampshire: Chalton, Manor Farm’, in Leslie E. Webster and John Cherry, ‘Medieval Britain in 1972’, Med Arch 17 (1973), 143

Willis 1868 Robert Willis, ‘Archaeological history of the monastery of Christchurch, Canterbury, Archaeologia Cantiana 7 (1868), 1–206

Welldon Finn 1962 R. Welldon Finn, ‘Hampshire’, in H. C. Darby and E. M. J. Campbell (eds), The Domesday Geography of South-East England (Cambridge, 1962)

Wilson 1975 D. G. Wilson, ‘Plant remains from the Graveney boat and the early history of Humulus lupulus L. in western Europe’, New Phytologist 75 (1975), 627–48

Werner and Craddock 1974 A. E. Werner and P. T. Craddock, ‘Scientific examination of the samples of ball-metal and moulds, submitted to the British Museum Research Laboratory, London’, in Thomas C. F. Blagg (ed.), ‘An Umbrian abbey: San Paolo di Valdiponte’, Papers of the British School at Rome 42 (1974), 145–9

Woolgar 2016 Christopher Woolgar, The Culture of Food in England, 1200–1500 (New Haven, Conn., 2016)

Wilcox (ed.) 1994 Jonathan Wilcox (ed.), Ælfric’s Prefaces, Durham Medieval Texts 9 (Durham, 1994)

Zant 1993 John M. Zant, The Brooks, Winchester, 1987–88: The Roman Structural Remains, WMS Archaeology Rep 2 (Winchester, 1993)

Wilkinson and Bachelor 2012 Keith Wilkinson and R. Bachelor, Upper Brook Street Car Park,Winchester: Bioarchaeological Assessment, ARCA rep 1213–2 (unpublished in Winchester HER, 2012)

Zupitza (ed.) 2001 Julius Zupitza (ed.), Aelfrics Grammatik und Glossar (3rd edn, intro. Helmut Gneuss) (Berlin, 2001)

Wright (ed.) 1955 C. E. Wright (ed.), Bald’s Leechbook, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 5 (Copenhagen, 1955)

T

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

his volume has been long in preparation and many different people have contributed to its completion. Their involvement both great and small is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are owed first of all to the contributors listed on the title page all of whom have readily and helpfully revised their contributions for the press. A particular expression of gratitude is owed to Jane Renfrew who, as well as being a contributor, has been involved with the volume as academic editor from its earliest days and has continued to oversee and assist with its preparation for publication. Contributions were initially submitted in typescript and word-processed by the late June Lloyd. Work on the volume began again in 2018 when Patrick Ottaway joined the team and has been ably assisted by Katherine Barclay and the Winchester Excavations Committee (WEC) team. Special thanks are owed to Simon Hayfield, who prepared most of the figures for the volume to his usual high standard, to Megan Kirkpatrick, who grappled with and overcame the vagaries of taxonomy, and to Ben Emery who undertook many routine, but absolutely essential tasks, largely in a voluntary capacity. Francis Morris supplied information for the catalogue of samples based on his work on other Winchester Studies volumes. David Rymill of Hampshire Record Office guided Pru Kemball to ensure that references to the documentary sources were accurate and up-to-date. We are very grateful to the external reader for undertaking the task patiently and with obvious care and attention to detail, and for their invaluable advice. Simon Burnell, as copy editor, ensured a consistency of style across all the different contributions, no small and simple task. Clare Chapman prepared all the texts and illustrations for the typesetter and the final stages in the publication process were undertaken by the staff of Archaeopress whose assistance and forbearance while many final details of a complex and many-faceted volume were sorted out are gratefully acknowledged. We are greatly indebted to the individuals and institutions listed on p. vii who have supported the preparation and publication of this volume.

PART I INTRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENT

1 INTRODUCTION by MARTIN BIDDLE and JANE M. RENFREW with contributions by FRANCIS J. GREEN and PATRICK OTTAWAY

T

his volume presents the results of the first wide-ranging study of the palaeoenvironment of a single historic town in Britain. It is based on the extensive sampling of deposits of early Roman to late medieval date at sites excavated in the walled city of Winchester between 1961 and 1971.The volume also considers the archaeological and documentary evidence for agriculture in the Winchester area and for the use of organic materials in economic activity and daily life. Winchester is a cathedral city in the county of Hampshire in central southern England (Illus. 1.1). It lies in the valley of the River Itchen which flows south, through the Chalk Downs to the sea at the port of Southampton, which is 18km south of Winchester. The city is also within easy reach of London which lies about 100km to the north-east. As far as its history is concerned, Winchester’s origins may be said to lie in a large Middle Iron Age enclosure – known as the Oram’s Arbour enclosure – which lay on the west side of the Itchen valley overlooking an important crossing of the Itchen (Illus. 1.2).1 Some 25 years or so after the Roman conquest of southern Britain in A.D. 43, a Roman town, subsequently known as Venta Belgarum, the capital of the civitas of the Belgae, was founded on a site partly overlying an earlier enclosure.2 After the end of the Roman period, in the early fifth century, Winchester remained a focus for settlement in its region. Although the town itself may have been largely depopulated there seems to have been some centre of authority in the southern part of the walled area since well before the

1

Qualmann et al. 2004; WS 11, 3–7.

2

WS 11, 8–19; WS 3.i in prep.

2

INTRODUCTION

Illus. 1.1 The location of Winchester. After Ottaway 2017, Fig. 1.1, A.

Illus. 1.2 (opposite) The development of Winchester from the mid to late 2nd century B.C. to 1870. After WS 11, Fig. 1. Map by Giles Darkes. ©WEC and HTT 2017.

4

INTRODUCTION

Illus. 1.3 Winchester from the air, north to top. The line of the Roman and medieval city wall in blue. After Ottaway 2017, Fig. 1.3. © Hampshire GIS Consortium 2017.

seventh century.3 It then became the site of an important church – Old Minster – which by the later seventh century was the see of a bishop.4 By the mid-ninth century Winchester had become the principal seat of the Anglo-Saxon kings of Wessex. In the late ninth century Winchester reemerged as an urban place, one of the fortified ‘burhs’ intended to provide for the defence of Wessex against the Danish Vikings.5 After the Norman Conquest, a new cathedral and castle were constructed in Winchester6 and the city remained one of England’s more important medieval cities, only entering into a period of relative decline in its fortunes in the later fourteenth century (Illus. 1.3). Knowledge of the city’s history has been enhanced by archaeological excavations since World War II and especially in 1961–71, as described in a series of annual interim reports.7 The topographical development of the city from the pre-Roman period to about 1800 is presented in detail in the Winchester Historic Town Atlas.8 A survey of the city’s archaeology can be found in the Urban Archaeological Assessment published in 2017.9 Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2007, 203; WS 11, 20–1. Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2007, 205; WS 11, 22–5. 5 WS 11, 26–35; Biddle 2020, 34–7, Figs 2.7 and 2.8.

WS 11, 38–9; WS 6.i in prep. I Interim to X Interim. 8 9 WS 11. Ottaway 2017.

3

6

4

7

Environmental archaeology in Winchester

5

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN WINCHESTER

E

xcavations sponsored by the Winchester Excavations Committee began in 1961 at what was then the site of the Cathedral Car Park, scheduled to be developed for the Wessex Hotel, which lay between Market Lane and the north boundary of the northern close of the cathedral.10 The excavations of 1961 at the Cathedral Car Park set the programme for the work that was to follow: to use all the available evidence, whether from documents, archaeology, or the natural sciences, to study ‘the development of Winchester as a town from its earliest origins to the emergence of the modern city’ in the Victorian period.11 The excavation of the Cathedral Car Park demonstrated the range and potential of Winchester’s environmental archaeology. Organic materials were preserved not only in waterlogged deposits, but also in relatively well-drained conditions in medieval garderobe pits, wholly or partly stone-lined (Illus. 1.4). The reasons for this latter form of preservation, now identified as phosphatic mineralization, were not then understood, but its effects were pungent and contributed greatly to our recognition of the potential of the organic remains here and elsewhere in the city. Over the eleven years, 1961–71, four sites (Cathedral Green, Lower Brook Street, Castle Yard and Wolvesey Palace) were excavated on a large scale over many summer seasons, with smaller investigations on sixteen more sites.12 The palaeoenvironmental material studied for this volume came from the sites shown in Illus. 1.5. In 1968 the Winchester Research Unit was founded to prepare the results of the excavations of 1961–71 for publication in a series of Winchester Studies of which the present book is Volume 10. The whole project including the proposed Winchester Studies was reviewed in the Albert Reckitt Archaeological Trust Lecture to the British Academy on 9 March 1983.13

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROGRAMME OF INVESTIGATION The westernmost streams of the Brooks system, along Upper and Middle Brook Streets, are surrounded at least locally by waterlogged deposits on the lowest river terrace of the valley. It was in this area already in 1953–4 that the remarkable potential of Winchester’s environmental archaeology was first demonstrated by the excavation near Middle Brook Street of a well preserved timber-lined pit, samples from which were shown by E. L. Taylor (Veterinary Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Weybridge) to contain large numbers of parasite eggs, the first report of their occurrence in an archaeological deposit in Britain.14 Such waterlogged deposits were characteristic to the south where the eastern half of the Cathedral Car Park lay in the area of the palus horrida (‘horrible mire’) into which, in the eleventh century, water drained from the sloping streets of the city creating a stench which much affected

I Interim. II Interim, 188; WS 3.i in prep.; WS 4.i in prep. 12 WS 7.ii, Fig. 1 and Table 1, for a full list of the sites 10 11

excavated with dates and references. 13 Biddle 1983. 14 Pike and Biddle 1966; Collis in prep.

INTRODUCTION

6

Illus. 1.4 The excavation of the Cathedral Car Park in 1961, looking south-west, showing the pair of stone-walled latrine pits in the background, and the Roman well in the foreground.

the monks of New Minster who then lived beside it.15 At the time of the excavation in 1961 this area was still almost entirely waterlogged; only in the western half of the site were the medieval deposits above water-level and even there the pits and sunken structures extended below the water level.To the east of the Roman street along the east side of the forum Roman deposits were entirely below water level, and only the upper surfaces of the street and the upper layers of the forum to the west of the street were above water. The Roman street seems to correspond here with the lowest river terrace in the valley floor and may have run along its eastern edge.16 Eastwards the Roman deposits lie at a lower level and today remain almost entirely below the water-table. It is this final drop in the valley floor which provides the setting for the waterlogging of the Roman and earlier medieval deposits in the easternmost part of the walled city.This is also the context for the problems which have plagued the foundations of the eastern parts of the cathedral where they extend beyond the Roman street into this deeper part of the valley floor. The dewatering of the Cathedral Car Park site by a well-point system for the construction of the basement of the new hotel, allowed observation, although not controlled excavation, down to undisturbed pre-Roman alluvial deposits throughout the main part of the site. This showed 15

I Interim, 179–80, 182. For detailed discussion of CACP, see WS 3.i in prep.; WS 4.i. in prep. 16 WS 3.i in prep.

Development of the programme of investigation

7

Illus. 1.5 Winchester: showing the sites excavated by the Winchester Excavations Committee in 1961– 71 and New Road (1975) by the City Rescue Archaeologist, from which the environmental samples published in this volume were recovered.

8

INTRODUCTION

that the Roman deposits had been repeatedly cut, and in places entirely removed, by a series of water-courses running from north to south across the site. There was no indication that these water-courses were artificial; they seem rather to represent the braiding of the River Itchen across the floor of the valley through the site of the former Roman town. They must, however, relate to a period when the local water-table had already risen a metre or more above that of the Roman period.17 This rise had certainly taken place by the beginning of the tenth century, but its chronology and cause, or causes, are by no means established.The construction of mill-leats along the streets of the newly laid out town of the late ninth century, which would have given rise to locally perched water-tables, may be the cause, but these leats (now the Brooks and their associated streams), and the mill-pools and dams which would have accompanied them, may themselves be no more than the regularisation of a situation which had arisen naturally, or artificially, over the site of the Roman town at an earlier post-Roman date. Whatever its origin, the consequent waterlogging of the eastern part of the walled city has meant the good preservation of organic material, particularly (but by no means entirely) of ninth- to twelfth-century date. The results of the Cathedral Car Park excavation indicated the likely extent of the biological evidence recoverable from future work in Winchester. Excavations in Lower Brook Street, well within the area of surviving waterlogged deposits, began the following year and confirmed these expectations to the full, although it was not until the last years of the excavation of the area covering Tenements IX/X, XI, and XII and the churches of St Mary and St Pancras in the Lower Brook Street site (1965–71) that this potential was extensively exploited, and then in hindsight only with serious limitations (Illus. 1.6).18

THE PRESERVATION OF THE BOTANICAL MATERIALS Although it was the waterlogged deposits which dominated the picture, other forms of preservation were also encountered and studied, if only erratically. Most of the early medieval plant remains from Winchester were preserved either by waterlogging in anaerobic conditions or by carbonization. At the castle also, anaerobic conditions in a sequence of pre-conquest streets buried below the earthworks constructed by William I the Conqueror in 1067 had preserved a full range of plant materials including pollen (Illus. 4.2 and Table 7.3).19 This anaerobic evidence has probably been the most important in providing information about past environments close to and within the city20 while carbonized plant remains, in particular cereal grains, have provided the basis for knowledge of past cereal agriculture and for the use of cereals in domestic and industrial contexts. Plants preserved by grain impressions, mineralization (calcium phosphate), or desiccation were encountered less frequently. The carbonized seeds from Winchester appear to have originated from several different activities. Domestic contexts, common on all sites, usually produced only a few cereal grains. Industrial See pp. 31–2 for further discussion of the watertable. 18 X Interim, 316–18. 17

VIII Interim, 285–7; X Interim, 102–3. Green 1979a, 42; 1979b, 40;1982, 41.

19 20

The preservation of the botanical materials

9

Illus. 1.6 Winchester, Lower Brook Street, showing the sites excavated in successive years: 1, 1962; 2 and 3, 1963; 4, 1964; 5, 1965–71 (Tenements IX–XII and St Mary’s Church); and 6, 1970–1 (St Pancras’ Church).

contexts, such as bell-casting pits, where carbonized plant remains were preserved within fired-clay mould fragments, produced larger concentrations of plant remains. Substantial deposits of charred plant remains, then the main source of archaeobotanical evidence, were not found during the 1961–71 excavations and the search for plant remains preserved in this way was not seriously pursued. A challenge encountered by specialists working on waterlogged or anaerobic deposits is that carbonized plant remains form only a very small part of the organic debris which has been preserved, let alone of the total deposit. Hence it is difficult to acquire a sample of carbonized plant remains large enough to provide valid information about crop processing or for the reconstruction of different aspects of refuse disposal or industrial use. Charred

10

INTRODUCTION

remains have been found in processing some of the deposit samples, but they seem to represent little more than the result of casual domestic events when seeds, mainly cereal grains, were lost in preparing food.21 Since the excavation of these sites had taken place many years before the samples were processed, replicate or bulk samples could no longer be obtained and interpretation of the evidence is thus limited. Large deposits of carbonized grain have, however, been recovered from various other sites in the city since 1974 and these have been discussed elsewhere.22 The evidence indicates that aerobic features contained proportionally higher quantities of carbonized grain than anaerobic deposits.This might be explained if a pit filled with organic debris in an anaerobic environment were to contain fewer phases of refuse disposal. The incomplete decay of the organic components in anaerobic conditions with less shrinkage of deposits would leave less space for further deposition. In contrast, pits cut into the Chalk, and thus well drained, as at Sussex Street in the western suburb of Winchester,23 show that where the contents of a pit or feature are exposed to normal aerobic bacteria, and thus to bacterial decay, and to the steady percolation of ground-water, the shrinkage and consequent settlement of the deposits is such that even in a short period of time much more refuse can be discarded than in a similar-sized feature where a constant wet environment prevails. Although the absolute quantities of carbonized plant remains from anaerobic and aerobic contexts differ, the ratios of the different plant components have been found to be the same.24 Burnt material of a special kind was however recognized as early as 1964 and carefully preserved in toto.The discovery in that year, in the excavation of the Anglo-Saxon Old Minster, of the first of a series of bell-casting furnaces (Cathedral Green 1964, with further discoveries in 1965 and 1966), produced considerable quantities of broken moulds of fired clay, containing very obvious traces of plant remains. A preliminary report by J. R. B. Arthur confirmed this observation and its potential interest.25 All fragments of bell-moulds were, as a result, retained for investigation. In 1964 very similar mould fragments were also found in a pit at Assize Courts South.26 These proved to derive from casting copper-alloy vessels, probably cauldrons, but plant remains comparable to those in the bell-moulds were obvious and the mould material was preserved for examination. Mineralized remains were first fully recognized on sites in Winchester in 1974 and around the same time in Southampton.27 They posed a series of challenges, especially regarding their chemical composition and the type of recovery technique and conservation which such material might require. Analysis of mineralized material from Winchester and various other sites in Wessex was undertaken by the late Professor F. Hodson, Department of Geology, University of Southampton.28 The phosphatic mineralization encountered on the Cathedral Car Park site was met again from time to time in similar conditions in stone-lined garderobe pits at Winchester Castle (Assize Courts Ditch in 1963 and Castle Yard in 1968). Mineralized seeds and plant remains were usually found only in the lower layers of pits which were more than one metre deep. This observation supports the hypothesis that the minerals are derived from organic matter in the upper layers of the pit and that water percolating through the Green 1979b, 39–40. Green 1984, 103–7. For Mollusca from WEC excavations, see WS 9.ii in prep. 23 Green 2009. 21

22

Green 1979a, 41; 1979b, 281. WS 7.ii, 100–22. 27 Monk 1980, 129. 28 Green 1979b, 45; 1979c. 24 25

26

WS 7.ii, 124–8.

The preservation of the botanical materials

11

infilling sediment then carries the dissolved minerals downwards to impregnate the vegetable matter in the lower part of the pit. It should be emphasized that mineralized botanical material has only been recovered from aerobic deposits. It is often impossible to identify mineralized seeds to species level because the mineral replacement may only have preserved the seed coat or the endosperm of woody items such as fruit stones.29 It is true that weed seeds have sometimes been found preserved in their entirety by mineral replacement,30 but in general this type of preservation favours seeds of a woody nature because they naturally survive longer than non-woody seeds and so have a greater chance of becoming mineralized. The preservation of the fleshy parts of fruits, such as the blackthorn/sloe (Prunus spinosa) drupes from Castle Yard,31 occurs more rarely. The length of time required for mineral replacement to take place is unknown, but the process must be fairly rapid since even woody seeds would otherwise not be preserved. The most recent mineralized deposit so far discovered in Winchester is of eighteenth-century date,32 and so in terms of geological time mineralization is a rapid form of replacement. The rate of replacement may vary from one deposit to another depending on the amounts of calcium and phosphate in the percolating ground-water. Desiccated material has not been recovered from archaeological excavations in Winchester. It has, however, been found in daub removed from standing buildings, including 36 Middle Brook Street, where the botanical material (seeds, rachis fragments, and straw) was obviously incorporated into the daub as a filler.33 Plant materials preserved in this way are usually in excellent condition owing to the exclusion of both air and water. Cereal remains, for example, often still retain anthocyanin and sometimes chlorophyll pigmentation. Examination of daub has thus revealed material which seems otherwise not to survive, or to survive only rarely, on archaeological sites, in particular cereal evidence consisting of rachis, glumes, and other non-caryopsis fragments. Desiccated material like smoke-blackened thatch34 is so well preserved that it can be examined in considerable morphological detail.35 Other types of preservation occur infrequently and rarely provide the quantity of evidence preserved by carbonized, waterlogged, mineralized, or desiccated material. The quality of preservation is, however, often such as to provide more detailed information about the morphology of the plants concerned. It has long been known that botanical materials can be preserved in the oxidation products of iron and copper-alloy objects,36 and in the case of copper-alloy objects by the retardation of bacterial action. No seed material from the excavations of 1961–71 was recognized to have been preserved in this way and only a very few fragments of straw and wood, although this type of preservation has since been encountered elsewhere in the city.37 Locally made pottery was specifically examined for plant impressions but did not reveal any botanical evidence.38 More evidence comes from rescue excavations in the city since 1972, 39 when botanical material in the reduced-fired portions of daub was recovered in a similar way to that from the fired clay bell-moulds.40 30 31 ibid., 4–5. For example, at Sussex Street, Winchester: Green 2009, 22. See below, p. 305. 33 34 Green 2009, 22–3. BS Seeds 80–2; see below, pp. 319-21. cf. Letts 1999. 35 36 37 Green 1979b, 51 and 257–68. Biek 1972, 350; Keepax 1975, 145. Keene 1981, 50–1. 38 39 Green 1979b, 52; WS 7.i in prep. Green 2004, 75–8; 2009, 22; 2010, 327–41. 40 See below, pp. 218 and 320 (involving use of Hydrogen peroxide in both cases). 29 32

12

INTRODUCTION

Occasionally, in sediments which appeared to be aerobic, large concentrations of plant remains were found apparently preserved anaerobically. This preservation was probably from tannins from local industry.41 The most unusual form of preservation encountered was the inclusion of common oat (Avena sativa) caryopses in red lead and linseed oil-based paint contained in a post-medieval pot found on the site at the City Offices Extension;42 this provided a unique chance of examining the cereal type from a post-medieval context. Archival storage When this work was undertaken in the 1970s it was realised that the delicate botanical materials recovered risked degradation during archival storage. Conservation of a representative selection of items was undertaken initially so that they could be photographed. The various processes have been recorded.43 At that time the heat from photographic lamps caused damage to material that had not been conserved.The advent of digital photography and low-temperature light sources has dramatically changed the photographic recording process of delicate botanical materials. Rapid freeze-drying,44 which has proved successful in conserving botanical material recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose, had not then been developed for archaeological biological materials. Although it seemed likely that pollen would not survive in the essentially calcareous environment of Winchester, it was looked for, and the initial successes led to an organized programme of sampling at Lower Brook Street in 1970 and 1971, and at Castle Yard and Wolvesey Palace in 1971. Attempts to recover pollen from borings taken in the Itchen valley north and south of the city were not successful.

RESIDUALITY AND CONTAMINATION Before discussing the plant remains, it is worth considering the potential problem of residuality, the inclusion of material of older origin in a deposit. In many ways this may become better understood from analysis of pottery and animal bones, although since both these categories are more robust than plant remains it might be difficult to use the information to assess the residuality of plant remains in a deposit. Contamination, the inclusion of material of more recent origin in a deposit, has also to be considered. In archaeobotany there is always the additional problem of the inclusion of modern materials in a deposit during the course of an excavation. On some multi-period sites it may be possible to indicate, from the plant remains and the species involved, whether residual material of much earlier origin is a potential issue or is not a problem. Residuality of economic crop species typical of an Iron Age or Roman date has not been observed in Anglo-Saxon and later medieval deposits in Winchester.45 If Iron Age or Roman deposits were Smith and Green 2005, 597. Green 1982, 42.

41

44

42

45

Green 1979b, 51; Biek 1959, 107–8. Green 1979b, 51; WMS Archive COE 1973. 43 Green 1979b, 57–9.

Residuality and contamination

13

contributing to the flora observed in deposits of the Anglo-Saxon and later medieval periods, species commonly recovered from the earlier period deposits, such as spelt and emmer wheats, ought to have been recorded in those of the later periods; their absence shows that such major differences in economic crops through time can help in understanding the issue of residuality. Within the major period divisions, such as the Anglo-Saxon and later medieval periods, however, the degree of contamination between pits and layers within the comparatively close range of a century or so may be impossible to assess. Careful observation of deposits can sometimes reveal the potential for crosscontamination and the degree of potential mixing. An example comes from an urban site in Romsey (Hants.) where a post-medieval pit cut a medieval clay floor which was itself covered with burnt plant debris.46 The pit contained pieces of the clay floor up to 250 cubic millimetres in size. Since the clay floor covered with plant debris did not show distinctly in the sides of the later pit, the botanical components originating from the clay floor would have been recorded as part of the pit fill. In this particular example there is an interval of some three centuries between the floor and the pit fill and they represent two distinct cultural activities. Such observations are not always made on archaeological sites; indeed, unless the fill of a later feature showed marked textural and colour differences, the source of which might be identifiable, any residual material would not be readily observed and recorded during normal excavation procedures.47 Another instance where deposits might be mixed occurs much less frequently. Pottery, daub and clay-based artefacts, such as bell-moulds, which were fired in reducing conditions, often contain carbonized plant remains. When mixed into sediment sequences such material may contribute to the total assemblage from a deposit, either through decay of the fired clay in the ground, or from disintegration during processing. The incorporation, in a waterlogged deposit, of unfired daub containing previously desiccated plant remains, long after the construction of the building from which the daub was derived, provides another possible cause of mixing. Contamination of deposits with material of later origin cannot be discounted. This is particularly relevant on shallow sites where friable soil conditions exist and where carbonized material of one phase of activity might be partially mixed with material of a much earlier date by burrowing animals, worms, and insects. Clearly this problem may be minimal on deeply stratified sites where rapid and deep burial has precluded worm or insect activity. There is, however, always the possibility where pits are cut into the Chalk, as is so often the case in Winchester, that the contents of the pit may shrink away from the edges. Especially during winter months with the action of frost and thaw, this shrinkage may allow small items such as seeds to reach considerable depths down the sides of the pits. Spaces which have opened up along the edges of such pits can also be more easily entered by rodents and other small burrowing animals. This may account for another form of contamination suggested by the regular occurrence of the bones of mice and other small mammals along the edges and sides of pits. These problems must be considered in relation to the Winchester sites, but with present techniques, apart from detailed radiocarbon dating, there is no adequate method of assessing the residuality of carbonized plant remains. In the case of mineralized and waterlogged material,

46

Green 1991, 369.

47

For further related discussion, see Green 1985a, 41–2.

INTRODUCTION

14

however, problems may be more theoretical than real. Mineralized plant remains are usually contained within discrete bands or lenses which represent compressed and consolidated faecal material. Such material is usually found only in deep features where worm and insect activity has been virtually absent. The localized nature of this medium of preservation must to a very large degree preclude both residual contamination and the inclusion of material of more recent origin. Waterlogged or anaerobically preserved plant remains potentially pose fewer problems than carbonized material. This may not always be the case, however, especially on sites in Winchester where the level of the water-table may have fluctuated and previously aerobic sediments subsequently became waterlogged.48 Again, it is not easy to prove that this has happened, and it is clearly not a problem with material which has always been below the water-table. It may be an issue with habitation layers which have subsequently become waterlogged. Plant remains preserved anoxically in deposits above the water-table can also be contaminated by worm or insect activity, if they cease to be anoxic.This can, perhaps, only be evaluated by close inspection of the deposit during sampling, when worm activity and the accumulations in their aestivation chambers might be detected and excluded when taking the sample. Modern contamination Keepax has discussed in detail some aspects of the contamination of archaeological deposits by seeds of modern origin.49 One of the main forms of modern contamination is found only where the archaeological deposits have been excavated and left exposed and unsampled for long periods. This applies particularly to waterlogged strata, where in the author’s experience the samples can be contaminated by seeds of modern origin, and especially of those species which may be growing on the adjacent spoil heaps.These contaminants are principally those which are dispersed by aerial means, such as members of the Asteraceae, daisy family.When such samples are examined within a month or so of being taken, contamination can be readily identified; the seeds are clearly fresh in appearance and contain a viable endosperm. Modern contamination accounts for the number of samples containing germinated and even growing plants which were presented for analysis from many of the excavations which took place in Winchester after 1971. Since the actual method of taking the samples had not changed, it may be assumed that this problem could also apply to the samples taken during the work of 1961–71. Where carbonized or mineralized material was recovered from aerobic strata, modern seeds, even if only represented by the testa, could be eliminated. In the case of the waterlogged samples from the sites discussed here this problem cannot be assessed, however, because the samples were all stored for long periods prior to processing. The endosperm of any modern fruits and seeds could have decayed during storage and the material would then be indistinguishable from the original evidence deposited under archaeological conditions. It would be foolhardy not to indicate that this problem exists, but in the author’s experience the range of species providing such contaminants is so limited, and the percentage contamination is so small (less than 5 per cent) that the introduced bias is probably of little significance. 48

Biddle and Quirk 1962, 157; Ottaway 2017, 27.

49

Keepax 1977, 221–9.

Sampling and analysis

15

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS During the Winchester excavations of 1961–71 deposits were not systematically sampled for the recovery of biological remains. From the very beginning there was clear understanding of the need for environmental studies and a recognition of the potential of the Winchester sites to provide palaeoenvironmental evidence, but there was no professional archaeobotanist on the team to develop a sampling programme or to investigate the samples once taken. In the circumstances sampling was opportunist and dominated by the apparent interest of deposits which could be seen to contain plant remains or were noticeably organic deposits. As a result, waterlogged or anaerobically preserved plant remains were more widely recovered than those preserved by carbonization or by mineralization in aerobic deposits. Nor, until 1969–70, was there any feedback from the examination of samples already collected, with the exception of the investigation of some Lower Brook Street samples, principally for parasites, in 1964, and J. R. B. Arthur’s preliminary examination of the Cathedral Green bell-mould fragments the same year. Nevertheless, samples were taken of deposits on almost all the sites excavated in 1961–71 in the hope that their examination would eventually provide another dimension to the study of Winchester. For all its limitations, the same policy was applied to the study of animal bones, but whereas samples were taken in the knowledge that the plant remains were by and large invisible to the naked eye, deposits were not usually sampled on a large scale for the recovery of small animal bones by sieving.50 Significantly the dark aerobic developed soils and sediments that overlay many archaeological deposits in the city were themselves not sampled for plant remains, except as noted in the northern suburbs at Victoria Road.51 Work on dark soils elsewhere has suggested evidence for middening.52 Most recently, detailed analysis of dark soils in Winchester has also indicated middening and biological accretion for the origin of these soils.53 This has added an additional dimension to our understanding of refuse disposal and site utilisation when areas of the walled city were no longer occupied and had been abandoned. The most serious problems posed by the nature of the sampling process are quantitative, particularly in the relationship of sample size to bulk deposit, and comparative, in the sense that the samples taken were eclectic rather than systematic. The actual size of the sample unit (usually between 500ml and 1000ml) has also imposed limitations on analysis and ultimate interpretation.54 The long period of storage, up to fifteen years, which intervened between the moment of sampling and the time of examination introduced its own problems, although these were not perhaps as serious as might have been expected. Careful assessment and examination prior to processing revealed the types of preservation within a sample, so that the method of processing and the amount of the sample which needed to be examined could be determined before any processing or appropriate sub-sampling took place.55 Different methods of recovery had to be employed depending on the type of preservation encountered; details of the various techniques for carbonized, waterlogged, or mineralized material WS 9.ii in prep. Green 1979b, 272, Fig. 3.7. 52 Green and Lockyer 1992; 1994.

Carruthers 2011, 365–6; Ford and Teague 2011, 34. Green 1979b, 20, 28 and 31. 55 ibid., 57.

50

53

51

54

INTRODUCTION

16

are described elsewhere.56 The method used for recovering desiccated plant remains from daub57 was largely the same as that for the recovery of carbonized material from sediment. While this pioneering work in Winchester had its limitations, and the results have been a long time coming to final publication, it is worth emphasizing that this work established a benchmark for the serious study of environmental archaeology both in Winchester and in historic towns all over Britain. The work discussed here was fundamental in establishing the nature of preservation conditions and this has led to the sampling methods currently employed on many medieval urban sites and on more recent excavations in Winchester itself,58 and ultimately has led to national standards and advice being provided.59 As a result of what was achieved in Winchester, partly by participation in conferences and partly by individuals going on to work on materials from other cities, almost all archaeological excavations in urban areas today incorporate provision for the sampling of deposits with a view to making a contribution to the study of the palaeoenvironment and related topics. As far as Winchester was concerned, the next step was the development of a programme of systematic deposit sampling to accompany the Winchester Museums Service excavations from 1972 onwards. Details of the methodology for sampling and processing in this later work are set out in the introduction to Food, Craft and Status in Medieval Winchester published in 2009,60 where there is a study of plant remains from many of those later excavations.61 Since the new arrangements set in place for development-led archaeology arising from the statement of government policy in Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 in 1990,62 briefs for almost all archaeological excavations in Winchester have included a requirement for sampling and analysis for environmental archaeology. Latterly this has been informed by the English Heritage (now Historic England) document Environmental Archaeology: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods from Sampling and Recovery to Post-Excavation.63 It is neither feasible nor necessary to list every post-1990 palaeoenvironmental report here, but among the more important are those arising from work by Oxford Archaeology at Northgate House, Staple Gardens, and the former Winchester Library in Jewry Street.64 One should also note the extensive sampling of deposits in the Itchen floodplain by Oxford Archaeology at Pilgrims’ School65 and by ARCA (University of Winchester) on Broadway66 and Upper Brook Street.67

CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE VOLUME The chapters in the volume fall into three groups. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 sets the scene for the study of Winchester’s palaeoenvironment with an overview of the local environment in terms of relief, geology, hydrology, soil type, and vegetation. This is followed by Chapters 3–6 which review aspects of the documentary evidence for plants, gardens, and agriculture in Green 1979b, 54–7. ibid., 56. 58 Green 1979a, 45–50. 59 Campbell et al. 2011. 60 Serjeantson and Rees 2009. 61 Green 2009.

Department of the Environment 1990. Campbell et al. 2011. 64 Carruthers 2011; Challinor 2011. 65 Champness et al. 2012. 66 Wilkinson and Marter 2007. 67 Wilkinson and Bachelor 2012.

56

62

57

63

Site summaries

17

Winchester and its region. In Chapter 3 Debby Banham discusses the vegetation of Winchester in the late Anglo-Saxon period based on a study of Abbot Ælfric of Eynsham’s Nomina Herbarum and its glossary of some 68 plant names. In Chapter 4 Derek Keene introduces the medieval documentary evidence for land use in the city with particular reference to crop and animal husbandry and the use of plant-derived material in the local economy. The evidence for the medieval gardens at the castle and the bishop’s palace at Wolvesey is described by Beatrice Clayre and Martin Biddle in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6 Jan Titow provides a detailed and wide-ranging analysis of the documentary evidence for the agricultural regime on the Hampshire estates of the bishopric and cathedral priory of Winchester. The third part of the volume considers the archaeological evidence from theWinchester Excavations Committee’s excavations, primarily, but not exclusively, for plant remains, and its significance for an understanding of the local environment and of local agriculture. Chapter 7, by Jane Renfrew and Erwin Isenberg, describes the evidence from pollen samples collected at Lower Brook Street (1965– 71). Chapter 8, by Suzanne Keene considers trees in the local environment and the utilization of wood. Chapter 9, by Peter Murphy, is concerned with the evidence for plants in the Roman period. This is followed by two very substantial contributions on plants in the late Anglo-Saxon period from Michael Monk (Chapter 10) and in the medieval period from Francis Green (Chapter 11). A contribution on the moss from Lower Brook Street (1965–71) by Dorian Williams and Jane Renfrew follows in Chapter 12, and on the insects by Peter Osborne in Chapter 13. The contributions in this volume were originally written in the 1970s and 1980s. They have where possible been amended and revised by their authors to take some account of more recent research but have not been substantially rewritten. All the contributions were edited for publication in 2020. A summary account of the archaeology of the sites from which the samples were taken follows immediately after this section. At the end of the volume there is a catalogue of all the samples organized by site. SITE SUMMARIES

For locations see Illus. 1.5. An account of the process of post-excavation analysis and the definition of final phases may be found in WS 7.ii, 14–21. Assize Courts Ditch 1963–4 (ACD)68 Excavations at Tower 2 on the east side of Winchester Castle, on the western lip of the castle ditch adjacent to the Assize Courts building of 1871–3, showed that late Anglo-Saxon pits and occupation layers (Final phases 20–3) were sealed below the castle bank of 1067 (Final phase 24), which was itself crowned by a stone curtain wall (Final phase 29). Construction began on a tower (Final phase 42) and was completed c.1256 (Final phase 43). It included a garderobe pit with an 68

I Interim; WS 6.i in prep.

18

INTRODUCTION

important group of glass vessels (Final phase 45). The tower was demolished in the seventeenth century (Final phase 48). The final phases given to this site correspond to those of the sequence established for the Castle Yard site. Assize Courts North 1963 (ACN)69 A small site was excavated in the garden of Trafalgar House on the west side of Trafalgar (Gar) Street, in the area which was to become part of the courtyard north of the new Assize Courts. Roman deposits (Final phases 1–3) and a Roman building (Final phase 4) were followed by a long pause horizon (Final phase 5) over which there was a sequence of tenth- and eleventh-century buildings and pits (Final phases 6–8). These earlier medieval deposits were badly damaged by later pits (Final phases 9–13). There was some post-medieval and later building and other activity associated with Trafalgar House (Final phases 14–18). Assize Courts South 1963–5 (ACS)70 A small area excavation (238m2) in the south-eastern part of the site of the new Assize Courts building investigated a length of Trafalgar (Gar) Street, one of the north–south streets of the AngloSaxon city, together with parts of three adjacent timber houses fronting onto the west side of the street. Over the Roman deposits (Final phases 1–4) there was a long pause horizon (Final phase 5) which was sealed in the late ninth to early tenth century by the first surface of the street and the first stage of the houses (Final phase 6). The street was remetalled five times and the houses refloored and probably reconstructed as frequently, down to the mid- or later thirteenth century (Final phases 7–17). The street was subsequently resurfaced once more (Final phase 18), but the houses went out of use and the area was heavily dug into by pits throughout the fourteenth century (Final phases 19–22).The site then lay open until modern times (Final phases 23–27). Lower Brook Street 1965–71 (BS)71 A large area excavation (1202m2) was undertaken in 1965–71 on the west side of Lower Brook Street (Tanner Street) where the church of St Mary lay on the street frontage flanked by tenements to south (IX/X) and north (XI and XII). A lane led west from Tanner Street towards St Pancras’ Church, in the middle of the block of land between Lower and Middle Brook Streets, which was also excavated (Illus. 1.6). In post-excavation analysis final phases were allocated in blocks to the components of this site, as follows:72 II Interim, 193–4; III Interim, 240–3; X Interim, 98–100; WS 6.i in prep. II Interim, 194–6; IV Interim, 313; WS 6.i in prep. 71 IV Interim, 313–8; V Interim, 259–66; VI Interim, 259–68; VII Interim, 303–12; VIII Interim, 298–310; IX Interim, 98–115; X Interim, 295–321; WS 5 in prep. 72 The reordering of the phases of the Lower Brook Street stratigraphic sequence was undertaken by Birthe Kjølbye-Biddle during the preparation for publication of the Lower Brook Street sites; see WS 5 in prep. 69 70

Site summaries

Roman Anglo-Saxon, pre-urban St Pancras’ Church St Mary’s Church Tenement XII Tenement XI Tanner Street and lanes Tenement IX/X

19

Final phases 50–6 Final phases 1–6 Final phases 7–18B Final phases 19–33 (34–5: not used) Final phases 36–49 (for 50–6, see above) Final phases 57–64A Final phases 65–72 (73–4: not used) Final phases 75–82.

These blocks of final phases fall in no particular order, chronological or topographical, but within each block the sequence of final phases is strictly chronological (i.e. stratigraphic). In broad terms, the Roman period (Final phases 50–6) was followed by the development of a Middle Anglo-Saxon private residence of perhaps thane rank (Final phases 1–5).The evolution of this complex into the church of St Mary and the adjacent street-front properties is comprised both in Final phase 6 and in the first phases of the church (Final phase 19) and the adjacent tenements (Final phases 36, 57, and 75). St Mary’s was a stone structure throughout its history (Final phases 19–33), but the houses were all originally built of wood, before being reconstructed on stone or cob footings, or rebuilt wholly in stone from the thirteenth century onwards. The structural history of St Pancras’ Church (Final phases 7–18B), which had room to expand in the relatively open space behind the houses, contrasts sharply with that of St Mary’s on its tightly delimited plot on the street frontage. The surfaces of Tanner Street, St Pancras Lane, and the lane leading to the north door of St Mary’s (Final phases 65–72) not only demonstrate the evolution of the lane pattern, but also help to relate the differing sequences of the individual structures, one to another, especially between the houses in Tenements XI and XII, and between St Mary’s Church and houses in Tenement XI. The structural history of the site as a whole from the tenth century onwards begins with the building up of the street frontage (tenth to twelfth century). This was followed by infilling along the lanes and land behind the houses which reached its maximum extent in the fourteenth century. Some decline followed, but much of the land was still occupied until late in the fifteenth century, by which time the last of the houses was abandoned.The churches went out of use in the early sixteenth century.Thereafter the site lay open until this area was reoccupied, following some sparse eighteenth-century activity, in the mid-nineteenth century. In the tenth and eleventh centuries the area seems to have been occupied mainly by tanners, hence the name Tanner Street. Several wood-lined pits, probably to be identified as tanning pits, were found on Tenement XII (Final phase 37). During the twelfth century tanning gave way to textile manufacture, evidence for which was a feature of Tenements IX/X, XI, and XII until their abandonment in the fifteenth century. Although no stone-built house on quite the scale of those on Tenements I (LBS 62) and III (BSSC 63–4) was excavated on this site, a cross-section of the social classes was to be observed. In structural terms the evidence ranges from the single-room cottages in a purpose-built row on Tenement XI (Final phase 61), through a timber (and then stone and timber) structure on Tenement XII, to the substantial later medieval stone buildings of Tenements IX/X which in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century belonged to Richard de Bosyngton, a fuller, alderman of Tanner Street, and holder of several of the city’s offices.The relative wealth of Tenements IX/X

INTRODUCTION

20

at this time is reflected in the large quantity of finds, especially metalwork, from Final phases 79–80. Even more striking is the archaeological evidence for the wealth and range of activities which characterized Tenement XII in the tenth and eleventh centuries (Final phases 37–8), long before the ability of written evidence to illuminate the social reasons behind it. Cathedral Car Park 1961 (CACP)73 The first of the Winchester excavations of 1961–71 took place in 1961 in the then Cathedral Car Park on the site of the new Wessex Hotel, within the former precinct of New Minster. The underlying Roman buildings included the east range of the forum, and a north–south street, with town houses to the east of the street.There was some occupation over the street in the postRoman period (Final phase 28), but the lower-lying area east of the street was eroded by a series of intercutting water-channels, probably natural streams reasserting their regime from north to south through the city, down the valley floor (Final phase 29).The foundations of the forum were robbed at the beginning of the tenth century (Final phase 30) and at approximately the same time, or a little earlier, domestic occupation and pits began to spread over the area east of the Roman street (Final phase 31). This phase came to an early end, probably with the enclosure of the whole area within the New Minster precinct c.901–3, when it became a cemetery (Final phase 32). An oval building constructed east of the cemetery in the late tenth to mid-eleventh century (Final phase 33) may have been a mortuary chapel, but there was also a certain amount of what was apparently domestic occupation (Final phase 34). Following the destruction of the New Minster’s domestic buildings by fire in 1065, the site of the cemetery and the oval building were taken over for part of a new set of domestic buildings arranged around two sides of a courtyard (Final phases 35–46). These buildings were demolished c.1110 (Final phase 47) when New Minster was moved to Hyde outside North Gate. The site lay open thereafter (Final phase 48), until it was eventually given over to a late extension of the cathedral cemetery (Final phases 49–50) and then used as a car park (Final phase 51). Castle Yard 1967–71 (CY)74 Between 1967 and 1971, as the final stage in the construction of the new Assize Courts, the area of Castle Yard, immediately north of the Great Hall and occupying the northern tip of Winchester Castle, was extensively excavated. The site was framed to the north by the Roman city wall here forming the north side of a salient south of the Roman and medieval west gate. Overlying the Roman rampart there was an occupation deposit open until the ninth century (Final phase 13). On this a north–south street was laid down, with a secondary street branching off to the west inside and parallel to the city wall (Final phase 14).These streets represent two elements in the late Anglo-Saxon street plan, i.e. one of the series of north–south streets and a part of the intramural street, respectively. They were resurfaced up to eight times and were flanked by timber buildings (Final phases 15–23) and in one instance by a stone building (Final phase 21). I Interim; WS 4.i in prep.; see also above, pp. 5–6 and 8. VI Interim, 258–9; VII Interim, 296–302; VIII Interim, 278–92; X Interim, 100–9; WS 6.i in prep. 73

74

Site summaries

21

These streets and buildings were buried beneath the earthworks of the new castle in 1067 (Final phase 24) which, in this area, enclosed part of the northern bailey of the castle including a stone chapel (Final phases 25–6).A motte was thrown up north of the chapel (Final phases 27–8), and the chapel was several times remodelled while occupation debris accumulated around it (Final phases 29–33), before being dismantled (Final phase 34) as a preliminary to the construction of a stone keep on the site of the motte early in the twelfth century (Final phases 35–7). The castle wall was refaced in perhaps the late twelfth century (Final phase 38). In the reign of King Henry III the defences were completely remodelled and the interior buildings including the Great Hall were constructed (Final phases 39–44).There was only limited later occupation of the castle (Final phases 45–7) before the demolition of all but the Great Hall in the mid- and late seventeenth century (Final phase 48). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the area was several times rearranged to provide accommodation for the Assize Courts and the growing administrative functions of the County Council (Final phases 49–56). Cathedral Green 1962–9 (CG)75 Old Minster, the Anglo-Saxon cathedral church of Winchester, was founded c.650 and demolished in 1093–4. New Minster, a separate foundation, so called to distinguish it from Old Minster, was founded c.901–3 on a site immediately north of Old Minster. For nearly two centuries, from c.901–3 until the demolition of Old Minster in 1093–4, the two minsters stood close beside each other, and for a further twenty years until c.1110, when it was removed to Hyde, New Minster was close neighbour of the new Norman cathedral begun in 1079 on a new site immediately south of Old Minster. Since the demolition of the two minsters, their sites have lain open, forming the great north close of Winchester Cathedral. The sites of the two minsters were identified in 1962–3. Between 1964 and 1969 Old Minster was completely excavated, except for those parts which lay close to or beneath the nave of its successor, the present cathedral. During these years examination of the New Minster church was restricted to its south wall which was partly uncovered to link the structural history of the two minsters. This was followed in 1970 by an excavation further east to examine the minster’s later domestic buildings and to establish the nature of the eastern extension of the New Minster church laid out by Edmund in the 940s.76 This area of the Roman city was occupied by the south range of the forum, and by the street to its south (Final phases 1–19). On this street Old Minster was first constructed c.650 (Final phase 20). From the late seventh century burials were made around the church (Final phase 21 onwards). St Martin’s tower was built to the west in the early- to mid-eighth century (Final phase 25) and the east end of the church was remodelled shortly afterwards (Final phase 26). New Minster was built close to the north side of Old Minster at the beginning of the tenth century (Final phases 33–4). Old Minster responded with the addition of a massive new facade (Final phase 37), but it was not until after the translation of St Swithun in 971 that Old Minster was almost II Interim, 202–11; III Interim, 249–58; IV Interim, 319–26; V Interim, 266–72; VI Interim, 268–80; VII Interim, 312–23; VIII Interim, 311–21; IX Interim, 115–25; WS 4.i in prep. 76 Biddle 2018, 66–8. 75

22

INTRODUCTION

entirely reconstructed on a monumental scale with dedications c.980 and c.993–4 (Final phases 44–8). Burials continued around the two churches throughout the eleventh century (Final phases 49–55), but after the dedication of the eastern arms of the new Norman cathedral in 1093 Old Minster was demolished, to make way for the new nave (Final phases 56–61). Its buildings were used to provide stone for the new cathedral, and its site was used as a works yard, in part for the casting of bells (Final phases 62–4).The area of the former westwork of Old Minster was then surfaced to provide a memorial court.This area was centred on a monument erected over the site of St Swithun’s tomb around which a number of stone coffins which had originally stood within the westwork were preserved in situ (Final phase 65). The demolition of New Minster followed in c.1110 (Final phases 66–7), and eventually the site of Old Minster was enclosed to form a walled burial-ground, later known as ‘Paradise’ (Final phase 71). The construction of a chapel over St Swithun’s tomb in the mid-thirteenth century (Final phase 74) was followed by a great increase in the number of burials in ‘Paradise’ which continued in use as a graveyard until the sixteenth century (Final phases 75–82). Burials ceased here at the Reformation, but ‘Paradise’ remained walled and was used as a works yard whenever major repairs were taking place in the cathedral. After the demolition of Paradise Wall c.1771, the area was still marked off by a path along its northern edge on the line of the demolished wall (Final phases 83–95). Outside to the north, the site of New Minster became part of the great burial-ground of the city and was used for this purpose until the mid-nineteenth century.Today the whole area lies open with the plan of Old Minster laid out in brick in the grass and the site of St Swithun’s tomb marked by a slab of Norwegian granite. Tower Street 1964 (TS)77 The successive Roman ramparts forming the western defences of the city sealed a relatively intense Iron Age occupation of several phases (Final phases 1–3). The defences themselves were enlarged several times and were strengthened by the addition of a stone wall early in the third century (Final phases 4–7).There may have been some further strengthening in the late fourth century (Final phases 8 and 9), but there was then a long interval before dumping and cobbling were laid on the back of the rampart in the tenth or eleventh century (Final phase 10).There followed a long period during which timber buildings were constructed on the back of the rampart, pits were dug, and there was further dumping (Final phases 11–16).The city wall was repaired and a tower added to its outer face in the later thirteenth or fourteenth century (Final phase 17), and the wall was again repaired in the same century (Final phase 18).After the Middle Ages, the defences decayed (Final phase 19) and were finally demolished in this stretch early in the nineteenth century (Final phase 20). Houses were then again built on the back of the rampart or in the ditch (Final phases 21–2). Wolvesey Palace 1963–71 and 1974 (WP)78 In terms of area, the medieval palace of the bishops of Winchester at Wolvesey was by far the largest site excavated as part of the campaign of 1961–71, accounting for over one-third of the 77 III Interim, 233–9; WS 3.i in prep. II Interim, 212–14; III Interim, 258–60; IV Interim, 326–8; V Interim, 272–6; VI Interim, 280–4; VII Interim, 323–6; VIII Interim,322–5; IX Interim, 125–30; Biddle 2021; WS 6.ii in prep. 78

Site summaries

23

total area excavated within the walls (Illus. 1.5; cf. Illus. 10.17, 11.14, and 11.15).The archaeological sequence of the site fell into three main periods: Roman (Final phases 1–55), Anglo-Saxon (Final phases 56–66), and Norman and later (Final phases 67–433). The large number of Roman, and especially of Norman and later, phases is a reflection of the need to give individual sequences (a) to the street and four separate buildings of the Roman period, and (b) to the individual parts of the vast Norman and later palace. The individual sequences within the post-Roman final phases may be set out as follows: Anglo-Saxon All areas of the site Final phases 56–66 Norman and later, to the modern period North range Woodman’s Gate Final phases 67–83 Rooms 9–12 Final phases 84–102 Rooms 18, 20, 20A Final phases 103–23 (including 432) East range Rooms 23–5 Final phases 124–37 Rooms 22, 26, 26A Final phases 138–56 Wymond’s Tower Final phases 157–63 South range Rooms 32–5 Final phases 164–204 (including 419–21) Rooms 36–7 Final phases 205–27 (including 422) East Hall Rooms 48/52 Final phases 228–35 (including 424–5) Rooms 28/47, 27 Final phases 236–48 (including 426–8) Rooms 16, 17, 19 Final phases 249–60 (including 423) Central courtyard ‘Rooms’ 50A–E Final phases 261–75 ‘Room’ 50H Final phases 276–87 ‘Room’ 51 Final phases 288–95 (including 433) ‘Room’ 50L Final phases 296–7 (including 431) Trenches XXVI–XXVIII Final phases 406–12 These final phases run consecutively through the different areas of the palace, and through the components of each area, as shown above, from Final phase 67 to Final phase 399. Final phases 400–12 have been used to deal with excavation trenches not directly related to individual rooms: Final phases 400–5 in the area of the north-west range and West Hall and Final phases 406–12 in the central courtyard. Final phases 413–33 were used as required when revising the final phasing to describe elements for which allowance had not been made. The final phases of the Norman and later palace have been correlated across the whole palace in a sequence of some fifty-four major phases (1–54) and fourteen architectural periods (I–XIV), but these are not used in this volume except that the periods are quoted in the brief outline of

24

INTRODUCTION

the development of the palace which follows. The list given above, used in conjunction with the context descriptions of the individual final phases, will indicate the area of the palace from which a sample came, and the numerical position and date of the final phase will give its chronological position in that area or sub-area. The detailed development of the palace cannot be covered here, but the following brief outline will help to explain. After a lengthy period of agricultural activity, involving both water-meadows and ploughing (Final phases 59, 413; Illus. 10.17), the southern part of a ditched enclosure for what is believed to be the palace of the later Anglo-Saxon bishops was laid out in the northern part of the site (Final phase 414), and buildings were constructed within it, including a double-apsed chapel (Final phases 62–5; Illus. 11.6). To the south, outside the enclosure, the fields continued in use (Final phases 60, 61, 417, 66, 418). The various parts of the Anglo-Saxon palace and fields were sealed at different times by the construction over them of the successive components of the Norman and later palace. In Final phases 60–1, 63, 65, and 66 the dates by which the respective phases were finally sealed is given in brackets after the probable end-date of each phase (cf. Illus. 11.7). In one case, Final phase 62, the date in brackets indicates a possible earlier termination of the phase. The first element of the Norman complex was a large residential building with a chapel (Period I, 1107–29). This was constructed in the fields outside and to the south-west of the Anglo-Saxon complex, which is presumed to have continued in use. An elaborate porch (Period II, c.1130) was then added to the West Hall, but the whole arrangement of the palace was changed and the entire course of its future development decided by the construction opposite the West Hall of a second great block, the East Hall, containing a large audience hall, a gallery, and a multi-storey accommodation block (Period III, c.1137–9). The Anglo-Saxon palace, lying mainly to the north (and not excavated in 1961–71 because outside the limits of the later palace), was probably finally demolished at this time. During the later 1130s and 1140s down to 1154, initially under the compulsion of the civil war between Stephen and Matilda, Bishop Henry of Blois wrought the two blocks of the palace into a single fortified courtyard house, adding an eastern front consisting of a defensive tower (Wymond’s Tower) and an imposing ‘keep’ which was in reality a vast square kitchen (Periods IV–VI, c.1139– 53?). After, but possibly before, his exile in 1154–8, Bishop Henry added an outer north range and gatehouse (Woodman’s Gate), bringing the palace to its greatest extent and virtually its final form (Period VII, c.1153–71). Subsequent works down to the seventeenth century were slight by comparison with what had gone before. The East Hall was remodelled by the insertion of an arcade during the thirteenth century (Period VIII, c.1235 or late 13th century), and some infilling took place between the towers of the east front (Period IX, mid-14th century).Very considerable renovations were undertaken by William of Wykeham in the years immediately after his appointment in 1367, notably in digging out and removing the accumulated floor and occupation deposits of the preceding two centuries (Period X, late 14th century). In archaeological terms this has meant that contexts earlier than the late fourteenth century are conspicuous by their absence over almost all the building, except in the south courtyard (Courtyard 34) and in the successive construction deposits of the twelfth century. For the years between the 1160s and the 1360s there were almost no deposits left to find; no subsequent bishop was ever so destructive of the archaeology in his own house. From the

Sample catalogue

25

late fourteenth century onwards deposits built up in all parts of the palace and, although there were clearances from time to time in various areas, these were the deposits which remained to be excavated in the 1960s. The later medieval use of the palace need not be described here: it is sufficiently indicated by the context descriptions of the final phases in each area. There was very little activity at all in the century after the great banquet for the wedding of King Philip of Spain and Queen Mary in 1554 (Period XIV; Final phases 256–7). The chapel was refurbished and other repairs carried out in the 1660s, but in 1684 the old palace was replaced by a new baroque house beside it, incorporating the medieval chapel. The old palace was then stripped for building materials and brought rapidly to the ruined state in which it survives today. In archaeological terms these changes are represented by extensive demolition deposits of the 1680s and by the scattered traces of outhouses, wells, latrines, and other minor structures related to the service areas of the baroque and later house which extended through much of the south-eastern quarter of the ruined medieval palace.

SAMPLE CATALOGUE The samples analyzed in this volume are listed, site by site, in the Concordance on pp. 366–74, in context order by final phase within each site. A sample taken for palaeoenvironmental analysis was usually recorded by site, trench, and layer and given an individual sample number in a unique series for each site.When groups, or even single specimens, of nuts, fruit stones, and other large and easily identifiable plant fragments were found, they were usually given an organic find (OF) number and stored near the samples. Occasionally a conspicuous organic find such as a pine-cone79 or a hazelnut might instead be given a small-find (SF) number, and kept with the other small finds in a dehumidified store so that they had dried out prior to analysis. Many of the organic finds which were kept separately suffered considerably from being stored in soft bags with more robust items by which they were often fragmented or crushed. Such material does nevertheless provide an indication of the preservation conditions of their archaeological contexts.

79

see below, p. 182

2 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION by JANE M. RENFREW and PATRICK OTTAWAY

O

n 31 October 1825 William Cobbett and his companions went to Kings Worthy; that is, about two miles on the road from Winchester to London; and then, turning short to our left, came up upon the downs to the north of Winchester race-course. Here, looking back at the city and at the fine valleys above and below it, and at the many smaller valleys that run down from the high ridges into that great and fertile valley, I could not help admiring the taste of the ancient kings, who made this city ... a chief place of their residence.There are not many finer spots in England ... Here are hill, dell, water meadows, woods, corn-fields, downs, and all of them very fine and very beautifully disposed.1 INTRODUCTION

Winchester is indeed well situated. The city lies in the gap which the River Itchen has incised through the east–west chalk ridge which lies on the southern margin of the Hampshire Chalk Downs (Illus 2.1).To the north, east, and west Winchester is surrounded by the Downs, but to the south lies the Hampshire Basin with its mudstone and sandstone bedrock overlain by alluvium. In the city itself a discussion of the natural environment can be structured on the basis of two main physiographic zones: the surrounding Chalk Downs and the river valley.2 From the west the Downs descend gently into the Itchen valley from Teg Down (c.150m OD) and from the south-west from Compton Down (c.120m OD), both c.2.5km from the city centre. By contrast, east and south-east of the city respectively, at a similar distance from the centre, the slopes and promontories of Magdalen Hill Down (c.125m OD) and Twyford Down (c.143m OD), separated by the lower-lying Chilcomb Vale, drop steeply towards the river. The River Itchen itself is a typical Wessex chalk stream which rises at Hinton Marsh, just south of the village of Cheriton (north-east of the city) and, after flowing west for a short distance, turns to the south to reach the sea at Southampton, 18km south of Winchester. It has only two substantial tributaries, the River Arle and the Candover Brook, both joining it north of Winchester, 6.4km downstream from its source. Today much of the Itchen flows through a relatively wide floodplain which includes the water-meadows, a prominent landscape feature immediately south of the city centre.

1

Cobbett 1830, 288–9.

2

For further discussion of some of the topics in this chapter, see Ottaway 2017, 22–9.

Introduction

27

Illus. 2.1 Relief map of Hampshire. After Ottaway 2017, Fig. 3.1; drawn by Lesley Collett.

In order to have a full appreciation of the way in which Winchester’s citizens made use of its natural environment and exploited it for many different resources from prehistoric times onwards, it is necessary to review the city’s landscape setting, geology, hydrology regime, and vegetation history.This will in turn give us a wider context for understanding the plant and other organic materials described both in the documentary sources and recovered from the excavations.

28

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION

GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY The solid geology over much of Hampshire is Chalk (Illus. 2.2). In many areas this is overlain by Quaternary deposits of the Pleistocene and Holocene periods. At Winchester itself the solid geology is Chalk of the Upper Cretaceous period.3 This forms part of a broad, asymmetrical, east–west anticlinal structure that separates the Tertiary beds of the Hampshire Basin, 10km to the south, from those of the London Basin in northern Hampshire. The White Chalk Subgroup, with its distinctive courses of nodular flints, predominates throughout the area. It is noted for its peculiar assemblage of fossils, including sponges and hollow moulds of ammonites

Illus. 2.2 The solid geology of Hampshire. 3

BGS 2002.

Geology and Geomorphology

29

and gastropods. A smaller east–west anticline at Winchester has exposed rocks of the early Grey Chalk Sub-group in the Chilcomb area to the east of the city. The northern and north-eastern boundary of the Chalk, where it drops sharply beneath the London Basin, is clearly defined over much of its length by a striking escarpment. This runs from near Basingstoke to the Wiltshire boundary, reaching its highest point (297m OD) at Woolbury hillfort, east of Stockbridge. On the southern boundary of the Chalk, to the south of the Winchester Anticline, the drop is much gentler than on the northern escarpment because the asymmetrical nature of the anticline causes the White Chalk to dip less steeply under the deposits of the Hampshire Basin. The Chalk Downs exist as an undulating central plateau, with an average altitude of 120m OD, bounded to the north-west, north, and east by more hilly regions.The Downs are dissected by irregular and branching systems of valleys with steeply sloping sides. These valleys are in the main dry, but they have the appearance of being formed by running brooks and streams. They probably carried streams during the last cold stage of the Pleistocene (Ice Age), but, with the exception of very wet winters, a falling ground-water table has made surface water in these valleys rare today. At Winchester itself, a dry valley once carried the Fulflood stream which ran eastwards to the Itchen through the northern suburb of the city. Overlying the Chalk in places on the Downs and at Winchester itself, where confined mainly to the lower parts of the western slope of the Itchen valley, there are strata of Clay-withflints which may contain Sarsens (sandstone boulders). These strata may be characterised as a reddish-brown to orange clay containing variable quantities of unworn flints. Strata generally increase in thickness towards the valley bottom, to a maximum depth of 6m. Clay-with-flints may once have been more widespread since striations containing similar material have often been recorded on the surface of the Chalk. In the river floodplain evidence for the character of the Quaternary deposits has been derived from building contractors’ borehole records, and from archaeological and geoarchaeological investigations. A cross-section (Illus. 2.3) across the Itchen valley at Winchester from west (Oram’s Arbour) to east (St Giles’ Hill) shows the geological structure. Over the valley bottom up to 6m of flint gravel has been recorded overlying the Chalk. The material is, as a whole, typical of Pleistocene valley gravels laid down within high-energy riverine environments.Today it survives in the form of terraces lining the sides of the valley, terraces which, in origin, are river beds which have been uplifted and downcut.4 Thick deposits of alluvial peats, sands, and silts were laid over the gravels during the early Holocene period. The presence and depth of these deposits over the valley floor is variable, being at its greatest on the western side of the floodplain between Parchment Street and Lower Brook Street. Here the Chalk is up to c.12m below modern level and lies below the river gravels overlain with up to 4.5m of alluvium and peat. These suggest that a palaeochannel of the river is located on the western side of the valley. Geoarchaeological analysis of the valley floor at Pilgrims’ School 2005–7 identified a channel, possibly the same feature, near where it passed

4

Wilkinson and Hennessy 2004.

30

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION

Illus. 2.3 The Itchen valley at Winchester: cross-section of its geological structure, from Oram’s Arbour in the west to St Giles’ Hill in the east. Drawn by Lesley Collett. Ottaway 2017, Fig. 1.19.

below the line of the later city walls on the south side of the circuit.5 The peat at Pilgrims’ School has been radiocarbon dated to 6230–6050 cal. BC (OxA-17233) and in boreholes at Upper Brook Street Car Park 2012 to 7970–7680 cal. BC (GU 27838).6 At the surface of the alluvial deposits accumulations of tufa have been recognized in a number of places. Their extent in the area of the 1987–8 excavations at The Brooks has been plotted by John Zant,7 although his idea of a ‘tufa island’ in the middle of the floodplain that would have been suitable for early settlement cannot now be sustained. Sometimes known as ‘chalk brash’, tufa in Winchester appears as a loose cream-coloured granular material, locally stained orange-brown or purplish-brown with iron oxide, containing a few small lenses of pale grey or brown clay. SOILS IN THE WINCHESTER AREA On the Chalk Downs, beneath the dense forest cover of the postglacial deciduous woodlands, an argillic brown earth soil developed. Following the initial woodland clearances, these soils were, in agricultural terms, initially very rich, but were highly susceptible to erosion under tillage.8 As agricultural activities gradually increased and intensified through the Bronze and Iron Ages, there was an increase in soil erosion. By the Roman conquest, the soils on the Chalk Downs were already thin. Further erosion continued through the Roman period and on into the present day. A proportion of the eroded material has been deposited at the base of slopes and in dry valleys as areas of thick colluvium. Outside the historic core of Winchester, recent 5 6

Champness et al. 2012, 31. Wilkinson and Bachelor 2012.

7

Zant 1993, Fig. 4.

8

Allen 1996, 62.

The hydrology regime in the Winchester area

31

ploughing has removed any ancient buried soils except where they remain below surviving lynchets and other earthworks. However, on the western slope of the valley, within the town defences and protected by thick urban occupation deposits, buried soils have been found to survive.9 Today on the Chalk Downs there are shallow, free-draining, loamy lime-rich soils. These are rarely more than 0.3m deep and may contain up to 60 per cent chalk. In pockets there are free-draining slightly acid loamy soils. In the bottom of the Itchen valley there are fen peat soils which are poor to rich in lime. An overview of the distribution of current soil types in the Winchester area can be found on the Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute website.10 THE HYDROLOGY REGIME IN THE WINCHESTER AREA Physically and chemically, the Itchen is a characteristic Wessex chalk stream, spring-fed by baserich water (Illus 2.7). Apart from the principal rivers, like the Itchen, the Test, and the Meon, the chalklands lack permanent surface streams. A high proportion of the rain soaks into the soil and thence into the permeable Chalk beneath which it accumulates in vast aquifers before emerging eventually as springs. Annual rainfall at Martyr Worthy Met Office climate station, the nearest to Winchester, for the years 1981–2010 was, on average, 746mm.11 However, seasonal variations in rainfall give rise in many areas to ‘winterbournes’, streams which flow only during the winter and spring months.12 In summer, away from the rivers, deep wells are the only sources of water over extensive areas of chalkland. Combined with climatic change, human intervention in the hydrology of the city has probably contributed to fluctuations in the water-table over the last two thousand years. An overall rise since the first century AD is suggested by archaeological excavations. Today, the usual current range of river level at City Mill in the city centre is 35.11m to 35.50m OD,13 while the usual level of the ground water-table in the centre is 33m to 35m OD. As far as water level in the past is concerned, the evidence from sites at the Brooks (1987–8) and Lower Brook Street (1965–71) is that it was lower in Roman times, although by how much is not entirely clear. Zant has suggested that the Roman water-table in the Brooks area was between 33.40m and 33.90m OD because of the level at the base of a timber-lined drain on the south side of an east–west street.14 The ground level at this site at the beginning of the Roman period was between c.34m and 35m OD. At Lower Brook Street (1965–71), a little to the east, ground level at the beginning of the Roman period was c.34.50m OD, but the bottom of a large early Roman (?fort) ditch lay at c.32.60m OD.15 It seems unlikely that the ditch was entirely water-filled and so the early Roman water-table must usually have been lower than suggested by Zant. In the eastern part 9

10 Qualmann et al. 2004, 11, 16, 19 and 31. https://www.landis.org.uk/soilscape [date accessed 10.04.20]. A more recent climate station at Harestock has only operated since 2001. 12 There are many references to what must be regarded as such ‘intermittent streams’ on the chalk lands of Hampshire in Anglo-Saxon charter bounds: Grundy 1921; 1924; 1926; 1927. 13 https://www.riverlevels.uk [date accessed 10.04.20]. 14 Zant 1993, 11–13. 15 X Interim, Fig. 11; WS 3.i in prep.

11

32

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION

of the Cathedral Car Park site, Roman buildings of the second to fourth centuries were clearly below the water-table by the late Anglo-Saxon period.16 A rise in this area can be suggested by comparing two wells. Well 2 in the courtyard of Roman Building 1 was dug to a depth of 30m OD while the well (Pit 17) in the courtyard of Building A of c.1065–c.1110 was dug only to a depth of 33m OD.17 At Lower Brook Street (1965–71) late Anglo-Saxon pits dug from a ground level at c.35m OD contained organic material and wicker or plank linings preserved in waterlogged conditions.18 The level of the water in late Anglo-Saxon Winchester is known to have caused problems: St Æthelwold (bishop of Winchester 963–84) created channels to manage water in the town, one of which, now known as the Lockburn, still runs through the Cathedral Close. In the preface to Wulfstan’s Metrical Account of St Swithun, completed in 996, these channels are described in Latin as part of the rebuilding of the monastic buildings of the Old Minster: …hucque dulcia piscosae flumina traxit aquae; secessusque laci penetrant secreta domorum, mundantes totum murmure coenobium. And to this place he conducted pleasant streams of water abounding in fish; and conduits from a water-course penetrate the inner recesses of the buildings, cleansing the entire monastery with their murmuring flow.19 In the medieval period Bishop Godfrey de Lucy (1189–1204) made the Itchen navigable for barges from Southampton to Winchester, although by 1275 it was obstructed by mills.20 Throughout the later medieval period the river was used primarily as a resource for mills and fisheries rather than transportation.21 From early in the 17th century much of the floodplain outside the town was transformed by the creation of water-meadows. This resulted in a multiplicity of watercourses in the river valley which have remained largely unchanged to the present day (Illus. 2.4). NATURAL VEGETATION OF THE ITCHEN VALLEY Much of our knowledge and understanding of the natural vegetation in the Winchester area has to be extrapolated from general studies and accounts of the Chalk Downs of central southern England. However, a number of detailed studies, mainly of land Mollusca, undertaken in connection with archaeological investigations along the line of the M3 motorway, allow more to be added to the overall picture.22 As far as the river floodplain is concerned, there is a study of pollen from a borehole taken from peat deposits at Winnall Moors, immediately

16

20

17

21

I Interim, 157–8; WS 3.i in prep. I Interim, Figs 2 and 4 respectively. 18 IX Interim, 99. 19 WS 4.ii, 374–5, lines 41–4.

WS 1, 270–1. WS 2, 58. 22 Evans and Williams 1991.

Natural vegetation of THE Itchen Valley

Illus. 2.4 Winchester, showing the streams and water-courses which flowed through the city and the location of its mills. See WS 1, 282–5, Fig. 8.

33

34

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION

north-east of the walled city (see Illus. 7.1).23 Within the city walls, analysis of material from the archaeological excavation at Pilgrims’ School 2005–724 and the borehole survey at Upper Brook Street Car Park 201225 have added to the understanding of the palaeoenvironment on the valley floor. The Chalk Downs in much of the Winchester area were wooded in the Early Holocene, initially with pine and subsequently with deciduous trees. The first clearances of the deciduous woodland on the Downs and on the margins of the Itchen floodplain began in the middle of the Neolithic (late fifth or early fourth millennium BC).26 These clearances were probably associated with the beginnings of arable agriculture.27 Woodland clearance continued, in places, into the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, the land becoming predominantly open in character, exhibiting a mixture of arable and pasture, but with areas of managed woods and coppice. Evidence for Hampshire woodland in the Anglo-Saxon period lies in the numerous references to it in documentary sources. For example, in charter bounds there are many occurrences of ‘hanging woods’ on steep scarps.28 There are also references to haga, or game forests, and in both charters and existing place names to hyrste or copses which may indicate the cultivation of light timber for charcoal, hurdling and basket making.29 However, neither source of evidence shows dense woodland within easy reach of Winchester.The distribution of woodland in Hampshire at the time of the Domesday survey (1086) has been calculated by the number of swine supported in the woodland of each vill (Illus. 2.5). Limited woodland occurred at that time on the Chalk, with larger amounts on the clays to the north-east and west. We know that William I’s wood at ‘Hanepinges’ (near Alresford), c.11km north-east of Winchester, was completely felled by Bishop Walkelin for the construction of the cathedral in 1079 much to the king’s dismay.30 Hampshire woodlands at and since the time of Domesday comprised both oak and beech: beech predominated on the lighter soils while oak flourished on the deeper, heavier clay soils. Where both can flourish, oak tends to predominate possibly because of the greater abundance of acorns over beechmast. Below the canopy of these tall deciduous trees flourish two evergreens: holly (Ilex aquifolium) and yew (Taxus baccata). Ivy (Hedera helix), which climbs the trees and may form extensive ground cover, also grows vigorously. Deciduous shrubs are often scarce in the north Hampshire escarpment beechwoods: elder (Sambucus nigra), field maple (Acer campestris), hazel (Corylus avellana), and spindle (Euonymous europaeus) are the most common. In oak woods hazel is the chief shrub, but others are often found with it: ash (Fraxinus), field maple (Acer campestris), birch (Betula), and various members of the plum/cherry (Prunus) family, as well as hawthorn (Crataegus) and willows (Salix). At a lower level grows the common bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and on dry soils brambles (Rubus fruticosus) may be dominant. Wild honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.) is the only other plant commonly found in this association. Once an area has been cleared, and for as long as it is heavily grazed or overrun by rabbits, it is impossible for woody plants to re-establish themselves, but when these constraints are 23

Waton 1982. Champness et al., 2012. 25 Wilkinson and Bachelor 2012. 26 Waton 1982; Allen 2000, 158. 27 Allen 1996, 63. 24

28

See Grundy 1921; 1924; 1926; 1927. See also n.12 above. 29 Aldsworth, 1973–4, 20–1. 30 Milner 1839, 147; Luard 1865, s.a.

Natural vegetation of THE Itchen Valley

35

Illus. 2.5 Hampshire, showing the extent of woodland in Domesday Book. After R. Welldon Finn 1962, Fig. 96.

removed shrubs at once begin again to colonize the area. On chalk grassland wild roses are often the pioneers, followed by hawthorn on the gentler lower slopes and deeper soils, and by juniper on steeper slopes and shallower soils. This difference determines what may be regarded as two distinct vegetation successions or levels: the hawthorn sere and the juniper sere.31 With the increase in the number of bushes, a more or less continuous scrub is formed containing a variety of other species, including dogwood (Thelycrania sanguinea), privet (Ligustrum vulgare), spindle (Euonymus europaeus), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana), buckthorn (Rhamnus catharticus), hazel (Corylus), elder (Sambucus), and field maple (Acer campestris). Traveller’s joy (Clematis

31

For a discussion of sere, see below, p. 183.

36

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION

Illus. 2.6 The vegetation of the Itchen valley as in 1976. After Tubbs 1978, Fig. 2.

Natural vegetation of THE Itchen Valley

37

vitalba) is also a very characteristic and abundant climber in chalk scrub. Of trees, the two most characteristic early colonists of the chalk scrublands are whitebeam (Sorbus aria) and yew; holly and wild cherry, ash, and beech are also frequently found. In the Itchen floodplain today much of the land is devoted to grassland for grazing but there are some hay meadows and areas of unreclaimed fen vegetation. A survey made in 1976 provides a summary of the vegetation in the Itchen valley (Illus. 2.6). The vegetation of fen and herb-rich meadow originally correlated with peat accumulation, both types of vegetation becoming progressively more frequent towards the head of the river. Above Winchester there are reaches where the river flows in a wide shallow bed, edged by tussocks of sedge (Carex paniculata), which gives way to reed beds and carr (boggy ground). Above Kings Worthy the valley is narrow and wooded, but below Winchester it is drier, heavily grazed, and has been improved into watermeadows (Illus. 2.7). Fen vegetation can be divided into two different types: the woodlands and the reed beds. The woodlands are dominated by alder (Alnus) and willow (Salix), grading on drier ground to wet oak (Quercus) woodland mixed with ash (Fraxinus), willow (Salix alba), and also hawthorn

Illus. 2.7 The River Itchen and the vegetation of its water-meadows, looking south, July 2019.

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WINCHESTER REGION

38

(Crataegus), sloe (Prunus spinosa), and other species of willow and hazel (Corylus). The reed beds, mixed with herbs, include monospecific beds of Phragmites communis and mixed beds of Phragmites, reed grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and bur-reed (Sparganium erectum). In some parts reed mace (Typha latifolia) is common. Sometimes these species are mixed with tall herbs such as water dropwort (Oenanthe fistulosa), great water dock (Rumex hydrolapathum), and great willow herb (Epilobium hirsutum). Herb-rich meadows are those which average fifty-five species per hectare and typically contain grasses: red fescue (Festuca rubra), rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis), great water-grass (Glyceria maxima), and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus); sedges: sedge (Carex sp.) and herbs: marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre), marsh orchid (Dactylorchis incarnata), meadow-sweet (Filipendula ulmaria), water mint (Mentha aquatica), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris), clover (Trifolium pratense), bog bean (Menyanthes trifoliata), and marsh valerian (Valeriana dioica). In the following chapters there is evidence, either documentary or archaeological, for the presence of most of the vegetation species referred to here and for many others. Some brought to the region specifically to play a part in the economic exploitation of the fertile and agreeable environment of Winchester that so caught the eye of William Cobbett, as expressed at the start of this chapter.

PART II THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE

3 ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS FROM ANGLO-SAXON WINCHESTER by DEBBY BANHAM

INTRODUCTION

A

bbot Ælfric of Eynsham was an enormously prolific writer.1 His writings form a programme of religious education, divided essentially into vernacular homiletic for preaching to the laity, and Latin works of a more sophisticated or specialised nature for an ecclesiastical audience. His overall aim was to combat the ignorance which was one of the Benedictine reformers’ main complaints against the English Church in the tenth century. As he tells us in his writings, Ælfric was educated at Winchester under Bishop Æthelwold (963–84), the most vigorous of the reformers. Ælfric calls himself alumnus Adelwoldi and alumnus Wintoniensis (pupil, or disciple, of Æthelwold, of Winchester).2 The same writings betray a great admiration for Æthelwold, which might account for the designation alumnus in the sense of ‘follower’, but Ælfric also presents himself as Æthelwold’s pupil in a strictly educational sense, as is clear from his statement in the Latin preface to his grammar: nos contenti sumus, sicut didicimus in scola Adelwoldi, venerabilis presuli, ‘we are content [i.e., to interpret Latin] as we learned in the school of Æthelwold, the venerable bishop’.3 Ælfric wrote his Latin grammar, the first in English, while he was a monk at Cerne in Dorset, at some time between 992 and 1002, to help him pass on to his pupils there what he had learned at For Ælfric’s life and works see Gneuss 2008, Magennis and Swan (ed.) 2009, esp. Hill 2009. 2  Preface to the first book of Catholic homilies and prologue to the Vita Æthelwoldi. All Ælfric’s prefaces 1 

are conveniently gathered together in Wilcox (ed.) 1994, with these at pp. 107 and 123, respectively (nos 1 and 7). 3  ibid., 115 (no. 3a).

40

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

Winchester.4 As an adjunct to that work, he also wrote a more or less thematic Latin – Old English glossary, headed Nomina multarum rerum anglice (‘Names of many things in English’), including a section of Nomina herbarum (‘Names of plants’).5 This section has sometimes been used to identify species of plant that were grown or growing in Anglo-Saxon England.6 However, the reliability of such identifications must depend not only on our ability to translate the Latin and Old English names in it, but also on the sources and purposes of Ælfric’s work. If he took his material over en bloc from earlier glossaries or intended it purely as a crib to Latin texts that his pupils might encounter, then it clearly cannot tell us what kind of real plants were growing around them. If, however, he assembled the glossary to enable his students to converse in Latin, the plant names he included may well represent the flora with which they were familiar. The Nomina herbarum does not, in fact, correspond to any earlier list of plants, although it contains a good deal of material ultimately from Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies,7 and shares many plant names both with other glossaries and with contemporary medical compilations. The question of the glossary’s sources is a complex one, and well beyond the scope of this chapter.8 The question I do propose to look at here, however, is why Ælfric selected these particular plant names from his sources – the purpose of his work – and I propose to approach the question, as it were, from the other end. If it can be shown that a high proportion of the plants on his list would in fact have been familiar to Ælfric, this would suggest that the Nomina herbarum, and perhaps the glossary as a whole, was at least partly practical in intention and not meant solely as a reading vocabulary. There is now quite a lot of evidence as to what plants grew in Anglo-Saxon England. Archaeobotanical evidence has been published from some two hundred sites of Anglo-Saxon date.9 Unfortunately, the monastic site at Cerne is not among these, but the publication in this volume of the evidence from Winchester enables this deficiency to be made up to some extent.10 It is unlikely that the flora of Cerne differed very much from that of Winchester, some 50 miles (80km) to the east. Not only were climate and terrain similar, but the two reformed Benedictine houses will have been run on very similar lines, not only with respect to the liturgical arrangements detailed in Æthelwold’s Regularis concordia,11 but also to matters such as health care, diet, and estate management. Unfortunately, Bishop Æthelwold’s supposed devotion to gardening is illusory: Wulfstan of Winchester’s Vita Æthelwoldi describes him working in the garden and kitchen as an act of humility, not out of personal inclination.12 We can therefore The work is entitled Excerptiones de arte grammatica anglice (‘Extracts from the art of grammar in English’), but nearly always referred to simply as ‘Ælfric’s Grammar’. See Zupitza (ed.) 2001. For Ælfric as a grammarian, see Law 1997. 5  Zupitza (ed.) 2001, 297–322. 6  By van Arsdall 2009, for example. The Anglo-Saxon herb garden at Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge, began as an attempt to test whether all the plants on Ælfric’s list would grow together in the (modern) British climate, but it did not prove possible to pursue this goal in a systematic way. 7  Lindsay (ed.) 1911; Barney et al. 2006. 4 

For the current state of our knowledge, see Lazzari and Mucciante 1984, and, in English, Hall 2009, esp. p. 204. 9  This was the case in 1986, when this paper was written. By 2021 the number has expanded hugely. For Winchester, references below to the presence of species is based on the data presented in Chapters 7 and 10. 10  There have also been excavations at Eynsham, Oxfordshire, where Ælfric was later abbot (Hardy et al. 2003), but results from that site have not been incorporated into this study. 11  Symons (ed.) 1953. 12  Lapidge and Winterbottom (eds) 1991; the passage in question is on pp. 14 and 16. 8 

Introduction

41

discount any notion that he passed on to Ælfric a particular interest in, or knowledge of, plants. However, it is clear that medicine, based mainly on herbal remedies, featured in the revival of learning that accompanied the Benedictine reform.13 Thus, for both natural and cultural reasons, the plants familiar to Ælfric and his pupils at Cerne when he was writing the glossary were probably with few exceptions the same ones he had seen in his own schooldays at Winchester. There are clearly problems in correlating written and archaeological evidence in the way proposed here. In both, the identification of plants is often uncertain or imprecise, and the archaeological record remains sparse, despite much recent work, and unevenly distributed over the country. Excavators are now increasingly aware of the potential of organic material, but it is still very expensive to process.This means that a high proportion of any evidence comes from the big urban excavations such as those at Winchester,York, and Southampton. Rural settlements, where the vast majority of Anglo-Saxons lived and grew their plants, are under-represented.14 Of course, we can never expect a perfect and complete picture of the Anglo-Saxon flora. Most of the material has simply perished. Unless they are preserved by waterlogging, carbonization, desiccation, mineralization, or some other exceptional circumstance, seeds germinate and other organic materials decompose in a matter of months. The general caveat that negative evidence is not evidence applies to archaeobotanical studies even more than to other branches of archaeology; the absence of a particular taxon from the known record need not mean that it did not grow in Anglo-Saxon England. A single seed can alter the position completely. Similarly, for the written evidence, no Anglo-Saxon writer is known to have set out to give a complete list of known plants (I should be wasting my time if they had) nor can we expect the texts which are available, varying widely as they do in date, purpose, form, and language, to combine in such a way as to provide such a list. There may, therefore, be many plants which grew, or were known, in Anglo-Saxon England but which are not recorded in the surviving literature. The sources of Ælfric’s botanical knowledge are unknown. All the surviving Old English glossaries contain some botanical glosses, but the relationship of Ælfric’s to the others is obscured by his rearrangement of the material into thematic classes.15 Of the classical botanical works, Pliny’s Historia Naturalis was known in Anglo-Saxon England, but there is no evidence for knowledge of agronomical works such as Cato or Varro.16 Numerous Latin medical works were known,17 including a version of Dioscorides’ Liber Medicinae and the fourth-century Herbarium of Pseudo-Apuleius, which was translated into English, probably in the tenth century.18 Also in the ninth or tenth century, a collection of medical recipes in two books was compiled in For medicine in pre-conquest England, see Cameron 1993. 14  This remains the case in 2021, even though the cost of archaeobotanical work has fallen substantially, because the majority of excavation still takes place in urban contexts. 15  For extensive discussion of glossaries, see Lendinara et al. (eds) 2011. The most closely related to Ælfric’s is the London–Antwerp glossary: Porter (ed.) 2011. 13 

Excerpts from Pliny survive in London, BL, Cotton MS. Tiberius B. v (Canterbury or Winchester, 11th cent.), BL, Harley MS. 647 (Lotharingia, c.830, in England c.1000), and BL, MS. 2506 (Fleury, c.1000, in England early 11th cent.), and in Leiden, University Library, MS. Voss. Lat. F. 4 (Northumbria, early 8th cent.). Gneuss 2001, nos 373, 423, 428.4, and 838. 17  Cameron 1993, 59–73. 18  de Vriend (ed.) 1984. 16 

42

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

English for a practitioner named Bald.19 All these works existed by Ælfric’s time and there is evidence for medical books in monastic libraries from an early date.20 In the eighth century, the bishop of Winchester had written to a colleague in Mainz requesting medical books, because ‘we have a certain number of them here, but the foreign drugs we find described in them are unknown to us, and difficult to obtain’.21 If any of these books remained at Winchester in Ælfric’s time, he would probably have been familiar with them. The Nomina herbarum begins with the general statement herba, gærs oððe wyrt (‘herba, grass or plant’) and proceeds to list and translate sixty individual plant names. None of these are trees, which appear separately under Nomina arborum, or staple field crops. Although Latin herba had a much wider meaning, most of the plants on the list are herbs in more or less the common modern sense of having medicinal, culinary, or other domestic uses.22 The glossary as a whole contains many words pertaining to everyday life, as well as those of a specifically religious or monastic nature, but Latin was not taught in tenth- and eleventh-century England for merely mundane purposes. As he says in the Latin preface to his grammar, Ælfric intended the work vobis puerulis tenellis ... usque quo perfectiora perveniatis studia, ‘for you little boys ... until the time you reach more perfect endeavours’.23 For, as he asks in the English preface: Hwanon sceolan cuman wise lareowas on godes folce, buton hi on iugoðe leornion? and hu mæg se geleafa beon forðgenge, gif seo lar and ða lareowas ateoriað? ‘Where are wise teachers to come from among God’s people, if they do not learn in their youth? And how can the faith carry on, if teaching and teachers die out?’24 We should therefore see the ultimate purpose of the grammar and glossary as religious, in common with the rest of Ælfric’s works, and exercise extreme caution in drawing any conclusions from them about Anglo-Saxon everyday life, especially outside the monastic milieu. None the less, all of God’s creation was worthy of study and celebration. TEXT AND COMMENTARY I have used the text of Zupitza 2001 (identical to that of the first edition of 1880) throughout, with spelling slightly modernized.25 For the modern English translations, I rely heavily on Peter Bierbaumer’s exhaustive work on Old English plant names.26 Wherever I differ from Bierbaumer, I explain my reasons below. Scientific names are those given by Clapham,Tutin, and Moore 1987. For the purposes of this study, I have drawn fairly arbitrary boundaries around Anglo-Saxon England in both time and space. There is not enough archaeobotanical material to confine it to For Bald’s Leechbook, we still rely on Cockayne 1866, supplemented by the facsimile, Wright (ed.) 1955. A new edition and translation is in preparation for the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library by Dr Christine Voth and the present author. 20  Cameron 1993, 28. 21  Tangl (ed.) 1916, 247 (translation by the present author). 22  The evidence for the use of herbs and spices in cooking is pretty well non-existent, but some of the plants (leeks, cabbage, etc.) would come under the 19 

modern heading of ‘vegetables’: see Banham 2004. 23  Wilcox (ed.) 1994, 14 (no. 3a). 24  ibid., 115 (no. 3b). 25  I have replaced Zupitza’s long i (j) with a short one, in accordance with modern editorial convention. A few readings have been checked against the on-line images of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 449, at https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/ bq166fm4860 [date accessed 20.6.20]. 26  Bierbaumer 1975–9.

Text and commentary

43

Ælfric’s own time, even within a couple of hundred years, so I have included all records dated by the excavator or author to between A.D. 400 and 1100 from sites within modern England, excluding Cornwall.Very few records, however, are available from the West of England in general.

1. HERBA GÆRS OÐÐE WYRT ‘grass or plant’. Ælfric starts with the generic term, to explain what this section of the glossary covers. Turning to its more restricted sense, evidence for grasses is ubiquitous. Practically all sites, including those in Winchester, have produced records of some Gramineae (now Poaceae) species. 2. ALLIUM LEAC ‘leek’ (Allium sp.). For reasons which are imperfectly understood, alliaceous seeds hardly ever survive in archaeological conditions, and they have not been found in Anglo-Saxon contexts, but there are two interesting records of vegetative remains. In a barrow burial at Laverstock, near Salisbury, a hanging-bowl was found containing four crab apples and two bulbs regarded as probably onions, but possibly Narcissus species.27 The excavator dated the burial to the late seventh century. Vegetative remains of Allium porrum, leek, have been identified in the late ninth- to eleventh-century domestic deposits at 16–22 Coppergate, York.28 This somewhat exiguous archaeological evidence is supported by numerous references in Old English writings to leac, ynneleac (‘onion’), and so on.29 Other glossaries give garleac, ‘garlic’, rather than just leac, for allium, and this may be the meaning here, as well.30 Considering the great antiquity Musty 1969, 109–10. Tomlinson 1991, 115. 29  All such general statements about numbers of written references, or the type of text they appear in, are drawn from Healey et al. 2009. 27  28 

of their cultivation, there can be little doubt that at least some alliaceous species were known in Anglo-Saxon England, including Winchester.31 3. DILLA DOCCA ‘dock’ (Rumex sp.). Dilla is a truncated form of medieval Latin paradilla dock.32 This entry probably indicates those Rumex species known as ‘dock’ in modern English, but possibly also R. acetosa and R. acetosella, the sorrels or ‘sour-docks’. Rumex seeds are very common in Anglo-Saxon samples throughout the period and from all parts of the country. Records of R. obtusifolius and R. crispus, the docks proper, extend from the eighth to the eleventh century and cover all kinds of deposits. No doubt they were as common in the Anglo-Saxon period as they are now. Both docks and sorrel, as well as indeterminate Rumex species, are recorded from the Winchester sites. 4. LIBESTICA LUFESTICE ‘lovage’ (Levisticum officinale or Ligusticum scoticum).There are no Anglo-Saxon records for either Levisticum officinale or Ligusticum scoticum. The latter is a native plant, but it is not known when the use of lovage as a herb began in this country. There are references to it in both medical texts and glossaries from the period, but these Lazzari and Mucciante 1984, 46. Vaughan et al. 1997, 176–9. 32  See Latham et al. (eds) 1975–2013 under this heading (sv); also Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 71. 30  31 

44

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

need not mean the plant was actually known here, still less that Ælfric was familiar with it. 5. FEBREFUGIA FEFERFUGIE. Modern English ‘feverfew’ (from Latin febrifugia, literally a ‘fever-chaser’) is a dialect name of Centaurium erythraea (common centaury), as well as the standard common name for Tanacetum parthenium.33 Bierbaumer would allow either of these as a translation of the Old English.34 The Old English Herbarium has Ferferfuge centauria minor, ‘Feverfew lesser centaury’.35 There is no certain Anglo-Saxon record for either candidate, but the one record of Chrysanthemum sp. (T. parthenium was formerly Chrysanthemum parthenium) is from Lower Brook Street,Winchester.36 This could possibly represent T. parthenium, but is more likely to be the common weed C. segetum, corn marigold. There is also one record of Centaurium pulchellum, lesser centaury, from SOU 11 (SARC XI) in Southampton.37 These Centaurium species are native, but T. parthenium is probably introduced,38 and they have been used as febrifuges since Classical times. Either or both could have been Ælfric’s feferfugie. 6. SIMPHONIACA HENNEBELLE ‘henbane’ (Hyoscyamus niger). Hyoscyamus niger is regarded as native mainly in the south of England39 and most of the dozen or so Anglo-Saxon records are from the south, including two from Winchester. Most, however, are from urban sites, and these include

York, which is outside the plant’s native range. These may therefore represent human intervention, confirming the written evidence for the medicinal use of hennebelle.40 The plant may well have been familiar to Ælfric. 7. AUADONIA FELTWYRT Auadonia or anadonia does not seem to appear outside our text and closely related glossaries.41 Bierbaumer gives ‘feldwyrt’ (literally ‘plant of open land’), Gentiana species, and ‘feltwyrt’ (‘felt-plant’), Verbascum thapsus (great mullein), on account of its felted leaf-surface.42 Modern English ‘felwort’ means Gentiana species43 or Gentianella amarella (autumn gentian).44 The name may have been transferred from Gentiana lutea, not readily grown in northern Europe, to one of the native Gentianella (e.g. G. amarella, G. campestris, the field gentian) or Gentiana species (G. verna, spring gentian), which may have been used as substitutes.45 There are no Anglo-Saxon records for Gentiana or Gentianella species and only one for Verbascum, not necessarily V. thapsus, from a fifth-century house at West Stow.46 It is impossible to decide which plant Ælfric intended here, or whether he was familiar with either. 8. APROTANUM SUÐERNE WUDU ‘southernwood’ (Artemisia abrotanum). There are about a dozen records of Artemisia, including one from Winchester, but none is identified to species. Three Artemisia species are distinguished in the Nomina herbarum and For example, OE Herbarium V; de Vriend (ed.)1984, 48. Latham et al. (eds) 1975–2013, svv. 42  Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 90. 43  OED sv. 44  Clapham et al. 1987, 354. 45  Grigson 1958, 276; Clapham et al. 1987, 353–5. 46  Murphy 1985, 100–8.

33 

40 

34 

41 

OED, sv. Bierbaumer 1975–9, i, 59; ii, 43; iii, 88. 35  XXXVI; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 82. 36  Tables 10.3 and 10.21. 37  Mentioned by Monk 1977. 38  Clapham et al. 1987, 352, 476. 39  ibid., 367.

Text and commentary

in other Anglo-Saxon texts, including the Herbarium, which has chapters on abrotanum (OE suþernewuda), absynthius (wermod) and three different kinds of artemesia (mucgwyrt).47 Of these, A. abrotanum is the least likely to have been a familiar plant, since it is not native.48 9. SINITIA GRUNDESWELIGE ‘groundsel’ (Senecio vulgaris), or possibly other Senecio species. There are very few records for Senecio vulgaris, or indeed for Senecio species in general, but one of these is from Winchester. Modern English ‘groundsel’ can also apply to other Senecio species, so this is probably true of OE grundeswelige (literally ‘ground-swallower’) too; ‘ragwort’ for S. jacobaea is not recorded before 1450, for example.49 OE grundeswelige etc. always translates senecio etc., but it is never clear if any particular species is intended.50 It is therefore impossible to be sure whether Ælfric refers here to a plant he was familiar with, although both these species are native.51 10. FENICULUM FINOL ‘fennel’ (Foeniculum vulgare).There are no Anglo-Saxon records for Foeniculum vulgare, although it may be native to British coasts,52 and there are several references in OE medical texts and glossaries. Godwin lists both F. vulgare and Anethum graveolens (see below) as Roman introductions.53 11. ANETUM DILE ‘dill’ (Anethum graveolens). A. graveolens is not regarded as native,54 but receives more attention in the written sources than fennel. There are few archaeological records, but these are from urban sites, Chapters CXXXV, CII, and IX–XI; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 174 and 176, 148 and 54, and 56, respectively. 48  Clapham et al. 1987, 479. 49  OED svv. 50  Bierbaumer 1975–9 sv. 51  Clapham et al. 1987, 453–5. 52  ibid., 286. 47 

45

confirming the supposition that this herb owed its presence to human intervention, most likely seeds imported from warmer climes. Unfortunately, none of the records is from Winchester or anywhere in the immediate vicinity, so it seems unlikely at present that Ælfric knew either dill or fennel. 12. ELECTRUM ELEHTRE. Latin electrum is literally amber, and only by extension an alloy of gold and silver. It seems to be unknown as a plant name outside Britain. In the OE Herbarium, elehtran translates herbae lupinorum (lupin plants).55 Bierbaumer explains this usage as wegen der gelben Farbe der Bluten (‘due to the yellow colour of the flowers’),56 presumably of Lupinus luteus, but there is no evidence of this species being introduced to Britain before the modern period. There is no Anglo-Saxon record for any Lupinus species, so the identity of elehtre remains uncertain, and it is unlikely that Ælfric knew a plant by this name. 13. MALUA HOCLEAF ‘mallow’ (Malva sp.). In the OE Herbarium, hocleaf translates malua erratica, ‘wild mallow’, or possibly ‘rambling mallow’.57 This would suggest Malva sylvestris or M. rotundifolia. The two plants look very similar and might not have been distinguished by the Anglo-Saxons. Only M. sylvestris has been certainly identified from the period. All the Malva records are from the southern half of the country, where M. sylvestris is more common today,58 suggesting that the plant may have been gathered from the wild, rather than cultivated, but, on the other hand, most of the Godwin 1975 480. Clapham et al. 1987, 286. 55  XLVI, CII; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 92, 148. 56  Bierbaumer 1975–9, ii, 37. 57  XLI; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 86. 58  Clapham et al. 1987, 166. 53  54 

46

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

remains are from urban sites, where they are more likely to be anthropogenic.There are no records from Winchester. 14. MALUA CRISPA SIMÆRINGCWYRT. Simæringcwyrt is obscure. Malua crispa is literally ‘curly mallow’. Of the Malva species given by Clapham et al.,59 M. neglecta, with its more finely divided leaves, looks the most ‘curly’, but there is no specific archaeological record. 15. POLIPEDIUM HREMMESFOT, literally ‘many foot, raven’s foot’. Cockayne suggests Ranunculus species because they are modern English ‘crowfoot’,60 and Bierbaumer Potentilla reptans, OE fifleafe,61 because the Erfurt glossary has quinquefolium hræfnæs foot (Épinal hræbnæs foot).62 I suggest Polypodium vulgare to translate polipedium. Potentilla and Ranunculus species are very common in Anglo-Saxon contexts, including those in Winchester. There are also several records of Polypodium vulgare, but no Winchester examples, which is perhaps an argument against my proposed translation. 16. CONSOLIDA DÆGES EAGE. Consolida usually means ‘comfrey’,63 referring to its wound-healing properties, but in Old English it is always translated dæges eage, literally ‘day’s eye’, the origin of Modern English ‘daisy’. There are only two records of Bellis perennis from Anglo-Saxon England, one from Southampton64 and one from York.65 Godwin points out that such a low-growing plant cannot disperse its pollen very widely,

Clapham et al.1987, 166. Cockayne 1866, 333. 61  Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 143. 62  Pheifer 1974, 45. 63  See Lewis and Short 1922, sv. 64  Monk 1977. 65  Kenward and Hall 1995, 613. 59  60 

and may therefore be under-represented.66 In any case, as a plant of short grassland,67 it may well have been less common in early medieval England than in the present heavily managed landscape. There are records for other daisylike flowers, but no evidence that they shared the medical uses implied by consolida. 17. SOLSEQUIUM SOLSECE.The OE must be an anglicization of the Latin, which in turn usually stands for heliotropum;68 both mean ‘sun-following’. Latham et al. give ‘marigold’, as well as ‘heliotrope’, and even ‘chicory’, another sun-following plant.69 There are no Anglo-Saxon records for Heliotropum species (nor indeed any evidence for them in Britain before modern times), nor for Cichorium intybus. Calendula officinalis is also normally regarded as a later introduction, but it has been found in Roman contexts,70 and one achene was recognized in late tenth- to eleventhcentury waterfront layers at Whitefriars, Norwich.71 None of these species is recorded from Anglo-Saxon Winchester. 18. SLAREGIA SLAREGE ‘clary’ (Salvia sclarea or possibly S. horminoides). There are no Anglo-Saxon records for Salvia sclarea or horminoides, and very few written references to slarege. It is doubtful whether Ælfric knew either plant. 19. ADRIACA GALLUC ‘comfrey’ (Symphytum officinale). There are no Anglo-Saxon records for Symphytum officinale, but there are

Godwin 1975, 343. Clapham et al. 1987, 470. 68  See Lewis and Short 1922, sv., solsequium. 69  Latham et al. (eds) 1975–2013, sv. 70  P. Murphy, pers. comm. 71  Ayers and Murphy 1983. 66  67 

Text and commentary

numerous references to galluc, translating confirma, symphytum, etc. It is perhaps more likely that this plant was familiar to Ælfric. 20. RUTA RUDE ‘rue’ (Ruta graveolens, or possibly meadow rue, Thalictrum flavum). There are no records for Ruta graveolens, and very few for Thalictrum flavum, none of them from Winchester. Written references to rude are, however, fairly common. 21. BETONICA SEO LÆSSE BISCEOPWYRT ‘betony’ (Stachys officinalis). There are no Anglo-Saxon records for Stachys officinalis, although it is a native plant.72 There are numerous references to both betonice (the anglicized version of the Latin name) and bisceopwyrt in medical texts and glossaries. It is hard to say whether this plant was familiar or not to Ælfric. 22. PETROCILINUM PETERSYLIGE ‘parsley’ (Petroselinum crispum). There are no archaeological records and only a few written references. Godwin has no Roman records for Petroselinum crispum,73 and Clapham et al. regard it as introduced.74 It seems likely, therefore, that parsley was not grown in early medieval England. 23. COSTA COST ‘costmary’ (also known as ‘alecost’, Chrysanthemum balsamita). There is no specific record for Chrysanthemum balsamita, and it is not a likely candidate for our single record of Chrysanthemum species (see no. 5 above). The few medical and glossary references are not enough to suggest that alecost grew in pre-conquest England.

Clapham et al. 1987, 412. Godwin 1975. 74  Clapham et al. 1987, 289.

47

24. EPICURIUM HALSWYRT. Epicurium is obscure. It appears only in glossaries and colloquies related to Ælfric’s works, always glossed halswyrt, or a similar form. Bierbaumer suggests that halswyrt is the same as modern German Halswurt, Campanula trachelium (nettleleaved bellflower),75 but the Herbarium has Herba narcisus þæt is halswyrt,‘the plant narcissus, that is halswyrt’.76 There is no record of C. trachelium, and the only possible Narcissus material is the bulbs in the Laverstock hanging-bowl (see no. 2 above). As well as its use as a gloss, halswyrt occurs several times in medical texts, so clearly meant something to OE speakers. Until the terminology can be interpreted with more confidence, it is hard to say whether this word represents a plant familiar to Ælfric. 25. MILLEFOLIUM GEAREWE ‘yarrow’ (Achillea millefolium).There are very few records of Achillea, none of them from Winchester, but the number of written references, especially in the medical texts, is more in keeping with the plant’s abundance today. Presumably it did exist in Ælfric’s milieu, even if he was not aware of it. 26. TANICETUM HELDE ‘tansy’ (Tanacetum vulgare). There are no specific archaeological records (see no. 5: this is another former Chrysanthemum sp.), and only a few written references. Tansy is a native plant77 but there seems scant evidence for its use in AngloSaxon times. It is not mentioned in the Herbarium. 27. SAXIFRIGA SUNDCORN ‘saxifrage’ (literally ‘break-stone’, Saxifraga sp.). There are no archaeological records for any Saxifraga

Bierbaumer 1975–9, i, 121–2. LVI; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 100. 77  Clapham et al. 1987, 476.

72 

75 

73 

76 

48

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

species, and few written references. The only recipe in the Herbarium is against bladderstones, presumably a manifestation of the kind of ‘sympathetic magic’ later formalized as the doctrine of signatures.78 28. CITSANA FANA. Citsana may be related to zizania, weeds. It appears only here and in related glossaries. OE fana means ‘flag, standard’ (i.e. not a plant) or ‘fleur de lys’.79 Modern English ‘fane’ means ‘white-flowered iris’, and is thus a synonym of fleur de lys.80 There are no records for any white Iris species, but a few for the native yellow-flowered Iris pseudacorus, known in Modern English as ‘flag’. These are all from wet deposits where it would be at home, and none is from Winchester. 29. CALAMUS UEL CANNA UEL ARUNDO HREOD ‘reed’ (Phragmites sp.). Surprisingly, for such a common wetland plant, there are only two records for Phragmites species. The written references are mainly in the OE gospels, homilies, and other ecclesiastical texts, as well as glossaries and charters. Reeds would certainly have been in Ælfric’s environment, and may even have been used as bedding and flooring, but may not have crossed the threshold of his consciousness.

popig, in the Herbarium.81 It is recorded as a Roman introduction,82 and is naturalized in modern England, so the Anglo-Saxon finds could have been gathered from the wild, rather than cultivated, but the urban locations do suggest exploitation by humans. 31.ABSINTHIUM WERMOD ‘wormwood’ (Artemisia absinthium). No specific records for Artemisia absinthium exist (see no. 8), although it is a native plant.83 There are numerous medical references, and a few in glossaries. One of the two Herbarium applications is against rengwyrmas (ringworm),84 so the association with worms was already current. It is not possible to say for sure whether Ælfric was familiar with wormwood, but it seems likely. 32. URTICA NETLE ‘nettle’ (Urtica sp.). One of the most common taxa in archaeological records, including those from Winchester. There are several references in medical recipes, glossaries and other texts. There is very little evidence so far for non-medical uses, such as textiles, in the Anglo-Saxon period, but this was clearly a familiar plant.85

30. PAPAUER PAPI ‘poppy’ (Papaver sp.). Numerous archaeological records exist, including several from Winchester, and quite a few written references, mostly in glossaries. There are several records, all from urban sites, including Winchester, of Papaver somniferum, opium poppy, which is the subject of a chapter,

33. ARCHANGELICA BLINDNETLE ‘dead-nettle’ (literally ‘blind nettle’, Lamium etc. sp.). The records for Lamium and Galeopsis (dead-nettle and hemp-nettle) are nearly all from urban sites, suggesting a close human association, as now. They include several from Winchester. There are very few documentary references to blindnetle, but the numerous references to reade netle probably refer to

XCIX; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 144. Bosworth and Toller 1898, sv. 80  See OED, sv. 81  LIV; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 98.

Godwin 1975, 480. Clapham et al. 1987, 478. 84  CII; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 148. 85  Walton Rogers 2007, 15.

78  79 

82  83 

Text and commentary

Lamium purpurea, since there is no obvious red variant of Urtica. 34. PLANTAGO WEGBRÆDE ‘plantain’, ‘waybread’ (Plantago major). There are relatively few archaeological records for P. major. There are a few more for Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain), but this should probably not be included under wegbræde, since it does not have the characteristic broad leaves. In this volume there is only one record of Plantago, species not identified. There are numerous references in both medical texts and glossaries. 35. QUINQUEFOLIUM FIFLEAFE ‘Cinquefoil’ (probably Potentilla sp.). Altogether, the Potentilla species have quite a few records, including some from Winchester. This and the preceding entry appear to be a cluster from the Herbarium: Herba arniglosa þæt is ‘wegbræde’; Herba quinquefolium þæt is ‘fifleafe’.86 This may suggest that Ælfric knew the Herbarium, and he probably knew some of the cinquefoils as well. 36. UINCA PERFINCE ‘periwinkle’ (Vinca sp.). There are no archaeological records for any Vinca species and very few written references. This entry does not really constitute a translation; the Latin name vinca peruinca is divided as though it were lemma and gloss (with the second element spelt as if OE). Vinca major is an introduced plant, and V. minor doubtfully native,87 so I suspect they may not have been known in Winchester in the Anglo-Saxon period.

II, III; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 38–44. Clapham et al. 1987, 351. 88  ibid., 413 and 417.

49

37. MARUBIUM HARHUNE ‘horehound’ (Marrubium vulgare or possibly Ballota nigra, black horehound). There are no records for Marrubium vulgare and not many for Ballota nigra. For the latter there are two from Winchester. Harhune is literally ‘grey horehound’, har being a common way to refer to downy plants, so it may denote M. vulgare, in contrast to the downless B. nigra, which would then be plain hune. Medical and glossary references to hune and harhune are fairly common, and both horehounds are native,88 so we need not conclude that M. vulgare was unknown to the Anglo-Saxons. However, it would be a little risky to suggest that Ælfric must have been familiar with it. 38. CAMICULA ARGENTILLE. Camicula is part of a complex of words, calycula (little cup), canicula (puppy), and sanicula (sanicle, literally ‘little healer’), all of which appear as plant names in glosses. Sanicle (Sanicula europaea), presumably so-called from its healing properties, is a native plant.89 The ‘OE’ argentille seems to be a Latin plant name, ‘silverweed’ (Potentilla anserina). Bierbaumer suggests Filipendula ulmaria or Aphanes arvensis as alternatives.90 All three of these plants have a few archaeological records, but none from Winchester, and there are three glossary references. It is difficult to draw any conclusions about this entry. 39. FRAGA STREOWBERIAN WISAN ‘strawberry plant’ (Fragaria vesca). The few records are all from urban sites, including Winchester, suggesting that strawberries were either being gathered from the wild and brought into towns or else grown in gardens,

86 

89 

87 

90 

ibid., 279. Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 67.

50

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

since the small plants are unlikely to survive unprotected in an urban environment. There are a few medical and glossary references.This is the only fruit mentioned in the Nomina herbarum, presumably because it is a herbaceous plant and not a tree or shrub. 40. CIMINUM CYMEN ‘cumin’ (Cuminum cyminum but possibly Carum carvi).There are no archaeological records for Cuminum cyminum, and only one possible record for Carum carvi, suggested by Bierbaumer as an alternative more at home in northern Europe,91 from the ninth-century oven at Fladbury (Worcs.)92 The seed may have been imported, rather than grown in England, like the peppercorns given away on his deathbed by the Venerable Bede.93 41. MODERA CICENA METE The OE is literally ‘chicken food’, so probably ‘chickweed’ (Stellaria media). There are numerous records for Stellaria and the closely related Cerastium species, including several from Winchester, but very few documentary references to cicena mete. Any of a number of other small-leaved weeds might have been so called, but there is no evidence to suggest which in fact it was. 42. APIUM MERCE ‘celery’ (Apium graveolens). Although there is not much archaeological material, it is all from urban sites, suggesting that celery was being used, if not cultivated, as a vegetable or herb. Winchester is not among these sites, however. Numerous written references include several to apiaster or wudu merce, which may represent a distinction between edible forms and inedible,

Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 4–5. Monk 1977. 93  Colgrave and Mynors (eds and trans.) 1970, 584.

or between wild and cultivated, or possibly between A. graveolens and A. nodiflorum (‘fool’s watercress’, an aquatic) which is represented at Winchester and a few other sites. 43. LAPPE CLATE OÐÐE CLIFWYRT ‘bur or clinging plant’ (probably Arctium sp. and/or Galium sp., burdock, and goosegrass/ cleavers). Both are recorded from Winchester. The numerous glossary references distinguish different kinds of clate and there are also several medical references. Presumably either of these would have been a familiar plant. 44. HELENA HORSELENE ‘elecampane’ (Inula helenium). No archaeological records exist, and elecampane is not a native plant.94 There are both medical and glossary references to elena and so on, but the great variation in both Latin and OE names, especially the apparent confusion between inula and hinulum ‘mule’, suggest that the Anglo-Saxon scribes or compilers did not have a familiar plant in mind. 45. SANDIX WAD. Sandix means ‘madder’ (Rubia tinctorum), but wad is modern English ‘woad’ (Isatis tinctoria). There is clearly some confusion in the OE nomenclature of dye plants. Anglo-Saxon finds of these plants have been rare, but both madder and woad, as well as Genista tinctorum, dyer’s greenweed, have been identified at York.95 Other new techniques have enabled madder and indigotin, a blue dye that develops in woad, to be identified on textiles and pots.96 A fourth dye plant, Reseda luteola, dyer’s rocket, or weld, formed the main component of a rich deposit from the Norwich waterfront

Clapham et al. 1987, 460. Tomlinson 1985. 96  Pritchard 1984.

91 

94 

92 

95 

Text and commentary

which was probably residue from dyeing, and has been found in smaller quantities at York.97 None of these plants, however, has been recorded at Winchester. There are numerous written references, and even one to the cultivation of wad.98 It is hard to imagine that Ælfric would have been familiar with any of these plants, unless there was a dye-shop at one or other of his monasteries. 46. CAULA UEL MAGUDARIS CAWUL ‘cabbage’ (Brassica sp.). Owing to the difficulties of identifying Cruciferous seeds with any precision, there is no certain Anglo-Saxon record for Brassica oleracea, the cabbage ‘tribe’, but several for Brassica or Brassica/Sinapis species, including some from Winchester.These genera also include rape, turnips, mustards, and the arable weed charlock. None of the species is certainly native, but B. oleracea, B. nigra (black mustard), and S. arvensis (charlock) may be.99 Like the Allium species, these plants have been associated with humans for so long that their history and relationships are obscure. Those whose seeds were used are more likely to occur in archaeology than those where the leaf or root is eaten, but different, or more, parts may have been used in the past than now; cabbage seed, for instance, is perfectly edible. The Herbarium recommends using the croppas ‘berries’, probably meaning the flower-buds.100 There are numerous references to cawel etc. in medical texts, as well as some in glossaries and the boundary clauses of charters. 47. CRESCO CÆRSE ‘cress’ (probably Lepidium sativum or Rorippa nasturtiumaquaticum). There are no records for Lepidium Ayers and Murphy 1983; Kenward and Hall 1995, 770. Be gesceadwisan gerefan (‘On the prudent steward’), Liebermann (ed.) 1903, 454. 99  Clapham et al. 1987, 70–4. 100  CXXX; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 166. 97  98 

51

sativum, but there are a few for Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum and Rorippa sp. Neither is recorded from Winchester, however.Any of the numerous plants with modern English names in ‘cress’ could have been similarly named in OE, but there is no evidence yet as to which ones. Some of the written references suggest that two or three kinds were distinguished, but it is impossible to tell which taxa these corresponded to. 48. MENTA MINTE ‘mint’ (Mentha sp.). There are several records for various Mentha species, all within their native ranges,101 and therefore possibly representing wild rathers than cultivated plants.Three species and others unidentified are recorded from Winchester. It seems unlikely that the Anglo-Saxons would have ignored such obvious aromatics. The medical texts and glossaries seem to distinguish two or three kinds, possibly corresponding to some of the species recorded. Mints must have been familiar plants. 49. SERPILLUM FILLE ‘thyme’ (Thymus sp.), ‘chervil’ (Anthriscus cerefolium). There is obviously a confusion between Latin serpyllum ‘thyme’ and OE cerfille from Latin chaerefolium ‘chervil’, which is impossible to disentangle here on linguistic criteria. There are no archaeological records for either Thymus species or Anthriscus cerefolium. There are native species of Thymus, but A. cerefolium is introduced.102 The several written references to fille and cerfille seem to distinguish two or three types,103 but we cannot tell which plant Ælfric intended here, or even whether he differentiated between them. Clapham et al. 1987, 404–6. ibid., 407–8 for Thymus sp.; A. cerefolium is not mentioned. 103  Bierbaumer 1975–9, i–ii svv. 101  102 

52

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

50. ARTEMESIA MUGCWYRT ‘mugwort’ (Artemisia vulgaris).There are no specific records for A. vulgaris, but this common native plant is the most likely candidate for the generic Artemisia records referred to above. There are quite a few written references to mugcwyrt.The glossaries seem to be struggling to distinguish three kinds, as mentioned in the Herbarium.104 51. SALUIA SALUIE ‘sage’ (Salvia officinalis). There are no records for Salvia officinalis, which is not a native plant.105 There are several medical references,106 but probably not enough evidence to show that sage grew in early medieval England. 52. FEL TERRAE UEL CENTAUREA EORÐGEALLE ‘centaury’ (Centaurium sp.). There is only one record of Centaurium pulchellum (see no. 5 above), from Southampton, not far from Winchester, but several written references to eordgealle, which is a literal translation of the Latin fel terrae (‘bile of the earth’). Geoffrey Grigson names centaury as a native substitute for Gentiana lutea, presumably in the early modern period,107 but it clearly had a medical tradition of its own as well: the Herbarium gives eight recipes altogether for centauria major and minor, while gentiana only has one.108 It is not clear whether Ælfric would have known these plants or not. 53. AMBROSIA HINDHEOLAÐ probably ‘hemp agrimony’ (Eupatorium cannabinum). The records of Eupatorium cannabinum are XI–XIII; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 54–8. Not mentioned by Clapham et al. 1987. 106  OE Herbarium CIII, de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 148, for example; or Bald’s Leechbook I.vi.3; Cockayne 1866, 50. 107  Grigson 1958, 275. 108  XXXV, XXXVI, XVII; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 80, 82, and 62. 109  Clapham et al. 1987, 471.

all from wet contexts, and this is a weed of damp places,109 so the plants represented may be wild. There is one record of Eupatorium sp. from Winchester. There are a few written references to hindhioloþa etc. 54. PIONIA (no OE gloss) ‘peony’ (Paeonia sp.). There is no archaeological record of any Paeonia species. Pionia etc. occurs in a few glossaries and has a chapter in the Herbarium, recommending it against lunacy,110 but there is no real evidence that it was known in England this early. 55. MANDRAGORA ‘mandrake’ (Mandragora officinarum). No records for Mandragora officinarum exist. There are only a few glossary references and a chapter in the Herbarium, where the mandrake is described as shining like a lantern, and having to be marked around with iron to stop it escaping.111 These characteristics may explain why Ælfric’s pupil Bata, in raiding the Nomina herbarum to add a section on the garden to his master’s Colloquy, replaced mandragora with eliborum tunsincwyrt, probably Helleborus niger.112 It seems unlikely that the mandrake was known in pre-conquest England.113 56. POLLEGIA HYLWYRT OÐÐE DWEORGEDWESLE ‘pennyroyal’ (Mentha pulegium). There are no specific records for Mentha pulegium (see no. 48 above), although it is a native plant.114 There are a few written references to both hylwyrt and dweorgedwesle, LXVI; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 108. CXXXII; ibid., 170–2. 112  Stevenson 1929, 99. 113  This is not the conclusion of van Arsdall 2009, who took its occurrence in this glossary as evidence that the plant did grow in England. 114  Clapham et al. 1987, 404.

104 

110 

105 

111 

Text and commentary

dwosle. Bierbaumer associates dwosle with modern German Dost ‘marjoram’, known as pulegium major in the Middle Ages.115 I can find no OE reference to a dwosle that is not dwarf (dweorge), but his suggestion may be supported by the juxtaposition of this entry and the next in the Nomina herbarum. 57. ORGANUM ORGANE ‘marjoram’ (Origanum sp.). No archaeological records for Origanum species exist.There are a few medical and glossary references, translating pulegium and serpillus as well as origanum (see also nos 49 and 56 above). O. vulgare is a native species,116 but it is hard to say that it must have been recognized in Anglo-Saxon England when there was obviously so much confusion. 58. CARDUS ÐISTEL ‘thistle’ (Carduus, Cirsium etc. sp.) Carduus, Cirsium and Sonchus (sow-thistle) species are quite common in the archaeological record, including that from Winchester. The medical texts and glossaries distinguish three or four kinds, but it is impossible, in the present state of knowledge, to associate these with particular taxa. In everyday life the Anglo-Saxons probably classified them as vaguely as we do, but I think we can safely assume that Ælfric was familiar with some kind of thistle. 59. HERMODACTULA UEL TIDOLOSA CRAWANLEAC.This is obscure. Bierbaumer connects tidolosa with Old High German zitilosa, ‘early’, and suggests Colchicum autumnale, modern German Herbzeitlose, or Crocus albiflorus, as well as Allium vineale, ‘crow

Bierbaumer 1975–9, i, 49. Clapham et al. 1987, 407. 117  Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 61–2. 118  Clapham et al. 1987, 292, 294. 115  116 

53

garlic’, to account for crawanleac.117 There are, however, no archaeological records for any of these suggestions.There are a very few written references to crawanleac, translating polloten as well as the lemmata given here. 60. PASTINACA WEAL-MORU ‘parsnip’ (Pastinaca sativa) or ‘carrot’ (Daucus carota). Neither Old English nor medieval Latin seems to distinguish between parsnip and carrot. Both occur in the archaeology of the period, although not at all commonly, and both, in their wild forms, are native plants.118 Neither is recorded from Winchester.The few medical and glossary references to wealmoru and feldmoru mostly translate pastinaca, but once daucus. The most likely explanation is that both plants were known, but the two tended to be confused. Their above-ground parts are not particularly alike, but the roots, in their unimproved state, are quite similar. (There is no evidence that the red varieties of carrot had been selected in preference to the paler ones by this date).119 The most we can say is that Ælfric may have known one or both of these plants. 61. LILIUM LILIE ‘lily’ (Lilium sp.).There are no archaeological records. The written references are from the OE gospels, homilies, and so on, as much as the medical texts and glossaries.120 It seems likely that lilies were known more from literature than from use in Anglo-Saxon England.There are no native species.121 62. ROSA ROSE ‘rose’ (Rosa sp.). There are very few archaeological records.The only one

Riggs 1995. For discussion of lilies, and the ideas surrounding them, in pre-conquest England, see now Banham 2014. 121  Clapham et al. 1987, 535. 119  120 

54

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

from a settlement is from Southampton.122 However, there are numerous written references in all kinds of texts. There are several native species and subspecies, whose taxonomy is somewhat confused,123 but it is possible that cultivated types, most likely the apothecary’s rose, R. gallica, had been introduced. The rose seems to have been fairly important conceptually to the AngloSaxons, if not particularly closely associated with them in practice, and some species were almost certainly familiar to Ælfric.124 63. UIOLA CLÆFRE ‘violet’ (Viola sp.) or ‘clover’ (Trifolium sp.). Bierbaumer ignores the lemma in translating the gloss here,125 but one may wonder what Viola species were called in English before the conquest (see below). ‘Violet’ first occurs in English in 1330.126 There are archaeological records for both Viola and Trifolium etc. species, but only for Viola from Winchester. The Viola records are all, except one, from urban contexts, but none of them is identified to species, so it is hard to attach any significance to the distribution. There are numerous native species and subspecies of violet (subgenus Viola) and several of pansy (subgenus Melanium), covering a wide range of habitats.127 Native clover species are even more numerous, but mainly confined to grassland.128 There are references to clæfre in medical texts, glossaries and a few other sources, but it only once translates as viola. The Herbarium translates viola as banwyrt ‘bone plant’, distinguishing three kinds: an brunbasuw 7 oþer hwit, þridde is geoluw; ðonne is se geoluwe Monk 1977. Clapham et al. 1987, 225–30. 124  For roses and their meaning in early medieval England, including in the works of Ælfric, see now Banham 2014. 125  Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 51–2. 126  See OED, sv. 122  123 

swaþeah swiþost lacean gecwene: ‘one purple and the second white; the third is yellow; however, the yellow is most suitable for medicine’.129 This presumably means a pansy rather than a violet, but there is unfortunately no evidence for the identification of Ælfric’s viola. 64. AGRIMONIA GARCLIFE ‘agrimony’ (Agrimonia eupatoria). There are very few archaeological records for Agrimonia eupatoria, and only one of them is from Winchester or nearby. References to garclife in glossaries and medical texts always translate agrimonia. This is probably a plant that was genuinely, if not widely, known in early medieval England, but it is impossible to say whether Ælfric was familiar with it. It is a native species.130 65. RAFANUM RÆDIC ‘radish’ (Raphanus sp.). There are no records for Raphanus sativus, the garden radish,but several for R. raphanistrum, the wild radish or runch, including five from Winchester. Neither is certainly a native plant.131 There are a few medical and glossary references, which seem to distinguish at least two types. 66. FILEX FEARN ‘fern’ (Filicales).There are a number of archaeological records for various ferns, including one of Athyrium spores from Winchester. The medical texts and glossaries distinguish one sub-type, eoforfearn, probably Polypodium vulgare.132 67. CAREX SEGC ‘sedge’ (Carex etc. sp.). Carex species are common in AngloClapham et al. 1987, 108–12. ibid., 195–9. 129  CLXV; de Vriend (ed.) 1984, 208–10. 130  Clapham et al. 1987, 219. 131  ibid., 76–7. 132  Bierbaumer 1975–9, iii, 79–80. 127  128 

CONCLUSION

Saxon botanical assemblages, including the Winchester ones. There are several glossary references, and a few in medical texts and charters. There can be no doubt that sedges were familiar to the Anglo-Saxons. 68. IUNCUS UEL SCIRPUS RISC ‘rush’ (Juncus etc. sp.). Juncus species are also

55

common, and there are quite a few records of Scirpus, Club-rush, and Eleocharis, Spike rush. Winchester has records for Juncus and Scirpus. The written references tend to be in charters rather than glossaries or medical texts. Rushes, too, were undoubtedly familiar in the AngloSaxon landscape.

DISCUSSION Of the sixty-eight plants named in the Nomina herbarum, some forty-seven, or about two-thirds, can be securely identified.The archaeobotanical record shows that, of these, thirty-four grew or were used in Anglo-Saxon England, and sixteen of these are recorded from Winchester. Another eleven plants which may possibly correspond to those on Ælfric’s list are also represented from the country as a whole, and ten from Winchester. Allowing for plants which may be unrepresented due to such factors as accident of preservation, about half the plants on the list remain unconnected with Winchester by any secure evidence. Two of the plants for which there is no archaeological evidence, mandrake and cumin, are difficult to grow outdoors in Britain even now, and probably could not have been grown in early medieval England. In the absence of physical evidence for our period, many others – Levisticum officinale, gentians, lupins, heliotrope, clary, rue, parsley, costmary, sage, peony, lilies – must continue to be regarded as later introductions, even though they are grown in Britain, some of them very commonly, at the present time. Only Calendula officinalis, represented by the single achene from Norwich, can now be admitted to the Anglo-Saxon flora. Dried parts of plants not grown in England may have been imported for medical or other uses, and evidence for these can be expected to be very rare or non-existent. Calendula may fall into this category, along with various plants for which we currently have no records. Comparison with the Old English medical texts, the Herbarium, Bald’s Leechbook, and the Lacnunga, shows that very nearly all the plants on Ælfric’s list were credited with medical properties by the Anglo-Saxons. The exceptions, reed, sedge, and rush are all represented in the archaeological record, and could all have been used as roofing or flooring materials. There is certainly no plant on the list which would not have found a use in an Anglo-Saxon monastery. CONCLUSION There remain twenty-one plants which cannot currently be shown to have existed in early medieval England. While it seems likely that at least some of these would in fact have been grown or imported, without positive physical evidence for at least a considerable proportion

56

ÆLFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

of them, it is not yet possible to say that the Nomina herbarum was intended as a guide to plants which Ælfric and his students would see around them in eleventh-century southwest England. The Nomina herbarum clearly does contain a substantial practical element, but many of the names listed are just as likely to have been encountered in literature as in everyday life. This means that the purpose of the list as a whole must continue, in the present state of our knowledge, to be regarded as mixed; in other words, it would certainly enable Ælfric’s pupils to converse in Latin about some plants they saw around them, but it must have been intended at least partly to enable them to understand plant names they met in Latin texts. This being the case, the presence of a particular name in the glossary cannot be taken as evidence that the corresponding plant was a familiar one in early medieval England. Nevertheless, the Nomina herbarum remains an invaluable guide to those plant names regarded as most necessary for his pupils to know by a schoolmaster in England at the turn of the last millennium.133 Acknowledgements: I should like to record my gratitude to Dr Jane Renfrew, who supervised the dissertation on which this article is based, and first offered it a place in this volume, and to the present editors for enabling it finally to see the light of day. 133 

4 AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER: THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE by DEREK J. KEENE INTRODUCTION

I

t is a commonplace that medieval towns had a markedly rural aspect. By modern standards they were settlements on a small scale. In Britain only London, perhaps, with a peak population during the Middle Ages of over 30,000, would be recognized today as a town of significant standing and in northern Europe there were no more than a dozen cities which equalled or exceeded it in size. Between c.950 and c.1500 Winchester was, for most of the time, among the dozen largest and most prosperous towns in England. At its peak, possibly in the twelfth century, the city may have housed ten thousand or more people, a figure which the plagues of the mid-fourteenth century perhaps reduced to about seven thousand. From c.1400 into the sixteenth century Winchester grew steadily smaller and did not begin to expand significantly again until the late eighteenth century. As an agglomeration of people and buildings, a town like medieval Winchester may have had a relatively small impact on its natural environment, but it is important to remember that to contemporaries it was a notable city, remarkable for its wealth, its large population, its density of building, the extent of its trade, and the variety of its manufactures. The notion of the English medieval town as an overgrown village, or garden city, where rus almost predominated in urbe, is derived largely from the study of decayed provincial centres of the second or third rank like Oxford or Cambridge. Undoubtedly, during the fifteenth century Winchester was increasingly to be counted in this category, although we should not take too literally the contemporary complaints of its devastation. At Winchester, however, we have the advantage of being able to reconstruct accurately what the city was like at the peak of its prosperity, and the changes which it subsequently endured. It is one of the purposes of this contribution to summarize our knowledge, derived from documentary sources, of those aspects of life and conditions in medieval Winchester which constitute the historical background against which the physical evidence for the natural environment can be considered. The documents themselves – records of property transactions, jurisdiction, and estate administration – are extremely varied in character and need not be described here. Most of the conclusions which follow are based on the detailed topographical, social, and

58

AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

economic reconstruction and examination of Winchester in the later Middle Ages, which is the subject of Volume 2 of Winchester Studies by the author of this chapter. There, the reader will find detailed evidence for and discussion of such matters as land-use, population, housing, the trades and occupations of citizens, and the status and overall development of the city.These conclusions are based on an exhaustive use of the source material but are confined strictly to the urban area and suburbs. Some impression of the special characteristics of agriculture in the countryside immediately outside Winchester can be obtained from these sources, for during the Middle Ages the suburbs themselves contained a good deal of cultivated land. This impression has been supplemented by means of a sampling exercise based on the accounts in the bishop’s pipe rolls dealing with the gardens, fields, and meadows on the south side of Winchester which, from 1262–3 onwards, were administered as part of the bishop’s Wolvesey estate. There is undoubtedly much more to be discovered, however, about the special impact that a city like Winchester had on agriculture, land tenure, and occupations in its immediate non-urban environs. An important series of sources for this study would be the records of the Winchester Cathedral priory manor of Barton which surrounded the city on nearly every side and included extensive tracts of good arable land, particularly a few minutes’ walk to the south-east of the city in the Vale of Chilcomb.1 THE BUILT-UP AREA

I

llus. 4.1 shows in a simplified form the pattern of land-use in Winchester in c.1300 which can be reconstructed from written records.2 The built-up area was probably at least as extensive, both along the streets within the walls and in the suburbs, during the twelfth century, and the last phases of significant medieval suburban expansion probably took place in the generation following the Norman Conquest.3 On a map of this type it is possible to indicate only the extent of the built-up frontage and not the actual area occupied by structures. Major variations in the density of settlement within the built-up area are, therefore, concealed. In High Street, as today, the greater part of each house plot was built over and the remaining space was occupied by courtyards rather than gardens. Properties in the side streets, extending towards the city walls, were more spacious and many of them had gardens of 30m (100 feet) or more in length behind the houses which occupied the street frontage. In the north-eastern quarter of the walled area there was a considerable tract of meadow. We are less well informed on house layouts in the suburbs, but there was undoubtedly more space with extensive crofts of open ground behind and between them. Largely outside the area of urban jurisdiction but coming to within a few yards of the city wall, there were the extensive The court and account rolls for the manor are in Winchester Cathedral Library. 2  For maps showing this pattern in more detail and the changes which took place from c.1300 onwards, see WS 2, especially Chapter 6. Our knowledge of Winchester during this period is not evenly distributed: we know 1 

most of the city within the walls and in its northern and western suburbs, less of the southern suburb, and still less of the suburb outside East Gate. 3  For a recent discussion of suburban development based on the excavations of 1972–86, see Ottaway 2018.

The built-up area

59

Illus. 4.1 Winchester: the pattern of land-use in the urban area c.1300 as reconstructed from the written records.

water-meadows which characterize the Itchen valley along the whole of its length (see above, Illus. 2.6 and 2.7).The meadows outside the walls to the north were largely in the possession of Hyde Abbey and those to the south were part of the bishop’s Wolvesey estate.The meadow land was a particularly valuable asset; medieval cities consumed great quantities of grass and hay in fattening stock for their markets and in fuelling the transport system on which their trade was based. Their reliance on this resource was even greater than that of their modern counterparts on petrol.

60

AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

Illus. 4.2 Castle Yard 1969: woven hurdling lying on top of Anglo-Saxon street 2.

As a result of the fourteenth-century pestilences and the further fall in population which accompanied the renewed economic decline of the city in the fifteenth century, the proportion of open ground relative to buildings in Winchester steadily increased. The western suburb became virtually depopulated and the other suburbs contracted. Within the walls the builtup area contracted along the side streets towards High Street, although to a lesser extent than elsewhere in the north-eastern quarter (which contained the site of the Lower Brook Street excavations; see above, Illus. 1.5 and 1.6) where the city’s cloth-finishing and leathermanufacturing industries were largely situated. Many houses in the western part of High Street fell into ruins. Gardens in the side streets nearby became waste and much of that part of the city came to be used as a public rubbish dump. In those parts of the city which remained inhabited the density of housing diminished. Lanes leading off the principal streets disappeared, as did the cottages and other densely packed structures behind the frontage buildings to which these lanes had provided access. Even in High Street there were fewer houses along the continuously builtup frontage. The remaining inhabitants enjoyed a less crowded existence and more spacious accommodation than before. As well as people, a large number of animals lived in the city. It was forbidden to keep pigs, geese, and ducks in the neighbourhood of High Street (a sure sign that they were kept there) and loose poultry were a particular nuisance in the corn market. The more substantial

The streets and refuse disposal

61

houses, particularly the inns in High Street, had extensive stabling for horses, and throughout the city cows and bulls were kept in byres and sheds in the back yards of properties. At one level, there was probably little distinction between human and animal accommodation: cottages were converted into stables and back again, and one man was killed when a mare and a stallion fought in his kitchen. Butchers grazed sheep and cattle on crofts outside the walls and fattened them for slaughter on garden plots only a few yards from their stalls in High Street. Provisioning and bedding down the animal as well as the human population accounted for a large proportion of the agricultural products consumed in the city. Inanimate organic materials also occurred in a wide variety of other contexts in the medieval city. The majority of houses in the city were constructed of timber. In the early Middle Ages walls were made of oak posts clad with split oak planking. After c.1300 the walls of the oakframed houses were infilled with woven panels, usually of hazel daubed with clay which included chopped straw and chaff with a variety of other materials. The use of thatch, unless it was plastered to render it fireproof, appears to have been prohibited by the city’s by-laws, but, in fact, seems to have been quite common for roofing cottages, subsidiary buildings, and clay boundary walls. When the material used for thatching was specified in the sources it was invariably straw, although on one occasion segge (‘sedge’) was mixed with it. Hurdles were probably widely used for penning animals, and as boundary fences, and woven in situ as the lining for pits and wells. The principal fuel was wood. Charcoal was also used and sold extensively by innkeepers, who, presumably, burnt it in braziers to heat the private rooms in their inns. THE STREETS AND REFUSE DISPOSAL The streets were usually surfaced with flint cobbles, sometimes laid over a bedding of chalk. Street surfaces must frequently have been ankle-deep or more in mud and other refuse, and the condition of the excavated street surfaces preserved below the earthworks of the Norman castle suggests that brushwood and hurdles were often laid to alleviate this problem (Illus. 4.2). The name of one street, Bredenestrete (Staple Gardens), indicates that it once had a timber surface of boards or logs. Contemporary concern about the condition of the streets tells us much about the origin of organic deposits in the later medieval city. The disposal of stable rubbish and cattle litter was a major problem. Citizens, particularly innkeepers and those living near the market-place, were frequently fined for depositing fimum equorum et taurorum (‘dung from horses and cattle’) in the streets. Manure was purchased in the city and at the castle for spreading on the bishop’s fields outside Winchester. Citizens who would or could not sell their rubbish had to carry it out of the city or, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, to the public dumping ground within the walls to the north of West Gate on the deserted site of the Wool Staple. Excavation has shown that disused wells and other pits were commonly used for refuse disposal. Building, the regular dumping of rubbish, cultivation, and the steady rise in water-level associated with the construction of mill-leats (see Illus. 2.4) all had important effects on ground conditions in the city. There remained, nevertheless, important differences between the ground in different areas. In the low-lying valley bottom the ground was waterlogged,

62

AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

containing alluvial silts and deposited organic rubbish interspersed with islands of natural chalk brash and some peat. At a higher level on both sides of the valley there were river terraces while above them, but still within the suburbs, the chalk lay immediately beneath the topsoil (see Illus. 2.3). CULTIVATION The cultivation of land in and immediately outside Winchester, apart from pasture and meadow, can best be considered under two headings: arable farming and horticulture. Arable farming In the twelfth century corn was grown in the western suburb and doubtless throughout the Middle Ages. Crofts in the suburbs and, perhaps, even within the walls were devoted to the cultivation of grain. Between 1262–3, when the account for the Wolvesey estate was first entered on the bishop’s pipe roll, and 1406–7 when the estate began to be let at farm, it is possible to trace in detail the arable cultivation of two substantial fields immediately outside the suburbs on the south side of the city, the east and west fields of Wolvesey (Illus. 4.1). The following discussion is based on a sampling at approximately ten-year intervals of the grange account within the overall account for Wolvesey.4 It would not, in fact, be possible to construct a full annual series because the Wolvesey account was usually entered at the end of the bishop’s pipe rolls and, in consequence, the grange account is frequently damaged or missing. Fields on other sides of the city may have been cultivated differently, but within these limits the impression of suburban agriculture conveyed by the sampling of the Wolvesey accounts is almost certainly a reliable one. The accounts do not begin to specify the acreages sown until the third decade of the fourteenth century, but from then onwards a total of between 70 and 85 acres was sown each year in the east and west fields of Wolvesey. To judge from the size of the yields recorded in the accounts, about the same area had been cultivated during the later thirteenth century. It is striking that there was no apparent contraction in the area cultivated after the plagues of the mid-fourteenth century. About equal areas of wheat and barley were usually sown in both the east and the west fields. Up to the 1340s oats were also a significant crop. In the 1260s and 1270s the quantity of oats sown could be as much as half the quantity of wheat or barley. This crop ratio stands in sharp contrast to that which prevailed in most of the bishopric and cathedral priory manors in Hampshire, where oats were the dominant crop.5 The concentration on wheat and barley may have been made possible by the richness of the soils of the two Wolvesey fields, which lay on river terraces topped by clayey loam, in comparison with the thin soils of most of the other manors. Proximity to the city and its markets, however, was undoubtedly an important consideration, for wheat was the prime cash crop and barley would have been in great 4 

WS 6.ii in prep.

5 

See below, Chapter 6.

Cultivation

63

demand among the city’s brewers. In the fourteenth century the cultivation of oats declined. In the 1320s and 1330s, when the acres sown are first recorded, no more than four or five acres were devoted to oats; after c.1340 oats were frequently not sown at all, and by c.1370 their cultivation in the two fields appears to have ceased. At the same time, the acreage devoted to wheat and barley was increased. The chronology of this change matches that of the decline in trade at St Giles’ Fair on the eastern hill outside Winchester (shown on Illus. 4.1).The bishop’s meadows were used extensively for grazing during the fair and he may have grown oats primarily for sale on this occasion. The bishop certainly took care that there was an adequate supply of human provisions at fair-time and probably also ensured the maintenance of the vast temporary population of horses. When this demand fell, the managers of the Wolvesey estate may have decided to concentrate on more profitable crops. During the second half of the fourteenth century, however, oats were regularly purchased in the city market for use at Wolvesey. Usually no more than ten quarters of oats were purchased in any one year, and these were probably used for the maintenance of the bishop’s permanent household.6 In the years when larger quantities were purchased, the bishop himself was probably resident in Winchester. In addition to wheat, barley, and oats, a number of other crops were grown on the Wolvesey fields.Vetches were the most important of these: sometimes more than ten acres were sown, but at other times less than five.Vetches were often sold green in the field as fodder and in 1267–8 no money was received because the fields were all grazed by the Lord Edward’s horses.7 Frequently, vetches had to be purchased in the market as seed for the following year and in 1330–1 the seed was brought from Portsmouth. Cereals, too, were commonly bought in for seed, as in 1382–3 when wheat was purchased from the reeve of the bishop’s estate at Marwell.8 In the late thirteenth century, drage, a mixture of barley and oats, was grown in about the same quantity as oats, but after the first decade of the fourteenth century it became increasingly uncommon. Cultivation in the suburbs and within the walls As Winchester contracted in the fifteenth century, agriculture may have become more directly important to the economy of the city as a whole. Since at least as early as the twelfth century wealthy citizens had been in the habit of acquiring country properties in the region surrounding Winchester. Some of them maintained residences there and, in so doing, enhanced their social status, but we have no way of knowing how important the product of this land was in the overall context of their personal and family economies. It is striking, however, that as the built-up area of the city contracted during the later Middle Ages, so there was an increase in the number of barns both in the suburbs and within the city walls. This seems to indicate that a number of the wealthier citizens were running significant agricultural enterprises from their residences in the city. A number of sixteenth-century probate inventories list considerable quantities of agricultural stock which appear to have been kept at residences in Winchester. The inventory In 1382–3, for example, two of the five quarters of oats purchased were made into flour pro pot(agio) famul(orum): HRO, 11M59/B1/134 (Wolvesey). 6 

7  8 

HRO, 11M59/B1/32 (Wolvesey). HRO, 11M59/B1/134 (Wolvesey).

64

AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

of Edith Bowlonde, who died in 1500 and lived within the walls in the south-western quarter of the city, gives a good impression of this activity. Edith’s husband Thomas, who had died in 1486, appears, principally, to have been a clothier by trade but had also held the west field of the Wolvesey estate and other land in the suburbs. About 35 per cent of the value of Edith’s inventory was represented by a clothier’s stock-in-trade and about 40 per cent by precious metal, but as much as 11 per cent of the value took the form of agricultural stock: cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, oats, and farming implements.9 The Wolvesey estate also included a large garden in the space between the palace buildings and the city wall (see Illus. 1.3 showing Wolvesey from the air in the lower right hand part of the image). Fruit and vegetables were grown there on a considerable scale under the direction of a gardener, who, in the 1290s, had a stipend of £3 15s. 10d. a year. As with the cereals and other crops, most of the product was sold for cash, except when the bishop stayed a long time in the city.10 Peas seem to have been the most commonly grown crop from the 1260s onwards. Beans were also grown, as were leeks, other vegetables, and other herbs.11 Garlic and onions were being grown as well as leeks in the 1330s.12 A considerable part of the garden was put down to fruit trees and a vineyard. Two hundred apple trees were planted there in 1289–90, apples and pears were growing in 1335–6, and the apple trees there had no fruit in 1370–1.13 Vines were growing there in the late thirteenth century and in the early fifteenth. In 1466–7, 250 vine plants were bought to fill gaps in the vine hedge in the garden to the west of the great hall.14 A good deal of land on the south side of the city was devoted to the cultivation of the vine during the Middle Ages. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries a church there, standing on ground belonging to St Mary’s Abbey, was known as All Saints in the Vines and the abbess’s gardener, who held land from her there in 1148, may have tended her vineyard. In the fourteenth century there may have been a vineyard within the walls at St John’s Hospital. In the fifteenth century vines were grown nearby on land between Winchester College and the Carmelite Friary, and in the early sixteenth century there were vines within the precinct of St Elizabeth’s College.15 There were clearly no major problems in cultivating the vine in medieval Winchester, nor are there in present-day Hampshire. It may be significant that vines are recorded principally, but not exclusively, in connection with institutional rather than private landlords, for in the fifteenth century the religious houses were, by far, the largest consumers of wine in the city. Vines may, however, have been grown for other reasons: for their decorative value as hedges, for their fruit, or for making vinegar (which was among the products sold from the Wolvesey garden in 1330–1),16 rather than for wine. Orchards were widespread in the suburbs and during the fifteenth century became more common on private properties within the walls. The cathedral priory had an extensive orchard in the southern suburb and may have turned a good deal of the product into cider with its press. For her husband’s will, see TNA, Prob 2/168. In 1301–2, for example, only 2s. 6d. was received from the sale of vegetables because the bishop was staying in Winchester: HRO, 11M59/B1/58 (Wolvesey). b 11  e.g. HRO, 11M59/B1/51–2 (Wolvesey).

HRO, 11M59/B1/88 (Wolvesey). HRO, 11M59/B1/49, 88, and 11M59/B1/123 (Wolvesey). 14  HRO, 11M59/B1/199 (Wolvesey). 15  For the evidence in detail, see WS 2, 971. 16  HRO, 11M59/B1/84 (Wolvesey).

9 

12 

10 

13 

Cultivation

65

Well-tended orchards like this one could bring in a reasonable income and leases specified how the trees were to be maintained. There are many references to fruit trees in private gardens or closes in city court records of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. Apples, pears, plums, and damsons appear to have been the most common. In 1410 and 1412 gardens in the city contained pear, apple, plum, damson, and nut trees as well as those of other fruit. In 1385 Edith Crempe was growing a variety of pears called perionettes on her property.17 Most of the records concern cases of trespass or of damage arising from the careless grazing of animals.They tell us, also, of other trees growing in gardens or boundary hedges within the city walls. Willow trees are occasionally mentioned in cases involving people whose principal interests were in the low-lying part of the city. Thorn bushes, hazel trees, and juniper trees are also mentioned in connection with other areas. In the fifteenth century many properties in the city, particularly in the western area within the walls, lay virtually waste and overgrown trees and hedges were a common street obstruction. Ash trees, rapid colonizers of waste ground on the Chalk in modern Hampshire, figure frequently in court presentations of this nuisance, as to a lesser extent do elder bushes.18 Court presentations also tell us something of the vegetables and herbs grown by the citizens in their gardens. These included broad beans, peas, onions, leeks, hyssop, parsley, and sage. The most frequently mentioned herb was parsley.19 Apart from fodder crops and oats, the city’s chief impact on the agriculture of the immediately surrounding land was in the cultivation of raw materials for use in its clothing industry. St John’s Hospital grew madder in several of its suburban crofts during the fourteenth century and the numerous Winchester dyers who held suburban crofts probably used them for the same purpose. We have no evidence that woad was grown in or near Winchester during the Middle Ages. In the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries saffron was grown in the suburbs and later in the sixteenth century, following a national trend encouraged by the government, the cultivation of woad became widespread in the suburbs. Teasels, used for raising the nap in the finishing stages of cloth manufacture, were also grown locally. In 1431 they were being cultivated in a close somewhere within the city liberty and in 1340 were grown, with madder, in the damp clayey valley to the north-west of Winchester and in other parishes near the city.20 Other vegetable products, like elderberries, may also have been used for dyeing and staining cloth or leather. It is possible that flax was grown in the suburbs in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, when some linen drapers held crofts outside the west and south gates of the city. Apart from this hint, we know nothing of the manufacture of linen and canvas in the city. Throughout the Middle Ages there was a considerable trade in Winchester in both these materials, much of which appears to have been imported from overseas. To conclude, another specialized crop was the hop. The brewing of beer, as opposed to ale (which does not include hops), became established in the city in the course of the fifteenth

WCA, Court Roll 23, m.21d; 34/BX/TC 35, bundle 9; 36/F/TC 22. 18  e.g. WCA, Court Rolls 50, m.27; 51, m.12d; 55, mm.17 and 25.

17 

e.g. WCA, Court Rolls 11, m.3d; 24, m.10d; 28, m.3; 37, m.17; 39, m.16; 34/BX/TC 35, bundle 10. 20  WCA, 34/BX/TC 35, bundle 10; Vanderzee (ed.) 1807, 106–7, 109. 19 

66

AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

century.Winchester College began to grow hops on the site of the Carmelite friary in 1564 and thereafter their cultivation spread rapidly in the suburbs and even within the walls.21 MARKETING AND PROCESSING Winchester was a grain market of regional importance, although we know little of its operation before the late fourteenth century. The great religious houses of the city supplied most of their basic requirements out of the produce of their own estates and only the poorest of them, St Mary’s Abbey, appears to have bought significant quantities of food in the market-place. St Cross Hospital obtained supplies of wheat at the Winchester market as well as from its own lands. Throughout the Middle Ages the lesser religious houses of Winchester and most of its secular residents presumably relied on the supplies brought into its market-place. From the late fourteenth century onwards the corn market occupied the western end of the market-place next to the cathedral cemetery where, in the mid-sixteenth century, the city authorities erected a market-house to accommodate it (Illus. 4.3, c.1550). The location of the city’s corn market in the period before the Black Death is not known, but it was probably also held within the extensive market area in the cemetery to the north and west of the cathedral. Winchester would have been the obvious place to market the surplus produce of the major estates belonging to the bishop, the cathedral priory, and Hyde Abbey which surrounded the city on every side. There is little direct evidence for this activity, however, and in the market-place there would probably have been little difference between the product and methods adopted by a reeve of one of the ecclesiastical manors, a farmer of one of the manors, or a peasant producer, or even one of the city merchants who evidently played a major role in the local grain trade. City court records of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries show that grain was brought to Winchester from over considerable distances and not just from the neighbouring estates.The most distant importation of grain to appear in these records concerns three quarters of oats brought from Aldermaston (Berks.) in 1405. Other places from which grain is known to have been brought to Winchester at this period were Andover, Avington, Barton Stacey, Baybridge (near Owslebury), Botley, Clatford, Crawley, East Meon, Hurstbourne, Kings Worthy, Nerdon, Overton, Stockbridge, and Winnall. Some suppliers of corn resident outside Winchester had houses in the city, where the corn was stored, and made arrangements with agents who saw to the marketing and management of the stock for them. Considerable quantities of grain were stockpiled in the city for distribution in this way. For example, in 1423 Richard Horsman, a brewer, had charge of a house in Winchester and nine quarters and two bushels of barley malt there on behalf of John Whetland of Crawley. In 1432 John Kede, a baker, was said to have charge of a house containing five quarters and eight bushels of wheat belonging to Richard Pyckhere of Barton Stacey.22 Winchester merchants, whose principal recorded interests might be in the wool trade, the clothing industry, or the supply of luxury items, were also active in the large-scale supply of grain. Thus in 1391, a year of exceptionally short supply, eleven important 21 

See WS 2, 986.

22

 WCA, 34/BX/TC 35, bundle 10; 06/F/TC 24 (52).

Marketing and processing

67

Illus. 4.3 Winchester: plans showing the western end of the market area in c.i300, 1417, and c.1550.

68

AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

Winchester merchants were accused of trying to force up the price of grain.The city authorities took control of their stocks which were then sold on their behalf at an approved price. In the fifteenth century, in years when prices were low and supplies plentiful, Winchester merchants were involved in the export of grain overseas through Southampton.23 Most of the grain purchased by residents of the city was taken to one of the Winchester water-mills for grinding.24 In the thirteenth century there were at least nine mills in Winchester serving the open market (Illus. 4.1). They were situated not only on the River Itchen but also both within the walls and in the southern suburb on the complex system of secondary streams which flowed through the city (cf. above, Illus. 2.4). Winchester had probably been served by as many mills from the eleventh century onwards. In striking contrast to the mills in the surrounding countryside, payments for milling in Winchester appear usually to have been made in cash rather than in kind.The bishop’s revenues from his Winchester mills, which he let at farm for most of the thirteenth century, achieved a peak c.1230. Over the following century there was only a slight fall from this level of income and this was again in striking contrast to the rural mills. The number of mills fell from the time of the Black Death onwards and the city’s grain-milling capacity came to be concentrated on the main river at the bishop’s mills outside Durn Gate and on the site of the modern Wharf Mill. At one period during the fifteenth century these two mills were used exclusively for milling barley and wheat respectively. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, the bishop’s declining revenue from grain milling was more than compensated for by the income from the fulling mills which had been incorporated into the structures of the principal grain mills. The three monasteries of Winchester each had mills within their precincts, apparently for their own exclusive use. Winchester College did not have its own mill until 1539 and before then, like all the lesser religious houses in the city, probably had its corn ground at the mills which worked for the open market.25 Hand-querns occur in archaeological deposits in Winchester dated throughout the Middle Ages26 and the occurrence of the byname le Quernmaker in mid fourteenth-century Winchester27 suggests that they were certainly used then. However, it is probable that only a very small proportion of the grain consumed in the city was ground at home, for everyone would have had ready access to a water-mill. Querns may have been used most often in the poorest households where only small quantities of meal flour were needed, although large households may also have owned them and used them occasionally for exceptional requirements. They were probably used, for example, at the cathedral priory in 1484–5, when some women were paid 10d. for making oat flour.28 The city’s bakers played an important role in the marketing and processing of grain. The religious houses had their own ovens, but most of the bread consumed by secular households in the city was probably supplied by the professional bakers. Even the royal household, when it was in Winchester, appears to have purchased a substantial proportion of its bread from the city bakers. In c.1400 there were no more than half-a-dozen bakers in the city and they were considerable entrepreneurs.Their bakehouses, with expensive and elaborately constructed WS 2, 253. ibid., 61–2. 25  Kirby 1892, 243.

WS 7.ii, 881–90, Figs 266–70, Table 89. WS 2, 254. 28  Kitchin (ed.) 1892, 382.

23 

26 

24 

27 

Imports from overseas

69

ovens, lay in many different parts of the city, usually close to, but not in, High Street and their loaves were distributed by thirty or forty women who stood with baskets in a number of assigned selling places. Bakers appear frequently in the records as dealers in grain, buying it up outside the market-place in order to sell at an enhanced profit, and they also ran many of the mills in the city.29 Innkeepers sometimes trespassed on the bakers’ preserve by baking ‘horse bread’ for sale. This seems to have been one aspect of their considerable retail trade in animal feeds for they also commonly sold hay and oats. The oatmeal or flour sold by the innkeepers was presumably largely for human consumption. We know nothing from the written records of the market in or consumption of rye in the city. On the rare occasions when the grain used by the bakers is specified, only wheat is mentioned. This does not mean, however, that breads of other cereals were not consumed. Most of the barley brought to the market-place was probably used for brewing ale. In the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries most of the larger citizen households brewed ale for their own use and for sale to the general public. Over forty brewers operated in this fashion and about as many people again sold ale but did not brew. It was, perhaps, impossible to build up a substantial enterprise based on ale brewing alone, for the product would not keep. As beer brewing, using hops as a preservative, was introduced in the course of the second half of the fifteenth century, the number of brewers fell dramatically. Since the number of retail outlets remained about the same, the business of the individual brewers who remained in operation appears to have increased substantially.30 IMPORTS FROM OVERSEAS The most numerous class of imported plant-based materials were those dealt with by the spicers or grocers of the city. St Giles’ Fair, which achieved the peak of its activity in the twelfth or early thirteenth century, was a major international occasion for trading in spices. Royal, ecclesiastical, and aristocratic households made important purchases there.31 In 1300, for example, the Countess of Pembroke purchased wax, almonds, ginger, cinnamon, pepper, rice, galingale, saffron, cumin, and sugar there. In 1359 the prior of Southwick purchased most of the same commodities together with cloves, mace, sandalwood (saundres), and cotton.32 The raisins, dates, and figs kept in the king’s wardrobe at Winchester Castle in 123933 had probably been purchased at the fair or at the shops of the spicers in High Street. At the end of the century a Winchester merchant regularly supplied mustard to the royal household when it was within the city.34 In the late fourteenth and in the fifteenth century Winchester spicers regularly traded in imported dried fruit, figs, dates, and raisins, as well as spices. Among the spices, in addition to those already mentioned, there are records of grains of Paradise (cardamom seeds) and safflower. The goods carted to Winchester from Southampton in the mid-fifteenth century included

WS 2, 252–3. ibid., 269. 31  ibid., 1117, and for the fair as a whole, 1091–1132.

TNA, E40/11554; HRO, 5M50/42. Cal Lib R 1226–40, 364. 34  WS 2, 1303, s.n. Stephen le Mustardir.

29 

32 

30 

33 

70

AGRICULTURE AND THE USE OF PLANTS IN MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

most of these items and also aniseed, cress, garlic, hops, and oranges. Some of these crops may have been native, but in the fifteenth century onions, onion seed, garlic, and hops were certainly brought by sea into Southampton.35 In the late Middle Ages one of the most substantial imports into the city was woad, grown in the region of Toulouse where it was milled and compressed into readily transportable balets. At Winchester this woad was inspected for quality by two elected assessors before being sold and used by individual dyers. A list of goods on which tolls might be collected at Winchester c.1270 includes brazil, a red-dye wood, as well as woad.36 There are however no direct records of the actual use of brazil in Winchester. In the late Middle Ages the city seems not to have been known for its production of expensively dyed cloths like those known as scarlets. Such exotic dyestuffs were probably only rarely used there. WILD PRODUCE Any consideration of the use of plant materials in Winchester cannot afford to ignore the wild produce of the surrounding countryside.This presumably included the mushrooms which formed a regular part of the diet of the monks in the cathedral priory37 and the strawberries they received among the petty tithes from Morestead.38 Nuts and berries from the hedgerows could have made a significant seasonal contribution to the diet of many inhabitants of the city who would also have been able to obtain fodder and litter for their animals along the waysides immediately beyond the city limits. Wild produce too, would have been used in a number of industrial processes. The city’s dyers, in particular, probably made considerable use of the berries and leaves of wild plants to produce a range of colours in addition to those provided by the well-known dye-plants cultivated in the southern fields or imported from overseas. It would be misleading, however, to overemphasize the reliance of the inhabitants of Winchester on the wild produce of the surrounding countryside. The city was set within a highly controlled landscape which, whether it was arable, pasture, watermeadow, or downland given over to grazing and rabbit warrens, was subject to the most careful regulation. The sophisticated management of woodland during the Middle Ages, a potentially wild resource which surrounded the city on every side, demonstrates this point most clearly, for even timber and firewood should be regarded as crops rather than the fruit of uncontrolled gathering.39

See WS 2 and for items carted from Southampton, Coleman (ed.) 1960. 36  Deedes (ed.) 1915–24, 742–3. For the context in which this list was probably drawn up, and for the 35 

Winchester dyeing industry generally, see WS 2, 303–4. 37  Kitchin (ed.) 1892, 307–30. 38  Goodman 1934, 18–19. 39  Rackham 1975.

CONCLUSION

71

CONCLUSION: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE There is a strong general agreement between the picture of plant use in medieval Winchester provided respectively by the archaeological evidence in the form of pollen, seeds, and some larger remains, and by the documentary record. Evidence for the major economic crops, wheat, barley, oats, and rye occurs in both sets of sources and so too does evidence for the lesser, but nevertheless important, crops such as broad beans, peas, and vetches. Most of the fruits likewise occur in both. It is not surprising, however, that such wild fruits as blackberry and raspberry do not appear in the documents. The peach, evidenced by two stones,40 could easily have been among the ‘fruit’ which we know was imported through Southampton and carted to Winchester, for peaches appear not to have been cultivated in medieval England. The walnuts and figs for which there is evidence from the excavations were probably also among the imported items. Imported spices (coriander may have been locally grown) do not show up in the archaeological record and this is understandable because they would have been very heavily processed. The same reason presumably explains the lack of archaeological evidence for dye-plants such as woad and madder, although there is evidence for the use of the latter from staining on pottery vessels, thought to be used in dyeing, found on the Northgate House site in the north-western corner of the walled city.41 Few post-medieval levels were excavated and even fewer samples were taken from them for botanical study, and so crops such as woad and hops which were cultivated locally from the sixteenth century onwards do not occur in the archaeological record. The pollen reveals an environment which may readily be recognized from the historical records.42 Oak, alder, birch, lime, beech, hornbeam, hazel, buckthorn, and holly are all known to have grown or been used in medieval Winchester and are today characteristic of the surrounding countryside. The occurrence of pine seems exceptional and it is surprising that there is only pollen evidence for maple, a common hedgerow plant in modern Hampshire and several times recorded as a characteristic feature in tenth-century records of estate boundaries. Maple wood, however, does occur in archaeological contexts.There is no archaeological evidence for juniper, mentioned in the written record and certainly present in medieval Winchester. Many of the weeds such as dock, plantain, ground ivy, dandelion, and lesser stitchwort would certainly have been characteristic of the waste ground, verges, and neglected gardens of the medieval city.43 There is least correspondence between the two types of evidence in the herbs grown in the gardens of medieval Winchester. Hemp, fennel, coriander, and mint do not appear in the written sources and we have neither seeds nor pollen from hyssop and parsley. Not a single herb occurs in either type of evidence. Herbs are normally gathered for use before their seeds have formed and this may explain why those which were most prized and therefore specified in cases of damages do not occur in the archaeological record.

40  41 

See below, pp. 270–1 and 329–30. Teague 2011, 203–5.

42  43 

For the archaeological evidence see below, Chapter 7. See below, Chapter 11.

5 GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER: THE CASTLE, WOLVESEY PALACE, AND EASTGATE HOUSE by BEATRICE CLAYRE and MARTIN BIDDLE

T

here is very little evidence for gardens in Winchester before the thirteenth century. There are loose fragments of large Roman copper-alloy and stone statues,1 but these were presumably placed in public buildings such as the forum courtyard or in temples. A possible base for a statue was found in what may have been the courtyard of the forum at the Cathedral Car Park.2 There are open spaces which might have been gardens (e.g. at Assize Courts North 19633 and various WMS sites4), but no further evidence to suggest that these were actually gardens. Several entries in the Winton Domesday mention gardens, but give no detail.5 In the life of St Eadburga, the saint goes out into the garden of Nunnaminster on her way to St Peter’s Chapel.6 Somewhere close to Old Minster, the Anglo-Saxon cathedral, there was a sacrist’s garden which may even have been on the site of the garden known for centuries as ‘Paradise’, beside the north transept of the present cathedral.7 The written records show that by c.1300 there was considerable variation across the different parts of the city in the size of household plots and in their density and use.8 THE GARDENS OF WINCHESTER CASTLE The medieval period Built as a royal stronghold in 1067,Winchester Castle had, by the early twelfth century, come to combine the functions of fortress and royal residence – a dual role which it played until 1302 when the royal apartments were gutted by fire and never rebuilt. The gardens in Winchester Castle were always associated with the royal apartments which lay to the south and west of the surviving Great Hall (Illus. 5.1). Since this area has never been archaeologically investigated,9 the 1  2 3 WS 3.i Parts 7.4.II–III.  WS 3.i Part 3.2.I.  WS 3.i Part 3.2.VI. The Brooks 87–8, Zant 1993, 29–39; Henly’s Garage, 84–5, Scobie 2019, 106–11. 5  6 WS 1, 40, 49, 95, 117.  WS 1, 321–2 and 555–6. 7 Harvey 1981, 34; Quirk 1961, 53. 8  See above pp. 58–60 and Illus. 4.1 9  The area to the south of the Great Hall was heavily disturbed in the 17th cent. when Wren built a palace for Charles II on this part of the site of the medieval castle. The excavations of 1968–71 took place on the north side of the Great Hall where a succession of medieval defences had been built to control the West Gate of the city. 4 

The gardens of Winchester Castle

Illus. 5.1 Winchester Castle: outline plans of the principal elements in the late 12th and 13th centuries.

73

74

GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER

gardens are known only from documentary sources, particularly the great series of Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer, supplemented in the thirteenth century by the Liberate Rolls. Two Latin words are used to refer to the gardens: herbarium and pratellum.10 Herbarium (from the Latin herba meaning ‘grass’, ‘green crop’, or ‘herb’) is the more commonly used term, and has been translated in the published calendars of the Liberate Rolls as ‘herb-garden’ or ‘arbour’.11 The term pratellum, meaning ‘little meadow’, occurs only twice, in a mid thirteenth-century context, and is translated here as ‘lawn’.12 No details are given in any of the documentary sources of the type (or types) of garden in the castle; indeed, references to the gardens are usually made simply because they were being tidied up or ‘repaired’ following building work nearby.13 At least one of the gardens was surrounded by a wall and entered by a door. Each set of royal apartments had its own garden. A garden for Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine is recorded as early as 1160–1.14 In 1239, Henry III ordered a garden (herbarium) to be made for his new queen, Eleanor of Provence, between the queen’s chamber and the chapel.15 This may have been the same garden (pratellum) which the queen saw in 1247 from the windows of the recently lengthened garderobe,16 and which was ‘repaired’ in 1268–9 following alterations to her apartments.17 The king’s gardens (herbariis) are first recorded in 1178–9, when a payment of £1 12s. 8d. was made for their preparation (parandis)18 following the building of the chapel dedicated to St Thomas the Martyr between 1175 and 1178.19 This garden may have been extended, or a new one made, in 1237–8, when Henry III ordered the king’s dovecot to be pulled down20 and a garden (herbarium) made between the king’s chapel (St Thomas the Martyr) and the queen’s chapel (St Judoc).21 A door was made into the garden by the chapel in 1247, and again in 1268.22 In 1252, following the building of a small chapel by the king’s bed, the garden (pratellum) between the new chapel and the chapel of St Thomas had to be ‘repaired’, which suggests that the new chapel was close to, or encroached upon, that garden.23 Another garden (herbarium), probably enclosed by a wall, was situated on the south side of the hall and may have been one of three gardens made in the castle in 1235–6, while an ambiguous reference in 1252 suggests that it was then repaired.24 Despite regular payments for the comparatively well documented repairs at the castle during the reign of Edward I (1272–1307), there are no known references to gardens at the castle, although his queen, Eleanor of Castile, was interested in gardening. After the disastrous fire of 10 

For the purposes of this survey, the Liberate Rolls were consulted only in their calendared form, where the original Latin word for ‘garden’ is not always given. 11  See for example, Cal Lib R 1226–40, 319,‘herb garden’ (herbarium); Cal Lib R 1267–72, 59, ‘arbour’ (herbarium). 12  Cal Lib R 1245–51, 130; Cal Lib R 1251–60, 47. 13  See for example, Cal Lib R 1267–72, 59 and 67, where the sheriff of Hampshire is ordered to make certain alterations to the queen’s apartments and then to repair the herbarium between the queen’s chamber and the chapel. 14  Pipe Roll 6 Henry II, 49. 15  The chapel of St Judoc which had been reconstructed to include a chapel for the queen’s use: Cal Lib R 1226– 40, 365.

16 

Cal Lib R 1245–51, 130. Cal Lib R 1267–72, 59 and 67. 18  Pipe Roll 24 Henry II, 27. 19  Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, 199; Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, 198; Pipe Roll 23 Henry II, 166. 20  Possibly the dovecot built by King John in 1206: Pipe Roll 8 John, 149. 21  Cal Lib R 1226–40, 319; TNA, E372/82, rot. 7d. 22  Cal Lib R 1245–51, 158; Cal Lib R 1267–72, 89. 23  Cal Lib R 1251–60, 47. 24  Cal Lib R 1226–40, 405; Cal Lib R 1251–60, 47; TNA, E372/80, rot. 10d. 17 

The gardens of Winchester Castle

75

Illus. 5.2 Winchester Castle: a ‘medieval’ garden recreated in 1986 outside the south door of the Great Hall. Biddle and Clayre 2006, Fig. 60. Photograph by Paul Carter. ©Hampshire County Council.

1302, the royal apartments in the castle were never rebuilt. Royalty rarely, if ever, stayed in the castle again, and the gardens were probably not maintained.25 The planting of a ‘medieval’ garden recreated by Sylvia Landsberg in an area outside the south door of the Great Hall was opened by the Queen Mother in 1986 (Illus. 5.2).26 Sixteenth and seventeenth centuries In 1559 the custody of the castle was granted to the City of Winchester.27 By that time an area of about 0.40 ha (1 acre) in the middle of the castle had become known as le Castle Grene. A survey made in 1571–228 described it as an area having ‘olde walls and ruinous voied romes’, which was let as pasture to the keeper of the Great Hall at a nominal rent in return for his keeping the hall 25 

It is sometimes asserted that the garden made by Edward I in 1306 with a stream running through it was at Winchester Castle (McLean 1981, 97). The garden in question was made for Edward’s queen, Margaret, at Wolvesey, the bishop’s palace (see below, pp. 77–9).

26 

Biddle and Clayre, 2006, 48. Cal Pat R 1558–60, 105. 28  Letters and Papers, Elizabeth I: BL, Cotton Titus B. ii, ff. 242–3. 27 

76

GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER

clean.29 The castle ditches, which were also let as pasture, were described in the same report as ‘for the most parte overgrowen with mosse and smale busshes’. In the early seventeenth century, the castle was granted into private ownership.30 Sir Richard Weston, Charles I’s lord treasurer, who was also lord lieutenant of Hampshire, stayed there in the early 1630s and had grandiose ideas for making it his family seat, although he never owned it. He spent considerable sums renovating the buildings and his plans would, no doubt, have included formal gardens, but he died in 1635 and his son showed no interest in the castle. Besieged by Oliver Cromwell during the Civil War, the castle sustained heavy damage, was slighted in 1651 on the orders of Parliament, and its site bought by the city in 1656. After lying derelict for many years, a source of ‘stones, burs, sand and rubbish’ for building and repair work in the city,31 the ‘scite of the demolished castle’ was leased in 1667 to Robert Mitchell, a local grocer, who planted the ditches with fruit trees.32 Mitchell also leased a piece of land belonging to the city situated at Beaumond to the south-east of the castle (Illus 5.3).33 This land had been used for some two hundred years for public archery practice.34 After the restoration in 1660, it became a bowling green and Mitchell built a ‘Bowle Rome’ on it.35 There is some evidence to suggest that the city may have intended to make a recreation ground at Beaumond and in the castle because, in the renewal of Mitchell’s lease in 1679, the mayor and aldermen reserved the right to ‘free ingress and egress for their recreation, to walk or otherwise repose themselves in any of the gardens or walks now made or hereafter to be made in any part of the demised premises, not doing any hurt to the fruit trees and plants there’.36 Such pleasure gardens were popular in London at that period, for example Spring Gardens, later known as Vauxhall Gardens,37 frequented by Samuel Pepys.38 If this was the intention, it was never carried out, for in 1682 Charles II on his first known visit took such a liking to Winchester that he planned to build a palace there.39 The city presented him with the site of the castle and work began in 1683 on building a magnificent palace (known locally as the King’s House) modelled on Versailles. It was designed by Sir Christopher Wren who also envisaged formal gardens and a great park, 13 km (8 miles) in circumference around the palace.40 Most of the land required for this had been bought when Charles’s sudden death in 1685 brought all work to a halt. Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries The palace remained an empty shell in the care of the Office of Works, used occasionally to house prisoners of war or refugee clergy, until 1796 when it was leased to the Barrack Department for military use.41

29 

The area on the north side of the Hall was also included in the lease. 30  Cal SP Dom 1603–10, 348; see also TNA, C66/1697. 31  HRO,W/F2/5, 334–5. 32  HRO,W/F2/5 207v. 33  HRO,W/F2/5, 129v, 207. 34  HRO,W/B1/1, 196;W/F2/4, 94v.

35 

Bolton and Hendry (eds) 1930, 47–8. HRO,W/F2/5, 334–5. 37  Williams 1949, 160; VCH Surrey, vol. 4, 52–3. 38  ibid. 39  Biddle and Clayre 2006, 20. 40  Bolton and Hendry (eds) 1930, 43–51. 41  Biddle and Clayre 2006, 3–4; Colvin (ed.) 1973, 373. 36 

The gardens of Winchester Castle

Illus. 5.3 Winchester Castle in the late 17th century, showing in grey the plan of the palace, or King’s House, as built in 1683–5.

77

78

GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER

Nothing could be done about the leasing or sale of the lands bought between 1683 and 1685 until the royal will was known concerning the future of the palace and park. There is some evidence that land intended for the park lay unused and unimproved until the end of the seventeenth century. It took even longer for the future of the lands immediately around the castle to be settled. The first lease of these lands was not granted until 1705, but by 1750, when William Godson drew his map of Winchester, all the land along the east ditch of the castle had reverted to the city and was planted with orchards and hop gardens.42 To the west of the castle, the large field known as ‘ten acres’ remained in crown hands and was used successively as a timber yard, an airing ground for prisoners, and an exercise ground for troops, until 1837–8 when the coming of the railway separated it from the barracks in the King’s House. It was then sold off and quickly developed for housing. By the mid-nineteenth century, the site of the medieval castle was completely encircled by military and urban development. WOLVESEY PALACE With one remarkable exception, little detail seems to be known about the gardens of the religious houses of medieval Winchester.43 The exception is the palace of the bishops at Wolvesey where the West Hall, built in the early twelfth century by William Giffard, the first Norman bishop (1100–29), commanded a view westwards from a raised garden over the eastern mass of his new cathedral (cf. Illus. 1.3). The evidence is structural. No accounts of the working of this raised garden let alone of its construction survive, but the plan of the West Hall is suggestive (Illus. 5.4). It is a single block, lying north and south, 50.8m long with a cross-range 43.4m long across its south end containing the bishop’s private quarters to the west and his chapel to the east (where the chapel, much rebuilt, remains to this day). The principal space in the north–south range is clearly the hall proper (Illus. 5.4, A), 18.5m long internally from north to south and 7.2m wide, with an internal area of 131.4 sq. m. Its north, west, and east walls are 1.8m thick and its north and west walls are clasped externally by pilaster buttresses of varying projection. Hall A (together with the room to its north and part at least of the cross-range to the south) was infilled at the time of construction with clean chalk rubble, raising the level of the floor to at least 1.65m above the contemporary external ground surface, comparable to the level of the floor in the chapel still in use today. Hall A is flanked down its east side by a long narrow range (Illus. 5.4, B) entered at ground level by a door in its east wall near the north-east corner of the block. Range B is sub-divided internally by at least one cross-wall and perhaps by others further south beyond the excavated area. The east wall of Range B is clasped externally by pilaster buttresses comparable to those of Hall A. Hall A is flanked down its west side by a long range (Illus. 5.4, C) of a rather different character. Like Hall A, Range C was filled at the time of its construction with clean chalk 42 

WS 6.i in prep.

43

See above, footnote 25

Gardens in later medieval and early modern Winchester

79

rubble to the same level as that in Hall A, but its west wall is only 1.3m thick, thinner than the walls of Hall A and Range B and not clasped by projecting pilaster buttresses. Clearly the walls of Range C were not designed to carry a substantial upper structure comparable to that of Hall A and Range B. Range C, with its thin west wall without external clasping pilaster buttresses, lies west of Hall A (the west face of the west wall of which is both thicker and provided with large pilaster buttresses) and can be interpreted as a parterre, raised on chalk filling to the same floor level as Hall A from which it could presumably be entered on the same level. It cannot be shown that Range C was planted as a garden, but it can be suggested that it was built as an open-air raised platform from which to view the new cathedral rising some Illus. 5.4 Wolvesey Palace: 200m away to the west, a prospect as plan of the West Hall of c.1110. striking today as it must have seemed a millennium ago. That the parterre was also planted with, or enhanced by, plants, bushes, or even small trees in wooden tubs, must seem likely. There was also a large garden for fruit and vegetables at Wolvesey, and vines and fruit trees were grown there.44 GARDENS IN LATER MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN WINCHESTER There is some information about gardens and gardeners in the medieval records of the houses of Winchester suggesting a considerable number of ‘gardens’, but it is not clear of what kind.45 Given the survival of the records this evidence relates mainly to the fourteenth century and later.46 At least one garden in early modern Winchester was both outstanding and remarkably well recorded. On 9 September 1723 the antiquary William Stukeley (1687–1765) drew a view of 44 

See above, pp. 64–5. For the gardens of houses on the side streets, up to 30m (100 ft) in length, and for gardens of houses in the suburbs, see above, pp. 58–60. 45 

46 

WS 2, 138–40, 149, 151–2, 156, 159, 164, 179–82, 198–204, 207, 232, 242, 353 (Table 26). For the name ‘Gardener’ and its variations, see WS 2, 1240, col. 2.

80

GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER

Illus. 5.5 Eastgate House and garden: detail from William Stukeley, Prospect of Winchester from the South, 9 Sep. 1723, Private collection.

Winchester from St Giles’ Hill looking down west over the city.47 Prominent in the foreground, occupying a large area in the north-east corner of the city walls, was a single estate (Illus. 5.5). This comprised an exceptionally tall house set well back from the north side of High Street (in the area now known as Broadway), facing north down what looks like a long tree-lined avenue leading towards ‘orchards’ inside the city wall. The garden was recorded for a second time in 1736 in The East Prospect of the City of Winchester, one of the ‘long prospects’ engraved and published by the brothers Samuel and Nathaniel Buck (Illus 5.6).48 Because their view-point was slightly to the south of Stukeley’s, this view looks directly west up High Street, which appears to have been flooded in its lower eastern part. It also shows the relatively great height of the principal house, set well back from the street, immediately to the north-east of St John’s House and chapel. Twelve years later the layout of the garden is shown again, this time in precise detail and in colour, in Godson’s An Exact Plan Of a House and Garden in High-street, near East-gate … in the City of Winchester, 1748 (Illus. 5.7),49 which was redrawn at a smaller scale on Godson’s 47 

Engraved and published in 1724 in Itinerarium Curiosum, and reprinted as number 83 in the edition of 1776.

48 

Copy in the British Library, Map Collections, Maps K.Top.14.54.b. Reprinted in Buck’s Antiquities, iii, 1774. 49  HRO, 147M86W/1.

Gardens in later medieval and early modern Winchester

81

Illus. 5.6 Eastgate House and garden: detail from Samuel and Nathaniel Buck, The East Prospect of the city of Winchester, 1736, Private collection.

Map of Winchester, published in 1750, the first accurately surveyed plan of the city.50 Godson’s plan of 1748 shows an extremely complicated garden, including one smaller and one much larger water-filled vista. An almost ‘archaeological’ examination of Godson’s plan shows that this garden is of two major periods. The great house (A in the list of ‘References’ on Godson’s plan) and its vast lake intrude upon, and are clearly later than, both the smaller building (F in the list) with its smaller lake to the east, and upon the circular Flower Garden (L in the list) with its adjacent plot to the west. There is clearly room for detailed analysis of the gardens and houses shown in Godson’s plan in relation to the extensive documentation relating to the individual parts of this property now in the Hampshire Record Office and in the archives of Winchester College. The smaller house and lake may have been the property of Sir Robert Mason (d. 1685), perhaps built by him as early as 1665.The much larger house was owned by John Penton from at least as early as 1717.51 What can only be this house is shown in detail in an engraving in the left margin of Godson’s Map of Winchester published in 1750, where it is described as ‘The Seat of Henry Penton Esqr’ (Illus. 5.8). The date of this house is indicated by an almost exact parallel, Rainham Hall, formerly in Essex but now in the London Borough of Havering (Illus. 5.9).52 Rainham Hall was built

50 

HRO, W/K4/1/10/1. HRO, 21M65/437F/1. 52  Cherry et al., 2005, 187–8, Fig. 31. For detailed drawings and photographs both external and internal, see Amery (ed.), 1978, 76–83, 168–9. It is clear from 51 

this comparison that the demolition of Eastgate House in 1844, or shortly afterwards, represents the loss of the most important domestic building of its period in Winchester, second only to Wren’s palace for Charles II.

82

GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER

Illus. 5.7 An Exact Plan Of a House and Garden in High-street near East-gate … in the City of Winchester, by William Godson, 1748. Pen and wash. (HRO, 147M86W/1). Courtesy of Winchester City Council.

Gardens in later medieval and early modern Winchester

83

Illus. 5.8 ‘The Seat of Henry Penton Esqr’ (Eastgate House). Engraving in

the left margin of William Godson’s Map of Winchester, 1750. By courtesy of the Warden and Scholars of Winchester College.

in 1729 and is regarded by Pevsner as ‘an old fashioned design’ for the date. It provides a close parallel for Godson’s engraving of Eastgate House (Illus. 5.8), similar in almost every detail, as John Crook points out, in its segmental-headed windows, the ‘aprons’ below the window sills, the prominent key-stones, and in its low attic storey. In plan it is a perfect square (Illus. 5.10), providing an exact illustration of John Penton’s ‘lofty square house’ in Winchester.53 Whether John Penton (1662–1724) had built this house as early as 1706 cannot be certain.54 Known as ‘Eastgate House’, it descended in the family to Henry Penton the younger (1736–1812) who entertained King George III and Queen Charlotte there in 1778, but sold the house and whole estate in 1806 to Sir Henry Paulet St John-Mildmay (1764–1808).

53 

It has not been possible to verify this quotation which appears in Sara Dick-Read, ‘Another Time, Another Place’, in the City of Winchester Trust News, Summer 1997, in the sentence, ‘There is a mention of Mr John Penton’s ‘lofty square house’ here in 1706’, without further details. The phrase sounds

contemporary and the word ‘square’ is a precise reflection of the plan of Rainham Hall (Illus. 5.10), but the source remains unknown. 54  WS 11, 77. For the Penton family, see .

84

GARDENS IN MEDIEVAL AND LATER WINCHESTER

Illus. 5.9 Rainham Hall, London Borough of Havering, built 1729, the garden front. ©David Merrett, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Gardens in later medieval and early modern Winchester

85

Illus. 5.10 Rainham Hall, built 1729, ground floor plan. Courtesy of the authors, Cherry et al. 2005, 187. ©Yale University Press.

In 1791 the house and its gardens are shown at a smaller scale but in much the same way on Milne’s Map of Winchester. Forty-five years later only Eastgate House, its oval tree-lined approach from High Street, and the lesser buildings to the east appear on Gale’s 1836 map of the city. Following a report on the house and grounds in 1844, which described the house as ‘of too expensive a character for its situation’, the house was sold and demolished by 1847 and the whole area redeveloped with the new Eastgate Street running from High Street to North Walls.55 There was a second significant garden of this period at Hyde House outside North Gate.56 This included a ‘Herculus’s garden’ with a statue of the hero, which is shown on a late seventeenthor early eighteenth-century map of the property and another of 1769, the latter attributed to Godson.57 There is clearly much more to be known about gardens in Winchester in the early modern period. 55 

57 

56 HRO, 46M72/E171.  WS 11, 81. Pennel 1909, 30–6; Grover 2012, 28–37;WS 11, 81; Hare and Qualmann 2021. See maps, HRO,W/K4/1/15 and 3/1.

6 FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350, IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE by JAN Z.TITOW1

LATE MEDIEVAL AGRICULTURAL PROCEDURES: THE SOURCES

A

part from scattered bits of information to be found in charters, deeds, court rolls, and occasionally in literary sources, the bulk of our knowledge of late medieval agricultural practices comes from manorial accounts which survive for many great estates from the thirteenth century onwards. The county of Hampshire is particularly well served in this respect. The bulk of the manors of the see of Winchester lay in Hampshire (Illus. 6.1) and the account rolls of the manors of the bishopric, arguably the best surviving example of this type of documentation, form the earliest by some fifty years and the most comprehensive series of all such collections in existence.2 Illus. 6.2 is an illustration of the standardized format of grange accounts throughout the whole period covered by the Winchester pipe rolls and does not serve to indicate any particular importance of Burghclere. In addition, a considerable number of the account rolls of the manors belonging to the cathedral priory of Winchester also survive, although the series is not as good as that for the bishopric and begins some forty years later in 1248.3 The following study of the crops grown in Hampshire between 1200 and 1350 is concerned with agriculture as reflected in the account rolls of the bishopric of Winchester, but I have also drawn upon the accounts of the priory to supplement the evidence of the bishopric rolls at certain

The imperial system of units is used here as follows: Area: 1 acre = 0.40ha. Weight: 16 ounces (oz.) = 1 pound (lb.) = 0.453kg; 14 lb. = 1 stone; 28 lb. = 1 quarter (qr.) = 12.70kg and equivalent to 8 bushels in measuring quantities of grain; 4 qr. = 1 hundredweight (cwt.); 20 cwt. = 1 ton. Volume: 1 bushel = 36.37 litres. 1

The so-called Pipe Rolls of the bishopric of Winchester, in the Hampshire County Record Office, Winchester.The full list of the rolls covering the period 1208 to 1350 is given in Appendix A, pp. 135–6. 3 Winchester Cathedral Archive, held on deposit at Hampshire Record Office, DC/J1–J2. The full list of rolls is given in Appendix B, pp. 136–7. 2

Late medieval agricultural procedures: the sources

87

Illus. 6.1 Map of Hampshire showing the manors belonging to the bishopric of Winchester and to the priory of St Swithun.

points. The opening and closing dates are not entirely arbitrary; the former is virtually that of the earliest surviving account roll of the bishopric,4 the latter sees the advent of the Black Death which radically altered the economic situation and marked the beginning of the end of the traditional demesne regime about which we know so much for the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The earliest surviving manorial account for the bishopric of Winchester is that for 1208–9 but there is a reference in the account for the year 1235/6 under Fonthill to a pipe roll of Bishop Richard, who must be Richard of Ilchester whose episcopate covered the years 1174–88. 4

88

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

Illus. 6.2 The bishop of Winchester’s Pipe Rolls for 1208 to 1350: extract showing the entry for the bishopric manor of Burghclere for 1232/3 (HRO, 11M59/B1/14). Hampshire Record Office.

English translation

Likewise they render account for 14 quarters of wheat of the old arrears of Walter Willard received from him. And for 183 quarters 2 bushels of the total issue of wheat and for 44 quarters bought subsequently for seed.Total: 241 quarters 2 bushels. Sown over 177 acres by the perch, of which 155 acres are in the field of Stockes and 31 acres1 in Surland, 44 quarters. In customary payment (consuetudo) at the haymaking 6 bushels. Sold, as noted above, 196 quarters. Likewise they render account for 18 quarters of the total issue of curall [second-grade grain separated from the main quantity] of the said wheat. Sold, as noted above, all. Likewise they render account for 139 quarters of the total issue of mixtilio and for 11 quarters, 3 bushels bought subsequently for seed.Total: 150 quarters, 3 bushels. Sown over 22 acres by the perch, and all are in the field of Stockes, 11 quarters, 3 bushels. In the allowance (couredium) of the carter one and a half quarter because he has received the remainder from barley and from the mill. In the bishop’s alms 55 quarters. Sold, as noted above, 82 quarters and a half. Likewise they render account for 10 quarters and a half of the total issue of barley. Sown over 6 acres by the perch 3 quarters, and all the acres are in the field of Harebet and Leyhe. In allowance of the carter 3 quarters. In allowance of 1 harrower half a quarter. In allowance of the dairy-maid at High Clere 1 quarter and a half. In the bishop’s alms 1 quarter and a half. Sold, as noted above, 1 quarter and a half and 2 bushels. Likewise they render account for 431 quarters of the total issue of oats and for 2 quarters bought. Total: 433 quarters. Sown over 236 acres by the perch, and all are in the field of Harebert and Leyhe, 149 quarters. Sent to Wolvesey 50 quarters. In the bishop’s provender (prebenda) at High Clere 7 quarters. In provender for two carthorses at High Clere 10 quarters per year 12 quarters.2 In provender for 2 carthorses at High Clere 10 quarters. [‘at High Clere 10, quarters’ is crossed out and ‘per annum 12 quarters. In provender for 2 carthorses at High Clere’ is superimposed instead]. In sustenance of oxen, cows, calves in winter, by estimate, 31 quarters. Sent to High Clere 28 quarters. Sold, as noted above, 146 quarters. Notes to translation

1. Wheat: there is a discrepancy of 4 bushels between the Total-in as given (241 qr. 2 bushel) and the Total-out as counted (240 qr. 6 bushel) Barley: there is a discrepancy of 4 bushels between the Total-in as given (10½ qr.) and the Total-out as counted (11 qr.) 2. Second-grade grain separated from the main quantity.

Late medieval agricultural procedures: the sources

89

When discussing medieval agriculture in terms of documentary evidence, it is unfortunately necessary to present the discussion in the form of what is certainly a false dichotomy: that of demesne and peasant economies. This is inevitable since we know infinitely more about the activities of great landlords whose practices, policies, and fortunes can be followed from year to year in the astonishingly detailed series of manorial accounts produced by the officials on the spot – the reeves and bailiffs – for the central administration. No similar documentation originating with the peasantry or lesser landlords does, of course, exist and relatively little, therefore, can be said with certainty, in terms of direct evidence, about their activities. This duality and imbalance of presentation is therefore an unavoidable feature of all studies of medieval agriculture and the only way of avoiding it here would be to say as little about demesne agriculture as can be said about peasant agriculture – which would clearly be an absurd form of remedy. Like all scholars writing on the subject I must, therefore, be forgiven for discussing demesne cultivation, and peasant cultivation, of field crops separately and at vastly disproportionate length. Contrary to the opinion occasionally met with,5 Hampshire was not a pastoral county but one of typical medieval mixed farming in which arable cultivation played a crucial and dominant role. Three cereal crops, wheat, spring barley (hereafter referred to as barley), and oats seem to have been grown regularly everywhere, but on a number of manors a fourth cereal crop, variously referred to as mancorn, mixtilio, bere, beremancorn, or winter barley (ordeum hiemale) was also regularly grown in substantial quantities (Tables 6.1–6.2). The first two terms, mancorn and mixtilio, can be met with in the Winchester accounts throughout the whole period under consideration although they predominate in the first half of the thirteenth century; bere and beremancorn do not appear before 1252 but, once they do, they tend in most cases to displace the earlier terms completely. One is thus faced with a twofold problem: what is the precise nature of the crops so designated, and is the change from mancorn to bere around 1250 a real change in the crops grown or merely an instance of an old term going out of fashion and being replaced by a new one. But before discussing this problem it would, perhaps, be useful for the benefit of readers none too familiar with the structure of manorial accounts, to digress briefly on the various contexts in which information relevant to the identification of these crops is usually to be found. The main source of information is, of course, the grange account, that is, that part of the manorial account in which all movements of corn or grain are recorded, crop by crop. Separate listing in this section of the account must by definition represent different crops. But the same quantities of the same corn or grain are also frequently mentioned more than once in different parts of the account; most of the time they are so mentioned under the same designation but, occasionally, they are recorded under different designations, thus suggesting (although not necessarily proving conclusively) that alternative terms for the same kind or corn, or grain, were in use concurrently. Thus, for example, grain recorded as sold in the grange account was also recorded in the income section of the account under sale of grain. Grain recorded as received at the mills (exitus molendini) was also recorded under sales (venditio bladi molendini). Grain recorded as bought in the expenditure section of the account was also recorded in the grange account as one of the incoming entries, and if it was bought explicitly as seed it would also correspond with the quantities sown. Payments in kind to customary tenants reaping in the autumn were recorded both in the grange account and 5

Hallam 1972, 215.

90

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

in the autumn expenses.Yet another instance of such double recording, particularly frequent in the early thirteenth century, occurred when corn or grain from one manor was delivered at another, with the same quantity of the same corn or grain being entered in the accounts of the receiving and the sending manor respectively. The double recording of the same quantities of the same corn or grain sometimes also spans two account rolls. This is due to the fact that the medieval manorial account, which ran from Michaelmas to Michaelmas (29 September), ended with the harvesting and began with the harvested crops as its starting capital. Thus, the sowing and the gathering in of each crop is recorded in one account roll while the quantities harvested are recorded in another. Similarly, it was frequently the practice in the early thirteenth century, after the account has been closed, to invest some of the cash balance (which otherwise would have been paid into the central treasury) in the purchase of next year’s seed, the transaction being recorded as an excuse for the non-delivery of the corresponding amount of cash.The same quantity of grain and the same expenditure were of course formally entered among the expenses in the following year’s account roll. It is all these types of double recording that offer us some guidance towards the unravelling of the mancorn/ bere/beremancorn problem. Unfortunately, although such clues are plentiful they are also at times openly contradictory, so that no foolproof conclusions can be drawn. Nevertheless, examination of all such entries makes some conclusions possible. TERMINOLOGY Broadly speaking, there can be little doubt that late in the thirteenth century bere equals beremancorn and that these terms indicate winter barley. The documents, when they do not speak of winter barley explicitly, use the terms bere and beremancorn interchangeably with it, and there can be little doubt also that mancorn at that time (i.e. about 1250), is normally short for beremancorn. No such certainty, however, attaches to the early use of the term mancorn, and, in spite of the occasional explicit identification of mancorn with winter barley in the early years of the thirteenth century, the case for accepting such an equation generally is far from convincing. On the other hand, the early equation of mancorn with mixtilio is widely attested and should, perhaps, be accepted. What, then, is the early thirteenth-century mancorn? To start with, etymologically the word mancorn is a corruption of the Anglo-Saxon mongcorn, meaning mixed corn.6 The impression that the early thirteenth-century mancorn was a mixed corn is also strengthened by the fact that in the early Winchester accounts the term mancorn is sometimes equated with mixtilio, a word quite clearly denoting a mixture. If mancorn, then, was a mixture, what was it a mixture of? Outside Hampshire, on the more northerly manors of the bishopric, mixtilio (with which mancorn is sometimes explicitly equated) was usually a mixture of wheat and rye; in Hampshire, where rye appears to have been grown very rarely, if at all (at least on the demesnes) and where the term mancorn was later on replaced by bere/beremancorn, it was probably a mixture of wheat and winter barley. But this is, of course, largely a guess since there are virtually no instances of mancorn 6

I am indebted to Professor K. Cameron for this information.

Terminology

91

actually being mixed for the sowing (as is frequently the case with drage); it was always either bought for seed as mancorn or sown from the manorially grown supply of mancorn. The only exception to this statement is the entry for Ashmansworth in the 1236/7 account roll in which the sowing recorded in the grange account under the heading, Mancorn, consisted of 10 quarters and 2 bushels of mancorn, 5 bushels of wheat, and 4 quarters and 2 bushels of inferior wheat (curallum).7 There is also an interesting entry at Woodhay in the 1219/20 account roll8 excusing the poor harvest of wheat ‘because the greater part of wheat came up as mancorn,’ which seems to imply that an admixture of wheat was not an unexpected constituent of mancorn. It is true that there are occasional references identifying early thirteenth-century mancorn with winter barley. At Crawley mancorn is consistently so identified from as early as 1211,9 and there are also three entries at Hambledon, in 1237, 1246, and 1247,10 which appear to equate mancorn with winter barley. But against this evidence there is a conclusive entry at Twyford in 1249 indicating that mancorn and winter barley were two distinct crops (since they are listed side-by-side in the grange account as two separate entities) and other entries for the same manor in 1232, 1245, and 1246, strongly implying the same thing.11 I therefore tend to the conclusion, in spite of the references from Crawley and Hambledon, that the early thirteenth-century mancorn was a mixed corn, probably wheat and winter barley, although one cannot completely rule out the possibility that it might in some places have been a mixture of wheat and rye, particularly when it appears to be equated with mixtilio. Something of the sort seems to be implied in the entry from High Clere where two independent entities, both called mancorn, appear side-by-side in the grange account of 1219/20,12 one of which corresponds to the previous year’s sowing of a mixture of 4 quarters of rye and 2 bushels of wheat and the other to the usual sowing of mancorn.The significant point is that the entry corresponding to the explicitly mixed sowing was subsequently amended to mixtilio, clearly indicating that the mancorn normally grown on that manor was not a mixture of wheat and rye but something else. This brings me to the second part of the problem centred on the cluster of apparently related terms: mancorn, bere, and beremancorn. If it is accepted that the early thirteenth-century references to mancorn indicate a mixture of wheat and winter barley, does the general replacement, after about 1250, of the term mancorn in the account rolls of the bishopric of Winchester by bere or beremancorn indicate the abandonment of the cultivation of the mixture of wheat and winter barley in favour of winter barley alone? Or, was there no real discontinuity of practice with the same mixed corn merely appearing under a new terminological guise? As already indicated, the terms bere or beremancorn do not appear in the Winchester accounts before 1252, although in some cases their appearance was preceded by a short spell of explicit winter barley entries, with which crop they are apparently soon afterwards equated in various types of double entries. Such entries become very much more common in the late thirteenth century while, at the same time, examples of the apparent interchangeability of the terms bere HRO, 11M59/B1/17. HRO, 11M59/B1/8: ‘quia maxima pars frumenti crevit in mancornum.’ 9 HRO, 11M59/B1/2.

7 8

HRO, 11M59/B1/17, 11M59/B1/19, and 20 respectively. 11 HRO, 11M59/B1/22, 11M59/B1/14, 11M59/B1/18, 1 and 11M59/B1/19 respectively. 12 HRO, 11M59/B1/8. 10

92

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350 TABLE 6.1 Hampshire manors of the bishopric of Winchester: relative importance of the main crops by period with acreages Key: sp. = sporadic; ins. = insignificant Position relative to wheat = 1

  Fareham Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Bitterne Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Waltham Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Twyford2 Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Stoke Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Meon Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor

Percentage share of total acreage

1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24

1325–49

  1.00 0.25 0.88       1.00 sp. ins. 0.65 1.32       1.00 0.27 1.00       1.00 sp. ins. 0.72 1.39       1.00 0.23 0.78       1.00 sp. 0.35 1.25    

1.00 0.40 0.97       1.00 1.07 1.07       1.00 0.38 1.13       1.00 0.44 0.81       1.00 0.36 0.53       1.00 0.35 1.94    

  1.00 0.47 1.07       1.00 0.83 0.93       1.00 sp. ins. 0.32 1.02       1.00 sp. 0.80 1.13       1.00 0.46 1.14       1.00 0.54 1.91    

  1.00 sp. ins. 0.35 1.06       1.00 1.02 1.02       1.00 0.12 0.39 1.20       1.00 sp. 0.55 1.08       1.00 0.37 1.47       1.00 0.34 2.30    

  1.00 0.27 0.84       1.00 0.96 1.15       1.00 0.19 0.89       1.00 0.39 0.96       1.00 0.29 0.86       1.00 0.17 1.58    

1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24 1325–49

 

  46.04 11.45 40.37 2.14     31.80 sp. ins. 20.52 41.89 5.79     43.83 11.86 43.85 0.46     31.97 sp. ins. 22.97 44.39 0.67     49.51 11.60 38.42 0.47     38.26 sp. 13.35 47.67 0.72  

  36.64 17.22 39.17 6.97     33.87 28.02 31.45 6.66     40.35 sp. ins. 12.83 41.21 5.61     31.45 sp. 25.07 35.55 7.93     36.58 16.86 41.56 5.00     28.95 15.51 55.30 0.24  

  36.02 sp. ins. 12.48 38.00 13.50     28.34 29.40 29.64 12.02     34.02 3.98 13.15 40.89 7.96     34.32 sp. 18.74 37.11 9.83     30.32 11.33 44.56 13.79     27.24 9.13 62.65 0.98  

  40.68 10.92 34.00 14.40     27.21 sp. ins. 26.05 31.30 15.44     45.73 8.55 40.87 4.85     38.11 14.71 36.55 10.63     40.36 11.66 34.62 13.36     36.26 6.21 57.43 0.10  

  38.54 15.37 37.27 8.82     27.74 29.70 29.66 12.90     37.43 14.21 42.39 5.98     39.06 17.31 31.58 12.05     43.04 15.59 23.00 18.37     29.76 10.51 57.80 1.93  

93

THE CEREAL CROPS

Average acreage1 (first three years – period average – last three years) 1209–37

132

127

20 111

32 110

-

1245–70 153

116

108

110

107

41 119

55 116

51 116

45 108

41 126

276 8 12 36

26 sp. ins. 17 31

295

183.5 0 132 255

29

26

23 32

27 32

30 34

23 31

26 29

27.5 28 28 29

240 73 256

59 15 49

68 26 66

71 237

219.5 sp. 73 274 576

62 23 82

63 29 71

219 209 60 21 131 142 264.5 265

75 343

213 192 99.5 103 303 366 662

24 75

26 68

28

22 18 13 sp. ins. 31 21 17 14.5 28 25 21.5 21

143 34 144

194 0 90 197

47 30 76

50.5 28 78

51.5 54 19 13 76 77

192 83 479

168 72 445

157 147 52.5 42 360.5 266 576

20 45

14

15

15 15

15 15

71 27 80

347

189 122.5 55 126

65 47 15 13 49.5 44

42 6 28

173 150.5 150 31 30 60 284 325 314 488

152 67 123

67.5 34 87.5

153 49 96

389

149 183 37 310

21 52

52

531

170

57

158 153 72 30 22.5 21 143 143 102.5

170 199 190 93.5 81 74 190 195 161

70 9 53

53

144

79

146 114 17 17 24 56.5 176 114

211 214 115 225

57.5 29 67

30

615

171 265

32 99

422

688

124.55

192

201 19 90 201

557 216 343 172 228

74

93

242 225 166 35 sp. ins. 72 61 71.5 205 230 240

225 181 ins. 2.5 121 144 284.5 217

88

221

35

107.5

1325–49

111

286

36

574 535 145 365

103 115 sp. ins. 36 21 109 106

30

506 172 0 122 216

1300–24

32

80 205.5 221 56 61 176.5 222.5

1271–99

37 13.5 20

38 8.5 21

87 141 50 273.5 473

144 46.5 243

94

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350 TABLE 6.1 (cont.) Position relative to wheat = 1

  Hambledon Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Alresford Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Beauworth Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Cheriton Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Sutton Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Wield Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor

1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24   1.00 0.39 0.82 1.77       1.00 0.677 0.95 1.36       1.00 ins. 0.26 0.93       1.00 0.19 0.43 1.21       1.00 0.308 0.57 1.27       1.00 sp. 0.14 1.27    

  1.00 0.34 1.00 2.25       1.00 1.07 1.03       1.00 ins. 0.59 2.13       1.00 ins. 0.93 1.70       1.00 0.98 1.41       1.00 0.46 1.30    

  1.00 0.11 0.74 2.00       1.00 1.04 1.56       1.00 0.38 2.25       1.00 sp. ins. 0.54 1.24       1.00 0.62 1.85       1.00 sp. ins. 0.27 1.47    

  1.00 sp. 0.49 2.05       1.00 0.87 1.25       1.00 0.29 1.64       1.00 sp. ins. 0.46 1.06       1.00 sp. ins. 0.44 1.56       1.00 ins. 0.24 1.24    

Percentage share of total acreage 1325–49

1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24 1325–49

  1.00 0.62 1.61       1.00 sp. 0.97 1.22       1.00 0.36 1.48       1.00 ins. 0.44 1.21       1.00 sp. ins. 0.39 1.25       1.00 ins. 0.24 1.54    

  25.01 9.72 20.59 44.14 0.54     24.97 16.617 23.64 33.87 0.91     43.27 ins. 11.38 40.23 5.12     35.05 6.61 15.06 42.42 0.86     31.49 9.59 18.06 40.10 0.76     37.61 8.93 5.45 47.61 0.40  

  20.67 6.99 20.57 46.44 5.33     31.29 33.45 32.26 3.00     25.90 ins. 15.40 55.22 3.48     26.45 2.63 24.54 44.96 1.42     28.92 28.47 40.78 1.83     35.21 16.25 45.70 2.84  

  24.32 2.64 17.99 48.47 6.58     25.84 26.95 40.33 6.88     26.64 10.03 59.92 3.41     34.14 1.25 18.40 42.22 3.99     27.27 17.02 50.33 5.38     34.68 sp. ins. 9.39 50.90 5.03  

  26.63 sp. 12.93 54.63 5.81     29.26 25.49 36.55 8.70     32.27 9.36 52.86 5.51     35.34 2.48 16.23 37.59 8.36     29.68 ins. 13.15 46.39 10.78     34.91 5.71 8.28 43.16 7.94  

  29.11 18.03 46.94 5.92     26.74 2.15 26.04 32.49 12.54     32.69 11.72 48.51 7.08     33.95 2.46 14.81 41.00 7.78     32.26 2.33 13.39 42.89 7.13     31.67 4.56 7.55 48.91 7.31  

95

THE CEREAL CROPS

Average acreage1 (first three years – period average – last three years) 1209–37

54 21 40 79

56 21.5 42 96

1245–70 76 29 32 120

57 14 33 121

217

66 69 49 86.5

68.5 43 65 93.5

52.5 4 12 51

56 5 17 53

118 23 52 143

58.5 10 26.5 65

36 0 25 54

86 25 51.5 109

128 91 33 13 73 83 164.5 148

89 8 74 111

30.5 ins. 18 65

91 9 84 155

75.5 62 77 61 103 87

90 92 87.5 sp. ins.10 14 14 24.5 46 103 103 104

221

255 51 0 65 77

40 0 51 87

30 0 9 95

26 11 67

174

73 7.5 34 126

65 0 31 135

43.5 48 6 45 38 68 60

26.5 10 60

95 7 61 178

98 6.5 64 125

95 0 51 118

54 5 42.5 63

46 42 101

54 34 100

25.5 9 53.5

116 12 39 105

56 26.5 839

199 47 11 78

44

12 67

40.5 34 sp. ins. 11 9.5 59.5 50 116

61.5 55 5 46 31.5 32 133 144

58.5 29 94

54 47 67

24 7 63

86 3 37 91

45 0 26 81

35 10 57

55.5 36 94

40 47 62

52 0 39 59

49 ins. 48 60

41 9 60

29.5 9 44

32 11.5 48 98

100 107.5 78 7 10 7 46 39 35.5 106 101 109

78 6 34 94

283

229 60 57 7.5 25 25 92 76

192 40 44 48 4 7 9 9.5 10.5 10 54 54.5 53 126

51 0 47 60

184

109

57 ins. 25 89

0 39 90

201

184

279 54 36 91

1325–49

244

100

213.5 62.5 2911 8111

1300–24

165

343

273 85 21 6 107

292.5

118

339 117 22 42 124

62 76 46 124

229

130.5 116 25 47 136

68 60.5 66 20.5 21 14.5 60 72 74 136 168.5 149

71 86 72 9.5 0 73.5 82.5 77 107 80 74

268

1271–99

57 sp. ins. 22 72

35 11 34

80 2.5 38 80

44 24 78

167 31 4 7 53

36 5 9 57 116

40.5 5 12 61

96

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350 TABLE 6.1 (cont.) Position relative to wheat = 1 1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24

Crawley Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Mardon Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Bentley Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Burghclere Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor High Clere Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Ecchinswell Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor

Percentage share of total acreage 1325–49

1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24 1325–49

1.00 1.03 1.13 2.76

1.00 0.40 1.76 2.81

1.00 0.22 1.48 2.35

1.00 1.11 1.72

1.00 0.99 1.23

16.62 17.17 18.73 45.87 1.61

16.34 6.54 28.78 45.88 2.46

18.57 4.00 27.43 43.69 6.31

23.20 25.72 39.95 11.13

25.55 25.17 31.47 17.81

1.00 0.2115 0.26 0.79

1.00 0.20 0.76

1.00 0.12 0.61

1.00 0.17 0.70

1.00 0.22 0.78

44.34 9.18 11.48 34.81 0.19

50.58 10.17 38.62 0.63

55.24 6.85 33.81 4.10

49.46 8.22 34.56 7.76

46.62 10.22 36.16 7.00

1.00 ins. 0.94

1.00 ins. 0.91

1.00 ins. 1.04

1.00 ins. ins. 0.76

1.00 ins. 0.89

49.24 4.39 46.17 0.20

49.69 3.93 45.12 1.26

45.58 4.29 47.29 2.84

52.66 2.55 2.45 44.00 2.30

46.04 2.84 44.13 9.99

1.00 0.40 sp. ins. 1.18

1.00 0.34 0.16 1.32

1.00 0.30 0.12 0.99

1.00 0.24 0.11 1.07

1.00 0.16 0.13 1.01

38.10 15.34 sp. ins. 45.03 1.53

34.98 11.82 5.55 46.16 1.49

41.27 12.18 4.88 41.06 0.61

40.48 9.68 4.53 43.27 2.04

41.25 6.76 5.17 41.54 5.28

1.00 1.59 0.22 1.94

1.00 1.45 0.54 2.32

1.00 1.44 0.66 2.13

1.00 1.41 0.72 1.85

1.00 0.72 0.59 0.95

20.91 33.24 4.66 40.60 0.59

17.78 25.80 9.60 41.24 5.58

18.63 26.78 12.25 39.71 2.63

20.03 28.19 14.41 37.15 3.22

29.43 21.20 17.42 28.08 3.87

1.00 0.23 sp. 0.78

1.00 0.16 0.28 1.02

1.00 0.19 0.20 0.82

1.00 0.20 0.18 0.99

1.00 0.18 0.20 0.94

47.48 10.71 3.84 36.81 1.16

38.96 6.12 10.80 39.89 4.23

44.83 6.95 8.93 36.94 2.35

41.22 8.18 7.31 40.64 2.65

41.80 7.40 8.25 39.40 3.15

97

THE CEREAL CROPS

Average acreage1 (first three years – period average – last three years) 1209–37

62 77 78 171

62 67 71 168

1245–70 7712 60 6412 38 9712 84 17612 124

370 12113

155

2913 7813

36 135

96.5 8.5 90

219

243 35.5 38 254 141

95 8 83

365

70 17.5 7 58 155

248 260 38.5 49 191 174

88.5 89 4 7 85 81

141 6518 13 204

101.5 7 90

135 132 45.5 57 21 23 178 194

32 32 28 60 48.5 46 17 13.5 9 73 72 58

82 11.5 84

110 9419 24 119

31 45 23.5 49

29 45 19 57

68.5 70 12 11 13 19 90 71 179

61.5 63 69 70 137 109

31014 35014 38.5 31 190 193

71 18 17 72

85 6 25 80.5

81 5 76

84 ins. 4 64 159

127 43 16 128

129 119 123 30.5 25.5 29 12 15 14 125 142 130

311

303

170

55.5 59 85

19 25 12 39

20 19 29 26 12 13 34 42.5

153 37.5 123

66 13 10 62

58 12 10 57 141

66 57.5 70

155 40 120

170.5 28 100

332 88 2 56

74.5 3 92.5

76 5 68

71 3 48

165

113 25 15 95

99 13 8.5 117

110 18 14 110.5

106 18.5 16 110

266

17.5 16.5 21 14 13.5 9 27 28

91 64 13 8.5 61

54 53.5 67 213

35314 231 206 31 36 37 195 154 137

177

75 12 17 62

68 63 83

453

81 82 7.5 6 84 75

23 33 15 46

1325–49

272

117

179.5 80 19 13 72

63 15 65 116

56116

385

134 72 sp.20 021 39

220 44 168

59 13 90 142

1300–24

324

180

157 131.5 138.5 6817 48 26 0 4 sp. ins. 211 91.5 166

24 44 7 56.5

67 10 127 200

436

195

23.5 44 10 30

56.5 53 23 36 99 109 158.5 190 345

35413 97 11 93.5

1271–99

22 15.5 13 21

22 16 15 17

73

55 13 11 52

52 8 11 55

52.5 9 10 49.5 124

51 10 12 49.5

98

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350 TABLE 6.1 (cont.) Position relative to wheat = 1 1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24

  Ashmansworth Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Woodhay25 Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor Overton Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor North Waltham Wheat Mancorn/Winter barley Barley Oats The rest Total average for manor

  1.00 0.88 ins. 1.92       1.00 0.82 ins. 1.77       1.00 4.46 1.45 4.87       1.00 1.65 0.48 3.03    

  1.00 2.54 0.58 3.41       1.00 1.11 0.24 1.73       1.00 1.16 0.99 2.66       1.00 0.95 0.79 1.95    

  1.00 1.70 0.64 2.04       1.00 0.64 0.24 1.10       1.00 1.37 0.90 3.11       1.00 1.45 0.77 2.90    

All acres are measured acres; figures in italic represent conversions from customary acres. 2 The conversion from customary acres probably underestimates considerably the real acreages. 3 Including Marwell. 4 Insignificant to 1253; average 1253–70: 54 acres. 5 None after 1288. 6 Sporadic sowing. 7 Very substantial to 1219; none after 1237. 1

Percentage share of total acreage

  1.00 1.41 0.75 1.76       1.00 0.53 0.36 1.38       1.00 0.82 0.82 2.00       1.00 1.29 0.42 2.79    

 

1325–49

1209–37 1245–70 1271–99 1300–24 1325–49

  1.00 0.58 0.69 0.96       1.00 0.82 0.41 1.36       1.00 0.48 0.75 1.18       1.00 0.87 0.62 2.48  

  25.30 22.34 3.85 48.51     27.02 22.27 2.53 47.77 0.41     8.45 37.70 12.25 41.19 0.41     16.13 26.54 7.73 48.86 0.74

  13.20 33.55 7.67 45.07 0.51     24.23 26.78 5.91 41.94 1.14     16.60 19.30 16.46 44.18 3.46     20.89 19.83 16.48 40.70 2.10  

  18.47 31.39 11.84 37.68 0.62     33.23 21.33 7.91 36.55 1.00     15.00 20.56 13.51 46.59 4.34     15.91 23.08 12.26 46.09 2.66  

  20.11 28.37 15.13 35.49 0.90     30.10 15.83 10.74 41.41 1.92     20.34 16.76 16.77 40.62 5.51     17.42 22.39 7.25 48.56 4.38  

  29.82 17.31 20.60 28.60 3.67     26.54 21.81 10.90 36.12 4.63     27.15 12.92 20.47 32.10 7.36     18.81 16.38 11.58 46.73 6.50  

 

Substantial to 1227. The last two years only; the third year, though available, is quite atypical. Between 30 and 15 acres when sown. 11 The last four years are converted from customary acres. 12 Of which one year is converted from customary acres. 13 The coefficient of conversion I have used could be too low for this period. 14 There is a problem concerning these figures; they are said to be sicut jacent but appear to be per perch, and I have so counted them. 15 Substantial to 1227, insignificant thereafter. 8 9

10

and beremancorn are met with on literally countless occasions. In spite of all this, I am somewhat reluctant to regard the widespread replacement in our documents of mancorn by bere or beremancorn as indicative of the abandonment of the cultivation of the mixture of wheat and winter barley in favour of winter barley alone. The reason for this reluctance is that I am not entirely convinced that bere and beremancorn are in fact a pure corn, untainted by any admixture, even when they appear to be explicitly equated with winter barley. The very name beremancorn

99

Terminology

Average acreage1 (first three years – period average – last three years) 1209–37

19 32 3 42

4022 35 6 78

1245–70 28 67 10 93

18 69 13 94

2923 71 16 96

160 39 30 3 49

58.5 49 6 104

25.5 97 33 112

75 56 72 66 8 11 130.5 129

63 69 15 109

38 62 18 119

25 81 17 86

46 91 46 141

50 72.5 37 145

57 66 56 151

71 82 10 100

38 43 39 41 29.5 34 97 84

240

22 41 13 47

14 18.5 11.5 27

55 36 14 60

67 56 23 80

16 35 14 46

42 25 11 48

47 30 17 72

166 74 77 61 171

49 49.5 53 146

342 29 52 20 152

1300–24

124

259

264 32 48 21 116

47.5 86 19 87.5

212

218.5 19 112 36 86

1271–99

39 35 34 90

205

78

50 26.5 18 68

39 17 17 27

29 25 11 44

32 37 14 87

29 37 12 75

35 29 14.5 48

20 12 14 24

39 31.5 17.5 52

132

41.5 21 36.5 52

44 19 37 65

58 28 44 69

64 26 49 71

215

26 20.5 24 22 9 9 64.5 56

165

18026

All entries between 1283 and 1286 are converted from seed. Substantial to 1219 and in 1226. 18 Sporadic substantial sowing: e.g. 126 acres in 1247, 123 acres in 1268; usually about 23 acres. 19 High acreage about every third year – at the expense of wheat. 20 Sporadic to 1219 (low – about 12 acres when present). 21 None to 1218; thereafter about 9 acres on average. 22 Rye sown in 1224, 1226, and 1232 – with corresponding reduction in wheat.

101

209

2926 22 4226 44 2226 8 83.526 85.5

17

23 13.5 16 22

38 42 44 35 35.5 35 117 86

4426 44 6126 67 4026 28 13726 134

16

20 22.5 20 2924 17.5 25 18 15 14 36 32 44

166

29626 47 39.5 39 91

1325–49

25 22 15 62

26 20 19 65

133

None in some years in the 1240s; otherwise high and low years alternate more or less. 24 Unusually high acreages in 1302, 1303, 1307, and 1308; declining steadily after 1309. 25 Including Widehaia Tornes from 1218 onwards. 26 Between 1292 and 1302 acres are said to be sicut jacent but there are reasons to accept them as being per perch; accordingly they have not been converted. 23

implies a mixed corn and there are occasional references (admittedly very rare) where it can be shown to have been a mixture. For example, in the 1285/6 grange account for Mardon13 the sowing under bere consisted of 4 quarters and 2 bushels of bere mixed with 2 quarters of inferior wheat (curallum), and in the 1299/1300 grange account for Fareham14 the sowing under bere consisted 13

HRO, 11M59/B1/45.

14

HRO, 11M59/B1/56.

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

100

TABLE 6.2

Hampshire manors: relative importance of the main crops for the bishopric and cathedral priory estates as a whole in selected years1 (as a percentage of total acreage for that year) Wheat

Rye

Bishopric Priory

Bishopric Priory

Date 1211

% 34.8

%

1248

31.2

27.3

1283

33.0

24.5

1299

35.6

23.6

1325

34.4

28.4

% virtually none virtually none none virtually none none

Mancorn/bere

%

Bishopric Priory

Barley

Drage

Bishopric Priory

% 11.1

%

% 11.7

%

none

5.4

7.62

18.6

21.3

none

5.6

10.1

13.8

21.5

none

5.3

9.3

11.1

25.4

none

3.0

6.2

12.0

24.0

Oats

Bishopric Priory % none virtually none virtually none virtually none virtually none

%

Legumes

Bishopric Priory % 42.1

%

none

41.9

virtually none 1.3 1.6

Bishopric Priory

Wheat + barley + oats Bishopric Priory

%

% 88.6

%

42.3

% virtually none 2.5

1.5

91.7

90.9

43.4

39.0

4.0

4.5

90.2

85.0

41.5

33.2

5.6

7.3

88.2

82.2

44.8

30.6

5.5

9.2

91.2

83.0

23 manors of the bishopric. 12 manors only for the cathedral priory; eight in my own transcript and four from the transcripts deposited at the Institute of Historical Research in London by J. S. Drew. 2 It is really only three manors (Hurstbourne, Chilbolton and, to a lesser extent, Whitchurch) which are responsible for this relatively high proportion of bere. 1

of 5 quarters and 4 bushels of bere mixed with 2 quarters of wheat; in both cases the produce in the following account roll was recorded simply as bere.There are also occasional references (again, admittedly very rare) when bere and beremancorn are clearly regarded as two distinct crops, with beremancorn being a mixture of wheat and bere, and bere being, presumably, pure winter barley. Thus, for example, on the cathedral priory’s manors of Whitchurch in 1283 and Hurstbourne in 1311 bere and beremancorn were accounted for in the grange account as two distinct entities, with beremancorn in the latter case explicitly representing a mixture of wheat and bere. Perhaps the best way of resolving the difficulties and reconciling the apparent inconsistencies surrounding the terms mancorn, bere, and beremancorn is to postulate that mancorn was originally a mixed corn and that gradually (either on the grounds of dietary preferences or practical considerations in terms of their cultivation) a preference for unadulterated winter barley set in. As it was grown in progressively purer and purer form, the term bere would have gained widespread adoption, while the tainted origin (and perhaps up to a point the actual condition) of the crop surfaced time and again in the documents in the frequent extensions of bere to beremancorn which, once the element of admixture became negligible, was regarded, for all practical purposes, as pure winter barley. In addition to the four crops grown regularly – wheat, barley, and oats everywhere and mancorn, bere, beremancorn, or winter barley, on some manors only – two other crops were also grown on the demesnes of the bishopric of Winchester and the priory, sporadically, and usually in insignificant quantities (Table 6.3a–b). These were rye and drage.Very little needs to be said about them here. Rye, if grown at all, is usually to be found in the early thirteenth century and drage (a mixture of barley and oats) in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Of the twenty-three manors of the bishopric located in Hampshire rye seems never to have been grown (i.e. it does not appear in any of the surviving accounts) although it may have been grown sporadically in some of the years for which the documents are missing on thirteen of them and drage on three, but this should by no means be taken as implying that of the two drage was the more important crop. If anything, the contrary is probably true. Both drage and rye, if grown at all, were grown sporadically (frequently once or twice only in the whole period under consideration) and when present both were usually grown in insignificant quantities although, on some manors, the acreage

101

The CEREAL CROPS

under rye could on occasions be substantial.15 The twelve manors of the priory for which I have the data strongly confirm the impression obtained from the documents of the bishopric of the relative unimportance in Hampshire (amounting to virtual absence) of these two crops. Rye does not seem to have been grown at all on the demesnes of these twelve manors and drage was only grown with any semblance of regularity on two of them and only after 1299. In addition to cereal crops, leguminous crops (beans, peas, and vetches) were also grown in the fields but they were absent from virtually all the manors of the bishopric at the beginning of the thirteenth century and, throughout the century, were grown only sporadically and in insignificant quantities. It was only towards the very end of the century or, in some cases, even well into the fourteenth century, that beans, peas, and vetches became a regular field crop grown everywhere in significant quantities. The position on the manors of the priory seems to have been broadly the same. TABLE 6.3a Bishopric manors in Hampshire: distribution of the irregularly grown crops Manor

Rye

Mancorn/Bere/ordeum hiemale

Drage

Fareham

1225: insignificant 1271: insignificant 1297–1306: slight

Slight throughout 1263–85: bere or ordeum hiemale

1283–1302: slight

Bitterne

1209–26: insignificant, intermittent None grown 1259: insignificant 1297–1313: insignificant

1284–1300: slight 1331: insignificant 1348: insignificant

Waltham

1266: insignificant

Slight throughout 1220: mancorn 1257: mancorn 1258–1300: bere or ordeum hiemale

1263–9: slight 1287–93: slight 1327: insignificant

Twyford with Marwell

None grown

Slight throughout 1263–9: mancorn or ordeum hiemale 1271–89: ordeum hiemale

1246–9 slight 1290: slight 1310–13: significant

Stoke

1214: insignificant 1246: insignificant 1253: insignificant 1263: insignificant 1265–95: slight, intermittent

Slight throughout 1232–33: mancorn 1265: ordeum hiemale 1266: bere

1283: insignificant 1331: insignificant

Meon

None grown

Slight throughout 1222–37: mancorn 1293–1300: bere

1298: slight

Meon church

None grown

1298–1303: bere, substantial

None grown

Hambledon

None grown

Substantial 1209–46: mancorn 1247–69: ordeum hiemale 1271–85: bere Slight or insignificant 1292–1300: ordeum hiemale 1306–19: bere

1293: insignificant

For example, Ashmansworth in 1224, 1226, and 1232, or High Clere in 1252 and 1253: HRO, 11M59/B1/10, 11M59/ B1/12, 11M59/B1/14, 11M59/B1/23, and 11M59/B1/24 respectively. 15

102

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350 TABLE 6.3a (cont.)

Manor

Rye

Mancorn/Bere/ordeum hiemale

Drage

Alresford

None grown

Substantial 1209–19: mancorn 1224–37: mancorn Slight: 1265–6: bere 1332–49: bere

1293–1302: insignificant

Beauworth

None grown

Slight throughout 1209–37: mancorn 1252–4: ordeum hiemale 1255: mancorn 1265–6: bere 1273–4: bere 1293: bere 1302: mixtilio 1321: bere 1327: bere 1332–5: bere

1341: insignificant

Cheriton

None grown

Substantial 1209–37: mancorn Slight throughout 1245–63: ordeum hiemale 1265–76: bere 1292–1303: bere 1311–48: bere

1338–49: slight

Sutton

None grown

Substantial 1209–37: mancorn Slight 1255–7: ordeum hiemale 1265–6: bere 1292–3: ordeum hiemale 1311–27: bere 133–49: bere

1307–9: insignificant

Wield

None grown

Substantial 1209–37: mancorn Slight throughout Sporadic between 1246 and 1303: bere or ordeum hiemale 1306–49: bere

1348: insignificant

Crawley

None grown

Substantial 1209–46: mancorn or ordeum hiemale 1247–1302: ordeum hiemale Insignificant 1335–7: bere

1246–7: insignificant 1297–1300: substantial

Mardon

1219–20: insignificant

1209–37: mancorn, very substantial to c.1227 1286–8: bere, insignificant

None grown

Bentley

None grown

1301–27: ordeum hiemale or bere, slight

1338: slight 1341–2: insignificant

103

The CEREAL CROPS Manor

Rye

Mancorn/Bere/ordeum hiemale

Drage

Burghclere1

1311: slight 1314: slight 1317–8: slight

Substantial and regular throughout 1209–53: mancorn or mixtilio 1254–1349: bere or beremancorn

1249: slight 1317–29: slight

High Clere1

1252–3: substantial

Substantial and regular throughout 1209–49: mancorn or mixtilio 1252–1349: bere or beremancorn

1220: slight 1325–6: slight

Ecchinswell1

1225: slight 1227: slight 1232: slight 1248–9: slight 1253–4: slight

Substantial and regular throughout 1209–49: mancorn or mixtilio 1252–1349: bere or beremancorn

1236–7: insignificant 1284: insignificant 1327: insignificant

Ashmansworth1

1224: substantial 1226: substantial 1232: substantial 1247: slight

Substantial and regular throughout 1209–49: mancorn or mixtilio 1252–1349: bere or beremancorn

1325–28: insignificant

Woodhay1

1221: insignificant 1224: insignificant 1227: insignificant 1236: insignificant 1245: insignificant

Substantial and regular throughout 1209–52: mancorn or mixtilio 1253–1349: bere or beremancorn

1318–33: insignificant

Overton2

None grown

Substantial and regular throughout 1209–54: mancorn 1255–77: ordeum hiemale 1283–1349: bere or beremancorn

1237: slight 1269–78: slight 1316–7: slight 1327–31: slight

North Waltham2

None grown

Substantial and regular throughout 1209–54: mancorn 1255–7: ordeum hiemale 1283–1349: bere or beremancorn

None grown

1 2

Same bailiwick. Same bailiwick.

TABLE 6.3b

Cathedral priory manors in Hampshire:1 distribution of the irregularly grown crops Manor

Rye

Mancorn/Bere/Ordeum hiemale

Drage

Barton Chilbolton

None None

Regular and substantial to c.1316, slight thereafter Regular and substantial, declining after 1311

Crondall

None

Easton Houghton

None None

Mixtilio and bere present side-by-side, both regular and both insignificant Sporadic between 1267 and i299, slight 1283: slight 1299: slight 1325: slight

1307: slight Regular and substantial from 1299 onwards, none before None

Hurstbourne

None

Regular and very substantial

Littleton

None

Regular to c.1332 but none thereafter; slight

1267: substantial 1316: slight

1283: substantial 1299: slight 1307: slight

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

104

TABLE 6.3b (cont.) Manor

Rye

Mancorn/Bere/Ordeum hiemale

Drage

Michelmersh

None

Regular from c.1283 but none before, slight

1316: slight 1318: slight 1325: slight

Silkstead

None

1276: substantial 1321: slight 1334: substantial

1307–29: slight

Sutton

None

Regular, slight

None

Whitchurch

None

Regular and substantial

1316: insignificant

Wonston

None

Regular to c.1309 but none thereafter, slight

Sporadic between 1299 and 1335; slight

The gaps in this series are very considerable so the isolated instances of the cultivation of certain crops recorded below may underestimate the true extent of their cultivation. 1

THE CEREAL CROPS Taking the twenty-three manors of the bishopric as a whole and allowing for changes over time (of which more later) cultivation of wheat accounted for some 30–35 per cent of the total demesne acreage, of barley for some 12–15 per cent, of mancorn or bere for 6–10 per cent, of oats for some 40–45 per cent, and of legumes, towards the end of the thirteenth century but not before, for some 5 per cent. The relative position of the individual manors taken singly could, of course, be quite different. On the manors of the priory wheat and oats accounted for a somewhat lower proportion of total acreage than on the manors of the bishopric, and barley and mancorn or bere, particularly the former, for a somewhat higher proportion. The relative position, in terms of their respective acreages, as between different cereal crops, varied considerably from manor to manor but it seems possible to distinguish certain broad patterns of cultivation. Bearing in mind that on most manors only three crops were grown regularly, although some had four, these patterns were as follows. 1. Three crops about equal: Bitterne. 2. Two major crops and one (or two) minor crops: Bentley, Burghclere, Ecchinswell, Fareham, Stoke,Twyford, and Waltham. In all these cases the major crops were invariably wheat and oats and the minor crop was invariably barley or, on four-crop manors, barley and mancorn or bere. On the manor of Bentley the acreage under barley was so insignificant that it did almost constitute a two-crop manor. 3. One dominant crop: Alresford,16 Ashmansworth, Beauworth, Cheriton, Crawley, Hambledon, High Clere, Mardon, Meon, Meon church, North Waltham, Overton, Sutton, Wield, and Woodhay. 16

Alresford is the least clear-cut case in this category being nearer, at times, to the three-crops-about-equal pattern.

The cereal crops

105

Structurally, this category overlaps somewhat with the preceding group since more manors in it are of the two-major-one-minor-crop, or two- major-two-minor-crops variety, but I have regarded them as a distinct pattern because they all share the same common feature, namely, that of the two major crops one is very much more important than the other, sometimes even being more important than all the other crops put together. On all these manors, with the solitary exception of Mardon, the dominant crop was oats; at Mardon it was wheat, sometimes sown unusually thinly. This somewhat rough schematic presentation brings out clearly the widespread imbalance in Hampshire demesne agriculture, with oats appearing as the dominant crop and wheat a close, or not so close, runner-up. The dominant position of oats, visible also, though to a lesser extent, on the manors of the priory, must surely reflect the substantial presence of relatively poor soils in Hampshire and the considerable extent of early thirteenth-century reclamation which was frequently associated with an extension in the cultivation of oats. The importance of wheat must represent a conscious effort to produce as much as was possible of the main cash crop of the period. On the twelve manors of the priory for which I have the data, the pattern was somewhat different. No single crop dominated the scene to the same extent as on the manors of the bishopric, the number of manors with a more or less even distribution of crops was greater (four manors as against one for the bishopric),17 and barley was generally a much more important crop. Although oats invariably figures among the major crops, it was the dominant crop on one manor only (Whitchurch) and wheat was not always the second most important crop; it was so at Crondall, Sutton, Michelmersh, and Whitchurch but it was surpassed in importance by bere at Hurstbourne and by barley at Chilbolton, Houghton, and Wonston. What can be said about the crops grown by the peasantry? In particular, how far did peasant cultivation diverge, both in type of crops grown and their relative proportions, from those grown on the demesne? Unfortunately, no satisfactory answer can be given. The difficulty is one of the almost total absence of any data on peasant cultivation capable of statistical treatment. Only two types of sources allow us to do something of the sort and both are less useful than would appear at first sight; these are receipts at the mills and tithe accounts. Receipts at the mills (exitus molendini, or molendinorum) form that section of the manorial account rolls which records grain received by the manorial mills in payment for grinding (Table 6.4). The main advantage of this source of information is that records of the mills are relatively plentiful; however, the limitations of this source as a guide to the cultivation of field crops by the peasantry are considerable and obvious. Firstly, there is no knowing where the grain ground by the mills came from. Some of it may have been brought in by traders and some may have been manorial grain ground for the use of manorial officials or visitors. Nevertheless, the assumption that the bulk of it represents peasant grain must, I think, be accepted as valid.18 Secondly, and much

17 Barton, Easton, Littleton, Silkstead, and after c.1320 also Whitchurch. The fact that some of the grain ground by the mills may have been manorial grain presents no practical problem since it is virtually certain that the landlord would not have paid for having his own grain ground and thus records of the grain received at the mills in payment for their services would not be in the least affected. 18

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

106

TABLE 6.4 Hampshire manors of the bishopric of Winchester: receipts at the mills (in quarters) Fareham1 Year 1220 1221 1224 1225 1226 1227 1232 1233 1236 1237 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1252 1253 1254 1290 1291 1292 1293 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1306 1307

}

No. of mills

not stated, probably 3 throughout

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 25 25 3 3 3 3 3 3

Wheat 6.125 6.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.375 3.0 5.25 3.5 3.75 8.125 8.125 7.625 6.875 4.375 4.5625 4.9375 4.375 4.5 4.5 4.3125 4.125 2.875 1.3125 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.125 2.75 2.0 2.125

Mancorn/mixtilio2 117.25 96.5 93.25 78.25 75.75 80.75 75.25 79.75 63.75 65.15 69.5 72.0 70.0 73.0 63.375 44.625 42.253 48.754 23.75 24.25 22.8125 22.625 14.3125 7.125 11.0 14.0 20.0 21.125 25.875 -

Barley

Grout

15.25 14.688

6.0 7.0 9.5 7.75 7.5 6.625 5.25 4.875 3.875 4.5 10.75 10.375 8.75 7.625 6.75 7.5 8.0 10.875 5.9375 6.25 4.875 4.875 2.0 1.5625 4.875 6.5 11.5 11.25 8.875 8.9375 6.75

Gruel 7.25 7.0 4.0 8.75 7.0 7.0 3.5 1.75 1.875 1.625 1.5 1.625 1.875 1.375 1.4375 0.3125 0.375 0.0625 0.125 0.125 0.125 -

Malt 18.0 14.0 20.0 20.5 14.5 13.5 13.5 10.25 10.25 10.5 17.5 16.125 13.25 13.25 12.125 13.125 11.5 14.625 9.9375 2.125 8.75 7.875 9.1875 4.6875 9.0 12.75 17.25 19.0 14.9375 10.375 8.875

Total 154.625 130.5 134.75 122.25 112.75 116.25 100.5 100.125 83.125 85.875 107.5 108.125 101.25 102.625 88.0 71.25 67.0 79.0 43.8125 37.25 40.875 39.625 28.375 14.6875 27.875 36.75 52.75 55.5 52.4375 36.5625 32.4375

Both periods include all the years for which documents survive. Mancorn to 1287: mixtilio from 1288. 3 Barley in the ‘sales of grain from the mills’: possibly because mancorn was a mixture involving winter barley? 4 Of which, one mill’s contribution is called barley (5 quarters 7 bushels). All entries are recorded as barley in the sales of grain from the mills. 5 One of the mills was out of action for two years. 1 2

Bitterne Year 1248 1249 1252 1253 1254 1290

No. of mills Mill constructed 1 1 1 1 1

Wheat

Mancorn/mixtilio1

Barley

Grout

Gruel

19.5 32.25 42.25 29.875 4.125

44.375 49.375 53.125 -

25.25 19.625

2.75

0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25

Malt

Total

3.0 5.0 3.375 6.25 5.875

47.752 81.875 95.5 89.75 32.625

107

The cereal crops Bitterne Year 1291 1292 1293 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1306 1307

No. of mills Wheat No account for Bitterne 1 14.75 1 14.25 1 12.125 1 7.625 1 8.75 1 8.75 1 6.75 1 1.875 1 4 1 3.25 1 3.125 1 2

Mancorn/mixtilio1

Barley

Grout

Gruel

-

18.625 21.15 14.5 15.375 20.625 21.0 17.375 19.75 29.0 20.0 15.75

2.25 2.25 2.4375 1.125 2.375 2.0 2.0 2.125 4.375 1.375 1.375

0.25 0.1875 0.125 0.375 0.125 0.125 0.1875 0.125 0.125 -

Malt

Total

4.5 5.25 3.25 2.625 5.5 4.0 4.25 4.875 10.125 2.625 4.875

40.375 43.1875 32.4375 27.125 37.375 35.875 30.5625 28.75 47.625 27.25 25.125

Gruel

Malt

Total

0.5 1.0 0.375 1.0 4.75 1.75 2.0 1.0 12.0 12.3125 1.0 1.0625 1.125 0.75 0.875 1.0 1.0 1.125 0.875 1.125 1.25 0.8125 0.5 0.75 0.875 1.0 1.5 0.1875 0.875

23.875 102.5 21.0 82.75 15.0 77.875 13.5 71.375 18.25 82.5 17.0 84.875 11.5 86.25 11.0 94.25 19.75 87.625 18.5 99.9375 15.0 92.375 13.25 73.5625 15.25 81.5 9.0 60.75 10.25 55.625 12.5 53.625 13.5 37.625 12.0 34.4375 8.25 28.625 11.875 33.125 11.875 38.0 9.125 30.4375 11.125 35.375 11.5 36.5 13.0 41.25 13.5 43.5625 13.125 39.75 7.0 24.4375 6.625 24.75

Mancorn to 1287: mixtilio from 1288. The mill appears to have been working for part of the year only.

Waltham Year 1220 1221 1224 1225 1226 1227 1232 1233 1236 1237 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1252 1253 1254 1290 1291 1292 1293 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1306 1307

No. of mills Mills farmes out Mills farmes out Probably 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Wheat

14.625 6.75 7.5 6.125 7.5 12.875 10.0 12.875 8.375 7.625 7.5 5.5 7.0 8.5 7.5 7.5 0.75 0.1875 0.625 0.5 1.0 1.375 2.25 2.27 3.625 2.5 2.25 2.75 2.125

Mancorn/mixtilio1

63.5 54.0 55.0 50.75 52.0 53.25 57.25 60.125 47.5 61.5 60.25 45.125 50.125 97.5 31.625 26.0 20.75 16.875 9.875 11.625

1 Mancorn to 1258 (or 1257); mixtilio from 1302 onwards.

Barley

17.0 16.0 15.0 14.625 19.0 15.125 16.5 16.0 18.0 -

Grout

5.5 9.25 8.625 8.625 8.0 5.0 5.375 6.625 5.375 5.125 3.875 5.0 4.875 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.75 5.8125 6.0 4.625 3.5

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

108

TABLE 6.4 (cont.)

Twyford Year No. of mills Wheat 1220 2 1.0 1221 2 1.5 1224 2 8.5 1225 21 1.125 1226 3 1.5 1227 3 0.25 1232 3 1.0 1233 3 1.375 1236 3 0.75 1237 3 0.875 1245 3, Farmed out 1246 3, Farmed out 1247 3 0.4375 1248 3 0.875 1249 3 0.5625 1252 3 0.875 1253 3 0.875 1254 3 1.5 1290 3 0.5 1291 No account for Twyford 1292 3 0.375 1293 3 0.375 1297 3 0.375 1298 3 0.5 1299 3 0.75 1300 32 0.375 1301 2 1302 2 1303 2 1306 2 1307 2

1



2

Mancorn/mixtilio 96.875 87.375 84.875 71.75 53.0 52.75 66.125 69.875 -

Barley

Grout

58.25 57.125

-

39.625 38.875 47.125 49.0625 55.8125 58.625 12.0

0.125 -

-

9.5 9.4375 21.125 22.25 15.875 18.75 20.25 18.375 20.0 15.0 13.375

-

A new mill was constructed this year; it may have operated for a part of this year. One of the mills was destroyed by floods about 2nd February.

Gruel 8.0 4.25 1.625 22.125 1.75 17.25 3.0 1.125 1.25 0.875

0.625 1.375 0.75 0.375 0.8125 0.625 -

Malt 4.375 0.75 1.5 1.375 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.75 1.125

Total 110.25 93.875 96.5 96.375 56.75 70.75 71.125 72.875 62.0 60.0

1.5 2.375 1.125 0.5625 3.0625 5.375 -

42.1875 43.5 49.5625 50.875 60.6875 66.125 12.5

-

9.875 9.8125 21.5 22.75 16.625 19.125 20.25 18.375 20.0 15.0 13.375

109

The cereal crops

Alresford Year 1220 1221 1224 1225 1226 1227 1232 1233 1236 1237 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1252 1253 1254 1290 1291 1292 1293 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1306 1307 1 2 3

No. of mills Wheat Mancorn/mixtilio Farmed out Mill operating for 1 term only 1 2.75 1 3.0 34.5 1 2.25 27.625 1 1.375 19.25 1 5.125 19.5 1 2.25 30.375 1 2.25 1 2.0 13 1.75 2 2.75 2 2.625 2 2.0 2 3.25 2 2.375 2 3.1875 1, The new mill was farmed out

Barley

Grout

Gruel

Malt

Total

33.375 30.5 26.25 15.625 28.875 31.0 28.75 27.625 34.75 39.125

5.5 11.875 8.875 8.875 15.0 15.125 8.875 8.625 10.625 9.875

0.375 0.875 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.125 0.125 0.25 1.875

6.8751 3.875 5.125 6.875 8.5 8.75 10.75 7.875 7.375 17.625 13.375 15.25 12.6875

43.375 42.25 35.5 28.0 30.125 45.0 50.625 46.3752 43.25 54.75 49.875 48.375 52.875 63.25 66.75

17.5 13.0 21.125 20.0 20.125 18.375 15.5 14.5 10.625

48.75 35.75 50.25 52.5 56.75 51.125 40.625 32.625 26.875

}

The town Mill (molendinum Burgi) was farmed out

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1.25 2.0 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.5 1.125 1.0 0.875

-

30.0 20.75 27.75 31.125 35.25 31.25 24.0 17.125 15.375

-

-

Grout in the issue of the mill; malt in the sales of grain from the mill. Entered here as malt which seems more likely. The mill was damaged for part of the year. A new mill was constructed this year; it may have been operating for part of this year.

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

110

TABLE 6.4 (cont.) Burghclere  Year No. of mills 1220 New mill 1221 1 1224 1225 1226 Farmed out 1227 1232 1233 1 1236 1 1237 1 1245 1 1246 1 1247 1 1248 1 1249 1 1252 1 1253 1 1254 1 1290 1 1291 1 1292 1 1293 1 1297 1 1298 1 1299 1 1300 1 1301 1 1302 1 1303 1 1306 1 1307 1, Farmed out

Wheat

Mancorn/mixtilio1

Barley

Grout

Gruel

Malt

Total 46.125 15.875 15.0 13.875 19.5 (?) 27.625 27.25 18.375 21.875 12.1253 26.75 33.5 21.25 18.625 21.75 18.5 19.563 21.125 25.125 26.063 27.813 24.0 21.875 16.875

1.375

41.75

3.0

1.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.625 0.5 0.75 0.625 0.75 0.4375 0.5 0.875 0.5625 0.6875 0.25 0.375 1.625

14.252 14.25 13.25 16.875 23.875 24.375 15.125 18.125 10.5 22.125 27.0 17.0 15.375 15.875 14.375 15.254 16.125 19.625 22.125 23.125 19.75 19.125 13.3755

0.5 0.375 0.125 2.0 3.0 2.125 2.75 3.0 1.625 4.0 6.0 3.5 3.25 5.25 3.375 3.875 4.5 4.625 3.375 4.0 4.0 2.375 1.875

Mancorn to 1258, beremancorn 1263 (or 1265) to 1268, mixtilio afterwards. Mixtilio. 3 The mill seems to have been operating for part of the year only, due to rebuilding. 4 5 Bere. Tollcorn. 1 2

Summaries Manor

Fareham Bitterne Waltham Twyford Alresford Burghclere Overton

No. of mills

3 12 2 2 before 1225, 3 afterwards 2 from 1245 1 2 from 1252, 3 from 1268

Date of peak receipts

c.1220 c.1253 c.1224 c.1224 c.1253 c.1221 c.1258

Receipts at the mill in quarters x161 Peak amount of grain ground

Lowest receipts

2472 1610 1640 1544 1068 738 1194

519 402 396 344 430 270 536

Date of the 2nd lowest figure

1307 1307 1307 1297 1307 1306 1306

1 There are no clues in the Winchester evidence itself as to the rate charged on the manors of the bishopric, but the usual rate seems to have been 1/16th from the villeins and 1/20th from the free peasants. In this table I have multiplied by 16 the quantities actually received at the mill in payment for grinding so as to obtain the approximate total quantity of grain ground. 2 The mill was constructed in 1248.

111

The cereal crops

Overton Year 1220 1221 1224 1225 1226 1227 1232 1233 1236 1237 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1252 1253 1254 1290 1291 1292 1293 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1306 1307

1



2



3

No. of mills Wheat Mancorn/mixtilio1 1 1.25 28.625 1 31.0 1 1.125 30.25 1 0.75 22.0 1 0.625 19.25 1 0.375 17.75 1 0.75 27.25 1 25.0 1.0 1 0.75 29.0 Account damaged 1 1.125 28.0 1 1.0 32.0 1 0.75 29.5 1 1.0 31.0 1 1.0 34.0 2 1.25 43.25 2 2.125 39.125 2 1.5 49.125 3 7.1875 34.4375 3 6.8125 30.875 3 6.625 30.375 3 6.75 25.0 3 5.25 28.0 3 4.6875 29.5 3 4.9375 37.53 3 3.4375 45.53 3 46.03 3.0 Two of the three mills farmed out 3 5.0 48.5 3 4.125 4.8125 Farmed out

Barley

Grout

Gruel

Malt

6.3125 6.1875 7.5 7.3125 4.5 5.125 6.5 6.0 5.5

0.375 0.375 0.3125 1.25 1.125 1.5 1.5 3.625 3.75 2.25 1.75 2.0 2.5 2.375 2.8 2.5

21.5 14.0 20.25 20.75 19.25 24.0 24.25 18.0 19.0 20.25 20.75 21.5

Total 29.875 31.0 31.375 23.125 20.25 18.25 28.5 26.5 30.25 29.5 33.375 30.25 32.313 36.25 67.125 56.75 72.375 72.313 66.875 70.75 65.063 57.75 60.813 71.563 78.438 78.5

6.5 4.375

2.0 -

29.38 20.19

91.375 33.5

0.3752 0.375 0.125 0.5 0.5 0.5

Mancorn to 1258; mixtilio from 1263 onwards. Oats flour (farina avene) to 1236; gruel afterwards. Tollcorn.

more importantly, grain received at the mills bears no determinable relation to total production. Some crops would have never reached the mill at all, or only in very small quantities, being sold, or consumed, as grain. This seems to have been generally the case with wheat and oats, the former being recorded at the mills in very small quantities, the latter equally so, if at all, and then only in connection with malting. Thus, absence of certain crops from the receipts of the mills does not in any way indicate that they were not cultivated and the quantities recorded may be totally unrepresentative of the quantities actually produced. In this sense, the records of the mills are probably more significant for their dietary implications. If the assumption is valid that what

112

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

was being ground at the mills represents mainly what was being consumed locally, then it would appear that the rural population ate virtually no wheaten bread while, at the same time, the growing proportion of grain ground for malting testifies to the spread of brewing. The records of the mills can, none the less, be very useful in one rather limited way. In the early thirteenth century, and on some manors throughout the century, the main crop recorded at the mills was universally mancorn or mixtilio, and this frequently occurs on the manors where it was not grown at all on the demesne. I have not come across a single statement as to the rate of payment for grinding corn on the Winchester manors but the usual rate for villeins seems to have been one-sixteenth of the total.19 When the recorded quantities of grain received at the mills in payment for the services rendered are multiplied by sixteen the very large amounts actually ground testify to a very extensive cultivation of that crop by the peasantry. Among the Hampshire manors of the bishopric, seven manors maintained manorial mills, with grain received regularly recorded, and on all of them the quantities involved were very substantial.The seven were:Alresford, Bitterne, Burghclere, Fareham, Overton,Twyford, and Waltham.All of them had substantial receipts of mancorn, or mixtilio, even though on four of them, Bitterne, Fareham, Twyford, and Waltham, it was not grown on the demesne. Mancorn or mixtilio is also frequently present as the main corn received at the mills outside Hampshire. This suggests most strongly that mancorn or mixtilio was an important peasant crop, widely cultivated, irrespective of whether it was grown on the demesnes or not. One particular feature of the receipts at the mills (strongly reminiscent of the mancorn/bere/ winter barley problem on the demesnes) is the total and abrupt change from mancorn or mixtilio to barley which occurs on all the manors with mills, although at different dates on different manors.The simple thing to do would be to accept this information at its face value but it is difficult to escape a lingering suspicion that things are not as they appear. For the curious feature of the situation is the abruptness and the totality of this apparent switch from one crop to the other; the two crops are never present side-by-side, it is invariably either one or the other, and yet it does seem strange that all the many cultivators involved in peasant agriculture on a given manor would, literally, overnight change from one crop to another in such complete unison.At Fareham it was mancorn or mixtilio to 1303 and barley from the next extant account, that of 1306.20 At Bitterne the last account to mention mancorn is that of 1269 and the next extant account, that of 1271, talks of barley.21 At Waltham the last account to mention mancorn is that of 1257 or 1258;22 from the next extant account, that of 1263, to 1301 it is barley and in 1302 the records revert to mixtilio.23 At Twyford it is mancorn to 1233 and barley from the next extant account, that of 1236, onwards.24 At Burghclere it is mancorn or mixtilio, until the mills are farmed out in 1307, and this is also the only manor ever to mention beremancorn in the receipts at the mills.25 At Overton it is mancorn or mixtilio throughout. At Alresford there is a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing between the two terms, or crops; it is mancorn in 1211 (followed by a period of Bennett 1965, 133; also Titow 1969, 152. HRO, 11M59/B1/59 and 11M59/B1/61. 21 HRO, 11M59/B1/33 and 11M59/B1/35. 22 HRO, 11M59/B1/27 or 11M59/B1/28. Receipts at the mills record barley in 1258 but sales of grain from the mills record it as mancorn, so perhaps mancorn is correct with the series of barley entries beginning with the next extant account, that of 1263. 19 20

HRO, 11M59/B1/29, 11M59/B1/57, and 11M59/ B1/58 respectively. 24 HRO, 11M59/B1/14 and 11M59/B1/16. 25 HRO, 11M59/B1/62. Beremancorn is mentioned between 1263 and 1268; it was also grown on the demesne at the time. 23

Tithes

113

farming out), barley in 1221 and 1224, mancorn from 1225 to 1233, barley from 1236 to 1285, mancorn again from 1287 to 1297, and finally barley again from 1297 onwards.26 All this does look rather suspicious. None the less, suspicious though it may look, it is difficult to believe that the accounting officials who, after all, knew perfectly well what was going on, would have talked of different crops unless different crops were in fact involved. It does seem significant in this context that the problem is not one of a change from mancorn or mixtilio to bere or winter barley – as was the case with demesne cultivation – but from mancorn or mixtilio to the usually quite unambiguous term barley (unqualified by the adjective winter) which always seems to denote spring barley. It could also, perhaps, be significant that at Bitterne in 127327 the main item recorded among the receipts at the mills is described as ‘barley and mancorn’, thus, perhaps, indicating that the two terms were meant to signify different crops; if not a clerical error, this entry is also our only instance of the two crops being received at the mill concurrently. If the change from mancorn, or mixtilio, to barley is accepted at its face value, then it would appear that the peasantry too was abandoning its earlier preference for a mixed winter crop in favour of spring barley, but on this point I find it difficult to come to any clear conclusion. There is one other important feature of the mill accounts which needs to be mentioned; on all the Hampshire manors with mills there was a striking decline in total receipts at the mills between the early thirteenth century and the early fourteenth century. But there can be little doubt that this drastic decline had nothing to do with the contraction of peasant arable cultivation or with declining productivity; far from contracting, arable land in the hands of the peasantry was expanding considerably in the course of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries through assarting and renting out of portions of their demesnes by the landlords. As to falling productivity, although it was quite likely to have occurred – since it is present on the demesnes – it could not have possibly been on the scale comparable to the decline in the receipts at the mills. The real explanation must have been the one actually once given in the accounts themselves: increased competition from the proliferation of mills in the period of the manorial high farming.28 TITHES The second major source of information directly concerned with peasant agriculture is the records of tithes. Since tithes were collected from everybody, everywhere, and on every crop grown, they should, theoretically, provide an excellent source of information on peasant arable farming. Unfortunately, such records are extremely rare. Among the accounts of the bishopric of Winchester there are only seven places – one of them outside Hampshire – for which grain received at the church is recorded, and I know of no such accounts among the records of the priory of Winchester. In five of these seven places (including the one outside Hampshire) such records exist only as a single isolated instance, and only in two of them was grain so received recorded regularly. HRO, 11M59/B1/2, 11M59/B1/9, 11M59/B1/10, 11M59/B1/11-15, 11M59/B1/16-44, 11M59/B1/46-53, and 511M59/B1/54 respectively. 27 HRO, 11M59/B1/37. 28 HRO, 11M59/B1/16 (Fareham): [receipts less than before] quia plura molendina erecta sunt de novo que non solebant esse. 26

114

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

The four isolated Hampshire entries are those for Cheriton church in 1221,29 Calbourne church and Newchurch church, the latter on the Isle of Wight, both in 1233,30 and Alresford church in 1249.31 Of these, the entries for Calbourne church and Cheriton church do not mention tithes explicitly and the grain recorded appears to be totally, or largely, the produce of the church demesne. At Newchurch church the grain received seems to be tithe but the quantities recorded are very small and must represent a very small catchment area. At Alresford church the grain received is explicitly stated to be tithe and the quantities are substantial. Thus, the four isolated Hampshire entries which at first sight appear to provide information on peasant agriculture may in practice be reduced to one good entry. The two Hampshire churches at which grain received as tithe was recorded regularly are Meon church and Hambledon church, and it is rather regrettable that the two places are in such close geographical proximity as to constitute, for all practical purposes, a single locality (Table 6.5). Of the two places with tithes regularly recorded, the series for Hambledon is much better (Illus. 6.3). Meon church had a small demesne of its own and it is not until 126932 that the produce of its demesne is separated from the tithes; moreover, after 1320 the tithes were either farmed out or sold in grosso and the quantities received are not stated. The effective coverage provided by the series is thus 1269 to 1320.The records of the tithes received at Meon church also include the three chapels (capellae) of Froxfield, Stupe, and Ocsete, but these, although always given separately from the rest, were, most of the time, farmed out or sold in grosso and thus are of little value as a guide to what was being grown. Hambledon church had no demesne of its own and the grain recorded in its accounts came exclusively from tithes. Up to 1245 it was delivered at Meon church – though it was separately recorded as Hambledon grain – but from 1246 it was recorded under its own heading within, or immediately following, the account for Hambledon manor. Records of the tithes collected at Hambledon are thus available from 1224 onwards with a short gap between 1321 and 1334 when they were farmed out or sold in grosso. Apart from their great rarity, tithe records have also one serious intrinsic limitation on their usefulness as a guide to what was being grown by the peasantry.While the records of such payments must be regarded as conclusive evidence of the type of crops grown by those who paid for them, they are of limited use as an indicator of the relative importance of different crops in peasant agriculture, particularly in the context of secular change. This is so because tithe records do not specify acreages involved and, therefore, all that can be deduced from them with certainty is whether the various crops represented were grown on a substantial or insignificant scale. No exact comparison, however, can be made.This is particularly frustrating whenever a good series of tithe payments is available – as in the case of Hambledon – since without acreages it is virtually impossible to account satisfactorily for the fluctuations in total production, particularly for the changes in the total volume of production of different crops relative to one another (Table 6.6). Such fluctuations could be due to a variety of causes including changes in the total area in cultivation, changes in the relative position of different crops, differences in the quality of individual harvests in different years

29 31

HRO, 11M59/B1/9. HRO, 11M59/B1/22.

30 32

HRO, 11M59/B1/15. HRO, 11M59/B1/33.

115

Tithes TABLE 6.5 Estimates of total peasant production based on the tithe figures at Hambledon church and Meon church (decadal averages in quarters)1 Decade

Wheat

Mancorn/ Winter barley

Barley

Oats

Total Legumes Cereals only

Hambledon church (tithe less 1/9 demesne produce x 10)  1220–9 585 (2) 181 (2) 893 (3) 1230–9 378 84 1094 1240–9 (5) 405 89 902 1250–9 (5) 412 90 520 1260–9 (5) 449 66 629 1270–9 (7) 322 43 566 1280–9 (6) 727 68 410 1290–9 (6) 1300–9 668 (7) 61 (7) 443(8) 551 49 463 1310–19(9)2 1321–34 769 90 694 1335–9 (5) 833 42 942 1340–8 (9)

1120 (4) 15 (4) 2779 in grosso 855 83 2411 767 54 2163 589 1611 c.106 573 1717 c.79 469 81 1400 639 68 1844 105 (8) 1812 640 (8) 642 96 1711 in grosso 632 159 2185 791 175 2528

Meon church (tithe x 10) 1270–9 (7) 1280–9 (7) 1290–9 (7) 1300–9 (8) 1310–19(8)4

1149 566 604 588 511

802 594 547 660 661

3

37 48 82 46

879 380 290 309 335

60 96 60 108 114

In brackets, number of years going into each average. 625 42 532 633 126 1310–14 (5) 353 45 308 574 40 1315–17 (3) 3 In 1270, 20 quarters have been disregarded; none was produced in the remaining years of the decade. 4 1310–14 (4) 787 52 451 604 162 1315–17 (7)  330 19 163 349 29

Total Cereals and legumes 2794 in grosso 2494 2217 c.1717 c.1796 1481 1912 1917 1807 in grosso 2344 2703

2830 1577 1489 1639 1553

2890 1673 1549 1747 1667

1832 1280

1958 1320

1894 861

2056 890

1

2

and between different crops, and long-term changes in the fertility of the soil.Without acreages it is quite impossible to determine which of these factors, singly or in combination, were responsible for the recorded changes in the volume of production. One other relatively minor practical problem must be mentioned. Is the grain received as tithe to be regarded as including, or excluding, the tithe of the demesne of the parent manor? On the manors with small demesnes the problem is of no great significance but on manors with large demesnes, particularly manors whose arable farming was dominated by a single crop, the inclusion of demesne tithes in tithe records could seriously distort the true character of peasant cultivation unless the element of demesne production was first removed from the recorded totals. This, of course, can easily be done by dividing the total produce of the demesne by nine and subtracting the result from the total value of the tithes.

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

116

TABLE 6.6 Annual fluctuations in total produce of peasant land based on the tithe figures at Hambledon church and Meon church (index figures based on tithes, quantities in quarters)

100 = 1270–7

1223 1224 1225 1226 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1251 1252 1253

Hambledon church Wheat

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Tithe x 10

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Mancorn / Winter barley Tithe x 10

449 qr.

170

90

-

-

106

56

81

84

95 133

-

62

525 qr.

164

92

-

-

102

59

82

85

97 126

-

66

66 qr.

359 189

-

-

159 177 104

27 165 194

-

80

76.5 qr.

340 203

-

-

157 170 112

72 157 183

-

157

-

125 168 198 171 208 141

-

129

-

112 150 170 153 186 126

-

114

629 qr.

137 145 144

786 qr.

127 132 137

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Tithe x 10

573 qr.

184 212 229 156 138

115 174 170 149 149

-

55

838 qr.

153 171 180 136 125 109 152 150 143 129

-

76

Tithe x 10

802 qr.

Mancorn / Winter barley Tithe x 10

62 qr.

Barley Oats

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Tithe x 10

Meon church Wheat

Barley

Tithe x 10

879 qr.

Oats

Tithe x 10

1149 qr.

100 = 1270–7

1291 1292 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1305 1306 1307 1308

Hambledon church

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Tithe x 10

449 525 66 76.5 629 786 573 838

qr. qr. qr. qr. qr. qr. qr. qr.

155 151 53 46 73 65 106 105

187 170 63 65 78 71 109 101

Wheat

Tithe x10

802 qr.

66

69

85

85

51

Mancorn / Winter barley

Tithe x10

62 qr.

52

48

99

89

81 133 266 240 224

73

Barley

Tithe x10

879 qr.

22

35

43

26

31

37

44

44

41

Oats

Tithe x10

1149 qr.

36

26

54

89

69

57

62

56

60

Wheat

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Tithe x 10

Mancorn / Winter barley

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Tithe x 10

Barley

Tithe less 1/9 of demesne x 10 Tithe x 10

Oats

163 144 187 137 167 114 - 184 163 144 119 162 144 185 125 161 115 - 172 151 137 113 61 72 131 237 76 114 - 98 49 106 101 62 75 131 209 65 98 - 85 42 92 99 59 42 54 84 51 88 - 62 72 69 70 57 40 54 75 51 80 81 57 62 64 67 133 71 135 115 114 140 - 87 73 125 116 119 72 120 107 110 120 139 72 70 108 112

Meon church*

*100 = 1270–7, except mancorn = 1296–7

70

77

82

80 106 101

65

66

56

36

81

32

23

35

34

47

41

57

51

117

Tithes

1254 1256 1257 1262 1264 1265 1267

1268 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1276 1277 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290

90

78

88

83

86

121

72

99

107

90

108

88

67

99

140

-

73

45

70

81

-

81

81

92

78

88

83

85

122

79

102

109

88

112

90

68

101 133

-

73

50

74

86

-

82

82 131

c.94 164 134 136 113 187

65

183

131

58

88

114

60

105 147

-

30

48

78

97

-

83

55

-

c.157 170 157 134 132 199 105

212

125

67

90

106

69

106 137

-

46

52

67

83

-

72

47

87

-

91

87

90

94

-

81

97

-

80

83

87

87

92

97 96 143

-

168 167 142 162 137 144

66

75

98

76

98

130

93

82

109 102

97

87

79

76

98

78

98

118 102

82

111 102

94

90

-

81

-

77

173 147 146 156 130 136

40

77

192

98

107

133 125 107

81

99

74

82

-

62

67 108

89

-

68

59

78

168 103

108

131 130

83

99

75

87

-

71

70 104

85

-

72

-

63

74

59

53 102 104

63

52

1309

103

88

85

32

95

83 138 120 0

0

0

79

90 103

0

0

0

-

101

48

60

81

58

36

36

40

83 110 112 104 116 106

82

69

-

55

67

36

44

26

35

40

37

68 118

59

84

-

77

55

45

44

37

46

41

37

17 102 114 107

1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1320 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348

150 145 98 85 65 60 77 79

111 106 79 77 78 75 141 120

147 120 168 137 58 66 101 171 118 173 214 170 137 131 160 129 58 70 109 170 114 159 202 181 43 34 88 75 64 63 78 147 100 161 125 189 46 39 83 72 59 59 73 145 87 139 108 163 84 91 97 74 62 42 42 92 66 98 107 109 80 83 90 71 60 42 44 89 62 88 98 102 146 89 98 79 133 106 61 155 84 136 138 101 126 84 85 77 114 90 61 125 73 110 110 85

81

69

99 101 104

89

42

21

60 143

69

81

79

83

113

73

70

34

15

44 160

71

29

47

54

53

51

46

26

12

18

45

24

37

59

64

46

61

39

29

27

35

55

38

208 195

72 185 170 197 148 219 187 219 155 192 70 176 156 182 140 208 177 203 143 180

169 145

41 35

72 146 62 126

57 49

97 83

89 77

6 5

66 57

38 33

0 0

108 129 110 157 152 144 164 134 172 161 155 101 117 103 142 141 129 148 125 151 144 141 97 80

80 63

92 146 151 137 157 74 115 114 111 123

98 148 143 127 79 117 115 106

118

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

a

b

c

d

Illus. 6.3 The bishop of Winchester’s manor of Hambledon: graphs showing the annual fluctuation in tithes, in quarters (index figures 100 = 1270–77): a, wheat (tithe less 1/9 x 10); b, mancorn/winter barley (tithe less 1/9 x 10); c, barley (tithe less 1/9 x 10); d, oats (tithe less 1/9 x 10).

Tithes

119

It is a well-documented fact that tithes were normally collected in sheaves33 at the time of harvesting and this is the reason why manorial records do not throw any light on the problem of who collected them and whether they were levied at all, since grange accounts record only the produce delivered at the barn or the granary. Normally, one would expect all land to be subject to tithe but great ecclesiastical landlords frequently were the owners of churches at which the tithe was in theory due and it then could be merely a matter of administrative convenience, or accounting practice, whether they would have been delivered at some independently accounted for collection point or retained on the manor from which they were due as an integral part of the produce of its demesne. There is one single piece of explicit evidence directly relevant to this problem among the records of the bishopric but unfortunately it seems to be contradicted by the figures themselves. All the surviving accounts for Meon manor in the 1230s (1232, 1233, 1236, and 1237)34 make it quite clear that in those years, for some unexplained reason, the tithe of the crops produced on the demesne was levied in grain and paid at Meon church together with other tithes of the neighbourhood. This would seem to establish the fact that demesne produce on the manors of the bishopric was liable to tithe and that the tithe of any given manor was payable – as one would expect – at the church associated with that manor.This interpretation, however, seems to be contradicted later by the recorded figures themselves. From the very first year in which the tithes received at Meon church are separately recorded (i.e. 1268) it is clear that oats received as tithe could not have included the tithe of the demesne of Meon manor since one-ninth of that manor’s production of oats was invariably greater than the total quantity of oats received as tithe at Meon church. Since it must be assumed that the tithe was levied on all crops or not at all, it would appear that some time between 1236 and 1269 the tithe of the demesne of Meon manor ceased to be delivered at Meon church. Furthermore, the very detailed enumerations of the various specific localities from which the tithe was due, which are given for some years of the fourteenth century when the tithes at Meon church were sold in grosso,35 do not seem to include the tithe of the demesne of Meon manor since they only mention the decime ville de Meon whereas the proper designation of the tithe of the demesne, according to normal usage, would have been decime Curie de Meon. There is no way of knowing whether the tithes received at Hambledon church included the tithe of the demesne of Hambledon manor, though I am inclined to think that they did.36 Fortunately, in the case of Hambledon church it does not make much difference either way since the demesne at Hambledon manor was rather small and the inclusion of the tithe on its produce among the recorded totals would not have resulted in any significant distortion of the true pattern of peasant cultivation. However, since it seemed more likely to me that the recorded tithes at Hambledon church included, rather than excluded, the produce of the demesne, I have based all my statistical presentations of Hambledon tithes on figures reduced by one-ninth of the total produce of the demesne of Hambledon manor. The evidence takes the form, primarily, of the absence of payments of tithe in grain in the manorial accounts and of the entries under the autumn expenses in the accounts of churches. 34 HRO, 11M59/B1/14-17 . 33

For example, 1326 and 1327: HRO, 11M59/B1/79 and 11M59/B1/80. 36 I am confirmed in this belief by the fact that whereas at Meon manor tithes of demesne lambs, cheese, and wool were no longer given after the 1230s, they were so given throughout the period at Hambledon manor. 35

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

120

TABLE 6.7 Early 13-century quantities of the main crops and legumes in the surviving tithe records. Date

Cereal crops

Legumes

Cheriton church Hambledon church

12211 12232 12243 12444

449 quarters, 5 bushels 340 quarters 310 quarters, 7 bushels 258 quarters, 2 bushels

1 quarter (peas) none 2 quarters (beans) 4 quarters, 2 bushels (beans and peas)

Calbourne church Newchurch church Alresford church Meon church

12335 12336 12497 12688

515 quarters 59 quarters, 2 bushels 181½ quarters 238 quarters, 5 bushels

20 quarters (beans, peas and vetches) 1½ quarters (beans) 3 quarters, 2 bushels (beans) 7 quarters, 3 bushels (beans and peas)

11M59/B1/9; the recorded totals appear to be predominantly, even perhaps totally, produce of its own demesne. 2 11M59/B1/10. 3 11M59/B1/11. 4 11M59/B1/18. 5 11M59/B1/15; the tithe and the produce of its own demesne cannot be separated. 6 11M59/B1/15. 7 11M59/B1/22. 8 11M59/B1/33. 1

Can any generalizations be made concerning peasant agriculture on the basis of tithe records contained in the accounts of the bishopric of Winchester? In spite of their great rarity and mostly fragmentary nature an affirmative answer can perhaps be hazarded since, in at least two respects, they all seem to agree. Rye is absent from all of them except for a totally insignificant quantity, possibly the product of a single croft, at Hambledon church and small quantities received at one of the chapels at Meon church. Equally striking is the virtual absence, in the first half of the thirteenth century, of leguminous crops (beans, peas, and vetches) in all the surviving accounts of churches except that of Calbourne church where a considerable quantity of legumes was recorded. However, since the records at Calbourne church do not distinguish between the produce of its own demesne and the tithes, and since Calbourne manor was rather unusual among the manors of the bishopric in that it grew a significant quantity of legumes on its demesne from the early thirteenth century onwards, the beans, peas, and vetches recorded at the church could represent demesne production. The figures for cereal crops and legumes for six manors with surviving records are shown in Table 6.7 (quantities received at the church).37 These figures tend to exaggerate the importance of the leguminous crops since beans, peas, and vetches were high-yielding crops in comparison with cereals, and figures of total produce exaggerate their relative importance in terms of acreages. The two church accounts which form a series, that for Meon church (1268–1320) and that for Hambledon church (1223–1349), indicate

Produce as recorded in church accounts; for the manors where it is certain that the recorded produce represents tithes exclusively, the quantities should be multiplied by ten to obtain the total quantity produced. 37

Tithes

121

clearly that legumes did not become at all significant in peasant cultivation until the end of the thirteenth century; in this respect there seems to have been no difference at all between peasant and demesne agriculture. In so far as the patterns of cultivation are concerned, the tithes received at Alresford in 1249 were dominated by barley. If the yields of the demesne for the same year can at all be used as a rough guide to peasant productivity, the relative position of the three major crops grown at Alresford by the peasantry, in terms of their respective acreages, would have been: Wheat: 1 acre Barley: 3½ acres Oats: 1 acre There is, of course, no way of knowing whether the position in 1249 was typical or atypical, whether this dominance of barley was maintained in later years, and whether it had any wider significance for this part of Hampshire. The position at Hambledon and Meon seems to have been different. On both these manors the peasantry grew substantial quantities of mancorn, or winter barley, although none was grown on the demesne of Meon manor. If conversion of tithes into acreages on the basis of demesne yields can at all be trusted, it would appear that on both these manors the peasantry grew wheat and oats as their major crops and barley and mancorn, or winter barley, as the minor ones, with barley clearly the more important of the two. The results obtained by this, not necessarily reliable, method seem more consistent for Meon than for Hambledon. At Meon the acreages so calculated are consistently very much higher for wheat and oats than for barley. At Hambledon, up to about 1270, the three crops frequently appear in the position of near equality and it is not until after 1270 that barley seems to have been relegated to a distinctly less important role while wheat appears to be gaining a clear ascendancy. However, since for some years, both before and after 1270, acreages calculated by this method give impossible results, there is no way of knowing how far this apparent shift in the relative importance of wheat and barley was real or illusory. For, while it is true that extreme fluctuations in the total volume of peasant production as represented by tithe payments invariably correspond to similar fluctuations on the demesne, there is no certainty whatsoever that specific yield levels would have necessarily been the same on peasant land and on demesne land; in fact, yields obtained on the demesnes of Meon manor, Meon church, and Hambledon manor are frequently known to have differed significantly in one and the same year, and the same must have been also true of peasant yields relative to demesne yields. Perhaps, because the demesne at Hambledon manor was rather small, and therefore better looked after than that at Meon manor, the divergence between peasant and demesne yields was greater at Hambledon than at Meon. But the real interest of the Hambledon, and to a lesser extent, the Meon series of tithe payments clearly resides in the light they could throw on the problem of secular changes in peasant cultivation. The position in terms of the total volume of production is, of course, quite clear unless the trustworthiness of the records themselves were to be called into question.What is most frustrating is our inability to convert total produce into respective acreages so that changes in the relative importance of different crops could be measured, but I have no doubt that the temptation to calculate such acreages on the basis of demesne yields must, in this context, be resisted.

122

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

In terms of overall production the most striking feature of the Hambledon series – supported for its central period by the Meon figures – is the very considerable reduction in the total volume of production during the years 1260 to 1320 and subsequent increase after about 1335 to about the pre-1260 levels. The figures for the overall production, however, do conceal significant differences in the behaviour of individual crops.The total of wheat appears to have been fairly stable to about 1290 but went up markedly afterwards.There was a very pronounced and progressive decline in the total production of barley from about 1250 to about 1320 but it was rising again from at least 1335 onwards. If the four figures available for the 1220s can be accepted as representative, then the total production of oats at the beginning of the thirteenth century would have been at a consistently higher level than subsequently and seems to have been gradually declining, particularly between about 1265 and 1290. After about 1290 there seems to have been a measure of recovery with the total production stabilizing itself at a slightly higher level than previously.The growing of mancorn or winter barley was never of any real significance at Hambledon, and even less so at Meon, despite the larger catchment area – in terms of tithes – of the latter. With the exception of one or two years38 it was well under 5 per cent of the total production by volume – usually around 2–3 per cent – and eventually it went out of cultivation altogether at Hambledon after 1345 and at Meon some time between 1320 and 1349. On both manors leguminous crops gained considerably in importance from about the end of the thirteenth century onwards. As acreages are not available, it is impossible to account for these changes with any certainty. The increase in the volume of the total production of wheat and the decline in the volume of the total production of barley must be largely due to a reduction in the area of cultivation of the latter and an increase in the area of cultivation of the former. However, the possibility that there had also been some decline in the productivity of barley, or an increase in the productivity of wheat, must not be ruled out in view of the progressively upward and downward trend in the volume of production of these two crops respectively. An increase in the total area of peasant cultivation – as distinct from a shift away from barley to wheat – may also be partly responsible for the higher wheat production in the second half of the thirteenth century and for the higher volume of production of all the three major crops after 1335. No direct evidence of the extent of peasant cultivation is available,39 but rent increases at Hambledon suggest an addition to the total area of land in peasant cultivation of up to some 260 acres between 1247 and 1293, and of up to some 120 acres between 1321 and 1335. There may, of course, have been some contraction going on, more or less simultaneously, but if so, there is no way of detecting it. Some contraction of the total area under oats did occur after 1224 as a result of the ending of the practice of letting out portions of demesne land on a year to year basis for the cultivation of oats, but this must have been more than compensated for by later additions.40 It is also highly probable that in the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries some peasant land went out of cultivation temporarily (corresponding to the presence of terre frisce among the demesne lands). If this was so, some of the later fourteenthNotably 1300, 1301, and 1302 at Meon. Apart, that is, from the evidence of the mid 13th-cent. custumals which allow us to calculate the total area of peasant holdings for a number of manors at a single point in time. 38

39

Terra locata ad avenam: 100 acres in 1211; 22 acres in 1212; 27 acres in 1214; 51 acres in 1220; 56 acres in 1221; 16 acres in 1224; discontinued afterwards.These acres are almost certainly customary acres. 40

Tithes

123

century increases in the total volume of production of all the major crops may have been partly due to the taking up of such lands again after a prolonged period of rest; this did, after all, happen on some of the bishopric demesnes. The very much shorter Meon series supports the evidence of the Hambledon series for the period when the two coincide but displays a more pronounced, and a more general, decline in the total volume of production after about 1270 than does the Hambledon series. There is no visible improvement in wheat at Meon and the decline in barley and oats is, if anything, even more pronounced, with no signs of any recovery up to 1320 when the Meon series come temporarily to an end. The foregoing outline of what was being grown in the fields of Hampshire between 1200 and 1348, both by the peasants on their holdings and by the landlords on their demesnes, may give, in one respect, a somewhat misleading impression. It may suggest to some readers an agricultural environment which was more static, stable, and unchanging than was in fact the case. Nothing could be further from the truth, for this was a period of many profound changes: changes in the area of cultivation both in its extent and composition; changes in, and experimentation with, different crops; and changes in what Professor Postan has called the ‘metabolism of the fields’ itself.41 The impression of inertia and stability which some of my statistical presentations may convey42 is merely the unfortunate consequence of the fact that our records frequently allow us to deal in aggregates only and to measure just the final result of what was in reality a matter of interaction between a number of simultaneous and sometimes conflicting processes. The first and foremost among the influences directly affecting the cultivation of cereals is reclamation of land and, its obverse, the abandonment of land. Reclamation and abandonment of land affected both aspects of the problem: the choice of the crops to be grown and the allocation of land between different crops. Unfortunately, the exact way in which this link operated can seldom be measured. This is so mainly because changes in the area of cultivation can be two-directional and our records are either not equally good at showing expansion and contraction, or because they allow us merely to see the net result if the two were present simultaneously. Thus, in the case of demesne land, manorial accounts provide us with the exact record of the total area under seed in each year but they offer relatively little guidance as to whether the net changes over a given period of time were due to additions, subtractions, or a mixture of both. In so far as peasant cultivation is concerned, we lack completely any progressive statistics of the extent of peasant arable and our means of detecting changes in that extent are rather deficient. Rough estimates of the extent of additions can be made on the basis of the increments of rent, and wholesale abandonment of land by the peasants can be traced through the lapsed rents (defectus redditus) section of the manorial accounts. Piecemeal contraction of peasant arable, however, if there was any, is virtually undetectable since only the complete abandonment of holdings would show itself as a permanent loss of rent. Subject to the foregoing qualifications, the broad outline of the chronology of change in the total area of cultivation between 1200 and 1348 can be determined with a considerable degree

41

Postan 1972, 64–6.

42

Particularly percentage distributions in Table 6.1.

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

124

TABLE 6.8 Total area under seed for twenty-three Hampshire manors 1211–1347 (in measured acres or conversion to them)1 Year2

Acreage3

1211 1212 1214 1232 1233 1236 1247 1248 1249 1255 1257 1258 1266 1268 1269 1283 1284 1285 1297 1298 1299 1315 1316 1317 1325 1326 1327 1345 1346 1347

(5501) (5583) (5366) c.72445 7095 c.72006 6356 6327 6641 6652 6659 c.62947 6971 6835 7143 5380 5607 5636 4941 c.53408 5367 (c.5017)9 (4882) (4347) c.425810 4048 4319 4138 3754 3942

No.. of manors converted4 (22) (22) (22)

(6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (16) (16) (16)

Acreages in brackets represent totals wholly or mainly converted from customary acres. The following figure in brackets gives the number of manors so converted out of the total of twenty-three. The selected years are representative and the choice was dictated by gaps in evidence and by the desire to avoid years in which the accounts of some manors are damaged or missing from the account rolls. Each group of three years represents the closest consecutive years available 2 The selected years are representative and the choice was dictated by gaps in evidence and by the desire to avoid years in which the accounts of some manors are damaged or missing from the account rolls. Each group of three years represents the closest consecutive years available. 3 Acreages in brackets represent totals wholly or mainly converted from customary acres. 4 The number of manors so converted out of the total of 23. 5 Waltham, Burghclere, and Overton are counted at 1233 value. 6 Sutton is counted at 1237 value. 7 High Clere is counted at 1257 value. 8 Sutton and Cheriton are entered at an estimated value. 9 Sutton is entered at an estimated value. 10 Meon church is counted at 1236 value. 1

of certainty for both demesne and peasant land, although more accurately for the former than for the latter. In so far as the demesne land is concerned, additions through reclamation and contraction through abandonment or transfer into the hands of the peasantry seem to represent, on the whole, two consecutive phases rather than a continuous process occurring simultaneously. But some simultaneous reclamation and contraction there clearly was – probably more frequently than one realizes. Broadly speaking, and taking all the Hampshire manors of the bishopric as a whole, reclamation of land was the dominant feature of the first half of the thirteenth century and contraction the dominant feature of the period after about 1270. The second half of the thirteenth century was the period when the overlap between additions and contractions must have been at its greatest. By the end of the century, as reclamation of wastelands came to a halt and the letting out of the demesne land to the peasants gained momentum, the changes were probably once more primarily unidirectional. As the adjacent tabulation of area under seed for the twenty-three Hampshire manors illustrates (Table 6.8), some 1500 acres were added to the demesne of the bishopric in the first half of the thirteenth century and about the same amount was lost between 1270 and 1299. The decline from about 1270 was progressive and by 1348 the demesne was some 1500 acres below its 1211 acreage. The chronology and the magnitude of change differed, of course, on individual manors. Some, particularly large manors, lost more land and others, particularly small compact manors, lost relatively little. The figures in Table 6.8 illustrate net changes in the total area under seed. There is a gap in documentation between 1237 and 1245 but the lowering of the total acreage from the high peak of the 1230s should probably be explained by the fact that after 1245, or thereabouts, letting out of

Tithes

125

the demesne to the peasants begins to occur on a number of manors so that the increases through reclamation were from then on partially nullified by reductions, whereas prior to 1230 this appears not to have been the case. Changes in the area of peasant cultivation between 1200 and 1348 seem to have been predominantly unidirectional – a steady increase with no signs of any contraction until the outbreak of the plague in 1348, though some concealed abandonment of exhausted land there may have been.There were two sources of new land for expansion: reclamation of the wastelands, which was largely over by the end of the thirteenth century, and acquisition of demesne land, which was gaining momentum throughout the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The second half of the thirteenth century was the period when the two movements coincided, reinforcing each other. The nature of peasant reclamation differed considerably from place to place. Sometimes it took the form of an almost continuous stream of piecemeal accretions as, for example, at Waltham to about 1293, Mardon to about 1277, Burghclere to about 1292, High Clere to about 1314, and Woodhay to about 1287. Sometimes it was carried out more in the form of periodic large-scale intakes as, for example, at Hambledon in 1247,43 Alresford between 1221 and 1225,44 Beauworth in 1258,45 or Overton between 1218 and 1220.46 Assarting was more in evidence on large manors than small ones, presumably since the former were better provided with colonizable resources, if it was by no means their exclusive prerogative. Of all the Hampshire manors of the bishopric, that which did the most colonizing was the small manor of Woodhay which from very modest beginnings in the early thirteenth century grew by leaps and bounds throughout that century, increasing its rent-roll about eightfold. Demesne land was frequently let out in larger quantities at a time as, for example, at Twyford in 1277, 1286, and 1315,47 Waltham in 1285 and 1326,48 or Meon in 1290.49 The overall increase in peasant arable was probably of the order suggested in Table 6.9, though it must be emphasized that these figures are offered as a rough guide only and should be regarded as the maximum possible, since they are based not on the actual count of acres added but on the conversion of rent increments into hypothetical acreages, and bearing in mind that increments of rent could, and did, occur for reasons other than new additions to peasant holdings. However, three circumstances combine to make such an exercise worthwhile: 1. All additions to peasant holdings must show up as an increment of rent. 2. Rents charged for new lands in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries – whether assarts or demesne in origin – were, on the whole, standardized, so the conversion of rents into acreages on the basis of an assumed standard rate for the time is probably not too far removed from the true position.

HRO, 11M59/B1/20. The increment of rent in the missing years 1221–5 is almost certainly reflected in the rent in Prevet in the mid thirteenth-century custumal. 45 HRO, 11M59/B1/28. 46 HRO, 11M59/B1/6–8. 43 44

HRO, 11M59/B1/40, 11M59/B1/45 and 11M59/ B1/69, with 50 acres, 50 acres, and 108 acres of demesne land let out respectively. 48 HRO, 11M59/B1/44 and 11M59/B1/79, with 143½ acres and 166 acres let out respectively. 49 HRO, 11M59/B1/49, with 72 acres let out. 47

126

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350 TABLE 6.9 Maximum estimated additions1 to peasant holdings in acres (known acreages2 in brackets) 1211–27

1227–45

1245–63

1263–83

16

4

(1½)

8

1283–99

1299–1315

60

(37½)

Bitterne

34

(9½)

1

(0)

58

(40½)

1

(0)

3

(1)

1

(0)

Waltham

151

(35)

61

(4½)

216

(145)

98

(16)

361

(269)

23

(12)

Twyford

10

(1)

11.5

(0)

4

(0)

133 (86½)

Stoke

50

(2)

39

(0)

3

(0)

Meon

34

(8)

28

(1)

96

(88½)

1

(0)

0

9

(9)

0

(73½)

133

Fareham

Meon church

(0)

48

(17)

0

92

440

3

(4)

4

41

(32½)

6

(0)

0

66

(66)

Cheriton

33

(2)

12

(0)

90½

Sutton

37

(32)

22

(0)

Wield

12

(0)

1

Crawley

26

(1)

Mardon

78

Bentley

79

Hambledon Alresford Beauworth

86

(85½)

166

(90¾)

32

(31)

(0)

18

(14)

12

(3)

123 (48¾)

220

(109¾)

12

(0)

10

0

0

37

54½

(8½)

2

(0)

0

(51½)

26

(6)

9

(3)

½

(0)

165

(93)

41

(33)

4.5

(4½)

18

(15½)

(0)

60½

(46¾)

0

0.5

(0)

0

2.5

(0)

2

(2)

0

20

(20

1

(15)

387

(32)

203

(185)

73½

(24)

0

(6)

1344

(½)

11

(8½)

36

(5)

8½

(3.5)

1

(0)

(22)

5

(3)

(77)

1

(0)

0

(0)

0

99

(87)

94½ (43¾)

62½

(21)

68

(65½)

65

(0)

244

(217¾)

164 (78¾)

54½

(36¾)

41

(36)

(1)

4

(0)

16

(8½)

16

(11)

9

(4)

2

(0)

(4)

41

18

(1½)

0

243 (86½)

67 8

52

(5½)

103

(12½)

Ecchinswell

5

Ashmansworth

8

Woodhay

397

(277)

Overton

3095

(108)

0 1973

(9)

77

High Clere

Total

9.5

(5)

Burghclere

North Waltham

(4)

115½ (37½)

(28)

20½

(5)

278 (78¾)

181

(92)

67

(22)

50

(8)

0 (578)

1272½

0 (190)

1748½

15

(1)

0 (1275½)

1289½

6

(5)

(34)

60

(42)

(0)

6

(5½)

12

(6)

387½

(310)

0 (459)

1135

(719)

This table is based on the Increment of Rent and the figures are calculated from detailed tabulations for individual manors. The maximum estimated additional acreage is calculated, in stages, as follows: (i) The difference in the rent-roll for the beginning and closing years of each period less the increment in the surviving accounts known to be other than new additions to holdings = the maximum increment which could represent new additions. (ii) The maximum increment (as above) less the increments in the surviving accounts which explicitly state the number of acres involved = the increment representing new additions of unspecified acreage plus the increment of unknown nature in the missing years. (iii) The above result divided by the typical rate per acre for the period = the maximum acreage represented by the increments so far unaccounted for. (iv) This estimated acreage plus known acreage in the surviving accounts = the maximum estimated additions to peasant holdings as entered in this table. 2 The known acreage within each total is given in brackets but the absolute minimum figure for new additions is somewhat in excess of that figure since, particularly in the early 13th cent., some increment known to be in respect of new lands does not specify the number of acres involved. 1

127

Tithes

1315–33 5

1333–48

(5)

3

(0)

Total

Rent Roll £ s.d. 1211

191½ (142½)

23.8.6½

1348 32.3.10

1348 less 1211 less known ‘other’ increment 4.18.1½

13

(2)

2½

(2½)

113½

(55½)

6.7.5

3.10.2½

2.15.5½

209

(200)

45

(23½)

1164

(705)

46.11.4½

83.9.10½

35.10.0½

129

(121)

31

(29)

516½

(359)

41.3.5

54.7.8½

12.10.2½

81

(63)

2

(¾)

215

(82¾)

12.4.0½

19.12.10½

7.8.6

12

(0)

10

(1)

535

(257)

74.12.1½

97.19.0¾

10.2.1¾

1

(0)

11

(9)

4.17.4

5.3.7½

6.2½

(3)

9

(8½)

442

(132)

23.7.11½

35.15.10¾

11.13.11¼

(3)

8

(7½)

630½ (132½)

27.0.0

39.16.11½

12.4.11½

4.2.6

5.16.10

1.14.4

0 118 5 0

0

74

(66)

264

(95½)

23.18.7

33.18.8¾

6.15.1¼

321½ (198¼)

41.15.3½

51.13.6½

8.9.9

92½

(33)

½

(0)

18

5¾

16

(15)

0 57½

(47)

42

(34)

0

0

74

(46¾)

5.14.10

8.1.11½

1.17.1½

0

109

(70)

12.17.0

15.0.11

2.1.1

3

(0)

786½

(290)

21.2.2

40.11.1¾

18.16.1¾

2

(0)

271½

(23½)

10.7.3

17.15.2½

6.17.2

497½

(260)

6

[12.6.8½]

25.19.3

12.4.10½

674 (381¾)

[6.0.10]

23.10.7½

16.14.6½

8.8.6

12.1.2

2.18.0

1

(0)

5

(0)

1½

(0)

1

(0)

0

0

51

(51)

1

26

(11)

0

15½

(9)

5½

0 877 (587¾)

52 ½

(24½)

145½

(95)

3.13.0

7.16.4

3.18.4

1252

(621)

4.4.10

40.18.10½

31.17.1

476

(159)

19.2.0

31.18.3¼

12.1.8¼

0

12

(6)

10.12.9

10.14.11½

2.2.¼

145½

(93½) 8828½

(4213)

(5¼)

223.17.0¼

£5 out of £5 3s. 9d. of increment in the missing years 1221–4 are almost certainly in respect of new land. The increment of £3 1s. 7d. in the missing years 1233–6 could be additional land or something else. 5 Some ambiguity attached to the increment of 90s. 8d. in 1218–19.The account of 1218 describes it as incrementum gabuli ablati per forestam scilicet ... (so much for each holding ranging in size from 3 virgates to ½ virgate) at the standard rate of 17d. per virgate, which is clearly a partial payment only. The account of 1219 records the rent for the full year from the same holdings but does not itemize them, describing the increment merely as incrementum gabuli remissi per forestam de xxxii virgatis terre de Norhomet, at 34d. per virgate. Since it was most unusual in the 13th cent. to create virgated holdings by assarting, I take this increment to be in respect of regular additions to the 32 virgates and I have estimated the corresponding acreage on the basis of the usual rate of 6d. per acre. If, however, this increment is in respect of 32 virgates carved out of the woodland then the acreage involved would have been 32 x 32 acres – 1024 acres in all – and the total entered in this column should be increased by 842½ acres. 6 Burghclere and High Clere were not separated for accounting purposes until 1218; I have calculated the rent-roll for 1211 as if all the increment between 1211 and 1218 occurred at Burghclere. 3 4

128

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

3. In the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries rent increases due to causes other than additions to holdings were normally entered in the manorial accounts in places other than the increment of rent section. Commutation of services was normally entered among the issues of the manor (or, in the very early years of the thirteenth century, among the perquisites) and instances of existing rents being put up are on the whole rare since the usual way of bringing customary rents into line with market values was by way of increased entry fines. Perhaps the greatest single cause of potential error, arising out of increments accruing in the years for which documents are lacking, is the acquisition of new rents by the landlord through ‘feudal’ processes such as, for example, incorporation of some external property escheated to the landlord within his own neighbouring manor.50 Known instances of this kind, however, are rare and the only instance of the increment of rent accruing in the missing years that I suspect might have been due to something of this sort happening was the increment of £3 1s. 7d. accruing at Bentley between 1233 and 1236, since that manor was not notable, at the time, for colonizing activity or demesne letting. I estimate that the overall increase in the total area of peasant arable on the Hampshire manors of the bishopric between 1200 and 1348, both from assarting and letting out of the demesne, must have been somewhere between 5000 and 9000 acres, probably much nearer the latter than the former figure.51 There is no direct evidence in the manorial accounts of the bishopric to suggest any significant abandonment of peasant land prior to the outbreak of the plague, either within or outside Hampshire. In so far as Hampshire is concerned, the only other documentary source directly relevant in this context – the Nonarum Inquisitiones of 134252 – seems to point in the same direction.The Nonarum Inquisitiones is far from a reliable document, to say the least, but the fact that of the 203 parishes listed for Hampshire (excluding the Isle of Wight) only six mention abandoned land, and that on as many as four of these six the abandonment was due to external causes, such as inundations by the sea or various disruptive activities, seems to be significant.53 Absence of vacant holdings, prior to 1349, in the manorial accounts of the bishopric does not, of course, constitute conclusive evidence that no abandonment of peasant land took place, since only the total renouncement of responsibility for a holding would have led to its inclusion among the lapsed rents. But even if some partial abandonment of peasant land was present, I doubt Widehaia Tornes at Woodhay is perhaps the best Hampshire example of this kind. Increases in the ‘farm’ of Ripplington at Meon are another example of a similar kind. 51 The figure of 5000 acres suggested here as a minimum is higher than the 4213 acres given in Table 6.9 because the latter total represents only the explicitly stated acreages and a considerable amount of the early 13th cent. increments, although explicitly in respect of new land, did not specify acreages. 52 Nonarum Inquisitiones. See also Baker 1966, 518–32. 53 Nonarum Inquisitiones: p. 106, Craule: 3 carrucate...terre...jacent inculte... p. 126, Houne: ...plures terre propter metum alienigenarium et oppresiones nautarum... p. 125, Elynge: ...plures terre...propter carriagium meremii... p. 127, Alwarstock: …50 acre terre arabilis submerse in mari... p. 120, Heilynge: (implied abandonment) … alia plurima spectabant ad dictam ecclesiam que modo per mare destructa sunt... p. 121, Hatche: ...300 acre jacent inculte et non seminate... 50

Tithes

129

very much if it would have been on any significant scale. We do know that the landlords were abandoning portions of their demesnes and it seems logical to assume that the land so abandoned was land suffering from soil exhaustion. It also seems reasonable to expect that the peasants, with their inferior resources, would have suffered from soil exhaustion as well; indeed, there is much positive evidence to that effect. However, since the criteria for what was worth cultivating were different for landlords and peasants, I would not expect many peasants to have resorted to such a drastic expedient as readily as the landlords did. The problem of diminishing returns would have been a grave one indeed for many a peasant cultivator, but his position was fundamentally different from that of a landlord.The peasant’s main cost was his own effort and few peasants – certainly not the smallholders living on the borderline of subsistence, who by the end of the thirteenth century constituted a very high proportion of the rural population54 – would have been in a position to afford giving up land as long as the returns per seed remained above the unity plus the equivalent of the compulsory outgoings incumbent on the holding. Whether the reclamation of land had any immediate effect on the existing pattern of cultivation – as we can see it – would have depended on how that reclamation was carried out. On the one hand, new acquisitions could be added to the existing fields and incorporated into the regular rotation practised at the time; on the other hand, reclamation could lead to the creation of closes which were cropped outside the regular rotation. In the latter case, because of the marginal character of much of thirteenth-century reclamation, such new additions were frequently put under the less demanding crops, such as rye or oats, thus upsetting the existing balance between the main crops. The connection between reclamation of land and cropping is not always easy to demonstrate satisfactorily. Sudden increases in the acreage under certain crops coinciding with sudden expansion of the cultivated area strongly suggest a direct link between the two, but it can seldom be proven conclusively since cropping plans do not normally indicate the age, or the origin, of the ‘fields’ they enumerate. Many instances of assarting which, in one way or another, are found in the expenditure section of the manorial accounts seldom find their reflection in the terminology of the cropping plans on these manors, probably because the new additions were merely extensions of the existing fields.55 The best examples of explicit correlation between reclamation of land and the changing pattern of cultivation occur when large closes were carved out and treated subsequently as independent units of cultivation with a rotation of their own, but in so far as the records of the bishopric are concerned such examples lie outside Hampshire.56 Abandonment of land would have had the opposite effect on the pattern of cultivation from that of reclamation. The shedding of the least productive parts of the arable would have rendered the remainder more uniform, quality-wise, thus allowing a more stable balance between the more and the less demanding crops to be maintained. Abandonment of land, however, was the final outcome of the process of gradual deterioration in the productivity of certain arable lands. Before that stage was reached – if it was reached at all – the effect of deteriorating productivity on the pattern of cultivation would have been to enhance the relative importance of the less demanding

For fuller discussion of the problem, see Postan 1972, 130; Hilton 1966, 114–15; Kosminsky 1956, 214–28. For example, at Ashmansworth, Hambledon, Overton, and Mardon. 56 Cowyk in Downton and Billingbear in Wargrave: see Titow 1969, Document 18, 198–202. 54 55

130

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

crops, particularly oats, as more and more land would have been withdrawn from the normal rotation involving a regular alternation of crops. There is a considerable body of evidence suggesting that in the course of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries productivity of some of the demesne and peasant land was deteriorating. Given a good series of manorial accounts, demesne yields can be calculated over long periods of time. There is, however, one serious limitation to the usefulness of such calculations. Yield calculations can be made only for the totality of land actually sown in any given year. Unfortunately, the composition of demesne land was complex and the area actually sown changed from year to year.The actual, real, units of cultivation were the culture – small fields, furlongs, groups of furlongs, closes, and the like – which were grouped together into larger units for the purpose of rotation. The enumeration of ‘fields’ in the cropping plans is frequently concerned with these larger units of rotation – the two, three, or four rotational fields of the two- or three-field system – and it is rather rarely that one can reconstruct the history of a particular real unit of cultivation, and very exceptional indeed to be able to measure yields for a single such unit only. Nevertheless, the signs of deteriorating productivity of some demesne land are plain to see. Yield calculations for the manors of the bishopric do indicate that on many manors the overall performance of the demesne arable was declining, although this type of evidence cannot be linked to specific fields.The calculations in Table 6.10 are based on yields per seed for the bishopric estate, i.e. total produce as a multiple of the quantity of seed used.This method of calculation is based on that used in the account rolls themselves. It may be suggested that for each crop column 3 shows an increase in the number of negative entries from the late thirteenth century onwards.Abandonment of demesne land on a large scale – present on many manors of the bishopric – must also indicate gradual impoverishment of, at least, some parts of demesne arable since it can hardly be explained on the basis of any other assumption. If the calculations of the type represented by Table 6.1 give an impression of relative stability it is precisely because the constant pruning of impoverished lands made it possible, in the long run, to maintain the proportion of the more demanding crops at a predetermined level. Finally, the cropping plans themselves do allow us, at times, to trace the history of specific fields and this often tells the same story of gradual impoverishment and eventual abandonment. Professor Postan has shown how on some manors of St Swithun’s Priory certain fields, subject at first to a regular rotation of crops, were subsequently given over exclusively to oats and, later still, were drastically reduced in size or went out of cultivation altogether.57 Similar developments could be demonstrated for some of the manors of the bishopric but, unfortunately – since in this respect one is very much at the mercy of the explicitness and terminological consistency of the available cropping plans – the best examples occur outside Hampshire. On changes in the productivity of peasant land it is possible only to speculate since direct evidence is virtually non-existent. No statistical information comparable to the calculations of demesne yields exists but it stands to reason to expect that if the landlords, with their superior resources, were suffering from diminishing returns the peasants would have fared no better and probably far worse. However, even though statistical evidence of the level of peasant productivity is totally lacking, there is some evidence to suggest that in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries peasant land too was suffering from declining productivity.This evidence consists of the 57

Unpublished paper read at a seminar in London: see Postan 1972, 65.

Tithes

131

growing number of holdings vacated by their holders – whether by death or surrender – which no one wished to take up and which could be re-let only by charging purely nominal entry fines, or waiving them altogether, or in many cases by compelling the community of the villagers to elect a new tenant. Such entries in the summaries of fines levied (or not levied) by the manorial courts are frequently accompanied by variously phrased explanations to the effect that the holding in question was derelict, abandoned, unwanted, or rejected. In many such instances additional explanations were offered to the effect that the reason for this state of affairs was the poverty of the land or of the holder – very much the same thing to my mind. It is, perhaps, not without significance that such entries are particularly numerous on the manors of Alresford, Cheriton, Sutton, and North Waltham58 – all manors with poor soils (as measured by the general level of demesne yields) where even a small fall in productivity could make further cultivation no longer viable even to the peasants. However, since in the matter of such explanations we are very much at the mercy of the inclinations of the recording clerks, too much should perhaps not be made of their presence or distribution. A rival interpretation of the increased presence of reluctant tenants and ‘unwanted’ holdings could be offered: it could be argued that they signify a general decline in the demand for land behind which lurks the beginning of the downward turn in the demographic trend. However, a number of objections could be raised against the acceptance of such an interpretation. Firstly, there is no demographic evidence to suggest a significant decline in population at the time, and nothing in the behaviour of prices or wages to suggest it either.59 Secondly, the very fact that the landlords were able to compel peasants to take up land against their wishes – a thing unheard of after 1348 – implies that the demand for land generally was still strong. Thirdly, although very low entry fines are more numerous after the turn of the century, high entry fines were still very frequent, suggesting that the lack of interest in certain pieces of land was specific to them and not an indication of the general decline in the demand for land. Finally, the increasing stream of pieces of demesne land let out to tenants by the landlords during this period also indicates no appreciable slackening in the general demand for land, provided it was of acceptable quality. Assuming then that we are here faced with the evidence of land exhaustion rather than of the demographic decline, what would have been its effect on peasant cultivation? If the argument is valid that peasants would abandon land only in the last resort, two consequences would have probably followed: either there would have been a general lowering of yields, or a partial shift to the less demanding crops, particularly barley and oats.This is, of course, pure speculation since we lack documentary evidence concerning changes in peasant cultivation – the few surviving tithe records are not sufficient to generalize from and, in any case, they are not concerned with acreages – but I would not be at all surprised to find that such a shift did in fact take place towards the end of the thirteenth, or early in the fourteenth, century. Such entries are too numerous to be listed fully. Their number increased significantly after about 1300 and the relevant entries are to be found in the account rolls, HRO, 11M59/B1/56-101. 59 For the tabulation of grain prices, see Farmer 1956; 1957; and Titow 1969. For a discussion of the problem of prices, see Postan 1972 and Miller and Hatcher 1978. The position with regard to wages is far less satisfactory since virtually all recent studies are based on figures collected by Lord Beveridge which, in my view, greatly underplay the element of stability in rural wages before 1348. See Beveridge 1936;1955. 58

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

132

TABLE 6.10 Bishopric manors in Hampshire: yields per quantity of seed 1211–1349 Mancorn/Winter barley1

Wheat Date

Average yield2

No. of manors3

% deviation4

1211 1218 1219 1220 1224 1225 1226 1232 1236 1245 1246 1247 1248 1252 1253 1254 1257 1265 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1277 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1305

3.17 3.05 2.97 3.12 3.12 3.97 3.04 4.77 5.35 4.17 3.46 3.69 4.77 4.35 4.12 4.07 3.54 4.15 3.93 3.34 3.41 3.30 4.95 3.84 3.57 3.34 3.00 3.34 3.49 3.46 4.66 4.33 3.31 2.86 3.22 3.18 4.57 4.09 4.96 3.92 3.60 4.39 4.10 3.90

(21) (15) (11) (16) (20) (13) (14) (21) (21) (22) (21) (21) (22) (21) (20) (20) (21) (22) (23) (3) (3) (18) (18) (21) (21) (21) (22) (23) (18) (18) (23) (23) (23) (17) (17) (20) (20) (21) (21) (21) (21) (23) (22) (23)

-17.4 -19.7 -17.7 -17 -19 +1.5 -22.4 +22.9 +39.7 +8.3 -10.1 -4.2 +23.9 +13.0 +7.9 +6.5 -7.8 +7.8 +1.3 -14.1 -12.3 -12.5 +31.3 -1.8 -8.7 +24.0 -22.7 -13.9 -7.4 -8.2 +20.1 +11.6 -14.7 -27.6 -18.5 -15.8 +14.5 +2.9 +24.9 av -8.2 +13.1 +4.1 av

Barley

Average No. of % yield manors deviation 3.16 2.62 3.64 5.28 3.58 1.76 3.32 2.97 5.26 4.82 2.93 3.54 4.09 3.85 3.04 4.25 4.17 3.44 3.19 2.12 3.37 3.01 4.06 4.13 2.51 2.92 3.54 3.10 3.69 3.27 2.07 2.09 2.37 2.76 1.85 3.04 2.43 2.91 3.47 3.47 2.09

(6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (4) (3) (5) (7) (7) (7) (5) (7) (7) (6) (7) (6) (7) (7) (2) (2) (7) (7) (7) (6) (7) (2) (2) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (5) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7)

+10 -14.5 +25.9 +70.6 +12.0 -46.1 +10.0 -2.7 +69.9 +55.7 -5.2 +23.9 +32.3 +24.3 +5.9 +37.3 +33.0 +11.2 +3.0 -20.2 +27.2 -2.7 +31.4 +33.6 -19.5 -5.6 +33.6 +16.8 +19.3 +5.6 -33.0 -32.5 -23.4 -10.3 -40.0 -1.6 -21.4 -5.9 +12.3 +12.1 -32.3

Oats

Average No. of % yield manors deviation 3.39 3.81 3.90 3.62 3.96 4.39 3.88 3.87 4.86 4.45 4.53 4.16 4.71 3.69 4.23 4.82 4.21 3.53 3.33 4.19 3.16 3.83 3.45 3.75 3.18 3.75 2.98 3.29 2.85 3.21 3.84 3.53 2.50 2.53 1.78 2.37 3.32 2.66 3.22 2.96 2.98 3.19 3.40 2.03

(20) (17) (18) (19) (19) (17) (13) (20) (19) (22) (22) (22) (22) (19) (20) (20) (21) (22) (23) (3) (3) (16) (17) (21) (20 (21) (21) (22) (18) (18) (23) (23) (23) (19) (19) (20) (6) (21) (20) (21) (21) (23) (22) (21)

= av. +11.0 +15.1 +7.8 +17.6 +30.8 +15.3 +13.5 +41.5 +30.0 +32.5 +21.6 +37.7 +7.0 +23.5 +40.4 +24.4 +3.4 -2.6 +33.8 +1.0 +16.1 +4.4 +9.3 -7.5 +9.3 -12.7 -3.7 -13.9 -3.1 +12.6 +3.3 -26.8 -25.5 -47.6 -30.0 -5.1 -23.4 -7.4 -14.4 -13.8 -6.5 -1.4 -40.8

Average No. of % yield manors deviation 2.35 2.43 2.40 2.34 2.86 2.79 2.82 2.74 3.14 2.40 2.57 2.49 2.79 2.64 2.80 2.68 2.73 2.60 2.33 2.80 2.50 2.45 2.04 2.49 2.36 2.76 2.19 2.10 2.30 1.82 2.01 2.25 2.06 1.98 1.76 1.95 2.57 2.03 2.12 1.99 2.20 2.14 2.16 1.93

(21) (18) (18) (20) (21) (20) (17) (19) (22) (22) (22) (21) (22) (20) (21) (20) (22) (22) (23) (3) (3) (17) (18) (20) (21) (22) (22) (23) (17) (18) (23) (23) (23) (19) (19) (19) (3) (21) (20) (21) (21) (23) (22) (10)

+7.0 +9.8 +9.4 +5.5 +29.2 +24.9 +25.2 +24.3 +41.8 +8.4 +16.4 +13.7 +26 +18.8 +26.3 +20.6 +23.7 +17.5 +5.2 +27.1 +13.8 +11.8 -6.6 +11.9 +6.2 +24.4 =av -5.0 +5.1 -16.6 -9.1 +1.6 -6.8 -9.7 -20.0 -12.7 +12.7 -9.6 -5.7 -10.8 -1.7 -3.5 -3.1 -13.3

133

Tithes TABLE 6.10 (cont.)

Mancorn/Winter barley1

Wheat Date

Average yield2

No. of manors3

1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1320 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349

3.79 3.79 3.62 4.50 2.90 4.30 4.39 4.61 4.16 2.39 2.19 3.40 5.49 3.95 3.80 5.18 5.02 4.14 3.85 4.10 3.90 3.97 4.35 3.84 4.14 4.36 4.56 2.11 3.84 3.05 3.72 3.16 4.73 4.10 3.28 3.55 3.96 2.27

(23) (23) (22) (23) (23) (23) (22) (23) (22) (22) (22) (21) (21) (22) (21) (22) (23) (22) (22) (22) (22) (22) (21) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (22)

% deviation4 -2.4 -3.0 -7.5 +16.0 -25.1 +10.7 +12.5 +18.9 +5.7 -39.4 -43.5 -12.5 +41.2 +1.7 -1.3 +34.5 +29.4 +7.6 Av. +6.4 +1.4 +3.0 +14.0 -1.0 +6.7 +22.8 +17.5 -45.7 -1.0 -21.4 -4.2 -18.5 +21.9 +5.8 -15.6 -8.4 +2.0 -41.9

Barley

Average No. of % yield manors deviation 1.02 2.87 2.45 3.13 1.40 4.02 2.76 2.90 3.17 2.18 1.38 1.92 2.88 3.19 3.12 3.95 3.81 3.26 2.95 3.58 2.66 2.80 2.91 3.27 2.81 4.83 3.84 1.47 3.28 3.40 2.98 3.08 3.64 3.24 2.87 2.88 2.73 1.94

(7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (6) (7) (6) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7)

-67.1 -7.3 -20.9 +1.2 -54.8 +29.8 -10.7 -6.4 +2.4 -29.4 -55.4 -36.9 -6.7 +1.2 Av. +27.6 +23.1 +5.5 -4.5 +15.7 -14.1 -9.3 -5.9 +5.7 -9.1 +56.1 +24.3 -52.6 +6.1 +10.0 -3.5 Av. +17.6 +4.6 -7.3 -6.8 -11.6 -37.4

Oats

Average No. of % yield manors deviation 2.31 2.89 3.68 3.29 3.70 3.52 3.70 3.57 3.30 2.83 2.37 2.69 3.78 3.68 3.73 4.03 3.61 3.68 3.20 3.68 3.02 2.62 3.10 3.00 3.07 3.74 4.40 3.45 3.20 3.19 3.71 3.23 3.69 2.60 2.85 3.52 3.42 2.47

(23) (21) (21) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (22) (22) (21) (21) (21) (22) (19) (22) (23) (22) (22) (22) (22) (21) (21) (22) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23)

-32.5 -15.6 +7.5 -3.8 +8.4 +3.1 +8.3 +4.7 -2.5 -17.5 -31.1 -21.4 +10.4 +8.7 +9.3 +17.8 +5.6 +7.7 -6.4 +7.7 -11.7 -23.6 -9.3 -12.3 -10 +9.4 +28.7 +1.1 -6.3 -6.5 +6.3 -7.8 +3.7 -39.2 = Av. +21.5 -2.8 -40.8

These calculations are based only on the manors where it was grown regularly. Average annual yield for the whole crop. 3 Number of manors (in brackets) going into each average. 4 Percentage deviation of the annual average yield from the period average (1211–1345) for the same manors. 1 2

Average No. of % yield manors deviation 1.77 2.05 2.62 2.00 2.22 2.25 1.65 1.82 2.14 1.94 1.53 1.80 2.11 2.14 2.35 2.22 2.12 2.63 2.16 2.26 1.94 2.09 2.18 2.15 1.87 2.14 2.31 1.43 1.69 2.09 2.35 2.04 2.30 1.35 2.23 2.69 2.13 1.31

(22) (21) (22) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (21) (23) (21) (21) (21) (21) (21) (22) (23) (22) (22) (22) (22) (22) (21) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (21) (23)

-20.2 -7.9 +17.8 -9.8 Av. +1.4 -25.5 -17.9 -3.6 -12.5 -31 -18.3 -4.2 +1.6 +6.4 Av. -4.4 +19.1 -2.1 +2.2 -12.3 -5.6 -1.7 -3.1 -15.6 -3.2 +4.3 -35.6 -23.9 -5.4 +6.3 -7.8 +3.7 -39.2 = Av. +21.5 -2.8 -40.8

134

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

The basic underlying cause of the declining productivity of land must have been the combination of relatively poor soils and chronic under-manuring. On the demesnes of the Winchester estates the ratio of demesne acres to demesne animals was very low.60 It is true that the landlords had access to some of the manure of the peasantry through their right of folding but I doubt if this would have made a significant difference to the amount of fertilizer available to them; it would, of course, have made the plight of the peasant farmers even worse. Moreover, what little direct evidence there is suggests that the peasants generally were poorly provided with animals. There were, of course, special areas where this was demonstrably not true, and there were also wealthy peasants with sizable herds of cattle and large flocks of sheep, but a very large proportion of the peasantry in the typical areas of mixed farming seem to have been greatly understocked in terms of their farming needs. This is brought out clearly by the frequency of cases in which heriots had to be collected in cash because no animal was available,61 and by the few surviving tax returns on the basis of which statistical calculations of the number and distribution of animals in peasant ownership have been made.62 Finally, to conclude this broad outline of the influences responsible for the changes in cereal cultivation, two problems must be touched upon very briefly: climatic considerations and technological change. Climatic considerations will not detain me long since they fall outside the purpose of this study – that is, if one draws a distinction between intended and unintended changes and restricts oneself, as I have done throughout, to the former. Climatic fluctuations, and natural disasters associated with them,63 brought about unintended changes – mostly in the volume of production – and are thus irrelevant to my purpose, as they were to the medieval cultivators, landlords and peasants alike. Resultant fluctuations in the quality of the harvest were, naturally, of the greatest importance to the material well-being of the medieval peasantry and to the profitability of the landlords’ much more commercialized operations, but even such extreme conditions as the great famine of 1315–17 or the glut of 1254–6 do not seem to have had much effect on planting policies. In so far as the problem of technological change is concerned, the only aspect relevant in the context of this study is the possible shifts from more to less intensive rotation, or vice versa. Such shifts may have occurred here and there, but if they did, this seems to have happened below the level of the generalized information usually provided by the cropping plans. I have little doubt that in reality rotational arrangements were frequently more complex and more flexible than the often simplistic patterns revealed by the cropping plans, but much of the actual reality of the arrangements remains below the surface; perhaps a much greater amount of work than what I have been able to devote to the problem so far might uncover some of them.

See Titow 1962, Appendix L. See Postan and Titow 1959.

See Postan 1962. See Titow 1960; Britton 1937.

60

62

61

63

Bibliographical Note: Manuscript Sources

135

Bibliographical Note: Manuscript Sources A. The manorial accounts of the bishopric of Winchester These are kept at the Hampshire Record Office at Winchester and are numbered, for the period 1208–1350, 11M59/B1/1–102.The surviving accounts are listed below in full to give an indication of the distribution of the surviving documents and the extent of the gaps in evidence. Manorial accounts run from Michaelmas to Michaelmas (29 September to 29 September), thus including parts of two calendar years; in this study whenever an account roll is referred to by a single date, the closing year of the account is meant. This is contrary to Beveridge’s practice of dating by the opening year. In the following list the prefix HRO is omitted since it is constant for the whole period. Years 1208/9 1210/11 1211/12 1213/14 1215/16 1217/18 1218/19 1219/20 1220/1 1223/4 1224/5 1225/6 1226/7 1231/2 1232/3 1235/6 1236/7 1244/5 1245/6 1246/7 1247/8 1248/9 1251/2 1252/3 1253/4 1254/5 1256/7

HRO no. 11M59/B1/1 11M59/B1/2 11M59/B1/3 11M59/B1/4 11M59/B1/5 11M59/B1/6 11M59/B1/7 11M59/B1/8 11M59/B1/9 11M59/B1/10 11M59/B1/11 11M59/B1/12 11M59/B1/13 11M59/B1/14 11M59/B1/15 11M59/B1/16 11M59/B1/17 11M59/B1/18 11M59/B1/19 11M59/B1/20 11M59/B1/21 11M59/B1/22 11M59/B1/23 11M59/B1/24 11M59/B1/25 11M59/B1/26 11M59/B1/27

Years 1257/8 1262/3 1264/5 1265/6 1267/8 1268/9 1269/70 1270/1 1271/2 1272/3 1273/4 1274/5 1276/7 1277/8 1282/3 1283/4 1284/5 1285/6 1286/7 1287/8 1288/9 1289/90 1290/1 1291/2 1292/3 1296/7 1297/8

HRO no. 11M59/B1/28 11M59/B1/29 11M59/B1/30 11M59/B1/31 11M59/B1/32 11M59/B1/33 11M59/B1/34 11M59/B1/35 11M59/B1/36 11M59/B1/37 11M59/B1/38 11M59/B1/39 11M59/B1/40 11M59/B1/41 11M59/B1/42 11M59/B1/43 11M59/B1/44 11M59/B1/45 11M59/B1/46 11M59/B1/47 11M59/B1/48 11M59/B1/49 11M59/B1/50 11M59/B1/51 11M59/B1/52 11M59/B1/53 11M59/B1/54

136

FIELD CROPS AND THEIR CULTIVATION IN HAMPSHIRE, 1200–1350

1298/9 1299/1300 1300/1 1301/2 1302/3 1304/5 1305/6 1306/7 1307/8 1308/9 1309/10 1310/11 1311/12 1312/13 1313/14 1314/15 1315/16 1316/17 1317/18 1318/19 1319/20 1320/1 1323/4 1324/5

11M59/B1/55 11M59/B1/56 11M59/B1/57 11M59/B1/58 11M59/B1/59 11M59/B1/60 11M59/B1/61 11M59/B1/62 11M59/B1/63 11M59/B1/64 11M59/B1/65 11M59/B1/66 11M59/B1/67 11M59/B1/68 11M59/B1/69 11M59/B1/69 11M59/B1/71 11M59/B1/72 11M59/B1/73 11M59/B1/74 11M59/B1/75 11M59/B1/76 11M59/B1/77 11M59/B1/78

1325/6 1326/7 1327/8 1328/9 1329/30 1330/1 1331/2 1332/3 1334/5 1335/6 1336/7 1337/8 1338/9 1339/40 1340/1 1341/2 1342/3 1343/4 1344/5 1345/6 1346/7 1347/8 1348/9 1349/50

11M59/B1/79 11M59/B1/80 11M59/B1/81 11M59/B1/82 11M59/B1/83 11M59/B1/84 11M59/B1/85 11M59/B1/86 11M59/B1/87 11M59/B1/88 11M59/B1/89 11M59/B1/90 11M59/B1/91 11M59/B1/92 11M59/B1/93 11M59/B1/94 11M59/B1/95 11M59/B1/96 11M59/B1/97 11M59/B1/98 11M59/B1/99 11M59/B1/100 11M59/B1/101 11M59/B1/102

B. The manorial accounts of the cathedral priory These are part of the Winchester Cathedral Archive, held on deposit at Hampshire Record Office, DC/J1–J2. The information for the manors of Barton, Crondall, Easton, Hurstbourne, Littleton, Sutton, Whitchurch, and Wonston is based on my own transcripts, for the manors of Chilbolton, Houghton, Michelmersh, and Silkstead on the transcripts made by J. S. Drew.64 The following list gives all the years for which the accounts survive. Barton: 1248, 1261, 1267, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1322, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1330, 1339, 1342, 1344. Chilbolton: 1248, 1267, 1273, 1280, 1282, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1318, 1325, 1326, 1337, 1339, 1347, 1348. Crondall: 1248, 1270, 1272, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1314, 1315, 1318, 1323, 1324, 1340. Deposited as bound typescript copies, at the Institute of Historical Research, Senate House, the University of London as classmark BC.6499/Sil 64

Bibliographical Note: Manuscript Sources

137

Easton: 1248, 1267, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1325, 1326. Houghton: 1248, 1267, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1309, 1311, 1316, 1318, 1322, 1325. Hurstbourne: 1248, 1270, 1273, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1309, 1311, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1325, 1326. Littleton: 1248, 1267, 1272, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1319, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1335. Michelmersh: 1248, 1267, 1270, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1309, 1311, 1316, 1318, 1325, 1326. Silkstead: 1267, 1276, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1321, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1338, 1344, 1345, 1347. Sutton: 1248, 1267, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1323. Whitchurch: 1248, 1261, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1299, 1305, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1321, 1325, 1326, 1330, 1334, 1337, 1338. Wonston: 1248, 1261, 1267, 1270, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1322, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1329, 1332, 1335, 1336, 1339, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1349.

PART III THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

7 POLLEN ANALYSIS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS IN WINCHESTER by ERWIN ISENBERG and JANE M. RENFREW1 INTRODUCTION

P

ollen analysis has been of great benefit to prehistoric archaeology in reconstructing human influences on the natural vegetation. At the time this chapter was first written in the late 1970s there had, however, been fewer opportunities for pollen analysis in conjunction with excavations of more recent, historical, sites which could also yield information about the development of past vegetation and agricultural activities. The situation in Winchester provided a useful exception. The samples studied by Isenberg in 1970 and 1972 came from waterlogged deposits at Lower Brook Street, Castle Yard, and Wolvesey Palace (Illus. 7.1) and ranged in date from the Roman period to the thirteenth century, the majority belonging to the tenth and eleventh centuries (Table 7.1). Most of the samples taken in 1970 and 1971 were from pits on the Lower Brook Street site, in the yard area behind the houses in Tenements IX, X, and XI. Sediment samples taken in 1969 from the Anglo-Saxon streets at Castle Yard were also analysed, as well as one sample taken in 1971 from early Roman deposits at Wolvesey Palace. THE SAMPLES

The samples were examined in 1970 and 1972.Those studied in 1970 were mostly taken by Erwin Isenberg using a novel method which can perhaps best be explained with reference to Pit 229 at 1 This chapter was originally written in the early 1980s and reflects the techniques in use at the time. Interpretation of the data might today (2021) be different.

140

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester

Illus. 7.1 Winchester: showing the location of the sites from which pollen samples were taken and the site of P.V. Waton’s sample on Winnall Moors.

Preparation of the samples

141

Lower Brook Street (BS Pollen 12; see Table 7.7). Here a metal cylinder was pushed 600mm deep into a pit and then removed filled with sediment. Key to sites: BS = Lower Brook Street; WP = Wolvesey; The core obtained was then very CY = Castle Yard carefully pushed out of the cylinder Date code Pollen sample Date with the help of a probe. The length a BS Pollen 1 pre mid-1st cent. A.D. of the cylindrical sediment sample, b WP Pollen 1 c. A.D. 70–85 compressed by the pressure of the c BS Pollen 2 late 1st to ?mid-4th cent. borer and by being pushed out of d BS Pollen 3 10th cent. the cylinder, was then recalculated e CY Pollen 1 early 10th cent. in relation to the actual length of the f BS Pollen 4 early to ?mid-10th cent. core (all calculations for Table 7.11 g BS Pollen 8 mid- to late 10th cent. relate to the actual depth of the core g BS Pollen 9 mid- to late 10th cent. in its uncompressed state) so that it was possible to reconstruct the original h CY Pollen 2 mid- 10th cent. thickness of the slices into which the h BS Pollen 7 mid- to late 10th cent. core sample had been divided. The i CY Pollen 3 late 10th cent. mass of material within each bore j BS Pollen 10 early to ?mid-11th cent. sample was divided into numbered j BS Pollen 11 early to ?mid-11th cent. slices of equal size so that the results k CY Pollen 4 and 5 mid-11th cent. to 1067 were comparable for all slices in all l BS Pollen 13 late 11th to 12th cent. the bore samples in the diagrams. l BS Pollen 12 13th cent. Special care was taken to prevent fresh l BS Pollen 14 13th cent. disturbances and contamination of the samples during handling. The samples from the Anglo-Saxon streets at Castle Yard (Table 7.3) were not taken by Isenberg personally, but came from sediment samples taken during the 1969 excavations. Work was resumed in April and May 1972, but some of the 1970 samples, not examined that season due to lack of time, had deteriorated badly in storage, so that pollen analysis had to concentrate on sediment samples taken by Isenberg during the 1971 excavations. TABLE 7.1 Dating of the pollen samples from Winchester

PREPARATION OF THE SAMPLES The slices of sediment (each corresponding to an actual length of 20mm) were macerated in a 10 per cent solution of potassium hydroxide.The material was filtered, washed, and centrifuged until the solution was clear. The sediment was then desiccated with glacial acetic acid, mixed with a solution of one-part sulphuric acid to nine parts acetic anhydride, and brought to the boil. This was followed by washing and centrifuging once again.The sediment was then soaked in a mixture of one-part glycerine to one-part water, and again centrifuged.The washed material was taken out of the last solution and put into pure glycerine.

142

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester

COUNTING THE SAMPLES In order to obtain comparable counting values, equal quantities of the samples were pipetted and spread out on a glass-covered surface of 1000mm2. The samples were then counted according to the ‘Raster’ procedure whereby all the pollen grains were counted, including the damaged and unidentifiable examples. Microscopic examination of selected samples showed the pollen to be surprisingly well preserved, so that in most cases it was possible to determine the form and structure of the outer exine. Within one core, however, there were variations – sometimes considerable – in the numbers of pollen grains, the reason for which could not always be explained. In the case of another core, the reduction or complete absence of pollen was due to strong faecal deposits in some parts of the fill of the pit. In another case, the reduction in pollen numbers can be related to a change in ground conditions. INTERPRETATION In the event it proved difficult to make quantitative comparisons between the individual slices within a core.To take account of this, unless otherwise stated, the percentages in the tables relate to the total distribution within a feature.This, of course, makes it more difficult to provide a coherent analysis of the sequence in the historical development of the vegetation. There is, however, a direct proportional relationship between cereal pollen and the pollen of the cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), the pollen of which is low as the cereal pollen curve rises and high when the cereal pollen curve reaches its maximum. This correlation can be used as a control in interpreting the presence of cereal pollen in a way which does not depend on its chance deposition alone. Percentage variations in cereal pollen do not, indeed, necessarily reflect any changes in the intensity of cultivation in the area. The lack of samples which can be treated in a statistical manner prevents further comparisons with, for example, the weed, wild chamomile (Matricaria sp.) which increases as cereal cultivation decreases. In order to present a chronological reconstruction of developments in the natural vegetation and cultivation in the area we would have needed far more samples than were examined, samples in which the temporal parallels could also be investigated in terms of spatial dimensions. Yet despite these quantitative statistical reservations, some qualitative predictions can be made about the natural and cultural landscape of Winchester in the later Anglo-Saxon and earlier post-conquest centuries. There are many indications that in the tenth and eleventh centuries an extensive marsh landscape stretched along the River Itchen and that this wet area must have had an impact on the natural vegetation. Apart from the frequent occurrence of water-loving plants such as herbs and willows, the pollen of true water plants has also been found in the deposits: for example, the yellow water-lily (Nuphar lutea), marsh marigold (Caltha sp.), bulrush (Typha sp.), and burreed (Sparganium sp.). However, the tables show that cereal pollen was more abundant than that of wild or meadow grasses. This does not necessarily mean that a smaller area was devoted to grassland, for intensive grazing would in any case have caused some suppression of the

Interpretation

143

pollen rain from the areas grazed, but the extraordinarily high proportion of cereal pollen must indicate that agriculture was practised nearby.The wild grasses frequently appear along with the weeds which grew within the yards and along the paths of the town. The weeds indicated in the tables are very characteristic of waste-ground of this kind. The limited growth of trees in the area seems quite remarkable, although pollens of oak (Quercus sp.), alder (Alnus glutinosa), birch (Betula sp.), willow (Salix sp.), lime (Tilia sp.), beech (Fagus sp.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), buckthorn (Rhamnus sp.), and even pine (Pinus sp.) do occur in the deposits. It is not easy to establish the origin of the tree pollen because it could have blown in from a distance. Some pollen can probably be assigned to plum (Prunus sp.), but the pollens of ‘profitable trees’ of the rose (Rosaceae) family are difficult to identify to species. It must be assumed that trees in general were pushed out of the immediate settlement area. It is interesting to observe that there seem to have been fewer trees within the town than is the case today. Among the bushes, hazel (Corylus avellana) occurs frequently. It may have been particularly common along the edges of paths and field boundaries, for hazel is a tree which prefers light and probably grew in open surroundings. It is not so easy to establish whether closed, forest-like areas fit into this picture of the former vegetation of the vicinity of Winchester. The quantities of tree pollen suggest that a large area of dense forest is not indicated, yet the tree-pollen percentages do fluctuate. For example, the numbers of oak pollen grains (Quercus sp.) in the table for Lower Brook Street can exceed 10 per cent but can also be much lower (Table 7.4: BS Pollen 3 and 7; cf. BS Pollen 4 and 8). What is needed is a continuous sequence of layers containing pollen in firmly dated contexts. This might be possible taking the finds from Lower Brook Street and Castle Yard together. The earliest pollen finds from Lower Brook Street and Wolvesey date to the immediate pre-Roman and early Roman periods respectively. These are followed by later Roman and then by tenthto thirteenth-century deposits. The finds from the superimposed Anglo-Saxon streets at Castle Yard fill out the evidence for the tenth to eleventh centuries. These results are all considered below in chronological order and are set out in a series of tables (Tables 7.2–7.12) which have been drawn up in this form by Renfrew using Isenberg’s data. Since the original results were displayed in a number of different ways direct comparison between the samples was difficult. The order of the species in the tables follows the Sequence of Orders and Families set out by Clapham et al. in The Excursion Flora of the British Isles.2 All numbers for species represent the percentage of that species in the total pollen found in the sample. The actual number of pollen grains present is shown separately as the total for each sample. Table 7.9 gives the dating of all the pollen samples from Winchester. They are arranged in chronological order as in Table 7.1 and give the comprehensive results for all the pollen analyses undertaken by Isenberg on the Winchester material. The samples can be grouped into four main chronological periods: a–c, pre-Roman and Roman; d, the pre-urban occupation of Lower Brook Street in the tenth century; e–k, the late ninth to mid-eleventh century urban period; and l, the early post-conquest period.

2

Clapham et al. 1968.

144

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester

POLLEN FROM IMMEDIATELY PRE-ROMAN AND ROMAN DEPOSITS IN WINCHESTER (TABLE 7.2) TABLE 7.2 Pollen from Lower Brook Street and Wolvesey Palace Lower Brook Street BS Pollen 1 (n = 240) Date

pre mid-1st cent. A.D.

Taxon Polypodium sp. Pinus sp. Brassicaceae Caryophyllaceae Chenopodiaceae Acer sp. Potentilla sp. Apiaceae Rumex sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Ericaceae Plantago sp. Asteraceae Poaceae Cerealia

Common name Polypody Pine Cabbage family Pink family Goosefoot family Field maple Cinquefoils Carrot/celery/parsley family Dock Alder Hazel Oak Willow Heather family Plantain Daisy family Grass family Cultivated cereals

% 16.5 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.2 8.5 8.3 3.6 3.9 14.2 29.1

BS Pollen 2 (n = 620) late 1st to ?mid- 4th cent. % 35.2 1.6 9.8 9.6 1.9 – 4.8 3.2 14.4 19.5

Wolvesey Palace WP Pollen 1 (n = 392) c. A.D. 70–85 % 2.0 36.0 3.0 10.0 4.5 25.0 2.0 3.0 4.5 10.0 -

The predominance of cereals and grasses (Poaceae), and cabbage family (Brassicaceae) pollen in the Lower Brook Street samples indicates that an area of downland was already, in Roman times, cleared and under cultivation, but that there were also some trees of field maple (Acer sp.), alder (Alnus glutinosa), hazel (Corylus avellana), oak (Quercus sp.), and willow (Salix sp.) growing in the vicinity.The alder and willows were probably growing close to the river in fairly damp conditions, while the others flourished on drier ground. The pine (Pinus sp.) and hazel pollen from Wolvesey may reflect very local conditions, although pine pollen can travel over considerable distances. Cereals do not appear to have been grown or threshed at Wolvesey in this period. POLLEN FROM THE SUPERIMPOSED ANGLO-SAXON STREETS AT CASTLE YARD (TABLE 7.3) There is a remarkably high percentage of birch (Betula sp.) pollen represented here: only in CY Pollen 4 and 5 are cereal pollens more numerous. In the contemporary levels on Lower Brook Street

145

Pollen from the Anglo-Saxon streets AT CASTLE YARD TABLE 7.3 Pollen from the superimposed Anglo-Saxon N–S streets at Castle Yard CY Pollen 1 Street 2 Date Pollen count per 1000m2

CY Pollen 3 Street 4

CY Pollen 4–5 Street 8

early 10th cent. mid-10th cent. late 10th cent.

mid-11th cent. to 1067

302

192

796

442

% 3 7 3 15 10 3 4 5 8 3 4 7 15 13

% 2 5 3 25 5 2 7 3 2 3 7 4 10 5 17

% 1 6 4 1 10 9 3 2 3 4 8 4 5 30 10

Taxon

Common name

%

Polypodium vulgare L. Scleranthus sp. Chenopodium sp. Linum catharticum L. Prunus sp. Angelica sylvestris L. Peucedanum sp. Betula sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Eupatorium sp. Achillea sp. Matricaria sp. Centaurea sp. Leontodon sp. Hieracium sp. Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Poaceae Cerealia

Common polypody Knawels Goosefoots Purging flax Plum sp. Wild angelica Milk parsley/hog’s fennel Birch Alder Hazel Oak Willow Hemp agrimony Yarrow Wild chamomile Knapweed Hawkbit Hawkweeds Water plantain Grass family Cultivated cereals

6 2 20 7 4 6 2 2 2 5 7 14 17 6

Unidentified

CY Pollen 2 Street 3

birch (Betula sp.)is present, but in much less quantity. Perhaps there were birch trees growing in or close to this south-western part of the town in the pre-conquest period. Other trees represented, but in much smaller numbers, include alder (Alnus glutinosa), willow (Salix sp.), oak (Quercus sp.), and hazel (Corylus avellana), and a wild cherry or plum (Prunus sp.). There is a high proportion of grass and cereal pollen, indicating cultivation in close proximity to the town and possibly some crop processing within the city. The daisy family (Asteraceae) is especially well represented here by hemp agrimony (Eupatorium sp.), yarrow (Achillea sp.), wild chamomile (Matricaria sp.), cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), hawkbit (Leontodon sp.), and hawkweed (Hieracium sp.) which may well have been growing on the open downland, or as weeds in the cereal fields or in the gardens within the town.The following species are present here for the first time and are not represented in the Lower Brook Street samples: knawel (Scleranthus sp.), flax (Linum sp.), wild angelica (Angelica sylvestris), milk parsley/hog’s fennel (Peucedanum sp.), hemp agrimony (Eupatorium sp.), yarrow (Achillea sp.), hawkbit (Leontodon sp.), hawkweed (Hieracium sp.), and water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica).

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester

146

POLLEN FROM 10TH- TO 13TH-CENTURY DEPOSITS AT LOWER BROOK STREET (TABLES 7.4 TO 7.8) The following Tables 7.4 and 7.5 give the results of pollen analysis from Lower Brook Street for the tenth and to the ?mid-eleventh century. Sample BS Pollen 3 should perhaps be considered separately, for it is the only one belonging to the pre-urban occupation in this area. Its main features (Table 7.4) are a high percentage of cereal pollen, of weeds belonging to the daisy family (Asteraceae), and of oak (Quercus sp.). Other species present include the polypody fern (Polypodium sp.), bitter-cress (Cardamine sp.), docks (Rumex sp.), heather-family plants (Ericaceae), plantain (Plantago sp.), cleavers (Galium sp.), and mugwort/wormwood (Artemesia sp.). Among the bushes TABLE 7.4 Lower Brook Street: pollen of the 10th century from pre-urban (BS 3) and urban (BS 4, 7–9) deposits + present BS 3 (n = 498)

Pollen no. Date Taxon

Common name

Athyrium Roth. Polypodium sp. Pinus sp. Ranunculus sp. Cardamine sp. Caryophyllaceae Stellaria sp. Chenopodium sp. Ilex sp. Rhamnus sp. Potentilla sp. Apiaceae Rumex sp. Betula sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Corylus avellana L. Fagus sp. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Ericaceae Utricularia sp. Glechoma hederacea L. Plantago sp. Galium sp. Asteraceae Artemesia sp. Typha sp. Poaceae Cerealia sp. Unidentified

Lady fern Polypody Pine Buttercups Bitter-cress Pink family Stichworts Goosefoots Hollies Buckthorn Cinquefoils Carrot/celery/parsley family Dock Birch Alder Hazel Beech Oak Willow Heather family Bladderworts Ground ivy Plantain Cleavers Daisy family Mugwort/wormwood Bulrush Grass family Cultivated cereals

BS 4 BS 7 BS 8 BS 9 (n = 401) (n = 423) (n = 468) early to ?mid mid to late mid to late mid to late 10th cent. 10th cent. 10th cent. 10th cent. 10th cent. % % % % 2 5.5 2 3 2 3 2 12 3 1.5 1.5 13 1.5 4 26 18

3 7 3 2 2 8 2 13 2 12 27 19

3 4 1 6 3 13 2 3 3 22 3 22 15

0.3 0.3 70 1 0.5 1.1 1.6 0.5 0.5 1 0.3 2.7 3 17 0.2

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

POLLEN OF THE 10TH TO 13TH CENTURIES FROM LOWER BROOK STREET 147 TABLE 7.5 Pollen of the early to ?mid-11th century from Lower Brook Street + present BS Pollen 10 (n = 562) Taxon

Common name

Ranunculus sp. Cardamine sp. Chenopodium sp. Tilia sp. Ilex sp. Rhamnus sp. Apiaceae Rumex sp. Betula sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Ericaceae Glechoma hederacea L. Plantago sp. Galium sp. Asteraceae Artemesia sp. Centaurea sp. Cyperaceae Poaceae Cerealia Unidentified

Buttercups Bitter-cress Goosefoots Lime Hollies Buckthorn Carrot/celery/parsley family Dock Birch Alder Hazel Oak Willow Heather family Ground ivy Plantain Cleavers Daisy family Mugwort/wormwood Knapweed Sedge/rush family Grass family Cultivated cereals

BS Pollen 11

% 4.5 1.0 5.5 15.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 6.0 1.5 2.0 20.0 24.0 3.0

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -

and trees buckthorn (Rhamnus sp.), birch (Betula sp.), alder (Alnus glutinosa), beech (Fagus sp.), and oak (Quercus sp.) are present. The other samples are all discussed together after Table 7.5. The six samples analysed for this period at Lower Brook Street contained the pollen of thirty-nine different species. The following species were represented for the first time in the Winchester sequence, but since so few pollen samples were examined successfully for earlier periods we cannot conclude with any confidence that these species were not also present earlier. Thus, lady fern (Athyrium sp.), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), holly (Ilex sp.), lime (Tilia sp.), bladderwort (Utricularia sp.), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), wild chamomile (Matricaria sp.), cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), and sedges/rushes (Cyperaceae) are present for the first time. It is worth noting that BS Pollen 8 (Table 7.4) contained 70 per cent bitter-cress pollen (Cardamine sp.), a species which is also present in all the other Lower Brook Street samples of this period but is not found on the Castle Yard streets. Cereals were more numerous in all the samples than grasses and often more plentiful than any other species found. Oak (Quercus sp.) was the only tree which accounted for more than 10 per cent of the total pollen in any one sample, and pollen from the daisy family accounted for most of the wild species present in BS Pollen 7 (Table 7.4).

148

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester TABLE 7.6 Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 13, late 11th to 12th century Taxon

Common name

Rorippa silvestris L. Helianthemum sp. Stellaria sp. Scleranthus sp. Chenopodium sp. Rhamnus sp./Frangula sp. Polygonum sp. Carpinus betulus L. Solidago sp. Matricaria sp. Leontodon sp. Poaceae Cerealia Unidentified

Creeping yellow-cress Rockroses Stichworts Knawels Goosefoots Buckthorn/alder buckthorn Knotgrasses and persicarias Hornbeam Golden rods Wild chamomile Hawkbit Grass family Cultivated cereals

(n = 1150) % 1.3 1.7 0.5 0.8 4.3 14.3 3.0 16.9 1.3 0.4 2.1 28.2 24.3 4.7

Table 7.6 shows species represented in BS Pollen 13 (from Lower Brook Street) dated to the late eleventh to twelfth century. Creeping yellow-cress (Rorippa sylvestris), rockrose (Helianthemum sp.), alder buckthorn (Frangula sp.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), and golden rod (Solidago sp.) are first noted here.The grasses include soft-grass/velvetgrass (Holcus sp.) and common bent-grass (Agrostis vulgaris) as well as two other species. Among the cereals Isenberg detected pollen of einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) but it is very difficult to distinguish the pollens of cereal species, and these two wheat species may be better regarded as ‘wheat’ rather than as specific forms. Table 7.7 shows the results of a core 336mm in length which taken through the deposits in Pit 229 (BS Pollen 12) and divided into twelve equal sub-sample slices each 28 mm thick (Subsamples 9 and 10, 224–280mm below the current level reached in the excavation, contained no pollen and are not included in the table). The largest amount of pollen was recovered from Sub-sample 4 at a depth of 84–112mm. Table 7.8 shows species represented in BS Pollen 14 (from Lower Brook Street) dated to the thirteenth century. This sample was taken as a core 600mm long and divided into twenty-nine sub-sample slices 20mm thick by depth. Sub-samples 14, 17, and 18 contained no pollen. The following species were present in the thirteenth century for the first time, but since so few pollen samples were examined successfully for the earlier periods we cannot conclude with any confidence that these species were not also present earlier: male fern (Dryopteris sp.), marsh marigold (Caltha sp.), yellow water-lily (Nuphar lutea), bramble/dewberry/raspberry (Rubus sp.), ivy (Hedera helix), fool’s parsley (Aethusa cynapium), knotgrasses and persicarias (Polygonum sp.), scabious (Scabiosa sp.), thistle (Carduus sp.), thistle (Cirsium sp.), and bur-reed (Sparganium sp.). DISCUSSION Most of the pollen from Winchester was found in pits. Some of the pits were open over a long period and gradually filled up with rubbish. In two cases (BS Pollen 12 and 14;Tables 7.7 and 7.8)

Male fern Kingcup/marsh marigold Bitter-cress Knawels Goosefoots Buckthorn Bramble/dewberry/raspberry Ivy Milk parsley/hog’s fennel Knotgrasses and persicarias Birch Alder Hazel Beech Oak Willow Hemp agrimony Yarrow Wild chamomile Thistles Hawkbit Hawkweeds Grass family Cultivated cereals

Dryopteris Adams Caltha palustris L. Cardamine sp. Scleranthus sp. Chenopodium sp. Rhamnus sp. Rubus sp. Hedera helix L. Peucedanum sp. Polygonum sp. Betula sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Corylus avellana L. Fagus sp. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Eupatorium sp. Achillea sp. Matricaria sp. Cirsium sp. Leontodon sp. Hieracium sp. Poaceae Cerealia

Sub-samples 9 and 10 contained no pollen. The raw data for unidentified pollen is not available.

Common name

Taxon

Depth in cm

Sub-sample no.

4.0 0.7 4.0 2.5 2.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 27.0 40.0

%

0–2.8

0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.5 8.0 78.0

%

2.8–5.6

1.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.5 4.0 0.7 2.5 3.0 17.0 69.0

%

5.6–8.4

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 20.0 73.0

%

8.4–11.2

0.6 3.0 0.7 2.0 2.5 16.0 79.0

%

11.2–14

7 (n=80) 8 (n=36)

1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 11.0 6.0 11.0 6.0 16.0 42.0

% 5.0 5.0 30.0

%

5.0 5.0 30.0

%

14–16.8 16.8–19.6 19.6–22.4

1 (n=168) 2 (n=564) 3 (n=566) 4 (n=1008) 5 (n=447) 6 (n=100)

(Total no. of grains for whole core 3074)

TABLE 7.7 Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 12, 13th century

2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 20.0

%

1.0 0.3 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 15.0 5.0

%

28–30.8 30.8–33.6

11 (n=30) 12 (n=75)

Discussion

149

Polypody Pine Yellow water-lily Knawels Goosefoots Small-leaved lime Ivy Milk parsley/hog’s fennel Fool’s parsley Angelica Knotgrasses and persicarias Alder Oak Willow Scabious Wild chamomile Thistles Cornflower Hawkbit Hawkweeds Grass family Cultivated cereals Bur-reed

Polypodium sp. Pinus sp. Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm. Scleranthus sp. Chenopodium sp. Tilia cordata Mill. Hedera helix L. Peucedanum sp. Aethusa cynapium L. Angelica sp. Polygonum sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Scabiosa sp. Matricaria sp. Carduus sp. Centaurea cyanus L. Leontodon sp. Heiracium sp. Poaceae Cerealia Sparganium sp.

% 2.5 1 3.2 19 5 16 9 48 -

% 1 2 4 1 22 13 10 49 13 4.5 12 15 51 4

2

-

%

1 2 3 500 560 306

0.5 24 30 40 -

9 -

-

%

4 68

7 6 16 8 9 32 -

% 4 5 7 14 11 14 9 28 -

% 5 3 1 5 2 20 20 20 25 -

% 1 2 2 12 27 23 30 -

%

%

3 1.5 7.5 1 2 2 3 6 2 5 3 2 11 12 17 20 2 18 18 35 34 -

% 2 10 2 13 79 -

%

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 90 143 137 304 349 132 721

Sample 14 was taken as a core 60cm long, and divided into sub-samples of 2cm thickness for examination. Sub-samples 14, 17, and 18 contained no pollen. The raw data for unidentified pollen is not available.

Common name

Taxon

Sub-sample no. No. of pollen grains counted

10 20 3 10 2 11 50 -

% 5 2 5 20 18 45 -

% 5 15 1 44 -

% 6 5 10 35 58 -

% 12 74 -

% 3 5 6 35 50 -

%

2 5 6 14 54 -

%

2 10 3 2 9 27 38 -

%

0.5 3 6 15 11 18 50 -

%

4 3 25 25 55 -

%

12 13 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 31 120 139 624 227 419 278 203 176 100

TABLE 7.8 Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 14, 13th century

14 7 5 4 5 20 59 -

%

25 49

5 10 2 20 63 -

%

26 42

5 10 5 35 40 -

%

27 80

5 15 15 51 -

%

28 85

10 20 5 46 -

%

29 60

150 Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester

151

Discussion

TABLE 7.9 Pollen taxa identified from Winchester excavations, 1969–71 The dates of pollen rain refer to the months of the year when each species is in flower i.e. 1 = January, 4 = April etc + = present For key to the date code, see Table 7.1. Date code

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

+ -

+ - - - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - - + - - + - + + +

+ + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + +

j

k

l

Taxon

Common name

Athyrium Roth. Dryopteris Adams Polypodium sp. Pinus sp. Caltha palustris L. Ranunculus sp. Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm. Brassicaceae Cardamine sp. Rorippa sylvestris L. Helianthemum sp. Caryopyllaceae Stellaria sp. Scleranthus sp. Chenopodium sp. Tilia cordata Mill. Linum catharticum L. Acer sp. Ilex sp. Rhamnus sp. Frangula sp. Rubus sp. Potentilla sp. Prunus sp. Hedera helix L. Apiaceae Aethusa cynapium L. Angelica sylvestris L. Peucedanum sp. Polygonum sp. Rumex sp. Betula sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Carpinus betulus L. Fagus sp. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Ericaceae Utricularia sp. Glechoma hederacea L. Plantago sp.

Lady fern Male fern Polypody Pine Kingcup/marsh marigold Buttercups Yellow water-lily Cabbage family Bitter-cress Creeping yellow-cress Rockroses Pink family Stitchworts Knawels Goosefoots Small-leaved lime Purging flax Field maple Hollies Buckthorn Alder buckthorn Bramble/dewberry/raspberry Cinquefoils Plum sp. Ivy Carrot/celery/parsley family Fool’s parsley Wild angelica Milk parsley/hog’s fennel Knotgrasses and persicarias Docks Birch

+ + + + -

+ + + + -

+ + + + + -

+ + + + +

Alder

+ +

-

+ + + + + + + + +

Hornbeam Beech Hazel Oak Willow Heather family Bladderworts Ground ivy Plantain

- - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - + - - + + - - + - + + + + + + + - + + + + + + - + - - + - + + + + + - - + + - - + + - + - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - + - - + + - - + - + + + - + -

- - - - + - + + - - + - - + + - - - + - - - - + - - + - - + - - - - + + + + + + + - + - + - - + - + - + - - + - - + - - - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - + + - + + + + + + + -

Date of pollen rain 7–8 7–9 6–9 4–6 3–7 4–10 6–8 4–9 6–8 6–9 1–12 6–8 5–10 6–9 6–9 3–6 5–8 5–6 5–6 6–9 6–9 3–5 9–11 4–10 7–8 7–9

4–10 2–5 1–5 3–5 4–5 1–4 4–6 3–6 7– 8 3–5 4–10

152

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester TABLE 7.9 (cont.) Date code

Taxon

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

- - - + - - - + + - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + + +

i

j

k

Common name

Galium sp. Cleavers Scabiosa sp. Scabious Asteraceae Daisy family Solidago sp. Golden rods Eupatorium sp. Hemp agrimony Achillea sp. Yarrow Matricaria sp. Wild chamomile Artemesia sp. Mugwort/wormwood Carduus sp. Thistles Cirsium sp. Thistles Centaurea cyanus L. Cornflower Leontodon sp. Hawkbit Heiracium sp. Hawkweeds Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Water plantain Sparganium sp. Bur-reed Typha sp. Bulrush Cyperaceae Sedge/rush family Poaceae Grass family Cerealia Cereals

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + + +

- - + - - + + + + + + - - + - + + + + + + + - - + - - + + + +

l

Date of pollen rain 5–9 7–8 7–9 7–9 6–8 6–7 7–9 5–8 7–10 6–9 6–10 6–10 6–8 6–9 6–7 2–7 1–12 6–7

it was possible to separate the pollen from the different layers in the fill of the pit and it was hoped that, if the layers had only been exposed for a short time, pollen grains characteristic of a certain part of the pollen calendar would indicate the time of year when deposition occurred. Layers exposed for longer periods would obviously contain pollen shed at several seasons of the year or even over several years. A number of species found at Winchester may be taken as seasonal indicators. Hazel (Corylus avellana) (January–April), alder (Alnus glutinosa) (January–May), birch (Betula sp.), willow (Salix sp.) (February–May), and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) (March–April) would all suggest exposure during the late winter to early spring. The late spring might be indicated by the pollen of beech (Fagus sp.) (April–May), oak (Quercus sp.) (April–June), and pine (Pinus sp.) (April–July). Most plants shed their pollen through the late spring to early summer and some over quite long periods, and are thus not so seasonally sensitive as to be taken as indicators. Buckthorn (Rhamnus sp.), however, only sheds its pollen in May and June. The mid- to late summer season is characterised by the pollen of the yellow water-lily (Nuphar lutea) (June– August), lime (Tilia sp.) (June–September), hemp agrimony (Eupatorium sp.) (July–September) and mugwort/wormwood (Artemesia sp.) (July–September). Few flowers are to be found in bloom in the late autumn or early winter, but ivy (Hedera helix) is an exception being in flower from September to December. Table 7.10 is a pollen calendar for some of the species found at Winchester (Illus. 7.2). If one uses this pollen calendar to examine the layers of the pits in Lower Brook Street (BS Pollen 12

153

Discussion TABLE 7.10 Pollen calendar for some of the taxa found at Winchester (after Godwin 1975, Fig. 18, with additions; see also Table 7.9) Taxon

Common name

Polypodium sp. Pinus sp. Caltha palustris L. Ranunculus sp. Nuphar lutea L. Cardamine sp. Chenopodium sp. Tilia sp. Acer sp. Rhamnus sp. Hedera helix L. Apiaceae Aethusa cynapium L. Rumex sp. Betula sp. Alnus glutinosa (L.) Carpinus betulus L. Fagus sp. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp. Salix sp. Plantago sp. Eupatorium sp. Artemesia sp. Carduus sp. Leontodon sp. Cyperaceae Poaceae Cerealia

Polypody Pine Kingcup/marsh marigold Buttercups Yellow water-lily Bitter-cress Goosefoots Lime Field maple Buckthorn Ivy Carrot/celery/parsley family Fool’s parsley Docks Birch Alder Hornbeam Beech Hazel Oak Willow Plantain Hemp agrimony Mugwort/wormwood Thistles Hawkbit Sedge/rush family Grass family Cultivated cereals

Jan

Feb

March April May June July

Aug Sept Oct

Nov Dec

and 14; Tables 7.7 and 7.8) it is possible to detect differences in the dates of deposition of the different layers. The results of this examination are shown in Tables 7.11 and 7.12. The more sensitive indicator is probably the minimum period which shows the shortest possible time the pit could have been open to ensure the overlap of the pollen rain of the different species present. This minimum period is the one which shows the most variation and probably gives the best idea of the seasonal exposure of each level in the pits. Pit 229 (BS Pollen 12) appears to have been dug and open in the early part of the year from March to June (Sub-sample 12). The level above (Sub-sample 11) may only have been open briefly in June and July. There is then a gap in the pollen preservation. When it picks up again (Sub-samples 8 and 7), the pit appears to have been open at mid-summer. In Sub-sample 6 we have a more extended period represented: April to July. This is followed by a brief exposure in June and July (Sub-sample 5).The two levels above this (Sub-samples 3 and 4) indicate that they were open from April to June and July (possibly both in the same year).The topmost two levels (Sub-samples 1 and 2) show later use, from May until the end of September. It is not possible, on the basis of pollen evidence alone, to know how quickly these sediments accumulated and the

154

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester

Illus. 7.2 Pollen calendar for England and Wales (after Godwin 1975, Fig. 18. December not given).

function of the pit probably changed through time, but it does appear that the pit was first used in spring and early summer, that some levels were open for a very short time in mid-summer, and that the last two levels were open in late summer to autumn. The finds from the pollen calendrical analysis of Pit 200 (BS Pollen 14; Table 7.12) are quite different from those so far considered. This pit appears to have been consistently open at mid-summer, mainly just for the month of June. There are only a few exceptions to this in the twenty-nine levels examined. Sub-sample 22 was exposed for June and July; Sub-sample 15 was open from March to June, and Sub-sample 13 was open for June and July. Sub-sample 9 shows a longer period of use from May to the end of September, and Sub-samples 7 and 6 were also open in the late summer from June to September. The first two layers were open for June and July. Thus, in this pit one could say that below Sub-sample 15 all the layers were deposited at mid-summer, either in one or up to twelve different seasons, that it was then open

155

Conclusion

TABLE 7.11 Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 12, 13th century, analysis of core layers by dates of pollen rain (see also Table 7.7)  Sub-sample

Jan

Feb

March

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 11 11 12 12

Maximum Minimum Sub-samples 9–10 contained no pollen.

in the spring to early summer followed by four mid-summer deposits and then three with late summer to autumn exposure (with a mid-summer level between the first and second of these late summer deposits). The sequence then reverted to June levels with the top two having June and July exposure. Thus, the minimum view of the use of this pit might be that it was dug and used many times at one mid-summer, was open again in the following spring, mid-summer, late summer, and autumn, and then used again the following mid-summer, a life of three mid-summers’ use on the shortest scale. The pollen might, on the other hand, represent up to twenty-six seasons’ use. This is an interesting proposition, but assumes that all the pollen in the pit sequence had fallen on the pit surface and then been buried. It must however be recognized that the pit is likely to contain sediment that had been shovelled from elsewhere and to have had a different exposure history. CONCLUSION The pollen analyses undertaken by Erwin Isenberg at Winchester can be used first to indicate the natural vegetation growing in the vicinity of the city at different periods of its occupation. It can also possibly indicate that the processing of cereal crops took place within or very close to the

156

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester

TABLE 7.12 Lower Brook Street: BS Pollen 14, 13th century, analysis of core layers by dates of pollen rain (see also Table 7.8) Sub-sample

Jan

Feb

March

1   1 2   2 3   3 4   4 5   5 6   6 7   7 8 8 9   9 10   10 11   11 12   12 13 13 15       15   16 16 19 19 20   20 21 21 22   22 23   23 24   24 25   25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29           Maximum   Minimum Sub-samples 14, 17 and 18 contained no pollen.

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         

         

 

 

                 

 

 

                                                                                                       

 

 

     

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

     

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nov

   

 

 

 

 

Dec

Conclusion

157

city and may also indicate the time of year in which the pollen rain accumulated in pits which were then open and in use. Pollen has been notoriously difficult to study in the chalkland of southern England and many attempts have been made to look for it in the Itchen valley. Prior to the mid 1980s, only Paul Waton had any success.3 He took a core from the Phragmites peat fen at Winnall Moors, north of Winchester (Illus. 7.1 and 7.3) and obtained a sequence from the Boreal, i.e. from the second (vegetation) stage of the Holocene in the Blytt-Sernander scheme.4 But since Waton’s pollen diagram in its published form has only a single 14C date, it is impossible to say for certain how the vegetation changed between two specific dates until the present day. From 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000 cereal pollen is high relative to shrub pollen which is constant at 20–30 per cent. Hemp (Cannabis sp.) type and rye (Secale sp.) type pollen are present in the later Illus. 7.3 P.V. Waton’s pollen diagram for Winchester part of the sequence. Thus, it is (after Waton 1982, Fig. 2). possible to deduce that there was considerable arable cultivation with pasture and areas of woodland. After about 1025 cultivation and woodland decreased and grassland plants increased. In Winchester Isenberg examined sixteen samples from the early Roman deposits on the Cathedral Green without any success, since no pollen was preserved in the chalky sediments there. The finds from Lower Brook Street, Wolvesey, and Castle Yard are rather exceptional and add useful information on conditions in and around the city in Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and early post-conquest times. Table 7.13 lists species present in the pollen in each of the major periods of occupation (results for all sites within the city amalgamated).

4

3 Waton 1982, 77–82. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blytt%E2%80%93Sernander_system [date accessed 18.05.20].

158

Pollen analysis of archaeological deposits in Winchester TABLE 7.13 Lists of species present in the pollen in each of the major periods of occupation (results for all sites within the city amalgamated)

+ present For key to the date code, see Table 7.1 Phases a–c

10th century (pre-houses) Phase d

-

-

Roman Date code

Late Anglo-Saxon

Early medieval

Phases e–k

Phase l

+

-

Taxon

Common name

Athyrium Roth.

Lady fern

Dryopteris Adams

Male fern

-

-

-

+

Polypodium

Polypody

+

+

+

+

Polypodium vulgare

Common polypody

-

-

+

-

Pinus

Pine

+

-

+

+

Caltha

Kingcup/marsh marigold

-

-

-

+

Ranunculus

Buttercup

-

-

+

-

Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm.

Yellow water lily

-

-

-

+

Brassicaceae

Cabbage family

+

-

-

-

Cardamine

Bittercress

-

+

+

+

Rorippa sylvestris

Creeping yellow-cress

-

-

-

+

Helianthemum Mill.

Rockroses

-

-

-

+

Caryophyllaceae

Pink family

+

-

-

-

Stellaria

Stitchwort

-

-

-

+

Scleranthus

Knawel

-

-

+

+

Chenopodiaceae

Goosefoot family

+

-

-

-

Chenopodium Tilia sp.

Goosefoot family Lime

+ -

-

+ +

+ -

Tilia cordata Mill.

Small-leaved lime

-

-

+

+

Linum catharticum

Purging flax

-

-

+

-

Acer

Field maple

+

-

-

-

Ilex

Holly

-

-

+

-

Rhamnus

Buckthorn

-

-

+

+

Frangula

Alder buckthorn

-

-

-

+

Rubus

Bramble/dewberry/raspberry

-

-

-

-

Potentilla

Cinquefoil

+

-

-

-

Prunus

Plum

-

-

+

-

Hedera helix

Ivy

-

-

-

+

Apiaceae

Carrot/celery/parsley family

+

-

+

-

Aethusa cynapium

Fool’s parsley

-

-

-

+

Angelica sp.

Angelica

-

-

-

+

Angelica sylvestris

Wild angelica

-

-

+

-

Peucedanum

Milk parsley/hog’s fennel

-

-

+

+

Polygonum

Knotgrass and persicaria

-

-

-

+

Rumex

Dock

+

+

+

-

159

Conclusion TABLE 7.13 (cont.)

Phases a–c

10th century (pre-houses) Phase d

-

+

+

-

Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn Alder

+

+

+

+

Carpinus betulus

Hornbeam

-

-

-

+

Fagus

Beech

-

-

-

+

Corylus avellana

Hazel

+

-

+

+

Quercus

Oak

+

-

+

+

Salix

Willow

+

-

+

+

Ericaceae

Heath family

+

+

+

-

Utricularia

Bladderwort

-

-

+

-

Glechoma hederacea

Ground Ivy

-

-

+

-

Plantago

Plantain

+

+

+

-

Galium

Cleavers

-

+

+

-

Scabiosa

Scabious

-

-

-

+

Asteraceae

Daisy family

+

+

+

-

Solidago

Golden rod

-

-

-

+

Eupatorium

Hemp Agrimony

-

-

+

+

Achillea

Yarrow

-

-

+

+

Matricaria

Wild chamomile

-

-

+

+

Artemesia

Mugwort/wormwood

-

+

+

-

Carduus

Thistle

-

-

-

+

Cirsium

Thistle

-

-

-

+

Centaurea cyanus

Cornflower

-

-

+

+

Centaurea sp.

Knapweed

-

-

+

-

Leontodon

Hawkbit

-

-

+

+

Hieracium

Hawkweed

-

-

+

+

Alisma plantago-aquatica

Water plantain

-

-

+

-

Plantago sp.

Plantain

-

+

-

-

Sparganium sp.

Bur-reed

-

-

-

+

Typha

Bulrush

-

-

+

-

Cyperaceae

Sedge/rush family

-

-

+

-

Roman Date code Taxon Betula

Common name Birch

Late Anglo-Saxon

Early medieval

Phases e–k

Phase l

Poaceae

Grass family

+

+

+

+

Cerialia

Cultivated cereals

+

+

+

+

Holcus sp.

Soft-grass/velvetgrass

-

-

-

+

Agrostis vulgaris

Common bent-grass

-

-

-

+

Triticum monococcum

Einkorn

-

-

-

+

Triticum dicoccum

Emmer wheat

-

-

-

+

8 THE IDENTIFICATION AND UTILIZATION OF WOOD IN EARLY WINCHESTER by SUZANNE KEENE

INTRODUCTION

T

he importance of wood as a raw material in early medieval Winchester can be assessed from the surveys of the city.1 These record a total of sixty-two occupational bynames (not necessarily representing the same number of separate occupations) among the citizens of the mid-eleventh to mid-twelfth centuries. The trades represented by ten of these names would have been concerned with working wood, a number considerably above that of any other group of names concerned with a single commodity or raw material. They included carpenters, a hewer and a feller, turners, besom-makers, a cabinet maker, a cooper, a ladder maker, and a tally cutter. There was a concentration of woodworkers in the western suburb where one of the principal streets was known from the thirteenth century, if not earlier, as Wodestret.2 The woodworkers may then have had a special association with the woodland to the west of the city, but by the fourteenth century there was a wood market in the city centre close to High Street and next to the beast market.3 The trade there may mostly have been in firewood, one of the most vital uses of wood. In the later Middle Ages, with the exception of carpenters, trades concerned with wood are no longer so predominant in the written record. For its survival on archaeological sites, wood depends on favourable burial conditions, usually caused in England by waterlogging.4 Waterlogged deposits at Winchester in which wood was preserved were encountered especially during the later years of the excavations in 1969–71. The most extensive waterlogged deposits were investigated at Lower Brook Street.As far as the Roman period is concerned, wood survived in the bottom of wells, but not in post-holes. Wood did by contrast survive in post-holes of the medieval period, probably because medieval posts were set into deposits which were already waterlogged due to the rise in water-level, while Roman posts rotted because the ground was not waterlogged at the time of their insertion. There were also some remains of hurdles on the later Anglo-Saxon streets at Castle Yard (see Illus. 4.2). WS 2, 200–5. WS 1, 235, ‘the street where wood was sold’, or possibly ‘the street leading to the wood’. 3 WS 2, Fig. 37, shows for 1300–40 how carpenters were concentrated in the western half of the walled 1 2

area and in the western suburb. By 1390–1430 they were in the east suburb and in the eastern half and centre of the walled area. 4 Today species may be identified from charcoal, but very little was collected from our excavations.

INTRODUCTION 161

Introduction TABLE 8.1 Lower Brook Street: numbers of structural timbers by phase and taxon Location

Date

F. Ph.

P. Ph.

Structure Oak Beech Hazel Birch

Alder

Other

Roman mid–late 4th cent.

55

114

Pit 474

mid–late 4th cent.

55

217

Pit 79

1

4th cent.

56

127

Pit 278

2

F. 778 (well)

13

2 2

Anglo-Saxon and medieval Residence, stone building

10th cent.

4

163

Residence, stone building

9th–?10th cent.

5

166

St Pancras’ Church

?9th–10th cent.

9

177

St Pancras’ Church

11th cent.

12

266

Pit 463

1

St Pancras’ Church

11th cent.

12

266

Pit 268

1

St Pancras’ Church

12th–13th cent.

13

268

Pit 461

3

St Pancras’ Church

14th cent.

15

205

Tenement XII

early–mid 10th cent.

36

666

Tenement XII

mid–late 10th cent.

37

724

Tenement XII

mid–late 10th cent.

37

726

Tenement XII

mid–late 10th cent.

37

726

Tenement XII

mid–late 10th cent.

37

670

Tenement XII

mid–late 10th cent.

37

670

Pit 367

1

Tenement XII

early–mid 11th cent.

38

735

Pit 283

42

Tenement XII

early–mid 11th cent.

38

735

F.806

2

Tenement XII

early–mid 11th cent.

38

735

1

Tenement XII

early 11th cent.

39

721

Pit 295

43

Tenement XII

early 11th cent.

39

734

Pit 266

8

Tenement XII

mid 11th cent.

40

683

F. 911

Tenement XII

late 11th–early 12th cent.

41

711

F. 449 (water-channel)

20

1 20

3 holly (1)

27

2

Tenement XII

late 11th–early 12th cent.

41 711/712

Tenement XII

late 12th–early 13th cent.

42

Tenement XII

mid–late 13th cent.

Tenement XII Tenement XI

1 1 1

1 16

Pit 383 1 1 Pit 244

60 1

F. 439/312

31

747

F. 691

4

43

712

F. 321 (water-channel)

44

late 13th–early 14th cent.

44

789

Pit 296

1

early 13th cent.

59

596

Tenement XI

early 13th cent.

59

595

6

Pre-St Mary’s Lane

10th cent.

65

316

17

Pre-St Mary’s Lane

10th cent.

65

301

Tanner Street

11th cent.

66

317

Pit 377

1

1 9

4

162 The identification and utilization of wood in early Winchester TABLE 8.1 (cont.) Location

Date

F. Ph.

P. Ph.

Tenement IX–X

mid–late 10th cent.

75

170

Structure Oak Beech Hazel Birch Pit 420

8

Tenement IX–X

mid–late 10th cent.

75

433

Pit 177

9

Tenement IX–X

mid–late 10th cent.

75

435

Tenement IX–X

mid–late 10th cent.

75

437

F. 605

5

Tenement IX–X

mid–late 10th cent.

75

446

Pit 333

4

Tenement IX–X

mid–late 10th cent.

75

502

Pit 448

Tenement IX–X

11th cent.

76

513

Tenement IX–X

late 11th–12th cent.

77

516

Alder

Other

3 1 1 1

4 F. 424 and F. 435 (water-channel) Pit 258

9

1

96

44

Tenement IX–X

late 11th–12th cent.

77

511

Tenement IX–X

13th cent.

78

420

Tenement IX–X

13th cent.

78

542

1

Tenement IX–X

13th cent.

78

559

1

4

1

2

ash (1)

1

Of particular interest is the oaken statuette of a woman found in a mid to late third-century well at Lower Brook Street (1971).5 The great majority of preserved wooden items were however structural timbers: timber house frames, water-channels, and well and pit linings (Table 8.1). Oak shingles for roofing which date from the eleventh and early twelfth centuries were found on the Lower Brook Street site where they would have roofed private houses, and also at Cathedral Car Park, where they would have been used on the domestic buildings of New Minster.6 Wood was of course also used for furniture and other objects, some no longer identifiable.7 Deposits of twigs, chips, and trimmings were found in pits, mainly on Lower Brook Street, and these were the most valuable source of evidence for a number of the tree species common in the Winchester area (Table 8.2). There were a number of wooden artefacts from Anglo-Saxon deposits on the Cathedral Car Park site in 1961, and some pieces of oak (Quercus) survived from waterlogged deposits on the site of the Anglo-Saxon Old Minster at Cathedral Green. At Wolvesey only a few timbers were encountered, but seven alder bowls were found dating from the twelfth to thirteenth centuries and one to the sixteenth.8 The principles and methods of sampling and storage are described elsewhere.9 METHODS OF IDENTIFICATION The main screening of the samples of wood took place when pieces were selected for dendrochronological and radiocarbon dating.10 To be suitable for dendrochronology samples X Interim, 299, 335–6, Pl. LVIII; WS 3.i, 634, Illus. 7.86–7; WS 11, 12, Fig. 8. 6 WS 7.ii, 320–6, Figs 73–5. 7 WS 7.ii, 817–18 (2536, Fig. 239, a butter churn), 925–8 (3224, Fig. 286, a measuring stick), 965–7 (3427–8, Figs 298–9, coopered vessels), 969–71 (3438– 5

46, Fig. 301, furniture), and 1147–9 (4452–7, Fig. 377, unidentified objects). 8 WS 7.ii, 959–65, Fig. 297. 9 Keene, 1977, 8; WS 7.ii, 27. 10 See, for example, WS 3.i, in prep.; WS 4.i in prep.; WS 5 in prep.; WS 6.i in prep.; WS 6.ii in prep.

316 170 37 107

65 75 75 16

Pre-Tanner Street 10th cent. mid–late 10th cent. mid–late 10th cent. early 10th cent.

Tenement IX–X Tenement IX–X

Castle Yard

Anglo-Saxon Street 3

Pit 420 F. 605

Pit 341

Pit 244 (tanning pit) Pit 266 (tanning pit) Pit 283 (tanning pit)

Pit 338 Pit 319 (Roman well) Pit 278

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+ + +

+

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+

*

+

+

+ +

Structure Oak Beech Hazel Blackthorn/ Ash Maple Prunus Hawthorn

Other

+ ?dogwood

holly

+ alder, elder

Birch

Note: samples consisted of bags containing chips, twigs, etc. These were sorted by eye into groups of similar-looking material and only one or two pieces from each group were identified.

577

57

10th cent.

665 726 734 735 711

36 37 38 38 41

Tenement XI

202

4 94 127

13

52 53 56

F.ph. P.ph.

early–mid 10th cent. mid–late 10th cent. early–mid 11th cent. early–mid 11th cent. late 11th–early 12th cent.

12th–13th cent.

Roman 1st–2nd cent. 2nd cent. 4th cent. Late Anglo-Saxon and medieval

Date

Tenement XII Tenement XII Tenement XII Tenement XII Tenement XII

Lower Brook Street St Pancras’ Church

Location

+ = present; *= present as artefacts

TABLE 8.2 Twigs, chips, and other non-structural wood: types present in each sample

Methods of identification

163

164 The identification and utilization of wood in early Winchester

TABLE 8.3a Common names and Latin names of principal tree taxa Common name

Taxon

Alder Ash Beech Birch Blackthorn Box Chestnut, sweet Dogwood Elder Hawthorn Hazel Holly Maple Oak Poplar Blackthorn/plum Spindle Willow Yew

Alnus glutinosa L. Fraxinus excelsior L. Fagus sylvatica L. Betula sp. Prunus spinosa L. Buxus sempervirens L. Castanea sativa Mill. Cornus sanguinea L. Sambucus nigra L. Crataegus sp. Corylus sp. Ilex aquifolium L. Acer sp. Quercus sp. Salicaceae, probably Populus sp. Prunus sp. Euonymus europaeus L. Salix sp. Taxus baccata L.

TABLE 8.3b Groups of species which are difficult to separate

Family Rosaceae

Sub-family

Common name

Taxon Separations may be unreliable

Apple Pear Hawthorn

Malus sp. Pyrus sp. Crataegus sp.

Salicaceae

Blackthorn Wild plum Whitebeam Poplar and willow

Prunus sp. Prunus sp. Sorbus sp. Separation may be unreliable

Fagaceae

Sweet chestnut, young oak

May be confused if the oak has not developed broad rays

Maloideae

Amygdaloideae

Results and conclusions

165

had to be oak and to contain more than 50 rings. The criterion for radiocarbon analysis was context. During the selection process each sample was noted as ‘oak’ or ‘non-oak’, identification being by the naked eye. ‘Non-oak’ pieces, which included cases where there was any doubt, were then sectioned and identified using high-power microscopy.11 In cases where a positive identification could not be made, the sample was submitted to the Jodrell Laboratory, Kew, for a further opinion.12 Where samples were of a large quantity of twigs, they were divided into groups of similarlooking pieces, and one or two from each group were then sectioned.13 For ease of comprehension common names are used throughout, and these correspond to the identifications set out in Tables 8.2 and 8.3. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS There is a greater range of species in the Roman than in the later periods, but the number and sometimes the size of samples from the later periods was not large, so this may not be a real difference.14 It might however mean that there was truly a greater variety of species growing close to the Roman town. All the wood species found in the samples are common in the Winchester area today. The non-structural species summarized in Table 8.2 are more likely to reflect environmental factors than the wood from structures listed in Table 8.1. It is tempting to interpret a relatively large quantity of twigs and trimmings found in the fourth-century Roman Pit 278 on Lower Brook Street in which ten species were represented, as coming from the clearing of nearby overgrown scrubby land, but it could just as well have been brought in as firewood. The early medieval samples include most of the species found in the Roman wood, but the amount deposited, and thus the sample size, was in general smaller and may, therefore, be less representative.The range of species present was compared with those listed in a recent survey of wood identified in charcoal from medieval deposits at archaeological sites in southern England.15 The majority are the same; although buckthorn, cork oak, field maple, lime, Scots pine, and walnut were not identified among the Winchester wood remains. Only cork oak and Scots pine are entirely absent from all the Winchester environmental samples. Notable by their absence, except among artefacts, are poplar and willow, which might have been expected as they grow plentifully in the Itchen valley today. Another valley-growing tree, alder, is also uncommon, except for the manufacture of bowls.16 The range of species present suggests that in all periods wood, such as oak, was derived usually from the uplands surrounding Winchester rather than from the river valley. As environmental evidence the wood must be treated with circumspection. It is well known that species of wood were selected specially for a particular function, for example oak for structural use, ash for the handles of tools (where tensile strength is required), alder for bowls, The principal reference works used were Forest Products Research 1961 and Greguss 1945. We are most grateful to Dr D. Cutler for his tuition, support, and help throughout the project. 13 There will have been bias against species such as lime (Tilia sp.) which fracture readily into small fragments. 14 See also WS 7.ii, 270–2, for the use of wood in late Anglo-Saxon and medieval Winchester. 15 16 Smith 2002, Tables 23 and 24. See above, p. 162. 11 12

166 The identification and utilization of wood in early Winchester and hazel for wattle. To an extent this was clearly the case in Winchester where nearly all the structural timber was oak. Where the oak was quick-grown with much summer growth and few vessel-rings, it was used for vertical house posts. Slow-grown oak with close vessel-rings was selected for planks and other structural components. The wicker lining of the thirteenthcentury Pit 171 at Lower Brook Street included oak twigs. Beech was the next most common species, used in greatest quantity as piles for strengthening the sides of water-channels at Lower Brook Street.17 Beech also had specialized uses, notably for the toothed cogwheels still in use today in windmills, although none of these was found. It was also used to make furniture. Alder was used occasionally in water-channels but was also the wood used exclusively for the turned bowls found in twelfth- to thirteenth-century deposits, probably because alder ‘is common in plantations occupying the low-lying parts of the upper Itchen valley near Winchester and the place-name Alresford shows that the tree was common in the same district during the early Middle Ages’.18 Of the less abundant species found, hazel was used for making pegs from the tenth to twelfth centuries, for making wattles for hurdles in the eleventh century, and presumably as the basis of daubed wall panels in the eleventh century.The field maple, occasionally recorded as a landmark in the Old English boundaries of rural estates in Hampshire, was valued by turners, being used in the eleventh century for making whipping tops and bowls.19 Ash, which was perhaps common on waste-ground in and near the city, was also used for making bowls and probably for making furniture in the tenth century. It was used for making pegs in both the tenth and eleventh centuries. Box was used in the Roman period for making spindle whorls; a box bowl and peg were found in tenth-century deposits. Chestnut and elm occur rarely but were used for making pegs in the tenth century. There are single instances of holly and hawthorn being used as stakes in water-channels. Box and yew also had certain specialized uses; some of the turned bowls of the twelfth century were made of these woods. There is a possible yew peg for a musical instrument in a thirteenth-century deposit.20 Willow was used for making pegs in both the tenth and eleventh centuries, and pegs were also made from willow, chestnut and elm in the eleventh century. No imported softwoods were found.

19

17 18 WS 5 in prep. WS 7.ii, 960. WS 7.ii, 706–7, Fig. 197 (2245, a whipping top), and 964, Fig. 297 (3413–17, bowls). 20 WS 7.ii, 716–17.

9 THE ROMAN PLANT REMAINS1 by PETER MURPHY

INTRODUCTION

P

lant macrofossils of pre-Roman and Roman date were examined from five sites in the city (Illus. 9.1): Lower Brook Street (1971), Cathedral Green (1969), Cathedral Car Park (1961),Tower Street (1964), and New Road (1975).2 Details of the deposits sampled and the extraction methods employed are given below.The samples from pre-Roman deposits – at Tower Street – contained only cereals and one grass seed, too little for conclusions to be drawn. Although the samples examined from Roman deposits were far fewer than those from late Anglo-Saxon and post-conquest contexts, the plant remains give a picture of the range of crops available for use as food in the Roman city and also reflect the nature of wild plant communities growing in the immediate area.The material identified (fruits, seeds, etc.) is listed in Tables 9.1–9.5. Where a particular species was extremely common, not all its seeds were extracted. In such cases an estimate of the total number of seeds present was made. In the sample CG Seeds 5, for example, sixty-three Urtica nutlets were extracted and it is estimated that about four times this number were present overall. This is indicated in the tables as ‘63(4)’. Sampling and extraction methods in the laboratory Waterlogged plant remains were extracted from the wet sediment samples by paraffin/water flotation.3 The non-floating residue was washed through a 3mm mesh sieve to extract fruit stones which failed to float. Carbonized material from the dry samples from New Road was extracted by simple water flotation. All the flot was collected in a 250-micron mesh sieve. THE SITES AND THEIR PLANT REMAINS Lower Brook Street 1971 (Table 9.1)

The macrofossils found in this area of the Roman town include two samples from the calcareous, peaty deposits immediately below the Roman layers (BS Seeds 1 and 2). The remainder were This report was submitted in the 1970s.The nomenclature of the taxa has been updated. 3 Excavated by the City Rescue Archaeologist: Qualmann and Scobie 2012. Coope and Osbourne 1967. 1

2

168

The Roman plant remains

Illus. 9.1 Winchester: showing the location of the five sites from which samples were taken. Roman approach roads and the internal street system are shown in yellow.

169

THE SITES AND THEIR PLANT REMAINS TABLE 9.1 Lower Brook Street: plant remains from deposits of the 1st to 4th centuries

Type key: a = achene; ca = caryopsis; cy = cypsela; fr = fruit; fs = fruit stone; ns = nut shell; nu = nutlet; per = perianth; s = seed + = present, but not counted Taxon

BS Seeds no. Common name

BS 1 BS 2 BS 3 BS 4 BS 5 BS 6 BS 7 BS 8–9

Pinus pinea L. Ranunculus cf. repens L. Ranunculus sp. Papaver cf. rhoeas Papaver sp. Brassicaceae Silene alba (Mill.) Krause Silene sp. Agrostemma githago L. Cerastium cf. arvense Stellaria cf. media Stellaria sp. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. Caryophyllaceae Hypericum cf. perforatum Chenopodium album L. Chenopodiaceae Atriplex patula/hastata L. Linum catharticum L. Potentilla cf. erecta Potentilla sp. Rubus fruticosus L. Rubus idaeus L. Rubus sp. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus insititia C.K. Schneid. Prunus domestica L. Prunus avium L. Prunus sp. Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. Coriandrum sativum L. Conium maculatum L. Apium graveolens L. Aethusa cynapium L. Daucus carota L. Apiaceae Polygonum persicaria (L.) Meissner Polygonum aviculare L. Rumex crispus L. Rumex crispus L. Urtica urens L. Urtica dioica L. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp.

Stone pine a Creeping buttercup a Buttercups s Field poppy s Poppies s Cabbage family s White campion s Campions/catchflies s Corncockle s Field mouse ear s Common chickweed s Stitchworts s Thyme-leaved sandwort s Pink family s Common St John’s wort s Fat hen s Goosefoot family s Common/hastate orache s Purging flax s Common tormentil a Cinquefoils a Blackberry fs Raspberry fs Bramble/dewberry/raspberry fs Blackthorn/sloe fs Bullace fs Plum fs Cherry/wild cherry fs Plum sp. fs Crab apple s Coriander fr Hemlock fr Wild celery fr Fool’s parsley fr Wild carrot fr Carrot /celery/parsley family fr Persicaria nu Knotgrass nu Curled dock nu Curled dock nu per Small nettle nu Stinging nettle nu Hazel ns Oak ns

type -

2 -

2 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 + -

7 2 2 4 1 1 3 13 46 4 12 3 1 2 10 1 3 -

1 1 2 7 202 30 63 2 1 1 1 1 + -

1 1 2 1 1 1 1 94 7 1 1 9 -

1 11 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 7 7 5 1

1 1 1 20 + -

170

The Roman plant remains TABLE 9.1 (cont.)

Taxon Hyoscyamus niger L. Primula sp. Prunella vulgaris L. Lamiaceae Galium sp. Sambucus ebulus L. Sambucus nigra L. Scabiosa columbaria L. Senecio sp. Cirsium cf. palustre (L.) Scop. Hypochaeris sp. Asteraceae Juncus sp. Carex sp. Cyperaceae Alopecurus geniculatus L. Bromus cf. mollis Poa sp. Poaceae Vitis vinifera L. Ficus carica L. Indeterminate

BS Seeds no. Common name Henbane Primrose sp. Self-heal Dead-nettle family Cleavers Danewort, dwarf elder Elderberry Small scabious Ragworts Marsh thistle Cat’s-ears Daisy family Rushes Sedges Sedge/rush family Marsh foxtail Lop-grass Meadow-grasses Grass family Grape Fig

BS 1 BS 2 BS 3 BS 4 BS 5 BS 6 BS 7 BS 8–9 type s s nu nu fr s s fr cy cy cy cy s nu nu ca ca ca ca s a

4 -

1 1 1 3 1 3 3 - 29(4) 2 2 1 1 10 12 7 -

2 1 1 4 2

2 1 11 1 1 - 15(2) 1 1 1

1 8 1 -

2 -

found in waterlogged anaerobic sediments in the fills of pits and a well. One (BS Seeds 3) came from Pit 338 of the late first century A.D. Three samples (BS Seeds 4–6) came from pits which are not closely dated (Final phase 53), and another three (BS Seeds 7–9) came from the waterlogged fill of Pit 217 dated to the mid to late fourth century. The positions of these samples are indicated on the plan (Illus. 9.2) which shows that all lay outside the Roman buildings in this area. Cathedral Green 1969 (Table 9.2) The greatest number of Roman macrofossils was recovered from occupation pre-dating the east–west street (Illus. 9.3). Seven samples (CG Seeds 1–7) came from the first pre-street occupation datable before about A.D. 70.There is one sample (CG Seeds 8) which came from the second (later) pre-street occupation, also datable before A.D. 70. A further sample (CG Seeds 9) belongs to the second or third pre-street occupation and another (CG Seeds 10) to the third pre-street occupation of this area; both are therefore also datable before A.D. 70. CG Seeds 11 and 12 came from the silt between the second and third street surfaces and date to the late first to early second century.

THE SITES AND THEIR PLANT REMAINS

Illus. 9.2 Lower Brook Street 1971: plan showing the sources of the Roman deposit samples.

171

172

The Roman plant remains

Illus. 9.3 Cathedral Green 1969: plan showing the source of the Roman deposit samples in relation to the streets (stippled) and forum (dashed outline; the later cathedral is shown hatched).

Common name Creeping buttercup Meadow buttercup Buttercups Field poppy Opium poppy Long prickly-headed poppy Poppies Greater celandine Cabbage/mustard-types Field penny-cress Shepherd’s purse Cabbage family White campion Field mouse ear Common chickweed Thyme-leaved sandwort Pink family Fat hen Goosefoots Goosefoot family Common/hastate orache Common tormentil Cinquefoils Parsley pierts Hemlock Fool’s parsley Knotgrass Sheep’s sorrel Curled dock Small nettle Stinging nettle Water mint

Taxon

Ranunculus cf. repens L. Ranunculus cf. acris L. Ranunculus sp. Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver cf. somniferum L. Papaver cf. argemone L. Papaver sp. Chelidonium majus L. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Thlaspi arvense L. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Brassicaceae Silene alba (Mill.) Krause cf. Cerastium arvense Stellaria cf. media Arenaria serpyllifolia L. Caryophyllaceae Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium sp. Chenopodiaceae Atriplex patula/hastata L. Potentilla cf. erecta (L.) Rausch. Potentilla sp. Aphanes arvensis agg. Conium maculatum L. Aethusa cynapium L. Polygonum aviculare agg. Rumex cf. acetosella L. Rumex cf. crispus L. Urtica urens L. Urtica dioica L. Mentha cf. aquatica L.

CG Seeds no. a a a s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s a a a fr fr nu nu nu nu nu nu

type 17 3 -

3 20 1 1 1 1 6 4 73 -

2 2 5 34 1 1 7 1 21 -

1 1 1 1 -

2 29 4 4 14 2 6 1 63(4) -

3 1 1 17 -

32 10 2 1 3 15 2 7 1 135 -

6 21 17 3 1 12 5 4 13 8 3 84 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 47 1 2 1 4 15 2 1 1 11 9 5

1 7 41 -

7 3 3 12 4 3 28 17 42 6 1 1 1 2

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 12 2 16 -

3 4 1 1 1 13 -

CG 1 CG 2 CG 3 CG 4 CG 5 CG 6 CG 7 CG 8 CG 9 CG 10 CG 11 CG 12

Type key: a = achene; ca = caryopsis; co = cone; cy = cypsela; fr = fruit; gb = glume base; nu = nutlet; s = seed

TABLE 9.2 Cathedral Green: plant remains from deposits of the 1st to 2nd centuries

THE SITES AND THEIR PLANT REMAINS

173

Gipsy-wort Hedge woundwort Common/large flowered hemp-nettle Dead-nettle family Goosegrass/cleavers Cleavers Elderberry Spear thistle Prickly sow-thistle Nipplewort Crown daisies Daisy family Rushes Sedges Spike rushes Sedge/rush family Spelt wheat Grass family

Lycopus europaeus L. Stachys cf. sylvatica L. Galeopsis tetrahit L./speciosa Mill.

Lamiaceae Galium cf. aparine L. Galium sp. Sambucus nigra L. Cirsium cf. vulgare (Savi) Ten. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Lapsana communis L. cf. Chrysanthemum sp. Asteraceae Juncus sp. Carex sp. Eleocharis sp. Cyperaceae Triticum spelta Poaceae Indet.

Common name

CG Seeds no.

Taxon

1 1 2

-

nu nu fr fr s cy cy cy cy cy s nu nu nu gb ca

1 1 4 2 -

2

4 2 14 1 1

1

1 1 -

-

1 1 9 -

1 1 1 1 2 2 5

-

6

2 1 1 13 1 1

3

1

1 3 9 6 3 2 10

3

-

1 1 10(4) 2 27 5

-

17 -

-

-

-

1 10 1 1 9 42 (4) 59 (2) 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 3 13 2

1

-

CG 1 CG 2 CG 3 CG 4 CG 5 CG 6 CG 7 CG 8 CG 9 CG 10 CG 11 CG 12 nu nu

type

TABLE 9.2 (cont.)

174 The Roman plant remains

175

THE SITES AND THEIR PLANT REMAINS TABLE 9.3 Cathedral Car Park: plant remains of the 3rd to 4th centuries from Well 2 and the courtyard Type key: co = cone; end = endocarp; fs = fruit stone; ns = nut shell CACP Seeds no.

CACP 1 CACP 2 CACP 3 CACP 4 CACP 5 CACP 6 CACP 7

Taxon

Common name

type

Pinus pinea L. Prunus sp. Juglans regia L. Corylus avellana L.

Stone pine Plum sp. Walnut Hazel

co fs end ns

16 -

1

1

1 -

1

2 -

1 -

CACP 8 1

Cathedral Car Park 1961 (Table 9.3) The walnuts (Juglans regia), hazel-nut shells (Corylus avellana), Prunus stones, and stone-pine cones (Pinus pinea) from this site were recovered by hand during the excavation of Well 2 in the courtyard of a substantial house (Illus. 9.4). The well itself went out of use before A.D. 300, but the house appears to have remained in use until the end of the Roman period.4 Sediment samples from other contexts on the site produced no plant remains. New Road 1975 (Table 9.4) Samples of 1000cc from Layers 500, 503, and 569 (and other layers) from the ditch of the Oram’s Arbour Iron Age enclosure (F. 371)5 were examined. Layers 500, 503, and 569 were all dry, chalky deposits. Layer 569 (NR Seeds 1) was silt of the first to second century A.D., Layer 500 (NR Seeds 2) the fill of a third- to fourth-century grave (Grave 393) within the ditch, and Layer 503 (NR Seeds 3) a fourth-century silt deposit.

TABLE 9.4 New Road: plant remains from ditch silts of the 1st to 4th centuries Type key: ca = caryopsis; gb = glume base NR Seeds no. Taxon Triticum sp. Triticum spelta L. Hordeum sp. Cerealia

4

Common name Wheat Spelt wheat Barley Cultivated cereals

I Interim, 155, Fig. 2.

5

Layer type ca gb ca ca

NR 1 569

NR 2 500

NR 3 503

1 1 -

1 -

2

Qualmann and Scobie 2012, 137–9.

Illus. 9.4 Cathedral Car Park 1961: plan showing the source of the deposit samples from Well 2 in the courtyard of the Roman Building 1 (S.E.).

176 The Roman plant remains

THE SITES AND THEIR PLANT REMAINS

177

Tower Street 1964 (Table 9.5) All the four seed samples from this site come from Post-hole 43 inside a circular structure which is datable to the late pre-Roman Iron Age (mid- to late 2nd century B.C.). The post-hole was sealed by a thick deposit representing reduced activity in the Late Iron Age, and this in turn was sealed by the first Roman town rampart of c. A.D. 70 (Illus. 9.5 and 9.6).6 The samples produced only a few grains of cereals (wheat, barley, and oats) and one grain of Bromus sp.

Illus. 9.5 Tower Street 1964: plan of the Iron Age structure showing the source of deposit samples from Post-hole 43.

6

III Interim, 234–5, Pl. LXVIII.

The Roman plant remains

178

Illus. 9.6 Tower Street 1964: looking north-west across the site of the circular Iron Age structure. Seed samples 1–4 were taken from Post-hole 43, immediately behind the further horizontal ranging rod. The large pits in the centre of the image are medieval. TABLE 9.5 Tower Street: plant remains from deposits of the mid- to late 2nd century B.C. TS Seeds no.

Taxon Bromus secalinus/mollis Triticum sp. Hordeum vulgare L. Avena cf. sativa L. Cerealia

Common name Brome grasses Wheat Barley (six-row hulled) Common oat Cultivated cereals

TS 1 TS 2 TS 3 TS 4 8 7 1 7

3 2 2

1 7 2

1 -

FIELD CROPS The cultivation of field crops in and around the city is sparsely represented in these samples. The sample from an occupation layer, dating from the mid-first century A.D., at Cathedral Green (CG Seeds 2) contained a single carbonized glume base of spelt wheat (Triticum spelta) while Layers 500, 503, and 569 from New Road produced only a single grain of hulled barley (Hordeum sp.), and a single grain probably of spelt. To gain an idea of the full range of field crops cultivated in the immediate area it is necessary to look outside the walled area. A large collection of carbonized cereals and legumes is available from the site of a Roman farm at Owslebury some 6km to the south-east of the city, adjacent

179

Field crops TABLE 9.6 Taxa recovered as macrofossils from pre-Roman (TS) and Roman Winchester

Key to sites: BS = Brook Street; CG = Cathedral Green; CACP = Cathedral Car Park; NR = New Road; TS = Tower Street + = present

Site Taxon Aethusa cynapium L. Agrostemma githago L. Alopecurus geniculatus L. Aphanes arvensis agg. Apiaceae Apium graveolens L. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. Asteraceae Atriplex patula/hastata L. Avena cf. sativa L. Brassicaceae Brassica/Sinapis sp. Bromus cf. mollis L. Bromus secalinus L. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Carex sp. Caryophyllaceae Cerastium arvense L. Cerealia Chelidonium majus L. Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium sp. Chrysanthemum sp. Cirsium cf. palustre (L.) Scop. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Conium maculatum L. Coriandrum sativum L. Corylus avellana L. Cyperaceae Daucus carota L. Eleocharis sp. Ficus carica L. Galeopsis tetrahit L./speciosa Mill. Galium aparine L. Galium sp. Hordeum sp. Hordeum vulgare L. Hyoscyamus niger L. Hypericum cf. perforatum Hypochaeris sp. Juglans regia L. Juncus sp. Lamiaceae Lapsana communis L.

Common name Fool’s parsley Corncockle Marsh foxtail Parsley pierts Carrot/celery/parsley family Wild celery Thyme-leaved sandwort Daisy family Common/hastate orache Common oat Cabbage family Cabbage/mustard-types Lop grass Rye brome Shepherd’s purse Sedges Pink family Field mouse ear Cultivated cereals Greater celandine Goosefoot family Fat hen Goosefoots Crown daisies cf. Marsh thistle Spear thistle Hemlock Coriander Hazel Sedge/rush family Wild carrot Spike rushes Fig Common/large-flowered hemp-nettle Goosegrass/cleavers Cleavers Barley Barley (six-row hulled) Henbane Common St. John’s wort Cat’s ears Walnut Rushes Dead-nettle family Nipplewort

BS + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

CG CACP

TS

+ + + + +

+

+ +

+

+ + + +

+

+ + + + +

+

+ + +

+

+ + + +

+ + + + +

NR

+ + +

+

+

+

180

The Roman plant remains TABLE 9.6 (cont.) Site

Taxon Linum catharticum L. Lycopus europaeus L. Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. Mentha cf. aquatica L. Papaver cf. argemone L. Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver somniferum L. Papaver sp. Pinus pinea L. Poaceae Poa sp. Polygonum aviculare agg. Polygonum persicaria (L.) Meissner Potentilla cf. erecta (L.) Rausch. Potentilla sp. Primula sp. Prunella vulgaris L. Prunus avium L. Prunus domestica L. Prunus insititia C.K. Schneid. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus sp. Quercus sp. Ranunculus acris L. Ranunculus cf. repens L. Ranunculus sp. Rubus fruticosus agg. Rubus idaeus L. Rubus sp. Rumex acetosella agg. Rumex crispus L. Sambucus ebulus L. Sambucus nigra L. Scabiosa columbaria L. Senecio sp. Silene alba (Mill.) Krause Silene sp. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Stachys sylvatica L. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Stellaria sp. Thlaspi arvense L. Triticum sp. Triticum spelta L. Urtica dioica L. Urtica urens L. Vitis vinifera L.

Common name Purging flax Gipsy-wort Crab apple Water mint Long prickly-headed poppy Field poppy Opium poppy Poppies Stone pine Grass family Meadow-grasses Knotgrass Persicaria Common tormentil Cinquefoils Primrose sp. Self-heal Cherry/wild cherry Plum Bullace Blackthorn/Sloe Plum sp. Oak Meadow buttercup Creeping buttercup Buttercups Blackberry Raspberry Bramble/dewberry/raspberry Sheep’s sorrel Curled dock Danewort, dwarf elder Elderberry Small scabious Ragworts White campion Campions/catchflies Prickly sow-thistle Hedge woundwort Common chickweed Stitchworts Field penny-cress Wheat Spelt wheat Stinging nettle Small nettle Grape

BS + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + +

CG CACP

NR

TS

+ +

+

+ + + + + + +

+

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + +

181

Fruit and nut crops

to the Winchester to Portchester Roman road.7 This site, probably typical of the farms which supplied basic foodstuffs to Venta Belgarum, was producing spelt wheat (Triticum spelta), emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), six-row hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare), rye (Secale cereale), oats (Avena sp.), beans (Vicia faba), vetches (Vicia sp.), and peas (Pisum sp.).8 Of these, barley and spelt wheat were the two main cereal crops recovered, and in samples dating from the fourth century A.D. spelt wheat was by far the most important cereal represented. Carbonized cereals and pulses are extremely common in samples from rural sites such as Owslebury, but rare in Winchester itself. To account for this, the processing requirements of the crops must be considered. The hulled wheats (emmer and spelt), the most important cereals in this period, are extremely difficult to thresh and the ears require drying in an oven to facilitate threshing.9 The drying process provides opportunities for the accidental carbonization of the grain and chaff which is thus preserved. Drying and threshing would probably have been carried out at the sites of production to reduce the bulk of the crop before transportation. Cereals may, therefore, have arrived in the city in a fully processed state, ground into flour or ready for milling, malting, or direct consumption. Only major conflagrations in granaries or accidents during cooking would cause any further carbonization. It is important not to make too sharp a distinction between town and country in this early period. The carbonized spelt glume base, one of the tougher parts of spelt chaff from Cathedral Green (CG Seeds 2), has already been mentioned and this site also produced fruits and seeds of a wide range of common weeds of cereal crops, preserved waterlogged in anaerobic conditions. These weeds include buttercups (Ranunculus sp.), poppies (Papaver sp.), cabbage/mustard-types (Brassica sp.), penny cress (Thlaspi arvense), shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), white campion (Silene alba), goosefoots (Chenopodium sp.), docks (Rumex sp.), parsley piert (Aphanes arvensis), thistles (Carduus sp.), nipplewort (Lapsana communis), and prickly sow-thistle (Sonchus asper). Many of these species could have flourished in the disturbed soils represented by the first-century A.D. occupation layers at Cathedral Green, but taken together with the spelt glume base could perhaps be interpreted as representing crop processing in the early Roman period in the centre of the area which was soon to be covered by the walled town. FRUIT AND NUT CROPS Samples of the waterlogged deposits from first- to fourth-century pits and wells at Lower Brook Street, and from the fourth-century well at Cathedral Car Park, have produced a wide range of fruit stones, seeds, and nuts. It is helpful to consider these in two categories: those species whose wild forms are indigenous to this country and those which in southern England are close to their northern climatic limits. The first group of temperate fruit and nut crops includes apples (Malus sylvestris/Malus domestica), plums (Prunus sp.), cherries/wild cherries (Prunus avium), raspberries (Rubus idaeus), and hazel-nuts (Corylus avellana).The fruit stones, seeds, and nuts of these species make up over 90 per cent of the remains of orchard crops in the Winchester samples. 7

Collis 1970.

8

Murphy 1977, 50.

9

Helbaek 1952, 232.

The Roman plant remains

182

The seeds of apples cannot be related to any particular form of the fruit, but the specimens in the Lower Brook Street samples are large enough to be from cultivated varieties. The Prunus stones from the early secondcentury Pit 474 (Final phase 53, BS Seeds 4) are small and round, with a mean length of 13.2mm and a mean length:breadth ratio (L/B x 100) of 128; only one variety seems to be represented. Larger and more elongated fruit stones (mean length 14.6mm, mean length:breadth ratio of 144) were recovered from the mid to late fourth-century Pit 217 (Final phase 55, BS Seeds 8).These specimens may be compared with plum stones from Illus. 9.7 Lower Brook Street: fragment of pine third- to fourth-century deposits at Neatham cone of the stone-pine (Pinus pinea) from Roman (Hants.) which had a mean length of 14.1mm Pit 217. Scale in millimetres. and mean length:breadth ratio of 128.10 The Neatham samples produced two still larger forms of stone, with mean lengths of 16.6mm and 22mm, but these varieties are not represented at Winchester. The Lower Brook Street samples also produced a few poorly preserved cherry stones, apparently of both rounded and elongated forms, and a single seed of raspberry.The hazel-nut shells recovered are extremely fragmentary and may be from either wild nuts or cultivated cobs and filberts. The second group of fruits and nuts includes figs (Ficus carica), grapes (Vitis vinifera), walnuts (Juglans regia), and pine nuts (Pinus sp.), all introduced or imported southern European species. All four crops can be grown in the present climate of southern Britain but are vulnerable to extremes of temperature. Figs will produce good crops when planted in protected positions with southern exposures, but the young growing shoots are easily damaged by spring frosts;11 the walnut is also sensitive to frost when in flower.12 Walnuts grow successfully today at St Cross just outside Winchester. Successful crops of grapes may also have been produced in this area where they have been grown since at least the late eighteenth century.13 More recently commercial viticulture has undergone something of a resurgence at Hambledon (Hants.). The Mediterranean stone pine (Pinus pinea) is occasionally grown in this country but is rarely seen outside botanical gardens. Stone pine-cones (Illus. 9.7) found at Lower Brook Street in Pit 217 (Final phase 55, mid to late 4th-century) and at Cathedral Car Park in Well 2 (late 3rd-century) were also found at the Roman palace at Fishbourne (Sussex). If it can be assumed that the climate of southern Britain in the early Roman period differed little from that of today,14 there seems to be no reason why these crops could not have been grown locally, although the risk of crop failure in harsh years may have limited commercial production and confined these fruits and nuts to the domestic sphere.

10

Murphy 1977, 96.

11

12 Condit 1947, 103. Howes 1948, 196. 14 Lamb 1966, 174.

13

Vancouver 1810, 255.

Wild plant communities

VEGETABLES AND HERBS These crops are by far the least well represented, since their fruits and seeds are less likely to be preserved than cereals, fruit stones, or nuts. Nevertheless, their significance must not be underestimated since they undoubtedly had an important dietary role in providing vitamins and minerals and in enlivening a winter diet based on dried and salted foods. Only two crops in this category have been identified in the Winchester samples: coriander (Coriandrum sativum) from Lower Brook Street (Pit 474; BS Seeds 4) and opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) from several Cathedral Green samples (CG Seeds 2, 6, 7, and 10–12). The fruits of celery (Apium graveolens) and carrot (Daucus carota) from Lower Brook Street (Pit 409; BS Seeds 5) may be of cultivars but are more likely to be from the wild species. WILD PLANT COMMUNITIES The macrofossils of wild plants in the samples from Lower Brook Street and Cathedral Green are clearly derived from several plant communities. Some of the more distinctive species and communities are discussed below and the precise contexts from which these macrofossils were recovered are listed in Tables 9.1 and 9.2. Scrub plants (Table 9.7a) Scrub communities would have formed on disturbed and abandoned land in and around the city, as part of the sere leading to the development of secondary woodland. Most of these species produce edible fruits and nuts and their presence in refuse pits no doubt

183

TABLE 9.7a Scrub plants from Roman Winchester Taxon

Common name

Rubus fruticosus agg. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus insititia C.K. Schneid. Corylus avellana L. Sambucus nigra L.

Blackberry Blackthorn/sloe Bullace Hazel Elderberry

TABLE 9.7b Dry grassland plants from Roman Winchester Taxon

Common name

Cerastium arvense L. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. Hypericum cf. perforatum L. Linum catharticum L. Daucus carota L. Prunella vulgaris L. Scabiosa columbaria L. Bromus cf. mollis L.

Field mouse ear Thyme-leaved sandwort Common St John’s wort Purging flax Wild carrot Self-heal Small scabious Lop grass

TABLE 9.7c Wet grassland and waterside plants from Roman Winchester Taxon Ranunculus cf. repens L. Apium graveolens L. Polygonum persicaria (L.) Meissner Mentha cf. aquatica L. Lycopus europaeus L. Cirsium cf. palustre (L.) Scop. Juncus sp. Eleocharis sp. Alopecurus geniculatus L.

Common name Creeping buttercup Wild celery Persicaria Water mint Gipsy-wort Marsh thistle Rushes Spike rushes Marsh foxtail

184

AELFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

reflects seasonal gathering. The acorn from the mid to late fourth-century pit at Lower Brook Street (Pit 217; BS Seeds 7) supports the evidence from pollen analysis for the presence of oak trees (Quercus sp.) in the vicinity.15 Dry grassland plants (Table 9.7b) A late first-century pit or well at Lower Brook Street (Pit 338; BS Seeds 3) produced several species very characteristic of chalk grassland. Seeds of plants found in a wider range of dry grassland types occurred in several samples from this site and from Cathedral Green. The slopes of the Itchen valley no doubt supported extensive areas of chalk grassland in the vicinity of the city during the Roman period; such grassland is still widespread on downland around Winchester, for example on St Catherine’s Hill.

TABLE 9.7d Arable weeds and ruderal plants from Roman Winchester Taxon

Common name

Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver cf. argemone L. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Thlaspi arvense L. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Agrostemma githago L. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Silene alba (Mill.) Krause Chenopodium album L. Atriplex sp. Conium maculatum L. Aethusa cynapium L. Rumex sp. Polygonum aviculare agg. Urtica dioica L. Urtica urens L. Galeopsis tetrahit L. Hyoscyamus niger L. Aphanes arvensis agg. Galium aparine L. Cirsium/Carduus sp. Sonchus cf. asper (L.) Hill. Lapsana communis L.

Field poppy Long prickly-headed poppy Cabbage/mustard-types Field penny-cress Shepherd’s purse Corncockle Common chickweed White campion Fat hen Orache Hemlock Fool’s parsley Docks Knotgrass Stinging nettle Small nettle Common hemp-nettle Henbane Parsley pierts Goosegrass/cleavers Thistles Prickly sow-thistle Nipplewort

Wet grassland and waterside plants (Table 9.7c) Wet grassland would have been common in the valley bottom as it is today to the north and south of the city. Arable weeds and ruderal plants (Table 9.7d) This large group of plants includes not only species commonly found in the disturbed, nutrient-rich habitats surrounding human settlements but also crop weeds. The distinction between the two groups is not clear-cut, but it seems probable that some of these seeds were brought into the town with harvested cereal crops while others were derived from the ruderal vegetation of the immediate area within the city. 15

See above, p. 144 and Table 7.2.

10 THE PLANT ECONOMY AND VEGETATION OF ANGLO-SAXON WINCHESTER by MICHAEL MONK

INTRODUCTION

T

his examination of the samples from Winchester formed part of a larger project which the author undertook to examine the Anglo-Saxon plant remains from Hampshire and neighbouring areas, which culminated in his M.Phil. thesis for the Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton (1977), The Plant Economy and Agriculture of the AngloSaxons in Southern Britain. In the course of the Winchester Excavations Committee’s work, bulk sediment samples were taken for subsequent analysis at a number of sites where late Anglo-Saxon deposits were excavated. The bulk of the plant remains was found in samples of anaerobic deposits from pits and wells in six areas within the city: Lower Brook Street (1971), Assize Courts Ditch (1963), Castle Yard (1969), Wolvesey Palace (1971), Cathedral Car Park (1961), and Cathedral Green (1964–9) (Illus. 10.1). Subsequent botanical examination revealed that seeds of cultivated and wild plants were preserved. Over 162 different plant species were identified among the fruits and seeds recovered, allowing us to draw some conclusions as to the role of agriculture, orchard husbandry, animal fodder and bedding, and natural vegetation in the life of the inhabitants of the late Anglo-Saxon city. Most of the samples produced identifiable fruits and seeds in varying numbers, the majority from wild species.The presence of this material on a settlement site is due in part to humanity’s conscious (or unconscious) activities, and in part to the cosmopolitan habitat inclinations of many of these species themselves and their efficient mechanisms for seed dispersal. Most of the plants represented have been used in the past for culinary and/or medicinal purposes,1 but it is impossible to distinguish between those species which had been harvested or deliberately planted for these purposes and those that had, because of their preference for disturbed and/or nitrogen-rich soils, simply colonized the site. Although the various processes by which these seeds and fruits became incorporated into the deposits cannot now be traced, it is theoretically possible to gain some insights by studying the habitats from which plants derive, using the information on habitat preference and plant ecology of the various species present, as given by Tansley2 and by Clapham et al.3 This information, 1

See below, pp. 216, 225, and 364.

2

Tansley 1939.

3

Clapham et al. 1962.

186 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Illus. 10.1 Winchester: showing the location of the sites from which samples of Anglo-Saxon deposits were taken.

The Habitat Groups (Illus. 10.2)

187

derived from modern ecological studies, has been rationalized here into the thirteen habitat groups discussed below. It should be noted, however, that the strict classification of plant communities and plant habitats is useful only as a theoretical model and is used in the field by modern plant ecologists simply to give broad criteria from which to work.The only reason these groupings have been defined in this instance is to help our interpretation of the origin of the deposits as indicated by the habitats represented and the possible uses of the plants whose seeds were found in them.The most characteristic species present in each habitat group are given in the following descriptions.4 THE HABITAT GROUPS (Illus. 10.2) Habitat Group 1

Habitat Group 3

Cultivated, disturbed ground, highly nitrogenous soils. Characteristic species include field poppy (Papaver rhoeas), shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), night-flowering campion (Silene noctiflora), Nottingham catchfly (S. nutans), corncockle (Agrostemma githago), common chickweed (Stellaria media), goosefoot/all-seed (Chenopodium polyspermum), and fat hen (C. album).

Locally damp ground, areas of surface water, ponds, ditches and puddles, and meadows. Characteristic species include buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), wild celery (Apium graveolens), and fool’s watercress (A. nodiflorum), lesser persicaria (Polygonum minus), water forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides), corn mint (Mentha arvensis) and water mint (M. aquatica), marsh woundwort (Stachys palustris), rush (Juncus sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), club-rush (Scirpus sp.), lesser reedmace (Typha angustifolia), bent-grass (Agrostis sp.), and imperforate St John’s wort (Hypericum maculatum).

Habitat Group 2 Waste places, near buildings, and in areas with plant litter on the ground.There is a considerable overlap between species found in these habitats and those found in Habitat Group 1. Characteristic species include opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), white campion (Silene alba), bladder campion (S. vulgaris), mouse ear (Cerastium sp.), goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), common mallow (Malva sylvestris) and roundleaved mallow (M. rotundifolia), purging flax (Linum catharticum), dock (Rumex sp.), woody nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), white deadnettle (Lamium album), cleavers (Galium aparine), elderberry (Sambucus nigra) and danewort, dwarf elder (S. ebulus), ragwort (Senecio sp.), thistle (Cirsium sp.), hawksbeard (Crepis sp.), and greater celandine (Chelidonium majus). 4

Habitat Group 4 Close to slow-flowing rivers, marshy meadows, and reed swamps. There is some overlap with Group 3. Characteristic species in this group include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), common meadow rue (Thalictrum flavum), fine-leaved water dropwort (Oenanthe aquatica), bistort (Polygonum bistorta), willow (Salix sp.), water mint (Mentha aquatica), gipsy-wort (Lycopus europaeus), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), rush (Juncus sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), club-rush (Scirpus sp.), and lop grass (Bromus mollis).

Similar categories are employed by Green, see p. 253.

188 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 Illus. 10.2 Nine of the plants in the Habitat Groups of which the seeds were commonly found in late Anglo-Saxon contexts: 1. blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.), Group 6 2. chickweed (Stellaria media), Group 1 3. crab apple (Malus sylvestris), Group 13 4. elder (Sambucus nigra), Groups 2, 6, and 9 5. opium poppy (Papaver somniferum), Group 2 6. shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), Groups 1 and 9 7. sloe (Prunus spinosa), Group 13 8. stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), Group 10 9. bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), Group 13 (images 1–8 © P. J. Ottaway, 9 © author).

9

The Habitat Groups (Illus. 10.2)

Habitat Group 5 Close to the sea, dunes, dune slacks, upper reaches of salt marshes, and shingle beaches. Characteristic species include yellow-horned poppy (Glaucium flavum), some species of Brassica (although this genus has species that are also characteristic of cultivated ground, Habitat Group 1), hastate orache (Atriplex hastata), thorow-wax (Bupleurum tenuissimum), wild celery (Apium graveolens), wild carrot (Daucus carota), curled dock (Rumex crispus), henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), field milk-thistle (Sonchus arvensis), salt mud-rush (Juncus gerardii), some species of sedge (Carex) and club-rush (Scirpus) (e.g. sea club-rush S. maritimus), and curved sea hard-grass (Parapholis strigosa/P. incurva).

189

club-rush (Scirpus), cudweed (Gnaphalium sp.), and hazel (Corylus avellana). Habitat Group 8 Grassy places, heaths. Characteristic species include buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), bladder campion (Silene vulgaris), maiden pink (Dianthus deltoids), mouse ear (Cerastium sp.), lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea), common vetch (Vicia sativa), bistort (Polygonum bistorta), common hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), danewort, dwarf elder (Sambucus ebulus), daisy (Bellis perennis), hawksbeard (Crepis sp.), smooth meadow-grass (Poa pratensis) and rough-stalked meadow-grass (P. trivialis), brome grass (Bromus sp.), and yellow oat grass (Trisetum flavescens).

Habitat Group 6

Habitat Group 9

Woods and scrub. Characteristic species include buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), violet (Viola sp.), common or perforate St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) and imperforate St John’s wort (H. maculatum), greater stitchwort (Stellaria holostea), raspberry (Rubus idaeus), blackberry (R. fruticosus), common tormentil (Potentilla erecta), dog rose (Rosa canina), sloe (Prunus spinosa), plum (P. domestica) and gean cherry/wild cherry (P. avium), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), hazel (Corylus avellana), oak (Quercus sp.), willow (Salix sp.), self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), elderberry (Sambucus nigra) and danewort, dwarf elder (S. ebulus), nipplewort (Lapsana communis), hawkweeds (Hieracium sp.), and common sorrel (Rumex acetosa).

Paths and waysides, field and road margins. This group includes several of those species already listed for cultivated and waste-ground (in Habitat Groups 1 and 2): shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), St John’s wort (Hypericum sp.), white campion (Silene alba), Nottingham catchfly (S. nutans) and bladder campion (S. vulgaris), mouse ear (Cerastium sp.), Good King Henry (Chenopodium bonus-henricus), common mallow (Malva sylvestris), purging flax (Linum catharticum), black horehound (Ballota nigra), white dead-nettle (Lamium album), danewort, dwarf elder (Sambucus ebulus) and elderberry (S. nigra), ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), great burdock (Arctium lappa), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), nipplewort (Lapsana communis), smooth sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), hawkweeds (Hieracium sp.), hawksbeard (Crepis sp.), rush (Juncus sp.) and toad rush (J. bufonius), annual meadow-grass (Poa annua), yellow oat grass (Trisetum flavescens), vervain (Verbena officinalis), and bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides).

Habitat Group 7 Acid soils, moors, and bogs. Characteristic species include common tormentil (Potentilla erecta), creeping St John’s wort (Hypericum humifusum), some species of sedge (Carex) and

190 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester Habitat Group 10 Fens and lowland bogs. Characteristic species include marsh woundwort (Stachys palustris), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and, locally in boggy ground, swine cress (Coronopus squamatus). Habitat Group 11 Sandy soils. Characteristic species include maiden pink (Dianthus deltoids), lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea), common tormentil (Potentilla erecta), bistort (Polygonum bistorta), sheep’s sorrel (Rumex acetosella), and ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). Habitat Group 12 Other light soils but particularly calcareous soils. Characteristic species include Nottingham catchfly (Silene nutans), long prickly-headed poppy (Papaver argemone), violet (Viola sp.), common or perforate St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), mouse ear (Cerastium sp.), thyme-leaved sandwort (Arenaria serpyllifolia), wild carrot (Daucus carota), henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), deadly

nightshade (Atropa belladonna), bristly oxtongue (Picris echioides), yellow oat grass (Trisetum flavescens), bladder campion (Silene vulgaris), and white campion (S. alba). Habitat Group 13 The cultivated or culturally exploited plants. This category includes not only the main cereal species that were found on the Lower Brook Street sites, barley (Hordeum sp.) and wheat (Triticum sp.), but also orchard fruits including the Prunus fruits cherry/wild cherry (P. avium), domestic plum (P. domestica), bullace (P. domestica ssp. insititia) and sloe (P. spinosa), and crab apple (Malus sylvestris), cultivated apple (M. sylvestris ssp. sylvestris), grape (Vitis vinifera), and hazel (Corylus avellana), etc. In understanding the bar-graphs and tables which follow it is essential to understand that, apart from the cereals and the single grape, most of these species also fall into Group 6, the scrubland habitat group, and have hence been counted twice in the following analysis.

LOWER BROOK STREET 1965–71 The Lower Brook Street site lies within the floodplain of the River Itchen only 200m from the river. It would appear that the sediments forming the parent material of the soils in the area are partly derived from locations upstream, and partly of valley alluvium and peat deposits.5 Continuous occupation of the site, the buildup of organically derived debris, and the high local water-table in the Brooks area have also contributed to the character of the material from which the humus-rich, organic deposits in the area have developed. 5

The samples The excavations of 1965–71 revealed a considerable depth of stratified occupation deposits cut by many pits containing waterlogged, anaerobic deposits. Samples of these wellpreserved sediments were collected for later biological examination including analysis for plant remains. Most of the samples derive from contexts described archaeologically as the fills of tanning pits, rubbish pits, and latrines dating to the ninth, tenth, and first half of the eleventh

Myra Shackley, pers. comm.; see above, pp. 29–30.

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

centuries.6 The locations of the principal pits from which the samples were taken are shown in Illus. 10.3. Images and sections of two of the more important pits, Pit 283 (mid- to late tenth century) and Pit 244 (first half of the eleventh century),are shown in Illus.10.4–10.7,the sections showing the layers from which the samples were taken (Tables 10.4 and 10.7). The thirty-three samples examined by the author from the late Anglo-Saxon occupation in this part of Winchester varied in size from 350cc to 3900cc. Most were highly organic, of a peaty consistency, and all were from anaerobic deposits. What mineral content there was consisted of grey and yellow clay with chalk inclusions. Because of the high concentration of plant material in these samples it was often necessary to take sub-samples (of c.100–500cc) for the extraction of a manageable quantity of identifiable plant material, particularly fruits and seeds. The identifications were made with the aid of the large comparative seed collection at the Department of Archaeology, Southampton University, and with the use of a low-powered binocular microscope and a higher-powered mineralogical microscope. The identifications are listed in the taxa tables which follow. The fruits and seeds were separated from the rest of the organic matrix by manual flotation in paraffin and water and, where necessary, by water sieving.7 Following this separation process, it was also necessary to check through the resulting residue for any items that had not been separated by flotation.

Cultivated plants: cereals and pulses

Several of the samples processed by the writer came from later deposits: these results are presented by Francis Green in Chapter 11. I am indebted to him for allowing me access to his information and for the identifications of other samples from both Lower Brook Street and Castle Yard, which were processed by him, but which belong to the period before the mid-eleventh century and are therefore presented in this chapter.

7

6

191

As will be noted from the lists of taxa represented in the samples (Tables 10.1–10.7), very few carbonized cereal grains and fragments of cereals were recovered from the Lower Brook Street samples (although cereal culm nodes were found preserved as macrofossils in the anaerobic deposits). As the cereal identifications were so few in number, it can only be said that, on this evidence, in the eleventh century naked bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), hulled six-or four-row barley (Hordeum vulgare/tetrastichum), and oats (Avena sativa) were being grown in or around Winchester. All three taxa have been found on other late Anglo-Saxon sites within the city (Castle Yard and Cathedral Green).The presence of several culm node fragments in the Lower Brook Street samples may also indicate that there was a certain cereal-straw element present in the deposits, although it is difficult to say how significant this was. The presence of weeds of cultivation, discussed below, adds further substance to the argument that at least part of the deposits derived from waste from cultivated fields or garden plots, possibly collected as compost. It is curious that none of the Lower Brook Street 19718 pit samples produced any wild or cultivated legumes, especially since the insect fauna from the same pits included examples of the beetle Bruchus rufimanus, a species whose larvae infect the vetches, particularly the cultivated broad bean (Vicia faba).9 However,

As described in Renfrew et al. 1976 and first used on archaeological deposits by Coope and Osborne 1967, 84–7. 8 For the Lower Brook Street excavations of 1965–71, see IV Interim, 313–19; V Interim 259–66; VI Interim, 259–68; VII Interim, 303–12; VIII Interim, 298–310; IX Interim, 98–115; X Interim, 295–321. 9 See below, p. 356.

192 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Illus. 10.3 Lower Brook Street 1971: showing the location of the late Anglo-Saxon pits and other features from which deposit samples were taken (the buildings shown are Roman, left, and Middle Anglo-Saxon, centre, with graves).

Illus. 10.5 Lower Brook Street 1971: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined Pit 283, section west–east, showing Layers 1822, 1853, and 1856 from which samples BS Seeds 22–7 were taken (cf. Illus. 10.4).

Illus. 10.4 Lower Brook Street 1971: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined Pit 283, looking south-west (cf. Illus. 10.5).

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

193

194 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Illus. 10.6 Lower Brook Street 1971: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined Pit 244, looking south-west (cf. Illus. 10.7).

Illus. 10.7 Lower Brook Street 1971: late Anglo-Saxon Pit 244, west-facing section showing the locations from which the samples were taken. (cf. Illus. 10.6).

the adult beetle infests flowers of the umbellifer and several species of this family are present in the samples.10 This could well explain their occurrence, but it is also possible that 10

other parts of the leguminous plants were originally present but have not been preserved. Francis Green has pointed out that selective preservation may have been at work on these

See below, p. 356.

195

Lower Brook Street 1965–71 TABLE 10.1 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the early to mid-10th century BS 10 F. 778, Layer 2647

BS 11 Pit 344, Layer 1975

Taxon

Seeds no. Context Common name

Ranunculus sp. Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver argemone L.

Buttercups Field poppy Long prickly-headed poppy

1 -

2 1

Papaver somniferum L.

Opium poppy

6

-

Brassica sp.

Cabbage/mustard-types

2

-

Brassica/Sinapis sp.

Cabbage/mustard-types

-

1

Silene alba (Mill.) Krause

White campion

-

1

Agrostemma githago L.

Corncockle

-

2

Chenopodium sp.

Goosefoots

10

1

Atriplex cf. hastata L.

Hastate orache

-

Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L.

Hare’s-ear

-

2

Polygonum bistorta L.

Bistort

-

1

Polygonum convolvulus L.

Black bindweed

1

-

Polygonum sp.

Knotgrasses and persicarias

3

-

Solanum cf. nigrum L.

Black nightshade

-

1

Sambucus nigra L.

Elderberry

1

-

Anthemis cotula L.

Stinking mayweed

1

2

cf. Hypochaeris glabra L.

Smooth cat’s ear

-

1

Sonchus asper (L.) Hill.

Prickly sow-thistle

-

1

Crepis cf. biennis L.

Rough hawks beard

-

3

Juncus sp.

Rushes

-

1

Carex sp.

Sedges

2

-

Cultivated cereals

1

-

Cerealia

samples: the seeds of legumes are more likely to be preserved in a mineralized state in the heavier residues in these pits, provided the micro-environmental conditions were such as to allow this to happen. Pulses are notoriously badly preserved in waterlogged conditions. Their presence is often only indicated by the survival of the hilum, the rest of the seed having perished. The cultivated broad bean (Vicia faba) is known from other Anglo-Saxon sites: for 11

example, Middle Anglo-Saxon Southampton (Hamwic) produced carbonized examples.11 Orchard or hedgerow husbandry A number of fragments of plants which could be loosely termed cultivated types were identified in the Lower Brook Street samples. These remains were principally stones and pips (drupes) of fruits, particularly domestic plum

Monk 1977.

196 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester (Prunus domestica), cherry (P. avium), and grape (Vitis vinifera). Numerically, the most important plant remains in the Winchester samples of this period are perhaps the fruit stones and pips. These are especially notable in the Lower Brook Street samples, where the stones of the Prunus genus, in particular, were a clear indicator of the presence in the pits of domestic refuse which seemed, in a number of cases, to be separated from the byre refuse. The most significant aspect of this material is that it provides evidence for the beginnings of organized orchard or hedgerow husbandry on a wide scale during the tenth and eleventh centuries. The documentary evidence for orchard husbandry at this period is very slight. The Prunus genus is the most important taxon represented in this category of material. Although the number of stones recovered from each context varied considerably, at least some were found from each period and there seemed to be an increase in numbers recovered in the later eleventh-century samples, perhaps as a result of an increase in orchard husbandry associated with ecclesiastical institutions. Studies in the archaeobotany of orchard crops were in their infancy although a great deal of pioneer work on fruit stones at the time of writing had been undertaken in Germany.12 Knörzer has attempted to isolate varieties of Prunus domestica in archaeological samples, but further study needs to be done before this can be substantiated. It is thought that with increased hybridization of the domestic plum and the cherry species, there was an increase in stone size and changes in other morphological characteristics (e.g. an increase in the width and curvature of the perimeter ridges and changes in surface rustication). These and many other

Bertsch and Bertsch 1949; Knörzer 1970; 1973. See below, Chapter 11 and for Pit 268 for which data shown for comparative purposes in Illus. 10.8. 12

13

basic studies of the growth and evolution of the Prunus species need to be made (on the lines pioneered by Bertsch before World War II) before it will be possible to discriminate with confidence between the stones of certain members of the Prunus family recovered from archaeological excavations.The complete range of Prunus sp. stones was recovered from the Lower Brook Street samples (Illus. 10.8). Stones of the cherry/wild cherry (P. avium), were identified from the mid- to late tenth-century deposits in Pit 448 (BS Seeds 17–18;Table 10.2) where seventy-seven examples of this species were recovered, most of them resembling the cultivated form of cherry in their morphological characteristics. Since comparisons between ancient and modern material cannot be made with ease, the identifications must remain tentative. Cherry stones were also present in the mid- to late tenth-century samples from Pit 420 (BS Seeds 12–14;Table 10.2), and in the eleventh-century samples from Pits 244 (BS Seeds 29–37; Table 10.7) and 266 (BS Seeds 41 and 43;Table 10.6), but only in Pit 244 was this species found in any significant quantity. The domestic plum (Prunus domestica), or its cultivated subspecies, P. domestica ssp. domestica, was found in small numbers in most of the samples from the pits dating from the tenth century onwards, the later finds being discussed elsewhere in this volume.13 As with most finds of the cherry/wild cherry (P. avium) from Lower Brook Street, the number of domestic plum (P. domestica) stones produced from each sample increased in the later phases. It cannot be determined, however, whether this is a function of the sampling strategy, preservation, or a real increase in the use and exploitation of these orchard crops over time. Most of the stones recovered did not carry any particularly

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

197

Illus. 10.8 Lower Brook Street 1971: Pits 448, 226, and 268, 10th to 12th century, Prunus species, number of specimens, length to breadth ratio.

distinguishable characteristics to suggest that more than one variety of domestic plum was being grown. Two varieties of domestic plum (P. domestica) have been distinguished at Anglo14

Scandinavian York,14 one of which appears similar to the damson, although, taxonomically, the damson is now thought to be a cultivated form of the bullace (P. domestica ssp. insititia).15

Godwin and Bachem 1959, 111 and 113.

15

Clapham et al. 1962, 415.

Taxon Ranunculus sp. Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver argemone L. Chelidonium majus L. Brassica/Sinapsis sp. Viola sp. Brassicaceae Silene noctiflora L. Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garke Silene sp. Agrostemma githago L. Cerastium sp. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. Chenopodium album L. Atriplex sp. Rubus fruticosus L. Potentilla sp. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus insititia L. Prunus domestica L. Prunus avium L. Malus/Pyrus Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L. Aethusa cynapium L. Polygonum sp. Rumex acetosella agg. Rumex cf. obtusifolius L. Rumex sp. Urtica urens L.

Seeds no. Context Common name Buttercups Field poppy Long prickly-headed poppy Greater celandine Cabbage/mustard-types Violets Cabbage family Night-flowering campion Bladder campion Campions/catchflies Corncockle Mouse ears Common chickweed Thyme-leaved sandwort Fat hen Orache Blackberry Cinquefoils Blackthorn/sloe Bullace Plum Cherry/wild cherry Apple/crab apple/pear Hare’s-ear Fool’s parsley Knotgrasses and persicarias Sheep’s sorrel Broad-leaved dock Docks Small nettle 1 2 3 -

BS 13 Pit 420 1 1 21 18 -

BS 14 Pit 420 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 -

BS 15 Pit 419

Note: those seeds marked ‘c’ are carbonized, the rest waterlogged.

TABLE 10.2 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the mid- to late 10th century

1 1 1 6 1 -

BS 16 Pit 178 32 15 77 2 -

BS 17 Pit 448

3 1 1 1 100 6 14 1

BS 18 Pit 448

2 1 6 4 3 3 2 4 1 2 5

BS 19 Pit 422

198 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Taxon Urtica dioica L. Corylus avellana L. Myosotis scorpioides L. Lamium cf. hybridum Vill. Lamium cf. purpureum L. Galeopsis tetrahit (L.)/speciosa Mill. Lamiaceae Sambucus nigra L. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Juncus sp. Carex sp. Poa pratensis L. Bromus secalinus/mollis Triticum aestivum L. Avena cf. sativa L. Cerealia

Seeds no. Context Common name Stinging nettle Hazel Water forget-me-not Cut-leaved dead-nettle Red dead-nettle Common/large-flowered hemp-nettle Dead-nettle family Elderberry Prickly sow-thistle Water plantain Rushes Sedges Meadow-grass Brome grass Bread wheat Common oat Cereal (grain frags) 1 1c 1c 1c

BS 13 Pit 420

TABLE 10.2 (cont.)

1 1 -

BS 14 Pit 420 138 1 1 1 1 1 2 -

BS 15 Pit 419 1 2 4 4 2 -

BS 16 Pit 178

1 -

BS 17 Pit 448

1 1 1 -

BS 18 Pit 448

6 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

BS 19 Pit 422

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

199

200 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester TABLE 10.3 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the mid- to late 10th century and 10th century (BS 28)

Taxon

Seeds no. Context Common name

Ranunculus sp. Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver argemone L. Papaver somniferum L. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Hypericum cf. perforatum Silene sp. Agrostemma githago L. Cerastium sp. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Stellaria sp. Chenopodium sp. Atriplex cf. hastata L. Linum catharticum L. Prunus domestica L. Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Conium maculatum L. Malus/Pyrus Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L. Aethusa cynapium L. Angelica sp. Apiaceae Euphorbia helioscopia L. Polygonum aviculare agg. Polygonum lapathifolium L. Polygonum sp. Rumex sp. Urtica urens L. Urtica dioica L. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp. Hyoscyamus niger L. Solanum cf. nigrum L. Hycopus europaeus L. Prunella vulgaris L. Stachys sp. Lamium cf. purpureum L. Lamium cf. album L. Lamiaceae Sambucus nigra L Senecio sp. Anthemis cotula L. Chrysanthemum sp. Lapsana communis L.

Buttercups Field poppy Long prickly-headed poppy Opium poppy Cabbage/mustard-types Shepherd’s purse Common St John’s wort Campions/catchflies Corncockle Mouse ears Common chickweed Stitchworts Goosefoots Hastate orache Purging flax Plum Hawthorn Hemlock Apple/crab apple/pear Hare’s-ear Fool’s parsley Angelica Carrot/celery/parsley family Sun spurge Knotgrass Pale persicaria Knotgrasses and persicarias Dock Small nettle Stinging nettle Hazel Oak Henbane Black nightshade Gipsy-wort Self-heal Woundworts Red dead-nettle White dead-nettle Dead-nettle family Elderberry Ragworts Stinking mayweed Marigolds Nipplewort

BS 20 Pit 342 1 9 4 1 1 8 1 5 9 7 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 28 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 15 1 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 9 1

BS 21 Pit 225 1 86 2 6 1 1 11 5 1 2 -

BS 28 F. 664 / F. 955 3 1 3 2 8 26 1 1 -

201

Lower Brook Street 1965–71 TABLE 10.3 (cont.)

Taxon Sonchus arvensis L. Sonchus oleraceus L. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Poa pratensis L. Bromus secalinus L./cf. mollis Agrostis sp. Trisetum flavescens (L.) Beauv. Parapholis incurva (L.) C.E.Hubbard Triticum aestivum L. Avena cf. fatua L.

Seeds no. Context Common name Field milk-thistle Smooth sow-thistle Prickly sow-thistle Meadow-grass Rye brome/lop grass Bent-grasses Yellow oat grass Curved hard-grass Bread wheat Wild oat

It is very probable that more than one variety of domestic plum was being grown, but these varieties are difficult to isolate on the basis of stone morphology alone. The problem is that the domestic plum probably developed from a hybridization between the sloe and the cherry plum, giving rise to a polyploid consisting of a number of ill-defined subspecies which cannot be distinguished morphologically. The early domestic plum stones range widely in size, from those that resemble the modern bullace through to those of damson and even including some comparable to larger modern varieties. As a result, it is impossible to separate varieties on the basis of the size of the stones alone as they may derive from either deliberate or natural hybridization.16 The bullace (Prunus domestica ssp. insititia) was also present in several of the samples from Lower Brook Street, including Pit 283 (BS Seeds 22–7; Table 10.4), Pit 244 (BS Seeds 29–37; Table 10.7) and Pit 266 (BS Seeds 41–3; Table 10.6). This subspecies is as unstable as the other members of the Prunus group in that it is likely to cross with P. 16

BS 20 Pit 342 1

BS 21 Pit 225 2 3 10 6 1 1 1 1 -

BS 28 F. 664 / F. 955 1 -

domestica proper. The cultivated form of the subspecies is the damson, but once again on the basis of the stones alone it is sometimes difficult to distinguish this subspecies from the domestic plum (P. domestica ssp. domestica). The variability of this subspecies is also a problem at the lower end of the size range where the stones can often be confused with those of the sloe (P. spinosa). Examples of bullace were, however, distinguished in the samples from the mid- to late tenth-century Pit 283 (BS Seeds 22–7; Table 10.4) and the eleventhcentury Pits 244 (BS Seeds 29–37; Table 10.7) and 266 (BS Seeds 41–3; Table 10.6) at Lower Brook Street. It will be noticed that in the case of the samples from Pits 266 and 283 the distinction between sloe and bullace stones could not easily be made and that some of the stones were not differentiated. Sloe stones of Prunus spinosa were also separately identified in the Lower Brook Street samples. The stones of this species can vary morphologically, but they are generally smaller than those of the bullace (Prunus domestica ssp. insititia) and more rounded in outline with a ibid.

202 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester TABLE 10.4 Lower Brook Street: seeds from Pit 283, mid- to late 10th century Seeds no. Taxon

Common name

Ranunculus sp. Papaver rhoeas L. Chelidonium majus L. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Raphanus raphanistrum L. Hypericum sp. Silene sp. Agrostemma githago L. Cerastium sp. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Caryophyllaceae sp. Atriplex Rubus fruticosus L. Potentilla sp. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus domestica L. Prunus insititia C.K. Schneid./L. Prunus spinosa L./insititia L. Prunus avium L. Prunus sp. Malus/Pyrus Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L. Aethusa cynapium L. Apiaceae Polygonum sp. Rumex acetosella agg. Rumex sp. Urtica urens L. Urtica dioica L. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp. Ballota nigra L. Sambucus nigra L. Anthemis cotula L. Arcticum lappa L. Cirsium sp. Picris echioides L. Juncus sp. Carex sp. Puccinellia distans (Jacq.) Parl. Hordeum sp. Poaceae

Buttercups Field poppy Greater celandine Cabbage/mustard-types Wild radish St John’s wort Campions/catchflies Corncockle Mouse ears Common chickweed Pink family Orache Blackberry Cinquefoils Blackthorn/sloe Plum Bullace Sloe/bullace Cherry/wild cherry Plum species Apple/crab apple/pear Hare’s-ear Fool’s parsley Carrot/celery/parsley family Knotgrasses and persicarias Sheep’s sorrel Dock Small nettle Stinging nettle Hazel Oak Black horehound Elderberry Stinking mayweed Great burdock Thistles Bristly ox-tongue Rushes Sedges Reflexed poa Barley Grass family

BS 22 BS 23 BS 24 BS 25 BS 26 BS 27 6 6 8 1 1 93 1 11

3 2 5 1 2 2 2 6 5 8 1 4 1 1 1 -

2 1 1 1 7

1 1 2 2 32 3 1 10 1 1 1 1c 1

1 2 1 -

1 5 1 1 1 8 2 1 1 2 1 2 9 1 1 17 1 1 1 1

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

rougher surface, a deep furrow, and dorsal ridges.17 To express this roundness and plump shape, the length/breadth index was plotted for the examples of this species recovered from Lower Brook Street (Pits 266, 268,18 and 448; Illus. 10.8; Tables 10.2 and 10.6).19 Sloe stones were recovered from the midto late tenth-century Pits 448 (BS Seeds 17–18; Table 10.2) and 283 (BS Seeds 22–7;Table 10.4), and in the eleventh-century Pit 244 (BS Seeds 29–37; Table 10.7). However, few sloe stones were recovered from the later pits. This would perhaps indicate that with the expanding range of other Prunus fruits being grown or brought into the city, exploitation of the more strictly wild fruits like sloe went out of fashion. A number of apple and pear pips of the Malus and Pyrus genera respectively were recovered from the Lower Brook Street samples. The pips of apples and pears can generally be distinguished from each other by the fact that the pear types have a longer and more slender shape and have an oblique point of attachment at their apex; also under high magnification (x 100) the surface cell structure appears less woody than that of the apple pip: the cells appear more elongated. On these criteria the majority of the pips recovered from Lower Brook Street bore more resemblance to those of apples than those of pears. There were also a number of pips which were poorly preserved and could not be assigned to either genus.20 Many of the pips that were identified as apple resembled in their elongated shape the modern cultivated form Malus sylvestris ssp. sylvestris. Although these pips were widely distributed in the samples, they tended to occur more often in those deposits which also contained large numbers of other fruit stones and pips,

indicating that these deposits consisted of human food debris. Both apple and pear (pips were recovered from the mid- to late tenthcentury Pits 448 (BS Seeds 17–18; Table 10.2) and 283 (BS Seeds 22–7; Table 10.4), and the eleventh-century Pits 244 (BS Seeds 29–37; Table 10.7) and 266 (BS Seeds 41–3;Table 10.6). Other finds of economic plant remains from Lower Brook Street Several of the samples from the Lower Brook Street pits produced fragments of hazel-nuts (Corylus avellana) including the mid- to late tenth-century Pits 342 (BS Seeds 20;Table 10.3) and 283 (BS Seeds 22–7; Table 10.4), and the eleventh-century Pit 266 (BS Seeds 41–3;Table 10.6).The association with the Prunus sp. stones in these pits may suggest that the hazel-nuts were also the remains of food debris. There were, in addition, several individual finds of drupes of blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) and raspberry (Rubus idaeus) from the midto late tenth-century Pit 283 (BS Seeds 22–7; Table 10.4) and the eleventh-century Pits 244 (BS Seeds 29–37; Table 10.7), 266 (BS Seeds 41–3; Table 10.6), and 404 (BS Seeds 38; Table 10.5). This material also probably represents the remains of food debris, although if that is so, the low number of blackberry pips seems rather strange. If these species were collected to supplement the diet then one would expect to find a far larger number of the drupes, as were found in comparable deposits from Anglo-Saxon and late medieval Southampton.21 The eleventh-century Pit 266 (BS Seeds 41; Table 10.6) also produced one seed of strawberry (Fragaria sp.), but this is a tentative identification. The occurrence of

17 18 Renfrew 1973, 146. See also Table 11.3. The L/B range for P. insititia was 120–160, for P. spinosa 100–145. 20 21 In the taxa lists the indeterminate examples are referred to as Malus/Pyrus. Monk 1977. 19

203

204 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester TABLE 10.5 Lower Brook Street: seeds from deposits of the first half of the 11th century Seeds no. Context Taxon

Common name

Papaver argemone L. Papaver sp. Brassica sp. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Silene sp. Agrostemma githago L. Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium album L./polyspermum L. Vitis vinifera L. Rubus fruticosus agg. Fragaria sp. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus domestica L. Prunus insititia L. Prunus avium L. Rosaceae Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Malus/Pyrus Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium Apium cf. nodiflorum (L.) Lag. Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poir. Rumex sp. Lamium sp. Sambucus nigra L. Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Lapsana communis L. Juncus sp. Carex sp. Poaceae

Long prickly-headed poppy Poppies Cabbage/mustard-types Cabbage/mustard-types Campions/catchflies Corncockle Fat hen Fat hen/all-seed Grape Blackberry Strawberries Blackthorn/sloe Plum Bullace Cherry/wild cherry Rose family Hawthorn Apple/crab apple/pear Hare’s-ear Fool’s watercress Fine-leaved water dropwort Dock Dead-nettles Elderberry Water plantain Nipplewort Rushes Sedges Grass family

these species and the documentary evidence for their exploitation at this time are discussed below.22 The only so-called exotic species represented in the Lower Brook Street samples in this period was grape (Vitis vinifera). A single pip of this species was recovered from the eleventhcentury Pit 404 (BS Seeds 38; Table 10.5). It is possible that the pip came from imported dried 22

BS 38 Pit 404

BS 39 Pit 294

BS 40 Pit 271

1 1 1 1 19 3 1 1 1 1 1

8 3 2 2 7 2 2 2 -

1 40 1 15 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 8 1 1 -

raisins, although local viticulture cannot be ruled out. Wild flora: weeds and ruderals Nearly all the species used as habitat group indicators above were recovered from the Lower Brook Street samples. Although there were also many cases where it was not possible

See below, p. 243–9.

205

Lower Brook Street 1965–71 TABLE 10.6 Lower Brook Street: seeds from the fill of Pit 266 of the first half of the 11th century Seeds no. Taxon

Common name

Ranunculus sp. Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver argemone L. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Cerastium sp. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus domestica L. Prunus insititia L. Prunus avium L. Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Malus/Pyrus Aethusa cynapium L. Euphorbia helioscopia L. Urtica urens L. Urtica dioica L. Corylus avellana L. Mentha cf. rotundifoliium (L.) Huds. Lamium cf. purpureum L. Sonchus arvensis L. Sonchus oleraceus L. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Juncus sp./Juncus bulbosus L. Carex sp./Scirpus sp. Carex sp. Poaceae Poa pratensis L./Poa trivialis L. Bromus cf. mollis/Bromus secalinus L. Agrostis sp. Parapholis incurva (L.) C.E. Hubbard Trisetum flavescens (L.) Beauv.

Buttercups Field poppy Long prickly-headed poppy Shepherd’s purse Mouse ears Common chickweed Blackthorn/sloe Plum Bullace Cherry/wild cherry Hawthorn Apple/crab apple/pear Fool’s parsley Sun spurge Small nettle Stinging nettle Hazel Apple-scented mint Red dead-nettle Field milk-thistle Smooth sow-thistle Prickly sow-thistle Rushes/bulbous rush Sedges/club-rushes Sedges Grass family Meadow-grass/rough meadow-grass Lop grass/rye brome Bent-grasses Curved hard-grass Yellow oat grass

to define the macrofossils beyond the genus level, as will have been noted from the above lists, many of the species whose generalized habitats have been defined by Tansley occur in two or more habitat categories. In consequence, it has been necessary for the purposes of compiling the habitat bar-graphs to count those species or genera in each habitat category in which they occur.

BS 41

BS 42

BS 43

1 1 86 2 6 1 1 2 11 5 1 1 2 2 3 10 2 1 1 6 1 1 -

4 26 10 17 1 1 1 1

22 16 16 14 4 1 -

Habitats (Illus. 10.9) The first point to notice on all the habitat bar-graphs is that either Habitat Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) or Habitat Groups 6 and 13 (scrubland and cultivated plants) are the most dominant, and of these Habitat Groups 1 and 2 make up between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of the total number of species identified from Lower Brook Street.

206 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester It is also worth noting that in the cases where the Habitat Groups 1 and 2 or 6 and 13 were dominant, they were mutually exclusive. This may suggest dumping of two types of material into the pits, waste from the field and byre alternating with human domestic waste derived from fruit exploitation. The rank-order of the remaining habitat groups is 3, 4, 11, 12, 9, 8, 5, 7, and 10. The last three groups, of plants from maritime conditions (Group 5), from or associated with acid soils (Group 7), and from fenland peats and lowland bogs (Group 10), are of minimal importance. This is not unexpected, given the present-day local environment in and around Winchester, and indeed most of the species represented in these groups are species of generalized requirements which consequently overlap with several habitats. The maritime Group 5, for instance, is represented by plants such as hastate orache (Atriplex hastata) and wild celery (Apium graveolens), species which are to be found in many other environments. It is always possible that some maritime species could have reached Winchester via the River Itchen, but the overall evidence suggests rather that the generalized species involved were likely to have derived from local habitats existing in the Winchester area. Species from Habitat Groups 3 and 4 (locally damp areas, or by rivers, marshy meadows, and reed swamps), and 11 and 12 (sandy and other light, particularly calcareous, soils) were found in all the samples, but in none were they dominant. These four groups, more than any of the others, probably indicate the natural vegetation of the area prior to interference by people, i.e. the rather moist, calcareous floodplain of the River Itchen. It is curious, however, that the high water-table which is a prominent feature of this area of Winchester, commonly known 23

as ‘The Brooks’, is not reflected in the plants whose seeds and fruits have been recovered from the Lower Brook Street samples. This may partly be the result of the influence of people, both in drainage activity and in the accumulation of human domestic refuse, much of which derived from outside the immediate area. The consistent occurrence of seeds and fruits of plants from Habitat Group 9, ‘paths and waysides’ and from cultivated ground and waste places (Groups 1 and 2) may genuinely reflect the source of the deposits contained in these pits, particularly in the case of material which came via the animal byre. Of the dominant groups mentioned above, Habitat Group 6 is mostly represented by scrubland species of the Prunus, Rubus, and Corylus genera. All of these were probably introduced to the site by people for different purposes and not least for human food. This group also includes some woodland/scrubland herbs like ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), common hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), and St John’s wort (Hypericum sp.). These possibly indicate the presence of scrubland vegetation in the Lower Brook Street area, perhaps in a disused tenement. The increasing number of fruit stones (particularly of the Prunus genus) and pips in the samples dating from the tenth century onwards may be symptomatic of the increasing emphasis on orchard husbandry in late Anglo-Saxon Winchester.23 It is perhaps significant that the scrubland species identified, including those fruits which had been purposely cultivated or at least collected, are still characteristic occupants of the overgrown areas along the margins of the Itchen valley today. A number of species characteristic of grassy places were also identified, including lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea), cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.), bladder campion (Silene vulgaris),

See above, p. 196.

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

Illus. 10.9 (in five parts) Lower Brook Street 1971: bar-graphs 1–23 showing the numbers of taxa by Habitat Groups.

207

208 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Illus. 10.9 (cont.)

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

Illus. 10.9 (cont.)

209

210 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Illus. 10.9 (cont.)

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

211

Illus. 10.9 (cont.)

mouse ear (Cerastium sp.), wild pink (Dianthus sp.), and common vetch (Vicia sativa), but where this Group (8) was present, it was only of minor importance and once again many of the species listed here may belong to a range of habitats. The evidence from the pollen analysis carried out on samples from some of these pits reflects a similar picture, as will be discussed below.24 Notably, the pollen indicates the importance of those plants which fall into Habitat Groups 1 and 2, weeds of cultivated and waste-ground. There now follows a summary breakdown of the specific habitat data for samples from 24

each of the pits in date order and discussion of possible habitat changes through time. For Samples 10–11 see Table 10.1, for 13–19 see Table 10.2, for 20–1 and 28 see Table 10.3, for 22–4 see Table 10.4, for 38–40 see Table 10.5, for 41–3 see Table 10.6, and for 29–30, 32–4 and 36, see Table 10.7. 1. BS Seeds 10, F. 778 (tenth century). Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) were most important and there was a marked absence of economic plants (Illus. 10.9, 1). 2. BS Seeds 11, Pit 344 (early to mid-tenth century). Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground)

See below, p. 213, and Chapter 7.

212 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester were still most important and again there was a marked absence of economic plants (Illus. 10.9, 2).

plants (Group 13) were of lesser importance (Illus. 10.9, 9).

3. BS Seeds 13–14, Pit 420 (mid to late tenth century) (Illus. 10.9, 3–4). BS Seeds 13. No one habitat group is dominant. BS Seeds 14. Group 6 (scrubland plants) was the most important habitat group represented.

8. BS Seeds 22–7, Pit 283 (mid- to late tenth century) (Illus. 10.9, 10–15). BS Seeds 22. Groups 6 and 13 (scrubland and cultivated plants) were the largest represented. BS Seeds 23. Groups 1 (cultivated ground) and 6 (scrubland) were of equal significance; Group 13 (cultivated plants) was less important. BS Seeds 24. The cultivated and waste-ground groups (1 and 2) were the most important. BS Seeds 25. In contrast to the above sample, Groups 6 and 13 (scrubland and cultivated plants), particularly the latter, were the most important. BS Seeds 26. Groups 1, 6, and 13 (cultivated ground, scrubland and cultivated plants) were represented in this sample. BS Seeds 27.The cultivated and waste-ground groups (1 and 2) were the most important represented.

4. BS Seeds 15, Pit 419 (mid- to late tenth century). Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) were the most significant habitat groups represented (Illus. 10.9, 5). 5. BS Seeds 17 and 18, Pit 448 (mid- to late tenth century) (Illus. 10.9, 6–7). BS Seeds 17. Groups 6 and 13 (scrubland and cultivated plants) are of similar significance in this sample and there were no plant remains from other habitat groups present, indicating that this deposit was entirely made up of human food debris, in particular fruit stones and pips. BS Seeds 18. A second sample from the same layer of Pit 448 showed the presence of a number of plants from several habitats. Group 6 (scrubland plants) was still important but Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) were equally represented. The samples from this context appear to suggest that alternative disposal of rubbish of domestic origin and byre waste was taking place (Illus. 10.9, 7). 6. BS Seeds 19, Pit 422 (mid- to late tenth century). Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) are the most significant groups represented here (Illus. 10.9, 8). 7. BS Seeds 20, Pit 342 (mid- to late tenth century). This sample produced a preponderance of cultivated and waste-ground plants belonging to Groups 1 and 2. The scrubland Group 6 was the third most important, in this sample represented by woodland herbs. Cultivated

9. BS Seeds 29–37, Pit 244 (early to mideleventh century) (Illus. 10.9, 16–21). The pit layers produced a series of samples of which six (29–30 and 32–6) are discussed separately below, but the marked importance of Group 6 (scrubland) is evident in them all. BS Seeds 29.Although the cultivated and wasteground groups (1 and 2) were present, the most important groups were scrubland and cultivated plants (6 and 13), indicating the importance of the economic plants from orchard or hedgerow. BS Seeds 30. Groups 6, 7, and 13 (scrubland, acid soil, and cultivated plants) were present. Little importance should, however, be attached to the presence of Group 7 as it is represented in this instance by species of generalized habitat requirements. BS Seeds 32. The cultivated and waste-ground groups (1 and 2) were well represented in this sample but not to the same extent as

Lower Brook Street 1965–71

those species associated with hedgerows and scrubland (Group 6), within which the economic plants were, however, less significant than the woodland/scrub herbs. BS Seeds 33. Cultivated plants (Group 1), made up partly of species from hedgerows (Group 6), were the most important. BS Seeds 34. There was an increase in the importance of Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) in this sample. Group 6 (scrubland plants) was again the most important but there seem to have been few cultivated plants from domestic refuse. BS Seeds 36. This sample comes from the basal deposit in Pit 244 and in it no one habitat group was well represented. The waste-ground group (2) appeared to be marginally better represented than the others, perhaps indicating that the primary fill of the pit came from the surrounding area of waste-ground. 10. BS Seeds 38, Pit 404 (early to mid-eleventh century) (Illus. 10.9, 22). The waste-ground group (2) was marginally more important in this pit and there were one or two economic plants present including sloe (Prunus spinosa) and blackberry (Rubus cf. fruticosus) representing Group 6 (scrubland plants) . 11. BS Seeds 39, Pit 294 (early to mid-eleventh century) (Illus.10.9, 23). Group 6 (scrubland plants) was the largest present in this sample, although most of the taxa present were again stones and pips of fruit. 12. BS Seeds 40, Pit 271 (early to mid-eleventh century). The samples from this pit produced seeds/fruits from plants that were characteristic of Group 1 (cultivated ground) and to lesser extent Groups 2 (waste-ground) and 6 (scrubland plants), with low frequency from Groups 3 and 4 (locally damp areas, or by rivers, marshy meadows, and reed swamps), 9 (waysides), and 12 (other light, particularly calcareous, soils).

213

From these descriptions and the habitat bargraphs, it seems that the differences in the occurrence of species/genera of different habitats are a function both of the location of the sample within the context and of the sequence of rubbish disposal practised when each of the contexts was being used as a midden.The clear separation between domestic waste and waste from the byre is worth noting. Very little can, however, be said about any habitat changes that may have occurred in the immediate locality of these rubbish pits.The successive inhabitants of late Anglo-Saxon Tanner Street (Lower Brook Street) apparently disposed of their rubbish in a similar way in the tenth and eleventh centuries. With a greater sample replication both within and among the pits in the Lower Brook Street area it might have been possible to answer questions about possible changes in the vegetational environment of the area over time; but without such replication this cannot be attempted. The majority of the plant remains present on the Lower Brook Street site were either from plants of disturbed or cultivated ground or from waste-ground (segetals and ruderals). Knowledge of these broad habitat groups has been useful in identifying the particular environments, adapted by humans, from which the samples were derived. The results of several other biological analyses have been similarly useful in corroborating the information gained from the macroscopic plant remains. Both the insect and pollen analyses substantiate the evidence for cereal and vegetable waste from areas of cultivation and waste places. In addition, the preliminary results of a chemical analysis of the fill of several of the pits by S. Wolstenholme of the Department of Food Science at the University of Leeds suggest a dungy composition for the Lower Brook Street samples and therefore, to

214 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester TABLE 10.7 Lower Brook Street: seeds from the fill of Pit 244 of the first half of the 11th century

Taxon Caltha palustris L. Ranunculus sp. Papaver argemone L. Papaver somniferum L. Papaver sp. Brassica sp. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Raphanus raphanistrum L. Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garke Silene cf. nutans L. Silene sp. Agrostemma githago L. Stellaria holostea L. Stellaria sp. Caryophyllaceae Chenopodium album L. Atriplex sp. Linum usitatissimum L. Potentilla cf. erecta (L.) Rausch. Potentilla sp. Rubus fruticosus agg. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus domestica L. Prunus insititia L. Prunus spinosa L./insititia L. Prunus avium L. Prunus sp. Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Malus/Pyrus Malus sylvestris sp. sylvestris. Torilis japonica (Houtt.) DC. Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L. Bupleurum sp. Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poir. Aethusa cynapium L. Polygonum sp. Rumex cf. obtusifolius L. Urtica urens L. Juglans regia L. Betula sp. Corylus avellana L. Stachys cf. palustris L. Lamiaceae sp. Galium aparine L. Sambucus nigra L. Cirsium sp.

Seeds no. Common name Kingcup/marsh marigold Buttercups Long prickly-headed poppy Opium poppy Poppies Cabbage/mustard-types Cabbage/mustard-types Wild radish Bladder campion Nottingham catchfly Campions/catchflies Corncockle Greater stitchwort Stitchworts Pink family Fat hen Orache Flax Common tormentil Cinquefoils Blackberry Blackthorn/sloe Plum Bullace Sloe/bullace Cherry/wild cherry Plum species Hawthorn Apple/crab apple/pear Apple (cultivated) Upright hedge-parsley Hare’s-ear Hare’s-ear Fine-leaved water dropwort Fool’s parsley Knotgrasses and persicarias Broad-leaved dock Small nettle Walnut Birch Hazel Marsh woundwort Dead nettle Goosegrass Elderberry Thistles

BS 29

BS 30

BS 32

BS 33

BS 34

BS 36

BS 37

1 332 1 3 2 15 17 18 19 10 2 2 22 1 -

1 1 20 1 -

5 6 2 2 4 -

2 2 1 1 1 153 32 12 13 33 1 1 7 1

1 1 2 40 1 1 2 31 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 2 1 1 -

1 40 1 15 2 4 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 8 -

1 1 1 1 4 1 2 -

215

Lower Brook Street 1965–71 TABLE 10.7 (cont.) Taxon

Seeds no. Common name

Lapsana communis L. Centaurea scabiosa L. Hieracium sp. Asteraceae sp. Juncus Carex sp. Brachypodium sp. Cerealia

Nipplewort Greater knapweed Hawkweeds Daisy family Rushes Sedges False brome Cereal (grain frags)

some extent, confirms the visual assumption that a substantial part of the vegetable matter had derived from the byres of herbivores such as cattle. Many of the seeds and fruits identified as being from cultivated and wasteground habitats are particularly nitrogenloving species and could have been growing in areas with a high concentration of dung. Recent palaeoethnobotanical work in continental Europe has defined a number of species of seeds and fruits which, on the basis of comparisons with recent plant ecological work in those areas (using Braun-Blanquet’s broad definitions for plant communities), are characteristic of nitrogen-rich habitats such as dung heaps.25 In Germany Kroll has suggested that a number of his fossil seeds and fruits were from plants characteristic of nitrogenrich areas (a Stickstoffzeiger community) like muck heaps.26 These species included fat hen (Chenopodium album), chickweed (Stellaria media), persicaria (Polygonum persicaria), black bindweed (P. convolvulus) and knotgrass (P. aviculare), sun spurge (Euphorbia helioscopia), common hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), cleavers (Galium aparine), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), and curled dock (Rumex crispus).

25

Braun-Blanquet 1932.

26

BS 29

BS 30

BS 32

BS 33

BS 34

BS 36

BS 37

1 -

3

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 -

1 1 1 4 1 1

1 1 -

In the Netherlands, van Zeist has studied the palaeoethnobotanical remains from sites in the coastal district with a view to identifying the remains of former plant communities growing in association with settlement sites from the Neolithic to the early medieval period. On the basis of the comparative work of several Dutch ecologists, van Zeist has been able to define the remains of a number of plant communities in his samples.27 Among these he identified two weed communities, the Polygono-Chenopodietalia and the Secalietea, and three muck-heap (ruderal) communities, the Sisymbrietalia, the Chenopodium glaucorubri, and the Artemisietalia groups. The species characteristic of the Sisymbrietalia group included small nettle (Urtica urens), fig-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium ficifolium), common and hastate orache (Atriplex hastata/ patula), fat hen (Chenopodium album), and red goosefoot (C. rubrum). The Chenopodium glauco-rubri community consisted of a similar range of species but also included shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) and black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). The Artemisietalia community consisted of hemlock (Conium maculatum), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and fool’s parsley (Aethusa cynapium).Theoretically, at least, the broad species composition of

Kroll 1975, 102–4.

27

van Zeist 1974.

216 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester communities such as these, found in humanadapted environments, is generally similar across Europe. Since work on human-adapted plant communities using the Braun-Blanquet approach was still, at the time of writing in 1977, in its infancy in Britain, it was then difficult to establish a similar range of communities for the British Isles. The plant remains of seeds and fruits from Winchester can nevertheless be paralleled with those found by van Zeist and Kroll, particularly as regards the species which those authors differentiate as nitrogenloving species typical of muck heaps. Lower Brook Street: conclusions From the habitat information of the plant remains recovered and from the environmental information obtained from other sources of evidence, the overall impression of the plant environment of the Lower Brook Street area throughout the whole period from the late ninth to the eleventh century is one of a highly advanced ruderal community which also includes remains of plants commonly thought of as weeds of cultivation (which may or may not have been brought in with hay or straw), and to a lesser extent also includes woodland fringe and stream-side plants. The range of habitats represented by these plants, although not particularly characteristic of areas within Winchester today, is still to be found close to the city. Several studies have been made of the recent vegetation of the Itchen valley and other similar valleys draining the chalklands of southern England, but the most comprehensive study of the Itchen was that done in the 1880s by Townsend,28 which, while there are variations in the plants represented (especially in few species of the Polygonum and Chenopdium genera, and under-representation 28

Townsend 1883.

of Prunus genera), does match many of the species whose seeds were identified in the Winchester samples.29 It would seem that the majority of the plant remains from the waterlogged pits on Lower Brook Street, dating from the late ninth to the eleventh century, were species derived from segetal and ruderal habitats. Parts of the deposits may have originally been collected from field margins and from comparable habitats outside the city and used as bedding in the byre before being dumped as refuse in the pits.The original functions of the pits from which the organic material was obtained could not be inferred from the plant remains found in their fills, although several of the pits were thought to have been used for tanning (Pits 244, 266, 271, and 283; Tables 10.5–10.7). After use, they seem to have been filled with refuse derived from houses and stables. A number of the plant species represented by their seeds and fruits in the samples have medicinal and culinary uses, but, from these remains alone, the reason for their presence at Lower Brook Street cannot be ascertained. No associations in the deposits hinted at any one use more than another, except in suggesting that those deposits containing fruit stones probably originated in food debris as distinct from byre refuse. The range of species obtained from these later Anglo-Saxon samples from Winchester was not dissimilar to those recovered from the excavations of the Middle Anglo-Saxon town at Southampton (Hamwic), where seeds and fruits of ruderal and segetal plants also predominated. The Southampton sites also produced a range of fruit stones of domestic plum (Prunus domestica), cherry/wild cherry (P. avium), bullace (P. domestica ssp. insititia), sloe (P. spinosa), and grape pips (Vitis vinifera). indicating 29

Monk 1977, 180–2

Cathedral Green 1962–70

that the orchard and hedgerow husbandry practised in the Winchester area by the tenth and eleventh centuries was also well established

217

elsewhere in southern Hampshire by the midninth or even as early as the eighth century.

CATHEDRAL GREEN 1962–70 The open area of grass known as Cathedral Green, immediately north of the present cathedral, covers the site of the Anglo-Saxon cathedral, the Old Minster, and of the adjacent Anglo-Saxon church and monastery of New Minster, as well as a considerable part of the south range of the Roman forum of Venta Belgarum. Old Minster was excavated in 1962– 9, together with a small part of New Minster, and in 1970 part of the domestic buildings of New Minster were uncovered to the east (Building E).30 Cathedral Green, like Lower Brook Street, is situated in the floodplain of the River Itchen. The natural soils consequently developed in alluvium but have been extensively disturbed and much altered by major building activity on the site over the last two thousand years, beginning with the construction of the Roman forum about A.D. 100. Samples showed that the deposits on this site, as worked by humans, consisted of chalk lumps, marly clay, and gravel (mainly sub-rectangular flint pebbles), together with a variety of silty grits and pieces of building stone. This solid material was contained in a matrix of either grey clay or dark humic silt.

The samples The excavation of Old Minster (and to a lesser extent that of the New Minster domestic complex, Building E), in addition to revealing the remains of the cathedral church and other buildings, uncovered a series of timber- and stone-lined cess-pits and one stone-lined well (Illus. 10.10). The timber-lined cess-pit from which samples were taken was F. 265 (Illus. 10.11–12): CG Seeds 19–25; Table 10.8), the stone-lined cess-pit was F. 279 (CG Seeds 28– 9), and the stone-lined well was F. 154 (CG Seeds 18 and 30–6; Table 10.9).31 Most of the samples examined for plant remains came from these features. Important groups of material also came from a series of bell-casting pits in which the carbonized remains of plants and seed impressions were preserved in the fired-clay fragments of the bell-moulds.32 Samples were also taken from buried turf (CG Seeds 14 and 42), Graves 119, 629, and 756 (CG Seeds 15, 26, and 27), and from the south range of Building E (CG Seeds 43), but these produced very few specimens (Table 10.10). The samples taken during the excavations for later biological study varied in size from

For the Old and New Minster excavations, see WS 4.i in prep. For interim reports, see Interims I–X. 31 See below pp. 226–7. 32 For the bell-moulds, see WS 7.ii, 100–22.The plant remains from the bell-moulds, only one of which was of AngloSaxon date, are considered below by Francis Green in Chapter 11.They are also mentioned here on p. 221. 30

218 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Illus. 10.10 Cathedral Green 1964–9: showing the Old Minster in its final state, 974–1073, with the location of the late Anglo-Saxon features and other locations from which deposit samples were taken.

100cc to 1000cc according to the size of the deposit being sampled. Samples were taken freely on an ad hoc basis from any deposit which looked promising. The samples containing most seeds came from waterlogged or semiwaterlogged deposits in the pits and wells in which the seeds and fruits were preserved in anaerobic conditions.There were also a number of aerobic sediment samples which produced carbonized plant remains, for example those from charcoal burials.33 The locations from which these samples were taken are shown on Illus. 10.10; the location of Samples 1–7 from cess-pit F. 265 are shown on the section (Illus. 10.12). Because the clay component in the deposits precluded normal flotation methods, the plant remains recovered from the samples were mainly extracted by means of preliminary discoagulation in hydrogen peroxide. After 33

allowing the mixture to stand for up to several hours (depending on the amount of clay to be broken down) the samples were subject to flotation, which resulted in a 250-micron flot. The residue was then wet-sieved to recover the plant remains preserved by mineralization. Cultivated plants: cereals and pulses The habitat diagrams discussed for Lower Brook Street34 show a number of species which fall into this category (Group 13, the cultivated/ husbanded plants). Some are represented by cereal fragments, mainly grains, which had been preserved by accidental carbonization and casual disposal into the cess-pits, the well, and in buried turf from which the samples were obtained. As at Lower Brook Street, it is difficult to assess the significance of the material which provides little more than an indication of the

Burials in which the body or coffin had been laid on and sometimes packed around with a deposit of charcoal: see WS 4.i in prep. 34 See above, pp. 205–11.

Cathedral Green 1962–70

219

Illus. 10.11 Cathedral Green 1969: late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined pit F. 265, looking north-west, the upright timbers removed to show the base plates.

Illus. 10.12 Cathedral Green 1969: section of the late Anglo-Saxon timber-lined pit F. 265, showing the location from which samples CG Seeds 1–7 were taken.

220 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester TABLE 10.8 Cathedral Green: seeds from the fill of F. 265, a cess-pit close to the north wall of Old Minster, late 10th to late 11th century Preservation: c = carbonized Taxon Ranunculus cf. acris L./repens L. Ranunculus sp. Aquilegia sp. Papaver hybridum L. Papaver argemone L. Papaver sp. Fumaria sp. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Silene cf. nutans L. Agrostemma githago L. Stellaria graminea L. Stellaria sp. Chenopodium sp. Atriplex sp. Linum catharticum L. Vitis vinifera L. Potentilla sp./Fragaria sp. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus domestica L. Malus/Pyrus Conium maculatum L. Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L. Apium sp. Apiaceae Rumex conglomeratus Murray Rumex Urtica urens L. Urtica dioica L. Hyoscyamus niger L. Solanum cf. nigrum L. Mentha cf. arvensis L./ aquatica L. Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. Mentha sp. Prunella vulgaris L. Galium sp. Stachys cf. palustris L. Sambucus ebulus L. Sambucus nigra L. Bidens tripartita L. Anthemis cotula L. Chrysanthemum segetum L. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Asteraceae

Alisma plantago-aquatica L.

Seeds no. CG 19 CG 20 CG 21 CG 22 CG 23 CG 24 CG 25 Common name 1 Meadow/creeping buttercup 1 1 2 Buttercups 33 10 Columbines 128 136 Round prickly-headed poppy 2 1 Long prickly-headed poppy 6 90 1 Poppies 1 Fumitory 1 Cabbage/mustard-types 1 6 1 Nottingham catchfly 10 6 6 40 30 20 Corncockle 1 1 1 1 Lesser stitchwort 1 Stitchworts 1 Goosefoots 1 Orache 1 Purging flax 8 2 1 Grape 100 28 82 6 17 30 Cinquefoils/strawberries 1 Blackthorn/sloe 1 1 Plum 14 3 2 3 3 2 Apple/crab apple/pear 1 Hemlock 1 Hare’s-ear 1 Wild celery/watercress 2 6 Carrot/celery/parsley family 11 Sharp dock 3 Dock 1 Small nettle 17 3 32 Stinging nettle 1 17 Henbane 3 Black nightshade 11 Corn mint/water mint 3 Horse mint 1 1 Mints 1 Self-heal Bedstraw/cleavers 1c 1c 1 Marsh woundwort 1 8 Danewort, dwarf elder 1 3 1 6 60 Elderberry 1 1 Trifid bur-marigold 1 Stinking mayweed 1 Corn marigold 1 Spear thistle 2 Daisy family -

Water plantain

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

221

Cathedral Green 1962–70 TABLE 10.8 (cont.)

Taxon

Seeds no. Common name

Juncus sp. Scirpus sp. Carex sp. Cyperaceae Poa annua L. Triticum sp. Avena sp. Cerealia Cerealia

Rushes Club-rushes Sedges Sedge family Annual meadow-grass Wheat Oat Cereal (grain frags) Cereal straw culm nodes

Poaceae sp.

Grass family

presence of cereals which were being cultivated in the Anglo-Saxon period. There is too little evidence from too few samples to suggest any ratio of importance between the cereals, but the material corroborates the evidence from other sites of this date in Winchester, including Lower Brook Street, Castle Yard, Assize Courts Ditch, and in the western suburb at Sussex Street.35 The evidence suggests that free-threshing bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), hulled six- or four-row barley (Hordeum vulgare/tetrastichum), and to a lesser extent, oats (Avena sativa) were being cultivated. The best evidence for cereals from Cathedral Green is preserved in the moulds from the late tenth-century bell-casting pit, F. 33 (CG Seeds 16 and 17).36 The plant remains examined were mainly from reducedfired fragments of the moulds and were found in a carbonized state. In addition, a number of oxidized clay fragments exhibited seed impressions that were noted but not examined in detail. Most of the identifiable specimens were cereals, particularly oat (Avena sativa) grains and bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) rachis fragments.There was also a range of seeds from weeds of cultivation. It is therefore more than

4 1 -

1

1 1c 1c -

1

41 2 1 -

3

1 1c -

1

-

-

2 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 -

-

probable that the material from the moulds from the bell-casting pit derived from one or several waste products of crop-cleaning either directly or as dung included with the clay in the manufacture of the mould. The weeds of cultivation present included corncockle (Agrostemma githago), campion (Silene sp.), fat hen (Chenopodium album), vetch (Vicia sp.), upright hedge-parsley (Torilis japonica),persicaria (Polygonum persicaria), black bindweed (P. convolvulus), stinking mayweed (Anthemis cotula), lop grass and rye brome (Bromus secalinus), and corn marigold (Chrysanthemum segetum). There is no doubt that this range of species represents a typical weed flora, probably associated with winter-sown wheat. The plant material had probably, therefore, been brought to the site from the threshing floor for incorporation into the clay being used as moulding material.37 It may also represent the remains of animal dung added to the clay in making large moulds. A similar range of cereal remains, including the free-threshing wheat, Triticum aestivocompactum (a small-grained compact eared form of bread wheat), was also recovered from deposits in a corn-drying kiln at Chalton Manor

36 Green 2009. See below, pp. 307–13 with Illus. 11.19 and 11.24 and Table 11.25. For a discussion of the use of plant materials in the making of casting-moulds, see below, pp. 309–12, and WS 7.ii, 107. 35

37

CG 19 CG 20 CG 21 CG 22 CG 23 CG 24 CG 25

Taxon Papaver hybridum L./Papaver somniferum L. Papaver sp. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Silene sp. Arenaria sp. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Vicia sp. Potentilla sp./Fragaria sp. Conium maculatum L. Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L. Polygonum aviculare agg. Polygonum sp. Rumex cf. crispus L. Rumex cf. obtusifolius L. Rumex sp. Urtica urens L. Urtica dioica L. Solanum cf. nigrum L. Verbena officinalis L. Mentha sp. Sambucus nigra L. Carduus cf. nutans L. Cirsium cf. palustre (L.) Scop. Sonchus oleraceus L. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Asteraceae Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Juncus sp. Carex sp. Triticum sp. Poaceae

Preservation: c = carbonized Seeds no. Common name Round prickly-headed poppy/opium poppy Poppies Shepherd’s purse Campions, catchflies Sandwort Common chickweed Vetches Cinquefoils/strawberries Hemlock Hare’s-ear Knotgrass Knotgrasses and persicarias Curled dock Broad-leaved dock Dock Small nettle Stinging nettle Black nightshade Vervain Mints Elderberry Musk thistle Marsh thistle Smooth sow-thistle Prickly sow-thistle Daisy family Water plantain Rushes Sedges Wheat Grass family

CG 30 -

CG 18 1 1c 11 -

-

2 1 22 2c

CG 31

-

10 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 -

4 1 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 1 -

CG 33

CG 32

-

1 1 7 4 1 6 1 3 -

CG 34

-

1 1 6 1 1 1 1 12 2 2 1 -

CG 35

2 1 3 1 16 1 4 1 3 1 1

CG 36

TABLE 10.9 Cathedral Green: seeds from the fill of F. 154, the well inside the east end of Old Minster, late 11th to early 12th century (except CG18, c.993–4)

222 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Taxon Ranunculus sp. Agrostemma githago L. Chenopodium glaucum L./rubrum L. Vicia sp. Corylus avellana L. Sambucus nigra L. Scirpus sp. Carex sp. Triticum sp. Hordeum sp. Cerealia Poaceae

Common name Buttercups Corncockle All-seed/red goosefoot Vetches Hazel Elderberry Club-rushes Sedges Wheat Barley Cereal (grain frags) Grass family

Seeds no. Date Description

40 -

CG 14 Late C9–early C10 Buried turf

4 -

1 -

CG 15 CG 26 Mid–late C10 Early C11 Grave 629 Grave 119

1

2 1 1 1 2 -

CG 27 CG 42 Mid–late C11 Early C10–c. 964 Grave 756 Buried turf

TABLE 10.10 Cathedral Green: seeds from deposits of the 10th and 11th centuries

1 7 1 1 -

CG 43 Late C10 S. range Building E

Cathedral Green 1962–70

223

224 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester Farm in east Hampshire, tentatively dated to the tenth century or before.38 The excavation of Hamwic, Middle Anglo-Saxon Southampton, has also produced a range of cereal remains (mainly grains) including six- or four-row hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare/tetrastichum) and some specimens of oat grains (Avena sp.) (although whether these are from cultivated species cannot be definitely ascertained in the absence of flower bases), and a wheat species that resembles the small-grained naked wheat Triticum aestivo-compactum.39 It appears that in Hampshire during the Anglo-Saxon period the hulled wheats, emmer and spelt, were replaced by the free-threshing species of bread wheat. This transition may be related to the cultivation of the heavier clay soils in the valleys which followed the introduction at this time of the mould-board plough. Orchard or hedgerow husbandry Many of the samples from the principal contexts, F. 265, CG Seeds 19–25 (late tenth to late eleventh century;Table 10.8) and F. 154, CG Seeds 18 (c.993–4), 30–6 (late eleventh to early twelfth century; Table 10.9) produced pips of cultivated apples (Malus sylvestris ssp. sylvestris),40 immature grape pips, and a number of drupes which could be classified as members of the cinquefoil (Potentilla) group, although they could also be members of the closely related strawberry (Fragaria) genus. Absolute identification was not possible owing to the eroded surface of these seeds. F. 265 also produced individual examples of sloe, bullace, and domestic plum stones, all from the genus Prunus.

38

The evidence indicates that the samples from these contexts are in part food waste. Perhaps more importantly, however, they help to substantiate the evidence from Lower Brook Street which suggests that at Winchester in the late Anglo-Saxon period there was increased exploitation on a wide scale of the produce of orchard husbandry, probably encouraged by monastic patronage. The finds of immature grape pips are particularly interesting because they might indicate a locally cultivated vine or even a vineyard. The fact that they are immature is curious but suggests home-grown grapes which had not fully ripened before harvesting. Unripened grapes are, and have been in the past, used for the production of verjuice, a spiced substitute for wine. The pips might therefore represent the discarded waste from the production of this beverage or from locally produced wine or vinegar. The association of beverages such as wine and verjuice (whether produced locally or imported) with ecclesiastical sites such as Cathedral Green is not out of place, bearing in mind the sacramental use of wine. Grape pips were also found in samples from Lower Brook Street, including two from early eleventh century pits.41 Middle Anglo-Saxon Southampton has also produced grape pips.42 In addition to the immature grape pips, the apple pips, and the possible strawberry drupes, there were two other identifications of plants which may have associations with arboriculture and horticulture. CG Seeds 19 from the cess-pit F. 265 (Table 10.8) produced a number of fruit remains which bore a remarkable similarity to the fruit of the columbine (Aquilegia vulgaris) in the Southampton University comparative

Monk 1977, 321–25; Webster 1973, 143. 39 Monk 1977, 308–20; 1980. 40 41 42 See above, p. 203. See above, p. 204. Monk 1977.

Cathedral Green 1962–70

collection. The remains from F. 265 could not be exactly paralleled with the examples in the university collection, but this may be a function of the accepted range of variation for plant materials, or may indicate that the Winchester examples represent a variety of columbine (a wild plant associated with calcareous soils) which was being propagated locally as a garden plant. It is known that varieties of this plant with its striking blue flower were grown in early gardens and possibly had herbal properties. The Old English name for the plant is culver wort (pigeon wort), the suffix ‘wort’ often being added if the plant was in any way useful. Culpeper says that the leaves can be successfully employed in lotions for sore mouths and that ‘the seed taken in wine with a little saffron removes obstructions of the liver and is good for yellow jaundice’.43 This association with wine is particularly interesting for, although it can only be a tenuous hypothesis, the association of the columbine with the immature grape pips in the same sample might just suggest that the deposits contained the residue of a potion made with wine, or more likely verjuice, the ingredients for which were acquired from local gardens and orchards. The second identification of note made from the Cathedral Green samples was that of poppy. The examples recovered could not be identified to species, but the seeds were either the hybrid or round prickly-headed poppy (Papaver hybridum) or the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum). If they are the latter, their presence is interesting on several counts. Not only can they be grown for the extraction of the drug from the unripe capsules (although extraction of opium from plants grown in north-west Europe is not particularly successful), but poppy seeds also produce oil, and both this and the seeds themselves have culinary uses as flavouring in 43

Grieve 1977, 214.

225

baked bread. In latter-day gardens opium poppies are grown simply as flowers in their own right. It is therefore possible, although not proven, that the poppy was being grown as both an attractive plant and as a useful herb in a monastic garden close to the Anglo-Saxon Old Minster. Wild flora: weeds and ruderals The majority of the fruits and seeds identified from the Cathedral Green samples were, like those from Lower Brook Street, either from weeds of disturbed/cultivated ground (segetals) or from plants normally associated with nitrogen-rich human environments close to human habitations (ruderals). Typical species of the former group included curled dock (Rumex crispus), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), chickweed (Stellaria media), shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), black bindweed (Polygonum convolvulus), and orache (Atriplex sp.). Within this group there are a number of species which are more specifically associated with land cultivated for arable agriculture. These include hare’s-ear (Bupleurum rotundifolium), poppy (Papaver sp.), corncockle (Agrostemma githago), campion (Silene sp.), fumitory (Fumaria sp.), prickly sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), and thyme-leaved sandwort (Arenaria serpyllifolia). As already suggested,44 these species may have been associated with arable field margins and could have been introduced to the site in animal manure, hay, or litter. The ruderal species included small nettle (Urtica urens), stinging nettle (U. dioica), elder (Sambucus nigra), and all-seed/red goosefoot (Chenopodium glaucum/rubrum), as well as several of the species mentioned above which 44

See above, p. 216.

226 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester are generalized and occur in ruderal as well as segetal habitats. In addition to the species typical of plants of human-waste environments, there were also a number of fruits and seeds of plants from habitats with requirements well-suited to the subsoil and to the high moisture content of the ground in the vicinity of the Anglo-Saxon minster. In the first category are a number of chalkland species, including mouse ear/ chickweed (Cerastium sp.), long-headed poppy (Papaver argemone), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and columbine (Aquilegia sp.). In the second category, locally damp ground (a condition typical of areas near to these sites today) is indicated by the presence of marshland or water plants such as buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), trifid bur-marigold (Bidens tripartita), rush (Juncus sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), corn mint/water mint (Mentha arvensis/aquatica), marsh thistle (Cirsium cf. palustre), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), hemlock (Conium maculatum), and marsh wort (Apium sp.). The habitat information represented in the bar-graphs for F. 154, F. 265, and F. 279 may be summarized as follows (Illus. 10.12):45 1. F. 154, stone-lined well: CG Seeds 18 (c.993–4) and CG Seeds 30–6 (late eleventh to early twelfth century) (Table 10.9). CG Seeds 18. Very few plant remains, but Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) were present as well as Group 6 (scrubland plants). CG Seeds 30–1. Too few plant remains were recovered to make reliable statements about habitat preferences. CG Seeds 32. The most significant habitat groups were Groups 1 and 2 (consisting of

plants associated with cultivated and wasteground). CG Seeds 33. Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) were the most significant. CG Seeds 34. Very few plant remains were recovered, but those that were could be allocated to Groups 1 (cultivated ground) and 6 (scrubland plants). CG Seeds 35. Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) were by far the most significant. CG Seeds 36. The dominance of Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) was not pronounced, but Group 1 was marginally better represented. 2. F. 265, timber-lined cess-pit: CG Seeds 19–25 (late tenth to late eleventh century) (Illus. 10.11–13; Table 10.8). CG Seeds 19. The cultivated-ground group (Group 1) was the most important habitat group present. Groups 6 (scrubland plants) and 13 (cultivated plants) were almost as important as Group 1 and it seems that the majority of these groups were made up of husbanded plants, particularly the vine, apples, and perhaps strawberries. CG Seeds 20. As in the case of CG Seeds 19, this sample shows Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground), and Groups 6 (scrubland plants) and 13 (cultivated plants) as the most important habitat groups present. Grape and apple pips are again present in some numbers. CG Seeds 21. (i) The most important habitat groups represented are the damp-ground groups (3 and 4). (ii) In this instance the waste-ground group (2) was the most prominent followed by the woodland group (6).

The number of occurrences for each habitat group has been plotted in the form of bar-graphs for the two contexts which produced the most material (F. 265, cess-pit, CG Seeds 19–25; and F. 154, well, CG Seeds 18, 30–6).

45

Cathedral Green 1962–70

CG Seeds 22. Groups 1, 6, and 13 (cultivated ground, scrubland and cultivated plants) were the most important groups represented. CG Seeds 23. Similar in content to CG Seeds 22, except that the numbers of items represented were fewer. CG Seeds 24 (i) Groups 3 (local damp-ground) and 13 (cultivated plants) were again the most significant groups present but were represented by only a few items. (ii) Groups 1 and 2, plant species of cultivated and waste-ground were the most prominent types in this sample.

227

CG Seeds 25 (i) Groups 1 to 4 (cultivated and wasteground, and the damp-ground groups) and 6 (scrubland plants) were all represented by very few items. (ii) In this layer, Groups 1 and 2 (cultivated and waste-ground) and 6 and 13 (scrubland and cultivated plants) were represented, but again in numbers too small to make further deductions. 3. F. 279, stone-lined cess-pit: CG Seeds 28–9 (mid- to late eleventh century) CG Seeds 28. Although few remains were

Illus. 10.13 Cathedral Green 1969: showing the numbers of taxa in the Habitat Groups as represented in the late Anglo-Saxon pits F. 154 and F. 265.

228 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester found, those recovered in any number were species whose habitat preferences fall in Groups 6 and 13 (scrubland and cultivated plants), a reflection of the fact that apple and grape pips were found in some quantity in this sample. CG Seeds 29. Groups 3 (the species occurring in local damp-ground habitats) and 13 (the cultivated species) were present in the largest numbers. The most important general point which can be made about these samples is probably that they reflect a similar habitat range to those from contemporary Lower Brook Street, with a general concentration of the cultivated and waste-ground groups (the segetals and ruderals), but again also of the cultivated shrub/tree species like the apple, the plum, and the grape.46 Unlike the Lower Brook Street samples, however, human food debris as represented by the cultivated/husbanded species does not appear to have been deposited separately from those species which fall into the ruderal and segetal groups. The replicate sampling of the deposits in a single layer undertaken in all three of the principal Cathedral Green plant-bearing contexts seems therefore to suggest that each archaeologically defined layer of anaerobic material derived from a number of mixed sources, rather than

from a single source at a time, in an overall sequence of dumping debris of different types, as would be implied in the case of the Lower Brook Street samples. Cathedral Green: conclusions Most of the Cathedral Green samples which produced plant remains other than charcoal came from the waterlogged deposits in two cesspits and a well, Features 154, 265, and 279.47 Plant material in a carbonized state was also recovered from the bell-moulds used in the tenth-century bell-casting pit, F. 33. The majority of the identifiable remains consisted of seeds of segetal and ruderal plants, together with a few other species characteristic of damp ground and shrub environments on calcareous soils. The remains of both carbonized and anaerobically preserved economic plants were recovered, including cereal grains of oats, barley, and wheat, pips of grapes and apples, and possible seeds of strawberry.The deposit therefore consisted in part of domestic waste from food debris of orchard and garden plants and in part of accumulated waste from ruderal and segetal plants, probably both growing in the area of the Old Minster and brought in for incorporation as temper in the clay of the bell-moulds.

CATHEDRAL CAR PARK 1961 The waterlogged late Anglo-Saxon seeds came from two pits the location of which is shown on Illus. 10.14. One sample was obtained from Pit 2 (CACP Seeds 9), a small pit immediately to the north of Building D and cut into the eastern edge of Pit 1.48 Two samples were 46

See above, p. 213.

47

obtained from Pit 11 (CACP Seeds 10–11) which was sealed by the eastern footing of the main block of the west range of Building A.49 The samples from Pit 2 (Table 10.11) represent two of the cereal crops, oats and barley, which also occur in other parts of the

See Tables 10.8 and 10.9.

48

I Interim, 169, Fig. 4.

49

ibid.

229

Cathedral Car Park 1961

Illus. 10.14 Cathedral Car Park 1961: plan showing the location of the Anglo-Saxon pits from which samples were taken.

Anglo-Saxon town. The other three species present might be weeds of cereal fields, being common weeds of cultivation, and may have reached this deposit as discarded rubbish since the cereal grains had been charred.

The samples from Pit 11 (Table 10.11), with the exception of the two carbonized barley grains, are all of fruit stones, nuts, and pips, and must represent human food and perhaps the use of the pit as a cess-pit at some stage of its fill.

TABLE 10.11 Cathedral Car Park: seeds from the fills of Pits 2 (late 9th century) and 11 (10th century) Preservation: c = carbonized Seeds no. Pit Taxon Chenopodium album L. Rubus fruticosus L. Prunus sp. Polygonum sp. Rumex sp. Corylus avellana L. Sambucus nigra L. Hordeum vulgare L. Avena cf. sativa L. Cerealia

Common name Fat hen Blackberry Plum sp. Knotgrasses and persicarias Dock Hazel Elderberry Barley (six-row hulled) Common oat Cereal

CACP 9 CACP 10 CACP 11 Pit 2 Pit 11 Pit 11 2 1 2 1c 1c -

10 2c 1c

259 6 31c -

230 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester ASSIZE COURTS DITCH 1962–3 Three samples (ACD Seeds 1–3) of late tenth- to ?early eleventh-century date from pit F. 4 were examined and produced plant remains.50 However, as can be seen in Table 10.12 the evidence was very slight. The cereals, bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rye (Secale cereale), were represented by single charred grains. The wild plant species were preserved by phosphatic mineralization.

Polygonum persicaria was present along with elder (Sambucus nigra) and a small seeded vetch. The singular lack of plant remains from a domestic pit which predates the construction of the castle ramparts is unusual since most such features from other parts of the site have been found to contain botanical remains. It is possible that the pit was not backfilled with plant remains of domestic origin.

TABLE 10.12 Assize Courts Ditch: seeds from Pit F. 4, late 10th to ?early 11th century

Taxon

Seeds no. Common name

Vicia sp. indet. Polygonum persicaria (L.) Meissner Corylus avellana L. Sambucus nigra L. Triticum aestivum L. Secale cereale L.

Vetch Persicaria Hazel Elderberry Bread wheat Rye

ACD 1 ACD 2 1 1 1 4 1 1

1 1 2 -

ACD 3 1 -

CASTLE YARD 1971 The construction of the Norman castle early in 1067 involved the clearance of a street of houses in the south-west salient of the walled city. The demolished remains were sealed below the up-cast of the Norman earthworks. The samples came from deposits beneath the earthworks and range in date from the late ninth century to 1067.51 The samples The longest series of samples, beginning in the late ninth and ending in the mid-eleventh century, came from the successive surfaces of 50

II Interim, 193, Pl. XLV, layers 28–32; WS 6.i in prep.

the frequently remetalled north–south street and adjacent intramural street (Illus. 10.15; Tables 10.14–10.17). Almost as early as the earliest of these was the material obtained from Pits II (CY Seeds 13–17) and III (CY Seeds 19) of the early tenth century (Table 10.13). In addition, samples (CY Seeds 50–1) were taken from a mid eleventh-century pit F. 33 (Table 10.18). As can be seen from the taxa lists, the remains were either preserved in anaerobic conditions or in a mineralized condition, or by carbonization. Most of the carbonized material was composed of similar species to those from Lower Brook Street, being in the 51

X Interim, 101–4, Pls. XXIb–XXV; WS 6.i in prep.

CASTLE YARD 1971

231

Illus. 10.15 Castle Yard 1969: showing the surface of north–south Anglo-Saxon Street 1 covered with wooden hurdles, looking north-west.

TABLE 10.13 Castle Yard: seeds from the fills of Pits II and III of the early 10th century Preservation: c = carbonized Seeds no. Taxon Papaver somniferum L. Ranunculus sp. Pisum sativum L. Ulmus sp. Prunus spinosa L. cf. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus domestica L./insititia L. Prunus sp. Malus sylvestris L. Mill. Pyrus communis L. Triticum aestivum L. Unidentified

Common name Opium poppy Buttercups Pea Elm Blackthorn/sloe Blackthorn/sloe Plum/bullace Plum species Crab apple Pear Bread wheat

CY 13 Pit II

CY 14 Pit II

CY 15 Pit II

CY 16 Pit II

CY 17 Pit II

CY 19 Pit III

1 -

1 6 1 2 1 1

11 251 2 -

130 1 5 32 1 1c -

170 9 90 2 6 2

1 1 -

232

AELFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

main cultivated cereals, whereas the bulk of anaerobic material consisted of seeds and fruits derived from segetal and ruderal weeds (Table 10.19). Cultivated plants: cereals and pulses As indicated above, the majority of identifiable seeds from the Castle Yard samples belonged to species that were either cultivated directly or gathered from the local hedgerows (like the fruits of sloe and bullace or hazel-nuts). The cereals recovered were found in a carbonized state and included wheat grains which resembled bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), although without rachis material absolute identification of this species was not possible), grains of six- and four-rowed and hulled two-row barley (Hordeum vulgare, H. tetrastichum, and H. distichon), and of cultivated oats (Avena sativa) with their characteristic lemma bases. Examples of these cereals have also been found in other areas of Winchester of this date, principally Lower Brook Street,52 Cathedral Green,53 Assize Courts Ditch,54 and in the western suburb, Sussex Street.55 In addition, a possible tenth-century corndrying complex at Chalton Manor Farm (Hants.) produced a range of cereal fragments which included possible bread wheat and sixor four-rowed barley.56 In addition to the cereal fragments, a number of cultivated legumes (broad beans and field peas) were recovered from various contexts, mainly from the eleventh-century deposits over the latest Anglo-Saxon street. Two peas were found in early tenth-century samples from Pit II (CY Seeds 14 and 16) and a bean in an early to mid eleventh-century sample from Anglo-Saxon Street 8 (CY 52

See above, p. 191.

53 56

Seeds 37). The presence of legumes in these samples from Castle Yard stands in contrast to the samples from Lower Brook Street and Cathedral Green, which produced no definite evidence of legume cultivation. Preservation by mineralization at CastleYard partly accounts for this difference, although it does not fully explain it. The cultivation of legumes at this time is, however, further attested both by the recovery of peas and beans from other Anglo-Saxon sites such as Middle Anglo-Saxon Southampton (Hamwic) which produced carbonized remains of both species,57 and by the documentary evidence indicating the cultivation of pulses in place names and charter references to fields (e.g. ‘beanland’).58 Notwithstanding occasional carbonization and mineralization, the presence of legumes is probably under-represented in the palaeoethnobotanical record relative to their importance in Anglo-Saxon agriculture and diet. Orchard or hedgerow husbandry As can be seen from the taxa lists, and as discussed above, a number of fruit stones and pips were recovered from the Castle Yard samples.This was particularly the case from the early tenth-century deposits in Pit II (CY Seeds 13–17; Table 10.13) in which a number of stones of sloe (Prunus spinosa), a couple of stones of bullace (P. domestica ssp. insititia), and apple pips (Malus sp.) were identified in a mineralized state of preservation. Two fragments of domestic plum (Prunus domestica) were recovered from the Anglo-Saxon street levels. The Prunus stones can be compared with material of Anglo-Saxon date from other sites in Winchester and elsewhere. By far the largest group of plant remains falling within this general category recovered

See above, p. 221. 54 See above, p.230. 57 Monk 1977. ibid. 58 ibid.

55

Green 2009.

CASTLE YARD 1971

from the Castle Yard samples were fragments of hazel-nut shells, most of which came from the Anglo-Saxon street levels, particularly Streets 1 (Table 10.14), 5 (Table 10.16), and 6. Acorns tend to be less resistant than hazel-nuts to bacterial decay and are, therefore, very often under-represented in the archaeological record. However, acorn fragments were recovered from Streets 1 and 5, although not from the other Castle Yard samples. By contrast, hazelnut remains were found in many of the other samples in both a carbonized and a waterlogged state of preservation. The presence of hazel-nuts on the AngloSaxon streets is probably related either to dumping of food refuse on the road or to casual loss during cartage.The woody structure of the shell of the nut is particularly resistant to decay (they need not be found carbonized or indeed waterlogged) and their survival in gutters of the road could be expected. The coppicing of hazel for wattle withies and wattle fences, as well as the growing of cob nuts or filberts, has probably been commonly practised in England since the Neolithic period and there is no reason to assume that this type of woodland management was not practised in Anglo-Saxon England.59 The Anglo-Saxons referred to a copse as ‘hyrste’ and the ‘woodward’, according to the Rectitudines Singularium Personarium,60 was a special officer appointed to maintain woodland and coppices. Although acorns are not commonly found, their importance in the economy was at least as significant. Besides the fact that acorns can, if processed (dried, stored, cracked, pulverized, sifted, leached of tannin, and boiled),61 be used in the human diet as a bread-flour substitute, they were extremely important as fodder for

61

233

pigs, and the pig provided a significant source of animal protein at this time. Hampshire, particularly the Hampshire Basin with its very characteristic oak woodland, was one of the leading areas for pig pannage in late Anglo-Saxon times. At Domesday (1086) the rent for the area at the headwaters of the Test near Totton was calculated in terms of 300 pigs.62 The association of pigs and areas of oak woodland was also recognized earlier. In the late seventh-century laws of Ine (688–725), for example, the heavy fine of 60 shillings was imposed on those cutting down trees under which thirty pigs or more could shelter.63 Nevertheless, despite the importance of the acorn for feeding pigs, the pigs were usually taken to the oak woods to forage for themselves and there would seldom have been a need to bring acorns into urban centres in large quantities except for human food at times of dearth. Wild flora: weeds and ruderals Most of the seeds and fruits recovered from the Castle Yard samples are species which are usually associated with ruderal (nitrogenrich) and disturbed-ground habitats. The latter consisted mainly of weeds of cultivation, particularly weeds of cornfields such as corncockle (Agrostemma githago), stinking mayweed (Anthemis cotula), nipplewort (Lapsana communis), persicaria (Polygonum persicaria), knotgrass (P. aviculare), and chickweed (Stellaria media). This range of species is not out of place when considered against the number of identifiable cereal fragments, particularly carbonized grains.

59 60 Rackham 1975, 52–8. Douglas and Greenaway 1953, 813–16. Kroeber 1970, discussing the practice of the Native Americans of the north-west coast. 62 63 Welldon Finn 1962, 232. Attenborough 1922, 44.

Seeds no. Common name Holly Plum Hazel Oak

Taxon

Ilex aquifolium L. Prunus domestica L. Corylus avellana L. Quercus sp.

1 -

1 -

1 -

1 -

1 -

1 1

1 (1) -

14 -

5 -

7 -

1 -

28 -

1 18 -

CY 20 CY 21 CY 22 CY 23 CY 24 CY 25 CY 26 CY 27 CY 28 CY 29 CY 30 CY 31 CY 32

TABLE 10.15 Castle Yard: seeds from occupation on N–S Anglo-Saxon Street 3, mid-10th century

Key: w = waterlogged c = carbonized x = present Seeds no. CY 1 CY 2 CY 3 CY 4 CY 5 CY 6 CY 7 CY 8 CY 9 CY 10 CY 11 CY 12 Taxon Common name 1 Ranunculus cf. repens L. Creeping buttercup 1c 1w 4w 1w Brassica sp. Cabbage/mustard-types 1w Raphanus raphanistrum L. Wild radish 1w Agrostemma githago L. Corncockle 1w Chenopodium album L. Fat hen 3w Chenopodium cf. bonus-henricus L Good King Henry 1w 1 Prunus domestica L. Plum Apiaceae Carrot/celery/parsley family 1w Polygonum convolvulus L. Black bindweed 1w Polygonum sp. Knotgrasses and persicarias 1w 2w Rumex sp. Dock 1w 2w 2w 2w 1 3 5 2 2 1 2 Corylus avellana L. Hazel 2w 2c 10w 2w Ballota nigra L. Black horehound 1w Sambucus nigra L. Elderberry 1w 7w Carduus sp. Thistles 1w Cyperaceae Sedge family 2w Bromus secalinus L./mollis L. Rye brome/lop grass 1w Triticum aestivum L. Bread wheat 1c 1c Hordeum sp. Barley 1c 1c Sp. indet. 1w 2w 2w Unidentified buds + NB these two samples contained fibrous material, possibly flax fibres + +

TABLE 10.14 Castle Yard: seeds from occupation on N–S Anglo-Saxon Streets 1 (CY1), c.880–6, and 2 (CY2–12), early 10th century

234 AELFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

CASTLE YARD 1971

235

TABLE 10.16 Castle Yard: seeds from late 10th-century occupation on Anglo-Saxon Streets N–S 4 (CY 33–4) and E–W 5 (CY 35–6) Preservation: c = carbonized Seeds no. CY 33 CY 34 CY 35 CY 36 Taxon Common name Ranunculus sp. Buttercups 1 Raphanus raphanistrum L. Wild radish 1c Vicia faba L. Broad bean (small seeded) 2c Vicia sp. Vetches 3c Pisum sativum L. Pea 2c Corylus avellana L. Hazel 1 4 2 4c Sambucus nigra L. Elderberry 14 Triticum aestivum L. Bread wheat 44c Hordeum cf. distichon Barley cf. two-row hulled 10c Avena cf. sativa L. Common oat 8c Cerealia Cereal (caryopses, culm nodes and culm) 50c Cerealia Cereal culm nodes 1c Cerealia Cereal culm + Poaceae Grass family 1c -

There does not seem to be any significant variation by context or phase in the predominance of weeds of cultivation and cereal waste: the range of material is the same for the early tenth-century material on Street 2 as it is for the occupation and destruction levels immediately prior to the construction of the castle in 1067. There are, however, some minor variations, and these have been examined by using the thirteen habitat groups in which the plant remains from both Lower Brook Street and Cathedral Green were studied.The data are summarized in the bar-graphs (Illus. 10.16). Early tenth century, Pit II (CY Seeds 13–17; Table 10.13) The majority of the items were stones of fruits (sloe, bullace, apple pips, etc.) preserved by mineralization and probably derived from a hedgerow shrub habitat (Group 6), but in this instance representing human food debris (Group 13, cultivated plants). The only other significant find in this pit was an example of

an opium poppy seed (Papaver somniferum) which suggests that this species may have been utilized, perhaps as flavouring or as an oil substitute. Early tenth century, Pit III (CY Seeds 18–19;Table 10.13) The samples produced little significant material. Street surfaces and Pit F. 33 (Tables 10.14–10.18) Plant remains of early tenth-century date came from three phases of occupation above AngloSaxon Street 2 (Table 10.14). CY Seeds 2–4 produced a few items, several of which were characteristic of Group 6 (scrubland plants, e.g. hazel-nut fragments). Seed finds from CY Seeds 5–12 were mainly composed of plants characteristic of cultivated ground and waste places (Groups 1 and 2). Four samples with plant remains were recovered from the late tenth-century occupation over Anglo-Saxon Street 5 (CY Seeds 33–6), but CY Seeds 33 and 34 did not

236

AELFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

Illus. 10.16 (in three parts) Castle Yard 1969: bar-graphs showing the numbers of taxa by habitat groups.

CASTLE YARD 1971

Illus. 10.16 (cont.)

237

238

AELFRIC’S NOMINA HERBARUM AND THE PLANT REMAINS

Illus. 10.16 (cont.)

Seeds no. Taxon Common name Ranunculus repens L./bulbosus L. Creeping buttercup/bulbous buttercup Brassica sp. Cabbage/mustard-types Raphanus raphanistrum L. Wild radish Agrostemma githago L. Corncockle Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Common chickweed Caryophyllaceae Pink family Chenopodium album L. Fat hen Scandix pecten-veneris L. Shepherd’s needle Apiaceae Carrot/celery/parsley family Vicia faba L. Broad bean (small seeded) Polygonum persicaria (L.) Meissner Persicaria Polygonum aviculare agg. Knotgrass Polygonum sp. Knotgrasses and persicarias Rumex sp. Dock Urtica dioica L. Stinging nettle Corylus avellana L. Hazel Quercus sp. Oak Sambucus nigra L. Elderberry Anthemis cotula L. Stinking mayweed Cirsium sp. Thistles Centaurea nigra L. Hardheads/common or lesser knapweed Lapsana communis L. Nipplewort Cyperaceae Sedge family Triticum aestivum L. Bread wheat Hordeum cf. distichon L. Barley cf. two-row hulled Avena cf. sativa L. Common oat Cerealia Cereal (culm) 1c 5m 1c -

1m 1c 1c -

2 1 -

1 -

4 4w 61w 1w 6w 5w 3w 3w 1w 1w 1w 4w 8w 1w 3w 39w 10w 6w 1w 3w 3w 1c 3c 2c4w +

1 -

1 -

1 -

6 -

2 -

CY 37 CY 38 CY 39 CY 40 CY 41 CY 42 CY 43 CY 44 CY 45 CY 46 CY 47

Preservation: c = carbonized, w = waterlogged, m = mineralized

TABLE 10.17 Castle Yard: seeds from occupation on Anglo-Saxon Streets E–W 8, (CY 37–8: early to mid-11th century) and N–S 8 (CY 39-47: mid-11th century to 1067)

CASTLE YARD 1971

239

240 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester produce many identifiable remains, except one or two cultivated species preserved by mineralization, and only one (CY Seeds 35) produced a wide enough range of material for habitat groupings (Table 10.16). In this case, as with material from the Anglo-Saxon Street 2 (CY Seeds 5–12), the dominant species were those associated with cultivated and wasteground (Groups 1 and 2), with a number of fragments of cultivated cereals (Group 13). TABLE 10.18 Castle Yard: seeds from F. 33, mid-11th century to 1067 Preservation: c = carbonized, m = mineralized Seeds no. Taxon

Common name

Agrostemma githago L. Corylus avellana L. Sambucus nigra L. Triticum aestivum L. Hordeum sp. Avena cf. sativa L. Cerealia

Corncockle Hazel Elderberry Bread wheat Barley Common oat Cereal grain (frags)

CY 50 CY 51 2m 3c 1c 1c -

2c 1c 2c 1c 1c

Samples of eleventh-century date came mainly from the occupation over Street 8 (Table 10.17) and from Feature 33 (Table 10.18).They produced a small number of identifiable plant remains, and, as before, carbonized fragments of the cultivated cereals formed the majority of identifiable items. Unusually, however, CY Seeds 42 produced a range of twenty-seven species. Castle Yard: conclusions Unlike the samples from Lower Brook Street and Cathedral Green, the majority of the identifiable items from samples from Castle Yard were either carbonized remains of cultivated cereals or remains of other food debris. Of the other seeds and fruits recovered, a marked number were common seeds of weeds of cultivation. This might indicate that they derived from crop waste that was being brought into that area of Winchester for some reason – perhaps with straw for thatching or for animal bedding, or with hay for fodder.

WOLVESEY PALACE 1971 The bishop’s palace at Wolvesey lies in the south-eastern quarter of the walled city and was excavated from 1963 to 1971.64 A sequence of Roman buildings65 was succeeded in the Anglo-Saxon period by a phase of landscape management involving a series of ditches adjacent to a building thought to be part of the residence of the Anglo-Saxon bishops. In the early twelfth century work began on

construction of the west hall, the first element of a new palace for the Norman bishops. Four samples (WP Seeds 1–4) were recovered from a major Anglo-Saxon ditch (F. 2583), found beneath the courtyard and Room 49 of the later palace (Table 10.19).66 This wide, flat-bottomed ditch drained in a north-east to south-west direction and was linked to a series of smaller and narrower ditches (perhaps field

For the 1963 to 1970 seasons, see II Interim to IX Interim; for the 1971 season, during which the samples discussed here were taken, see X Interim, 321–33; WS 6.ii in prep.

65

64

66

For the Roman buildings, see WS 3.i, forthcoming. X Interim, 326–8, Fig. 19.

241

Wolvesey PALACE 1971 TABLE 10.19 Wolvesey Palace: seeds from F. 2583, an Anglo-Saxon ditch, mid- to late 10th century Preservation: c = carbonized Taxon Ranunculus sp. Chelidonium majus L. Chenopodium album L. Rubus fruticosus agg. Rubus sp. Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Rosaceae Thelycrania sanguinea (L.) Fourr. Conium maculatum L. Aethusa cynapium L. Oenanthe sp. Heracleum sphondylium L. Apiaceae Polygonum persicaria (L.) Meissner Rumex sp. Urtica dioica L. Mentha cf. arvensis L. Lamium cf. album L. Ajuga chamaepitys (L.) Schreb. Lamiaceae Sambucus nigra L. Bidens tripartita L. Anthemis cotula L. Carex sp. Triticum sp. Cerealia

Seeds no. Common name Buttercups Greater celandine Fat hen Blackberry Bramble/dewberry/raspberry Hawthorn Roses family Dogwood Hemlock Fool’s parsley Dropworts Hogweed/cow parsnip keck Carrot/celery/parsley family Persicaria Dock Stinging nettle Corn mint White dead-nettle Ground pine Dead-nettle family Elderberry Trifid bur-marigold Stinking mayweed Sedges Wheat Cereal (grain frags)

ditches) for which it may have served as a main drain. The location of the samples in relation to the ditch system is shown on the plan (Illus. 10.17). A study of the sediments of the silting of the ditch67 showed that it had filled up gradually with plough soil and included a high proportion of fine sand, possibly the result of sorting by water (Tables 10.20 and 10.22). The ditch system appears to date from the eighth to ninth centuries. The ploughing which followed the use of the ditch was probably begun before the establishment in the 970s of the Anglo-Saxon 67

WP 1

WP 2

WP 3

WP 4

2 2 1 4 1 116 1c 2c

2 1 2 4 47 1 1 11 1 1 -

1 1 1 2 18 2 3 71 5 13 1 4 -

3 1 22 2 1 1 115 2 -

bishop’s residence immediately to the north and may have continued until the construction of the west hall of the later palace began about 1107. Unlike samples from other sites in Winchester the botanical material from the Wolvesey Anglo-Saxon ditch cannot readily be divided into groups characteristic of specific habitats. Many of the plants represented are common to a range of habitats, including waste and disturbed ground and possibly weeds of arable cultivation. One plant group which does appear to be present includes the following

See below, Appendix A.

242 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester

Illus. 10.17 Wolvesey Palace 1971: plan showing the location of the large Middle Anglo-Saxon ditch F. 2583 from which samples were taken.

species: hemlock (Conium maculatum), persicaria (Polygonum persicaria), mint (Mentha sp.), trifid bur-marigold (Bidens tripartita), and possibly rush (Carex sp.). All these species are common to damp ground, trifid bur-marigold being particularly associated with pond and stream margins. Another plant group that appears to be present is associated with calcareous, specifically chalkland, soils of which dogwood (Thelycrania sanguinea) and ground pine (Ajuga chamaepitys) are indicators. The presence of

the above groups is hardly surprising: it would be unusual if a waterlogged ditch in a chalk downland valley did not produce such species. The presence of blackberry and thorn fragments from Rosaceae species, including hawthorn, may possibly indicate a lowgrowing scrub type of vegetation in the vicinity, although it is also quite possible that such a drainage ditch, fed perhaps from upstream, could have been responsible for botanical material being carried downstream

243

CONCLUSIONS TABLE 10.20 Wolvesey Palace, F. 2583: the inter-room equivalence of layers (in stratigraphic order) from which bulk samples were taken for analysis (for results, see Tables 10.19 and 10.22). Sediment sample no.

Room 50A Room 50B Layers Layers WP Seeds no.

18 45a, 45b

58

18 21 45 54 53 58

527 554 567 628 562 572 573

and deposited some distance from its origin. Large quantities of stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) seeds in the samples are interesting, since modern soil samples taken from the water-meadows downstream from Wolvesey also produce large quantities of stinging nettle seeds to the exclusion of most other

WP 2 WP 1 WP 3 WP 4

species growing in the area today. It may be possible on this basis to infer that, botanically, the flora of the Itchen valley at this point has changed little in the past millennium and that the Anglo-Saxon ditches at Wolvesey may indicate a careful system of water-meadow management.68

THE PLANT ECONOMY AND VEGETATION OF ANGLO-SAXON WINCHESTER: CONCLUSIONS One of the most interesting aspects of the plants from Anglo-Saxon Winchester is the great range of species found (Table 10.21). The evidence for orchard husbandry and gardens makes it appropriate to end this chapter with a review of some of the documentary evidence for these topics. Documentary evidence for arboriculture and horticulture in Winchester before the twelfth century The palaeoethnobotanical evidence for orchard and garden husbandry in late Anglo-Saxon Winchester, as described in

the preceding sections, is still at this stage too meagre to provide the basis for anything more than speculation. There is, however, late medieval documentary evidence for orchard husbandry and garden activities in the Winchester area.69 Strawberry growing in the area around Bishops Waltham is mentioned in medieval documents relating to dues owed (in strawberries) to the bishopric of Winchester by tenants in that area. If this practice can be projected back to the Anglo-Saxon period, this might even relate to the presence of possible strawberry drupes in the Cathedral Green samples.70 The well documented later interest

68 69 Interim X, 328. See above, pp. 64–5. See above, p. 224 and Table 10.8, CG Seeds 19–24, late tenth-century to late eleventh-century; and Table 10.9 CG Seeds 35 and 36, late eleventh-century to early twelfth-century. 70

244 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester TABLE 10.21 Plants from Anglo-Saxon Winchester Key: BS = Lower Brook Street; WP = Wolvesey Palace; CY = Castle Yard; CACP = Cathedral Car Park; CG = Cathedral Green;

ACD = Assize Courts Ditch;

+ = present Site Common name

BS

WP

Taxon Aethusa cynapium L. Agrostemma githago L. Agrostis sp. Ajuga chamaepitys (L.) Schreb. Alisma plantago-aquatica L. Angelica sp. Anisantha sterilis (L.) Nevski Anthemis sp. Anthemis cotula L. Apiaceae Apium sp. Apium cf. nodiflorum (L.) Lag. Aquilegia L. Arctium lappa L. Arenaria sp. Arenaria serpyllifolia L. Asteraceae Atriplex sp. Atriplex cf. hastata L. Atriplex patula/hastata L. Avena cf. fatua L. Avena sp. Avena cf. sativa L. Ballota nigra L. Betula sp. Bidens tripartita L. Brachypodium sp. Brassicaceae Brassica sp. Brassica/Sinapis sp. Bromus cf. mollis Bromus secalinus L. Bupleurum cf. rotundifolium L. Caltha palustris L. Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Carduus cf. nutans L. Carduus sp. Carex sp. Caryophyllaceae Centaurea nigra L. Centaurea scabiosa L. Cerastium sp. Cerealia Chelidonium majus L.

Fool’s parsley Corncockle Bent-grasses Ground pine Water plantain Angelica Barren brome Chamomiles/mayweed Stinking mayweed Carrot/celery/parsley family Marshworts Fool’s watercress Columbines Great burdock Sandwort Thyme-leaved sandwort Daisy family Orache Hastate orache Common/hastate orache Wild oat Oats Common oat Black horehound Birch Trifid bur-marigold False brome Cabbage family Cabbage/mustard-types Cabbage/mustard-types Lop grass Rye brome Hare’s-ear Kingcup/marsh marigold Shepherd’s purse Musk thistle Thistles Sedges Pink family Hardheads/common or lesser knapweed Greater knapweed Mouse ears/chickweeds Cultivated cereals Greater celandine

+ + +

+

CY CACP CG ACD

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ +

+ + +

+

+ +

+

+ + + +

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + +

+

+ + +

+ +

+

245

CONCLUSIONS TABLE 10.21 (cont.)

Taxon

Site Common name

Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium sp. Chenopodium album L. Chenopodium album L./polyspermum L. Chenopodium bonus-henricus L. Chenopodium glaucum L./rubrum L. Chrysanthemum sp. Chrysanthemum segetum L. Cirsium sp. Cirsium cf. palustre (L.) Scop. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Conium maculatum L. Corylus avellana L. Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Crepis cf. biennis L. Cyperaceae Euphorbia helioscopia L. Fragaria sp. Fumaria sp. Galeopsis tetrahit (L.)/speciosa Mill. Galium aparine L. Galium sp. Heracleum sp. Heracleum sphondylium L. Hieracium sp. Hordeum sp. Hordeum cf. distichon L. Hordeum vulgare L. Hyoscyamus niger L. Hypericum sp. Hypericum cf. perforatum Hypochaeris sp. cf. Hypochaeris glabra L. Ilex sp. Ilex aquifolium L. Juncus sp. Juncus bulbosus L. Juglans regia L. Lamiaceae Lamium sp. Lamium cf. album L. Lamium cf. hybridum Vill. Lamium cf. purpureum L. Lapsana communis L. Linum catharticum L. Linum usitatissimum L. Lycopus europaeus L. Malus/Pyrus

Goosefoot family Goosefoots Fat hen Fat hen/all-seed Good King Henry All-seed/red goosefoot Crown daisies Corn marigold Thistles Marsh thistle Spear thistle Hemlock Hazel Hawthorn Rough hawks beard Sedge rush family Sun spurge Strawberries Fumitory Common/large-flowered hemp-nettle Goosegrass/cleavers Cleavers Hogweeds Hogweed/cow parsnip/keck Hawkweeds Barley Barley cf. two-row hulled Barley (six-row hulled) Henbane St John’s worts Common/perforate St John’s wort Cat’s ears Smooth cat’s ear Hollies Holly Rushes Bulbous rush Walnut Dead-nettle family Dead-nettles White dead-nettle Cut-leaved dead-nettle Red dead-nettle Nipplewort Purging flax Flax Gipsy-wort Apple/crab apple/pear

BS

+ + + +

WP

+

CY CACP CG ACD

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ +

+

+

+ +

+

+ +

+ +

+ + + + + + + +

+ + + +

+ +

+ + + + +

+

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

246 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester TABLE 10.21 (cont.) BS

Taxon

Site Common name

Mentha sp. Mentha cf. aquatica L. Mentha cf. arvensis L. Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds. Mentha cf. rotundifolium (L.) Huds. Myosotis scorpioides L. Oenanthe sp. Oenanthe aquatica (L.) Poir. Papaver sp. Papaver argemone L. Papaver hybridum L. Papaver rhoeas L. Papaver somniferum L. Parapholis incurva (L.) C.E. Hubbard Picris echioides L. Pisum sativum L. Poa pratensis L. Poa annua L. Poaceae Poa trivialis L. Polygonum sp. Polygonum aviculare agg. Polygonum bistorta L. Polygonum convolvulus L. Polygonum lapathifolium L. Polygonum persicaria (L.) Meissner Potentilla sp. Potentilla cf. erecta (L.) Rausch. Prunella vulgaris L. Prunus sp. Prunus avium L. Prunus domestica L. Prunus insititia C.K. Schneid. Prunus spinosa L. Prunus spinosa L./insititia L. Puccinellia distans (Jacq.) Parl. Pyrus communis L. Quercus sp. Ranunculus sp. Ranunculus cf. acris Ranunculus bulbosus L. Ranunculus repens L. Raphanus raphanistrum L. Rosaceae Rubus sp. Rubus fruticosus L. Rubus fruticosus agg. Rumex sp.

Mints Water mint Corn mint Horse mint Apple-scented mint Water forget-me-not Dropworts Fine-leaved water dropwort Poppies Long prickly-headed poppy Round prickly-headed poppy Field poppy Opium poppy Curved hard-grass Bristly ox-tongue Pea Smooth meadow-grass Annual/meadow-grass Grass family Rough meadow-grass Knotgrasses and persicarias Knotgrass Bistort Black bindweed Pale persicaria Persicaria Cinquefoils Common tormentil Self-heal Plum sp. Cherry/wild cherry Plum Bullace Blackthorn/sloe Sloe/bullace Reflexed poa Pear Oak Buttercups Meadow buttercup Bulbous buttercup Creeping buttercup Wild radish Rose family Bramble/dewberry/raspberry Blackberry Blackberry Dock

+

WP

CY CACP CG ACD + + + +

+ + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + + +

+

+

+ + + + + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+ + +

+

+ + +

+ +

+ + + + + + + +

+ + +

+

+

+

+ + +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

247

CONCLUSIONS TABLE 10.21 (cont.) BS

Taxon

Site Common name

Rumex acetosella agg. Rumex conglomeratus Murray Rumex cf. crispus L. Rumex cf. obtusifolius L. Sambucus sp. Sambucus ebulus L. Sambucus nigra L. Scandix pecten-veneris L. Scirpus sp. Secale cereale L. Senecio sp. Silene sp. Silene alba (Mill.) Krause Silene noctiflora L. Silene cf. nutans L. Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garke Solanum cf. nigrum L. Solanaceae Sonchus arvensis L. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill. Sonchus oleraceus L. Stachys cf. palustris L. Stachys sp. Stachys annua L. Stachys sylvatica L. Stellaria sp. Stellaria graminea L. Stellaria holostea L. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Thelycrania sanguinea (L.) Fourr. Thlaspi arvense L. Torilis japonica (Houtt.) DC. Trisetum flavescens (L.) Beauv. Triticum sp. Triticum aestivum L. Ulmus sp. Urtica dioica L. Urtica urens L. Verbena officinalis L. Vicia sp. indet. Vicia sp. Vicia faba L. Viola sp. Vitis vinifera L.

Sheep’s sorrel Sharp dock Curled dock Broad-leaved dock Elders Danewort, dwarf elder Elderberry Shepherd’s needle Club-rushes Rye Ragworts Campions/catchflies White campion Night-flowering campion Nottingham catchfly Bladder campion Black nightshade Nightshades Field milk-thistle Prickly sow-thistle Smooth sow-thistle Marsh woundwort Woundworts Yellow woundwort Hedge woundwort Stitchworts Lesser stitchwort Greater stitchwort Common chickweed Dogwood Field penny-cress Upright hedge-parsley Yellow oat grass Wheat Bread wheat Elm Stinging nettle Small nettle Vervain Vetch Vetches Broad bean (small seeded) Violets Grape

+

WP

CY CACP CG ACD

+ + +

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

+

+

+

+ +

+ + + + + +

+ + + +

+

+

+ + +

+ + + + + +

+

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + + +

+

+

248 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester of the south Hampshire area in the growing of fruit of various kinds is likely to have had local antecedents, and there is good evidence from other areas of the country which have more complete documentary evidence for an early association between monastic institutions and the practice of arboriculture and horticulture. Perhaps the most informative comparative piece of early evidence comes from the Christ Church, Canterbury, waterworks plan of the mid-twelfth century.71 The water to supply the monastery is shown being conducted through a field of standing corn, past a representation of a vineyard, and then by a representation of fruit trees. The Gerefa (Ðe gesceadwisan gerefan: ‘On the prudent steward’) shows that the making of an orchard and the sowing of vegetables were a necessary part of the winter and spring duties of a reeve on a late Anglo-Saxon estate.72 A mid eleventh-century calendar in the British Library shows pruning as an activity to be carried out in February.73 This may be the pruning of trees and shrubs (and possibly of vines) not grown for their fruit and nuts, but there is no evidence to suggest that trees other than orchard trees would be treated in this way. There is still a great deal of argument over whether or not the vine could have been grown on a viable basis in Britain in the early medieval period.74 Some of the available evidence suggests a warmer climatic phase in the late AngloSaxon period which allowed the vine to grow easily in the colder areas of northern Europe like Britain,75 and there is now pretty much a consensus that the ‘medieval warm epoch’ is a real phenomenon in western Europe and Willis 1868, 158–73; James 1935. Swanton 1985; Swannell in Monk 1977 includes a discussion of the text on pp. 276–82. 73 Cotton MS Julius A. vi. 74 Monk 1977, 389. 71 72

is manifested in dendroclimatological and speleothem records. However, only the very end of the Anglo-Saxon period corresponds with such a ‘warm epoch’ (and then, not in all records). It has been argued that the popularity of viticulture was bound up with the need for wine as part of the sacrament, as a result of which its cultivation may have spread to areas where its growth was scarcely viable.76 Whatever the climate, thirty-three vineyards are listed in Domesday Book, although only one of these references may imply a vineyard in Hampshire and the meaning is obscure: a man at Lomer in east-central Hampshire is recorded as paying ten sesters of wine in dues, but the reference gives no indication of whether the wine was produced locally or imported. There are plenty of pre-conquest references in the documents to orchard husbandry and gardens in continental Europe and in Ireland. Most of these refer to royal estates and monastic institutions. The eighth-century Salic Laws make particular mention of planted trees, pomaria and peraria, in the enclosed areas around houses.77 The Capitulare de Villis of Charlemagne lists a number of fruit and nut trees and garden plants including apple, pear, plum, sorb, medlar, chestnut, peach, quince, hazel, almond, mulberry, laurel, pine, fig, nut, and cherry, as well as sage, rue, rosemary, burdock, chicory, penny royal, hemlock, parsley, spinach, cabbage, onions, leeks, garlic, teasels, broad beans, and peas.78 A little after the capitulary was issued, Walafrid Strabo, abbot of the Reichenau, wrote about his garden, about the weeds, particularly the nettles, and about the garden plants that he grew including Lamb 1966, 182; Dansgaard et al. 1975; Monk 1977, 389–92. 76 Duby 1974. 77 Parain 1966, 168. 78 Loyn and Percival 1975, 73. 75

CONCLUSIONS

249

sage, rue, southernwood, poppy, penny royal, mint, parsley, and radishes, and the flowers, lilies, gladioli, and roses.79 In Ireland too there seems to have been a long tradition of gardening and hedgerow and orchard husbandry. In the documentary sources for the early and later medieval periods, recently explored by Fergus Kelly, there are references to gardens (lubgort) and gardeners (lubgortóir) as well as to the vegetables grown, including probable onion (cainnenn ?), probable celery (imus), chives (folchép), leek (borrlus), and cabbage (braisech).80 Orchards (aballgort ?) are also mentioned and specifically in relation to apples (aball/abella). They were highly valued to the extent that in the legal texts heavy fines of several ounces of silver were imposed for stealing even one apple from another’s tree. There are frequent references in the monastic documents to orchards and fruit in the diet.81 For example, a ninth-century monastic rule allows for a penitent to eat apples with his bread ration. Although apples seem to be referred to most frequently in the documents, it is very likely that the fruit diet was supplemented by collecting the wild fruit harvest in

the summer and autumn – sloe, bullace, blackberries, hazel-nuts, and the like. This information from the documents is gradually being substantiated and added to by the efforts of archaeobotanists working on material from the urban excavations like those carried out at Winchester in the 1960s and 1970s. Since that time a number of other sites in the city have also produced evidence for the exploitation of fruits and the resulting expansion of horticulture and arboriculture.82 Sites such as Hungate (York),83 Fullers Hill (Great Yarmouth),84 Hamwic (Southampton),85 Winetavern Street and High Street (Dublin)86 have all produced evidence of a similar range of fruits from a similar date range to those recovered from the Winchester sites. The information from Winchester for the early developments in orchard husbandry and gardening practice and exploitation is therefore not isolated, but as elsewhere, far more evidence needs to be recovered from all the sites discussed in these reports and from others (when the opportunity to sample them arises) before a clearer picture of these important early medieval developments in the plant economy can be properly understood.

79

Waddell 1966, 77–8. Kelly 2000. 81 O’Corrain 1972, 52–3 82 Green 2009; Carruthers 2011.

83

80

84

Godwin and Bachem 1959. Jones 1975. 85 Monk 1980. 86 O’Riordain 1971.

250 The plant economy and vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Winchester Appendix A A study of the sediment in the silting of the Anglo-Saxon ditch (F. 2583) at Wolvesey (Illus. 10.17,Tables 10.20, and 10.22) by Margaret A. Collins When considered afresh after some fifty years, there are difficulties with the interpretation of the data in this study. For example, alluvial deposition would need to be argued from overarching grain-size parameters such as sorting, skewness, and kurtosis, rather than the mere presence of fine sand. Nevertheless, it is published here because samples were taken both for sediment analysis (Table 10.22) and for environmental evidence (Table 10.19), and the results may still be used to indicate interpretations of the purpose of the ditches. The location of the samples in relation to the ditch system is shown on the plan Illus. 10.17, and their sequence and relationship to the samples taken for environmental analysis is shown in Table 10.20. The organic content (humus) figures from Layers 18–45b could be those of a soil-weathering profile. As there is no break above Layer 45 there is no reason to suppose that Layer 45 rather than Layer 18 is the old turf-line. The figures are too low for a grass or woodland soil, but normal for one recently ploughed, though comparisons between ancient and modern material must be

made with caution as the organic content of the former, unless continuously waterlogged, will decline as a result of oxidation. The profile cannot have been formed out of Layer 58 as this has a higher organic content. The iron sequence is the reverse of that in a normal soilweathering profile. However, in a site which is low-lying, waterlogged, high in organic content and well covered, the iron is liable to show a very different distribution from the usual and should probably be ignored. In Layer 58 there appears to be a high proportion of fine sand, 0.2–0.06mm, which suggests sorting by water (though analysis of grain sizes was not done). The ditch system seems likely to have represented a system of managed meadows in this area. The long, narrow parcels of land are bordered by small ditches and gullies, showing signs of having been recut several times, and these in turn feed into the main ditch. Thus, they are probably the earliest indication we have of management of the meadows by the River Itchen which was to culminate later in a complex system of water-meadow management.

TABLE 10.22 Wolvesey Palace: organic and iron content in deposits sampled from the Anglo-Saxon ditch F. 2583 (Room 50A: Layers 18, 45, and 58). Two samples were taken from Layer 45, one from the upper part (45a), one from the lower part (45b).

Sediment samples no. Organic Content % 18 45a 45b 58

0.95 0.79 0.59 4.12

Iron % 0.777 0.695 0.640 0.500

11 PLANT REMAINS AND AGRICULTURE IN NORMAN AND LATER MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER by FRANCIS J. GREEN

INTRODUCTION

T

his chapter forms one part of the author’s research on the plant remains from Winchester, the remainder of which has been published in the series of volumes describing excavations in the city since 1972.1 The results presented here will refer to the latter, but the focus is the information recovered from the excavation by the Winchester Excavations Committee of sites in the city from 1961 to 1971.The excavators were, unlike many of their colleagues, well aware of the potential information which could be gained from the deposits they encountered. Without this awareness, specialists working subsequently in the city would not have had the materials on which to work. The plant remains from the excavations of 1961–71 form an integral part of the overall interpretation of the sites and provide an archive for future research. Illus. 11.1 shows the location of sites from which samples referred to in this chapter were taken. As might be expected, waterlogged material comes from the lower part of the city and is particularly associated with a fluctuating water-table.2 Carbonized material is present on all sites, although sometimes in very small quantities. By contrast, mineralized material rarely occurs on the lower-lying sites and seems to be a phenomenon of the western, northern, and eastern suburbs where pits were specifically cut into the Chalk and Chalk-derived solifluction. Preservation conditions thus reflect the topography and the environment of the medieval and later city. The botanical materials recovered from each site have, however, been preserved in a variety of ways3 and since it is only possible to make site comparisons between botanical materials preserved in the same way (and even then, comparison may be limited), the problems of different forms of preservation compound the problems of interpretation. This is especially relevant where more than one type of preservation is encountered in a single feature, as in Pit 16 on the Cathedral Car Park site.4

1 2

Green 2009. See above, pp. 5–6 and 31–2; Ottaway 2017, 27.

For a discussion of preservation, sampling, and recovery of botanical materials, see above, pp. 8–16. 4 See below, pp. 278–9. 3

252

PLANT REMAINS IN NORMAN AND LATER MEDIEVAL WINCHESTER

Illus.11.1 Map of Winchester showing the location of the sites from which samples of medieval deposits were taken. 

The plant groups

253

Because it is difficult to recover sufficient carbonized plant remains from waterlogged or anaerobic deposits to provide valid comparisons,5 the entirety of each sample was processed wherever possible, in order to retrieve the maximum quantity of carbonized material. The quantities recovered indicate, however, that very large bulk samples would have been required to provide the data for more detailed interpretation.6 THE PLANT GROUPS The general lack of plant indicators has made interpretation using the approach advocated by van Zeist virtually impossible.7 The following simplified method has therefore been adopted. The plants recovered from the archaeological sites have been divided into basic groups according to their habitat or plant community association, using the following categories: cereals, other arable crops (flax, hemp, and legumes), orchard crops (excluding nuts), arable ruderals, waterloving plants, calcicolous plants (i.e. those that favour calcium-rich environments), and wild plants of non-specific habitat.8 Where cherry/plum stones, Prunus species, occur in large numbers, they may be separated from the rest of the orchard and fruit crops. Plants which could not be identified to species are always included in the wild plants of non-specific habitat. In the bar-diagrams, in the text, and for all purposes where percentages have been calculated, groups which contain less than 0.45 per cent have not been recorded and groups which contain 0.50 per cent or over, but below 1 per cent, have been recorded as 1 per cent. This applies also to percentage figures in tabulations, but here, where a group contains less than 0.45 per cent, it is recorded as less than 1 per cent, thus,