Reconstruction and Measurement of Landscape Change: A study of six parishes in the St Albans area 9780860547631, 9781407318622

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Appendices
Abbreviations
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1: The Problem and the Area
Chapter 2: The Pre-Medieval Periods
Chapter 3: The Medieval Period: The Earliest Historical Landscape
Chapter 4: A Reconstruction of the Early Modern Landscape
Chapter 5: Measuring Change in the Landscape
Chapter 6: Discussion
Appendices
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Reconstruction and Measurement . of Landscape Change A study of six parishes in the St Albans area

Jonathan R. Hunn

BAR British Series 236 1994

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 236 Reconstruction and Measurement of Landscape Change © Jonathan R. Hunn and the Publisher 1994 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860547631 paperback ISBN 9781407318622 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860547631 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Tempvs Reparatvm in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1994. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2019.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

'We read the past by the light of the present, and forms vary as the shadows fall, or as the point of vision alters.' J.A. Froude

Contents Chapter 1: The Problem and the Area

1.1 1.2 1. 3 1.4

Introduction Previous approaches to reconstructing the landscape in the British Isles Topography and drainage Geology, terrain and soils Agriculture and mineral resources

1 7 13 16 16

Chapter 2: The Pre-Medieval Periods 2.1

The use of archaeological data Description, interpretation and reconstruction The LPRIA landscape: The oppidum 2.4 The LPRIA landscape: The rural areas 2.5 Settlement location and terrain analysis for the LPRIA period The Roman Landscape . 2.6 2.7 The principal site: Verulamium The suburban landscape 2.8 2.9 The rural landscape 2.10 A hypothetical reconstruction of an RB villa estate at Gorhambury and others 2.11 Late Roman and post-Roman evidence 2.12 Post-Roman and Saxon period

2.2 2.3

18 20 26 34 35 42 42 43 44 52 54

56

Chapter 3 The Medieval Period: The Earliest Historical Landscape Information in the St A,bans Area

3 .1 3.2 3.3 3 .4 3.5 3. 6 3.7 3. 8 3. 9 3 .10 3.11 3 .12

Introduction Medieval source material Medieval documentary sources in the St Albans area The Medieval landscape of the St Albans area The administrative landscape: jurisdiction and lordship Townships and parishes Manors and manorial estates The management of the St Albans abbey estates The physical appearance of the medieval landscape Medieval settlement Medieval infrastructure Field and field systems Problems of landscape terminology Conclusion

59 59

61 63 67 69 72

75 77 81 85 92 97 97

Chapter 4. A Reconstruction of the Early Modern Landscape. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4. 7 4. 8

The pre-cartographic period Method of reconstruction The 16th century landscape The cartographic period: 17th century evidence 17th century non-cartographic sources 18th century cartographic sources 18th non-cartographic sources 19th century cartographic sources Conclusion

99 101 102 110 119

122 134 134 144

Chapter 5. Measuring Change in the Landscape

5.1 5.2 5.3

5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20

146 148 152 152 156 156 166 169 169 176 179 180 181 185 188

Measuring change in the landscape Fieldname evidence Field sizes Fann holdings Land use Boundary change A classification of field shapes and boundaries Urbanisation Woodland Parks Warrens Orchards Mineral extraction Ponds Fann establishments Settlement, greens and commons: Settlement Greens and commons Parochial boundaries Communications Ephemeral change Demographic change Conclusion

188

191 194 195 198 200 205

Chapter 6. Discussion

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

207 208 212 215 221 223

The present study: Methods used Problems in data variation - source availability Measuring total change in the landscape The evaluation of landscape Landscape studies: past and future trends Conclusion

Bibliography

322

Index

339

11

List of Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 12.1 12.2 12.3

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 31.1 31.2 31.3 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

The location and extent of the study area Landscape boundary dynamics Spatial boundary change Boundary change Land Use change Field name change Territorial units Topography and drainage Drift map Archaeological perception map Pre-Iron Age evidence Roman and Prehistoric period . Crop marks in Verulamium oppidum Childwickbury Roman villa Friars Wash site The Verulamium oppidum Prae Wood LPRIA features on plateau Gradient classification 1:50,000 Hypothetical land use plan in the LPRIA period Notional territories in the LPRIA period Mid 19th century farm territories Economic catchment area of Verulamium Notional territories in the Roman period Cultivated land in 1932 Medieval documentary sources Reconstructible landscape Post-Roman pre-Conquest landscape Lands of the manor of Westwick Medieval parishes Medieval townships Medieval St Albans Domesday Book landscape Medieval settlement pattern Medieval infrastructure Plan of St Mary de Pre Childwickbury earthworks, Batchworth Profile of windmill mound at Gorhambury Medieval woodland Medieval field names Medieval sources of evidence Late medieval to mid-16th century manorial estates Location of post-medieval properties 16th century landscape coverage around St Albans 16th century landscape of St Michaels 16th century landscape of St Stephens and St Peters Extent of 16th century park of Gorhambury Cartographic and reconstructed landscape of 17th century 17th century cartographic landscape Early Cl 6th - Cl 7th reconstructed plan of Redbourn Late C17th reconstructed plan of Redbourn Mid Cl 7th reconstructed landscape of Western St Michaels Late" " Park 1607; Hedges 1696 in St Stephens Extent of 18th century map coverage Part of parishes of Redbourn and St Michaels in 1768-75 Sandridge parish in 1726 Ill

2 4 5 5 5 5 6 14 15 19 21 23 24 24 24 27 29 33 36 40 47 48 51 57 60 60 64

65 68 71 73 76 80 86 87 87

88 89 90 91 100 103 104 105 106 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 123 125 126

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

57. 58.

59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84.

Part of Sandridge in 1768 18th century plans of properties in St Stephens parish 18th " " " St Peters parish St Michaels parish in 1799 Redboum Tithe map 1841 St Michaels " " 1840 St Peters and detached part of St Stephens (TA) 1840 St Stephens Tithe map 1838 Sandridge Tithe map 1843 Examples of former land use based on field names Field names of Gorhambury in 1978 Average field size through time Territorial boundary change in west St Michaels Functional boundaries around Gorhambury Boundary change on the manor of Gorham-W estwick and Pray Extent of boundary change around St Albans Classification of field types in the St Albans area Distribution of irregular and sinuous boundaries The urban expansion of St Albans Urbanised landscape around St Albans c.1980 Hypothetical reconstruction of post-Roman woodland Expansion of Prae Wood Distribution of Parks in the St Albans area Mineral extraction around St Albans Chalk pit alignments at Gorhambury Pond survival 1878-1978 Loss of farm units 1840 - c.1980 Settlement typology, commons and greens around St Albans Settlement sequence at Westwick Row 1569-1980 Extinct communications in the St Albans area Existing " " " " " Elm mortality around Gorhambury Landscape evaluation Pedestrian and equestrian access to the countryside

127 128 129 130 135

136 137 138 139 149 151 153 154 155 165 165 167 168 170 171 173 175 177 182 183 186 187 189 190 196 197 199 217 219

List of Tables 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Typology of LPRIA enclosures in the St Albans area Villa sites above river level Acquisition of estates by St Albans abbey Size of manorial holdings Domesday Book Settlement hierarchy in the medieval period Possible farming units in the late-11th century Principal medieval field name sources List of lands belonging to the manor of Westwick in 1306 Lands of Grange of St Peters Demesne lands of the manor of Park in 1331 Pre-cartographic - post-medieval landscape sources around St Albans Land use areas of the 1569 survey Proportions of land use in the 1569 survey Land use figures in the 1558 survey 16th century land utiliz.ation ratios Ratio of land use to land units in the 16th century Mid-16th century arable field sizes Mid-16th century meadow field sizes Mid-16th century pasture field sizes iv

35 45 74 74 78 90 90 94 94

95 95 99 102 107 107 107 108 108 109 109

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76.

Size of tenant holdings in the mid-16th century Tenurial units of Redboum manor in 1617 Field unit size in 1617 in Redboum Size of tenurial units in 1692 in Redboum Arable land units in 1692 Arable field units in 1656 Tenurial units in 1656 Land use ratios on the Grimston estates at the end of the 17th century Arable field units in 1696 Tenurial units in 1696 Land use ratios of manor of Park in 1607 Average size of farm holdings in Sandridge in 1726 Ratio of field sizes in Sandridge in 1726 Average size of farm holdings on the Grimston's estates in 1768 Arable field sizes in 1768 Meadow/pasture field sizes in 1768 Meadow/grass field units in Redboum in 1841 Arable field units in Redboum in 1841 Arable field units in St Michaels in 1840 Meadow/pasture units in St Michaels in 1840 Arable field units in St Peters in 1840 Meadow/pasture units in St Peters in 1840 Arable field units in St Stephens in 1838 Meadow/pasture units in St Stephens in 1838 Arable .field units in Sandridge in 1843 Meadow/pasture field sizes in Sandridge in 1843 Proportion of land use in the 1840's Average field size in Tithe apportionment parishes Total area of parishes given in different sources A classification of landscape change Field name survival from the medieval to the mid-19th century The state of field name survival on the Gorhambury estate A list of some of the principal botanical, zoological and archaeological field name categories for landscape history Average field sizes from the mid-16th to late 20th century Land holding units of the manor of Park in 1331 Known 16th century holdings to the mid-19th century The average size of tenant holdings through time Tenant holdings from the Tithe apportionment data Land use from the mid-16th to mid-19th century Boundary change on Butlers farm, Redboum Boundary change on the manor of Goram-Westwick and Pray between 1569 and 1980 Boundary change in the parish of Redboum " " " St Michaels " " " St Peters " St Stephens " Sandridge Summary of tables 60-66 Boundary lengths due to new rail and road communications Showing the ratio of ploughs to woodland in the Domesday Survey Domesday survey ratio of swine totals to acreage References to heathland in medieval and early post medieval periods References to woodland in medieval period Woodland change from the 18th century to late 20th century Parks from the medieval period to the present day Changing area of orchards from mid-19th to the present. Mineral references from field and place name elements. V

110 119 120 120 121 121 121 122 122 122 122 124 131 132 132 132 140 140 141 141 141 141 142 142 143 143 143 143 144 146 148 152 152 152 153 153 156 156 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 166 172 172 172 174 176 179 180 184

77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

Number of dwellings/farms through time at Westwick Row. Coincidence of site continuity at Westwick Row Classification of commonlands and green List of probable inter-commoned lands around St Albans. Composition of parish boundary lengths Domesday population Medieval Lay Subsidy population Lay Subsidy of 1524/25 Protestation Returns of 1641 Hearth tax returns of 1663 Population statistics 1563-1801 in the St Albans area. Census Returns for the 19th and 20th centuries Population from 1086 to the present day Sandridge population figures Principal landscape trends from the mid-16th to late 20th century Classification of different levels of landscape reconstruction Earliest measurable landscape elements Classification of previous Tables Classification of late Iron Age sites Field name change on the Gorhambury estate near St Albans, Herts Medieval field-name survival into the post-medieval period Principal counties with 'greens'

191 191 191 192 194 200 201 202 202 202 202 203 203 204 206 207 214 223 229 245 252 318

List of Appendices

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

LPRIA and Roman ditch statistics in the St Albans area Comparative LPRIA sites in England Material requirements of the Roman defences of Verulamium Select list of works on landscape reconstruction A comparison between two surveys of Westwick manor Medieval infrastructure with a description of individual landscape features into the post-medieval period Administrative officers of the abbey's estates Comparative demesne sizes in the general area of St Albans Grants of monastic estates by the crown Pre-dissolution leases of St Albans abbey Extract from survey of 1569 Comparison between estate sizes 1558-1603 Post-medieval cartographic sources Extract of indenture of 1658 17th century cartographic sources in the St Albans area Pollard references on the manor of Napsbury in 1569 Commons and greens in the St Albans area Details of an ecological survey of S.Hertfordshire Field names on the Gorhambury estate Medieval field name survival into post-medieval period Medieval field name list Post-medieval field name list List of the top ten counties with greens. Comparative estates: Roman and Medieval An alternative model for the boundary change factor. A description of Iron Age and Romano British enclosures in the Verulamium region.

vi

226 227 231 231 232 233 237 237 238 238 238 238 238 240 240 241 242 243 245 252 256 267 318 318 319 320

Abbreviations

B.Lib Cal EPNS Feudal Aids GLC.R.O. HMSO HRO PRO SMR Tax.Eccl.P .Nich.lV. TF VCH

British Library Calendar of Close Rolls " Patent Rolls preserved in the P.R.O. London: HMSO. English Place Name Society. Inquisitions and Assessments relating to Feudal Aids. London: HMSO. Greater London Council Record Office. Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Hertfordshire Record Office. Public Record Office. Sites and Monuments Record. Taxatio Ecclesiastica. Angliae et Walliae Auctoritate P.Nicholai IV. Records Commission 1802. Topographical feature Victoria County History

Acknowledgements

I would like to record my thanks and appreciation to the individuals and institutions who have assisted me in the creation of this study. Firstly, to the following institutions who gave assistance and, more rarely, financial help in the course of this work. In alphabetical order: The Bodleian Library (Oxford); the British Library; Cambridge University Library; the Colt Fund of the Society of Medieval Archaeology; Committee of Aerial Photography, Cambridge; Greater London Council Records Office; Hertfordshire County Council; Hertfordshire Record Office;Institute of Archaeology (London); Institute for Historical Research (London University); University of London Library; and Verulamium Museum. Secondly, to those individuals who provided help over the course of the years. In particular, to David Neal for his encouragement to investigate the landscape around Gorhambury. To Angus Wainwright, Andrew Pye, Douglas Moore, Tony O'Connor, Phil Collins, Stephen Russell, Joanna Mattingley, Victoria Casseley, Pam Roberts, Chris Saunders, Ros Niblett and my parents for their help including field ·work, discussion and proof reading. I am particularly grateful to Edith Millen for her continuous support and encouragement over the years until her death in 1986. I am especially grateful to Christopher Clack for preparing the final typescript for publication. Finally, my thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Malcolm Wagstaff for his advice and help during the course of writing the thesis. However, notwithstanding all the invaluable the help I have received, the contents of this work are, of course, ultimately my responsibility.

vii

Chapter 1

in the 'processes of change and evolution through time' (Cherry et al 1978, 21). What was important was to study a block of landscape that would provide a testing ground in which to apply methods of measuring landscape dynamics that would enable a greater insight into those processes of change.

The Problem and the Area Introduction This work is a result of my association with an excavation of a Romano-British villa at Gorhambury near St Albans, Hertfordshire. The excavation took place at a time (1972-82) when there was a growing realisation among archaeologists that 'the site', upon which they focused their attentions, was but one element in a much wider and more complex landscape. By concentrating solely within the area of excavation this resulted in undue importance being attached to the form and function of particular aspects of the past, such as its architectural arrangements and material culture. Such attention was perhaps inevitable given the historical background to the development of archaeology. The important discovery for archaeologists was that 'sites' have environments upon which they were dependent. With a growing awareness of the importance of the environment came the realisation that sites also had a spatial setting. It was to this question of setting that this study first addressed itself.

In the end, the definition of the study area was made on pragmatic grounds. Some previous research has suggested the long-term stability of units of land organisation: the villa estate became the Saxon land grant and then the medieval parish, but possessed much older antecedents (Finberg 1955, Jones 1961, Pythian Adams 1978, Bonney 1979, Sheppard 1979, Taylor 1982, Rodwell and Rodwell 1986). The parish itself may contain one or more manors. As units of administration and socio-economic organisation parishes and manors generated documents which are the primary materials for any small-scale historical study. On these grounds, it seemed reasonable to take St Michael's parish, where Gorhambury lies, as a basic unit (2694.5 ha). By itself, though, this offered only limited scope for study and, accordingly, the decision was made to extend the area to that of six contiguous parishes which together formed the northern part of the medieval Liberty of St Albans. Increasing the area of study from 26.9 sq km to 126.2 sq km (48.75 sq miles), resulted in a change of emphasis from an archaeological to an historically orientated research project.

The primary purpose of the research was to place the villa in the context of the resources which it might have exploited and the economic organisation for which it was probably ·a focus. This prompted a search for contemporaneous or earlier features relict in the present landscape. Research was extended to historical sources in an attempt, through retrogressive analysis, to recreate Romano-British patterns of land use and resource exploitation. It was hoped that together the two strands of research would allow a reconstruction of the landscape around the villa during the time that it was occupied, and in terms of both appearance and patterns of exploitation.

Once the spatial and temporal limits of the study were decided the next questions to be faced were those of aims and methods. As indicated above , landscape reconstruction has become important to archaeologists as an enrichment of their previous types of study. Even so, comparatively few attempts have yet been made to carry out such studies in Britain. This may result from three constraints. The most basic has been the dominant concern of British archaeologists for the site, with the related interests in recovering structures and artifacts, and interpreting them in architectural, artistic and social terms rather than in terms of function and spatial relationships. Although well established in archaeology, these concerns have been reinforced by the dominance of rescue-archaeology in Britain over the last ten or twenty years, forced upon the archaeological community by the pace and destructive power of modem redevelopment and construction (Darvil 1987). · A second constraint has been a tendency to see man as passive, rather than active, a maker of things certainly, but not a social and economic being whose needs and ambitions create and transform landscapes. Field archaeology has a long and honourable history in Britain (Fowler 1980, 1-21), but throughout the dominant interest has been on locating, identifying and recording field monuments. Little was done to

As research progressed, it became clear that what might be called the Gorhambury landscape itself had a history, both before the establishment of the villa and after its abandonment, and that it was part of a wider assemblage of landscape units. Accordingly, the spatial and temporal frames of the study grew. In the temporal dimension the only satisfactory time-span was the whole period of human occupation in the district. A satisfactory spatial unit was more difficult to define. Since the work was examining the work of all periods the problem lay in the extent of the spatial setting. The boundaries were not determined by the physical characteristics of the landscape but by more practical considerations of manageability and adequacy. It has been suggested that there is no harm in looking at an arbitrary segment of landscape, provided our interest is

1

' ,·' N

Bedfordshire

'\

I

,·--·

{',, .~·'

,·

I

I

' ·'

' · .......... .)

,'

.,..'.:.'--(: :/ .,

,

·-.

\

·,._

\

·, I

'·\ I

\ , .;•- ·- · -·,.,

I

,.,·

,.

, ·"

,.·,._, .

Hertfordshire

,. I

,'

! I I

\

\

Middlesex

I

'

Buckinghamshire

'i ·,

,· I

;

I

i

:'

St A

= St

Andrews

Fig 1. The location and extent of the study area. 2

reconstruct landscapes, other than to plot distributions on maps and discuss apparent associations with soil types and terrain (Goudie 1986). A third constraint has undoubtedly been the lack of methods, or even procedural guidelines, for interpreting present landscapes as a key to the past and going on to reconstruct their earlier forms. The picture is beginning to change, with Butzer's (1982) Archaeology as Human Ecology, providing both a consolidation of previous (largely North American) work and a platform for further advance.

studies in general in British geography, with its traditions of applied and regional research and its current preoccupation with process studies (Wagstaff 1987, 26-36). As examples of the minority interest in British historical geography mention should be made of the work of Yates, Moore, Thorpe, Hewlett and Smith. Hewlett is primarily concerned with a dual approach to reconstructing past landscapes using hedgerow dating techniques and documentary evidence (Hewlett 1973). Yates, Moore and Smith use a retrogressive method of analysis to produce a series of temporal cross sections covering a particular area of study (Yates 1960, Thorpe 1965, Moore 1965, Smith 1980). Other historical geographers have also used this approach, notably Baker (1966 and 1968), Ogilvie (1952), Prince (1969), Baker and Butlin (1973), Reed (1982) and Unwin (1983). The principal difference between Yates and Smith is that the latter makes greater use of archaeological and ecological evidence. Examples of previous landscape reconstruction will be discussed further on.

The few archaeological studies from Britain which have attempted to reconstruct landscape illustrate the difficulties of opening up a new approach (Applebaum 1975, Bowen and Fowler 1978, Brown and Taylor 1978, Dix 1981, Hawke-Smith 1979, Hodder and Millet 1980, Faul and Moorhouse 1981, Shennan 1985, Smith 1979, Williamson 1987, to mention but a few). Appendix 5 contains a list of works relating to the reconstruction of landscape together with a simple system of classification. The majority of these works have certain shared characteristics. For the most part they are concerned with a single, or at least a well-defined period of time. With the exception of such works as those by Hawke-Smith and Shennan, the archaeological reconstructions are characterised by a concentration on particular types of evidence, i.e. boundaries, settlement and burial sites. Where a discussion of change has been attempted, it has usually been in descriptive, rather than quantitative terms (see Appendix 5 excluding Foard and Shennan). This is perhaps not surprising given that the focus of interest is usually on 'artifacts' rather than in processes; it is only fair to add that quantification requires reliable data and this is not always forthcoming from either surface examination or excavation.

None of the published work examined really offers a model for the type of investigation envisaged for the six parishes in and around St Albans. Other archaeological and geographical writers, however, have made clear that reconstruction should not be an end in itself. Thus Cherry, Gamble and Shennan point out (1978, 1-2) that the aim should be to explain change, whilst Guelke (1982, 189-96) has argued that careful reconstruction provides 'a solid empirical foundation for historical geographical study'. Deneke (1982, 127-31) has put reconstruction in the wider context of 'mediating a sense of living in past periods' and understanding the historical dimension of the present scene. Reconstruction and change thus go hand in hand. Accepting the challenge, further problems emerge. One is deciding what elements in a landscape can be reconstructed. Other problems relate to the detection and description of landscape change. Both sets of problems involve the interplay of evidence, interpretation and theory.

Historical geographers have not suffered from the same practical and intellectual constraints as their archaeological colleagues. They have been more concerned with reconstructing past geographies, rather than past landscapes. Ever since Gilbert (1932) announced that the purpose of historical geography was 'to reconstruct the regional geography of the past' it has had an important following. Possibly the most important British works in the field are An Historical Geography of England Before AD 1800, (1936) subsequently revised (A New Historical Geography, Darby 1973 and 1990 ) and its various imitators (~g. Dodgshon and Butlin 1978; Turnock 1982; Whittington and Whyte 1983) though the Domesday Geographies edited by H.C.Darby absorbed a good deal of British historico-geographical endeavour after the Second World War. Concern with reconstructing the landscape per se has been much more of a minority interest. Its status perhaps reflects the lack of interest in landscape

The humanised landscape, as distinct from the wholly natural or 'wildscape', is a reflection of one element of the society or societies that have produced it.

3

The landscape is a product of:Population

dispersed nucleated mixed

Social organisation -

private communal mixed

Land division

systematic random mixed

Prevailing technology -

advanced archaic mixed

How can change be measured ? Information is required which can be standardised and is capable of measurement. One possibility is offered by the number and density of buildings; another is provided by boundaries which by their linearity can be quantified in terms of their length and, occasionally, even their configuration. In this case change can be represented in a non-cartographic format on a bar graph expressing landscape boundary dynamics (Fig 2). Change can be represented by a vertical column showing the length of newly constructed and demolished boundaries, (new = shaded column; destroyed = open column); time being represented by the horizontal line. It would also be possible, though more time consuming, to show the total length of boundaries in a bar scale graph, period by period. However, this would not be such an accurate representation of change in that it would tend to disguise the evidence by showing newly constructed and destroyed boundaries together. In some cases they might cancel each other out and the impression created would be erroneous. Stagnation rather than movement would be the dominant theme.

Geology, topography, soils, vegetation and climate.

~

Time

--->

Boundaries 12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

centuries

5

4 3

I Change I

-->

2 1 0

Kms Landscape

boundary

dynamics

are non-linear in form, like pits, quarries and ponds. Simply calculating and comparing the areas that they take up does not adequately convey the reality of change. For example, a c_halk pit or pond is part of a continuing process of land use exploitation in an agricultural context, whereas the opening of a gravel quarry represents a change to an industrial exploitation of land. The chalk pit is an indication of the marling of land, and the pond a convenient locality for the watering of stock. Both have been created by man; one may be sited for the easier acquisition of marl, while the latter was dug for the convenience of man and beast. These examples can be plotted on a map and shown as isolated pockets of change. However, the size and often the ephemeral character do not lend themselves to being measured on a bar graph.

This is one method of illustrating the dynamics of landscape boundaries. Its principal draw back is that it reduces the spatial configuration of change. This can be remedied by using a cartographic phase format showing a sequence of change (Fig 3). Newly built or destroyed boundaries can be isolated within a particular area, enabling a distinction to be made between areas of 'active' change and those of apparent 'stability'. If this method was applied to a greater area and therefore smaller scale, a series of proportional symbols could be used (Fig 4). A comparison between parishes, counties or regions thus becomes possible. Whilst the measurement of boundaries is one method of assessing landscape dynamics, many landscape features 4

Boundary

Change

f I I

•

0 ,

V

/

B

A

/'0 ()

\

.I

C Spatial

:

boundary

change

-

Land

01km

'. ·.···,·

New ·· · Des troyed

Use

0 new boundaries

Change

o

05km

3 km

• % of destroyed

boundaries

positive/negative

• 0

0

0

01 0 ha □

Field

name

A

0 30 ha

D arable

pasture

13th

size

O SOha

14th

15th

16th

17th

wood

18th

2 0 th

19th

c e n t u r i es

-

B

----

C

D

■

size

-

-

-

f--

E F

I

I

I I I I

Fig 3. Spatial boundary change. Fig 4. Boundary change. Fig 5. Land use change. Fig 6. Field name change. 5

In some instances the extent of land use change in a

They provide information on field names, field size, value and sometimes their juxtaposition, as well as in places names and the names of tenants holding specified land units. Where field names can be traced through time and coincide with a stated acreage, diachronic survival can be plotted on a graph, (Fig 6). The use of a particular field name may also indicate a continuity of holding, size and usage. Where field names change over time this can be often related to social and economic changes such as amalgamation of property, subdivision, change in tenant or change in use. Invariably, there are exceptions to this general rule (see chapter 5) but where landscape cannot be reconstructed cartographically the use of field names can provide a means by which some measurement of landscape dynamics may be attained. This field name evidence is available from many post-conquest localities in Southern England. Relevant landscape information from before the Conquest comes almost entirely from charters in which distinguishing characteristics are occasionally described (Hooke 1985, 50-71).

given area can be plotted and measured in terms of the area affected. Again, a distinction has to be made between change in an agricultural framework and irreversible change as represented by the transfer of agricultural land to an urban usage. Here there is the basic problem that not all the maps which may be used as sources in reconstructing landscapes make a distinction between different types of land use: arable, pasture, woodland, orchards, horticulture. The assembly of data in cartographic form may allow us to see where land use is taking place, but it provides no adequate measure. This problem may be solved by the usual divided symbols showing various proportions of change in pasture, woodland, etc. between two time periods. (Fig 5). A further problem concerns the measurement of settlement expansion or contraction. In an urban context the extent of the built-up area is recorded cartographically from at least the 19th century and, as such, change over time can be assessed.

Another method for the measurement of change can be illustrated by showing the changing size of territorial units through time. (Fig 7). This can be shown on a graph scale where size is put in the vertical column and time in the horizontal column.

For change to be accurately measured within the urban perimeter additional sources of information would have to be used. Property boundaries may appear the same, but may omit the evidence for sub-division. An obvious example of this is the conversion of a private house into flats. Buildings can be drastically altered, even rebuilt on the same foundations without the change showing on the cartographic record; this information would have to be sought from documentary sources, ·photographs and an examination of the architecture. In dealing with this problem the main differences between the rural and urban landscapes are ones of density and category. When we talk of reconstructing settlements or urban areas, we are dealing with the reconstruction of buildings rather than landscape, an important distinction. In the built-up environment, then, the problem of identifying change and reconstruction is one of an architectural and archaeological nature. The relationship of urban expansion too, and its effects upon, the rural landscape will be discussed later.

Fig 7 Territorial

Units

Time---> Acr 300 250 200 150 100 50

--->

0

However, this method can only be used where the units measured are of a comparative nature. Such ancient measures as the Hide, Juga, Carucate, Bovate, Virgate, Ferlingate and Sulung or Selion are not easily related to standard/statute acres, rods and perches, though there are occasions where such a comparison would be a valid exercise. For most graphs to have much meaning the unit of measurement would have to be standardised in the acre and that is possible only from a late medieval date onwards.

Changes which are not identifiable from most cartographic sources (excluding those accompanying Tithe apportionments and Enclosure awards), are changes in ownership, tenancies, rents, crop husbandry and the incidence of mechanisation and manning levels. These factors have to be considered in relationship to the landscape as mechanisms for explaining change. While social and economic aspects are important they do not, by themselves, provide a means with which to measure the physical landscape.

Whilst measurement is basic to a description of the scale and direction of change, it is important to understand the dynamics lying behind them. These are

Change or stability can be identified from other non-cartographic sources. These include surveys, deeds, charters, inquisitions and manorial court rolls. 6

1.1 Previous approaches to reconstructing the landscape in the British Isles.

fundamentally human. Man is the agent of landscape change. His actions are manifest in the landscape, though they may be expressions of ideas and attitudes, social and economic desires, which are not directly recoverable. The identification and measurement of landscape change may allow some aspects of these deeper currents to be recognised and at least partially charted. In a subtle way, a landscape reflects the particular society which lives within it. But the particular society existing at any moment in time did not itself create the entire landscape. The landscape contains elements which have survived, or been preserved, from very early days. Current activity will adapt itself to the relics, or modify them for its own purposes and even destroy those that are totally outmoded. The precise change will depend upon human need and technological abilities. Boundary banks and barrows, for example, were respected for centuries. By their durability they exerted considerable influence over the evolution of the humanised l~ndscape subsequent to their creation. Modem machines, however , easily obliterate such features and, with a favourable climate of grants and subsidies, the changes in the landscape are possibly more radical than anything seen for over a hundred years . Unenclosed waste and strip fields , by contrast, were more easily eliminated during the various waves of enclosure. Just as the grubbing out of hedgerows and the creation of prairie-like fields has disturbed people in this generation, so the suddenness of enclosure by private act of Parliament disorientated contemporaries, echoes of which are preserved in the poems of John Clare as well as the polemics of Cobbett. The recreation of such human facets of the landscape is as much part of this study as the reconstruction of its more tangible features. Attainment of the ideal, however, is not always possible because of the nature of the available source material.

A distinction may be drawn between reconstructing landscape in its broadest sense (ie. all activities concerned with 'interpreting' man-made land forms field archaeology), and the more restrictive sense of the term which is concerned simply with the measurement of the processes involved. Fowler has reviewed the influence of previous 'archaeo-topographical' studies from Aubrey and Stukely onwards up to the emergence of field archaeologists, like O.G.S Crawford, and onwards to 1980 (1980, 1-21). Since 1980 their individual legacy and achievement has been vitally important to the development of what is now recognised as field archaeology. However, they shared a distinctive characteristic. This was a concern to locate, identify and record field monuments. This approach , 'the reconstruction and interpretation of evolving landscapes', has been rejected by Cherry and Shennan in favour of concentrating interest on 'the human populations which exploited those landscapes' (Cherry et al. 1978, 19). At the end of the 1970's Peter Fowler examined the results of the increase in state funded archaeology and wondered whether there had been a renaissance in field work (Fowler 1980, 1-21). His observations were not encouraging. His main complaint was their lack of 'cohesive philosophy' and an absence of 'concept or practice of sampling theory'. He concludes that this is a result of 'a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of fieldwork which was motivated by the desire to identify sites for excavation, and sees that this was due to the subordination of the survey tradition in Britain to the objective of excavation. Since the publication of Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology first appeared, (Cherry et al 1978) considerable changes have taken place in the archaeological profession and in the prevailing social and economic philosophy of the time. There has also been important developments in the methodology of field survey techniqu es as demonstrated by Gaffney et al 1985, 1989, Hall 1985, 1987, Haselgroveetal 1985, Holgate 1985, Schofield 1991 and Shennan 1985. However, advances in methodology have not been automatically adopted by archaeologists. The concept of the 'site' still exerts its dominance over the minds of many archaeological manager s. Rural archaeology may not have become the 'total disaster' that was predicted (Renfrew 1978). The example of East Anglia shows what can be achieved when a more regional approach is adopted (Pryor and French 1985; Hall 1987; Silvester 1988). Nevertheless, the overriding impression of rural studies is that there still remains a lack of interest in a regional approach. This has not been helped by the erosion of territorially based

To summarise the previous discussion. This study aims to reconstruct the human landscape of six parishes around St Albans, focusing on those elements which can be mapped. It seeks to do this in a series of temporal cross-sections, each centred upon a period map. An attempt is also made to measure change and stability over time. As has been pointed out, any map is, in a sense, an attempt at quantification (Hodder and Orton 1976, 17). Since this seems to be a comparatively new approach, stress will be put on the evaluation of the methods used in reconstruction , measurement and evaluation. The hope is that the results will not only assist in the understanding of landscapes near St Albans, but will also serve as a guide to researchers interested in reconstructing landscapes elsewhere.

7

archaeological units in the face of competition by the commercial sector. How this may effect the debate on methodology is too early to say; the current signs are not encouraging. It will be more difficult for rural research strategies to be implemented as archaeology becomes more 'response orientated'. The problem is not unique to rural archaeology, for in historical geography there is, to quote Butlin, 'a singular lack of concept and theory in rural studies' (Butlin 1982, 12). It is perhaps easy to be critical; what is required is a model of research which can be applied .

nucleation of settlement. Secondly, he suggests the possibility of an earlier pre-Anglo-Saxon Jutish settling and, thirdly, that Anglo-Saxon settlement did not always take place on the best soils. This study of two parishes in N. W Sussex was, as far as I am aware, ahead of its time. Its purpose was to disentangle various landscape elements and quite properly to illustrate the nature of change through time. However,it was not concerned with the measurem~nt of change (quantification), or with its inner processes. The next example of landscape reconstruction comes from the mid-1960's and was contemporary with similar work at Wormleighton, Warwickshire (Thorpe 1965). The work in question was concerned with the evolution of Laughton in the Weald, covering 2338 ha (5778 acres) (Moore 1965). The author uses the regressive method of analysis to understand how 'the primeval landscape of forest was converted into its present pattern of cultivated fields interspersed with woodland ' (ibid p.5). The pre-Domesday period is divided into four phases:- 1. 100-450 AD; 2. 450-650 AD; 3. 650-800 AD; 4.800-1086 AD. The main sources were archaeological and place name evidence. The period after Domesday (1086-1818), is seen as characterised by a gradual process of assarting and enclosure. The ownership of each manorial tenement is traced together with the dating of clearances from the common waste. This became possible to trace after the middle of the 14th century when the documentary evidence permitted a chronology of clearances to be constructed. The process of landscape evolution is seen as the gradual extension of cultivated land through time. Such an interpretation would be seen today as an over-simplification. For example, rather than assuming the survival of primeval forest, today one would be looking for the pattern of exploitation of the territory as a whole and allow for at least the possibility of reversion back to woodland in some time periods.

Those published studies which are primarily concerned with reconstructing past landscape (in its physical , political, economic and social sense) are relatively few and, with exceptions, of recent date (ie. mainly late 1970s and early 1980s). Twenty studies have been chosen here as a representative sample to illustrate aspects of reconstructing landscapes and these will be discussed in chronological order. The earliest example of landscape studies listed below comes from the mid 1950's (Finberg 1955). In this work the author uses the regressive method in order to trace continuity in the landscape from the Roman to the Saxon periods. By this time, Finberg is following in the footsteps of Vinogradoff who had written, 'The tradition of Roman estates could not be entirely swept away ... It would be preposterous to suppose that Roman landmarks and arrangements were wilfully destroyed and no advantage taken of the existing stock and labour arrangements' (Vinogradoff 1905, 221). Finberg's study covers a.I) area of 2359 ha (5830 acres) and he is able to argue that the boundary between Withington and Chedworth (Gloucs) was on the same lines in the Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon periods. However, the evidence used, as was to be the case in similar continuity studies in the future, was no more than an indication of possibilities rather than proof.

In

1973 Hewlett published an article entitled 'Reconstructing an Historical landscape from field and documentary evidence: Otford in Kent' (Hewlett 1973, 94-110). His stated concern is with a method of analyzing the present landscape, and the use of this method in conjunction with documents to reconstruct the past appearance of a small area in Kent. The method in question is the use of hedgerow dating, that is, the recording of the number of species in a given length which, in general, provides a relative chronology which can be linked to a full chronological sequence by finding independent dates for particular field boundaries. Hewlett also considers the different type of field boundary in the locality. His work depends on the theory of hedgerow dating as proposed by Dr Max Hooper of the Monks Wood Experimental Station. This is now an accepted method of field analysis, though one which has to be checked against

Five years later Yates published an article entitled History in a map (Yates 1960, 32-51). Its main objective was to produce a map showing the age of the various landscape features in an area of two parishes in N.W Sussex. It was suggested that 'the methods of historical geography be applied simultaneously to the entire imprint within a select area so that elements of it may be classified tentatively as belonging to successive stages in time.' In other words, the author tried to create a series of 'Darbyesque' cross sections (Darby 1962, 6). The maps were arranged as follows: geology; relief and drainage; prehistoric and Roman elements; settlement in 1948; land utilisation in 1948; roads; changes in land use 1813-1948; land utilisation - remnants of original vegetati~n; pre-Anglo-Saxon; pre-Norman; 1066-1400; 1400-1632; 1632-1813; post 1813; age of settlement, etc. Yates concludes, first that the sequence of maps shows a relative increase in the 8

other forms of evidence from the associated study area. However, more recent studies have illustrated the dangers of an over simplistic reliance on hedgerow dating (Cameron and Parnett 1980; Johnson 1980; Forman and Baudry 1984).

understanding of the changing territorial units of the landscape. The aspect of settlement mobility can be illustrated from the work of Brown and Taylor in Northamptonshire (Brown and Taylor 1978, 77-89). In it they suggest that 'Iron Age settlement in the county may not have been different from the late medieval pattern,in that it was made up of habitations varying from large semi-urbanised centres through nucleated villages and hamJets to isolated farmsteads.' They conclude that Iron Age settlements bore more resemblance to that of the 14th and 15th centuries and were more mobile. There is some correlation between Roman settlement and medieval land units. This suggests that there may be continuity between the medieval and Roman pattern, possibly even between them and the pre-Roman period. Once again, the landscape is reconstructed in terms of its estate and administrative framework.

Another aspect of reconstructing a hypothetical framework for a Romano-British villa estate is illustrated by Applebaum's study of the villa at Bignor (Applebaum 1975, 118-132). Here the author is concerned less with how the landscape looked, except in relation to geology and soils, than with the agrarian economy. He bases his reconstruction of the size of the estate and land utilisation on the morphology of the villa buildings (ie. barns, byres and granary), the amount of stock and grain they could contain, and the quantity of manure that they would produce and which could be used on the land. In addition, Applebaum is also able to give the number of agricultural labourers that would have been required .to operate the estate. This is landscape reconstruction in its widest sense. Whilst the calculations can be disputed, the method provides a useful basis for discussing the size and operation of a Roman estate, as well as for comparing the estates associated with similar types of site. By contrast, the study of the Gatecombe Romano-British villa, using the location of surrounding villas and constructing Thiessen polygons, estimated the estate was seven times the area of that at Bignor (Branigan 1977). However, it should be pointed out that the area of occupation was more extensive (7 .2 - 8 ha), than that usually associated with an ordinary villa.

An example of fieldwork focusing on the parish rather than the shire is provided by Foard at Great Doddington, Northants (Foard 1978). Here a small parish of 647 .5 ha (1,600 acres) was studied. Some 242. 8 ha (600 acres) were walked by traverse with the following site results:- 1 Neolithic site; 5 Iron Age; 3 Romano- British sites; 6 Anglo-Saxon localities and 1 deserted medieval hamJet. The settlement pattern in the Romano-British period was characterised by the isolated farmstead. The author argues that the return to a subsistence economy in the 5th century caused the fragmentation of Roman estates. The dispersed pattern of settlement persisted into the mid-Saxon period, though by the 9th century primary nucleation was complete. An intermediate poly-focal stage of settlement was identified and Foard interprets the number of 'ends' as remnants of loosely nucleated late Saxon pattern. The author is able to make some important observations from his work at Great Doddington. Firstly, that the landscape of purely nucleated villages was relatively short lived; secondly, that the Enclosure Movement of the 18th and 19th century reintroduced a dispersed element to the settlement pattern; thirdly, the replacement of most Roman and pagan/middle Saxon sites by 'loosely nucleated villages' may explain the loss of British place-names; fourthly, that the larger parishes are seen as purely administrative groupings.

Attempts at reconstructing the settling of particular landscapes may be illustrated by Cameron's work on the Scandinavian colonization of eastern England in the 9th and 10th centuries (Cameron 1977, 115-139). The author focuses his attention on the evidence for farmstead and village settlement and the favoured site locations, rather than on boundaries and estate units. He argues that when Scandinavian names in -by are plotted on a distribution map the pattern indicates which localities received Danish settlers. The pattern actually shows that Danish settling took place mainly along tributaries and smaller streams and that the settlements often occupied the less attractive sites, islands of glacial sands and gravels. He concludes that the Danes came 'predominantly as colonisers, occupying new sites' in an already occupied landscape. In his summing up he says, 'I have analyzed the place-name material, and studied it in physical and human terms. To do so I have drawn upon resources provided by both the geologist and geographer' (Cameron 1977, 127). Place name evidence has a useful purpose in elucidating the final linguistic composition of folk movement in the post-Roman period, but it is the use of field names, rather than the settlement names which can contribute most to our

Foard' s work at Great Doddington highlights the importance of detailed studies of relatively small areas of landscape. The method shows that results can be obtained which illustrate the nature of settlement in the post-Roman landscape more accurately than can, for example, excavation. This work fills an important gap between the recoverable traces of Iron Age and Roman occupation and that of place-name studies of the late 9

Saxon period. In the same year Pythian-Adams produced an in-depth analysis of The Making of a Midland parish (Pythian-Adams 1978). He examines the origins of Claybrooke parish in the period prior to 877 AD and suggests that this unit may be traced back to Roman times as the territorium of the Venonae, and continued as an estate prior to the arrival of the Danes. He starts from the premise 'the parochial origins are most convincingly to be sought in the concept of the Eiginkirche', (estate church). In this study he illustrates how the writer and reader are forced to confront the gaps in the evidence, 'For it is obvious that in a study of this period, the nature of historical evidence is of a qualitatively different kind than that emanating from later times' (p.36). Here Pythian-Adams has identified one of the main problems in landscape reconstruction. There are diverse, parallel sources of information requiring 'an awareness of the manner in, and the purpose for, which his material was originally compiled' (Baker et al 1970, 13-23). Pythian-Adams observes that 'it is extremely doubtful whether there is documented , or ever will be, a single pre-conquest 'estate' in England where it can be positively demonstrated that as a direct result of. x being in possession of it, a parochial organisation was superimposed on exactly the same areas' (p.36). However, his own study of Claybrooke parish demonstrates the potential range of information and a probable interpretation. He observes 'that the profoundest insights will only be gained by assiduously searching for generalisations about the geographical processes of the past using the most rigorous analytical techniques and theoretical frameworks available' (p.54).

Contemporary with Pythian-Adams work, though published a year later , was the work of Sheppard on the manor of Marden in Herefordshire (Sheppard 1979). The author sets out to test the hypothesis that English man-made landscapes have retained certain features first established in the pre-historic period. She takes as her starting point an estate map of c.1720 and works back in time. Four major stages of landscape evolution are identified:- 1. c.1720; 2. 1300-1700; 3. 1300-1100; 4. pre-11th century. Using Thiessen polygons and drawing on examples of work done by Taylor (1975), Cunliffe (1974), James (1960) and Finberg (1964), the author suggests that there was a close similarity between the boundaries of Thomlow Hundred and the Iron Age territory of Sutton Walls (p.34). The principal weakness of this s~udy is the reliance on historical sources. However, in fairness to the author the study of Marden was seen only as an interim statement. Nevertheless, there is more assumption than

hard evidence produced in the statement that 'some kind of settlement probably existed at or near each hamlet or village site of later medieval times' (p.25). Sheppard shows the same concerns as Pythian-Adams in her desire to force the reader to recognise the gaps in our knowledge and to ask questions about the function and processes of landscape change. Another example of a reconstruction of medieval landscape is Bond's study of the estates of Abingdon abbey (Bond 1979, 59-75). The focus of interest here is the medieval infrastructure, excluding field systems. The 'survey evolved through the compilation of a County sites and monuments record which dictated the approach and enforced certain limitations' (Bond 1979, 73). Its declared aim was to examine the impact of monastic organisation upon the landscape. However, the approach tends to be one of 'recovery', rather than analysis of the information. An information table is produced to serve as an index to the presence or absence of documentary and/or field evidence for certain landscape features. The tabulated results are that 48 % of sites show reasonably unambiguous coincidence of both documentary and field evidence; 29 % of documented sites remain unlocated (except in fairly general terms); 11 % were known from field evidence only. This approach may be seen as a first step, the production of a basic catalogue of individual features, before a more comprehensive study can be undertaken. It is not, nor claims to be, an analysis of the landscape as such. Hawke-Smith's study of the Dove-Derwent interfluve is a good example of the analytical approach to landscape reconstruction (Hawke-Smith 1979). The author is principally concerned with pre-historic man and his relationship to the land conceived as, 'the relationship between man and the plants that directly or indirectly support him' (p.3). The area stands at the junction of the Highland and Lowland areas of the British Isles and has a wide range of 'micro- climatic, edaphic and vegetational conditions related to major geological, topographic and altitude features' (p.57). It is a manageable and compact study area of about 60 km x 40 km (ie. 2400 sq km). Hawke-Smith observes that, 'with few exceptions archaeologists have devoted their attention almost exclusively to these special concentrations of fossilized activities and have made little attempt to relate them to the total range of activities that these societies were necessarily engaged in, and to the landscape processes and biotic changes that conditioned these activities' (p.51). He discusses how the combined application of site-territory analysis with that of 'site-catchment analysis can be used by in relation to excavated sites to test certain hypotheses, which would be suitable for medieval studies. But, as he points out, this is 'not well designed to demonstrate the overall relationship of population geography to

major environmental constraints, nor to demonstrate sequences of land use in a single locality,' (p.46). His second approach to terrain analysis is the 'selection of a scale at which major environmental zones can be perceived.' He concludes that this must be an environmental zone, where 'soil and climate of a certain type prevail; it ignores intrazonal and azonal soils and micro-climatic conditions which may be of crucial significance for individual site locations' (p.46). Hawke-Smith also suggests that it may be 'possible to classify archaeological sites on the basis of their liability to destruction and concealment by subsequent landscape processes, including agricultural land use. Surviving field systems, for example, can only partially reflect the original distribution. Where they do survive, this fact may be as instructive about subsequent land use as it is about the period to which they belong, eg. they may occupy margins beyond the economic limits for cultivation in subsequent periods' (p.51). Hawke-Smith suggests that, because archaeological sites are a product of landscape processes, it may be possible to relate past human activities to the totality of the environment. He is concerned, therefore, with the relationship through time of population, technology and resources- a fully integrated approach to the understanding of Pre-historic man and his environment.

propose that the status of the towns, rather than . their marketing pull or degree of Romanisation, effected the villa distribution. Here we have an example of known and spatially-plotted data being interpreted on the basis of precise measurement to derive a general statement applicable to lowland England. The study of Odell in north Bedfordshire is once again an example of an attempt to place an excavation in its wider landscape setting. A single family unit is proposed. They presumably lived in two round houses set within a fenced enclosure situated at the SW corner of a ditched field. The farmstead was engaged in mixed cereal and pastoral farming. In the post-Roman period Saxon features (6th-8th century AD) appear and may have been sited in relation to existing, (visible ?) land divisions (Dix 1981, 17-26). This type of reconstruction is too limited in its period and extent to enable a measurement of the dynamics of change to be meaningful. Its purpose was to set out the archaeological evidence for the site and to describe Its 'setting'. This is gradually becoming standard practice in excavation reports, and one which is to be welcomed. However, its limitations in terms of landscape reconstruction are obvious. At best it provides only the raw data; it is left to others to provide an analysis of the inner processes at work in the environment, as manifested by the topographical and archaeological evidence.

In the same year as Hawke-Smith's book was published there appeared Fisherwick: The reconstruction of an Iron Age landscape (Smith 1979). It is mainly an excavation report primarily concerned with the recovery and interpretation of the evidence of an Iron Age farmstead. No attempt is made to analyze change through time. Only part IV is concerned with the Iron Age landscape. This is divided into three sub-sections: 1. The physical environment; 2. The biological community; 3. The Iron Age landscape. The author claims that the evidence indicates what kind of landscape existed, but not what it actually looked like. The landscape units consisted of settlement enclosures and fields defined by ditches and probably fences or hedges. The evidence for the latter came in the form of botanical remains on the edge of the banks and besides the ditches. Beyond the fields were areas of open rough grazing and secondary woodland. The study reinforces the impression gained from other sites in the Midlands that by the Iron Age substantial areas had been cleared of primary woodland, especial1y in the river valleys, and that the pre-medieval settlement density was far greater than was formerly imagined.

One of the most impressive works on landscape studies is the archaeological survey of West Yorkshire (Faull and Moorhouse 1981). It consists of four volumes and is very much a multi-disciplinary team effort. The area covered is some 2000 sq km. Volume 1 is a gazetteer of pre-historic, Roman and Medieval sites and finds, together with a discussion of the archaeological and historical material of the Saxon period. Volume II is mainly a discussion of the medieval tenurial arrangements. Volume III is a reconstruction of the medieval landscape based principally on documentary evidence. Volume IV contains 31 coloured maps. This work, while it has been praised by C. Taylor, is also criticised by him for the lack of new archaeological information (Taylor 1981, 72-73). He writes, 'there has been no attempt to produce up-to- date plans of old sites, record in detail new sites or to look on the ground for sites revealed in the documents'. Taylor's principal concern is with the threat of destruction to sites and so he suggests that the ground work should have been carried out first, with a study of the documentary sources coming second. The survey contains little work on the field systems or the form and development of rural settlements. In this sense it is very much an interim report. However, 2000 sq km is a large area which would require an enormous input of time and resources to cover adequately; and this is best attempted after the documentary sources have been evaluated. In order to

Another aspect of site-specific analysis involving the wider landscape can be illustrated from an article by Hodder and Millet (1980, 69-76). In it they examine the density of villas around Romano-Briti sh towns. They were able to demonstrate by tabulated lists that 'villa density in terms of gradual fall off tend to occur around the more important centres.' From this they 11

determine priorities for site investigation and the formulation of preservation policies it is first necessary to assess the extent of surviving evidence (whether in a physical or documentary form). Research which arises simply from threats of destruction has not been based on any formulated structure of priorities or any scheme of academic aims but has been determined mainly by the dynamics of modem development.

A fine example of the treatment of non-historical data is afforded by the work of Shennan (1985). Despite the author's plea that the work is not used as a recipe for future work (p.114), the survey is an example of what can be achieved by the collection and analysis of purely archaeological data. One of the more significant aspects of Shennan's work, which sets it apart (probably) from the majority of previous studies in the British Isles, was that the overall aims were defined before the survey was undertaken (p.1). The area selected (10 km x 15 km) in East Hampshire included a wide range of environmental types. The purpose was to provide a coherent and comparative sample of the area in question, ie. 20 %. Material was collected from this area specifically to answer questions about the nature of long term change and stability in the landscape. In addition it could be used as a means of assessing the quality of previously available archaeological data. Last but not least, the survey was to be assessed as much, if not more, by its methods as by its results.

The West Yorkshire survey is excellent in reconstructing the documentary evidence in cartographic form, displaying, for example, place-names, as well as Domesday Book and medieval administrative units. It provides the historical framework upon which field work could be based, and the foundations for formulating a more analytical approach. The problem with any survey is defining themes of interest and delimiting the precise boundaries of research. But with such large areas to investigate, and with the subconscious pressure to produce something tangible in a short span of time, it is not surprising that such surveys are, and can only be, interim statements.

By the combination of a systematic sampling strategy and computer-based mapping a series of landscape occupation profiles was produced (pp 47-104). The penultimate chapter is concerned with the changing patterns of exploitation and settlement from the mesolithic to the post-medieval period. The author highlights the problems of comparing between periods by observing that 'it is only possible to work in terms of those chronological distinctions which variation in the material allows us to make'. Secondly, that comparisons can only be made between comparable data both in terms of patterning in the data but also to models of exploitation for different periods (p.105). Shennan points out that densities of material increase through time and may be influenced by any of the following, singly or in combination: increased population, rates of pottery usage, increased manuring or better rates of preservation through time to the present.

The benefits and pitfalls of reconstructing even a well documented landscape has been highlighted by Harvey in his comparative study of the villages of Cuxham (Oxon) and Boarstall (Bucks) in the medieval period (Harvey 1985, 33-47). Cuxham was first portrayed on a map of 1787. With the use of terriers the demesne lands can be traced back to the mid 15th century and show that there was little change over three centuries. However, the author warns that 'The three fields may have had the same names in the 14th century as in the 18th, but this need not mean that they had the same bounds (p.35). At Boarstall, by contrast to Cuxham, the village and fields changed considerably between the mid- 15th century evidence and the appearance of a map of 1697 (there is an earlier map of Boarstall dated to the mid-15th century). By 1697 no open fields or furlongs survived, and the map shows only vestiges of the medieval field system. Harvey warns of the dangers of taking topographical descriptions at their face value. 'When a piece of arable land had already changed hands before, with a written deed to attest the conveyance, the clerk might copy the description of the property verbatim from the earlier deed, unconcerned (or, indeed not knowing) that this description was now out of date. Thus we find arable strips defined as bounded by the lands of men actually long dead or more confusingly to our reconstruction of the fields references to agrarian arrangements superseded long before' (p.44). Despite the dangers of literal interpretation, the process of mapping medieval evidence does enable a more accurate picture of the topography to be made, even though the result may reveal more gaps than facts.

Comparisons of the patterns of covariation were used in order to determine the similarity of land use through time. The results of comparing the survey data was that the neolithic/earlier Bronze Age pattern was judged similar to that of the later prehistoric pattern. This in tum seemed to be related more closely to the Romano-British than to the medieval pattern. Thus a gradual evolution of the landscape is suggested, with less evidence for substantial change. One interesting observation was that the landscape of the 1830s and 1840s has more in common with the present day than with the period in between. The author emphasises the need for defining settlement pattern indices for comparison rather than by attempting to reconstruct complete maps. 12

Shennan sees his report as a first stage of enquiry and suggests that a second stage is required in order to answer questions about 'concentrations of material from different periods'. This is because the types of individual site located in the survey are unknown. However, this second stage approach does not necessarily need to be carried out in the primary survey zone since it can be just as valid as in another sample of the Wessex area.

achieved by field walking, structural analysis of th~ dry stone walls and a programme of test pitting. This revealed a sequence of boundary development from the 2nd millennium BC to the early 19th century. In particular, the reconstructions of the Romano-British, medieval and post-medieval periods are quite remarkable (Wildgoose 1991). The study demonstrates the extent to which 'off-site' archaeology can be used to reconstruct the spatial setting of previous communities .

The importance of this work for those interested in landscape change and, more specifically, its measurement, is that comparative data is used to assess change over a long period of time. That is, the study is based o~ stone artifacts from early to later prehistory and pottery from later prehistory to the present day. The material can be assessed against the medieval and post-medieval documentary evidence which can be used as a comparison (ie. base-line) in the way of understanding agricultural strategies.

The studies reviewed here illustrate the variety of approaches to the reconstruction of landscapes. Their main characteristics are a well defined and often restricted time span, together with an almost complete lack of any attempt to quantify change (with the exception of Shennan and Foard) . To be fair, however, quantification was not their purpose and, in many of the examples, it would not have been a particularly appropriate concern. Its absence, though, does highlight a major problem. It is the difficulty of being certain in diachronic landscape analysis just how much has changed and how much has remained stable over a given, often long, time period. This study, it is hoped, will go some way to dealing with the problem and suggesting practical steps which can be taken to isolate and quantify change. Although of limited territorial scope, its findings have wide application. The specific setting for the research reported here is outlined in the remaining sections of this chapter.

An example of previous work in the field of lowland landscape reconstruction is that of research in Norfolk and central Suffolk (Williamson 1986;1987). By examining the relationship of field shapes to Roman roads, Williamson is able to draw some interesting conclusions. He observes that 'the imposition of a continuous linear feature upon the earlier system of land division will produce irregular and awkward shaped fields (Williamson 1986, 242). The author draws upon his own work and that of Drury and Rodwell in Essex to argue that the landscape consisted of fields of late prehistoric and Roman origin, (p.245) . Nevertheless, this observation should not be accepted uncritically. Evidence from N. Ockenden in S. Essex suggests a medieval not a Roman date for the rectilinear field pattern (Wilkinson 1988, 128). The theme of the imposition of the road system on to a pre-existing landscape is further developed by suggesting a similar imposition of parish boundaries. These are seen as an administrative convenience and Williamson casts doubt on the antiquity of Saxon land units that developed into parishes and townships of the type suggested by Desmond Bonney (p.247). However, the changes in territorial organisation do not necessarily imply that major change has occurred in settlement or land use. The author shows that by studying the morphology of the landscape valid observations can be made as to its early development.

The St Albans Area: The Setting 1.2 Topography and Drainage The study area is composed of six parishes as defined in the mid 19th Century. They are Redbourn, Sandridge, St Peters, St Andrews, St Stephens and St Michaels. Together they cover 126 sq km. With the exception of Sandridge, which is divided by the River Lea, all parishes either abut on to, or are dissected by, the River Ver; in addition, the River Colne cuts across the south end of St Peters and St Stephens. The Rivers Ver, Colne and Lea are slow moving and meandering. They have been considerably altered from the medieval period onwards by the construction of watermills, ponds, weirs, dams and water meadows. Today their appearance has been altered by the addition of lakes caused by gravel extraction and, in St Albans, by the creation of a public park. The activities have affected the Ver and Colne more than the Lea. An additional effect has been the extraction of water from the River Ver to serve Luton. This has almost obliterated the river in its upper reaches and in rec..:nt years the Ver has dried up in St Albans.

In contrast to the reconstruction of lowland landscapes comparable work in the highland zone can use structural analysis on surviving surface boundaries. A good example of such a method is illustrated by the work at Royston Grange (Hodges 1989; Wildgoose 1991). The study of a 2 km square area was able to pennit a reconstruction of some aspects of land management over a period of five millennia. This was 13

N

t -,-

Topography

& Drainage

I and over 10 0 m

_ I_

.__,--- -

0

I

-...·=------' 5 km

Fig 8. Topographyand drainage. 14

N

t loyj

OQ. ~

0 ..,

-,I

~

V\

~

-0 0

-. Er ('D ~

> o= §

r:n

..,

_j Al l uv i um

[J

Flinty

& chalky

Head

[lfilillLoamy & gravelly

head

~

~

w, th fl i nt & pebbles

n

Clay with f lin ts over chalk

IIU

Drif t - lo amy clay with

Pla teau flints

& pebbl11s

1-=:J Pla teau / /J / LI

□ ~

Dr i ft - pebb l ey clay & san d l ocal ly gr avelly

Pebb ley Head over Eocene clays

& sand

Decalc i f i ed Boulder

clay

p11bbley clay & sand

&

clay wi th flints Clay with fl in ts associated

with pebbley

clay & sand

1

5km

Drift

map of the St Albans

area

was not until the increased availability of water-borne manures from London and the growth of the cities population in the 19th century that finally brought these gravel tracts into full cultivation.

The principal relief of the area is dominated by the north-south drainage pattern. To the north of Chiswell Green, to the west and east of the River Ver, there are shallow dry valleys lying at right angles to the line of the drainage. An undulating effect has been created with the height difference not exceeding 50 metres or so between valley trough and surrounding plateau surface, though the average variation is of the order of 20 metres. To the north-north-east, south-west, south and east of the town the land appears gently undulating. To the east of the River Lea the same sort of plateau topography persists. Thus the principal impression of the area is that of a gently undulating land-form interrupted by the valleys of the Ver and Lea. Visually the landscape appears to be well-wooded, particularly looking south from the eastern flank of the Ver valley, north of St Albans. A similar prospect is found on the eastern periphery of Sandridge parish, though here the main mass of wood actually lies to the south, outside the parish. The northern-most parish, Redboum, has little woodland remaining but, even here, the existence of overgrown hedgerows and tree-fringed lanes gives a deceptively wooded appearance. St Peters parish also has very little woodland, but here 'urbanisation' is the main theme. The principal pressure on the land comes from ·the expansion of Hemel Hempstead to the west; around the periphery of Redbourn; along the routes from St Albans, with the exception of the conservation area along the . north east side of the A5183; from Harpenden to the north; from Hatfield in the east; and from Watford in the south and the M25 corridor (Fig 70).

The soils of the clay-with-flints areas (Fig 9) are a result of the dissolution residue of the underlying chalk. The soil is more acidic, its clayey nature makes it comparatively heavier to work. Its natural intractability and poor drainage was counteracted by the practice of chalking - the effect of which will be more fully described in chapter 5. Within the two areas described above The vale of St Albans and the Chiltern dip slope) there are a variety of soils which are described below in more detail. In the immediate vicinity of St Albans and particularly to the west lie the Clay-with-Flints which are associated with pebbly clay and sand, glacial gravels and along the valleys of the Ver and Colne, gravels and alluvium. The rivers have been both widened and deepened by successive falls in sea level. The oldest deposits are to be found on the upper hills as weathered remnants. In contrast, the newer deposits are on the lower ground and have undergone comparatively little moderation (Thomasson and Avery 1970). The soils on the plateau areas and level to gently sloping terrain are found the pebbly clay and loamy clay drift with irregular deposits of flints, gravels and sand (Berkhamsted complex and Batcombe Series). These Plateau drifts are 'moderately well drained soils'. The Clay-with-Flints (Winchester Series) tend to lie on gently sloping upper valley sides and spurs. They are free or moderately drained. To the east of the area are the decalcified Boulder Clays of the Oak Series which lie on a SW-NE axis within the vale of St Albans (they vary from moderately well drained to imperfectly drained soils). These groups are the principalsoils around St Albans and are bisected by the valleys of the ver, Colne and Lea. The valley sides are demarcated by the loamy gravelly bead (Charity complex), which are 'freely' drained and clayey alluvium (Mead Series) which are poor to very poorly drained (Fig 9).

1.3 Geology and Soils The St Albans area, (as defined above), lies on the edge of a former glaciated zone. Its principal deposits were created in the Pleistocene and form a discontinuous mantle over older strata on the dip slope of the Upper Chalk. There is evidence for three distinct glaciations which have had a considerable effect on the landscape (West and Donner 1956, 69-91; Sparks and West 1972; Woolridge 1957, 1960). The second glaciation (the Gipping) produced a mass of Chalky Boulder clay which is partially evident to the east of St Albans (Fig 9).

1.4 Agriculture and Mineral Resources The land use of the area would be described as that of 'mixed agriculture'. In Thirsk's farming regions of England it was considered to be an area where 'com and stock were variously combined in 16th and 17th century' (Thirsk 1967, 4). In both historical and contemporary terms, though, arable fanning bas tended to predominate in recent centuries, particularly in the northern parts of the area, as in Redboum, while in the Lea valley there has been more variation as a result of horticulture (soft fruits) . Since the Second World War

The contrast between the boulder clay deposits of the vale of St Albans and those on either side (the dissected clay plateau of South Hertfordshire and the clay-withflints of the Chiltern dip slope) has been commented on (Woolridge and Smetham 1931, 248). This boulder clay rests on glacial outwash gravels. The principal distinguishing characteristic of the vale is that the soils tends to consist of deeper sandy loams. These are by no means uniform since there are stony localised areas which before treatment were comparatively sterile. It 16

many fields have been amalgamated and this has led to a decrease in the length of boundaries, principally hedgerows. However, the commonest type of physical boundary is still the hedgerow, though today it is rarely managed in the traditional manner; stock proofing is usually maintained by barbed wire and/or electric fences, though where horses are kept, as at Childwickbury Stud to the north of St Albans, the fences are of wood. Pheasant and partridge shooting has helped to ensure the maintenance of coverts and these lend more variety to the landscape. Mineral resources consist principally of sand and gravel deposits. They have been mainly exploited on the eastern side of the St Albans area. Two-thirds of the southern half of the area has continuous spreads of mineral beneath overburden (Gou.ard 1981a, 1981b; Harries et al 1981; Gibbard 1986). Besides gravel and sand deposits, chalk and clay has been exploited throughout the historical period. Chalk has been used for marling the land, while clay in the form of brick earth deposits has been used for making tiles and bricks. Evidence for former activity is preserved in field names and relics in the landscape. Despite mineral exploitation, the principal traditional products of the area have been derived from farming - com, meat, leather, wool and timber. These were marketed in St Albans during the medieval period. Systems of land use and organisation have changed over time, leaving their imprint in the landscape of successive periods. It is to the diachronic sequence that this study now turns.

17

as the choice of season, the selection of manpower and the likely returns on time, labour and money invested. On the other hand, there are also problems of preservation and identification. For example, soils in the St Albans area typically contain numerous flints and pebbles in varying degrees of attrition, making the identification of small stone artifacts particularly difficult. Pottery fragments may be difficult to see in certain soil and light conditions, whilst successive applications of manure (which included domestic waste) mask the surviving sherd scatters and may distort interpretation. Identification of more-or-less eroded commonplace wares is, in any case, notoriously difficult. It is not surprising, therefore, that with the exception of excavated neolithic material from Gorhambury and occasional finds of sherds dateable to the Bronze Age, little distinguishable pottery has been recovered and identified for periods before the late Iron Age. The consequence is that comparatively few occupation and activity sites of earlier date have been identified. The prospects for landscape reconstruction are thus reduced, particularly at what might be regarded as critical points in the landscape's structure.

CHAPTER 2 The Pre-Medieval Periods 2.1 The Use of Archaeological Data

In

order to reconstruct landscapes before documentary and cartographic sources are available, recourse must be made to archaeological data. These can be collected in various ways, and produce images of the landscape which have varying degrees of resolution. The sources themselves may be ordered in the following way:-

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. ·, . 8.

Secondary information, ie published and unpublished finds and sites. Selective aerial photographic coverage including infra-red and Landsat images. Primary information, ie site excavation reports; selective field walking; sampling of potential site locations. Selective remote sensing analysis using Resistivity and Magnetometer techniques. Total field walking and complete aerial photographic coverage during optimum conditions. Total remote sensing techniques , etc. Selective archaeological landscape sampling. Total excavation.

The concept of topographical analysis in studying landscape has been in use for more than a century (Petrie 1878). However, it is only recently that its application has been successful in the lowland landscape (Drury 1976, 1978; Everitt 1986; Rodwell 1978; Williamson 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987;). By applying the concept of stratigraphy to landscape studies it is possible to build up a chronological sequence in reverse order of development. That is, by starting with the present day landscape and removing each known element, until (as in the case of N. W. Essex and East Anglia), the earliest residual landscape .features can be observed. The problems of such an approach have been discussed by Roberts (1987). However, once this method has been applied it is then possible to test the sequence by selective field walking and sample excavation.

Large-scale landscape excavation has the potential at least in theory - of producing considerable amounts of information. It is, however, largely impractical, except in rare instances where archaeological information is in danger of being obliterated and the type of remains are extensive rather than intensive, ie scattered farmsteads and fields rather than localised clusters of dwellings. This is the case at Fengate near Peterborough where complete field systems of Bronze Age date survive (Pryor 1984; French and Pryor 1992). The difficulties are primarily those of the scale of excavation required, but ramify into specific problems of access, cost, time and technique. Alternative methods of collecting information over wide territories have been devised. These come down to field walking including topographical analysis and the use of various sensing techniques.

Various sensing techniques have been used by archaeologists. They include the application of magnetometers and resistivity surveys (Carr 1982; Clark 1990; Estes and Senger 1974; Lyons and Avery 1977; Bullard and Larkin 1981; Stone and Addyman 1989; Townshend 1981; Parrington 1983; Ebert 1984; Weymouth 1986). Both detect 'subsoil gradients and patterned discontinuities that reflect walls and wall foundations, house floors, pits, tombs, embankments and ditches, and roadways' (Butzer 1982, 159). The potential is clearly considerable, despite the problems of interpreting the instrumented readings. However the techniques were not used in this study, except prior to excavation and even then

Field walking is a survey method intended to locate and plan not only concentrations of occupational debris but also traces of land use in the form of ceramic scatters (present or absent) that may indicate past farming regimes (Crowther 1983; Fasham et al 1980; Haselgrove et al 1985; Hayfield 1980; Hinchliffe and Schadla Hall 1980; Macready and Thompson 1985; Schofield 1991; Shennan 1985; Woodward 1978). The problems are immense. On the one hand, there are those connected with the organisation of the survey. They include the basic questions of coverage and the use of samples, as well

18

N

t □ I

J

Observed , such data

may

be i ncomplet e

Not obse r ved , but potentially

() observab l e th r ough surface

l

Not observed observable

sites

but potentially under

under

exposed

ce r tain

buildings

dur i ng

c onditions

eg

& pasture

earth

moving

Archaelogical

l lIIlJNever cast

observable mi ni ng

eg. unde r rese r vo irs & open

----=---=-

0

( classification

areas

-= ---

I -,-

' 5km

=-=-

Fig 10. Archaeological Perception Map.

19

Perception Map after

1-fommond l

the results were disappointing. The main reason for this is that where any disturbance (pits, ditches, etc) is overlain by a layer of alluvium or clay the evidence is effectively masked and therefore invisible (Allen 1988; Bell 1981; Challands 1982; French 1988; Needham and Macklin 1992).

explored in Chapter 6.

2.2 Description, Interpretation and Reconstruction

The evidence for pre-late Iron Age man's impact on the landscape around St Albans is relatively slight . There is nothing comparable with the evidence from the Thames valley gravels (Benson and Miles 1974; Cunliffe and Miles 1984; Fulford and Nichols, (eds) 1992). Nevertheless, some consideration of the preIron Age evidence from around St Albans is necessary if only to place subsequent developments in their context. What is provided here is a simple illustration (Fig 11) derived from the SMR, together with a brief discussion and observations of the evidence.

An older method of sensing the landscape for relict

topographic features no longer apparent on the surface is the interpretation of aerial photographs, both vertical and oblique (Crawford 1924; Wilson 1975, 1987; Evans and Jones 1977; Lyons and Hitchcock 1977; Beresford and St Joseph 1979; Pickering 1979; Riley 1980; Maxwell 1983; Ebert and Lyons 1980; Riley et al 1985; Griffith 1990). The detection of features depends upon topographic irregularities (which throw shadows) and the patterns of plant growth (which reflect soil depth and local moisture conditions). Much depends upon the soil type, weather conditions and natural light, as well as the actual survival of surface or sub-surface remains. Accordingly, information recovery from any one image is at best only partial. Ideally, several images are required from the same·area, but produced under different physical conditions . Whilst recovery can be improved by comparing a series of images, as well as by using the infra-red wavelength, the recovery rate can never be a hundred percent. Once the relict features have been located and planned, a composite picture of the landscape can be created. Area coverage from aerial photographs is always extensive and the detail often impressive. However, the general picture must be dissolved into its various functional and diachronic components, a task which requires considerable interpretive skill and ground checking.

The impact of mans earliest activity in the palaeolithic and mesolithic periods is, on present evidence, impossible to gauge. What finds there are for the palaeolithic are random find spots from an era when the land mass was still experiencing the effects of glaciation (Mellars 1974). In the post glacial period the evidence for hunter gatherer activity in the mesolithic is not much clearer. The exception to this is an unusual boat burial from Old Parkbury, south of St Albans (Verulamium museum forthcoming). This lack of evidence is not much better in the neolithic period , although the area does have one site that has evidence of a structural nature. The evidence from Gorhambury, near St Albans consists of a trench-built structure dated by radio-carbon to 2,830 + BC (Neal et al 1990). This was associated with flint-tempered pottery. In addition, some retouched flint flakes were present in the general vicinity, though usually unstratified. This suggests that the vicinity of the later Romano-British villa was occupied in the late 3rd millennium BC. The period is defined by Whittle (1980, 329-334) as midneolithic (3,000-2,500 BC). It is believed that by the late 3rd millennium the subsistence economy over much of southern England was pastoral (Smith 1974). To judge from the Irish evidence, which indicates that land enclosure on an extensive scale was a definite neolithic phenomenon (Caulfield 1978), it is probable that the St Albans landscape was similarly organised. The absence of finds other than flint and pottery does not argue against such an interpretation for the Gorhambury site. Its location, adjacent to the rich alluvium in the valley of the River Ver and flanked by once seasonally wet valleys, would have made it a favourable site for the rearing of stock.

The use of particular techniques to recover fragments of earlier landscapes will be dictated by the purposes laid down for the exercise and the constraints of time and cost. Once information is to hand, it is the archaeologist's primary duty to record and describe it in as detailed a manner as possible. Use is made of measurement, drawing, photography, sampling and description. If the object that is recorded is likely to be destroyed, then accuracy is all the more important; the record becomes a unique document of priceless value. It is also the function of the archaeologist to interpret and reconstruct the evidence, whether of a building or a landscape. Beyond the straightforward stage of plotting the evidence on a map comes the ultimate goal of analysis. Although this is undoubtedly important if any kind of progress is to be made in the study of the past, it has also to be recognised that re-interpretation and re-analysis will be an almost perpetual theme for as long as humanity has an interest in his/her past. Again, the faithful representation of information is of prime importance. This theme will be further

This type of site would not have been detectable by means other than excavation. In fact, it might not 20

N

t _,_ I

,c

Pot1otithic

flints

t

Mtsolithic

flints

N1olithic flints ■

Ntolithic

structurt

Bron Z& Ag1 1111toh,,ork

0

Sk•

Fig 11. The Pre-Iron Age evidence.

21

•

Bronzt Ag• potttry

•

Ring ditch

have been detected at all but for the presence of burning throughout the stake-holes and sealing by the bank of an adjacent ditch. The fragments of n~lithic pottery were no larger than a thumb nail, some were occasionally found in the ditch fills, while others of even smaller size sometimes survived in later layers. The next evidence for pre-Iron Age activity consists of burial urns, pottery and a group of 'socketed celts and heaps of metal' (Evans 1892), all of Bronze Age date, found at Westwick Row (Fig 11). The only landscape setting we have for the Bronze Age material comes again from Gorhambury. There the discovery of several late Bronze Age burial urns together with certain narrow linear features of possibly contemporary date suggests that the area was probably used as pasture (or was, at any rate, a cemetery area) and lay at the periphery of a settlement. There was no other evidence of occupation. In addition, there is a group of circular crop marks all lying within 500 metres to the north of Verulamium's Chester Gate at NGR TL 128 079 (Fig 11). These consist of three double-ring ditch sites. The first topographic~} feature (TF 231) is the largest; it has an external diameter of 45m and an internal diameter of approximately 23m. The second (TF 232) and third (TF 233 not shown) sites are similar, though in size they are approximately 20m in diameter externally, the inner circle being 6m in diameter. They all lie within approximately 130m of each other. No visible surface features remain nor have any surface finds been made except for a single struck flake. Less than 1 km to the east lay a further 2 possible ring ditches (SMR 6003, 6004). Taken together, these ring ditches represents the only known concentration of former burial mounds in the Verulamium area. How significant they might have been for subsequent landscape development is impossible to say.

east-west valley and close to a small tributary of the Ver make it a focal point rather than a strategic site. It is roughly egg-shaped, approximately 344m x 272m; on the inside it has an area of just over 6 ha (15 acres). The interior of the enclosure is still ploughed and shows no trace of occupational debris; even small excavations by the local museum have been unable to find artefactual evidence related to the earthwork. The absence of Iron Age pottery from the area might suggest that the site was a seasonal camp rather than a permanently occupied settlement. Its lack of a defensive position implies that it was its proximity to water and good grazing land that were the principal factors in its location.

The Pre-Late Iron Age

The Late Pre Roman Iron Age Landscape

The pre-late Iron Age is, at present, for all practical purposes, virtually aceramic in the St Albans area. The evidence consists of one, perhaps two earthworks that survive in isolation from their contemporary landscape. The first one is the Redbourn 'hillfort' known as the Aubreys.

Wheathampstead (SMR 0048)

Childwickbury, St Albans There has been speculation of a possible second hillfort site near Childwickbury (NGR TL 128 105) where some 'Iron Age' grit-tempered pottery and pot boilers have been found. The site was identified by the Verulamium Museum as a result of aerial photographic reconnaissance. However, its interpretation is not certain. The feature is situated on the east side of the River Ver, lying across the 115-125m contour. It overlooks the river on its west side, 30m below. Whilst more strategically placed than the Aubreys, it is only on the edge of a plateau rather than a hill. It is oddly shaped, being about 670m long by 300m wide (externally); its area is approximately 12.9 ha (32 acres) . If they were genuine the earthworks have largely vanished, save for dip slopes and a shallow embankment at the southern side which forms the parish boundary between Redbourn and St Michaels. However, it is possible that they may have been woodland boundaries. In the 17th-century it was referred to as How Wood though by then it was under arable cultivation . (HCRO Gorhambury Deeds X.C.3.B).

The 'oppidum' at Wheathampstead (NGR TL 186 133) lies in the former medieval parish of Sandridge; its western side known as Devil's Dyke forms the boundary between the parishes of Wheatbampstead and Sandridge. On all plans it is shown as being 420m long by 40m wide and having a depth of 13m (at maximum). At its southern end, where it is visible on the ground, the dyke is only about 20m wide and remains so for 120m where it begins to broaden out, reaching its maximum width at 220m from the southern end. It maintains this profile for a further 100m after which it appears to narrow and then, it is assumed, follows the course of Dyke Lane to the north.

The Aubreys (SMR 0025) The Aubreys (NGR TL 094-112) is usually described as a 'hillfort' for want of a better term, though a 'double banked and ditched enclosure' might be a more accurate description since it is situated in the valley on the west side of the River Ver, on the 110m contour. Its position at the end of a shallow 22

N

A • 4783 0

6017

.o 0

1597 iii o;

1!10058

Harpendtn

III

6009

I

/' Wh•7•ttod

0

,' , , ~

Tht Aubtrys

6007

4982

• t'

~ Childwickbury

1437 6001 •

I

1446 • -- ;(b _____ ___ __G_o_r11ambury , ' 0094 __

o___ _

- '--:r---r'\,,

0

2211 /

I·

Park Street ■ 0

♦

0

0

Munden

/ 0 ■

Villa

iii Possible villa

■

I

Predominantly

Sq. ~ Temple/mausoleum

Predom.Rectangular

D Royal

enclosure

I

Rectangular enclosure•

Subrectangular

,

ClJ 1/)

C u

::J

>

.,c 0,

Cl'. -0 C Cl

e 0

;:

"' :,

ClJ

-0 C

£

_J

C

Cl u Cl)

£

g_

-0

o

E

· .::: Cl)

::,

a..

E

u

Cl

>,

I

------

16 17---18

19--

202122-

23242526-

2728-

2930-

31-

Table 36 Meadow/pasture

0

Acres *--------

field sizes in 1768

10

20

30

HRO Gor Deeds D/EV M.39)

so

40

1-------------------2•---------------

s----

6

789

1011-

121314 151617 18 19

20 21-

132

8) Plan of Redboum in c.1771 (HRO Gorhambury Deeds XIII.16)

since the original is in the possession of Lord Aldenham.

This records only portions of the parish. Its scale is about 28" to 1 mile, and the plan measures about 30" x 91 ". The monochrome plan names tenants and has some rough plans pasted together of farms in the possession of Messrs Harding - Peacock's farm at Revel-End and Andrews's farm. Redboum common, common field strips and state of cultivation are shown. In addition, a mill, the Bowl Ale House and Three Cherry Trees are shown. The plan is numbered for a book of reference whose whereabouts is unknown.

14) Waterdale Fann in 1793 (HRO 63791/11). This is located in the parish of St Stephens. It was surveyed by D.Munford. 197 acres are covered at 20" to 1 mile and the plan measures 28" x 46". Style and information are similar to no.15 and the plan is in the possession of Lord Aldenham.

15) Burston manor and Slowmans Fann in St Stephens parish (HRO 63791/8). This was surveyed by D. Munford in 1793 to 26.7" to 1 mile. It covers 386 acres and measures 45 x 29". Fields and woods are named; the state of cultivation and footpaths are shown. A copy was used, the original being in the possession of Lord Aldenham.

9) Plan of Winshe.s in St Peters (HRO 75167). This covers only 75 acres, in 1772. It includes the names of fields and the state of cultivation. The scale is 22.8" to 1 mile. The plan was probably surveyed by A. Biederman prior to an auction.

16) Plan of Jeromes Fann in 1797 (HRO Gorhambury Deeds XIII.20).

10) Plan of Bettwells Fann in 1772 (HRO 75168). This too, was surveyed by A. Biederman on the same scale as Winshes. It covered 130 acres and gives the names of fields and strips in common fields and shows the state of cultivation.

This was surveyed by Thomas Godman. The scale is 16" to 1 mile and the plan measures 22" x32". The area covers 173 acres in the south part of Redboum and shows field names, the names of adjoining landowners and footpaths.

11) A portion of Redboum in 1775 (B.Lib Add 11,317).

17) Parish survey of St Michaels by Thomas Godman in 1799 (Verulamium museum).

This plan was surveyed by James Crow and has certain affinities with Number 7 (above), and could conceivably have formed a part of it. It is in monochrome and at approximately the same scale, though does not appear to be numbered for a book of reference and does not overlap the area covered by map Number 8 (above).

This is a fine survey of approximate) y 6" to 1 mile. Although there is a certain degree of distortion when compared to the Ordnance Survey of the late 19th century, this is not significant on a field by field basis. The map is coloured and the fields are numbered for a book of reference which has recently been located. This is the second earliest complete parish survey from the area of St Albans.

12) Suney of Sandridge in 1782 by John Corris (HRO 80245).

The previous list of seventeen 18th century maps covers an extensive area around St Albans (21,084.3 acres, 8532. 8 ha), 67 .5 % of the study area; see Fig 48. In cartographic terms they mark the midway point between the 17th century when maps were comparatively rare, and the mid-19th century when coverage is both comprehensive and complete.

Unfortunately, the southern end nearest St Albans has been lost. ·Toe scale is 26. 7" to 1 mile and the map measures 106 x 83 inches. It includes the names of farms, fields and woods, bridleways and footpaths. Land in freehold, copyhold and leasehold, as well as common, is shown by colour.

13) Wilds Fann in 1793 (HRO 63791/10).

Their principal importance lies in the nature of the evidence they reveal about the landscape, both in terms of territorial division and land use. They are particularly important when comparing the extent of change between the 18th and mid-19th centuries. For example, they reveal that there was greater stability of landscape divisions in the 18th century than in the

This plan covered 217 acres in the south east of St Stephens parish to the scale of 26. 7" to 1 mile (26" x 30"). It is not known who surveyed the property. The plan gives the names of fields and adjoining landowners. A photocopy was used for this study 133

years 1840-80. For a full discussion of the evidence see Chapter 5, section 5.

2) Contemporary with the production of Bryant's map of 1822 was the publication of the Ordnance Survey 1" scale maps, originally surveyed at 2" to 1 mile. This contained the same categories as Bryant's map and, though field boundaries had been surveyed, the OS omitted them on the printed maps. This series is available in a reprinted edition (David and Charles Sheets 62 and 711) which is based on an OS Record copy electrotyped in 1890. It is thus a 'composite' edition. This map is satisfactory for illustrating the broad framework of the early 19th century landscape, but is inadequate for more precise measurement and the accurate definition of change.

4. 7 18th century non-cartographic sources. With the increase in the use and production of estate maps and parish surveys, there was a consequent decline in the compilation and use of written sources concerning the landscape of the type previously used in this study . Indentures were still used, and contain useful references to fields and the maintenance of farms etc. There are only two indentures of any merit that have been selected for discussion since both cover areas which were relatively poorly recorded until the 18th century. The manor of Burston in 1711 consisted of at least 202.6 acres (82 ha) but , as there are no topographical references in relation to the fields, it is not easy to reconstruct retrospectively (HRO D/EAM T.21) . The property known as Mary Magdalen (HRO D/EX 438 T.5) was referred to in an indenture of 1759 and covers an area of 233 acres. It is important because it gives the earliest unambiguous evidence of what the landscape of this area looked like in the 18th century, and provides an important piece of information which enables the reconstruction of the medieval landscape for the old Roman city of Verulamium.

3) Apart from the parish survey of 1822 of St Albans by T.Godman for Clutterbuck's 'History of Hertfordshire' the only other map of a local parish was that for St Peters in 1826 by T.Godman and J.H Rumball. This map is at a scale of 13.3" to 1 mile and measures 67" x 49" (HRO D/P93 29/9-10). It covers the entire parish of St Peters and is comparable in detail to the 1799 plan of St Michaels in depicting strips in common fields, footpaths and large buildings. The plan is numbered for a hook of reference which is held in St Albans City Library (Schedule no.931a). There are only a few minor differences between this map and that of the Tithe Apportionment map of St Peters dated 1840.

Both properties (St Mary Magdalens and Burston) cover areas that were poorly represented in cartographic terms until almost the mid-19th century and so these simple lists of fields in the indentures are important for the light they throw on the state of the 18th century landscape. However, they are also the last non-cartographic source to be used for this study since thereafter the quality of the landscape information from maps makes it unnecessary to consult any other type of source for the purposes of measuring and defining change in the landscape.

4.8

Tithe Maps

This series of maps is the first to cover the entire study area. The maps form a part of the survey carried out by the Tithe Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1836 for the commutation of Tithes in England and Wales (Kain and Prince 1985). The other principal part of the survey was the Tithe Apportionment book . This consisted of three sections. 'The first section contains the articles of agreement or statement of award, giving the names of the commissioners, surveyors, and tithe-owners, and the date of confirmation, and also stating the area of the parish, the are.a subject to tithes, a summary of the area of arable, grass, and other kinds of land subject to tithe, notes on the lands exempt from tithes, and a list of landowners and occupiers. The second and most important section is the schedule of apportionment in which each tithe area, numbered on the accompanying plan, is listed under the name of both its owner and occupier' (Prince 1959, 22). The third source, although not always consistently recorded are the Tithe files. These record a variety of different data that throws considerable light on contemporary rural society and landscape (Kain, Fry and Holt 1986). The map and the apportionment book form the 'land surveyors most valuable legacy to the local historian' (Harley 1972, 35).

19th century Cartography

The principal cartographic sources are the Tithe maps (chiefly of the early 1840's) and the various series produced by the Ordnance Survey. A few private maps also survive. This body of material is reviewed below and its relevance to landscape change assessed. 1) Bryant's map of Hertfordshire has a scale of 1.5" to 1 mile and measures 60.7" x 49". It shows towns, villages, farms, principal houses, lanes, turnpike bars, parks, woodlands, rivers, mills, commons and parish boundaries . It was a product of an original survey and was printed in 1822 (Hodson 1970, 115-116; Hodson 1985).

134

The parish

of Redbourn

in 1841

Ref: HRO OSA4 /79/2

r< ""

\,/\ \.

~, )

\\ ~

\

KEY

Fig 55. Redboum Tithe map.

135

0

wo odland

[ID

orchards

0

gros s

The parish of St Michaels in 1840 Ref:HRO. DSA4 87/2

KEY

o=- =-------

-

~

_ _._Jkm

Fig 56. St Michaels Tithe map.

136

el

wooclloncl

0

grou

ffl

orchorcl1

VI C C,

.c

0.. ------

10------

17-18 19· 20-

212223· 2425· 26· 2728· 2930

0 Acs *---

1863.9 825.6 6.1X 2.7X

Figures in acres

2-----

Table 46 1843

5069.3 16.8X

Table 48 Average si7.e of fields for Tithe Apportionment parishes.

Table 45 Arable field units in the parish of Sandridge in 1843 (HRO DSA4/91)

Acs

Pasture/Meadow Wood The rest

Meadow/pasture

10

For the purposes of evaluating and measuring landscape change in the St Albans area the 6" scale maps of 1925-30's have been selected together with the provisional edition (1960's) and new metric scale maps of the 1980's, updated where necessary by ground observation in the field. The 2nd series 6" scale maps of 1900 could have been utilized but have been omitted in this survey since the observation they contain is broadly comparable with the 1880 data. Another useful source of information contemporary with the 2nd series maps are the 'Domesday books' of the Inland Revenue which were produced at the time of the rating system in local government early this century (Short 1989). This source, together with maps based on those produced by the Ordnance Survey, includes information on all categories of building and land; they should be an invaluable aid to historical geographers in the future.

field units in Sandridge in

20

30

1------

2--3

56--

7-

8· 910·

11·

1213 14· 15 16· 17· 18 19·

143

In addition to the Ordnance Survey maps, two further

Smallford ward (828 acres) by St Stephens only seem to have affected the parish by a reduction of 566 acres; the discrepancy of 262 acres has not been accounted for. The parish of St Albans (ie. St Andrews) remained the same and Sandridge parish is approximately similar in size.

sources provide a visual representation of the landscape. The land utilization survey provide a visual representation of the landscape. It was organised by Dudley Stamp in the 1930's, and, being based on 6" scale maps, provides a useful contrast with the earlier Tithe material. The primary field records are preserved at the London School of Economics, while the published maps are more easily obtainable, though on a smaller scale (1" to 1 mile). The second source is provided by the aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1947. These show the effects of the war-time agricultural improvement and, despite their incompleteness in coverage, add an entirely new perspective to the visual record of landscape history.

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter has been to describe, tabulate and illustrate the type of information that is available for the reconstruction of the post-medieval landscape around St Albans. It is this body of information that provides the foundation for landscape reconstruction in the medieval and earlier periods. The aim of this reconstruction bas been to recreate, as much of the physical layout of the landscape as possible on a two dimensional plane. This has resulted in the production of 25 monochrome plans (Figs 35-59).

Parochial Tithe areas. The figures in Table 49 show a discrepancy between some of the parish tithe areas and those of the Ordnance Survey 'pari~hes'.

Five of the plans (Figs 55-59) were a result of transposing the large scale Tithe Apportionment maps onto Ordnance survey 6" scale plans. This method was in tum used for the 18th century plans (Fig 5054). The 17th century plans were similarly treated (Figs 42 and 47). In addition six non-cartographic sources enabled a further 4 plans to be made (Figs 43, 44 and part of 45 and 46). 16th century plans (Figs 35, 38-40) were based on two written surveys. If the Tithe maps are included, the 25 monochrome plans are based on 43 separate cartographic and non-cartographic sources. The Ordnance Survey 6" maps of the 1878-83 have not been illustrated since they are more readily available than the Tithe maps, and are of a standard scale format (6" to 1 mile).

Table 49 total Area of Parishes given in different Sources. (figures in acres) Parish Redbourn St Albans St Michaels St Peters St Stephens Sandridge Total

c.1840 4416.1 167 6443.5 5503.1 7953.1 5766.5 30249.3

1878 4563.1 167 6658.3 6672.6 7387.1 5753.3 31201.4

1901 ,vcHl 4562 167 6296 6673 7325 5755 30751

The difference between the 1840 and 1878 figures for Redboum would seem to be due to the omission of common land or 'waste' amounting to about 147 acres, from the Tithe survey. The figures for St Michaels parish reveal a difference of 214 acres; this discrepancy has not been adequately explained. The 1901 figure of 6269 acres is explained by the separation of Leverstock Green from St Michaels parish.

The information contained within the reconstructed plans (field sizes, boundaries, landuse and size of farm units) has been tabulated in the form of 38 Tables (Tables 9-46). These Tables present particular types of data for a single period of time. While they provide a comparative scale of measurement between single classes of information they do not attempt to measure change through time. The sources discussed in this chapter show to what extent the landscape may be cartographically represented on a large scale in the following periods.

The difference between St Peters parish in 1840 and 1878 was 1169.5 acres. This would appear to be due to the absorption of a detached part of St Stephens parish and the fact that the hamlet of Tittenhanger was exempt from tithes since it had belonged to the Abbey of St Albans. St Stephens parish in 1838 consisted of three wards: Windridge ward 2250 acres; Park ward 4279 acres; Smallford ward 828 acres. Added to these should be a further 596.25 acres of woodland in the first two wards that were exempt from tithes. (St Peters was also exempt but the amount has been included above). The loss of

16th century 17th century 18th century Mid-19th C

= 19 % = 30 %

.. .

of the landscape is represented .

= 67% =100%

However, in terms of early maps there were none for the 16th century and only 11 % of the study area was

144

covered in the 17th century. By the mid~18th century the entire area was planned to a small scale. Those areas that have been 'reconstructed' on plan are based, for the most part, on verifiable evidence and can thus be treated with some confidence. The resulting plans of the 16th and 17th centuries are therefore interpretive in nature. This chapter has been concerned with presenting the evidence (26 Illustrations, 37 Tables, 9 Appendices) for the state of the landscape at a particular moment in time. The largest plans used in reconstructing landscape were to a scale of 1: 10,560 (ie. 6" to 1 mile). The accuracy of the plans illustrated in this report are, therefore, commensurate with their scale. The next chapter will seek to measure the extent of change (whether static or dynamic) of different landscape elements through time.

145

Chapter S

example, examining the physical arrangement of the boundaries which divide the landscape in isolation from other social and cultural activity would seriously limit their interpretation. Boundaries banks, hedges and fences - are just as much social products as decoration, architecture, or economic organisations. They are fundamental to human use of the environment, as well as distinctive elements within it.

Measuring Change in the Landscape Introduction The previous thtee chapters have been concerned with the evidence for 'reconstructing' landscape in a cartographic format within a defined geographical area ie. the vicinity of St. Albans, Hertfordshire. The purpose of such 'reconstructions' is to portray an aspect of mankind's cultural activity as revealed in the way the environment is arranged. While a wide range of environmental constraints - such as slope, terrain, soils, drainage and climate- combine to influence the man-made landscape, human decisions about management and exploitation have major effects. These are reflected in the organisation of the landscape into units of exploitation - fields, copses, open pasture and so on - which to some extent reflect the society which created and used them. The more prolonged and more varied that exploitation has been, the greater will be t~e potential blending of the various physical rearrangements of succeeding generations in the landscape of any one period and place.

If it is accepted that it is a legitimate line of enquiry to reconstruct the landscape elements of man's past - and the assumption here is that it is - then we are confronted with a succession of spatial patterns through time. These patterns may or may not exhibit signs of change, but it is the purpose of all historical enquiry to focus on changing systems and to provide an explanation for the diversity of pattern and pace of landscape evolution. One of the problems of tracing change through time in the landscape is that, as we have seen, the nature of the evidence can alter. Consequently, we are not always working with a consistent and comparable source of material evidence, both in terms of physical remains and historical records. Another problem is that of measuring change, a problem compounded by the changing nature of the evidence through time. However, provided incompatible evidence is not forced into an artificial measurement system then the limitations of inference may still be recognised and the distinctive qualities of each set of data can be usefully exploited. The following types of change may be recognised in the landscape, ranging from the superficial to the total obliteration of all previous relics of man's activity.

In any study of mankind's

past activity, it is fundamental to that study that the reality of the past is demonstrated through images, whether evocative or pictorial. Only by demonstrating the reality of the past can the present be understood. It is not just that the accuracy of past events is desirable in their own right from a philosophical or ideological point of view; it is also important to the requirements of the present. The present makes demands on contemporary knowledge for the purposes of planning for the future. In order to plan for that it is necessary to have accurate information on which predictions may be based. Lack of such information may either distort or completely alter the attainment of the planners goals.

Table SO

A Classification of Landscape Change. 1.

Ephemeralchange

1.1 1.2

Fieldnames Crops/land use

2.

Minor change

2.1 2.2

Internal boundaries of tenurial holdings Fann buildings and associated boundaries

3.

Major change

3 .1 3 .2 3 .3 3 .4

Imposition/removal of administrative boundaries Reorganisation of tenurial units Development of communications Settlement relocation

4. 4.1 4.2 4.3

Obliteration

If the argument for the necessity of illustrating past reality is accepted, then it follows that some form of comparison is also necessary. The comparative study of the past, whether it demonstrates inertia or change over a given period, is important for what it can reveal about how society makes and adapts its environment and creates landscapes which are both visually and geometrically distinctive. For example, Celtic fields (Bowen 1975), Fenland settlement in the Roman period (Phillips 1970), medieval sub-divided fields (Hall 1982), and Parliamentary enclosure (Turner 1980). However, there are very obvious limitations to interpreting the social significance of many of the relic landscape elements from the past embedded in the landscape of the present. For 146

Urbanisation/urban expansion Quarrying and waste disposal Reservoir construction/airports etc.

No doubt this list can be expanded but the basic concept of landscape change from superficial to the total will remain. However, it must be emphasised that the list is limited to aspects of the landscape, though landscape change presupposes economic and social change.

evidence worthy of the name. This comparatively blank period is similar to that for the pre-Belgic landscape which has already been discussed. Fig 24 illustrates our present state of knowledge of the pre-Conquest ( 1066) landscape. The most noticeable divergence from the past is the apparent shift of focus from Verulamium to Kingsbury which has already been discussed (Chapter 3.3). We have the first evidence of future settlements in the usage of place-names and a couple of cemeteries but little else so that the question of landscape change cannot be adequately considered.

Two categories of landscape change can be recognised. For convenience these can be termed spatial arid non-spatial. The spatial category includes all types of change that can be depicted in a cartographic format - relic features in the landscape evidence for . settlement and information from documentary sources. The non-spatial category covers the non-physical evidence, such as field names that have survived but to which no precise location can be given. Cartographic representation is difficult for this type of data, but it can still be used to measure change (Chapter 4).

The earliest settlement pattern that has any claim to being comprehensive is that of the medieval period (c. 13th or 14th century) as shown on Fig 30. However, since there is some uncertainty as to its completeness, it is necessary to be cautious when interpreting the information. What it does seem to show is that the farming communities were fairly well dispersed, reflecting a similar sort of pattern to that of the Roman period. Attempting to 'measure' dissimilarity would be unrealistic because there are too many unknowns between the Roman and medieval periods. However, if there is little direct evidence for site continuity we can at least say that a dispersed settlement pattern seems to have persisted from the Roman to the medieval period.

The Non-Spatial Measurement of Change The Pre-documentary Age The landscape evidence for most of the pre-historic period in the St. Albans area consists mainly of random find spots and is therefore of limited use against which to measure change. It is not until the late Iron Age and Roman periods that we begin to find the first signs of a spatial pattern that can be recognised as forming part of the organised landscape. The evidence has already been discussed in. chapter 2 for the late Iron Age and Roman periods, but we are here concerned with the problem of discerning change and its measurement. What evidence exists for this period would seem to suggest that there was a certain amount of settlement continuity in the form of 'farmsteads', though the development of the 'valley oppidum' into a Roman city must be the most obvious large-scale change. This required new buildings, new road systems, water controls, new boundaries and the probable change of land use around the vicinity of the new city. While it is possible to itemise these probabilities, we cannot easily plot them with any degree of confidence, thereby rendering the concept of quantifying change as inappropriate in this case. However, such an attempt does at least have the virtue of highlighting the very real shortcomings of the landscape data. Chapter 6 will include . a discussion of the methods used in this and others in the quantification of landscape change.

The earliest elements of settlement evidence for 'nucleated sites' is provided by the existence of churches at Redbourn and Sandridge, the taxation lists of the late 13th and early 14th century, and a mid-14th century trade list. The ecclesiastical and taxation evidence has been discussed elsewhere (chapter 3.9). From the medieval period onwards there seems to have been a gradual growth in the size of settlements, though this development was by no means even. The question of settlement change from the Middle Ages to the present day will be considered further on.

Domesday Book A year before the death of William the First and 20 years after the battle of Hastings a survey or 'descriptio' of England was completed which by its nature and comprehensiveness became known as Domesday book. This survey supplies us with a unique insight into the social composition of the English state and inadvertently into the nature of the rural landscape. Maitland (1987, 3) called Domesday book a 'geld book' that is, a survey into the financial resources of the state answerable to the king. What it looked like was self evident and was of no concern to contemporaries. The survey has already been described in chapter 3.8 in relation to

The Pre-cartographic Age For the next 600 years after the Roman period we have virtually no documentary or physical landscape 147

the St Albans area. It enables a form of landscape 'reconstruction' to be made but the information remains in an abstract form. It is possible to express generalities about land use proportions, but it is not possible to provide any kind of precise measurement. Important as Domesday book is it does not permit the information it contains to be used in a way that can be applied for quantification. Only other and later sources can do that.

that there is no way of testing how representative the list of medieval names is of the entire population of names. Only a minority of medieval field names can be plotted on to a map (Fig 33) and of these only a smaller minority can be ascribed boundaries. Where it is impossible to delineate a medieval field system so that it may be accurately measured for its extent, shape and boundary length, then at least the primary factor of extent or size can be used for the purpose of quantifying change. Of the 1,278 names for field or landscape units in Appendix 21, approximately 700 appear to refer to separate entities. Approximately 155 field .names (12 %) have areas specified as opposed to dimensions expressed in so many acres, rods or perches. Roughly 167 field names ( 13 %) are associated with the suffix 'land' and the term 'virgates', 'ferlingates' and 'carucates'; these seem to refer to the name of the holding eg. Cokemanneslond, rather than to specific field locations. The majority of these holdings appear to be measured in 'fiscal acres', rather than statute or local acres. The evidence for this comes from the fact that the number of acres stated are usually multiples of 10, though there are several references to 15 acres. The following acreages were associated with the entries for holdings: 15 acres (5), 20 acres (3), 30 acres (12), 40 acres (4), 50 acres (1), 60 acres (13), 80 acres (4). It must be remembered that several of these figures included duplicated entries ie. one holding mentioned in several documents. Of the medieval field name evidence only about 136 names (20%) can be placed on a map and of these only five can be delimited on plan. There are many instances of variations in the size of fields. A further problem is the lack of certainty about the continuous association of a particular name with a unit of location or size. For this reason, it is unwise to assume that the differences in the measures attached to specific names point to a straight forward quantifiable change. Only when names can be located and associated with specific units of land can a reliable basis for quantification become available. For this reason, we have to conclude that it is not possible to evaluate change in the medieval landscape directly. However, the material can be used for comparison in the post-medieval period.

5.1 Field names - the medieval evidence. Much of this material has already been discussed in Chapter 3. 11. Here we will be concerned with attempting to quantify change using field- name evidence. Field names refer to specific units of the landscape. They also survive in use long after their original formation. Table 97 (Appendix 20) is an attempt to distinguish which of the known medieval field names continued in use in later periods. It offers one means of measuring landscape continuity, but it is far from perfect _because of uncertainties about the size of the total population of medieval names. The original data for the Table are derived from Appendices 21 and 21. Between them they contain a complete list of the known field names. Of the 700 separate field names that have been recorded from the medieval period only about 20% (144) have survived into the post-medieval period. Of these, some 57 % have survived in a recognisable way up to the mid-19th century. Table 51 (below) shows the survival rate, through time of medieval field names.

Table 51 Field name survival from the medieval to the mid19th century. mid to early to late early mid late early mid late 17thnid 17th 17th 18th 18th 18th 19th 19th late 13th 2 22 14th

9

15th 2 early 16th 7

6

8

5

2

3

2

3

37

2

11

2

12

The Post-medieval evidence.

The first observation to make about the material presented is that there is a direct relationship between the incidence of field name loss and documentary survival. Where documentary evidence is relatively good more field names can be perceived to have survived. This says something about field names but not much about the landscape. The most serious criticism of this approach to the analysis of change is

The use of field names in the reconstruction of past landscapes is of great importance; this is particularly so before the appearance of the first maps, where their use of names is of fundamental importance to any landscape research. In the previous two chapters this source of information has been extensively used culminating, where possible, in the production of 148

t

n

m

n

♦

Examples of former land use based on field name evidence w

woad

m

maddor saffron

•

Fig 60. Former land use derived from field name evidence.

149

homp

H

holly

•

osiers

n

hops

♦

fu rzo

maps (Figs 31 - 33, 38, 39, 43 - 47). However, apart from the obviously important fact that field names can sometimes be located on plan, they also serve another purpose. They suggest the former existence of vanished structures, archaeological features and previous uses, whilst sometimes indicating the former habitats of wildlife and vegetation and being associated with local folklore. Table 53 shows various categories of field names and what they may indicate (Fig 60).

Of the 36 modem field names 2 date from the medieval period; 5 from the mid-16th century (2 of those were probably of medieval date); 1 from the mid-17th century; 2 from the 19th century; 3 names have been borrowed from adjacent fields which date back to the 16th century in two cases and one from the mid 17th century; 1 is similarly borrowed from the 19th century; 2 other names originated in the 19th and early 20th centuries; 10 were derived from the sub-division of the 19th century park; 3 names are the result of entirely modem creations (Pumping station, Traffic lights, Silo-bin); the remaining names are of incidental creation eg Prae Wood field, Square Wood field. One Acre and Whitehedge are not mentioned in the Tithe Book of 1840 but are still in use today. This is probably to be interpreted as the Tithe planners recording only one of two possible names then in use, possibly for the sake of clarity. They had the choice of One Acre or Mains, Whitehedge (pronounced Wittage) or Heathy fields, in both cases they recorded the latter form.

Once a list of field names has been compiled and perhaps computerised it is relatively simple to identify particular classes or groups of names that are of interest; what is more time consuming is the plotting of that information onto scale maps. For example, the reference to barns occurs quite frequently (Appendix 22), necessitating the production of a separate plan devoted to buildings and structures. The importance of producing such field name plans is that they record a social environment, or sometimes an economic activity that has left no other trace of its existence. This evidence is relevant to reconstructing the landscape in its widest sense.

Those names which were relatively new in 1978 contain the following histories: Mount.field, an early 17th century name, was borrowed from its original place when Prae Wood absorbed it in the second half of the 20th century. Gorham Block, was partly borrowed and partly continued from the mid-16th century. Tanners (Springs) occurs in 1569 and survives until the mid-19th century when it was absorbed by Prae Wood; the name in current use formerly belonged to a field that lay immediately to the SE of the present day field. Pond.yards is also a 16th century name that has been adopted by the field that lay on its southern side. One of the divisions of the Park which is called by a personal name (Riegates) refers to some tenants who rent an adjacent dwelling and have nothing directly to do with the land. This example highlights the frequent need for corroborative evidence in order to interpret the meaning of field names accurately. Nevertheless, apart from their central purpose of providing vital clues to previous field forms, field names can add an extra and occasional vivid element to the smaller details of former landscapes. Table 53 is a list of some of the categories of field names that can be recognised and indicates how certain name elements may be extracted and plotted on plan. Fig 60 is a selective example of previous land use derived from field name evidence. John Field has shown that 'field-names relating to arable and other crops bears some relationship to the plants to which the names allude' (Field 1987, 169). Those illustrated on Fig 60 may be compared to the rich variety of names that is illustrated in Table 53.

Despite the necessity of field name indexing in order to trace individual names through time, the question as to its utility in landscape reconstruction is bound to arise. The ultimate achievement for those working on vanished landscapes is the re-creation of landscape on plan. Some might argue that this is only the penultimate achievement since the interpretation or explanation is more important.

In this study field names have been used as a means of reconstructing past landscapes. Another purpose is to determine to what extent a change of field name reflected change in the landscape, that is either the amalgamation or the sub-division of field units. Additional information which can be gleaned extends to changes of land use, new management (i.e. tenants) or new landowners. One of the problems of field name analysis, however, is that while individual field units may remain the same their names often change through time. Because of the uneven quality of field name evidence in the St. Albans area, it is difficult to compare contemporary data until comparatively late. One example, however, may be studied in detail, that of the Gorhambury estate. At Gorhambury, the field name evidence partially survives from the medieval period and wholly survives from the mid-16th century onwards in a variety of sources. To these can be added modem field names collected in 1978. Fig 61 shows the 20th century field names in current use whilst, Appendix 19 shows how the name of each field has evolved through time. 150

e

.x

0

co c--0)

C

>. L.. ::, .0

E 0

.c L..

0 (.9

0

(/)

a,

E 0

z

-0

ai LL

Fig 61. Field names of Gorhambury m 1978.

151

Table 52 The state of field name survival on the Gorhambury estate mid late medieval 1569 17th 17th 1768 1840 medieval 1 3 0 5 4 5 1569 19 5 6 8 6 11 Mid 17th 17 3 5 4 1 1 Late 17th 2 9 1768

1978

1

1840

The Quantification Landscape data.

1978

Botanical Almond Aspen Apple Ash Barley Beech Beet Birch Bladder Brambles Briars Broom Cabbage Crabb tree Docks Elder Fern Flag Flax Furze Hay Haws Hazel Hops Holly Ivy Juniper Lucero Maple May Oak Oats Osier Pear Plum Peas Primrose Rye Saffron Sainfoin Sloes Sweet apple Thistle Thorn Turnip Walnut Wheat

the

Post-medieval

5.2 Field si7.eS

2 5

Table 54 shows the average size of arable/pastoral fields from the mid-16th century to the present day in five of the parishes studied (St Peters and St. Stephens have not been calculated for .the modem period owing to greater change in their land use).

1 0 0

2 22

Table 53 Showing some of the principal botanical, wological and archaeological field name categories for landscape history. Zoological Adder Badger Beetle Blackbird Boar Bull Bullock Bussard Coney Cow Cricket Deer Fox Goose Hare Horse Hawk Lamb Mallard Owl Ox Palfry Rabbit Ram Rooks Sparrow Squirrel Swallow Swan Viper Worm

of

Table 54 Average Field Sius. (expressed in acres; 1 hectare = 2.471 acres)

Archaeological/Folklore Aldbury Barrow Beech Bottom Dyke Bowl Brick Cockpit Dancers Devil's Ditch Fuller Green man Gallows Honey Kiln Lime Mill Mount Pest house Pond Pound Sawpit Turnpike Tyles Well Windmill

Location 1603- 1630- late- 17261617 1656 17th 1768 1840 1883 1925 c. 1980 7.0• 4.5• 7.5• 6.8 6.8 24.3 ~ 9.2 12.9 8.6 12.1 12.4 11.4 29.8 ButJers 10.7 11. 7 13.2 24.6 St. Michaels 6.9 10.8 8.2 Gorhambury7.4 1558-

1573

Kingsbury Pray 9.7 Windridge 13.9 ~ Harpsfield Hedges•• Napsbury 8.2 St. Stej?hel\8 6.9 Burston 18.4 Parle Sopwell 10. 1 Sandridge Average 9.3

• = incomplete area; ••

15.0 G

9.5

10.5

15.0 15.0 G G 13.9 13.8 13.8 6.9

18.4

20.6 33.0

11.1 19.7 39.5 14.0 12.4 13.3 13.3 22.6 12.6 10.3

D D

D 20.4 9.6 10.6 15.2 11.8 10.7 10.8 13.9 21.5 26.4

also in St. Stephens; G

= with Gorhambury;

D = destroyed.

The problem with the 16th century information is that the tabulated figure represents the sum total of arable and pastoral acreages divided by the number of field units derived from the written sources and not those which can be plotted on plan. If only those figures from reconstructed plans of fields are used, then the average size would be exaggerated. This is because, inevitably, there is a tendency for the larger fields to be plotted on plan more easily than smaller units. Because of this not all the individual manors/farms of the 16th century have had their field sizes traced forward co-extensively to the present day.

5.3 Fann Holdings. With the exception of the home farm of St. Mary de Pre, it is almost impossible to relate medieval tenant holdings to actual acreages. Table 55 (below) illustrates the problem and it is not until the 16th century that it becomes possible to relate acreages with particular holdings.

152

Hectares 11 10 9

8 7 6

5

4 3

2

0

mid

early mid

late

16th

17th

17th . 18th

17th

mid 1840

1883

1925

1980

Fig 62 Average Field size through time

1 Ferling + 1 messuage HRO 40701).

43 acres (Sandrid ge 1458,

The survey of the manor of Park in 1331 used the following types of land holding.

1 Ferling + 1 Toft Ch 28265).

Table 55 The Land holding units of the Manor of Park in 1331 HR0-7593).

The overriding impression is that very few virgates would have been over 80 acres, while the average was probably around 50-60 acres in size.

The demesne - 923 Occasional acres - 332.5 Carucates 2 Portions of land 13 Virgates 35 Half Virgates 3 'Ferlings' 14 Curtilages 4 Messuages 27 Tenements 24 Crofts 12 'Cotags' 1 Orchards 6.5

acres acres

Table 56 Areas of known 16th Century holdings to the mid-19th century. (figures in acres) Name Breakspears " alias Cuningham Burston Butlers Cell Barns Hedges (Sopwell) Hillend Kingsbury Megdell Maynes Pray Napsbury Sopwell (see

acres

67 different land holding units have been identified, ranging from only a few acres to single virgates. It is not possible to give acreage to such terms as 'Virgates' and 'Ferlingate' since they refer to holdings of variable size and value, rather than precise extent but the following relationships have been noticed :-

= 80 acres

half virgate Stowe 849)

236.8 170.6 151.8

144.9 141 449 .9

483.4

173.1 ?

159 374

59 .1 235 .8 360.2 248 501 Hedges )

272.2 330.6 305 .2 231.4

145.8 52 1 271.3 377.7 101.3 417.7

mid 19th C (see. War ds)

180

339.5 225 146 I 18.8 533.4 226.6 387 .9 (see. Wards)

(part of Maynes)

274 . 1 ditto 419

143.8

287.7

104.7

277 .6

(+ Pray)

( + Breakiipea res)

(Kings Langley P.R.O SC.12 .279).

= 32 acres

mid early to late early to late 16th mid 17th 17th mid 18th 18th 83 .3 33 .2 67 . 1 160.9(The Lodge?)62 169.5

Wards 56 Westwick Comer 101.2 Westwick ... Hall Farm 48.4 Wind ridge 343.4

Halfvirgate = 20 acres (Abbots Langley Court book 23. Edw III, Sydney Sussex college , Cambridge Ms) 1 virgate

30 acres (St Stephens 1505, B.Lib Add

198.2 103

210.5 256.7 146.2 281 296.8

330 .5

325.3 149

338.1

(Codicote Court book , Edw III B.Lib Ms • Westwick hall did not exist in the mid- I 6th century .

153

355 .4

~ 0 ,:J

C :::,

:

:

ID

co

C7l -

L1J ~

.D 0

--r

~

.,·

•.:

..c:. 1/1

·.:

~

0

a.

ai

.

0

..c:. u

.

.

.,.,\__...\< r .···· ··-·· ···: 7 ·_ ·~_......

1/1