elsdon - northumberland national park€¦ · web viewearly view of elsdon schoolhouse with...

Northumberland National Park Historic Village Atlas

ELSDONNORTHUMBERLAND

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY OF A BORDER TOWNSHIP

Compiled by:The Archaeological Practice Ltd.Newcastle upon Tyne

Commissioned by: The Northumberland National Park Authority

Northumberland National Park Historic Village Atlas - Elsdon

CONTENTS

PART 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1. BACKGROUND, AIMS AND METHODS

2. LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY

3. TERRITORIAL UNITS AND SETTLEMENT TYPES

PART 2. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

4. LOCATION OF EVIDENCE

PART 3. SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS

5. GAZETEER OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES

6. DESCRIPTIVE HISTORICAL SYNTHESIS

7. SELECTED SOURCES AND SURVEYS

8. THE MEDIEVAL BUILDINGS OF ELSDON

PART 4. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9. POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

10. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSISTIVITY ISSUES

PART 5. APPENDICES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

11. GLOSSARY

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY

13. APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF HISTORIC DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF MODERN PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF SITES AND MONUMENTS

APPENDIX 5: LIST OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS (GRUNDY 1988)

APPENDIX 6: PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE CATALOGUE

APPENDIX 7: NORTHUMBERLAND RECORDS OFFICE CATALOGUE

APPENDIX 8: RECORDS OF 18TH CENTURY MINING

The Archaeological Practice Ltd. 2004 2


ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Location of Elsdon in NorthumberlandFIGURE 2: Location of Elsdon township, Northumberland National ParkFIGURE 3: Cultural Heritage sites in Elsdon townshipFIGURE 4: Cultural Heritage sites in the vicinity of Elsdon villageFIGURE 5: Cultural Heritage sites in the village coreFIGURE 6: Aerial photograph of Elsdon marking features or known or potential

interest (1)FIGURE 7: Aerial photograph of Elsdon marking features or known or potential

interest (2)FIGURE 8: Aerial photograph of Elsdon, marking features or known or potential

interest (3)FIGURE 9: Extract from Mercator’s Map of Northumberland, 1595FIGURE 10: Extract from Speed’s Map of Northumberland, 1610FIGURE 11: Extract from Jansson’s Map of Northumberland, 1646FIGURE 12: Extract from Morden’s Map of Northumberland, 1695FIGURE 13: Extract from Kitchin’s Map of Northumberland, 1750FIGURE 14: Extract from Horsley & Cay’s Map of Northumberland, 1753FIGURE 15: Undated copy of the Elsdon Common Inclosure Map, 1731FIGURE 16: A detail showing Elsdon taken from the copy of the 1731 Inclosure MapFIGURE 17: Terrier attached to a map of Elsdon Common as divided in 1731 (cover

page)FIGURE 18: Terrier attached to a map of Elsdon Common as divided in 1731(2)FIGURE 19: Terrier attached to a map of Elsdon Common as divided in 1731(3)FIGURE 20: Terrier attached to a map of Elsdon Common as divided in 1731(4)FIGURE 21: Elsdon Common Inclosure Map, 1731FIGURE 22: Extract from Armstrong’s Map of Northumberland, 1769FIGURE 23: A plan of Troughend Common, 1771 FIGURE 24: Extract from a plan of the road from Elsdon to the River Coquet, by Robert

Tate, 1811: detail of Elsdon villageFIGURE 25: Extract from Fryer’s map of Northumberland, 1820FIGURE 26: Plan of the Mote Hills, by Edward Smith, 1823FIGURE 27: Plan of Elsdon Moat Hills, by William Barnfather, 1826FIGURE 28: Elsdon Tithe Plan, 1839FIGURE 29: Elsdon Tithe Apportionment, 1839FIGURE 30: Plan of Elsdon Platt’s Estate, 1850FIGURE 31: Plan of Elsdon Township, 1854FIGURE 32: Extract from First Edition Ordnance Survey plan of Elsdon (1:2500 series)FIGURE 33: Extract from First Edition Ordnance Survey plan of Elsdon, (1:10,000

series)FIGURE 34: Extract from Second Edition Ordnance Survey plan of Elsdon (1:2500

series)FIGURE 35: Extract from Second Edition Ordnance Survey plan of Elsdon, (1:10,000

series)FIGURE 36: Extract from Third Edition Ordnance Survey plan of Elsdon, (1:2,500

series)FIGURE 37: Map and supporting documents concerning the purchase of a parcel of land

known as Red Hall Ridge in 1946FIGURE 38: 1762 Militia List, Coquetdale Ward, South Division



FIGURE 39: 1762 Militia List, Coquetdale Ward, South DivisionFIGURE 40: Extract from Parson and White’s Trade Directory, 1827FIGURE 41: Extract from late 19th century Elsdon School Inspector’s report (1)FIGURE 42: Extract from late 19th century Elsdon School Inspector’s report (2)FIGURE 43: Hodgson print of Elsdon church, 1821FIGURE 44: Early 20th century view of Elsdon TowerFIGURE 45: Cottages at Elsdon, late 19th century viewFIGURE 46: View of Elsdon Tower, c.1910FIGURE 47: View of Elsdon Tower and school pupils, n.d. (early 20th century)FIGURE 48: View of Elsdon Village Green, including pinfold and cottages to rearFIGURE 49: Two Elsdon bridges near village hall and Mote HillsFIGURE 50: View of Elsdon Village Green, including church, Tower, Crown Farm and

walled enclosure to left mid-foreground, 1910FIGURE 51: View of Elsdon Village Green, including church, Tower and school, 1910FIGURE 52: A piper in front of the Bird in the Bush PH, c. 1910FIGURE 53: 1910 View of Elsdon Village Green, South side, including Smithy and

neighbouring housesFIGURE 54: Early view of Elsdon schoolhouse with pupils outsideFIGURE 55: Molte Hills and (unenclosed) Elsdon Burn from behind the Bacchus PH,

n.d.FIGURE 56: View of Elsdon Village Green, South side looking NW, with cart wheels

outside (apparently) the Smithy, c.1910FIGURE 57: Figures on a hay cart with buildings lining south side of the village green in

the backgroundFIGURE 58: Elsdon choir led by Rev. C. Hillis (rector), 1939FIGURE 59: Postman clearing snow in Winter, 1963FIGURE 60: Drawing by R Keith of a view of Elsdon from the SouthFIGURE 61: Drawing by R Keith of a view of the back of the village hall with Mote Hills

to left, c.1948FIGURE 62: View of the Mote Hills from the South-West (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 63: Ridge and furrow agricultural earthworks West of Elsdon (photographed in

2004)FIGURE 64: View of the church interior, looking West (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 65: Headstone in the graveyard of St Cuthbert’s church (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 66: View from Elsdon Tower (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 67: View of Elsdon Village from the Mote Hills (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 68: Ruin and earthworks south of Elsdon (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 69: Ruin south of Elsdon (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 70: Farmbuildings near village hall (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 71: Mote Hills earthworks (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 72: Elsdon Tower (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 73: Jim Heslop at the site of Elsdon mine (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 74: Farmbuildings next to Crown Farm (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 75: View from The Bacchus to Crown Farm (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 76: Composite millstones at Elsdon Mill (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 77: Millstones and fragments forming steps, Elsdon Mill (photographed in

2004)FIGURE 78: Townfoot (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 79: The Old Smithy (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 80: Bird in the Bush PH (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 81: Church of St Cuthbert, Elsdon (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 82: Medieval West window, Elsdon church (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 83: Graveyard, church of St Cuthbert (photographed in 2004)FIGURE 84: Cultural Heritage sites in the wider environs of Elsdon



FIGURE 85: Cultural Heritage sites in the vicinity of Elsdon villageFIGURE 86: A gathering outside the Bird and the Bush PH prior to walking the bounds

of the village, c. 1915FIGURE 87: Elsdon Smithy, c. 1913FIGURE 88: Archaeological Sensitivity Map of Elsdon (Catalogue numbers keyed to

Appendix 4)



PART 1

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY



1. BACKGROUND, AIMS AND METHODS

The Northumberland National Park Historic Village Atlas Project is a collaborative project between the National Park Authority and local communities,1 the main product of which is an atlas of Historic Villages in the Northumberland National Park (NNP) area.

Despite a considerable amount of historical and archaeological research within NNP, much of this work has been targeted on outlying sites and areas and there has been little targeted study of the historic villages themselves. Previous studies undertaken into the history of the villages, including those provided by the antiquarian, Hodgson (1827), those contained in the County Histories, as well as the later work of Wrathmell (1975) and Dixon (1985), cover some of the same ground as the present studies, but are now in need of revision in the light of subsequent archaeological discoveries and historical findings, as well as changes to both the built fabric and community of the villages in the National Park area. Even John Grundy’s impressive work on the buildings of the National Park completed as recently as 1988 has been rendered out of date by the conservation, renovation, adaptation and, in some cases, demolition of many buildings covered in his report.

The increased pace of modern development within the National Park has put pressure on its cultural heritage resource, specifically its historic buildings and villages. One of the aims of the Historic Village Atlas Project, therefore, is to provide additional information which NNPA can use to further inform its approach to the management of sites of cultural heritage importance.

Changes in the social fabric of the area, often linked to the development work outlined above, mean that traditional lifeways maintained over many generations are now becoming increasingly rare or extinct. In particular, many traditional farming practices and the skills, tools and buildings used to support them have been lost and are being lost, and along with these has gone a regional vocabulary of specific terms and expressions. However, within the same communities there is also a considerable interest in the history and archaeology of the villages. Part of the purpose of the Historic Village Atlas Project, therefore, is to provide information and advice to facilitate not only greater understanding, but also active participation by community members in investigating and preserving aspects of the past. Some of the ways in which this can be achieved is through the presentation of data, guided walks and oral history recordings, all of which have been built into the project brief.

The study presented here was commissioned in order to redress the lack of systematic research into the historic settlements of the Northumberland National Park area, with the intention not only to contribute to the Regional Research Agenda, but to inform the planning and heritage management process, and provide impetus and encouragement for local communities to carry out their own work.

The main aims of the project are as follows:

To further the study, understanding and enjoyment of the historic villages, both by interested individuals and community-based groups.

To reinforce and develop the existing sense of place and belonging of individuals within the communities of the region.

1 See the Acknowledgments section of the Synthesis volume for a list of institutions and individuals that have provided assistance in various ways.



To provide a springboard for future community-led initiatives by supplying information which community groups can use to develop their own proposals.

To facilitate the management of the cultural heritage by the NNPA

Village settlements, traditionally recognisable as clustered assemblies of houses and farmsteads, are scarce within the Park, where most settlements are isolated farms and hamlets. However, on the basis of their current status and what was known about their historic importance, the NNPA identified seventeen historic villages for study:

Akeld NT 957 296 GlendaleAlnham NT 996 108 AlndaleAlwinton NT 923 065 CoquetdaleByrness NT 764 026 RedesdaleElsdon NY 937 934 RedesdaleFalstone NY 724 875 North TynedaleGreat Tosson NU 027 006 CoquetdaleGreenhaugh NY 795 873 North TynedaleHarbottle NT 935 046 CoquetdaleHethpool NT 896 284 College BurnHigh Rochester NY 832 982 RedesdaleHolystone NT 955 026 CoquetdaleIngram NU 019 164 Breamish ValleyKilham NT 884 325 GlendaleKirknewton NT 915 303 GlendaleTarset NY 788 855 North TynedaleWestnewton NT 903 303 Glendale

Villages do not exist as self-contained units, but rather as focal points within the wider landscape. It is important, therefore, in attempting an understanding of the development of villages themselves, that the study villages are investigated in the context of their wider landscapes which may be definable by bounded areas, such as parishes and townships, or by topographic features such as river valleys.

Modern villages exist within clearly demarcated territories known as civil parishes, which are generally based on the boundaries of earlier territorial units labelled townships – units of settlement with pre-Norman origins which were regarded as discrete communities within each ecclesiatical parish. The ecclesiastical parish represented a unit of land paying tithes to a parish church, and in upland Northumberland, these parishes were often vast, incorporating entire dales and numerous townships. A township has its own settlement nucleus and field system and is thus an area of common agricultural unity and is often equivalent to the medieval vill – though the latter frequently refers to a taxation unit or administrative entity, whereas a territorial township refers to the physical fabric of the community (fields, buildings, woods & rivers). Township boundaries sometimes follow pre-Norman estate divisions and in some cases may even be earlier - it seems likely that a system of land organisation based around agricultural territories was in operation in Roman or pre-Roman times. Therefore, in some instances very ancient boundary lines may have been preserved by later land divisions. The various forms of parish and township and their development over time are discussed more extensively in the historical synthesis in Section 3.

In order to carry out a study focussing on the village core whilst attempting also to understand it within the local and regional context, a variety of approaches has been taken



using information derived from a wide range of sources, including existing archaeological and historic buildings records, historic maps and documents, historic and aerial photographs and published information. In the present section (Section 1) the location of the village is discussed and an indication is given of the area covered by the present study. Section 2 provides a background to the sources of information used to compile the report, listing the archives consulted and some of the most significant maps, documents and photographs used to compile a list of cultural heritage sites. Section 3 provides a listing of all the historic and archaeological monuments identified within the study area and synthesizes the collected data to provide a summary of the known history of the settlement. Section 4 contains suggestions for future work and sets out the report’s conclusions regarding the village’s historical development which in turn inform the judgements regarding the levels of archaeological sensitivity applied to different parts of the settlement and displayed graphically on the ‘sensitivity maps’. The appendices contain catalogues of the various categories of collected data. A glossary of historical terms used and a full bibliography are also provided.

One final point cannot be over-emphasized. Too often the completion of a substantial work of this kind tends to create the impression that everything is now known regarding a particular subject and thereby discourages further investigation. In compiling this report, the consultants have on the contrary been all too conscious of barely scratching the surface and aware that many additional avenues of research could have been pursued. The Historic Village Atlas should be a starting point not a conclusion to the exploration of this broad and fascinating field.



2. LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY

2.1 Location and topography

The village of Elsdon is situated in west-central Northumberland, near the eastern boundary of the Northumberland National Park, towards the eastern end of Redesdale (see figures 1 and 2). Today the village is bypassed by the main A696 Newcastle to Jedburgh and Edinburgh road, from which it is accessed at Raylees, but is bisected by the B6341 road which links Rothbury and the Coquet Valley to Otterburn and Redesdale. It can also still be reached from the south east by the course of the original turnpike road from Newcastle, via Wallington, Harwood Gate and Steng Cross.

The village is set in a remarkable natural amphitheatre formed by ranges of hills to the north, south and east. Only to the west, towards Otterburn and upper Redsdale beyond, does this natural bowl open out. As a result, the main approaches from the south and south east provide panoramic views of the village, with the ridge-and-furrow earthworks of its ancient field systems spreading out around the settlement core. However, when viewed from the centre of the green, the village appears closed in. Only by ascending to the parapet of the stone towerhouse or climbing the ramparts of the Mote Hills can a liberating sense of wider vistas be gained and an impression of the vast sweep of open moorland to the north which forms the Otterburn Training Range.

The settlement surrounds a large central, leaf-shaped green which contains the church towards its north end. A towerhouse and the impressive earthworks of a Norman castle (the Mote Hills) dominate the village to the north and northeast respectively. The two medieval fortifications are situated on spurs on either side of the Elsdon Burn, which has carved a steep-sided ravine along the eastern side of the village in its course down from the hills to the north to join the Whiskershiel Burn just to the south east of the settlement. From there the combined waters flow westward along the southern edge of the village, then south-westward to meet the Rede, draining the basin in which Elsdon sits.2

2.2 Area of Study

The main focus is on the village and its immediate environs, but the wider area of study adopted contextual purposes is represented by the historic township of Elsdon. This was one of six townships or wards incorporated in the ecclesiastical parish of Elsdon, which included almost the entirety of Redesdale, extending right up to the border. 3 The townships are shown clearly on the tithe map in 1839 (NRO DT 164 4M) and were described by John Hodgson in Part II, Volume 1 of his History of Northumberland (1827), where, with the parish, they provide the basic territorial framework for his account. The area of Elsdon township incorporated the village and its immediate surroundings, including the neighbouring farmsteads of Dunshield, Bowershield, North and South Riding, Hudspeth, Landshot and Todholes which form a ring around the village to the north, east and south east. To the south and west, the limits of the township were relatively restricted, extending only as far as Gallow Hill which overlooks the village to the south and excluding the nearby farmsteads of Soppit and Haining to the west (which fell within Otterburn and Monkridge townships 2 See further, Conzen 1969, 71.3 The seventh township in upper Redesdale, Ramshope, was extra-parochial. This small district comprised only a single farm at the beginning of the 19th century. The southern end of Redesdale, below Troughend and Monkridge, formed the much smaller parish of Corsenside.



respectively). However the township incorporated a much larger area to the east of the village,stretching into what is now Harwood Forest to embrace the sources of the Whiskershiel Burn, with the boundary here running via Darden Pike, Tod Knowe, Manside Cross and Steng Cross (Winter’s Gibbet), before turning toward the WNW and proceeding via Battle Hill to Gallow Hill.

The townships were probably established in the mid-17th century to enable each district of of the parish to levy a separate rate for relief of the poor. Prior to this date, Redesdale townships may have been much smaller. The development of the parochial and township structures is discussed more fully below in the next section and in the historical synthesis contained in Part 3.



3. TERRITORIAL UNITS AND SETTLEMENT TYPES

3.1 Parishes and Townships, Baronies and Manors

To understand the history of any village settlement, it is necessary to distinguish and define the various different territorial units within which the village was incorporated, and which provided the framework for the development of that community. Each of these units related to different aspects of the settlement’s communal relations – religious, economic and administrative, and seigneurial – and their .function changed over time. The development of the institution of the civil township, in particular, was remarkably complex.

The Parish was the basic unit of ecclesiastical administration and essentially represented ‘a community whose spiritual needs were served by a parish priest, who was supported by tithe and other dues paid by his parishioners’ (Winchester 1987, 23). It was the payment of tithes - established as a legal principle since the reign of King Edgar 959-75 (Platt 1981, 47) - which gave the parish a territorial dimension so that the boundaries of the parish came to embrace all that community’s landed resources. Only the most remote areas of upland waste or ‘forest’, such as Kidland and Cheviot Forest, remained ‘extra-parochial’. Ecclesiastical parishes in the Northumbrian uplands typically covered extensive areas, sometimes very extensive areas. Simonburn in North Tynedale, Kirknewton in Glendale and Elsdon itself (which included most of Redesdale) were amongst the largest parishes in the country. Alwinton, Ingram and Alnham were not quite in the same class, but, in common with almost all the upland parishes, they embraced several civil township communities or vills. In all, six of the seventeen villages studied in this survey were parochial centres in the medieval period, namely Elsdon, Holystone, Alwinton, Alnham, Ingram and Kirknewton. Others, such as Falstone, Harbottle, Akeld, Kilham, Hethpool and perhaps Byrness were the site of dependent chapels of ease. The presence of early medieval carved stonework at Falstone suggests it had long been an ecclesiastical centre and may have had greater significance in the 8th and 9th centuries (as a small monastic site?) than it possessed later on. However several of our study villages contain no places of worship whatsoever, and it is clear that the traditional, almost unconscious, English equation of village and parish church does not apply in Northumberland, and certainly not in the Northumbrian uplands.

It is thus clear that these large medieval parishes embraced many distinct communities and the church was often too distant to conveniently serve all the spiritual needs of the parishioners in the outlying townships. However there are relatively few instances of new parishes being carved out of a well-established parish and practically none after 1150. The payment of tithes created a strong disincentive to do so since creating a new parochial territory would inevitably reduce the income of the priest in the existing parish. This relatively early fossilisation of parish territories was given added impetus once ownership of parish churches was largely transferred from the hereditary priests or local lay lords whose predecessors had founded the churches over to the monasteries in the 12 th and 13th century, since these ecclesiastical corporations strenuously defended their legal and economic rights (Lomas 1996, 111, 116-7; Dixon 1985 I, 64). Instead the needs of the more distant township communities were catered for by the construction of dependent chapels of ease, which were established either by the monastic institutional patrons or on the individual initiative of local lay lords. Even so many townships had neither a church nor chapel of their own (Lomas 1996, 111-4).

In the medieval era the parish was a purely ecclesiastical institution and was to remain so until the beginning of the 17th century when the Elizabethan Poor Law Act of 1601 made this



territorial unit responsible for the maintenance of the poor through the appointment of overseers for the poor and the setting of a poor rate (Statutes 43 Eliz. I c.2; cf. Winchester 1978, 56; Charlton 1987, 98). This is in many respects typical of the history of English local government whereby ‘new administrative units have generally been created by giving new functions to existing territorial divisions’ (Winchester 1987, 27). Thereafter parochial administration of poor law was particularly prevalent in southern and midland England, where parishes were generally smaller and often coterminous with the civil townships. However in northern England even these additional functions tended to devolve down to the constituent townships which were a more convenient and manageable size than the extensive parishes. The modern civil parishes were established by the Local Government Act of 1889 and were substantially based on the earlier townships rather than the ecclesiastical parishes (Statutes 52/53 Vict. c.63).

The Township or Vill (derived from the medieval Latin villa) was the basic territorial unit in Northumberland, instead of the ecclesiastical parish. The term vill can be defined in two ways, on the one hand as a territorial community, which may be labelled the territorial vill, and on the other as the basic unit of civil administration in medieval England, the administrative vill. The two units were related and they could indeed be cover identical territorial divisions, but this was not always the case and they must therefore be carefully distinguished.

The territorial vill is synonymous with the English words town or township, deriving from the Old English tun, the commonest element in English placenames, i.e. a settlement with a distinct, delimited territory, the latter representing the expanse of land in which that particular community of peasants lived and practised agriculture. A township/territorial vill was not the same as the village itself, which was simply the nucleated settlement which commonly lay at the heart (though not necessarily the geographical centre) of the township, and where the bulk of the individuals who made up the community might reside. A classic township, centred on a nucleated village settlement, was composed of three main elements, the village itself, the cultivated arable land and meadows, and the moorland waste or common. However a township community might live scattered about in dispersed farms instead of or as well as being grouped together in a nucleated village or hamlet. Any combination of these elements was possible, but some permanent settlement was required for there had to be a community for a township to exist. Writing between 1235 and 1259, the lawyer Henry de Bracton defined the township thus (De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, iii, 394-5; cited by Winchester 1978, 69; Dixon 1985, I, 75-6):

“If a person should build a single edifice in the fields, there will not be a vill (villa), but when in the process of time several edifices have begun to be built adjoining to or neighbouring to one another, there begins to be a vill.”

A township’s consciousness of itself as a distinct community would have been reinforced by the communal agricultural labour required to work the land. This is particularly obvious in the cases where the township was centred on a nucleated village, its members living and working alongside one another, but even in townships composed of scattered hamlets or farmsteads it was just as vital to regulate access to the use of communal resources such as the upland waste or commons. Such activities would have generated a sense of communal cohesion however fragmented the framework of manorial lordship and estate management in the township might have become over time (see below).

The boundaries of such township communities would have become fixed when the land appropriated by one community extended up to that belonging to neighbouring settlements (Winchester 1987, 29). In the lowlands intensive cultivation had been practised for millennia prior to the medieval period, when townships are first documented. It is therefore



conceivable/has been argued that many of these boundaries were of considerable antiquity, particularly where obvious natural features such as rivers and streams and watersheds were followed, although such antiquity is difficult to prove conclusively. In the uplands, settlement is thought to have experienced successive cycles of expansion and contraction in response to a variety of stimuli, including environmental factors such as climatic change, but doubtless also political and economic issues. This may have resulted in periodic obscuring of the boundaries when communities were not fully exploiting the available resources and hence had less need to precisely define their limits. In all areas the definitive boundary network recorded by the first Ordnance Survey maps is obviously a composite pattern, in which precise delineation occurred in a piecemeal fashion over the centuries.

The administrative vill: The term vill also designated the basic unit of civil administration in medieval England, representing a village or grouping of hamlets or farmsteads which were obliged to perform a range of communal administrative duties. The latter included the delivery of evidence at inquests, the upkeep of roads and bridges, the apprehension of criminals within its bounds and the assessment and collection of taxes (Vinogradoff 1908, 475; Winchester 1978, 61; 1987, 32; Dixon 1985 I, 78). The most comprehensive listing of these administrative vills is provided by the occasional tax returns known as Lay Subsidy Rolls. The assessment units recorded therein essentially correspond to the vills and, although clearly incomplete, sufficient survives of the 1296 and 1336 Northumberland rolls to provide a good impression of the number and distribution of the administrative units in many parts of the county (cf. Fraser (ed.) 1968, xv-xvi).4 In many areas these administrative vills correspond very closely to the territorial vills and with the later poor law townships (see below). Dixon has shown this to be the largely case in north Northumberland (north of the Coquet), for example (1985 I, 78-9). This was by no means the case everywhere in the border counties, however. In the district of Copeland in West Cumbria, where a predominantly dispersed settlement pattern of scattered ‘single farmsteads, small hamlets and looser groupings of farms’ prevails, Winchester has demonstrated that the administrative vills had a composite structure, frequently embracing several ‘members’ or ‘hamlets’ which correspond to the basic territorial townships (1978, 61-5). In many instances administrative vills were significantly larger than the later poor law townships. These relatively large, composite administrative vills correspond to what were termed villae integrae (‘entire vills’) elsewhere in England. It is possible that a similar pattern of composite administrative vills might be have been introduced in areas of the Northumbrian uplands such as Redesdale and North Tynedale, where hamlets and farmsteads were more common than nucleated villages. However these areas were liberties or franchises, like the lands of the Bishops of Durham, i.e. the normal apparatus of royal government was absent and their administration was entrusted instead to the baronial or ecclesiastical lord. This may have resulted in administration and justice being exercised through the structures of manorial lordship rather than a separate tier of specifically administrative land units. Finally, Winchester also suggests that the term vill gradually acquired a more specific administrative connotation as the organisation of local government became more standardised after the Statute of Winchester in 1285, with the result that in his study area, from the end of the 13th century, the term was restricted to the administrative units and no longer applied to the basic territorial townships (1978, 66-7). This idea of the vill as an area of land with defined boundaries, potentially enclosing a number of settlements, rather than a the territorial resource of a single community, is expressed in a passage by Sir John Fortescue, writing towards the end of the medieval period, and makes an interesting contrast with Bracton’s decription over two hundred years earlier (Fortescue, 54-55; cf. Winchester ibid. n.27):4 The 1296 roll omits Alnham, as well as Fawdon and Farnham (two of the ‘ten towns of Coquetdale’), Caistron, Wreighill, Prendwick and Unthank and probably Branton, Hedgeley, Glanton, Little Ryle and Shawdon (Fraser (ed.) 1968, xv-xvi), but this is most likely simply to reflect the loss of parts of the original roll rather than the absorption of these vills in a larger’villa integra’. On the other hand the regalian liberties of Redesdale, upper Tynedale and the Northumbrian holdings of the Prince Bishops of Durham were never included in the roll (ibid., xiii).



Hundreds again are divided into vills . . . . the boundaries of vills are not marked by walls, buildings, or streets, but by the confines of fields, by large tracts of land, by certain hamlets and by many other things such as the limits of water courses, woods and wastes . . . . . there is scarcely any place in England that is not contained within the ambits of vills

The Poor Law Township, to use Winchester’s term (1978), is the form of township community most familiar today through in the works such as the Northumberland County History and Hodgson’s History of Northumberland, where, along with the parish, it provides the framework for the historical narrative of individual localities. The boundaries of these territorial communities were mapped by the 1st edition Ordnance Survey in the mid-19th

century and they have generally been presumed to have had a long and largely uninterrupted history stretching back in most cases to the townships of the medieval period. They are conveniently depicted on the maps which front of each volume of the Northumberland County History. A more detailed record of each township territory is provided by their respective tithe and enclosure maps and other historic maps catalogued and reproduced in the village reports.

The assumption that the medieval administrative vill was the direct ancestor of the post-medieval poor law township, and hence of the modern civil parish, was a reasonable one since functionally they are somewhat similar, representing the most basic level of civil administration. However the actual line of descent is much more complex.

The administration of poor relief was originally established at parochial rather than township level, with the requirement of the Elizabethan Poor Law Act of 1601 that overseers for the poor be appointed in every ecclesiastical parish in England (Statutes 43 Eliz. I c.2; cf. Winchester 1978, 56). Following pressure in parliament to permit the subdivision of the huge ecclesiastical parishes in the northern counties into smaller, more convenient units, the 1662 Poor Law Act allowed ‘every Township or Village’ in northern England to become a unit for poor-rate assessment and collection with their own overseers (Statutes 14 Charles II c.12, s.21; cf. Winchester 1987, 27). Winchester has argued, on the basis of the arrangements he documented in the Copeland district of west Cumbria, that it was the territorial townships rather than the administrative vills which were most frequently adopted to serve as the new poor law townships. In Northumberland north of the Coquet there was relatively little difference between the medieval territorial and administrative units, as noted above, and about three quarters of the townships identifiable in the 13 th century may be equated with the poor law townships recorded by the Ordnance Survey. The disappearance or radical alteration of the remaining 25 percent was the result of settlement abandonment or colonisation during the late medieval period and estate reorganisation in the post-medieval period (Dixon 1985, I, 79-84)5. The upland dales south of the Coquet were a very different matter, however. Redesdale and North Tynedale fell within the vast parishes of Elsdon and Simonburn respectively, the latter with a dependent chapelry at Bellingham which itself embraced all of upper North Tynedale. In Redesdale, six large ‘wards’ or townships are found, namely Elsdon, Otterburn, Woodside, Rochester, Troughen and Monkridge, plus the small extra-parochial township of Ramshope (Hodgson 1827, 82-3). The wards were almost certainly created in response to the 1662 act and presumably represent subdivision of the parish to facilitate the administration of poor relief. There is no indication that they existed at an earlier date. They are not recorded in the 1604 border survey, which instead lists a great number of ‘places’ or ‘parts of the manor’ within the constituent parishes of the Manor of Harbottle. These places were in most cases more than hamlets, groups of farms or individual farmsteads, the kind of small early territorial township found in upland areas. The twelve

5 Dixon (1985, I) provides a comprehensive summary of these changes for north Northumberland, including lists of abandoned early townships, new townships and identifiable boundary shifts or rationalisations.



townships of upper North Tynedale, described in the County History (NCH XV (1940), 234-80), were established in 1729 by Thomas Sharp, Archdeacon of Northumberland, specifically to administer poor relief, each township being responsible for the maintenance of its own poor and setting a separate poor rate (Charlton 1987, 98-9).6 Some of these townships may have been based on earlier territorial units, but others have rather artificial names – West Tarset or Plashetts and Tynehead- indicative of institutions established by bureaucratic fiat.

It is from these ‘poor law townships’, however ancient or recent their origins, rather than the medieval administrative vill, that the modern civil parish is directly derived in northern England. The Local Government Act of 1889, which established the civil parish, specifically stated it was to be ‘a place for which a separate poor rate is or can be made’ (Statutes 52/53 Vict. c.63 sec. 5). Today’s civil parishes, however, are generally somewhat larger than the preceding townships, in part as a result of more recent amalgamations.

The Manor was a territorial unit of lordship and the basic unit of seigneurial estate administration. Jurisdiction was exercised by the manorial lord over the estate, its assets, economic activities and customary and legal rights, through his manor court sometimes termed the court baron.

Manorial lordship thus represented only one link in the chain of feudal and tenurial relationships which extended from the lowly peasant through to the baronial superior lord and ultimately right up to the king himself. In its simplest form a township would be encapsulated within a single manor and would therefore have the same territorial limits. However such ‘classic’ manors were much rarer than primary school history lessons might have us believe. Then as now, the processes of succession and inheritance and the inevitable variability in human fortunes resulted in the amalgamation or, more often, fragmentation of estates. Most townships therefore were divided between a number of manorial landholders.

Thus a parish, township and manor could all be coterminous, with a small parish serving the spiritual needs of a single township community whose landed resources formed a single manorial estate and whose members were bound by a variety of personal and tenurial relationships to a single lord. However this simple arrangement was highly unusual in Northumberland, and particularly so in the upland areas of the county, where, as we have seen, the parishes were often very large (e.g. Elsdon, Simonburn, Alwinton-Holystone, and Kirknewton). Thus there were only 63 parishes in the county in 1295, whilst the total number of townships at the same time, although not precisely quantifiable, was probably not far short of 450 (Lomas 1996, 71, 108-10). The number of manors would have been greater still.

3.2 Villages, Hamlets and Farmsteads

The territorial labels discussed above can all be defined with relative ease, despite the complexity caused by their changing role over time (which is especially marked in the case of the township), since they describe specific entities which figure in legislation and other formal records from the medieval period onwards. However it is a very different matter when it comes to precisely defining the terms used to describe different types of settlement, such as ‘village’ or ‘hamlet’. As the foremost scholars of landscape and settlement studies have

6 Prior to 1729, the Chapelry of Bellingham had been subdivided into four wards for more convenient collection of the poor rate, but these wards had not set a separate rate.



admitted (e.g. Roberts 1996, 14) it is extraordinarily difficult to define these terms with precision in such a way as to impose any absolute consistency of usage upon them.

For the purposes of this study the following definitions of settlement were used, all drawn from Brian Roberts’ extensive work, in particular the succinct discussion provided in Landscapes of Settlement (1996, 15-19):

VILLAGE: A clustered assembly of dwellings and farmsteads, larger than a hamlet, but smaller than a town

and A rural settlement with sufficient dwellings to possess a recognisable form (Roberts 1976, 256).

HAMLET: A small cluster of farmsteads

FARMSTEAD: ‘An assemblage of agricultural buildings from which the land is worked’

TOWN: A relatively large concentration of people possessing rights and skills which separate them from direct food production.

The most substantial body of work on village morphology is that undertaken by Brian Roberts (e.g. 1972;, 1976; 1977; 1990). Roberts has identified a complex series of village types based on two main forms, termed ‘rows’ and ‘agglomerations’, multiplied by a series of variable factors:

Regular or irregular The presence or absence of greens Complexity – e.g. multiple row villages Building density – infilling of toft areas Fragmentation – ‘exploded’ versions of row villages and village agglomerations

This provides a useful schema for classifying villages, but it is difficult to determine what these different morphological characteristics actually signify. Dixon (1985, I,) is sceptical of regularity or irregularity as a significant factor, noting that irregularity does not necessarily mean that a village was not laid out in a particular order at a particular time; that the regularity of a layout is a subjective judgement; and that an irregular row may simply be a consequence of local terrain or topography. He also points out that however irregular it might appear, by its very existence the row constitutes an element of regularity. He is especially dismissive of the presence or absence of a green as a significant factor in village morphology, arguing that a green is simply an intrusion of the common waste into the settlement; if such a space is broad it is called a green, if narrow it is a street or gate.

In the case of the Historic Village Atlas Project a still more substantial problem is posed by the lack of detailed mapping earlier than c. 1800 for many of the 17 villages considered. In other words, there is no reliable cartographic evidence which predates the late 18th-19 th

century transformation of populous village communities of the medieval and early modern era into ‘farm hamlets’, i.e. settlements focussed on one or two large integrated farm complexes. In Northumberland, particularly in the northern half of the county, the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey – so often the first resort in analysing settlement morphology – and even the relevant tithe map do not provide a reliable guide to the early modern or medieval form of any given village. Moreover the documentary evidence assembled by Wrathmell and Dixon suggests there was often a marked reduction in the size of the village population in the later 17th and early 18th centuries, accompanying a gradual reduction in the number of tenancies. Thus, even where 18th –century mapping does survive for a particular village, it may actually



under-represent the extent of the earlier, medieval and 16 th-17th century phases of that settlement.

If Brian Roberts, using the methods of historical geography, has perhaps done more to shape current thinking on the overall pattern of medieval village settlement than any other scholar, at the micro level of the individual village and its components the seminal investigation in Northumberland has been Michael Jarrett’s archaeological excavation of West Whelpington village. Conducted over a period of fifteen years from 1966 onwards this revealed a substantial proportion of a medieval village (Jarrett et al. 1987; 1988). Lomas (1996, 71-86) has recently emphasised the fundamental degree to which our understanding of life in a medieval Northumbrian village rests on the programme of research at West Whelpington.

Two major studies (both regrettably unpublished), which to some degree were able to draw on the work of Roberts and Jarrett, comprise Stuart Wrathmell’s PhD thesis on medieval village settlement in south Northumberland (Wrathmell 1975) and Piers Dixon’s equivalent doctoral research on the medieval villages of north Northumberland (Dixon 1985). Dixon’s work, in particular is of fundamental importance for the Historic Village Atlas, as the citations in the text of the individual reports and the synthesis makes clear, since it covered many of the settlements in the northern half of the Northumberland National Park included in the Project. The villages in the central band of the county between the River Coquet and the North Tyne catchment remain as yet uncovered by any equivalent study, however.

This lacuna particularly unfortunate because a similar level of coverage of the south side of the Coquet and Redesdale would have served to emphasise how similar the settlement pattern in these areas was to that prevailing in upper North Tynedale and how different from that encountered in north Northumberland, even in the Cheviot uplands and Glendale. Lomas (1996, 86), has characterised the long Pennine dales in the eastern half of the county as areas of ‘commons with settlements’ rather than ‘settlements with commons’. These areas – North Tynedale, Redesdale, and the south side of Coquetdale, along with South Tynedale, and East and West Allendale largely outside the National Park – were distinguished by a prevailing settlement pattern of dispersed farmsteads and hamlets. In marked contrast, a more nucleated pattern predominated in the upland Cheviot valleys of north Northumberland, although the density of such settlements was inevitably reduced by comparison with the lowland districts in the northern part of the county. The excellent fertility of the Cheviot soils permitted intensive agricultural cultivation during optimal climatic phases, but only at locations within the massif where there was sufficient level ground – such as Hethpool – and even there substantial terracing of the adjacent hillsides was required to create enough ploughland to make the settlement viable.

To some extent the gap left by Wrathmell and Dixon in Redesdale and southern Coquetdale has been filled by the programme of investigation conducted by Beryl Charlton, John Day and others on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, which resulted in a series of synthetic discussions of various aspects of settlement in the two valleys (Charlton & Day 1978; 1979; 1982; Day & Charlton 1981; all summarised in Charlton & Day 1976 and Charlton 1996 and 2004). These may be compared with the summary of the development of medieval and early modern settlement in upper North Tynedale provided by Harbottle and Newman (1973). However the former was restricted in scope by its emphasis for the most part on the Otterburn Training Area (although the authors did extend their scope beyond the confines of the military range where this obviously provided a more coherent analysis7), whilst the principal focus of Harbottle and Newman’s work was the rescue excavation of a series of early modern and later farmsteads threatened by the construction of Kielder Water, to which the settlement

7 In particular the initial overview provided by Charlton & Day 1976, plus Charlton & Day 1978, covering the late prehistoric and Romano-British settlements, and Charlton & Day 1982, dealing with the corn mills and drying kilns, extend their treatment well beyond the Otterburn Training Area.



overview provided an invaluable but all too brief introduction. Hence all three valleys still merit comprehensive syntheses of their medieval/early modern settlement patterns, combining analysis of the historic maps and documents – including what is known regarding the pattern of seigneurial and ecclesiastical landholding – with the evidence of the surviving physical remains and site layouts.



PART 2

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE



4. LOCATION OF EVIDENCE

Accessible regional and national archives, libraries and record offices consulted for documentary, cartographic and pictorial material relevant to the present study include the following:

Northumberland Record Office, Melton Park, Gosforth (NRO-MP) Northumberland Record Office, The Kylins, Morpeth (NRO-TK) Northumberland County Council Sites & Monuments Record, County Hall, Morpeth

(NCC-SMR) Morpeth County Library, Local Studies Section (ML) Museum of Antiquities Records Room, University of Newcastle upon Tyne (MA) Newcastle Central Library, Local Studies Section (NCL) The Robinson Library, Newcastle University (NUL) Palace Green Library, University of Durham (DUL) The Public Record Office, Kew (PRO) National Monuments Record (NMR)

4.1 Compiling the project databaseAssembly of the research material required to produce the Atlas has been achieved by the following methods:

4.1.1 Air Photographic coverageAll locally accessible air photographic coverage of the listed villages was inspected and catalogued, including photographs held by Northumberland National Park, the Northumberland County Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), Newcastle Central Library and the Museum of Antiquities at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. In addition, a considerable body of new oblique aerial photography, specifically commissioned for the project and covering all the designated villages was analysed in order to provide pointers for further research both within and outside the scope of the present study.

4.1.2 Documentary surveyA wide range of medieval and early modern documentation, including inquisitions post mortem, ecclesiastical chartularies, royal charters and judicial proceedings, Border Surveys and other official correspondence, has been used to illuminate the history and development of the village and its setting. In addition several categories of more recent archival material - maps, sketches, photographs - and local historical descriptions, have proved informative.

Documentary sources provide most of our information on certain aspects of the village’s past, notably its medieval origins and development, and its tenurial and ecclesiastical framework. A targeted approach to the analysis of data from such sources was adopted in order to maximise the amount of information gained in the available timescale. Accordingly, data gathering focussed on cartographic, pictorial and photographic evidence, whilst the County History volumes and other historical syntheses covering sub-regional geographic units or settlements were used to identify particularly important documentary source material worthy of further scrutiny.

Historic MapsAll available historic maps and plans were examined and, where possible, copied. These include the successive county maps - Saxton 1576, Speed 1611, Armstrong 1769, Smith



1808, Fryer 1820, Greenwood 1828, etc. (figures 9, 10 & 25) - but more importantly the tithe (c. 1840) (figs. 28 & 29) and enclosure maps (figs. 15-23) and Ordnance Survey editions (figs. 32-37), as well as other detailed mapping, privately commissioned during the 17th-19th centuries. The tithe and enclosure maps for the relevant townships, provide evidence for the layout of field patterns to assist in interpreting the extant earthwork systems. The 1st edition Ordnance Survey in many instances constitutes the earliest reliable and comprehensive evidence for the settlement pattern in each village. The relationship of this baseline record to surviving earthworks is key to understanding the dynamic processes involved in the development of the settlement.

Pictorial representationsPictorial representations - prints, sketches and paintings - and early photographs, were examined and, where possible, copied. The principal source of such representations was the NRO Photographic archive. Such photographs show the appearance of buildings shown in plan on historic maps, as well as features not included on such plans. In some cases they also provide useful information on the function of such buildings. The participation of local individuals who have made available their collections of earlier photographs, postcards or paintings, has been particularly useful and may provide a source of additional material in the future.

Published Syntheses and published collections of sourcesExisting published research covering the historic village has been summarised for incorporation in the historical synthesis, including the section covering Redesdale and Elsdon parish and ward in Part II, Volume 1 of John Hodgson's History of Northumberland (1827), which reproduces much important source material, notably Umfraville Inquisitions Post Mortem Post Mortem which cover Elsdon. Especially valuable are the overviews of settlement history based on documentary research and archaeological fieldwork in Redesdale and upper Coquetdale by Charlton and Day (Charlton 1996; Charlton & Day 1979). The detailed documentary survey of Harbottle Castle completed for NNPA by Rushworth & Carlton (1998), also provides useful coverage of the wider seigneurial background.

Other important published sources include: the Border Watch Schedule of 1552 (reproduced by Hodgson (1827, 71-2)), the Survey of Debateable and Border Land, taken A D 1604 edited by R.P. Sanderson (1604 Survey) and the 1618 Redesdale Survey published in the second volume of Archaeologia Aeliana (1618 Rental). The latter two provide very detailed information on contemporary settlement patterns in the upland valleys, from the names of the individual customary border tenants to the number of buildings in their settlements and the extent of arable, meadow and rough pasture.

4.1.3 Archaeological SurveyThe Northumberland County Sites and Monuments Record was consulted in order to prepare a summary gazetteer of all archaeological sites recorded in each township, including industrial archaeological monuments, find spots and communications routes. Sites newly identified during the course of the study have also been added to the gazetteer.

Listed Building Records were consulted through the NMR along with Grundy's survey of the historic buildings in the National Park (1988) in order to compile a gazetteer of historic buildings in the township. Photographs of the exterior of each building have been incorporated in the archive gazetteer. A small number of structures, which by virtue of their importance and complexity of fabric are considered by the project team to merit stone-by-stone recording, have also been identified.

4.1.4 Survey of Village environs



The wider setting of the villages have been assessed, using the territorial framework of the historic township where relevant, through a combination of aerial photographs, historic maps, documents, previous historical syntheses and site visits. Where possible the various components - infield arable and meadow, outfield pasture, woodland – have been identified and different phases of activity evidence of change over time have been noted in the historical synthesis. Information regarding the extent of outlying settlement has also been summarised in the synthesis, and particular attention has been paid to essential components as watermills which could often be located some distance from the main settlement.

More detailed recording of the surrounding field systems could form the basis of future community-led studies. These might involve recording the wavelength of ridge-and-furrow, examining field boundary walls to detect different structural phases present (sometimes evident in longstanding walls such as the head-dyke separating enclosed infields from the rough pasture (outfield) beyond, for example) or noting where a wall or sod-cast hedge has been replaced by more recent fencing and identifying ancient hedgelines by the variety of flora present. The data gathered could then be interpreted using the assembled resource of historic maps, aerial photographs and documented history provide by this report.

4.1.5 Site inspectionsSite visits were undertaken to examine the village and wider township area, their principal monuments, built environment and field systems. Rather than being a comprehensive field survey, this was carried out to enable the project team to characterise the built fabric, archaeological landscape features and wider landscape setting of the village and to examine features which other data collection methods (air photography/documentary survey etc.) identified as being of particular importance. Photographs were taken of all the historic buildings and other sites or features of especial significance.

4.1.6 Public information and involvement The NNPA Archaeologist organised presentations or guided walks at six of the largest villages under study. At least one member of the project team participated in these presentations/walks. It was anticipated that this would help to identify knowledgeable local informants who could be interviewed further during the site visits. This proved to be the case. A more informal process of gathering such local information was undertaken during the site visits at the smaller communities under study. This process in turn assisted in selection of suitable individuals for an associated oral history project, focussed on the communities of upper North Tynedale, Redesdale and upper Coquetdale, which was established as an important adjunct to the material Atlas research.8

It was also anticipated that these methods would also identify questions concerning the historical past of the villages which were of particular interest to members of the local community and which the project might address in its report, or alternatively might form the basis for follow-on community based projects. It was clear from the meetings and presentations that there was a significant degree of interest amongst several communities in the past of their settlements. It is hoped that this engagement with the past can be supported through future community-led projects, aimed at facilitating more detailed, long term studies of these villages and their landscape settings. The meetings and presentations were particularly successful in prompting local participation in data collection, inspiring the villagers to assemble and bring in for copying numerous privately-held photographs, historic maps, photographs, deeds and other documents. These have all been scanned and incorporated in the project archive and many have been included in the Village Reports. Northumberland Record Office have also made digital copies of the maps and documents to

8 See A Report on the Oral History Recording made for the Historic Village Atlas Project 2004 . The Archaeological Practice Ltd & Northumberland National Park Authority; 2004.



ensure the preservation of this valuable record. Although much new material has been come to light by this means, it is doubtful that the potential has been exhausted.



PART 3

SYNTHESIS &

ANALYSIS



5. GAZETTEER OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SITES

A summary site gazetteer is set out below. Fuller descriptions are provided in Appendix 4 and complete entries for those sites listed in the Northumberland Sites and Monuments Record (NSMR) may be consulted by contacting the Conservation Team at County Hall, Morpeth. The gazetteer sites are all located on figure 3 and, in the case of those in the immediate vicinity of the village and in the village core, on figures 4 and 5 respectively. For convenience figures 4 and 5 are reproduced in this section as figures 84 and 85, whilst the village core sites are marked on the archaeological sensitivity plan in Part 4 (fig. 86). For further ease of identifiability the site catalogue numbers are placed between square brackets when cited in the report text. Thus catalogue number 7 would normally appear as [7], although in some cases a site may be more fully identified.

Table 1: Known sites of cultural heritage importance within the wider study area.

Catalogue No.

SMR No. Period Site Name Grid Ref. Status

1 9684 POST MEDIEVAL Low Carrick, farmstead remains NY 392700 595200 2 9615 POST MEDIEVAL Carrowhaugh Well or Keyhaugh Well NY 394710 595720 3 9653 POST MEDIEVAL Extensive area of Field System NY 392500 595000 4 9654 POST MEDIEVAL Extensive area of Field System NY 394000 596200 5 9660 POST MEDIEVAL Two possible stack stands NY 393300 595400 6 9674 POST MEDIEVAL Ruined building remains and enclosure NY 393600 596200 7 9742 MEDIEVAL Elsdon Tower NY 393610 593400 Grade I8 9744 UNKNOWN Mote Hills motte and bailey castle NY 393750 593510 SAM9 9746 ROMAN Roman Tombstone inside church NY 393630 593280

10 9747 BRONZE AGE Two bronze socketed axes NY 393000 593000 11 9748 BRONZE AGE Bronze axe of palstave type NY 393000 593000

12 9752 POST MEDIEVAL The Bacchus, formerly Scotch Arms NY 393700 593210Grade II,II*

13 9754 POST MEDIEVAL The Crown NY 393700 593260 Grade II14 9755 POST MEDIEVAL The Coach House attached to The Crown NY 393700 593230 Grade II15 9756 POST MEDIEVAL High Bowershield, ruined farmstead NY 394050 594840 16 9757 POST MEDIEVAL Townfoot, Elsdon, remains of bastle NY 393500 593020 Grade II17 9758 POST MEDIEVAL Heir's House, PM farmstead NY 392500 594700 18 9759 POST MEDI EVAL Remains of an enclosure NY 392600 594900 19 9760 POST MEDIEVAL Stone walled enclosure NY 392800 594600 20 9761 POST MEDIEVAL Dunshield NY 392900 594200

21 9762LATER PREHISTORIC Elsdon Burn, field clearance cairn NY 392800 594700

22 9764 MEDIEVAL Hudspeth, deserted medieval village NY 394800 594300 23 9765 POST MEDIEVAL Bowershields Quarry limekiln NY 393800 594300 24 9766 POST MEDIEVAL Dunshield Quarry limekiln NY 392500 594100 25 9767 POST MEDIEVAL Elsdon village green cockpit NY 393600 593200 26 9768 MEDIEVAL Church of St Cuthbert NY 393640 593290 Grade I

27 9769 POST MEDIEVALBridge over Elsdon Burn c.150 yards south of The Mill NY 393670 593530 Grade II

28 9770 POST MEDIEVAL Elsdon Bridge NY 393540 592860 Grade II29 9777 MEDIEVAL Steng medieval wayside cross NY 396209 590771 Grade II30 9780 POST MEDIEVAL Whitlees bastle (rems) NY 395980 592630 Grade II31 9782 IRON AGE Manside defended settlement NY 398470 592080 SAM32 9783 BRONZE AGE Flanged axe NY 397300 593600

33 9784 UNKNOWNSteng Moss, pollen analysis evidence for early agriculture NY 396500 591300

34 9787 BRONZE AGE Cist in Harwood forest NY 396600 594600



35 9178 ROMAN Roman cemetery NY 393000 594000 36 9774 POST MEDIEVAL Elsdon water corn mill NY 393640 593750 37 9788 UNKNOWN Peterstone Flow millstone quarry NY 397600 591600 38 9789 POST MEDIEVAL Whiskershiel water corn mill NY 395280 592750 39 13641 POST MEDIEVAL Farmbuildings attached to left of the Crown NY 393699 593270 Grade II40 13642 POST MEDIEVAL The Bird in the Bush Inn NY 393552 593175 Grade II41 13643 POST MEDIEVAL The Pinfold NY 393660 593100 Grade II

42 13644 POST MEDIEVALTurnbull headstone c.2 yards south of Church of St Cuthbert NY 393650 593260 Grade II

43 13645 POST MEDIEVALHeadstone of Katharin .. c.10 yards south of Church of St Cuthbert NY 393650 593260 Grade II

44 13646 POST MEDIEVALThree headstones c.20 yards south-west of Church of St Cuthbert NY 393620 593250 Grade II

45 13647 POST MEDIEVALPair of headstones c.20 yards south of Church of St Cuthbert NY 393660 593250 Grade II

46 13648 POST MEDIEVALAlderson, Hall and Hall headstones c.10 yards south of Church of St Cuthbert NY 393650 593260 Grade II

47 13649 POST MEDIEVALDobson headstone c.15 yards south of Church of St Cuthbert NY 393650 593250 Grade II

48 13650 POST MEDIEVALSnaith headstone c.25 yards south of Church of St Cuthbert NY 393650 593240 Grade II

49 13651 POST MEDIEVAL Winter's Gibbet NY 396215 590769 Grade II50 14051 POST MEDIEVAL Scott’s House NY.393695 59319051 14066 POST MEDIEVAL Elsdon Stone Craft NY 393568 59309752 14068 POST MEDIEVAL The Old School NY 393585 59329153 14069 POST MEDIEVAL Red House NY 393595 59303454 14075 POST MEDIEVAL Council Houses NY 393693 59310655 14067 POST MEDIEVAL Mote Hills NY 393717 59340556 14052 POST MEDIEVAL Blue House NY 393570 59315257 14065 POST MEDIEVAL Burn Stones NY 393675 59332458 POST MEDIEVAL Farmbuildings (including arched openings) NY 393780 59332459 POST MEDIEVAL Wooden shepherds cottage NY 393785 59329060 POST MEDIEVAL Site of Elsdon Mine (most recent shaft) NY 393488 59317561 POST MEDIEVAL Site of Elsdon Mine (earliest shaft) NY 392988 59317562 POST MEDIEVAL Quarry NY 393999 59375063 POST MEDIEVAL St Mary’s Well NY 394394 59317564 POST MEDIEVAL Wooden House (original Elsdon Café) NY 393610 59340565 POST MEDIEVAL Site of twin bridge NY 393723 593290



6. HISTORICAL SYNTHESIS

6.1 Introduction9

Elsdon is the perfect Northumbrian village, certainly the most complete example of a medieval settlement in the National Park. It has all the features that such a village should have: an ancient parish church, a tower house and a massive earthwork castle dominating the north end of the settlement. The houses are laid out on either side of an oval or teardrop-shaped green into which the church appears to intrude rather awkwardly. The whole settlement sits in a natural bowl - as is particularly apparent to the vistor approaching from the south west - overlooked by hills on all sides and surrounded by extensive ridge and furrow field systems. There is a significant quantity of early documentation and map evidence relating to it, including the earliest statutory enclosure award for any Northumbrian township (dated to 1729). Above all it remains a real community and local centre with a pub, a cafe, a pottery and a village hall, having avoided the fate which overtook many villages within the boundaries of the National Park of being reduced to a single planned farm, plus rows of workers' cottages.

Nevertheless it also retains a number of puzzling features, notably the lack of any documentary record of the castle and a tower which appears and disappears in the sources.

6.1.1 Location and descriptionThe village is located on the west side of Elsdon Burn, a little to the north of the latter’s confluence with Whiskershiel Burn, and lies at the centre of a natural amphitheatre, surrounded by hills to the north, south and east. These hills close off the vistas from the village in all these directions, creating a bounded, inward-looking space. Only to the west are more extensive views possible, towards Otterburn and the Rede. Within this natural arena is an inner bounded space, the village green. This slopes down from north to south, quite steeply at the north end, more gently towards the south. The positioning of the church within the northern part of the green makes a clear impression of the village layout more difficult for the casual observer, but the eye is naturally drawn to the tower overlooking the north end of the village, and to the earthworks of the Mote Hills castle. Turning to face south and west, the descending slope and the gaps in the rows of houses naturally cause the viewer to look outwards beyond the village in these directions.

6.2 Prehistory

The attractions of the Redesdale for early hunter-gatherer populations can be readily appreciated and in an extensively forested landscape would have provided such groups with a convenient route for seasonal migration from the coast to the uplands allowing access to a wide range of resources. Communities in this Mesolithic - Middle Stone Age - period would have been small - essentially extended family groups - and foraged over very extensive areas. Following the introduction of farming c. 4000-3500 BC, more permanent settlement was possible, but evidence for Neolithic - New Stone Age - occupation and dwellings has proved elusive in this part of Northumberland. The possible persistence of regular seasonal migration, or 'transhumance', but now with domesticated flocks and herds, along the lines

9 The gazetteer sites referred to in the text are all located on figures 3 and 84. Those in the immediate vicinity of the village and in the village core are also shown on figures 4 & 85 and 5 & 86, respectively. For ease of identifiability the site catalogue numbers are placed between square brackets in the report text; thus catalogue number 1 would normally appear as [1].



practised in the medieval and early modern periods, cannot be excluded. The adoption of agriculture and pastoralism enabled population sizes and densities to increase. Kinship groups probably grew larger as a result, whilst occasional festivals may have prompted wider population gatherings for the purposes of exchanging goods and marriage partners etc., providing a mechanism for the development of wider clan or tribal associations. Polished stone axes of the sort which would have been used for this early clearance activity have been found at Otterburn and Elishaw.

The long cairns further up Redesdale, on Dour Hill, and Bellshiel Law, provide an impressive and atmospheric relic of these early communities. Such monuments would have been the focus of communal burial practices centred on worship of the ancestors. It has also been suggested that by placing such a prominent monument to their forefathers in the landscape these early farming groups were also establishing a powerful ancestral claim to this land.

From the Bronze Age onwards, distinct settlements from the can be identified. At Todlaw Pike, c. 4km north west of Elsdon, for example, an extensive unenclosed settlement of round houses with an adjacent field system and both burial and field clearance cairns has been recorded (Charlton 1996). In the late Bronze Age and Iron Age, defensible hillforts were built in this part of Redesdale and in neighbouring areas of Coquetdale, representing obvious central places or focal points for entire communities. Examples include the univallate site at Fawdon Hill to the north west, plus Harehaugh to the north overlooking the confluence of the Coquet and the Grasslees Burn. It is even possible that, at Elsdon itself, the outer bailey rampart of the later Norman castle originated during this period, and were later economically adapted by inserting a ringwork at the end of the ridge and refurbishing the original rampart as an outer defence in the 12th century AD (cf. Welfare et al. 1999, 58-9; Welfare 2002, 77).

Recent excavations at Harehaugh have provided a better understanding of these hillforts, revealing the impressive stone-faced defences crowning the rampart and evidence for iron working in the interior. Nevertheless it is still unclear how these sites were used by the communities which established them. Were they permanent defensible settlements or occasional refuges, places where the community could securely store its grain stocks and other wealth, or ceremonial centres, or perhaps a mixture of these roles perhaps?

6.3 Romano British Period

From the later 1st century AD, Redesdale along with the rest of the Northumbrian uplands fell under the control of expanding Roman empire. The principal bases of Roman power in this region were represented by the forts of High Rochester (Bremenium) and Risingham (Habitancum) to the north west and south of Elsdon respectively. The forts were situated beside Dere Street, the main road into Scotland, which passed to the west of Elsdon. A shorter lived fort was situated at Blakehope between the two. Another road was constructed to link High Rochester with Low Learchild (Alauna) on the Devil's Causeway, the route which led north from Corbridge towards Berwick (cf. MacLauchlan 1864a; 1864b). The link road crossed the high moors north of Elsdon and may have been travelled by devotees visiting the small shrine, perhaps dedicated to Cocidius, south east of Yardhope (Charlton & Mitcheson 1983). The most tangible evidence of the Roman occupation to be seen in Elsdon today is the altar in the church, but there is no evidence there was ever an official Roman military presence at Elsdon

6.3.1 Romano-British settlements



The local rural population have left abundant traces in the shape of the rectilinear enclosed sites, which were characteristic form of settlement in Redesdale and North Tynedale during this period (see Jobey 1960). These settlements typically comprise a roughly squarish, rectangular or slightly trapezoidal enclosure, defined by a stone wall or a ditch and bank, pierced by a single causewayed entrance in the middle of the front wall. Just inside the enclosure, on either side of the entrance, a couple of yards or pens, probably intended to hold livestock, can generally be found. Several round houses usually lay towards the rear of the enclosure.

Rescue excavation of a group of these sites in upper North Tynedale - at Tower Knowe, Belling Law, Kennel Hall Knowe near Plashetts, and Gowanburn Camp - directed by George Jobey in the 1970s, prior to the construction of Kielder Water, revealed that this type of settlement originated during the late Iron Age (Jobey 1973; 1977; 1978; 1983, 199ff; Higham 1986, 122-3, 134-7, 193-5). The original sites were built of wood, featuring timber roundhouses and palisaded enclosures, which were replaced several times over. Radiocarbon dates clustering in the last two centuries BC and 1st century AD were associated with these earlier phases, which were followed by a rebuilding in stone no earlier than the mid second century AD. However, whilst the building material was different, the overall form of the original settlements was very similar to the later ones and the change in material was probably related to an increasing shortage of good building timber as settlement, cultivation and population expanded during the late Iron Age and the Romano-British period. Indeed, some of the settlements provide evidence for population growth with the single round house usually evident in the earlier timber phase being replaced by up to three roundhouses when the sites were rebuilt in stone, accompanied by a corresponding increase in the size of the enclosures. Elsewhere roundhouses are visible outside but adjacent to the enclosure suggesting further expansion which could not be contained within the established compound. In the upper reaches of the valley, the form of these enclosed settlements changes from rectilinear to oval or circular in plan, a form more characteristic of settlements in the hills of north Northumberland, particularly in and around the Cheviot massif, and the Scottish Uplands. This was perhaps in part a response to the narrower valleys and steeper slopes which caused the settlements to be terraced into the hillsides, and which in turn must have given rise to a different architectural tradition defining the proper form of a settlement. However the basic components of all these settlements remain the same, i.e. walled enclosure, stockyards and roundhouses.

Despite featuring stone-walled, ditched and embanked or palisaded enclosures, these settlements were not fortified in the way that the earlier hillforts were. It would be better to see their enclosures as protective rather than defensive, i.e. they were designed to secure the livestock from predation by wild animals and perhaps keep out small groups of thieves and rustlers. The enclosure ditches would also have helped to create well-drained site platforms. We should imagine these settlement as compounds housing individual family groups - extended families at the most - who were perhaps linked with the inhabitants of neighbouring settlements by notional bonds of kinship to form lineages, clans and tribes. The sites were distributed relatively evenly along the valley to form a dispersed settlement pattern of farmsteads not dissimilar to that prevailing in more recent periods. It is likely there was a strong emphasis on pastoralism, based on the exploitation of the extensive moorland grazing which was available to these upland communities, enabling them to rear substantial herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. Cattle may have been more important than sheep at this time, as was also the case in the medieval and early modern periods periods, with the latter vulnerable to foot-rot and liver fluke and less suited to the poorly-drained pastures prevalent before the agricultural improvements of the later 18th and 19th centuries, but sheep would important for their wool. In largely unmonetized economy livestock would have been the principal form of transferable wealth, and represented a family’s savings to be drawn on in times of crisis, as is the case in pastoralist societies in the developing world today – a deposit account on the hoof.



6.4 The Early Medieval Period

Little is known of settlement patterns in the Northumbrian uplands in the centuries following the collapse of Roman imperial authority. It is likely that the enclosed farmsteads which were such a feature of rural settlement in the preceding period, continued to be occupied well into the early medieval era, but diagnostic dating evidence is lacking.

6.4.1 Early Medieval patterns of lordshipArchaeological fieldwork conducted in Coquetdale and Redesdale has so far shed very little light of the early-medieval era and there is no contemporary documentation. Early-medieval carved stonework has been discovered at Falstone in upper North Tynedale and at Rothbury in Coquetdale, but none further up the Coquet or in Redesdale. However the pattern of landholding and lordship in the upland valleys of Northumbria prior to the Norman Conquest may be glimpsed through a combination of the parochial framework and placename evidence. It is striking that the parochial centres of medieval Redesdale and North Tynedale all have toponyms incorporating personal names. Elsdon (Ellesden in the earliest sources) presumably signifies Elli's or perhaps Aelf's valley, whilst Corsenside (Crossensete) combines an Irish personal name, Crossan, with the Norse term for hill pasture saetr, and may hint at Irish-Norse settlement10 (Beckensall 1992; Mawer 1920, 55, 74). Similarly the parish of Simonburn ('Simondeburn' in 1228-9), which embraced most of North Tynedale, seems to incorporate a personal name, Sigemund (Mawer 1920, 180). It is tempting to infer, tentatively, that these parishes may, in effect, have fossilised 9th/11th century estate boundaries, a phenomenon well-recognised elsewhere (cf. Winchester 1987, 22-7), whilst the placenames preserve some memory of early proprietors. That this form of placename can be associated with early landholdings is demonstrated by the case of Gilsland (Gilles' land) which derives from the territory of Gille son of Boet, who held the western end of the Tyne gap up until the reign of Henry II.

A further possible clue to the early-medieval origins of the parochial framework noted above is provided by the dedication to St Cuthbert of the churches at Elsdon and Corsenside. These belong to a string of churches and chapels in the upland hinterland of Northumberland - Elsdon, Corsenside, Bellingham, Haydon Bridge, Beltingham - which are consecrated to St Cuthbert (cf. Bates 1889, 326-327). Whilst some dedications to St Cuthbert can be related to the medieval holdings of the Prince-Bishops of Durham the same cannot be said of this upland series. It is possible the series in some way reflects early proselitisation by Cuthbert himself (as suggested by Bates, ibid.), however a more attractive hypothesis may be advanced. The dedication sites can be linked to form a single itinerary leading from north Northumberland along the edge of the uplands and through the Tyne-Solway gap to Cumbria. It is tempting to identify this with the route followed by the Community of St Cuthbert during the late-ninth century, when it fled from its first refuge at Norham to a temporary haven in Cumbria in the face of the Danish onslaught (cf. Higham 1986, 310 with regard to Cumbrian church dedications). Indeed, just such a tradition of extensive church and chapel foundation 'in the western districts', by the itinerant Community, is preserved by the 15th-century Prior Wessington of Durham (cited by Bates 1889, 327 n.38). The dedications may reflect a process of alliance-building between the Community and the local secular elite, marked by the establishment of chapels on important estates. It also falls within a broader pattern of similar activity, as the foundations of the English parochial structure were laid by the widespread creation of estate chapels from the ninth century onwards.

10 Note also Gamelspath, the moorland stretch of Dere Street near Chew Green, which incorporates an Old Scandinavian personal name.



6.5 Medieval Elsdon

A recent assessment of the evidence (Carlton & Rushworth 1998) concluded that it is probable that the Umfravilles were established in Redesdale and Coquetdale at some point during the reign of Henry I, with an outside possibility that they acquired the liberty during the last decade of the 11th century. There is clear evidence to suggest that they had acquired the ten Coquetdale and Breamish valley townships which lay within the barony of Alnwick, adjoining the liberty, before the death of Henry I (see below), and they were certainly well-entrenched in the north by the 1120s. Robert de Umfraville (probably the original Robert cum barba) appears as a witness to Scottish royal charters from 1120 onwards11. His sons, Odinel and Gilbert, subsequently feature in the same way. During the latter part of the reign of David I, when Northumberland fell under the effective control of the Scottish king, the Umfravilles became important members of that kingdom's new feudal aristocracy, with a small estate in Stirlingshire as well as their Northumbrian holdings (Ritchie 1954, 144; Tuck 1986, 3)12. Hedley has even suggested that it was David's son, Henry, Earl of Northumberland between 1139-52, who was responsible for the award of Redesdale to the Umfravilles at some point after 1139 (1968, 209; cf. Lomas 1996, 19, 158), and whether or not this is correct the link between the earl and the Umfraville lineage was clearly strong. Gilbert, indeed, served as constable both of earl Henry and of the latter's successor, William (1152-57), David's younger grandson (who was eventually to become king himself as William the Lion - 1165-1214).

6.5.1 Liberties and franchisesThe territory which the Umfravilles acquired was not an ordinary barony like their other Northumbrian fief centred on Prudhoe. Instead it belonged to a class of lordship variously termed regalities, franchises or liberties, where the baron was responsible for performing the administrative and judicial tasks undertaken elsewhere by the sheriff and other royal officials. There were several of these in Northumberland, covering much of the county, including the Palatinate of Durham with its northern districts of Norhamshire, Islandshire and Bedlingtonshire, the liberty of Tynedale, and the ecclesiastical liberties of Hexhamshire and Tynemouthshire. This viceregal authority did not confer any right to alter or make laws, and its continuance was always conditional on the goodwill of the Crown, symbolised on the death of each baronial incumbant when the liberty automatically reverted to the state until a successor had been acknowledged. For the Crown this clearly represented a pragmatic and economical means of administering and policing the remote uplands of Northumberland.

6.5.2 The extent of the Umfraville domainsThe liberty of Redesdale included not only that valley of the Rede itself, from a point just north of its confluence with the North Tyne as far as the Scottish border, but also stretched north to incorporate the south side of the upper Coquet, including the entire catchment around the headwaters - the area known as Kidland - and of course the site of Harbottle castle itself. This represented two parishes in Redesdale - Elsdon and Corsenside - and one in Coquetdale - Holystone. In addition the Umfravilles held ten vills (townships) in the neighbouring de Vesci barony of Alnwick, comprising two blocks - Alwinton, Clennell, Biddlestone, Shirmondesden, Sharperton, Farnham (Thirnum), Burradon and Netherton, incorporating the north side of upper Coquetdale directly adjoining the liberty, and, separated from the remainder, Ingram and Fawdon in the Breamish valley. They were also granted Little Ryle, north of Netherton, in there own right as tenants in chief of the king. To the south of the liberty, another group of the estates, belonging to the barony of Prudhoe, stretched south

11 ESC nos. 35, 82, 99, 104, 108, 112, 130-31, 137, 141, 177; RRS i, 8, 11-12, 21, 30-33, 41, 184?12 They did not, however, acquire the prestigious title of earl of Angus, via a judicious marriage, until 1243 and even thereafter never figured quite as prominently in Scottish affairs as some other Northumbrian barons did or as they themselves had in the early-mid 12th century (Tuck 1986, 3, 6).



along the North Tyne and eastward to the headwaters of the Wansbeck, separated by only three miles from the cluster of manors around the baronial caput at Prudhoe itself13. Possession of this vast swathe of territory, stretching from the lower Tyne to the Scottish border (see fig. 19), made the Umfravilles the most powerful of the Northumbrian barons - 'Potentium de Nordthanymbria potentissimus' - up until the 14th century (Tuck 1971, 24)14.

6.5.3 Elsdon - an early centre of the lordshipWhatever the precise date when the Umfraville liberty was established, it has generally been assumed that its initial seat was the great earthwork castle at Elsdon Mote Hills[8], comprising a ringwork set on a motte with an outer bailey to the north (Hunter Blair 1944, 132-4; Cathcart King & Alcock 1969, 119; Quiney 1976, 177-8; Welfare 1995). 15 Virtually nothing is known of the history of this castle. It must have gone out of use by the mid-13th century at the latest, for it is not mentioned as a capital messuage in the Inquisition Post Mortem for Gilbert de Umfraville in 1245 (Cal IPM i, 12 no. 49; CalDocScot i, no.1667), nor is there any record of land held in demesne by the Umfraville lord at Elsdon in the feudal return of 1242/43 (Liber Feodorum ii, 1121). At that stage held by three landowners are recording ploughland in the vill, each possessing a carucate (roughly 120 acres), one of whom, Robert de Umfraville, was a younger brother of the then lord, Gilbert (ibid.)16. This would be consistent with the theory that the demesne land at Elsdon was alienated by the previous lord, Richard de Umfraville, between 1195-1226, following the final abandonment of the castle, part of this land being settled on his second son, Robert (cf. Hedley 1968, 210; and see below). The complete lack of documentary evidence relating to the castle's foundation or occupation, in itself emphasises that the castle was in use at a very early stage in the life of the liberty and not later (cf. Cathcart King 1983, 332). It is likely, however, that the castle was sited at the pre-Norman estate-centre (caput) of Redesdale.

6.5.4 Elsdon and Harbottle CastlesThe reason for the siting of the Norman ringwork-and bailey-castle at Elsdon Mote Hills is clear, if, as argued above, Elsdon was the pre-Norman caput for most of Redesdale. Even in the 13th and 14th centuries, when the seat of the lordship was well-established at Harbottle, Elsdon retained vestiges of its former status, most notably it remained the parochial centre for much of the liberty, embracing most of Redesdale up to the border (see fig. 19). It was still one of the largest settlements, populated by free tenants, and was something of an economic centre with a weekly Thursday market and an annual fair around the Feast of St Bartholomew.

6.5.5 Strategic considerationsHowever, the circumstances whereby the seat of the lordship came to situated at Harbottle, involving a presumed shift from Elsdon, which paradoxically resulted in the 'liberty of Redesdale' being administered from a castle in Coquetdale, remain much less clear. It must be admitted that, whether examined from the standpoint of strategic requirements of border defence, or the administrative and policing considerations of the Umfraville barons, Elsdon does not at first sight appear badly positioned. Its location beside the Elsdon burn, a tributary of the Rede, meant the castle lay on the best natural route between Redesdale and Coquetdale, which follows the Elsdon and Grasslees burns. It was thus an excellent centre from which to intervene in both dales. In addition it straddled the main road leading from Newcastle to Redesdale which wound through Belsay, Cambo and Steng Cross (the 13 For the Umfraville holdings see Liber Feodorum i, 201 (1212); ii, 1114-5, 1118-9, 1121-2 (1242).14 Odinel de Umfraville in the Vita Oswini, xxx, 43. Cf. Matthew Paris' description of Gilbert de Umfraville, 1226-44 - 'the guardian and chief flower of the North' - cited by Bates 1891,201 and Hodgson 1827, 19.15 The most recent analysis of the castle remains comprises an extremely detailed earthwork survey by Heritage Site and Landscape Surveys Ltd., with attendant analysis by Adam Welfare (1995), which has revealed much new information regarding the construction and development of the site.16 'Ricard son of William holds one carucate of land in villa de Elisden for a twentieth part of a knights fee;Robert de Umframvill holds (the same for the same fee); Hugo Payn holds (the same) for 1 pound of pepper'.



predecessor of the present A696, which was not established until the turnpike era). Beyond Elsdon the traveller could carry on down the Elsdon Burn into the main valley of the Rede or climb the trackway which ran along the high moorland watershed between the Redesdale and Coquetdale to join the course of Dere Street - or Gamelspeth as it was known at this point - as the latter approached the border crossing. This moorland trackway was to become one of the principal drove roads from Scotland to the markets of England, the Great Drove (or Drift) Road, but may have an ancestry, as a ridgeway, running far back into prehistory (Charlton & Day 1976, 229; cf. Rushworth 1996, 19). South of Elsdon this routeway aimed directly for Stagshaw Bank and Corbridge.

The castle was thus situated at a major communications hub. Although it lay at the eastern end of the liberty this was less of a disadvantage than it might first appear. The western, uppermost stretches of both valleys being devoid of permanent settlement and given over to seasonal grazing and the lord's hunting pursuits. This was particularly marked in Redesdale where the hospital at Elishaw marked the limit of permanent occupation.

For its part, Harbottle Castle occupies a good defensive position with extensive views both up and down the valley and lies at the point where the Coquet begins to open out. The line of Clennell Street can be kept under observation from the site and, moreover, The Street, which follows the course of the Coquet down from the border, joins Clennell Street at Alwinton, a short distance above Harbottle, so that traffic along both routes can be monitored from the castle. The Gamelspeth (Dere Street) border crossing can also be reached by following the Coquet right to its source beside Chew Green. It is thus a site of some strategic importance (Bowden 1990; Crow 2004; Hunter Blair 1944, 136; Rushworth & Carlton 1998), and is also situated closer to the border than is Elsdon Mote Hills, which may have been significant.

Nevertheless, however well its situation in Coquetdale enabled it to dominate and protect that valley, the castle appears ill-placed to perform those roles in Redesdale proper. Admittedly Harbottle is also situated relatively close to the point, at Holystone, where the Roman road between Dere Street and the Devil's Causeway crosses the Coquet. This road, leading to High Rochester, may still have survived in some form. It would have have provided a link with upper Redesdale, but it is unclear how much use it saw in the medieval period. Even so Harbottle Castle could not have monitored and policed traffic along Dere Street and the Redesdale valley route, which led up to the border at Redeswire (close to modern Carter Bar). Hence the castle's position straddling certain cross-border communications routes cannot fully explain why the seat of the lordship was shifted to Harbottle. Clennell Street, called the 'great road of Ernespeth' in the charters of Newminster abbey (hence modern Yarnspeth) 17, and The Street may have been important, but not demonstrably more so than Dere Street (Gamelspeth) and the Redesdale valley route, which retained their significance during war and peacetime throughout the medieval period. The Scottish army of Earl Douglas was aiming for one of these routes in 1388, before they were intercepted by Hotspur's forces at Otterburn, and Sir Robert dede Umfraville routed another Scottish raiding force at Redeswire in 1400. In the Laws of the Marches, formalised in 1249, but probably of much greater antiquity, the Gamelspeth border crossing was the designated place where individuals from Coquetdale and Redesdale would make formal rebuttal of charges against them in cases of legal disputes with Scots (Leges Marchiarum; cf. Barrow 1966, 39-40), presumably because this crossing point could be reached conveniently by the inhabitants of both valleys.

6.5.6 ConclusionsIn seeking to explain 13th-century pattern, two observations may be pertinent. Firstly, the Umfravilles did not attempt to administer the entire liberty from Harbottle alone, in the 13th

17 The magna via de Ernespeth: NC 74 (1181), 75 (1153/95), 76 (1195/1226). The stretch leading up to Windy Gyle was termed via de Hinclesheued: NC 75 (1153/95). For a full discussion, with source references, of the medieval highways in Redesdale see Rushworth 1996, 16-21.



century and thereafter. A subsidiary manorial centre, with a capital messuage (probably a two-storey hall-house typical of the region), was retained in Redesdale, overseeing the Umfraville holdings in that valley. However this was located not at Elsdon, but at Otterburn to the west, in the main valley.

Secondly, there is evidence to suggest the Umfravilles were attracted by the greater fertility of Coquetdale from the beginning of their tenure. They appear to have held the ten townships in Coquetdale and the Breamish valley from the reign of Henry I. Indeed the evidence is clearer than that for the Liberty itself. In the feudal inquest held by Henry II in 1166, Odinel de Umfraville made no return for his holdings, but William de Vesci, baron of Alnwick, recorded that Odinel held the ten townships from him for service of two knights fees. Moreover de Vesci declared the fees belonged to the older class of feoffment, those held before the death of Henry I in 1135 (Liber Niger Scaccarii, 329-39; cf. Hedley 1968, 21, 209; 1970, 90, 272). This is confirmed by a law suit between Richard de Umfraville and Eustace de Vesci in 1207 over the wardship of the heir of Henry Bataille, who had held Fawdon and a part (moiety) of Netherton of Umfravilles for one knight's fee (Curia Regis R., 9 John, 58-60; Northumb Pleas, 30-1, no. 1030). Richard stated that Henry's grandfather, Gilbert Bataille, had first been enfeoffed by his great-grandfather Robert-cum-barba. As Eustace de Vesci did not dispute that the Umfravilles were the first to enfeof Henry's ancestors and as the four-generation Bataille pedigree is clear, this puts both the Batailles' tenure of Fawdon and Netherton and by implication the Umfravilles' acquisition of the ten townships, through subinfeudation, securely back into the earlier 12th century. Furthermore, Walter Bataille, Henry's father, was recorded in 1166 as holding one of the Alnwick barony's older, pre-1135 fees (Preston and Brunton) directly of the de Vescis, but, if the statements in 1207 are to be believed, his lineage must have been enfeoffed of this holding after they had received Fawdon and the Netherton moiety from the Umfravilles. This would suggest that the granting of the block of ten townships to Robert de Umfraville was amongst the earliest acts of subinfeudation in the barony of Alnwick.

Furthermore, Holystone Priory must also have been established before 1153, as it figures in a summary of one of the lost charters of David I (RRS i, 111, 171 no. 93). Since the nunnery, which was situated in the liberty only a couple of miles downstream from Harbottle, was presumably founded by the Umfravilles on land they must have granted for the purpose, it provides a further indication of the attention the lineage was focussing on Coquetdale in the first half of the 12th century.

Given these factors two hypotheses can be advanced to explain the demise of Elsdon Castle. It is possible that the size of the Umfraville lordship, including the adjoining Coquetdale and Breamish valley townships in the barony of Alnwick, rapidly led to the realisation that it was inconvenient to administer the liberty and its appendages from a single centre. Consequently Elsdon was replaced by two manorial sites, each more centrally located in its respective valley, Harbottle in upper Coquetdale and Otterburn in Redesdale. Alternatively it is conceivable that there were intitially two timber and earthwork castles, one to protect each valley. In this case Elsdon was abandoned, perhaps in the late 12th-early 13th century under Richard de Umfraville, because the liberty did not provide sufficient resources to support the reconstruction in stone and maintenance of two castles. This process of rationalisation in the face of the mounting costs of modernising castles in stone forms part of a common pattern, with many Norman earth and timber castles being abandoned with little or no documentary record.18 It is noteworthy that Richard undertook major construction work at Harbottle c. 1220. In either case, it is likely that the Umfravilles were influenced by the greater fertility of

18 It has been suggested that the presence of a Roman altar which must originally have been brought from the remains of Bremenium fort at High Rochester (RIB 1265), indicates there may once have been stone buildings on the summit of the motte. However Welfare (1995, 48) has convincingly argued that the stone originally formed part of a solid masonry foundation for a timber tower within the motte.



the more northerly valley, in making Harbottle the principal focus of their liberty, in the same way that Coquetdale's upland pastures attracted greater interest from the monastic houses than did those of Redesdale. Thus, although reasons of state may not have been irrelevant in the final choice of the seat of the lordship and the construction of the castle at Harbottle, one may suspect that a decisive factor was the administrative and economic requirements of the Umfraville barons, themselves.

6.6 Tenurial development

The existence of the earthwork castle at Elsdon suggests the township must originally have been directly held by the Umfravilles, as one of their demesne manors, presumably as direct successors to whichever Anglo-Saxon lord had held the area previously.

When the castle was abandoned and the centres of Umfraville manorial administration or concentrated on Harbottle and Otterburn, the manor appears to have been divided into several holdings and granted to different landowners or free tenants who owed either military service or other dues such as labour service or, increasingly, a cash rent, to Redesdale lordship. This practice, whereby a superior lord granted land within his barony to other lords to hold as a fief, is known as subinfeudation. This had already been at least partially implemented at Elsdon by the time abundant documentary evidence first becomes available, in the mid 13 th

century. The process was complicated, but can to some extent be traced through a series of law suits, inquisitions and other medieval documents relating to Elsdon.

The earliest clear indication occurs in the feudal return of 1242 contained in the Book of Fees (Liber Feodorum), which lists the English baronies and their principal fiefholders or tenants. There is no reference in the return to any demesne manor at Elsdon held directly by the Umfraville lords themselves. Instead, Richard 'son of William' (they should perhaps be translated from the original Latin filius . . . into the Norman French name Fitzwilliam, cf. Hedley 1968, 20-1), Robert de Umfraville and Hugh Payn were each recorded as holding a carucate (120 acres) of land (i.e. ploughland) in the vill of Elsdon from Gilbert de Umfraville (I), lord of Redesdale, for a twentieth of a knight's fee in the case of the former two and one pound of pepper in the case of Hugh Payn (Liber Feodorum II, 1121).

Later on, however, the Umfraville lords may have regained some direct holdings in Elsdon. In 1279 Gilbert de Umfraville II (son of Gilbert named in the Book of Fees) was accused of having granted to John of Herlaw, without royal licence, lands in Kerneslaw (Kearsley) worth 6 marks (£4) a year, in exchange for property in Elsdon to the value of £5 a year held by John (Hodgson 1827, 24; Northumb Assize R., 357).

No direct documentary record has survived relating to the original land grants by the Umfravilles, which established the three holdings listed 1242. However a late 12 th-century document relating to the territory south of the village, between the Elsdon burn and ‘the Woodburn’ (Lisles Burn), has been preserved in the Swinburne Papers held in Northumberland Record Office. This extensive tract of ‘forest’ was granted by Robert de Umfraville, lord of Redesdale between c.1181/2-1195, to Sir William Bertram, lord of Mitford, on the occasion of the latter’s marriage to Robert’s sister, Alice (NRO Swinburne Papers; Hodgson 1827, 12-13; 1828, 24-25). The grant comprised all his forest of Altercoppes (Ottercops) and Ellesden, between the brooks of Ellesden and Wodeburn, with chase, soil and vert and all other liberties appertaining to it, saving nevertheless to himself and his heirs, the men and towns he had within it before the marriage between them was fixed, (i.e. all the settled communities within the area, whether village, hamlet or farmstead, with their associated farmland).



Also forming part of the grant were four hunting grounds on the west side of the Rede, at ‘Crossansete’ (Corsenside), ‘the Snape of Wodeburne’ (probably the tongue of land bounded on three sides by the Rede to the north east of Woodburn), ‘Smoltewelford’ (Smoutel Ford) and Redesbank (unlocated).

The Robert de Umfraville named in 1242 was a younger brother of lord Gilbert I (grandson of lord Robert named in the late 12th century land grant) and may well have received his carucate at Elsdon from their father, Richard, who lord of Redesdale between c. 1195-1226. Together with the Ottercops-Elsdon Forest grant, this would suggest the main phase of subinfeudation in and around Elsdon occurred in the late 12 th and early 13th centuries, and this presumably reflects the abandonment of the castle and a commensurate lessening of interest in Elsdon on the part of the Umfraville lords.

By 1281, Robert's estate had passed to his third son, William (William's two elder brothers having died childless), who in that year was granted a charter by Edward I permitting him to hold a weekly Thursday market and an annual fair on his manor of Elsdon (Rot. Cart. 9 Edw. 1, no 10 Turr. Lond., reproduced in Hodgson 1827, 87). This reference to a manor at Elsdon need not imply that William’s estate was any larger than that previously held by his father Robert. Although the classic image of an English manor is one of a large estate essentially coterminous with a village and the associated township, in practice such classic manors were much less common than might be supposed. The majority of medieval manors were relatively small and most villages embraced a number of manors (Bailey 2002, 6-7). Thus all three of the one-carucate holdings listed in the feudal survey of 1242, as well as others mentioned in later sources, could potentially have been described as manors. Nevertheless, the fact that William petitioned the king for permission to establish a market and fair on his manor does suggest that, even if he had not actually expanded the estate he’d inherited in Elsdon, he was actively seeking to maximise the revenue it generated during the 1280s. Unfortunately this appears to have brought him into conflict with his cousin, Gilbert II, the domineering lord of Redesale who was clearly considered that William’s market and fair infringed his own seigneurial rights (see below: Markets and Fairs).

William too died childless and in 1292 we find his youngest brother, Ingelram, claiming 12 messuages, 120 acres of land, 80 acres of meadow, 300 acres of wood, 1000 acres of pasture against Thomas de Lucy & Margery his wife. This presumably represents William’s manor and gives a fuller picture of its extent and composition than the summary description in the Book of Fees, which listed only the single most important resource, the ploughland. It is unclear how Thomas and Margery de Lucy had acquired possession of the estate, but they are also recorded in possession of another estate in the township in that year. Indeed Ingelram's plea was one of a series of law suits relating to Elsdon documented in 1292 (cf. Hodgson 1820, 176-8; 1827, 27-8, 32), which together give another snapshot of land tenure in Elsdon:

Plaintiff Defendent respecting:Alexander, son of William Swinburne

Thomas de Lucy & Margery his wife

17 messuages95 acres of (arable) land166 acres of meadow200 acres of wood2000 acres of pasture1 mill



Ingelram de Umfraville Thomas de Lucy & Margery his wife

12 messuages120 acres of land80 acres of meadow300 acres of wood1000 acres of pasture

John of Herlaw Gilbert the Taylor 3 messuages120 acres of land

Gilbert de Kenely Richard Callan & John Callan 5 messuages20 acres of land9 acres of meadow1 acre of wood14 acres of pasture

Since these pleas appear to be contemporary they may be totalled up to give some indication of the extent of cultivation in Elsdon township in 1292 (see below). However they probably do not record the full extent of land holding in Elsdon in that year. The 'FitzWilliam' holding, for example, is listed both before and after that date but does not figure amongst the disputed estates. Furthermore the Umfraville lords may also have held property directly in the township by this stage, which they received from John of Herlaw in exchange for land in Kearsley some time before 1279 (see above). The holdings listed in the various pleas can therefore only be regarded as providing a minimum extent. We are not informed as to the outcome of these pleas, but in 1309 Ingelram is again recorded trying to claim possession of 12 messuages, 120 acres of land etc., this time from Alexander de Swinburne, the same individual who had earlier been a plaintiff in another case against Thomas de Lucy.

In 1325, three holdings were again listed in the inquest following the death of Robert de Umfraville, Earl of Angus and lord of Redesdale (Cal IPM VI, no. 607; cf. Hodgson 1827, 31):

Holder Holding Service/rentJohn son of William (FitzWilliam?) 1 messuage

1 carucate of land 20th of a knight's fee 1d yearly

William de Sok 1 messuage 1 carucate of land

40th of a knight's feesuit of court19

Gilbert de Cayrewyk (Carrick) 1 messuage 1 carucate of land

20th of a knight's fee5s 2d rent & suit of court

John FitzWilliam's holding is probably the same as that held by Richard FitzWilliam in 1242. The lands formerly belonging to Gilbert of Cayrewyk's are referred to again in 1363, in the inquest following the death of Robert de Umfraville's wife, Eleanor. She had evidently received the annual free rent of 5s due from Gilbert's former lands and a further annual rent of 2s from lands in Elsdon which had formerly belonged to Nicholas Don.

6.6.1 ConclusionsIf this survey of landownership at Elsdon appears rather complex and confusing that is probably because it was indeed complex. Some holdings can be traced over a prolonged period, such as the tenements of the Umfraville cadet line or that belonging to the ‘sons of William’, but more commonly new ones appear only then to disappear completely. The details may be of only academic significance, but the overall pattern is intriguing.

It is clear that the township of Elsdon did not constitute a single manor within the wider Umfraville lordship during the mid 13th-late 14th centuries. The general impression the documents provide is one of a township where landownership was very fragmented with multiple relatively small holdings. Whilst some of the landowners were members of the local

19Suit of Court: the right and obligation to attend a court



nobility or gentry such as the cadet branch of the Umfravilles, Alexander Swinburne, John of Herlaw or the de Lucys, the majority appear to have been of no great social status to judge from their names. Thus Richard and John Callan, Gilbert de Kenely and Gilbert the Tailor, were probably no more than yeoman farmers or relatively prosperous free peasants. Evidently there was an active land market in Elsdon, during this period, in which the free peasantry could and did participate energetically. In 1308 the free tenants in the village of Ellesden (Cal IPM V 14, no. 47: Gilbert de Umfraville II) paid £2 per annum in rent directly to the lord.

It may be significant that there is no reference to a capital messuage – i.e. a manorial building complex – in any of these documents. William de Umfraville may have had some kind of manorial complex when he was trying to develop his manor in the late 13 th century, but given that only held a part of the township and had other residences elsewhere, it may have been fairly utilitarian. The higher status landowners were probably largely absentees. Thus when a tower house was first built in Elsdon, probably in the 14 th century (certainly pre-1415), it was occupied by the rector of the parish church and not one the gentry landowners mentioned above. The tower was presumably the most elaborate dwelling in the village when it was erected and the identity of its occupant suggests the rector to some degree filled the role performed by local gentry families in other settlements.

6.7 The components of the Medieval settlement

Some impression of the medieval settlement pattern can be gained by examining the 1 st

edition Ordnance survey and the earlier historic maps. Although these depict a state of affairs several centuries after the medieval period, they do enable the most modern alterations to be stripped away. In conjunction, use of the medieval documentary sources relating to Elsdon, plus the evidence of the surviving remains, helps to reveal how the various components of the medieval settlement functioned and provides some understanding of their historical development. Particularly important in this regard are a series of 13th and early 14th century law suits and the successive post mortem inquests assessing the property of the lords of Redesdale - the Umfravilles and later the Taillbois - on behalf of the crown.

6.7.1 Site MorphologyIn plan, the village core resembles the shape of a teardrop, comprising two rows of houses laid out on either side of a broad green, which tapers to form narrow access corridors at both its north and south ends. The tower house occupies a dominating position at the northern apex of the settlement, whilst the church sits within the northern half of the green. In contrast the earthwork castle is situated on the opposite (east) side of the burn, at the southern end of a low ridge extending down from the surrounding moors. Extensive work by Brian Roberts (e.g. Roberts 1990) focussed in particular on the villages of County Durham, has shown that the two-row village with an intervening green or broad street was the most characteristic form of planned settlement associated with a widespread reorganisation of the agricultural landscape in the 12th century implemented by the new Norman feudal lords. The basic layout of Elsdon village, which we see today, may therefore date from this period and reflect the activity of the Umfraville lords. However the more irregular form of green suggests that here the plan was adapted to accommodate earlier settlement features, in particular the church of St Cuthbert which, as previously noted, is located in the wider part of the green. The orientation of the site was doubtless determined by its location alongside the burn.

Comparing the Inclosure, tithe and various estate maps with the 1st edition Ordnance Survey suggests the extent of settlement changed little between the early 18 th and mid 19th centuries, although the layout of approach roads to the north and south of the village was significantly altered with the construction of turnpikes and various roads skirting the Mote Hills. The



medieval settlement may have been similar in extent, but this cannot be determined with certainty. It is clear that Elsdon was, in commercial and ecclesiastical terms, the most important settlement in the dale in the late 13th century, not only forming the site of the parish church but also possessing two markets and two fairs. It thus appears to have been on the cusp of borough status. Indeed it would probably have acquired such privileges had the Umfravilles not abandoned the castle site, perhaps at the end of the 12 th century, and had the economy of upland Northumberland not gone into a prolonged recession from the end the 13 th

century, which saw many established boroughs ultimately fail. It may, therefore, conceivably have been more populous at this stage than later on, in which case there may have been more messuages surrounding the green than is apparent on the 18th- and 19th-century maps, although equally there may not. It is noteworthy that Elsdon preserves relatively few of the long strip-like messuages or burgage plots typical of medieval boroughs, with just two evident to the north of the church (the plots north east of the pinfold are of modern date, cf. Conzen 1969, 73), which might suggest that the village was not so intensively built up, but such survival-based evidence is not necessarily decisive. In the 1604 Border Survey, Elsdon does not appear much, if any, more populous than neighbouring farmsteads, which might imply that it had declined in population since the zenith of its medieval prosperity if that survey provides a representative picture (1604 Survey, 87-8, 100-1; see below Selected Sources and Surveys).

However, whatever vicissitudes the settlement endured during the late medieval and early modern periods, the basic layout of the settlement – arranged around a leaf-shaped green with a church in the northern half as described above – appears clear and is unlikely to have undergone radical transformation. Outlying elements include the mill to the north, the two fair grounds to the east and west of the village (evident on the Inclosure and tithe maps – figs. 15-21, 28-9), the presumed site of the gallows on Gallows Hill to the SSW, and the various farmsteads which ring the the village e.g. Hudspeth, Landshot, Todholes, etc. Hudspeth at least can be traced back to the medieval period and many of the other farmsteads may have originated then. Several of these components are discussed in more detail below.

6.7.2 Field systemElsdon is surrounded by an extensive remains of medieval and early modern open field system[3 & 4]. This field system is shown on the 1731 enclosure (figs. 15-21) and 1839 tithe maps (figs. 28 & 29) and can be traced on the aerial photographs.

The maps show that township’s ‘ancient’ enclosed lands extended outwards in several very irregular salents, following the valleys of the Elsdon, Whiskershiel Burn, Landshot and Park Burns, to embrace a number of dispersed farmsteads which surrounded the village at distances of between 0.9km and 3.1km. These comprise Redshaw and Knightside to the south west, Dunshield, Low Carrick and ‘Heirshouse’ to the north west, Bowershield, North and South Riding, and Hudspeth to the north east and Landshott, East and West Todholes, Whiskershield, Whitlees and East Nook to the east. Many of these sites, such as Hudspeth and Carrick, are mentioned in medieval sources (cf. Hodgson 1827, 93-4), demonstrating that the township, even in this period, did not simply consist of a single nucleated settlement. The -shield suffix incorporated in three of these placenames suggest they originated as seasonal shelters. Their proximity to the village would seem to rule out any association with long distance transhumance and instead these sites most likely provided shelter for those tending and milking livestock pastured on the common moorland during spring and summer (cf. Winchester 2000, 92-3). In contrast, North and South Riding were evidently farmsteads established in what was initially a large clearance – riding or assart - made in the waste or common.

The topography of Elsdon Ward, with high moorlands surrounding the village on three sides, as described in the introductory section, meant that only to the west and south west did



Elsdon’s enclosed lands adjoin those of neighbouring townships, specifically the lands attached to outlying farmsteads of Otterburn and Monkridge Wards respectively (e.g. Soppit, Haining and Raylees).

Two corridors of ‘common or waste’ (as it is labelled on early 19 th century maps) at the north and south ends of the village formed droveways providing unfettered access from the green through the enclosed land to the unenclosed pastures beyond. These thus gave access to a range of complementary grazing resources, the hill pastures to the north of the village and a stretch of low-lying grassland on the south side of the burn as well as yet more high moorland to the south and south east, towards Steng Cross and Manside Cross (Conzen 1969, 76). Additional common lay to the east, which was accessible only by crossing enclosed ground, but this may largely have been exploited by the adjacent farmsteads/hamlets of Landshott and Hudspeth.

The four law suits listed in 1292 (cf. Hodgson 1827, 27-8) may be totalled up to give some indication of the extent of cultivation in Elsdon township in 1292.

Category Totalmessuagesploughlandmeadowwoodpasturemill

37 355 acres 255 acres 509 acres 3014 acres 1 mill

It should be emphasised that this probably does not represent the full extent of land holding in Elsdon in that year. Some holdings most probably do not figure amongst the disputed estates. That held by Richard, 'son of William', in 1242 and by John, 'son of William' (perhaps the surname Fitzwilliam), in 1325 for example. Moreover, the inclusion of substantial acreages of pasture, meadow and woodland in addition to ploughland and messuages is to be expected if these actually represent viable manorial estates. It is possible that in the cases where holdings were recorded comprising only a carucate of land or a carucate and one or more messuages, these represent abbreviated versions of the full estate and that generally all such holdings were associated with parcels of meadow, woodland and pasture. Hence these totals listed above can only be regarded as minimum figures and they may well underweight non-arable land as a proportion of the total. Even so the proportion of pasture and meadow to arable land (almost 10:1) is striking with a further sizeable acreage of woodland providing pannage for pigs as well as building timber and firewood. Together this suggests that the township’s principal wealth lay in its livestock.

6.7.3 The ChurchThe earliest visible masonry in the church is 12th century. Originally it was probably larger than it now is and incorporated a tower. The earliest reference to a rector of Elsdon dates to the early 13th century when the incumbent, Roger de Witcester was in dispute with Kelso Abbey over the tithe of foals from the Umfraville in Redesdale Forest (cf. Hodgson 1827, 15-18).

[See below The Medieval Buildings of Elsdon for a full description by Peter Ryder]

6.7.4 The Tower houseElsdon Tower[7] stands in a prominent position at the north end of the village, where the ground rises up to form a knoll. The site thus overlooks the green and dominates the village. This is one plausible site for any pre-Norman estate centre.



The documentary history of the site is a little perplexing. The first tower on this site was probably built in the 14th century. It is included in a list of fortifications in Northumberland compiled for Henry V in 1415 where it is said to be in the hands of the rector, but it does not figure in Sir Robert Bowes and Sir Ralph Elleker’s survey of Border fortifications undertaken in 1541, even in a ‘much decayed’ form. This has led to the suggestion that the original tower must have been demolished and the extant structure largely erected later in the 16 th

century. More recent examination of the surviving remains has supported a 16 th century date for the tower as it stands, though perhaps containing elements of an earlier phase (see below). However, the tower’s absence from the 1541 survey is not necessarily significant. No other fortification in Redesdale is listed, neither towers such as Otterburn nor smaller bastle houses, pelehouses or stonehouses, as figure in other districts, and it would appear that the surveyors either did not dare venture into valley or had no detailed information relating to the fortifications there. Instead, having covered Coquetdale, they proceded via sites around the headwaters of the Wansbeck such as Wallington, The Fawns, Kirkwhelpington and Carry Coats, and thence into North Tynedale.

A further complication is introduced by an entry in the Patent Rolls dated 6th June 1432 granting a commission to Robert de Umfraville ‘chivaler’ (lord of Redesdale between 1421-36) to repair his castles at Harbottle, Elsdon and Otterburn. Robert was empowered to arrest and take the stonecutters, wallers (murarios) and other workmen required to repair the three castles located ‘upon the march by Scotland, which are great fortalices and useful to the adjacent country’ (Cal Pat R 1429-36, 219), and was instructed to pay the conscripted workmen promptly and reasonably.

This entry poses a number of problems. If the ‘castle of Elsdon’ is a reference to the tower, it would appear to signify that the Umfravilles had taken control of the building at some point after 1415, when it was in the hands of the rector. This may have been authorised on strategic grounds. An alternative possibility is that this denotes an attempt to refortify the old earthwork castle, perhaps by erecting a timber ‘pele’ (palisaded enclosure) of the kind commonly used in the Anglo-Scottish wars, although this is perhaps less likely.

A vivid impression of living conditions in the tower between 1762-65 is again provided by the Rev. Dodgson (cf. Tomlinson 1888, 306):

The vestibule of the castle is a low stable, and above it is a kitchen, in which there are two\little beds joining to each other. The curate and his wife lay in one, and Margery, the maid, in the other. I lay in the parlour, between the two beds, to keep me from being frozen to death, for, as we keep open house, the winds enter from every quarter, and are apt to creep into bed to one.

Hodgson provides more detail regarding its 18th-century aspect and the subsequent remodelling carried out by Thomas Singleton, the rector between 1812-42:

Till Mr Duten’s death (in 1812), the first floor consisted of a dark vault spanned by one arch, in which, in former times, the rector’s cattle were housed at night; a circular stone staircase still leads to the upper rooms, on the first of which was a kitchen and servant’s apartments, flagged with stone; and above these another room, fitted up as a lodging-room and study, the bed being in a large recess, with closets on each side, one of which served as a wardrobe, and the other for more general purposes: in 1810, it contained the Greek and Latin authorities for Mr Dutens’s ‘Discoveries of the Ancients attributed to the Moderns,’ … very methodically arranged. ….. Formerly, there were two low rooms above, each containing four chambers, one partly destroyed by the heightening this; and the other is the present garret. Mr Singleton has converted the dark damp vault into a comfortable drawing room, 27 feet by 15,



besides a recess 7 feet deep, cut through the wall to the window. The old kitchen and room, which was Mr Mitford’s parlour, are two bed-rooms; and the floor above is occupied by a bedroom, dressing-room, and library. To the old building Mr Singleton has added a vestibule and kitchen; a dining room, 26 feet by 14; and bed-rooms above these: besides a back kitchen, pantry, and other offices.

[See below The Medieval Buildings of Elsdon for a full description by Peter Ryder]

Mills (Information supplied by the North East Mills Group)

Site Name: Elsdon MillGrid Reference: NY936937First recorded 1699?Last recorded 1860The most recent corn mill in Elsdon still stands though has been converted to a house. The evidence for a mill in the village goes back to 1699 when the corn and fulling mills belonged to Alexander and William Brown. The mill is marked on the 1731 Inclosure map of Elsdon Common and the Birdhopecraig Presbyterian Register also lists Elsdon Mill in 1744 when the occupant was a Moffat (Waddell 2003, 5-6). The mill appeared to be working on the first edition Ordnance Survey of the area, by the 1920s edition it is shown as ‘disused’.

Site Name: Whiskershield MillGrid Reference: NY953927First recorded 1640Last recorded 1828Nothing remains of this former corn mill, it is difficult to find any surface evidence of its existence. The mill is marked on on the 1731 Inclosure map of Elsdon Common and on Greenwoods county map (1828).

Site Name: Cants MillGrid Reference: NY921928First recorded 1731Last recorded pre 1828The mill is marked as "Carts Mill (Ruins)" on Greenwood’s map of the county (1828). It is, however, marked as "Cants Mill" on the 1731 Inclosure map of Elsdon Common.

6.7.5 Fairs and marketsEven after it had lost its manorial significance with the concentration of the Umfraville lordship at Harbottle and a subsidiary centre at Otterburn, Elsdon seems to have remained the principal economic centre in Redesdale with two annual fairs and weekly markets. The earliest reference to a market at Elsdon occurs in 1279 when Gilbert de Umfraville claimed that from time immemorial his ancestors had levied tolls at his markets of Harbottle and Elsdon (Northumb. Assize R., 373). In 1281 Edward I granted William de Umfraville (the son of Robert who held a carucate of ploughland at Elsdon in 1242) the right to hold a market ‘on his manor of Elsdon’ every Thursday and a three-day fair around the Feast of St Bartholomew (Rot. Cart. 9 Edw.1 no.10 Turr. Lond; reproduced in Hodgson 1827, 87). In addition, at the Newcastle assizes in 1293, Gilbert de Umfraville established his right to hold a weekly Sunday market and a fair on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (15 August) at Elsdon, whilst also claiming a gallows, tumbrel, pillory and tolls there (Placita de Quo Warranto, 21 & 22 Edw. I; cf. Hodgson 1820, 150-1; 1827, 25, 93).



It was unusual for somewhere as small as Elsdon to have two market-days and annual fairs. The circumstances by which this came about are illuminated by a series of legal documents which reveal that a furious struggle broke out for control of the market at Elsdon in the 1280s, instigated by the most powerful figures in Redesdale society (cf. Taylor n.d. (b), 13-14).

The Elsdon market ‘affray’

On 24th May 1283, Alexander de Kyrketon and John de Lythegreynes received a commission from Edward I (who at that stage was on campaign in north Wales) to enquire into an affray which had occurred at Elsdon, in response to the complaint of William de Umfraville. William stated that by the king’s charter he had a weekly market on Thursdays at his manor of Elsdon, and a three day fair there every year, on the eve, day and morrow of St Bartholomew, with all liberties and free customs appurtenant. Having made proclamation of the same, and set up pillory and tumbrel and other things appurtenant, these were knocked down and carried away and his men illtreated, by Hugh de Monkerigg, Thomas de Herle, Nicholas de Herle, John Ruter, Gilbert le Fevre of la More, William Tulle, Thomas Leyping, Thomas de Red, John de Red William de Red, Adam de Walmton, Richard Char, John le Fitzforester, John son of Humphrey, William Pestur the younger of Elesden, Thomas le Ponder, Richard le Seynur, William le Nywebakere, Robert de Herle, clerk, William Belle, Adam le Forester, William Petite, John Atteyate, Gilbert le Sutere, Robert le Copre, and Alan Belle (Cal Pat R 28/5/1283)

Nor was this the end of the disturbances. On 16th May 1285 another commission was issued from Westminster, to John de Kyrkely and Guichard de Charrun on a complaint by William in the same matter as before. Men coming to the market with wares were prevented from selling and were assaulted and wounded by Gilbert de Umfraville and most of the others already named (Cal Pat R 16/5/1285).

The involvement of Gilbert de Umfraville, lord of Redesdale between 1245-1307, provides a clue as to what was going on. Gilbert, the second lord of Redesdale to bear that name, figures prominently in legal documents during the later 13th century, using the courts to avert supposed threats to his rights and privileges and defending himself against claims brought in respect of alleged abuses he or his men had committed.. As a result he has acquired a historical reputation as an overbearing and oppressive lord, ever ready to seize the property of others and inflict summary punishments (Hodgson 1827, 23-8). It is difficult to judge how fair this is, since abundant documentary information does not become available until the mid 13th century, so we have no way of judging whether Gilbert was any more covetous than his predecessors, but certainly none of the later Umfravilles figures in legal disputes with such frequency. In this case, however, Gilbert may have some cause for his action. As we have seen he probably already had a long established market at Elsdon in 1281 when William de Umfraville was given royal permission to establish a Thursday market and fair on his manor there (Northumb Assize R, 373). Although William’s charter contained the stipulation that his market and fair would not be granted if they were found injurious to any neighbouring market and fair, this may simply have been a standard clause carrying little actual weight, and it is likely that Gilbert viewed the award as an infringement of his own seigneurial rights as lord of Redesdale, and in particular a threat to the viability of his own market. He therefore sought to block the award, using his followers to disrupt the new market. Furthermore Edward I may not have been quite the neutral arbiter he first appears. His grant to William de Umfraville perhaps forms part of the wider Edwardian programme designed to assert his royal prerogatives - such as the authority to establish markets and fairs - over the long-established customary rights of his barons, particularly in the liberties or franchises, such as Redesdale, where the lord had traditionally held much more extensive powers.



How the dispute was resolved is not recorded, but developments early in the following decade may be relevant. At the Newcastle assizes, in 1293-94, Gilbert claimed and ultimately established his right to hold his own Sunday market and Assumption Day fair at Elsdon. William de Umfraville’s Thursday market is not mentioned thereafter, but Hodgson does refer to the existence of the St Bartholomew’s fair in his day and it is therefore quite possible that both the markets and the two fairs continued to exist alongside one another. Such an arrangement may have represented a compromise which all parties could eventually agree upon, however grudgingly.

Perhaps 20surprisingly, the compromise of having two markets and fairs may have proved to be a lasting arrangement. Certainly the market and fair which the lords of Redesdale had control over were maintained right up until the end of the medieval period. In 1495, the fair at Elsdon ‘on the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, with court of piepowder while it lasts, and a market there on Sundays weekly, with tolls and customs and the other advantages of such fairs and markets’ were listed among the appurtenances of the manor of Otterburn in the Inquisition Post Mortem for the deceased lord, Robert Tailbois (Cal IPM Henry VII, i, 415, no. 971). The Border Survey, carried out just over a century, later makes no mention of either market, but does indicate that Michael Hall, one of customary tenants at Elsdon, paid an annual rent of 3s 4d for ‘the toule (toll) of two faires’ (1604 Survey, 100). By the mid-18th century the Rev. Dodgson was able to declare there had not been a market at Elsdon within living memory, a view confirmed by Hodgson in the early part of the following century, although the latter does assert that the St Bartholomew’s fair was ‘still in a small way in existence’ (1827, 87).

6.7.6 Manorial and township institutionsThe affairs of the townships and manors were each regulated by their own courts known as the court leet and court baron respectively. Hodgson recorded that these courts were invariably held at Elsdon in or about the first week after Michaelmas at the time he was writing in the early 19th century (Hodgson 1827, 87). The jurisdiction of the Elsdon court extended to the parish of Corsenside and the chapelry of Holystone as well as Elsdon parish (i.e. the full extent of the former lordship of Redesdale). A century later, a Court Leet and Baron was still held by the Duke of Northumberland (in his capacity as lord of the manor of Redesdale) under the presidency of his steward in every tenth year at the Bird in the Bush inn at Elsdon. The boundaries of the ancient fair werealso ridden. A description of proceedings in the court, witnessed in 1910 and 1920, is provided by H. Pease (1924, 130):

The jurors elect a foreman. They take the oath after their foreman as follows: ‘to keep secret the King’s Counsel, their own and their fellows: to present no person out of envy, hatred or malice, nor to spare any man or conceal anything out of fear, favour or affection, or any hope of reward or gain, but to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God!’ The Steward then informs them of the duty and powers of the jurors of the Court Leet, and further of their duty as homagers of the Court Baron. Constables, finally, are elected for the various wards of the Lordship. And in right conclusion after the hearty old English fashion all the jurors are entertained to dinner by the Lord’s bailiff while the duke’s piper plays them in to the tune of ‘Chevy Chase’.

6.8 Parish, Townships and Wards

20 ‘Most certain it is, that the oldest man in the parish never saw a market here in his life’ (cited in Tomlinson 1888, 306).



The origins of Elsdon parish and its possible links with an early medieval unit of lordship have been discussed above. Hodgson was writing in the early 19th century, lists the seven townships which made up the parish of Elsdon, comprising Elsdon itself, Otterburn, Monkridge, Troughen, Woodside, Rochester and the small extra-parochial Ramshope (Hodgson 1827, 82-3). These arrangments are illustrated by the Elsdon Parish tithe map of 1840 (fig. 28). Each of the townships maintained its poor separately, according to the terms of the 1662 Poor Law Act, which designated 'every Township or Village' in northern England as the unit for poor-rate assessment and collection (cf. Winchester 1987, 27).

Six of the townships were labelled 'wards' and formed integral parts of the parish. However, the remaining one, Ramshope, was extra-parochial, for reasons which are unclear. This was a small township consisting of only a single house and seven inhabitants in 1821 (Hodgson 1827, 154-5). Anomalies of this kind can often provide useful clues regarding the development of local settlement and communities. Elsdon, Otterburn, Monkridge, Troughen were long established communities which had probably formed townships since the medieval period (although they were perhaps not the only settlements in the lower part of the valley which functioned as townships in that period). Woodside too fell within the zone of medieval settlement, comprising the valley of the Grasslees Burn and its tributaries. Rochester was probably settled in the first half of the 16th century and marked the limit of permanent occupation in the Redesdale at that stage. Ramshope, by contrast, was still just listed as a shielding ground or summer pasture in the early 17th century surveys (1604 survey, 83, 104 (where it is labelled Ravenshoulme); 1618 rental, 334). It was probably settled in the mid-late 17th century.

6.9 Elsdon in the 16th-17th centuries

The tower was probably rebuilt during the 16 th century to judge from the form of the standing structure. There is no mention of it in Bowes and Ellerker’s survey of border defences in 1541,21 but no fortification in Redesdale is listed therein, including other towers, at Otterburn and Troughend, which like Elsdon are known to have existed in the early 15 th century. Hence this absence may reflect the manner in which the survey was compiled, rather than the actual condition of fortified buildings in the valley (see above).A clear overview of settlement distribution and cultivation in the township is provided by the survey of the royal manors along the Border undertaken for James I in 1604 and a subsequent rental list prepared in 1618 (see below Selected Sources and Surveys). The holdings of freeholders and customary tenants recorded in the 1604 survey list a combined total of six houses, three outhouses and a mill at Elsdon (‘Ellen Towne’ or ‘Ellesden’; 1604 Survey 87-8, 100-1), which gives the impression that the settlement was more of a hamlet than a village at this date. It is possible that the prolonged border conflict and economic recession of the late medieval era had led to a reduction the size of the settlement. However ‘Moate’ (i.e. Mote Hill farmstead) and the Glebe holding were listed separately along with two other farmsteads, The Shaw and Nightside, which lay south of the Elsdon Burn, so the building total given above does not encompass everything we would now consider to represent the entire village.

The bulk of Elsdon Town’s inhabitants listed in the surveys, were members of the Hall surname, whilst various Potts, Hedleys, Dunns and Reads – all common Redesdale surnames – inhabited the neighbouring farmsteads and settlements, such as Landshot and Carrick. These surnames were those of the reiver clans demonstrating that this kinship-based society was well-entrenched in and around Elsdon by the early 17 th century. The origins of this peculiar social structure during the later medieval period are obscure, although it is

21 The Border survey of Sir Robert Bowes and Ralph Ellerker is partially reproduced in Bates 1891, 29-49 and fully, but less accurately, in Hodgson 1828, 171-242.



presumably related to the prolonged conflicts between England and Scotland and resultant periodic chronic insecurity which generated the need for what were in effect kinship-based self protection and mutual support groups. In this context, it is particularly interesting to note the prominence of individuals with the surname de Herle in the Elsdon market affray of the 1280s (see above). It has been plausibly suggested that this was the original form of the Hall surname (Robson 1989, 34) and it would appear that the ancestors of this clan were already well-established in the village prior to the outbreak of border conflict at the end of the 13 th

century.22

Within the village, the following buildings may date to this period: Townsfoot which may have bastle fabric in it and The Crown (bearing a datestone inscribed 'John Galion AD 1729', but the core of this building may be older – Grundy 1988, 128, ELS 9).

6.9.1 Border Reiving and Religious DiscordThe severe problems of lawlessness and insecurity which affected border districts like Redesdale in the 16th and 17th centuries are well-known. The problem fluctuated in intensity, but was especially acute in the last decades of the 16 th century and persisted into the following century, despite the energetic efforts of the new Stuart regime of James VI and I to break the reiving clans, establish order and transform the English and Scottish border counties into ‘the Middle Shires’ of the new combined realm. Elsdon and its environs suffered a particularly savage raid in September 1584 at the hands of Martin Elliot and 500 other Liddesdalers. When subsequently seeking redress before border commissioners at Berwick in the summer of 1586, the inhabitants estimated that Elliot and his men had burnt down their habitations, murdered 14 men, taken and held for ransom 400 prisoners, driven away 400 kine (cows) and oxen and 400 horses and household goods to the value of £500 (Watts 1975, 28-29). So weakened were the Redesdale and Tynedale surnames by the last decades of Elizabeth’s reign that their Scottish counterparts could strike with virtual impunity. However, even as late as 1615, the rector of Elsdon, John Smaithwaite, declared ‘we have at least 20 cries at the church doors every Sabbath for things stolen’ (Taylor n.d. (b), 16). The longstanding nature of the insecurity is underlined by mandate issued by the Bishop of Durham to the clergy of Redesdale over a century earlier, in 1498, instructing them to visit the terror of excommunication on all inhabitants who ventured forth from home in a steel jacket or other defensive armour (other than against the Scots) and that no-one should wear any weapon more than 18 inches long in the churchyard (Taylor n.d., 16-17). Presumably the bishop considered a blade of less than 18 inches to be perfectly acceptable!

Less emphasis has been placed on the fault lines within Northumbrian border society, yet in many respects these were no less serious. In the early 17 th century, despite nearly a hundred years of Tudor royal promotion of the Protestant faith and repression of Catholicism, much of the Northumbrian gentry still adhered to the old faith. The sort of disruptive conflict of authority which might result at a local level from such a situation is revealed by events at Elsdon in 1615-16, when the principal figures of spiritual and temporal authority in the valley were pitted against one another (Taylor n.d. (b), 16-17). This evidence emerges from a series of complaints made by the rector, John Smaithwaite, against Roger Widdrington. Roger, a Catholic, was the steward of Lord Howard of Walden, lord of Redesdale (see below, Redesdale under the lordship of the Howards), and thus one of the principal agents of temporal authority permanently resident in the area, along with his brother Sir Henry Widdrington, the keeper of Redesdale, who was esconced at Harbottle Castle. Smaithwaite protested in 1616 that many people were being withdrawn from Church on Sundays by Widdrington’s bailiffs and officers, under the pretence of being required for service of Lord

22 Other early forms of the surname were de Herlaw, de Hirlaw or Harle. As Robson notes, the pronunciation of Hall and Harle (and for that matter Herle) is virtually indistinguisghable in the Northumbrian dialect. It is noteworthy that another of the Redesdale surnames, ‘Rede’, is also prominently represented in the records of the affray in the form ‘de Red’.



Howard or the King, and were kept walking and attending their officers in the town street or the churchyard throughout the period of the service. On Sunday 20th May, Widdrington called all the tenants and freeholders to meet him two miles from Elsdon at a time coinciding with the church service and on two other Sundays called the entire congregation out of the church to speak with him whilst the services were underway. Widdrington was assisted by a clique of clients and supporters whom Smaithwaite alleged were involved in robbery, breaking and entering, and receiving stolen goods. These ‘popish bad fellows’ included William Wanless, ‘a great resetting thief’ (i.e. harbourer of thieves) whom Widdrington made overseer of his sheep and cattle, and Allan Wanless, bailiff of Redesdale. All were Catholic sympathisers or had allegedly been converted to Catholicism through the efforts of Widdrington.

Roger Widdrington seems to have been intent on making life difficult for the rector, presumably confident that the protection afforded by his lord and brother would enable him to escape any official retribution. However Smaithwaite was evidently made of stout stuff and refused to be intimated by this display of power. He threatened to go to London to lay the case before the Church Council. Thereupon, Roger perhaps realising he had overplayed his hand seems to have caved in and offered Smaithwaite the lease of any lands he held. Nevertheless Smaithwaite did indeed carry out his threat with the result that Widdrington was hauled before the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Council at Lambeth palace to answer for his conduct. The Archbishop recommended that he not be allowed to return north, but instead should be confined to some town in the south.

This affair was perhaps atypical. Despite the recusancy laws penalising Catholics who failed to attend Anglican church services, most members of Northumbrian border society appear to have been quite willing to turn a blind eye to the persistence of Catholicism amongst the gentry. It was Roger Widdrington’s aggressive conduct and apparent attempt to promote his own faith which seems to have prompted this particular outbreak of discord.

Ultimately it was non-conformity rather than Roman Catholicism which posed the greater threat to the Anglican Church in Redesdale.23 A Quaker, John Shield, is mentioned as disturbing the rector of Elsdon at his pulpit as early as 1660 and Otterburn seems to have been a Quaker stronghold by the 1680s (Taylor n.d. (b), 17-18). However in the long term Scottish Presbyterianism which was to prove the most important non-conformist movement in the valley. The rise of Presbyterianism began when Scottish ministers fled across the border to escape persecution by Charles II’ government in the 1660s and used the valleys of Redesdale and north Tynedale as a refuge and rallying point. From 1688 it was officially tolerated and grew to the point where it had more followers than the established church. Nevertheless the Rev. Charles Dodgson, writing in 1762 at the beginning of his short term as rector, was relatively relaxed about the prevalence of non-conformity reflecting the general spirit of tolerance within the valley (reproduced in Tomlinson 1888, 307; see below Selected Sources and Surveys):

The greater part of the richest farmers are Scotch dissenters, and go to a meeting-house at Birdhope Craig, about ten miles from Elsdon; however, they don’t interfere in ecclesiastical matters, or study polemical divinity. Their religion descends from father to son and is rather a part of the personal estate than the result of reasoning, or the effect of enthusiasm. Those who live near Elsdon come to the church, those at a greater distance towards the west go to the meeting-house at Birdhope Craig; others, both Churchmen and Presbyterians, at a very great distance, go to the nearest church or conventicle in the neighbouring parish. There is a very good understanding between the parties; for they not only intermarry with each other, but frequently do

23 A census of Roman Catholics undertaken in 1767 revealed there were on 49 adherents in Tynedale and Redesdale (cf. Charlton 1987, 129).



penance together in a white sheet with a white wand, barefoot, in one of the coldest churches in England, and at the coldest seasons of the year.

Whether the choice of faith at this time was quite as unconscious as Dodgson portrays is open to question, but there is no doubt that the parish of Elsdon, on account of its great size and the absence of any chapels of ease or Anglican meeting places other than the parish church, was particularly vulnerable to non-conformist proselytisation. The simple fact that the Presbyterians were preaching throughout the district at locations the wider rural population could more conveniently reach would have been a powerful argument in their favour. This problem had been appreciated as early as 1650 when a Survey of Church Livings held at Morpeth in 1650 recommended24

That some part of the said Parish (of Elsdon) being twelve myles distant from the said Church, it is ffitt a Church or Chappell be erected at Rotchester.

The proposal was never implemented and it was 1796 before the Anglicans responded to the challenge of Presbyterianism by creating more places of worship in the vast parish, with the construction of a chapel of ease at Byrness. Further examples were erected in the next century at Horsley and Otterburn.

6.10 Upper Redesdale- 1700 to 2000

6.10.1 BackgroundDuring the eighteenth century and for much of the nineteenth, the whole of upper Redesdale was contained within the parish of Elsdon. This was an enormous parish of in excess of 77,000 acres that had been divided up for administrative purposes into seven townships. 25

According to Hodgson, with the exception of Ramshope, an extra-parochial district, the townships had been named after principal areas of settlement. Only the three most northerly of these historic townships are in the present Northumberland National Park – Troughend, Rochester and Ramshope, but they contain around two-thirds of the acreage of the original parish.26 On the east, the townships were bordered by the North Tyne parishes of Bellingham, Thorneyburn and Falstone, on the west by the Coquetdale parishes of the Chapelry of Holystone and the Parish of Alwinton, while to the north lay Scotland. The Park does not contain all of the original Troughend township, but it is important to begin any historical survey from the nearest available geographic boundaries.

During the medieval period, Redesdale, which was part of the huge Manor of Harbottle, had the status of a Liberty. Lordship of the area was granted to families, principally the Umfravilles, who would exercise the powers of the Crown within its borders maintaining public order and defence against the Scots. In the fifteenth century, this system of government was further complicated by the imposition of local control through a system of Wardens of the Marches on both sides of the Border. The role of the Wardens was essentially the maintenance of government along the Border and the conduct of local relations between the rulers of England and Scotland. With the Union of the Crowns in 1603, the new King, James VI of Scotland and I of England, imposed a new form of government along the Border similar to those elsewhere in his kingdoms.24 The survey is reproduced in Hodgson 1835, lxxvi ff.25 The main source for the early history of upper Redesdale is the section on the parish of Elsdon and its townships in Part 2 Vol. I of John Hodgson’s, A History of Northumberland in Three Parts, (1827, 82–162). Hodgson states that the parish was 96,000 acres, 77,000 is the figure given by the Tithe Commutation survey in the 1830s and is the figure usually cited in other works of reference.26 The Tithe Commutation Schedule (NRO 486 – Tithe Commutation Map and Schedule) lists Rochester as 22,068 acres, Troughend 26,010 acres and Ramshope as 1467 acres.



One survival among these changes was the Lordship of Redesdale. One reason for this was that since the 1540s the Lordship had been in the hands of the Crown, and administered directly by royal officers. Another was that there were still considerable property rights attached to the Lordship that made it a valuable gift that could be used by the King to secure his own authority among his nobility. Thus, in January 1604, James granted the Lordship of Redesdale to one of his favourites and close supporters, George Home, Earl of Dunbar. Dunbar held the Lordship until his death in 1611, upon which event the King, in 1614, granted the Lordship and other property rights in England to the Earl’s daughter, Anne, and her husband, Theophilus, Lord Howard de Walden.

6.10.2 Redesdale under the Lordship of the HowardsThe Howard ownership of the Lordship of Redesdale lasted from 1614 until 1750 and marks the transfer from a medieval government, society and economy in the Rede valley to a more modern one. The Survey of Debateable and Border Lands27 carried out in 1604 shows clearly the disposition of property in Redesdale at that time, a situation that was likely to be little altered by 1614 when it was transferred to the ownership of Dunbar’s daughter and her husband. In the context of the area that now lies within the National Park, members of local families tenanted the land around the present villages of Elsdon and Otterburn and along the river valley. Their small farms were located adjacent to the flat land in the bottom of the valley and extended up its sides for a short distance. This land was used for cultivation and for growing hay for winter feed for the farmers’ livestock, which consisted of herds of black cattle and small flocks of sheep. The stock was pastured around the homesteads during the winter and then grazed during the summer on hill land either close to the farmsteads or in the upper parts of the valley, where there extensive “summer and shieldinge grounds” available to all who held farmland within the Manor. The arrangement of small farms continued up the valley to Woolaw, Bellshield and Birdhope, which are located approximately two miles north of the village of Rochester. At that point the land available for summer pastures began and continued to the head of the valley and the border with Scotland.28

The tenants of the Lordship in the Rede valley, as shown in the 1604 Survey were either freeholders, who performed military service for their right to hold property, or customary tenants, who performed service and paid some rent for their holdings. The Howards inherited this situation from the Crown and, more recently, Dunbar. Undoubtedly the abolition of the military Border Tenure by King James brought about some changes, but the Howards effected a much greater transformation when they began to break up the real estate of the Lordship through sales commencing in 1640. By 1747, as a result of a series of sales over the century after 1640, as one member of the family after another came into possession of the Lordship and required to repair their finances, the Howards were reduced to the ownership of a single farm, Overacres. At this point, the owner, William Howard, sold the farm together with the title to the Lordship and its remaining medieval seigniorial rights to the Duke of Northumberland.

The effect of the Howard sales had been to transform the agriculture and settlement of the Rede valley. In the townships of Troughend and Rochester, the seventeenth century farms had been enlarged to include areas of hill land that may have previously been grazed, but whose ownership had not been allocated to be within the boundaries of particular holdings. At the same time, the areas which had previously been described as shieling grounds and were used solely for transhumance summer grazing had ceased to exist in that form. Instead they had been broken up into large farms. For example, at Catcleugh, just north of Byrness, in 1658, Sir Charles Howard and his trustees sold the summer pastures at Catcleugh and the

27 R P Sanderson (Ed), Survey of the Debateable and Border Lands adjoining the Realm of Scotland and belonging to the Crown of England, taken A D 1604 ( Alnwick, 1891).28 For further details concerning Redesdale in the seventeenth century, see Watts 1975.



neighbouring Spithope to Henry Widdrington of Black Heddon. Widdrington, in turn, sold the property on and this land, together with other neighbouring property, ultimately came into the possession of Gabriel Hall. By his death in 1733, Hall had accumulated a substantial estate that mainly passed to his son Martin, but he also made some bequests to other children. The whole had been divided into farms and when subsequently some of the property was sold in the 1760s, the Duke of Northumberland bought Catcleugh, Spithope, Babswood and Chattlehope. Previously all of these four properties had been part of the commonly used summer grazing in upper Redesdale, which in total had exceeded 21 000 acres, but now they formed a single farm of 6000 acres.

6.10.3 Redesdale in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries As a result of the changes brought about during the period since 1600, by the late eighteenth century practically all the land in Redesdale was divided up into separate farms. Such a process had taken place throughout Britain, but the pattern of farm creation in Redesdale was significantly different from elsewhere. Enclosure of farmland into separate holdings in other regions of the country had often begun by private agreements among landowners in the Tudor period and then been carried forward to the eighteenth century when the process was streamlined and extended through Parliamentary legislation. In Redesdale, the first enclosures had come about as the result of the purchase of land from the Howards as they dismembered the Lordship they had acquired in 1614 and was then supplemented by Acts of Parliament in one or two places. This was most typically the case with the enclosure award at Elsdon in 1731which brought about the redistribution of over ten thousand acres of land surrounding the village. However, in the area of upper Redesdale within the boundary of the present National Park, this was not the case.

Historic reasons associated with settlement in the valley and the effects of Border warfare and civil unrest in the period 1300 to 1600 account for underlying differences in land holding between the townships and, as a result of this, the process of enclosure was also substantially different. Only a handful of Enclosure Acts applied to the northern part of the valley or affected this area. The reason for this is that these particular Acts, such as the ones dealing with Troughend or Rattenraw, included some land which is now within the portion of the Rede valley which is within the present Park. However, the total area covered by such legislation was less than 2000 acres in a total area of nearly 50 000 acres. The Acts which applied particularly to the northern part of the valley were essentially ones which tidied up land boundaries and the ownership of small parcels of land, rather than dealing with any substantial enclosure which entailed the creation of new farms. Typical of these is the Rochester Enclosure Award of 1866, which dealt with 286 acres of land around and within the village of Rochester.29

The bulk of the land in the northern part of the Rede valley was enclosed either by agreement among the landowners or by an individual landowner, who, having purchased a very large block of land from the Lordship, subsequently divided it into a number of farms. The arrangement of the property at Catcleugh, described above, is typical of this process. One feature resulting from the application of this mechanism was that the average size of holdings in the three townships of Rochester, Troughend and Ramshope was much larger than in any of the other four townships in Elsdon parish. The northerly townships had an average farm size of in excess of 800 acres, while the average farm size in the remainder was less than 300 acres. In addition, there were 20 farms in excess of 1000 acres in the three northern townships while the remainder contained only 5.30 At the same time, as a reflection of the way in which the lands of the Lordship were broken up, the majority of the farms were not owner-occupied. Instead, they were farmed by tenants on leases of up to twenty-one years in length from landlords who were likely to own several holdings in the valley. Initially, the

29 NRO, QRA 47/1, Rochester Award and Plan.30 Figures are taken from the Tithe Commutation Schedule.



tenants continued to employ the same mixed system of farming that they had in former times. However, during the latter part of the eighteenth century, a transformation took place in the upper Rede valley that considerably altered this state of affairs.

In response to population growth in other parts of the country creating new demands for meat and wool, the farmers of upper Redesdale began to abandon grain cultivation and reduced the numbers of black cattle reared on their holdings. In their place much larger flocks of sheep were kept and the farmers began to concentrate on the production of wool, wether lambs for the meat market and breeding ewes. One effect of these changes was that, by the early nineteenth century, only two of the thirteen mills which had been operated along the river to process the grain grown by local farmers had not ceased production.31

By the 1830s, it is possible to give a much more precise picture of land owning and leasing in upper Redesdale. The Schedule of agricultural property attached to the Tithe Commutation map of Elsdon parish contains detailed lists of landed proprietors, their properties and the tenants broken down into townships. According to the Schedule, there were 34 properties in Rochester, 28 in Troughend and a single farm in Ramshope. Of these, only eleven were in the hands of owner-occupiers, while the remaining farms were the property of landowners, most of whom were resident outside the township itself or the parish of Elsdon. The most important of these landlords was Lord Redesdale who owned 13 of the properties in Troughend and Rochester with a total area in excess of 11900 acres, over a quarter of the area of all three townships. During the remainder of the century, further properties were purchased from other landowners, until the estate extended to over 16000 acres and occupied approximately one third of the land in the three townships. It is also interesting to note that all of this part of the estate was located within the boundaries of the present National Park.

A brief study of the way in which this estate was managed reveals many of the basic features of all land ownership in the Rede valley during the nineteenth century. The foundations of the estate were laid in the 1790s when Sir John Mitford, then a noted lawyer and Member of Parliament for Beeralston, a pocket borough belonging to the Percy family. For reasons which are not entirely clear, Sir John, who had lived most of his life in the South of England, decided to purchase property in Northumberland, not far from the families ancestral home at Mitford, near Morpeth. Sir John became Lord Chancellor for Ireland under William Pitt and assumed as his title Lord Redesdale. Although he inherited an additional estate in Gloucestershire, Lord Redesdale continued occasionally to visit his estate in Northumberland and also added to it from time to time.32

From the extant evidence, it appears that, for much of the first Lord Redesdale’s lifetime, the estate was managed by local men, themselves farmers, who collected the rents and carried out simple managerial tasks on behalf of the owner. On the death of the first Baron in 1830 and with the accession of his son to the title, this practise changed. The new owner, John Thomas Freeman Mitford, second Baron Redesdale, introduced estate management methods that were similar to those being used on other large estates in England. 33 In 1834, an agent, Edward Lawson, was appointed to conduct the management of the estate. Lawson was resident in a property, Redesdale Cottage, located on the estate and also took over the tenancy of one of the farms, Stewartshields. The purpose of this latter act was not only to augment Lawson’s income, but also to allow him to develop modern farming methods on the holding. Thus, he would be able to familiarise himself with the problems faced by tenants and suggest ways of solving them and also be able to provide an example to them of sound agricultural practice.

31 For readily accessible information on this point, see D B Charlton 1986.32 For the life of Sir John Mitford see, Mitford 1939.33 There is no biography of the second Lord Redesdale although information can be found in the appropriate volume of the Dictionary of National Biography. For a study of estate management in this period see Spring, 1963. For information and sources on the administration of the Redesdale estate see Roberts 1992.



At the same time, Lawson was able to advise his employer on reforming the leasehold system on the estate, carry out repairs and other necessary improvements to the farms generally supervise at first hand the day-to-day conduct of the tenants. Like many other land agents of the time, Lawson also involved himself closely in local affairs. He acted as a churchwarden in Elsdon, was road surveyor for two of the public roads in the area and canvassed on behalf of the Tory interest in elections. When his employer acted as a major local benefactor and had built the Church of the Holy Trinity at Horsley, near Rochester (see below), Lawson acted as the clerk of works superintending all building operations and, later, acted as one of the first churchwardens. He also made a significant contribution to the development of Rochester (see below) and took a major role in refurbishing Birdhopecraig Hall, his employer’s country house on the estate.

Lawson died in 1878, but he had already taken on as his assistant his nephew, William Hodgson. Hodgson succeeded his uncle as agent and was to continue in service until his own death in 1907. During this period, he maintained the high professional standards established by his uncle and continued to conduct affairs on the estate to the mutual benefit of owner and tenants. When prices of sheep and wool fell in the 1880s and 1890s, Hodgson not only adjusted rents to reflect the significantly poorer returns to the farmers, but also introduced policies such as the construction of additional hay sheds on estate farms which would permit farmers to diversify their farming operations. In this way the farming community was supported and its welfare fostered until prosperity began to recover in the years immediately before the First World War.The prosperity of farming in the upper Rede valley was essential to the well being of the whole population, not just to the farmers and their employees. There were coal measures in the valley and some of the stone was useful for building purposes, but there were only limited local markets for such commodities. The only railway line to enter the valley crossed it at West Woodburn, several miles from the upper valley and too far for minerals to be exported to lucrative urban markets. With this heavy dependence on upland pastoral farming, there was an underlying weakness in the economy of the upper Rede valley that was to cause considerable changes in the twentieth century.

6.10.4 The upper Rede valley in the twentieth century The progressive estate management policies, which characterised the work of Lawson and Hodgson on behalf of the Mitford family, were similarly pursued by the agents of the Dukes of Northumberland and other major landowners in upper Redesdale. Evidence suggests that their policies bore fruit as there is little evidence of bankruptcy among the farmers in the upper Rede valley. However, apart from some attempts to increase the amount of leased shooting on the farms, there is much less evidence of successful diversification of enterprise by the landowners or farmers. Unlike some of the Yorkshire dales, where it was possible to introduce the production of milk and milk products, the absence of rail transport precluded this in the same way that it prevented the exploitation of mineral resources (Hallas 1999). Consequently, the area attracted the development of other enterprises that could make use of marginal upland countryside. Such activities became a features of life in Redesdale at the very end of the nineteenth century and continued throughout the twentieth.

The first of these new developments was the construction of the Catcleugh reservoir at the head of the valley in the period 1894 to 1905. The detailed story of this undertaking has been told elsewhere (Rennison 1979), but it is important to note that it brought considerable economic activity into the most northern part of the valley for a short time, including a large temporary increase in the population. By the end of the project a substantial reservoir had been constructed which occupied several hundred acres of land, but which only created a few jobs related to water supply and property maintenance at the dam.



The next development in the valley was one that continues to contribute significantly to the life of the valley in a number of ways. This was the purchase of over 17 000 acres of land for use as a military training area.34 Popularly believed to have been suggested for such purposes by Winston Churchill, the area was originally designated for artillery training for Territorial Army soldiers, but was later extended to include the Regular Army and, after the Second World War, NATO forces. Additional purchases of land for the Training Area took place between 1940 and 1943, 1951 and 1954 and in 1987 so that the present Otterburn Training Area extends to 56 600 acres in the upper Rede and Coquet valleys. Within this area, two camps at Otterburn and Rochester (Redesdale Camp) have been created. The latter is within the area of the National Park and is due for demolition in 2004/2005. Farming has continued within the Training area, although there has been some amalgamation of the holdings to produce fewer and larger farms. What has been of considerable significance has been the employment opportunities for civilian workers on the Training Area. These have been considerable and the Ministry of Defence has employed up to 100 people on the Training Area estate undertaking a wide variety of jobs. As a result of the nature of military training, businesses other than farming have been precluded from operating on the Training Area. Nevertheless, the Training Area has been perceived by local people as a considerable asset, providing a source of local employment that farming and tourism simply could not match.

The final change that has taken place in the upper Rede valley, is one which has also occurred in the neighbouring valleys of the North Tyne and the Coquet and one which has become a distinctive feature of the National Park. This is the work carried out in the valley by the Forestry Commission (Walton 1962). The Commission first began planting in rural Northumberland in the neighbouring North Tyne valley in the 1920s but extended its activities into Redesdale as land became available. The second Lord Redesdale of the second creation (David Mitford 1878 – 1958) inherited the Redesdale family estate in 1916 shorn of the two and a half thousand acres purchased by the Army for the Otterburn range. In 1918, Lord Redesdale sold the outlying portions of the estate and over 8 000 acres around Byrness was purchased by a Teesside industrialist Sir James Marr. In 1930, following Marr’s death, the property was sold to the Forestry Commission who began planting shortly afterwards. The Marr property was to be the foundation of the 17 000 acre Redesdale Forest that was an extension of the Kielder and Wark Forests in North Tynedale. The Redesdale Forest, which is within the National Park, brought some additional employment to the area and a substantial increase in the population of the village of Byrness (see below). In recent years, this trend has been reversed as increasingly the routine work of forest planting, harvesting and some maintenance has been carried out by contractors whose workers often do not live in the Rede valley and whose labours have been substantially mechanised.

As a result of these three developments, the topography and economy of the parts of the Rede valley within the National Park have been changed considerably as has the way of life in the communities within this area.

6.10.5 CommunicationsAt the present time, the upper Rede valley has only one major road through it, the A68 trunk road. Armstrong’s map of 176935 on the other hand shows three roads in use in the valley at that time. One ran from the North Tyne valley over the moors to link to the Ruken or Rooken road, which ran from Bellingham to the valley, at Blakehope just north of Rochester. In turn this road linked with the main road through the valley, which ran from Otterburn over the Carter into Scotland, at Byrness. All evidence suggests that these were ancient tracks that had been in use for many years.36

34 For information about the Army ranges see, Charlton 1996 and Owen 2003.35 NRO (Melton Park office) Armstrong’s Map of Northumberland (1769).36 For further information see, R L Plackett 1996/97.



In 1774, the road from Carter Bar to Elsdon was made into a Turnpike Trust by Act of Parliament. This permitted the Trustees to improve the road by widening, repairing and altering it and then charging a toll for its use. The subsequent road was highly successful and up until the 1840s was heavily used. In 1833, it was linked to Newcastle by the opening of a new road that joined it at Monkridge just south of Otterburn. Suggestions were made about this this time that a railway might be constructed through the valley to Scotland, but nothing came of this scheme. However, the opening of the East Coast line from Newcastle to Edinburgh, coupled with improvements in the road system, badly affected traffic on the Elsdon Turnpike. By 1880 local people were no longer prepared to see it remain in private hands and it was taken into county ownership. From this, it was gradually transformed into a national highway.

Of the other roads, the Rooken road was maintained by a local committee for much of the nineteenth century but was not taken into county ownership. Like the road from the North Tyne, it was eventually incorporated in the system of forestry roads for use in planting and harvesting trees.

6.11 Elsdon from the 18th century to the present

The development of the village between the 18th century and the late 20th century has been analysed in great depth by Conzen (1969) and the following account draws extensively on that work.

The Rev. Dodgson, rector of Elsdon between 1762-65, provides a succinct description of the village as it appeared when he first arrived to take up his ministry .(cited in Tomlinson 1888, 306-7):

Modern Elsden is a very small village consisting of a tower which the inhabitants call a castle, an inn for refreshment of the Scotch travellers, five little farmhouses and a few wretched cottages - about ten in all, inhabited by poor people who receive the parish allowance, and superannuated shepherds. These buildings, such as they are, may be conceived to stand at very unequal distances from one another, in the circumference of an imaginary oval, the longer axis of which coincides with the meridian line and is about 200 yards long; the shorter may be perhaps 100. In the centre stands the church, which is very small, without either a tower or a spire…

The situation of the village is such that in descending a hill called Gallawlaw, from the south, it gives a person an idea of a few scattered cottages built in a boggy island, which is almost surrounded by three little brooks; on the north by Dunshiels Burn, on the east by Elsden Burn, and on the west and south by Whiskershield Burn..….. There is not a town in the whole parish, except Elsden itself may be called one; the farm-houses, where the principal families`live, are five or six miles distant from one another, and the whole country looks like a desert.

Hodgson, writing the 1820s, was scarcely more complementary:

Elsden is a small town consisting of a circular row of houses, of different degrees of architecture, from mediocrity downwards (1827, 86).

Nevertheless, the number of buildings around the green which date to the 18 th and early 19th

centuries – even, in the case of the Bacchus, exhibiting a the degree of architectural pretension, (see below) – suggests a degree of local prosperity at this time. Several of these 18th-early 19th century buildings were inns, e.g. the Bird in the Bush[40], the Crown [13-14]



and the Bacchus (formerly the Scotch Inn) [12], built in the early 18th century and extended in the late 18th or early 19th C. The existence of inns of this kind underlines the importance of Elsdon’s role as a local transport hub at this time and the trade brought to these inns by Scottish carters and drovers using the developing turnpike network and the cross-border droveways was probably one of the principal reasons for the apparent relative prosperity of the village economy during this period.

Elsdon. Buildings around the Green (P.F. Ryder)

Towards the north end of the west side is the single-storey Old Rector’s School [52], with a projecting porch with the inscription ‘THE RECTOR’S SCHOOL / T 1835 S’ and above that, in the pediment, ‘GOD IS LIGHT ANDS IN HIM IS NO DARKNESS AT ALL’; to the right is a later 19 th-century cross-gabled block.

Further to the south, on the junction with the road to Otterburn, the Bird and Bush Inn [40] is an early 18th-century building, with an old mounting block outside. The oldest part is of three bays; the north end, facing the Otterburn Road, only has one window, to the attic; this has a chamfered surround and, even at this height above the ground, sockets for vertical iron bars, proof of concern for security. To the right here is a rear wing, probably of the early 19 th century, that has a Gothic-arched stair window, later altered to a square headed form. The front has chamfered jambs to its doorway, but the present windows, 4-pane sashes, are set in openings that have probably been enlarged; their sills are clearly 19 th century. The age of the building is however given away by its steep roof pitch and shaped kneelers to its gables. To the south is a two-bay extension, probably of the later 18th century.

The buildings to the south of the Green are largely of 20 th-century date, although there is one 19 th-century single-storeyed cottage. On the Green is the 18 th century Pinfold [41], a circular enclosure with a square headed doorway.

The best range of buildings is towards the north end of the west side of the Green. At its south end is the former Bacchus Inn [12], which has a three-bay main block with a taller hip-roofed cross wing at its north end. The main block of early to mid-18th century date is of coursed squared stone and has a central segmental-arched doorway with a chamfered surround with keystone, above which a corbel in the form of a cherub supports a rustic figure of Bacchus sitting his barrel and holding a flask. The windows of the block may have been enlarged. Linking the block to the wing is a half bay containing a round-arched doorway with fanlight; the wing has a plinth, sill and first floor bands, and tripartite sash windows, the upper of Venetian form a radial-glazed head. The half bay and wing are probably of the later 18th century; the north side of the wing has 19th-century openings.

The next block was a stable block or coach house [14] to the Crown Inn. It is now of two storeys and three bays; the windows on either side of the central door are set in blocked elliptical-headed arches. There is a band above; the upper floor may possibly be an addition. This is followed by the former Crown Inn [13], a range with a more steeply-pitched roof, with rendered walls and a doorway in an architrave surround, with its head inscribed ‘JOHN GALLON ANNO 1729' and a moulded cornice on bold console brackets. The windows have probably been altered; adjacent to the north-west corner is an old mounting block. The adjacent single-storeyed range, of good-quality squared



stone, is probably of the early 19th century, and consists of a three-bay cottage and then, as the ground drops away, a slightly lower cart shed with an elliptical-arched entrance and small windows.

6.11.1 EnclosureThe common land of the township was enclosed in 1731, one of the earliest enclosures authorised by an Act of Parliament. The layout of the enclosed fields surrounding the ancient enclosed lands is shown on the map drawn up in conjunction with the award (fig. 15) and is itemised in the attached terrier (figs. 17-21). However, if the ever observant Rev. Dodgson is to be believed, it is questionable how significant the immediate impact of this measure was.

The inhabitants are fond of a pastoral life, but have no taste for agriculture. The enclosed lands are only separated by a dry ditch and a low bank of earth. The sheep, as Milton says, at one bound would overleap all bounds. Quicksetts would grow, but people are enemies to hedges, because the sheep would be entangled in them.

Evidently the vast bulk of the recently-enclosed ground was given over to pasture, just as before. Moreover the lack of proper fencing meant there was little incentive for landowners to improve their pasture, since such expenditure might simply benefit their neighbours.

6.11.2 PopulationThe best evidence relating to the population of Elsdon in the 18 th century is provided by the 1762 Militia List (figs. 38-9). Thirteen able-bodied, adult males eligible for service are listed for Elsdon, plus a further four for Mote farmstead and the miller Thomas Avere for ‘Elsdon Miln’, thirteen being by far the largest total for any individual settlement in the parish (Otterburn by comparison has only four men listed against it). This would strongly suggests that Elsdon was still the principal settlement in the valley in the mid 18 th century. The range of occupations recorded include several farmers, their sons and servants, the odd shepherd and a couple of labourers. A tailor and clogmaker (‘woodshoemaker’) resided at Mote whilst the list is completed by the miller, an innkeeper and the parish clerk.

6.11.3 Roads and CommunicationsElsdon was a hub of communications probably as early as the medieval period. Ultimately as many as seven different routes can be traced leading away from the village in different directions (cf. Conzen 1969, 76-7; Rushworth 1996, 16-21). The main turnpike route from Eldon to Carter Bar via Otterburn has been discussed above (see Upper Redesdale – 1700 to 2000: Communications), but the others merit consideration since they all contributed to the development of the village.

Elsdon-Otterburn-Redeswire roadOne of the earliest routes ran westward towards Otterburn, like the present-day road which exits the village green in this direction, running past ‘the Bird in the Bush’. Beyond Otterburn this trackway continued up the dale towards the Border crossing at Redeswire (near the modern Carter Bar crossing), following roughly the same course as the present A696 and A68. The early track adopted a much more meandering course than its modern counterpart, however, as Armstrong’s map of 1769 makes clear, and repeatedly forded the Rede, especially above Byrness (cf. Hodgson 1827, 161).

The Great Drove Road (north)Just outside Elsdon, at the Elsdon Gate toll bar, another route diverged from the Otterburn road, heading in a north-westerly direction. This route, which can still be followed as a minor trackway, climbed onto the high moors crossing Davyshiel Common running along the ridges which formed the watershed between the Redesdale and Coquetdale, before joining with Dere Street near Featherwood which then crossed the border at Chew Green. This



moorland route may have been of very great antiquity. It has been suggested that it may have originated as prehistoric ridgeway (Charlton & Day 1976, 229; Charlton 1996, 125). In the post-medieval period it was known as the ‘Great Drove-’ or ‘Drift Road’, and was used by drovers moving cattle from the Scottish Highlands to the markets of England, men such as the Highlander, Alexander Munro, who expired at Dudlees on June 15th 1801, aged only 34 (EPR 226). It was may well have been preferred over the Redeswire route and the course of Dere Street through High Rochester, because/as it largely avoided the enclosed fields in the valley and the problems that inevitably arose when livestock were moved through cultivated land.

It was doubtless also this route which was used by General Carpenter in 1716, when he crossed the moors with three regiments of cavalry to forstall an anticipated push towards Newcastle by the Jacobean forces at Carlisle. Leaving Jedburgh on the 2nd November, he reached Elsdon that night and Newcastle on the morning of the 4th, which demonstrates just how rapid communications could be at this time in extreme circumstances (Hodgson 1827, 87-8).As noted above, in its definitive form this route follows the same course as the Otterburn Road heading west out of the village, only diverging when the Elsdon toll gate is reached 800m outside the settlement. This probably reflects the state of affairs after Enclosure in 1731 and more particularly the turnpiking of the Otterburn Road in 1776. Originally, however, it is likely that the droveway traced a separate course northwestward out of the village, as is indicated by a surviving right of way across the fields to the west and north west, which joins the present course of the drove road 0.7km NNW of Elsdon Gate.

The Great Drove Road (south)The Great Drift Road continued southward towards Stagshaw Bank, just north of Corbridge, where a great annual livestock fair was held. It naturally followed the corridor of common leading off the south end of the green, crossing the Elsdon Burn beside the bridge for current Elsdon-Morpeth road, and thence continued more or less due south. Its course can be traced on the Elsdon tithe map (fig. 28) and the Corsenside and Woodburn Inclosure Award (1792).

The Hepple TrackwaysConzen (1969, 76) argues that another early routeway, which connected the village with Hepple and Rothbury in Coquetdale, left the green just to the east of the church. Its course crossed the Elsdon Burn by means of a ford at the site of the modern bridge, then traversed the fields south of the present village hall to reach Landshot, before continuing east- and then northward under the Fell Sandstone scarp of the Hepple Moors, with an alternative trackway leading to Rothbury over the south eastern flank of the Simonside hills. These routes are shown on Armstrong’s map of 1769. The same approach via Landshot, crossing the fields to the east of the village, is also shown on the tithe map in 1839 (NRO DT 164/4 M; fig. 28), and on an 1811 plan of a projected road from Elsdon to Rothbury (Aln Cas O XXIII 40/2; fig. 24), but not on the 1731 enclosure map (QRD 3; figs. 15-16). However, it is likely that a route which exited the north end of the village was at least equally if not more important in providing access towards Hepple and the Coquet valley. This took advantage of the corridor of common land which opened outward like a large funnel giving access to the township’s moorland common grazing. The original course of this route meandered past the tower house heading northward along the west side of the Elsdon Burn as far as Elsdon mill where it crossed the burn. It then crossed the moors before following the course of the Grasslees Burn down towards Hepple and the Coquet. Although it was omitted by Armstrong, its course is shown on the earlier enclosure map and today serves as the main route into the village from the north. However the precise means by which it enters the village was subjected to a complex sequence of alterations in the early 19th century, discussed below.

Turnpikes and other road improvements



The earliest attempt to improve road communications to Elsdon through the creation of turnpiking trusts and the charging of tolls was made in 1751 with the establishment of a turnpike road connecting the village with turnpike system further east. The course of this road is shown on Armstrong’s map and can still be used today. It used the main exit corridor at the south end of village, crossing the burn by a ford (or by an earlier bridge) which was replaced by current bridge built about 1792. The road changed direction at the site of the later Starmyers Cottage, heading SSE then ESE across the wild moorland of Ottercops Moss and Harwood Moor (now Forest), and then continued via Cambo, Scotsgap and Mitford to Morpeth. Near Gallows Hill it connected with a system of turnpike roads leading to Newcastle, Hexham, Alnwick and Alnmouth. Despite its many links the route was too circuitous to attract sufficient through traffic and the trust was wound up around 1824 for lack income (Conzen 1969, 76-7; Taylor n.d., 22).

More successful was the route from Elsdon via Otterburn up the valley to the Scottish Border at Carter which was turnpiked in 1776 and was to continue to operate as such until 1881. This was subject to steady improvements, which transformed into the road of today a route once notorious for the number of fords along its course by which it repeatedly crossed from one bank of the Rede to the other. However the final major improvement, the ‘New Line’ of 1833, which involved the construction of the Ponteland turnpike from Belsay to Otterburn, bypassed Elsdon at a distance of over a mile and must have been a serious blow to the village’s economy when it was completed in 1836, taking away a lot of trade from the three inns around the green. Moreover the steep road complete with a new bridge over the burn providing a direct link from the village to the new turnpike at Raylees was not constructed until 1865, almost thirty years later. Moreover it was to be almost thirty years before a direct link to the new turnpike was completed in the Newcastle direction, involving the use of a short but steep stretch of road leading from a new bridge over the Elsdon Burn to a junction with the ‘New Line’ at Raylees in 1865 (Conzen 1969, 77; Taylor n.d., 23).37 Today this final addition to road network around the Elsdon provides the most convenient route into village from Newcastle.

The northern entrance to the village was also improved during the early 19 th century in a complex sequence of alterations which can be followed in estate plans of the period (see figs. 24, 26-8, 30). The original route into the village from Hepple crossed the Elsdon Burn at Elsdon mill then ran along along the west side of the burn passing close by the walls of the tower house to enter the north end of the green. Such tight control of one of the main access routes into and out of the village may have been useful during the turbulent medieval period or the 16th century, but was obviously rather inconvenient for the rector in the 19 th century, particularly when Thomas Singleton, the incumbent from 1812-1842, set about making substantial improvements to the property. An alternative route ran via the Mote Hills farmstead, passing around the east and south sides of the Norman earthwork castle, crossing the burn by a ford where the present bridge stands and entering via the east side of the green. 38

Both these early trackways are shown on the 1731 enclosure map (QRD 3; figs. 15-16) and on an 1811 plan of a projected road from Elsdon to Rothbury (Aln Cas O XXIII 40/2; fig. 24).39 The first alteration was the construction in 1825 of a bridge across the Elsdon Burn to

37 A track or road following this route is actually shown on the tithe map and the 1 st edition Ordnance Survey, but this evidently crossed the burn via a ford. The bridge was certainly not built until 1865 and appears for the first time on the 2nd edtion Ordnance Survey.38 The development of this road is discussed by Welfare 1995, 49, who argues it was constructed at the same time as the field enclosure took place c. 1730. However, although the road may have been formalised at this time and defined by hedges etc., it is possible that a track followed this line from an earlier date. Moat or High Mote farmstead was in existence by 1604 (1604 Survey, 87, ‘Moat’). The castle enclosure and the field known as Moat Yards to the south are already shown as ancient enclosed ground on the 1731 map.39 A copy by Robert Tate of an original survey by D Cummings in 1804. The line of the projected road diverged from the Landshot road and headed north via Hudspeth towards Hepple and Rothbury, sticking close to the Grasslees Burn. It was presumably intended to replace the earlier trackways leading out of the north end



the west of the castle earthworks which brought the route from Elsdon Mill back over to the east side of the burn, bypassing the tower and the rector’s grounds. The new route then joined with the road from Mote Hills and entered the village on the east side of the green. The final alteration saw the 1825 bridge itself become redundant as the stretch of road to the north was rerouted along the east side of the burn. This work appears for the first time on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey (figs. 32-33).

TransportBy the early 19th century a number of operators were taking advantage of these early turnpike improvements to offer transport services which connected Elsdon to the major population centres (cf. Taylor n.d., 23). Thus the famous ‘Chevy Chase’ coach left Newcastle at least two days a week, bound for Edinburgh via Cambo, Elsdon and Jedburgh. The coach left Newcastle at six o’clock in the morning, alternating between the Queen’s Head, Pilgrim Street and the Sun Inn, Newgate Street, and arrived in Edinburgh at eight in the evening. In addition, a weekly carrier, Messrs Keith and Boiston departed the Bigg Market and the Robin Hood Pilgrim Street every Thursday for Elsdon and Otterburn.

6.11.4 The 19th centuryThe drovers and the ‘Scotch carriers’ mentioned by the Rev. Dodgson, who presumably used these routes and the Elsdon turnpike after it opened, may have brought a modest prosperity to Elsdon, or at any rate to its innkeepers. In the 18 th and 19th centuries a series of new routes were constructed as outlined above. Although these roads have undoubtedly improved Elsdon’s connections to the outside world, the eventual construction of the improved line for the Jedburgh Turnpike after 1829 resulted in most traffic bypassing the village, ensuring that Elsdon declined in importance relative to Otterburn. Already in 1827 Hodgson had described Otterburn as ‘the emporium of Redesdale . . neat and well-built; and has the appearance of industry, thrift and comfort about it’ (1827, 107). In the second half of the century Otterburn was to pull away decisively.

Elsdon’s ecclesiastical status as the parochial centre was no longer as significant as had once been the case, with additional Anglican churches and chapels being founded in the valley, firstly at Byrness in 1796, then Horsley (1844) and Otterburn (1858) in the mid 19 th century. Initially these were built as chapels of ease within Elsdon parish, to provide for more convenient centres of worship for the valley’s population, but Horsley was promoted to the status of a separate parish in 1884. Furthermore much of the valley’s population was now worshipping in non-conformist (predominantly Presbyterian) churches and chapels. One such congregation used the Assembly Room attached to the north end of the Bacchus Inn [12], on the east side of the green.

The Rector’s School [52] was founded by the Church of England in 1835. The small building was situated towards the north end of the green and there was a dwelling house attached for the schoolmaster. All the children, sometimes numbering up to 40 and ranging in age from 5 to 13 years, were taught in one classroom, whilst toilet provision was somewhat rudimentary with no urinals and only a few earth closets for the girls. As late as 1884, reports by School Board inspectors show that there were hardly any desks, none at all for the infants, and it was recommended that paper be used instead of slate (cf. Taylor n.d., 49-50). The inspectors were appointed by the School Boards set up by the 1870 Education Act. Their reports were incorporated in the school log books, which are a mine of fascinating information on the conduct of education and many aspects of wider village life in the later 19th century (see figs 41-42). The problems of poor attendance during severe winter weather is often highlighted. Even as late as March ‘3 roads out of 4 out of Elsdon still blocked with snow’ could make it impossible for many pupils from outside the village to attend.

of the village but was never constructed.



Conzen identified only seven buildings from the mid- and late Victorian era at Elsdon (1969, 79), and noted that the population of Elsdon township (later civil parish) fell substantially from 313 in 1851 to 192 in 1891. Not only were specific issues at work in Elsdon, relating to its sudden bypassing by the main routes through the valley, but also this period was one of widespread agricultural depression, leading to reduction of the number of people employed on the land. Local farming increasingly specialised in the rearing and summer feeding of hardy cattle and sheep. The Crown changed from being an inn to a farm and High Mote Farm was also established in this century.

6.11.5 Coal miningThe economic and demographic decline was somewhat mitigated by the revival and development of coal mining in the locality in the later 19 th century. Small scale coal-mining and prospecting had taken place around Elsdon in previous centuries (see Appendix 8 – a pit sunk in 1723), some of it in or adjacent to the Mote Hills. 40 The new Elsdon Colliery [60-61] was a small mine on the western outskirts of the village next to the road to Otterburn (cf. fig 73). The pit opened in the 1880s, initially as a shaft mine, with a drift mine being sunk nearby in about 1900. The drift mine was developed by Wakes of Darlington and saw a series of subsequent owners, Mr G Dent of Elsdon and Cummin and Hunter of Carlisle. It employed up to 25 miners. Following nationalisation of the coal mining industry after World War II, Elsdon pit was allowed to carry on as a licensed mine employing under 25 people and continued to provide significant employment in the village up until 1972 when it finally closed.

Largely as a result of opening of the mine, the population of Elsdon civil parish rose during the decades around the turn of the 19th century increasing from 192 in 1891 to 243 in 1911, reversing what had been a pronounced decline through the second half of the 19th century.

6.11.6 The 20th centuryThe population of the locality resumed its steady decline after the first decade of the 20 th

century. Despite this a significant number of new buildings were added to the fabric of the village during this century. Between the two world wars as many as fourteen new buildings were erected (Conzen 1969, 79), filling gaps in the periphery of the green or located on the outskirts of the village. These included a fine group of early council houses [54] built c. 1920 in the late Arts and Crafts style on the south east side of the green and new bungalows erected next to the coal pit to house the miners. A little more housing was built in the second half of the century, mainly concentrated off the south east side of the green around Crawford Close. A village hall was also erected in the late 1950s at the north end of the village beside the lane leading to the Mote Farm. Built in a ‘prefab’ style of temporary materials this structure has probably served its allotted timespan and is now in need of replacement.

The school steadily expanded up until the end or World War II (Taylor n.d., 50). By 1900 there were 70 pupils on the rolls and attendance was compulsory between the ages of 5 and 13. The original building was enlarged by the addition of a second classroom and a kitchen, but flush lavatories were not installed until 1939. An influx of evacuees increased the roll to 75 in 1940 and lessons were partly conducted in the rector’s tower! After the war, however the number of pupils fell to 36 and continued to decline thereafter, falling to 25 by 1962, a level which was maintained up until final closure in the 1970s.

When Conzen revised his detailed survey of Elsdon in 1975 there were 104 adults living in the village. Many were retired, but those gainfully employed worked in a wide range of occupations. Despite this he concluded that Elsdon’s functional status as a rural service centre was by that stage very low, this role having been almost completely usurped by Otterburn (Conzen 1969, 80). Typifying this is the history of the Church of St Cuthbert, the

40 The field immediately north of the earthwork castle is labelled Collier’s Bank on a plan of 1823 (fig. 26).



building which perhaps more than any other symbolises Elsdon. In 1921 Otterburn was hived off as a separate parish centred on the Church of St John, but by the second half of the century the process was reversed with parishes being amalgamated rather than divided (cf. Taylor n.d., 36, 42). In 1952 the parishes of Horsley and Byrness were integrated with that of Otterburn which was now the most important parish in the valley. Elsdon was combined with this in 1961 to form a new parish – labelled Otterburn with Elsdon, Horsley with Byrness – embracing most of Redesdale. This had the same extent as the old pre 1884 parish of Elsdon, but the vicarage of the new parish lay at Otterburn. Ten years later, in 1971, further consolidation and enlargement occurred with the formation of the Otterburn Group Ministry, which also embraced Kirkwhelpington, Kirkheaton and Corsenside to the east and south. Services still take place in St Cuthbert’s Church, but the ancient tower house, the residence of such a long series of distinguished rectors, including Charles Dodgson, Lewis Dutens and Thomas Singleton, is now a private dwelling. Presbyterian services in the village have ceased altogether.

Elsdon’s decline as a service centre for the rural locality has continued in the 30 years since Conzen wrote. The school [52] finally closed in July 1975, although for sometime after it functioned as an outdoor centre, and there is no longer a petrol station next to the site of the coal mine. Nevertheless there are still a number of businesses in the village. The Bird in the Bush [40] still provides a convivial focus for the community. The café towards the north end of the green is very popular with the cyclists for whom it provides much-needed sustenance after slogging around the narrow lanes of the National Park, whilst the opening of a pottery and art gallery underlines the just how radically the British rural economy has changed over the last few decades. Ironically, despite all the changes, farming is still a relatively important feature of the local economy, as it has been throughout the centuries.

A definitive history of Elsdon in the 20th century remains to be written, perhaps most appropriately by members of the local community. Through the use of oral history recordings as well as a range of photographic, cartographic and documentary media such a project might not only chart the development of the village throughout the century, but, perhaps more importantly, capture the personalities who enriched the life of Elsdon in this period of dramatic change.



7. SELECTED SOURCES AND SURVEYS

7.1 Survey of the Debateable and Border Lands adjoining the Realm of Scotland and belonging to the Crown of England taken A.D. 1604, (ed.) R P Sanderson (Alnwick, 1891), 87-88, 100-101.

Freeholders

Area Individual Rent Buildings Quantity of Ground

EL

LE

SDE

N P

AR

ISH

E

Nightside, The Shawe, and Moate

William Hall 4s 1 house1 outhouse

6 acres meadow4 acres arable40 acres pasture

Edward Ellesden 8d 1 house2 outhouses


The Gleibe 1 house2 outhouses


Will: Hall of Otterborne

4 houses4 outhouses


Gabriell Hall 2s 1 house 4 acres meadow8 acres arable48 acres pasture

Thomas Read 2s 2 houses2 outhouses


Ellen Towne(Elsdon)

Persival Hall 1s 1 house1 outhouse

3 acres meadow2 acres arable2 rods arable22 acres pasture

William Hall 2 rods arable2 acres pasture

John Hall 1s 8d 10 acres meadow40 acres pasture

Jasper Hall 6d A millLee Houses Sir Wm: Fennicke, Kt. 10 acres meadow

20 acres pastureWoosecar Sheylds William Hall 3s 3 houses

3 outhouses16 acres meadow20 acres arable144 acres pasture

Attercops, and Ye

LeseGabriell Hall 1d 1 house

2 outhouses26 acres meadow16 acres arable168 acres pasture

Hudspeth William Hall, John Hall, Tho. Spurr, and others

4d 7 houses7 outhouses


The Bower Sheylds

Gabriell Hadley 5s 2d 1 house2 outhouses

6 acres meadow8 acres meadow56 acres pasture

Reddinge Idem 4s 1 house1 outhouse




The Bourne and Fauside

Thomas Reade 7s 1d 1 house1 outhouse


The Kill House(Hill House now Laingshill)

William Hall 1 house1 outhouse


The Dun George Dun 1s 1 house1 outhouse


Hard Lawe The perticuler Tenants 3s 4d The grounde given in; in customary Tenements

Cally borne Mill(Kelly burn)

The owner therof 1s 8d A mill

Munkeridge Hall Roger Hall 8d 1 house2 outhouses


Summa £3 16s 10d

70 houses75 outhouses


Customary Tenants

Area Individual Descent Rent Buildings Quantity of Ground

EL

LE

SDE

N P

AR

ISH

E

David Shields

Edward Anderson

By discent 1s 4d 1 house 1 acre meadow2 acres arable

John Anderson By discent 4d 5 acres arable

Summa1s 8d 1 house 1 acre meadow

7 acres arable8 acres pasture

Fernie haugh

William Hall By discent 3s 1 acre meadow3 acres arable2 acres pasture

Taddles

Oswin Hall By purchase for xvli.

6s 8d 1 house 8 acres meadow6 acres arable

Edward Lounsden

By John his father

6s 8d 1 house 5 acres meadow4 acres arable2 rods arable

Alexander Hedley

By purchase for xiiijli.


Summa£1 3 houses 18 acres meadow


Ellesden William Hall By George his father

10s 1 house1 outhouse


Wm. Hall of Townfoot

By Ralph his father

4s 1 house 3 acres meadow4 acres arable

Thomas Ellesden

By Persivall his father


Persivall Hall By John his father


4 acres meadow2 acres arable1 rod arable

Michael Hall By John his father




Idem By Jo: his father

3s 4d The toule of two faires.

Summa£1 10s 4d

5 houses2 outhouses

22 acres meadow23 acres arable3 rods arable144 acres pasture1 rod pasture

Langshethe (Landshot.)

John Hedley, senr.

By Robert his father


Anthonie Hedley

By discent 2s 6d 1 house 5 acres meadow6 acres arable

William Hedley

By discent


John Hedley, junr


Summa10s 4 houses 20 acres meadow


Peter Read By purch: for xvjs. viijd



Robert Potte, senr

By Andr: their father

2s 4d 1 house 3 acres meadow2 rods meadow3 acres arable2 rods arable

John Potte 2s 4d 1 house 3 acres meadow2 rods meadow3 acres arable2 rods arable

Carricke Reynold Pott By Thomas his father

4s 8d 1 house1 outhouse

2 acres meadow3 acres arable2 rods arable

Robert Pott, junr.

By John his father

8s 2d 1 house 5 acres meadow4acres arable

George Potte By purch: forxijli

3s 6d 1 house 2 acres meadow2 rods meadow3 acres arable

James Pott By Thomas his father

1s 9d 1 house1 outhouse

2 acres meadow2 rods meadow7 acres arable

Marke Potte By purchace 3s 6d 1 house1 outhouse

5 acres meadow14 acres arable

Anthonie Potte By William his father

1s 9d 1 house 2 acres meadow2 rods meadow7 acres arable

Summa£1 8s 8 houses

3 outhouses26 acres meadow2 rods meadow45 acres arable2 rods arable85 acres pasture



7.2 The Reverend Dodgson snowed up at Elsdon 1762 (reproduced in Tomlinson 1888, 307):

“There is not a town in all the parish, except Elsdon itself be called one; the farmhouses, where the principal families live, are five or six miles distant from one another; and the whole country looks like a desert. The greater part of the richest farmers are Scotch dissenters, and go to a meeting-house at Birdhope Craig, about ten miles from Elsdon; however, they don’t interfere in ecclesiastical matters, or study polemical divinity. Their religion descends from father to son and is rather a part of the personal estate than the result of reasoning, or the effect of enthusiasm. Those who live near Elsdon come to the church, those at a greater distance towards the west go to the meeting-house at Birdhope Craig; others, both Churchmen and Presbyterians, at a very great distance, go to the nearest church or conventicle in the neighbouring parish. There is a very good understanding between the parties; for they not only intermarry with each other, but frequently do penance together in a white sheet with a white wand, barefoot, in one of the coldest churches in England, and at the coldest seasons of the year. I dare not finish the description for fear of bringing on a fit of the ague; indeed, the ideas of sensation are sufficient to starve a man to death without having recourse to those of reflection. If I was not assured by the best authority upon earth that the world was to be destroyed by fire, I should conclude that they day of destruction is at hand, and brought on by means of an agent very opposite to that of heat. There is not a single tree or hedgerow within twelve miles to break the force of the wind; it sweeps down like a deluge from hills capped with everlasting snow, and blasts almost the whole country into one continued desert. The whole country is doing penance in a white sheet; for it began to snow on Sunday night, and the storm has continued ever since.”



8. THE MEDIEVAL BUILDINGS OF ELSDON

By P F Ryder

8.1 The Parish Church of St Cuthbert, Elsdon

The church[26] consists of a broad nave with a western bellcote and a roof of shallow pitch extending unbroken over the aisles, a south porch, transepts, and a chancel with a vestry on the north.

8.1.1 ExteriorThe west end of the Nave is built of coursed roughly squared stone, now very heavily mortared. The bellcote is carried by a broad but shallow projection, containing the west window of three cinquefoil-headed lights with panel tracery over under a two-centred arch; all its stonework is of later 19th-century date, and above its head is the four-centred arch of a previous window, although possibly no older than the early 19 th century. The bellcote is one of a distinctive Northumberland group, probably of 17th century date; it has a round-headed arch with square imposts and a keystone, with finials on either side and a cross-gabled spirlet above, carrying a wrought-iron finial cross. On either side of the bellcote projection are short lengths of a big triple-stepped sloping plinth; beyond these, in the west walls of the aisles, are narrow windows that have had round heads, now somewhat mutilated; the larger one, on the south, has upright blocks as its jambs. The gable itself has a raised slab coping, with short horizontal returns at its feet, in a common late 18th or early 19th century manner. The east gable of the nave has a similar coping, and is topped by the base of a lost finial. The south wall of the nave - only a short length of which is exposed above the eastern slope of the transept roof - has a square oversailing course, of 19th-century character, to the eaves.

The south wall of the South Aisle is again of coursed roughly-squared stone; at its west end is a low stepped buttress. On either side of the porch are square-headed windows, Each of three trefoiled ogee lights, under moulded hoods with crowned heads as stops; both are entirely of 19th-century date; about 0.60 m east of the porch is what looks like the east jamb of an older doorway. Above the porch is a slab with the inscription ‘REPAIRED MDCCCXXXVII’ (1837). The south doorway, inside the porch, is of tooled-and-margined 19th-century ashlar, and has a two-centred arch with a continuous chamfer m whole wall same as side walls porch; the wall around it and the internal faces of the side walls of the porch are all of 19th-century date. The outer arch of the South Porch is of two-centred form, with a slightly-dropped keystone, its continuous chamfer being studded with square four-petalled, with a mitred head at the apex; the gable above has a raised coping and a cross crosslet finial. The side walls of the porch are of coursed square stone, with 19 th-century tooled-and-margined quoins; a re-used stone in the west wall is inscribed ‘W T 1715'. The fact that the top three or four courses of each side wall are of rather better-quality stone suggests that two phases of masonry are present, and that pre-1837 masonry may survive.

The north wall of the North Aisle is of very roughly coursed rubble, except for its upper 2 m or so which is of slightly better quality stone, with more recent fabric still just below the eaves; there are no openings at all, the absence of a north door being very unusual in any medieval church.

The South Transept is of coursed roughly-squared stone; it is clear that its western aisle is an addition. There have been quite slender pairs of stepped buttresses at the angles of the original transept, with a chamfered plinth and two levels of moulded string courses, the upper



of which has continued across the wall between them. Above the head of the surviving southern member of the western pair, a kneeler and then the footstone of the original pre-aisle gable can be seen in outline, whilst above the eastern pair of buttresses the whole angle of the transept is corbelled out rather clumsily, presumably indicating a later heightening. The present south window of the transept is a big four-light one, with tracery, moulded hood and head stops, all of 19th-century date; about 0.30 m outside its west jamb is the west jamb of an earlier window. The window also cuts down through the earlier moulded string course which only survives to the east of it. Between the window and the south-west buttress what looks like a blocked doorway is in fact a big 18 th-century monument with Doric columns carrying a pediment enclosing a coat of arms. Both the east and west walls of the transept are quite featureless.

The North Transept is similar to the south in having identical paired buttresses at its angles, and an added west aisle; in this case the western buttress of the north-western pair is incorporated in the north end of the added aisle; the aisle has a low and shallow buttress at the north end of its west wall. As on the south the gable end of the transept again has a large 19th-century traceried window, of four lights, which cuts away most of the string course; the gable coping is again of 19th-century date. On the east of the transept, and only visible above the vestry roof, is a large blocked square-headed window. The west wall of the transept aisle is quite featureless.

The Chancel is of similar fabric to the rest of the church, although less heavily mortared. Its south wall has been relatively untouched by the Victorian restorer. At its west end is a square-headed three-light window of three trefoiled ogee-headed lights with cusped mouchettes above, under a moulded hood with worn heads stops. Its sill is set a little lower than those of the other windows in the wall, so that in effect it is a ‘low side’ window, the function of which used to exercise Victorian antiquarian minds. Then comes a priest’s door with an irregular four-centred head and a continuous chamfer, with a hoodmould chamfered above and below, and beyond that a 14th-century single light window with a mutilated trefoiled head and two sunk mouchettes above. East of this is a vertical crack, probably a simple structural failure rather than a discontinuity in the fabric, and finally an arched window of three trefoiled ogee-headed lights with simple reticulated tracery above, under a chamfered hood with large but badly worn head stops. At eaves level is an old oversailing course with several broken off drainage spouts.

The eastern angles of the chancel each have a pair of stepped buttresses rising to about two-thirds of the height of the wall. These are rather more substantial than those of the transepts, and appear medieval although the quoins above them are of 19 th-century character. Only the lwoer part of the east wall appears old; the big five-light east window with intersecting tracery and a hood with crowned heads as stops is all of 19 th-century date, as is the gable with its coping returned at the foot, and the finial in the form of St Cuthbert’s pectoral cross.

The short length of the north wall of the chancel exposed to the east of the vestry is of heavy roughly-coursed rubble except for its top four courses of squared stone, which must represent 19th-century reconstruction. Only an indistinct patch of rubble indicates the position of the blocked window more clearly visible internally.

The 19th-century Vestry, gabled north-south, is built of coursed and roughly-tooled stone, and has a chimney stack on its north gable; on the east is a Yorkshire sash window with simple Gothic glazing bars. A second parallel block to the west projects a little further to the north, and has in its north end a boarded door and two small sash windows, sharing a common timber lintel.8.1.2 Interior



The internal walls of the church are now bare of plaster; they are largely of rubble, with little attempt at any coursing.

The 19th-century window in the west wall of the nave is set inside a large arch of a single square order and without any imposts; it has large roughly alternating blocks in its jambs and a clumsy and heavy hoodmould, of square section. The suggestion is that this is a 12 th-century arch, originally semicircular, reconstructed in its present quite steeply pointed form. Above the arch are two shallow vertical grooves in the wall, just beneath the apex of the roof, that must relates to the bell ropes and bell cote.

The nave has five bay arcades, each made up of four narrow arches on octagonal piers, then a fifth rather wider arch to the transepts, with larger square piers between the two sections. The arches are all of two-centred form, and of two chamfered orders; the octagonal piers have moulded capitals and chamfered bases, set on either square or octagonal plinths, and the heavier eastern piers have chamfered angles. The central of the three octagonal piers on the south has high-relief foliage carved on the four principals faces of the abacus of its capital; the southern of the larger square eastern piers has small caryatid-type figures as stops at the top of its chamfered angles, whilst the northern, and the eastern responds of both arcades, have has small trefoiled arches in the same position. All this looks of 14 th-century date, except for the western responds which are of 12th-century character, semicircular in plan with a beaded moulding to their bases (that on the north the better preserved) and simple capitals of rather different proportions.

The nave roof is of 19th-century date and of hammer-beam form, the braces springing from shaped and moulded ashlar corbels. The aisles have remarkable quadrant-section vaults of coursed and squared stone; series of corbels above the arcades, just beneath these vaults, must relate to an earlier phase of aisle roofing.

In the South Aisle, the west window has an internal lintel formed by a medieval cross slab (6) set on edge. Both of the 19th-century windows in the south wall have jambs cut through the rubble of the wall, and lintels formed by large slabs, some of which seem to have been medieval cross slabs, their designs erased by re-tooling, except for one (slab 12) over the eastern window, which retains remains of its incised design. The rear arch of the south door is ancient, and has a peculiar three-sided head (its central portion renewed in the 19 th-century); the inner lintels are formed by cross slabs (1) and (2), the former one of the best-preserved in the church. The small west window of the North Aisle has a crude shouldered rear arch; the north wall of the aisle is completely featureless.

The Transepts each have western arcades of three narrow bays, with architectural detail very similar to the nave arcades; the outermost arches spring from the end walls, without any corbel or respond. Both arcades are considerably lower than the nave arcades, and that in the south transept is lower than that in the north; its piers have no plinths, as if the floor level in this transept may have originally been at a lower level than that of the remainder of the church. It is clear internally that he south window of the South Transept replaces a considerably larger opening, of which parts of the jambs and rear arch are visible. The present window is set rather to the east of the centre-line of its predecessor; between the present west jamb and that of the earlier window a straight joint seems to indicate a narrowing of the latter, before its 19th-century replacement. The side walls of the transept are featureless, except for two cross slabs (3 and 4) re-set on the east.

The North Transept is very similar in having remains of its earlier gable-end window visible, but here is only seems to have been slightly wider than its 19th-century successor; what can be seen of its rear arch suggests that this was of four-centred form. On the east of



the transept is a tall blocked window with a shouldered rear arch, its sill cut away by a 19 th-century two-centred arch (with a chamfer only to its head) to the Organ Chamber.

The Chancel is entered under quite a large arch of segmental-pointed form, of two chamfered orders; the inner dies into the jambs whist the chamfer of the outer is stopped against square jambs, which have stopped chamfers to their lower portions, and a variety of cuts and sockets for earlier screens etc.

On the south side of the chancel the westernmost window has a shouldered rear arch and a level sill. Re-used above the plain internal lintel of the priest’s door is a long slab with a moulded upper edge, which is probably another grave cover. The single-light window has a chamfered internal lintel, and then comes a set of three sedilia with simple chamfered two-centred arches. The easternmost window has a four-centred rear arch with a chamfer to its head only. The upper section of the wall, from the single-light window eastwards, is corbelled out in an odd manner; might this relate to at least an intention to vault this section of the building?

At the west end of the north wall of the chancel is a 19th century arch to the organ chamber, of segmental-pointed form with a chamfer only to its head. Above its apex is a vertical break in the fabric, with the short section of wall to the west set back c 0.10 m. The door to the vestry is a 19th-century one with a chamfered shouldered arch; around 1 m from the east end of the wall is what appears to be the east jamb of a blocked window. Its west jamb is no longer apparent, suggesting that there has been a considerable amount of rebuilding in this area.

The east wall of the chancel has a rough set back c 1.2 m above the floor, above which the wall seems to have been largely rebuilt in the 19 th century; all the rear arches of the large east window looks of 19th century date.

The five-bay roof of the chancel is of 19th century date, its trusses springing from ashlar corbels like those in the nave, although behind and above them are earlier corbels, those on the south two-stepped.

8.1.3 DiscussionThere does not appear to be any recent account or analysis of the church available, as Elsdon was not covered by any of the later volumes of the Northumberland County History. An outline of the structural development is given by Pevsner et al. (2002, 267):

(1) A 12th-century (Norman) church with an aisled nave and a western tower; the (altered) tower arch and western responds of the arcades survive.

(1) 14th-century remodelling, in two phases. The transepts belong to the first, the present nave arcades (and addition of western aisles to the transepts) to the second. The chancel was also rebuilt at this time.

(1) In the 16th or early 17th century the aisles were rebuilt, narrower than previously, with their quadrant vaults and barely any windows.

(1) The present bellcote dates from 1720.

(1) Restoration in 1837 including the construction of the present south porch.

(1) Restoration in 1877, F.R.Wilson of Alnwick being the architect



8.2 Medieval Cross Slab Grave Covers in St Cuthbert's Church, Elsdon.

Elsdon church is a complex fabric with evidence of extensive later medieval rebuilding, some of it perhaps occasioned by damage around the time of the nearby battle of Otterburn in 1388; the quadrant vaults over nave and transept aisles are particularly noteworthy. There are a number of cross slabs,. most of which have been re-used in the fabric:

1) Intact slab of brown sandstone now forming the inner lintel of the south door. Cross head with expanded five-lobed terminals, carved in relief within a sunk circle. Remainder of design incised; stepped calvary base and pair of shears on 1. of shaft..

2) Intact but very worn slab of brown sandstone alongside (1). Incised design, the only visible parts of which are one transverse arm of the cross head with a fleur-de-lys terminal (14th century?) and the pommel of a sword on the r. of the shaft. .

3) Intact small slab of fawn sandstone built into the internal face of the east wall of the south transept. Plain Greek cross with sunk circle around head, 2-step calvary base, sword on r. of shaft. The design here is so simple as to be little help in dating; it might be as early as the 12th century, although not necessarily so.

4) In the same wall as (5), the upper part of a slab of yellowish sandstone, with some reddening, as if burned. Similar design to (3), except that the cross head, with sunken panels between the arms, is enclosed in an incised circle, and the sword is placed on the 1. of the cross shaft.

5) Small brown sandstone slab forming the western part of the plinth of the central pier of the south arcade. Incised cross shaft, the very top of a triangular (?) base and possible traces of the cross head, largely tooled away.

6) Slab of orange sandstone (but still bearing the remains of an old coat of whitewash) re-used edge-on as the internal lintel of the west window of the south aisle. Incised design. Cross shaft rising from semicircular-arched base, and some faint traces of what may be part of the head. Perhaps 14th century. Not dateable.

7) Complete slab standing against the north wall of the north transept. Fine-grained yellowish sandstone, relief design. Cross crosslet head, multi-stepped calvary base, sword on r. of shaft. 14th or 15th century.

8) Complete slab standing against north wall of north transept. Limestone, relief design. Greek cross with head deliberately tooled away, rising from arched base. Sword on 1. of shaft, shield on r. with some sort of animal (deer?) above. 14th or 15th century.

9) Beside (8), another limestone slab, this time with an incised design, rathe badly decayed. There is no cross; on the l. of the slab is a sword, in the centre an arrow, and on the r what may be a second broader-bladed sword on the r. Undatable.

10) A fragment built into the internal face of tie east wall of the north transept, 1 m. above floor level and 1.5 m. from the north end of the wall. Fine-grained grey sandstone, incised design. Possibly part of a cross base with a semicircular mount?

11) Roughly-finished brown sandstone slab now forming the internal sill of the low-side window on the south side of the chancel. The only visible piece of carving is an incised pair of shears; slabs such as this and (9), bearing conventional cross slab emblems without an actual cross, are not uncommon in Northumberland.



12) Brown sandstone slab re-used as the internal lintel of the window in the south aisle on the east side of the porch. Incised design, partly erased by a later re-tooling. Cross with broad shaft and crude stepped base; the head is indistinct, but may have been of some sort of four-circle form. Sword on r. of shaft.

13) The upper part of an orange sandstone slab which until c 1997 had been re-used above a ground-floor window on the west side of the 18th century part of Elsdon Tower (the former rectory). Bracelet-derivative cross within circle, with sunk panel at centre; shears on l. of shaft. Late 12th or 13th century. Removed when alterations were being made, and kept in the house.

Hodges in his notebook comments that the heads of all the square-headed windows on the south of the nave and chancel are re-used slabs, but that these are either plain or had been 'tooled over and nearly obliterated' during the earlier 19th century restoration. .

In addition to the cross slabs, there is a fourth monument standing upright against the north wall of the north transept. This bears a rather crudely incised effigy, along with traces of a marginal inscription.

Two well-preserved medieval coffins are currently stood upright against the external face of the west end of the church.

8.3 Elsdon Tower

Elsdon Tower, 'the finest of all the existing rectorial tower-houses of Northumberland' (Morris 1916, 152), stands on the summit of a detached spur of land formed by an acute turn in the valley of the Elsdon Burn, which from running south-eastward turns to flow west. This spur, on the opposite side of the valley to the early earthwork castle (Castle Hills), provides a naturally strong site; on the east is a steep drop to the Burn, with gentler slopes on the other three sides; to the south is the broad village green of Elsdon, with the parish church at its centre.

8.3.1 Historical NotesAlthough some 19th-century antiquaries believed the tower at Elsdon to have originally been built by the Umfraville family, the earliest reference to a tower here occurs in the 1415 list of castles, fortalices and towers in the county, when the 'Turris de Ellysden' is listed as being in the possession of the rector (Bates 1891, 19). A number of authorities have taken the evidence of the heraldic panel on the south of the parapet as relating to Sir Robert Umfraville, lord of Redesdale 1421-1436. No mention of any fortification at Elsdon is made in the more detailed survey of 1541.

The Lordship of Elsdon was purchased from the Howards by the First Duke of Northumberland c 1760, after which it became home to a series of noteworthy rectors. The Rev C.Dodgson (1762-1765) wrote letters, including some often-quoted lines describing his vicissitudes at Elsdon; he states 'the vestibule of the castle is a low stable, and above it is the kitchen'; he also refers to the 'parlour' (where he slept) which was presumably on the second floor. There followed the long rectorship of Lewis Dutens (1765-1812), who was succeeded by Thomas Singleton (1812-1842); Hodgson (1827, 96/7) states that at the time of Dutens' death the stone-flagged first floor served as a kitchen and servants' apartments, whilst the second floor was fitted up as a lodging room and study, with closets on either side of the bed, one serving as a wardrobe and the other 'for more general purposes'; he also refers to the former existence of 'two low rooms above, each containing four chambers'. Singleton had



remodelled the house, (before 1825; a drawing of this date shows the northern additions) converting the vaulted basement into a comfortable drawing room, the first floor into two bedrooms, and the second floor into a bedroom, dressing room and library; he had also made considerable additions to the tower, namely 'a vestibule and kitchen; a dining-room, 26 feet by 14; and bed-rooms above these: besides a back kitchen, pantry and other offices'.

An account of the house, after Singleton's remodelling, is contained in an undated letter surviving in the Northumberland County Record Office (ref (97) NRO 2471/15); addressed 'to My Dear Aunt' it describes the house from the point of view of observing it window-by-window; the two upper windows in the tower were of the 'library' out of which two small rooms ('my aunts and my cousins') opened, looking westwards; the lower windows (ie on the first floor) were of bedrooms'. The lower windows of the 'new part' were of the dining room, with over it a 'most delightful sleeping room which my father and mother occupy'. At the back of the 'porch' were two very good kitchens and other offices with three bedrooms over (one for women servants, one for men)'.

There seems to be no record of later 19th-century alterations, although it is clear that more than one phase of work is present in Singleton's extensions. The 1st edition O.S. 25":1 mile map of c 1860 (fig. 32) shows an outline plan of the building as it stands at present.

The Tower ceased to be a rectory in 1961, when the parish went into plurality and the rector moved to Otterburn.

A programme of restoration was carried out from 1995 and 1998, during which a considerable amount of archaeological recording was carried out. The following account is based on a study carried out in 1994, altered and amended to take into account this subsequent recording.

8.3.2 Description The ExteriorThe tower is a rectangular structure 13.15 m by 9.4 m, with its longer axis running east-south-east to west-north-west (hereafter east-west); the walls are 2.6 m thick at ground level. Later buildings adjoin on the north and west.

The walls of the tower are of coursed rubble, with massive elongate quoins, and cut dressings, all of local sandstone or grit. The building is of three storeys, with a gabled cap-house within a parapet. There is a chamfered plinth (roughly hacked into on the south and west), and a projecting string-course at mid-height of rather unusual section, square below and chamfered above. The walls are capped by a slightly-projecting parapet, with a chamfered base course.

The North WallThe entrance to the tower is set a little east of centre on the north side, and is now covered by a 19th-century vestibule or lobby. The doorway is now quite a wide round-headed arch, with a continuous broad hollow chamfer, but it is formed entirely in plaster, and carries various heraldic shields; its original form is uncertain.

Above the roof of the present porch is a plain lancet-shaped window lighting the newel stair; this and two similar ones above look to be of late 18th or early 19th-century date. Between the upper two is a blocked square-headed loop, formed simply out of four stones, its jambs inclining inwards towards the top. This looks an original feature; its present situation, midway between two turns of the present stair, suggests there have been internal alterations (see below).



Above the roof of the lobby, but below the string course, are a pair of square-headed windows with recessed and chamfered surrounds; they have ashlar dressings, and look to be of mid or late 19th century date.

Immediately above the string course, and set west of centre, is a blocked square-headed window with a chamfered surround, partly hidden by the roof of the adjacent wing. There has been a similar window above and a little to the west; the chamfered jambs are original but the head and sill are recent restoration.

Below the parapet (and breaking its chamfered base course), positioned directly above the entrance door, is a machicolated projection set on four corbels, between which fire could be directed or objects dropped on unwelcome visitors attempting to gain admission.

The parapet of the tower (but not of the machicolated projection) has clearly been heightened, except for a small section at each end; the heightened sections have a 'battlement' of triangular-section blocks. There is a slightly-raised section above the projection, containing a square panel with the arms of the Howards of Overacre.

The section of the external face of the north wall seen within the roof space of the vestibule seems to have been rendered or harled, in the manner of many Scottish towers. It may be worthwhile removing samples of this render for analysis.

The East EndIn the centre of the wall at basement level is a large segmental-headed window of four lights, with a transom just below the head, and a hoodmould with turned-back ends; its ashlar dressings look to be of mid- or late-19th century date. Directly above the window is a small rectangular window with a chamfered surround; prior to 1995 this was blocked by a slab bearing the five fusils of old Percy. The positioning of this opening at first seemed somewhat puzzling, as it appeared to be set too high to light the basement, and too low for the first floor. The 1995 RCHME report considered that this was evidence of the basement vault being an insertion.

The removal of the heraldic slab showed that this was not the case, and revealed that the internal splay of the window dropped like a steeply-inclined tunnel through the thickness of the wall; it was not blocked by the basement vault as the RCHME thought, but only sealed by the plaster rear arch of the 19th-century east window of the basement. The splay was topped by an series of large inclined slabs; a small hole in its side wall broke through the internal splay of the first-floor window above; it would appear that when the internal sill of this was lowered to form a full-height recess (in the 18th century?) it cut into the internal splay of the lower loop, and forced the north side of the splay to be rebuilt, or at least re-faced, somewhat inside the original line, in rough masonry. The later insertion of the large 19th-century basement window has removed most of the sill/floor of the inclined tunnel/splay of its predecessor, and prompted a rather precarious structural situation.

Directly above the string course, and a little north of centre, is a square-headed window, with a chamfered surround; there is a second very similar window above, set a little further south (and more or less in line with the present chimney stack). This had been blocked but in 1995 was completely opened out; the external opening showed square sockets for iron bars, a vertical one set centrally, and two horizontal, set a little nearer the top than the bottom.

The parapet has not been heightened. Several accounts (including the list description of c 1985) refer to another heraldic panel, with the later Percy crest, built into the parapet here; either it has been removed, or the reference is to a slab with the Percy crescent in the parapet of the 19th-century porch.



The South WallHere there are a number of features which the heavy pointing renders difficult to interpret. At basement level, towards the west end of the wall, is a plain square-headed doorway, with a timber lintel, of relatively recent date; above it are traces of the gabled roof of a porch or conservatory, and above again, close to the west end, faint traces of the roof line of a taller adjacent structure. During the 1995-8 works this doorway was cleared of plaster, showing that an area of roughly-squared stone formed the inner part of each jamb, but did not extend down to the floor; below this the jambs are of rough rubble wall core. These areas are probably patching - possibly infilled earlier openings - coeval with the insertion of the doorway. In the top of the opening, but overlapping its west wall, was a near-vertical flue-like feature. This was a trapezoidal shaft sloping towards the external face of the wall, and communicated with the floor of the recess of the western of the two first-floor windows. This opening was initially thought to be a murder hole in the roof of an original entrance lobby (cf the Blackbird Inn, Ponteland), but there was no real evidence of there being an original doorway in this position; such a doorway could hardly have been entirely removed by its successor. Its function remains a mystery; it may have some link with similar vertical flues or channels seen above slit vents in the basements of bastles at The Raw and High Shaw. A pencilled 'Sept 8th 1884' on the stud (carrying the plaster wall) adjacent to the east end of the inner opening of the doorway may date its insertion.

East of the doorway and set quite low in the wall is a plain elongate slab, slightly recessed, that appears to be the blocking of an opening; the positioning of some smaller stones in the course above hint at a simple relieving arch. This would appear to relate to the base of the shaft descrinding from the first-floor garderobe. Further to the east, and only a little higher in level, is an upright slab in the wall which may be the blocking of a small loop of more conventional type. Higher again, and immediately to the east of the doorway, is a vertical area of disturbance with vertical alignments of stones suggesting the cutting away of the side walls of some sort of projection, which may again relate to garderobe arrangements.

The two first-floor windows both break the string-course; both are wooden cross-casements, with timber lintels, and are probably of later 18th or early 19th-century date, replacing smaller square-headed windows, the blocked upper sections of which survive.. Internally, above the sash window in the eastern room, the flattened four-centred head and the topmost stone of each jamb of the rear arch of its medieval predecessor were exposed.

Two similar windows, set closer together (and with their lintels directly beneath the parapet), light the second floor; to the west of these two reddish stones mark the blocking a small loop which lit the garderobe at the south-west corner of this floor.Just above the projecting base course of the parapet is an old projecting stone spout, just west of the western second-floor window. As on the north the parapet has had its central section raised and 'embattled', with a further raised block at the centre above an armorial panel; the arms, illustrated by Hodgson (96) are interpreted by him to be those of Sir Robert Tailbois, but are more generally thought to be those of Umfraville; beneath the shield is the raised text, in black letter 'R DDREDE' which Hodgson expands to 'Robertus dominus de Rede'. Sir Robert Umfraville was lord of Redesdale 1421-1436.

The West EndThe lower part of the northern half of the west end of the tower is concealed by later additions. Set centrally in the wall, but partly concealed by an added brick stack, is a blocked square-headed window with a chamfered surround; this would appear to have opened just beneath the basement vault. A rectangular block of stone near the south end of the west wall, c 1 m above the plinth, is fitted with an iron handle; this had been thought to be a cleaning door to the flue of the inserted basement fireplace, but proved to open into the base of a chute



serving the second-floor garderobe. The shaft , c 0.50 by 0.38 m, extended upwards and possibly downwards as well; it contained a dry deposit, possibly including human waste - Sara Rushden of the County Archaeology Service took samples.

The only other old features in the wall (apart from the string course) are a pair of second-floor windows, one towards each end of the wall. Both are 12-pane sashes, with timber lintels immediately below the parapet. Above the north jamb of the northern a boldly-projecting stone spout breaks the base course of the parapet. Once again the central section of the parapet has been raised.

The CaphouseThe caphouse, set within the parapet (there is a narrow walkway all round, although for some reason the west end of the northern walk is divided off from the north end of the western), has gabled ends with a flat coping of square-section slabs, and simple concave-section kneelers; stylistically these seem of late 18th or even early 19th-century date. The gable ends have projecting stacks, in each case with a brick extension. At the west end an external brick stack steps in to link with that on the caphouse gable, leaving only a narrow gap behind for access to the northern section of the western walkway; there has been a similar arrangement at the east end, but the 'flying buttress' section linking the outer stack (which in this case is incorporated in the parapet wall, rather than housed in an external projection) has been removed. The only access into the caphouse roof is by a small hatch at the west end, on the south of the stack; on the north of the stack, one or two large triangular-shaped stones set in the wall look as if they could be in situ survivals from the coping of an earlier lower gable, but it is difficult to be certain. The side walls of the caphouse are heavily pointed, and show no features except for sections of timber lintels on the south, which probably relate to the high-level recesses, possibly former windows, in the main second-floor room. On the north the external face of the wall is very irregular, with large bulges, hinting at the survival of earlier masonry. The caphouse is roofed by stone slates.

8.3.3 The InteriorThe BasementThe entrance doorway into the tower leads, via a lobby, into the basement, which shows no ancient features; the attractive ribbed Gothick plaster ceiling is of early 19th-century date, and presumably follows the approximate section of the stone vault above. At the west end is a 19th-century marble fireplace. The walls are concealed by stoothing partitions and plaster.

From the entrance lobby, a mural passage extends eastward, with steps rising to the foot of the newel stair. Its internal walls are all plastered, but what stonework is exposed seems relatively unweathered. The stair turns anticlockwise, an unusual feature in a medieval buildings (which would facilitate a right-handed swordsman ascending rather than descending). The blocked loop set in between two of the 'Gothick' loops that presently light the stair, set between two turns of the present stair, suggests that the present stair may be a complete replacement (of early 19th century date?) within the old well.

The First FloorAt first-floor level a square-headed opening, with a narrow chamfer to jambs and head, cut in the curve of the wall of the stair well, opens from the stair into a slab-roofed lobby stepping up westwards to where further steps lead up south through a segmental-headed plaster arch, apparently of post-medieval date, into the first floor. On the west of the lobby was a small closet formed within the thickness of the wall. In 1995 a blocked doorway was re-opened between the western of the two first-floor rooms and this closet was re-opened. This has a two-centred arch moulded with a continuous swelled chamfer, an architectural feature of earlier character than anything else in the building. Two of its voussoirs have been cut into at some time, to insert a timber lintel, but the dressings are otherwise intact. The doorway faces



into the room; the rear (north) side of its opening is rebated for a door, and a stub of a hinge was found low on the western jamb. There was also a stub of cut-back walling on the east of the door, indicating that it bore no relationship to the present stair and lobby. One puzzle is that there is not enough room for the door to open fully in the closet -a modern hole in the external wall shows no evidence of internal thickening or re-facing.

The first floor of the tower is now divided by secondary partitions (perhaps of early 19th-century date) into two major rooms, and a small entrance lobby with a relatively recent bathroom opening eastward off it. In the eastern room a walk-in cupboard on the south has clearly been a garderobe at one time, although no old features survive other than the head of the chute, recently exposed in the floor. A 1957 account (County Ancient Monuments and Sites Record) refers to mural steps leading downwards to the basement from this cupboard, but is probably in error. In the east wall plaster removal in 1995 exposed remains of two fireplaces, the earlier with a segmental arch carrying a narrow chamfer, broken into by the lintel of a later and smaller successor of 18 th or 19th century date. The original fireplace was restored in1995, new north jambs and northern half of the lintel being constructed, modelled from the extant section. The back of the hearth is segmental in plan, the total depth of the recess being 1 m.

To the north of these was the rear arch of the original first-floor window visible externally, with a shallow four-centred head. This rear arch has dressed stonework to the upper section of its jambs, but from c 1.5 m above the floor their lower sections are cut in rubble, indicative of the recess being extended downwards, and breaking through into the side of the high-set basement window..

The whole north wall of the room was stripped of plaster in 1995, exposing the internal projection of the stair turret; there was no sign of any earlier doorway here, except for an area of rougher rubble masonry in the centre of the lower part of the wall, which might have resulted from an opening being removed, dressings and all. The fact that the corbels which carry the ceiling beams are of timber on this side of the room might point to this wall, or wall-face, being a reconstruction, although its upper part does appear to course in with, and be of similar material to, the adjacent part of the east wall. There are four stone corbels on the south.

The western room at this level has a plaster frieze with alternating Percy crests (the five fusils and the crescent), with further Percy arms (the three lucies and the rampant lion) on the sloping panels provided by boxed-in corbels on the north and south. There is a 19th-century Gothick fireplace on the west wall, and a simple ogee-arched canopy, in plaster, over the doorway that gives access to a flight of steps dropping through the wall to communicate with the stair hall in the north wing. Above this stair the internal splay of an original window was exposed in 1995; this shows similar features to that of the window in the east wall. The opening taking this stair was enlarged, exposing in its base the top of an infilled vertical flue or channel, of slightly trapezoidal plan, exactly like that seen above the inserted doorway in the south wall, and placed opposite to it. Unfortunately the insertion of the stair, probably in the 19th-century, had destroyed any evidence for the relationship between this shaft and the window above. Overhanging rubble showed that the shaft could not have continued vertically upward for any distance; it may have inclined westwards.

The Second FloorReturning to the newel stair, this rises to another square-headed opening of the same type as that giving access to the first-floor lobby, which opens into a small lobby giving access to the second floor. Here there is a single large room, its ceiling at a much higher level than the lobby, with two separate small chambers or closets opening off its west end. Prior to 1995 this large room had a small sealed-off 19th-century Gothick fireplace on the east; this was



removed, along with the late-18th century plaster frieze of pendant arches above (although the contemporary cornice was retained. Behind the fireplace the remains of the segmental rear arch of the original second-floor window (visible externally) were exposed, part having been cut away to allow for the flue of the 19 th century fireplace; the inner parts of the opening, with a flat slab top, were intact, although the internal sill appeared to be a reconstruction. This opening has now been restored and re-opened. Above it was second fireplace, which served a former third floor. This had a triangular arch with sunk spandrels, and a raised letter 'M' in a sunk panel on its lintel; the lintel is rather damaged, and may have had further carving.

A second fireplace at the same level was discovered in the north wall in 1995, but later covered over again. This was 1.85 m wide within the chamfer, and 1.30 m high; its head was of shallow Tudor-arched form, with a four-petalled flower, a length of cable moulding in the exposed eastern spandrel, and an ‘hour-glass’ stop at the base of the exposed eastern jamb. Rather puzzlingly, the lintel was jointed at the centre, and in addition there was a secondary crack near the east end. The extrados of the lintel was concealed by the 18th-century plaster cornice.

At the same level as this fireplace there are two shallow recesses with four-centred heads in the south wall, which may represent former windows. Also at this level a blocked opening 1.4 m wide and 0.87 m high was exposed in 1998 at the south end of the west wall. It had cut blocks forming its north jamb and a timber lintel. This was presumably once a window, although like the putative south windows, it opens directly behind the present parapet. The timber lintel is presumably secondary to the opening, as above it an upper section of the same opening remains open, as an access hatch into the attic from the parapet walk.

In the partition wall are two doorways with shallow four-centred arches of the same form as that opening into the main room from the entrance lobby; in the small rooms beyond, the southern had a cupboard at the west end of the south wall, formed in a former garderobe. This was opened up in 1995 to expose a square-headed doorway with chamfered and rebated jambs, which is slightly distorted through secondary structural movements. It had a chamfered surround; its dressings are large blocks of sandstone, five to each jamb. The lowermost block of the western jamb bore what is presumably a mason’s mark, of rather unusual form, an incised cross with bifurcate terminals approximating to the heraldic Cross Moline. The L-plan garderobe chamber, curving round the south-west corner of the tower, has its floor c 0.12 m above that of the present second floor. The passage walls retained old plaster, although not original as a small loop window on the south, visible externally, was concealed. The plaster continues onto the internal jamb of a former window , of uncertain date, opening westwards; this is now infilled by masonry that is presumably contemporary with the adjacent 18th-century (?) sash, the insertion of which has destroyed the end of the garderobe chamber. The shaft of the garderobe was exposed in the floor below this inserted window, and remained open for the full height of the wall.

Stripping of plaster from the wall face in May 1998 revealed a blocked opening 0.57 m wide and 0.86 m high, immediately to the north of the northern jamb of the window that cuts through the garderobe. Its sill was 0.94m above the present floor. The northern jamb was composed of large roughly-squared blocks. The southern jamb, only 0.20 m from the window reveal, was of smaller roughly-shaped stones, and seems almost certain to be secondary, reconstructed when the window was inserted. The lintel was a single large block, with a chamfer which, oddly, correlated with the secondary southern jamb but continued 0.18 m beyond the line of the northern. Beyond the large blocks of the northern jamb was an area of walling that appeared disturbed, although its actual extent was difficult to ascertain.



It is not clear what this feature represented; it would seem most likely to have been a locker or wall cupboard of some form It may have been retained, but reduced in width, when the adjacent window was inserted; it is possible that the builders found it easier to displace the lintel laterally rather than cut its southern end away, which would explain the present discrepancy between the north jamb and the lintel chamfer.

The northern of the two sash windows in this wall, unlike the southern, has some large stone slabs above its timber lintel; it is not clear whether these represented the internal lintels of an earlier opening in the same position.

The northern room has a cupboard in the north wall, formed from the internal splay of the blocked window seen externally, its head and sill cut away by an inserted flue. Internally the splayed recess of the window accommodated a cupboard, but in 1998 it was restored, the damaged head and sill being replaced in new stone. As a new window had already been fitted, it was not possible to inspect the jambs for evidence of iron bars etc, although a drilled hole 25mm in diameter on the internal face of the east jamb may be associated with some sort of shutter arrangement. The rear arch of the window was of flattened four-centred form, with a chamfer to the head only ( ie of the same form as those of the windows in the east wall at first and second floor levels); the large dressings of the jambs do not extend down to floor level, showing that the sill had been cut away, presumably when the recess was converted to house a cupboard.

In 1998 a beam socket was uncovered close to the west end of the north wall, c 0.22 m square and 2.02 m above the present second floor. At the same level as this there appeared to be a cut-out in the top left-hand corner of the large block forming the eastern half of the rear arch of the window at the west end of the wall, possibly made to take an inserted beam. The architect (Robin Dower) reported that he had seen a third socket (which he interpreted as having carried a corbel) at a higher level, more or less directly above the internal east jamb of the rear arch of the window, He thought would have carried a beam alongside the wall, which in turn would have supported the lateral joists of a floor which would correlate with the large fireplace found in 1995, a little to the east.

One part of the building to which there is no current access is a small chamber above the second-floor entrance lobby; the only view of this possible is by peering down a small hole between joists from the present attic. The external wall of the stair drum can be glimpsed, but is plastered over; there seems to be no obvious sign of any opening. Although the question cannot be regarded as totally resolved, it would seem likely that access to the third floor was by means of an internal wooden stairway rather from the stone newel.

The newel stair continues to roof level. At its head, at the level of the penultimate step (c 0.30 m below the present walkway level) an old rebated jamb (with a bolt hole) is exposed, obviously pre-dating the present east end wall of the caphouse, and apparently part of a doorway opening eastward (ie directly onto the eastern walkway; the present hatch opens onto the northern walkway). Re-pointing work in 1995 exposed a corresponding straight joint in external face of the east end gable of the cap-house.

The Cap House and Roof Structure The internal face of the east gable wall shows two rough infilled openings of uncertain function, possibly for earlier purlins; below the northern is a re-used block with a chamfered edge. Although the RCHME saw ‘scarring indicating at least two earlier roof lines’ here, nothing is very clear. The adjacent stair well is capped off at the level of the attic floor.

The internal face of the west gable wall is heavily pointed, and contains a small hatch which until recently provided the only access to the roof from the parapet walk; its blocked lower



section has already been described. There are two sockets, low down, towards the centre, and above them a recently-blocked opening (under a timber lintel, apparently an old piece re-used) which communicated with the flue to the chimney which caps the gable (information from Robin Dower). RCHME interpret this as a blocked loop window, sealed by the addition of the stack

The tower roof is of five bays. The principal rafter trusses have two levels of collars, halved and nailed in from the east, the lower accompanied by vertical struts at each end dropping to the tie beam; all the collars and struts, and small yoke-like pieces providing additional support to the ridge (carried diagonally between the ends of the principals) all appear relatively recent. There are two levels of purlins on each roof slope, secured by tusk tenons. The trusses are numbered I, II, III and IV, from the west end; the purlins also carry numbering; figures as high as XXV were noted. The stone slates of the roof are held in place by sheep bones ('a sheepshank roof'), an increasingly rare survival of a vernacular tradition.

The HouseThe added ranges to the north and west of the tower incorporate work of a number of different dates. They consists of:

(i) A pent-roofed single-storeyed vestibule or lobby set against the north wall of the tower, built of squared and tooled stone with ashlar dressings.

(ii) An embattled ashlar porch, with a double-chamfered four-centred arch, a later addition to the east end of the vestibule.

(iii) The north wing, containing the stair hall and the sitting room, with a large bedroom above. Its east front, with Tudor detailing, is clearly of the same build (c 1825?) as the vestibule; in style it is very similar to some near-contemporary work by John Dobson (cf Embleton Vicarage of 1828). The north and west walls show that it is a remodelling of an earlier single-storeyed structure, possibly of later 18th-century date. In the otherwise blank upper section of the west wall a medieval spout or gargoyle, somewhat damaged, has been re-set.

(iv) The northern of two parallel gabled east-west wings (containing the dining room) appears to be the earlier, although it seems to post-date the lower part of the north wing. Its openings have diagonally-tooled ashlar dressings. It may be of late 18th or early 19th century date. The southern wall of this wing is of some thickness, which might indicate that it contains earlier (17th century?) fabric, although incorporated chimney stacks might be a more plausible explanation.

(v) The southern of the two wings, containing the kitchen, is an addition, built of squared tooled stone. The return of its gable coping is characteristic of c 1820-30.

(vi) A wing extending southwards from the west end of the kitchen wing may be contemporary with it; although sometimes said to be of c1700 there is no clear evidence of pre-19th century date.

It is worth noting that the north wing, the northern of the east-west wings, and the wing extending south from the kitchen all have kneelers of the same type; this seems more likely to result from a general 'tidying up' when the north wing was built, rather than all three parts of the building being of contemporary build.



The Medieval Cross Slab

Prior to 1997 a medieval cross slab grave cover of orange sandstone was built into the external west wall of the kitchen wing, above the ground-floor window. The slab measured 0.75 by 0.30 m, its base being broken away; it bears an incised design of a cross with its head made up of four broken circles or 'bracelets', set within a circle, with a pair of shears (the conventional emblem for a woman) on the l. of the cross shaft. It is probably of 12th or 13th century date; there are a number of similar slabs in the parish church.

8.3.4 The Building History of the Tower and HouseWhilst most of the older published sources (eg. Parker 1853, 201-2) ascribe the tower a 14th-century date, an examination of its form and fabric, and a comparison with other Northumberland towers, suggests that this is unlikely. Whilst the 1415 list shows that there was a rectorial tower here, it is unlikely that it is the present building, although there is one feature - the recently re-opened doorway at first-floor level, that may be of 15 th century date. Its awkward relationship withe the present fabric - it is difficult to see how the door which it contained could have opened within the closet into which it now opens - suggests that it is a remnant, apparently in situ, of an older building of quite different form.

The majority of the earlier (ie later 14th and 15th century) towers in Northumberland, or at least in the southern half of the county, appear to have served as solar towers to attached hall blocks (cf Corbridge Low Hall, East Shaftoe, Halton, Shortflatt, Welton,and almost certainly Belsay). The medieval tower at Elsdon may have been a solar tower of precisely this type; it is possible that the doorway in question gave access to an adjacent tower block. However the tower in its present form is clearly an example of a solitary tower, more in the Scottish tradition, with a machicolation above the entrance proving there was no adjacent hall block. Such solitary towers are almost always of 'late' date (i.e. 16th century), as at Burradon and Copeland Castle. The fabric of the tower, rubble with elongate roughly-shaped quoins, is quite consistent with this date, suggesting that the earlier building must have been virtually rebuilt, and perhaps entirely re-faced. The present external wall fabric is similar to that seen in many strong houses and bastles, eg Woodhouses Bastle of 1602; by contrast most 14th and 15th century towers are constructed of squared stone laid in quite regular courses (e.g. Hepple Tower). Apart from the above-mentioned doorway, all the other ancient architectural features of the tower are very plain - simple square-headed openings with chamfered surrounds - and could well fit with a date in the second half of the 16th century.

The tower, as rebuilt, would appear to have originally had three floors, and perhaps a caphouse. The basement would be used for stabling or storage, with the principal living apartment or hall on the first floor, perhaps provided with a fireplace at its west end, and a garderobe on the south. The second floor would house the owner's private apartments, or solar; at roof level there may have been a caphouse, perhaps with a room for a watchman (cf Shortflatt Tower). The fact that the original window in the east end of the basement is set so much higher up the wall than that in the west end suggests that the latter face of the tower must have been enclosed within some form of defensible enclosure, any evidence of which has been erased by two centuries of gardening and landscaping..

The earlier post-medieval alterations to the tower are not easy to interpret in detail. Within a century or so of the rebuilding of the tower in its present form an additional floor was inserted, technically within the caphouse. Hodgson's account of 'two low rooms' above the second floor appears to refer to this insertion (there is no evidence for the provision of any further doorway at this level from the newel stair). Each ‘room’ is said to have been divided in four chambers, which must have been rather cramped. The rather confused structural evidence of the east end of the caphouse is not easy to interpret, but the fact that the wall



clearly post-dates the remains of the original stair-head doorway, and yet apparently contains sockets for a roof pre-dating the present one, suggests either that the original caphouse was a secondary feature, or that there was an earlier rebuilding prior to the late-18th century changes.

The present second-floor arrangements probably date to the Rev Dutens' occupation; their Gothick decoration suggests a date in the 1780s or 1790s, and is an interesting example of antiquarian response to an ancient building, calling to mind the rather better-quality plasterwork of 1778-9 in the medieval tower at Hulne Friary, associated with the 'improvement' of this site by Robert Adam and Capability Brown. It seems likely that the caphouse was more or less completely rebuilt at this time; the heightened sections of the parapets, and their heraldic panels, may be of the same date; 19th-century antiquaries clearly believed the southern panel to be a genuine medieval feature, but this would seem open to doubt (it does show a greater degree of weathering to that on the north, although this could be explained by physical factors).

It is to Singleton's more wide-ranging reconstruction that we owe the present form of the house; the interest in antique heraldry was clearly maintained (if not a little overdone) in the plasterwork of the new entrance vestibule, and on the first floor of the tower. This first-floor decoration has been ascribed to Dutens (Pevsner et al 2001, 268) but it seems more likely to be later, as Hodgson's account makes it clear that prior to Singleton this floor served as kitchen and servants' quarters, unlikely candidates for heraldic decoration.

As already outlined, the remodelling and extension of the ranges attached to the tower seems to have taken place in several phases during both Dutens' and Singleton's occupancy.



PART 4:

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS:



9. POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Elsdon is perhaps the most classic village in the Northumberland National Park, laid out around a broad green containing a historic church, and dominated by a impressive tower and large earthwork castle. Indeed Elsdon could be said to lie at the very heart of the Park. It was accorded a chapter to itself in an earlier guide to the National Park (Conzen 1969) and was described by George Trevelyan, in a typically eloquent essay (1931), as the ‘spiritual capital’ of that older territory, the Middle Marches.

It has been suggested recently that the earthworks bounding the inner ward and the bailey of the Norman castle represent an economical adaption of much earlier Iron Age hillfort defences (Welfare et al. 1999, 58-9; Welfare 2002, 77).

Evidence for the early medieval period is slender, but the combination of placename evidence, Elsdon’s role as a parochial centre, the dedication of that parish church to St Cuthbert and the Umfravilles’ selection of the site for one of their castles, suggests that it may already have served as the capital of a substantial upland estate prior to the Norman Conquest.

The castle was probably abandoned at a relatively early stage, perhaps by the end of the 12 th

century, a victim of the spiralling cost of castle-building technology with the transition from timber to stone, which saw the Umfravilles choose to concentrate their resources on Prudhoe and Harbottle.

Had the castle not been abandoned when it was, Elsdon might well have acquired the status of a baronial borough, like the comparable settlement below the walls of Harbottle Castle, the Umfravilles’ other upland fortress. As it was, it gained two weekly markets and two annual fairs (partly as a result of rivalry between two branches of the Umfraville family), making it for a long time the commercial capital of Redesdale, a status it only lost to Otterburn as result of changes to the main communications routes through Redesdalein the early 19th century.

The earliest detailed map evidence, in the form of the 1731 enclosure map for Elsdon Common (fig. 15), shows the village had broadly similar form to that seen today. This map also shows the pattern of field systems the corridors leading out from the green to the upland common and the ad hoc enclosures made previously in that common. Much of this field system survives as relict landscape of ridge and furrow earthworks and field banks. There is considerable potential for involving the local community in mapping and analysing this field system in more detail using basic field survey techniques to build on the historic map and aerial photographic system.

Although a tower house is recorded at Elsdon in the hands of the rector in a list of Border defences in 1415, the extant fabric of the towerhouse appears to be virtually all 16 th century in date (see Ryder, The Medieval Buildings…. above), implying very substantial reconstruction. The tower certainly continued to house the rector in the 18 th century and right up until 1961, but further confusion is engendered by a reference to last Umfraville lord of Redesdale, ‘Robin Mend-market’ (Sir Robert Umfraville), making arrangements in 1432 to rebuild his castles at Harbottle, Otterburn and Elsdon.

Whilst the towerhouse has received quite detailed examination, partly in conjunction with the recent renovation of the building, there does not appear to be any recent account or analysis of Elsdon church available, as Elsdon was not covered by any of the later volumes of the Northumberland County History. Elsdon church is a complex fabric with evidence of



extensive later medieval rebuilding, some of it perhaps occasioned by damage around the time of the nearby battle of Otterburn in 1388. A description and phasing is provided here (see The Medieval Buildings . . . above), but the building would clearly merit more intensive study.

The surviving fabric of the buildings around the green – some of which exhibit a degree of architectural pretension – coupled with anecdotal evidence of trade brought by Scottish carters and drovers, suggests that Elsdon experienced a modest degree of prosperity in the 18th and early 19th centuries, based on its position on the developing turnpike network and the cross-border droveways. The disparaging comments of the Rev. Dodgson and even John Hodgson should be treated with caution in this instance.

With three substantial medieval monuments, a host of other features of interest, surrounded by an extensive well-preserved ridge and furrow field system, Elsdon is clearly a site of major significance within the National Park. It deserves to be the focus of a detailed, long-term study, using a full range of investigative techniques. This is merited not only for the intrinsic interest of Elsdon as place, but also for the contribution that such a study would make to our understanding of the history of Redesdale as a whole, and upland Northumberland in general. .



10. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ISSUES

The grades of sensitivity shown on the accompanying archaeological sensitivity map (fig. 86) are based on the conclusions drawn from the available archaeological, documentary and cartographic evidence. The following guidelines have been adopted as the basis of classifying the sensitivity areas. Sites or areas where the survival of archaeological remains can be demonstrated are accorded high sensitivity. Areas where the former existence of historic settlement is known or suspected, but the degree of survival of any associated archaeological deposits is uncertain, are generally accorded medium sensitivity.

1. The major medieval monuments – castle, tower and church – are all accorded high sensitivity.

2. The green and the built-up area of the village are accorded medium sensitivity.

3. The surrounding relict, ridge-and-furrow field system also represents an important component of Elsdon’s archaeological resource, requiring the active engagement of the National Park Authority to ensure that, as far as practicable, the landscape is managed to ensure the conservation of the earthworks.



PART 5:

APPENDICES&

BIBLIOGRAPHY



11. GLOSSARY

Advowson the legal right to appoint a priest to a parish church.

Agistment the grazing of livestock on pasture belonging to someone else.

Alienate to grant land to someone else or to an institution.

Assart land cleared for cultivation.

Assize a legal procedure

Barony the estate of a major feudal lord, normally held of the Crown by military tenure.

Borough a town characterised by the presence of burgage tenure and some trading privileges for certain tenants.

Bovate measure of arable land, normally equivalent to approx. 12-15 acres. This measurement especially popular in eastern and northern counties of England.

Burgage A form of property within a borough

Capital Messuage A messuage containing a high status dwelling house, often the manor house itself.

Cartulary a book containing copies of deeds, charters, and other legal records.

Carucate a unit of taxation in northern and eastern counties of England, equivalent to eight bovates or one hide (120 acres).

Charter a legal document recording the grant of land or privileges.

Chattels movable personal property.

Common land land over which tenants and perhaps villagers possessed certain rights, for example to graze animals, collect fuel etc.

Common law a body of laws that overrode local custom.

Copyhold a tenure in which land was held by copy of an entry recording admittance made in the record of the manor court.

Cotland a smallholding held on customary tenure.Cottar an unfree smallholder.

Croft an enclosed plot of land, often adjacent to a dwelling house.



Custom a framework of local practices, rules and/or expectations pertaining to various economic or social activities.

Customary tenure an unfree tenure in which land was held “at the will of the lord, according to the custom of the manor’. In practice usually a copyhold of inheritance in Cumbria by the sixteenth century.

Deanery unit of ecclesiastical administration consisting of a group of parishes under the oversight of a rural dean.

Demesne land within a manor allocated to the lord for his own use.

Domain all the land pertaining to a manor.

Dower widow’s right to hold a proportion (normally one-third) of her deceased husband’s lad for the rest of her life.

Dowry land or money handed over with the bride at marriage.

Enfeoff to grant land as a fief.

Engross to amalgamate holdings or farms.

Farm in medieval usage, a fixed sum paid for leasing land, a farmer therefore being the lessee.

Fealty an oath of fidelity sworn by a new tenant to the lord in recognition of his obligations.

Fee/Fief hereditary land held from a superior lord in return for homage and often, military service.

Fine money payment to the lord to obtain a specific concession

Forest a Crown or Palatinate hunting preserve consisting of land subject to Forest Law, which aimed to preserve game.

Free chase a forest belonging to a private landholder.

Freehold a tenure by which property is held “for ever”, in that it is free to descend to the tenant’s heirs or assigns without being subject to the will of the lord or the customs of the manor.

Free tenure tenure or status that denoted greater freedom of time and action than, say, customary tenure or status, a freeman was entitled to use the royal courts, and the title to free tenure was defensible there.

Free warren a royal franchise granted to a manorial lord allowing the holder to hunt small game, especially rabbit, hare, pheasant and partridge, within a designated vill.

Furlong a subdivision of open arable fields.

Glebe the landed endowment of a parish church.



Headland a ridge of unploughed land at the head of arable strips in open fields providing access to each strip and a turning place for the plough.

Heriot a death duty, normally the best beast, levied by the manorial lord on the estate of the deceased tenant.

Hide, hideage Angl-Saxon land measurement, notionally 120 acres, used for calculating liability for geld. See carucate.

Homage act by which a vassal acknowledges a superior lord.

Knight’s fee land held from a superior lord for the service of a knight.

Labour services the duty to work for the lord, often on the demesne land, as part of the tenant’s rent package.

Leet the court of a vill whose view of frankpledge had been franchised to a local lord by the Crown.

Manor estate over which the owner (“lord”) had jurisdiction, excercised through a manor court.

Mark sum of money equivalent to two-thirds of a pound, i.e., 13s. 4d.

Merchet a fine paid by villein tenants.

Messuage a plot of land containing a dwelling house and outbuildings.

Moot a meeting.

Multure a fee for grinding corn, normally paid in kind: multure can also refer to the corn thus rendered.

Neif a hereditary serf by blood.

Pannage payment for the fattening of domestic pigs on acorns etc. in woodland.

Perch a linear measure of 16½ feet and a square measure equivalent to one fortieth of a rood.

Quitclaim a charter formally renouncing a claim to land.

Relief payment made by a free tenant on entering a holding.

Rood measure of land equivalent to one quarter of an acre; and forty perches.

Serf an unfree peasant characterised by onerous personal servility.

Severalty land in separate ownership, that is not subject to common rights, divided into hedged etc., fields.



Sheriff official responsible for the administration of a county by the Crown.

Shieling temporary hut on summer pasture at a distance from farmstead.

Socage a form of tenure of peasant land, normally free.

Stint limited right, especially on pasture.

Subinfeudate the grant of land by on a lord to another to hold as a knight’s fee or fief.

Subinfeudation the process of granting land in a lordship to be held as fiefs

Suit of court the right and obligation to attend a court; the individual so attending is a suitor.

Tenant in chief a tenant holding land directly from the king, normally termed a baron.

Tenement a land holding.

Tenementum a land holding (Latin).

Tithe a tenth of all issue and profit, mainly grain, fruit, livestock and game, owed by parishioners to their church.

Toft an enclosure for a homestead.

Unfree tenure see customary tenure.

Vaccary a dairy farm.

Vassal a tenant, often of lordly status.

Vill the local unit of civil administration, also used to designate a territorial township community (prior to the 14th century)

Villein peasant whose freedom of time and action is constrained by his lord; a villein was not able to use the royal courts.

Villeinage see customary tenure and unfree tenure.

Virgate a quarter of a hide; a standardised villein holding of around 30 acres. Also known as a yardland.

Ward administrative division; the word implies a guarded or defended unit. The term most commonly relates to large administrative subdivisions of the county (usually 5 or 6) from the 13th century.



Equivalent to a Poor Law township in Redesdale from 1662 onwards and in upper North Tynedale (Bellingham Chapelry) between 1662-1729.



12. BIBLIOGRAPHY

12.1 Published Documentary Sources

Medieval

Benedict Gesta regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis. The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I (1169-1192) known commonly under the name of Benedict of Peterborough, (ed.) W Stubbs, Rolls Series 49, 2 vols (London, 1867).

Cal Charter R. Calender of the Charter Rolls, preserved in the Public Record Office, covering the period 1226-1516 (London, 1903-27).

Cal Close R. Calender of the Close Rolls, preserved in the Public Record Office, covering the period 1272-1509 (London, 1900-63).

CalDocScot Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesty's Public Record Office, London, I: AD 1108-1272, (ed.) J A Bain, (Edinburgh, 1881).

Cal Fine R. Calender of the Fine Rolls, preserved in the Public Record Office, covering the period 1272-1509 (London, 1911-63).

Cal IPM Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other analogous Documents preserved in the Public Record Office. Multiple vols, covering the reigns of Henry III-Henry VII (London, 1898--).

CalMisc Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (Chancery), preserved in the Public Record Office, 7 vols., covering the reigns of Henry III-Henry V (London, 1916-69).

Cal Pat R Calender of Patent Rolls, preserved in the Public Record Office, covering the period 1232-1578 (London, 1891--).

Chron. de Lanercost Chronicon de Lanercost, 1201-1346, ed. J Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1839).

Chron. de Melsa Chronica Monasterii de Melsa [Meaux] a fundatione usque ad annum 1396, auctore Thoma de Burton, Abbate, (ed.) E A Bond, Rolls Series 43, 3 vols (London, 1866-68).

Curia Regis R. Curia Regis Rolls, preserved in the Public Record Office, 16 vols, covering the reigns of Richard I-Henry III (London, 1923-79).

De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae Henricus de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, (ed.) T Twiss (HMSO London,1883).

ESC Early Scottish Charters prior to 1153. (ed.) A C Lawrie; (Glasgow, 1905).Fortescue Fortescue, Sir John, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, (ed.) S B Chrimes

(Cambridge, 1942).FRASER, C M, 1968, The Northumberland Lay Subsidy Roll of 1296. (ed. in trans.) C M

Fraser, The Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne, Record Series 1 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1968).

GALBRAITH, V H, 1928, Extracts from the Historia Aurea and a French Brut, The English Historical Review 43, 208-15.

Gough Map Map of Great Britain c. 1360 (Gough Map). Facsimile in full colour. Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1958).

HE Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, printed and translated in Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the English People, (ed.) B Colgrave and R A B Mynors (Oxford, 1969).



Hemingburgh The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, previously edited as the chronicle of Walter of Hemingford or Hemingburgh, (ed.) H Rothwell, Camden Society, 3rd series, 89 (London, 1879).

HODGSON, J, 1820, 1828, 1835, History of Northumberland, Part 3, vols. I, II & III: Containing Ancient Records and Historical Papers. (Newcastle upon Tyne).

Holinshed Chron. Holinshed, R, The . . . chronicles of England, Scotlande and Irelande, (ed.) H Ellis, 6 vols (London, 1807-8).

HSC Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, published in two editions:Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et Collectanea (ed.) J Hodgson Hinde, Surtees Society 41, I, 138-52 (Durham, 1868).Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia (ed.) T Arnold, Rolls Series 75, I, 196-214 (London, 1882).

Illustrations Illustrations of Scottish History from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century, selected from unpublished MSS in the British Museum and the Tower of London, (ed.) J Stevenson, Maitland Club (1834).

Iter of Wark Iter of Wark, 1279, (ed.) C H Hartshorne, Memoirs illustrative of the history and antiquities of Northumberland - Proceedings of the Archaeological Institute at Newcastle, 1852. Vol. II, Feudal and Military Antiquities of Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. (London, 1858), Appendix III, ix-lxviii.

Jordan Fantosme Chronicle of the War between the English and the Scots in 1173 and 1174 by Jordan Fantosme, (ed.) F Michel, Surtees Society 11 (Durham, 1840).

Laing Charters Calendar of the Laing Charters, (ed.) J Anderson (Edinburgh, 1889).

Leges Marchiarum Leges Marchiarum, ed. W Nicolson (London, 1747).Liber de Calchou Liber de S. Marie de Calchou. (ed.) Cosmo Innes, Bannatyne Club,

2 vols (Edinburgh, 1846).Liber Feodorum Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees commonly called the Testa de

Nevill. 2 vols - Part I: AD 1198-1242; Part II: AD 1242-1293 and Appendix, (ed.) H C Maxwell Lyte, 2 vols., Public Record Office (London, 1920, 1923).

Liber Niger Scaccarii Liber Niger Scaccarii, (ed.) T Hearne (London, 1774).MACDONALD, A, 1950, Calendar of Deeds in the Laing Charters relating to

Northumberland, AA4, 28, 105-31.Matthew Paris Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, (ed.) H R

Luard, Rolls Series, 7 vols (London, 1872-74).NC Chartularium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio, Ordinis Cisterciensis,

fundatae anno mcxxxvii. (ed.) J. T. Fowler, Surtees Society 66, 1876 (Durham, London & Edinburgh, 1878)

Northumb. Assize R. Three Early Assize Rolls for the County of Northumberland, saec. xiii. (ed.) W. Page, Surtees Society 88, 1890 (Durham, London & Edinburgh, 1891).

Northumb. & Durham Deeds Northumberland and Durham Deeds from the Dodsworth MSS. in Bodley's Library, Oxford. Newcastle upon Tyne Records Series 7, 1927 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1929).

Northumb. Petitions Ancient Petitions relating to Northumberland. (ed.) C.M. Fraser, Surtees Society 176, 1961 (Durham & London, 1966).

Northumb. Pleas Northumberland Pleas from the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls 1198-1272. Newcastle upon Tyne Records Series 2, 1921 (1922, Newcastle upon Tyne).

Percy Bailiff’s Rolls Percy Bailiff’s Rolls of the Fifteenth Century, (ed.) J C Hodgson, Surtees Society 134, 1921 (Durham & London).

Pipe Roll The Great Roll of the Pipe of the Reigns of Henry II, Richard and John. Multiple volumes, Pipe Roll Society (London, 1884-1955).



Placita de Quo Warranto Placita de Quo Warranto temporibus Edw. I, II & III in curia receptae scaccarii Westm. asservata, Record Commission (London, 1818).

Red Book Red Book of the Exchequer, (ed.) H Hall, Rolls Series 99 (London, 1896).Rot. Cart Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londiniensi asservati.Rot. Hundred. Rotuli Hundredorum temp. Hen III et Edw. I, ed. W Illingworth and J Caley;

2 vols, Record Commission (London, 1812-18).Rot. Lit. Claus. Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi asservati, (ed.) T D Hardy,

2 vols., covering the period 1204-27, Record Commission (London, 1833-34).

Royal Letters Hen III Royal and other historical letters illustrative of the reign of Henry III, from originals in the P.R.O., (ed.) W W Shirley, Rolls Series 27, 2 vols (London, 1899).

RRS i Regesta Regum Scottorum I: The Acts of Malcolm IV King of Scots 1153-65, together with Scottish Royal Acts prior to 1153 not included in Sir Archibald Lawrie's 'Early Scottish Charters', (ed.) G W S Barrow (Edinburgh, 1960).

RRS ii Regesta Regum Scottorum II: The Acts of William I King of Scots 1165-1214, (ed.) G W S Barrow (Edinburgh, 1971).

RRS v Regesta Regum Scottorum V: The Acts of Robert I King of Scots 1306-1329, (ed.) A A M Duncan (Edinburgh, 1988).

Scalachronica Scalachronica, the reigns of Edward I-III as recorded by Sir Thomas Gray, trans. Sir H Maxwell (Glasgow, 1907).

Symeon Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et Collectanea, (ed.) H Hinde, Surtees Society 41 (Durham, 1868).

Vita Oswini Vita Oswini Regis, in Miscellanea Biographica, (ed.) J Raine, Surtees Society 8, 1-59 (London & Edinburgh, 1838).

Early-modern

1604 Survey Survey of the Debateable and Border Lands adjoining the Realm of Scotland and belonging to the Crown of England taken A.D. 1604, (ed.) R P Sanderson (Alnwick, 1891).

1618 Rental 'A rental of the ancient principality of Redesdale 1618, copied from an original roll in the possession of William John Charleton, of Hesleyside, esq.', (ed.) R W Hodgson and J Hodgson, AA1, 2 (1832), 326-338.

1826 Poll Book The Poll Book of the Contested Election for the County of Northumberland from June 20th to July 6th, 1826. Alnwick, 1827.

1841 Poll Book The Poll Book of the Contested Election for Northern Division of the County of Northumberland taken on the 9th and 10th days of July, 1841, to which is added an Appendix with Copies of the Poll Books for1722 & 1734. Newcastle upon Tyne, 1841.

1852 Poll Book The Poll Book of the Contested Election for Northern Division of the County of Northumberland taken on the 22nd and 23rd days of July, 1852. Newcastle upon Tyne, 1852.

CBP Calendar of Letters and Papers relating to the affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland preserved in Her Majesty's Public Record Office, London; (ed.) J Bain, 2 vols. (HM General Register House, Edinburgh, 1894, & 1896).

Cal SP Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, preserved in the Public Record Office, multiple volumes, with addenda, covering the reigns of Edward VI-George III (London, 1856--).

Compounding Records Records of the Committees for Compounding, etc. with Delinquent Royalists in Durham and Northumberland during the Civil war, etc. 1643-



1660. (ed.) R. Welford, Surtees Society 111, (Durham, London & Edinburgh, 1905).

EPR The Register of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials solemnized in the Ancient Parish Church of Elsdon in the County of Northumberland from AD 1672 to AD 1812. (ed.) T. Stephens, Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1912).

HODGSON, J, 1822, Calenders of prisoners confined in the High Castle in Newcastle upon Tyne, at the Assises for Northumberland in the years 1628 and 1629 (drawn from Sir Thomas Swinburne's Sherrif's Book), AA1, 1, 149-163.

Leland Itin The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, in or about the years 1535-45, (ed.) L T Smith, 5 vols (London, 1907-10).

LP Hen VIII Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII, preserved in the Public Record Office, 21 vols (London, 1862-1932).

Pococke 'Northern Journeys of Bishop Richard Pococke' in North Country Diaries II, (ed.) J. C. Hodgson, Surtees Society 124: 199-252 (Durham, London and Edinburgh, 1915 for 1914).

PSAN2, 9 (1899-1900): 196-197 (An 'Award on Umpirage' of 1703 relating to Petty Knowes).PSAN3, 3 (1907): 23-29 'Buryness register of Baptisms and burials' (covers the period 1797-

1813).PSAN3, 9 (1919-1920): 57ff 'The Coleman Deeds' (p. 58 for 18th-century deeds etc. relating to

Petty Knowes and Rochester).Statutes The Statutes of the Realm: Printed by Command of His Majesty King George

III, from original Records and authentic Manuscripts. Vol II. (London, 1816; repr.1963).



12.2 Secondary Bibliography

Journal and Corpora Abbreviations

AA1 Archaeologia Aeliana, First Series etc.Corpus Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Volume I: County Durham and

Northumberland. R Cramp, (1984), Oxford University Press for the British Academy; Oxford.

CW2 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Second Series etc.

PSAN4 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne, Fourth Series etc.

PSAS Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

References

ALLASON-JONES, L, and McKAY, B, 1985, Coventina’s Well. A Shrine on Hadrian’s Wall. Trustees of the Clayton Collection, Chesters Museum.

ANON., 1864, A History of Harbottle and its Neighbourhood; in The Alnwick Journal, 15 Dec. 1864, 478-9.

ARKLE, T, 1841, A statistical account of the landed estates in the Parish of Elsdon, in the County of Northumberland: Explanatory of a new and correct map of the parish shewing each estate, its quantity, value, tithe rent charge, land tax, etc. Newcastle upon Tyne.

ARKLE, T, 1879-81, Elsdon Mote Hills, History of the Berwickshire Naturalists Club 9, 538-542.

ASUD, 2002, The Breamish Valley Archaeology Project: Annual Report 2001. Archaeological Services, University of Durham, Unpublished report.

BAILEY, J, and CULLEY, G, 1805, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Northumberland. 3rd edition, London.

BAILEY, M, 2002, The English Manor c. 1200-c. 1500. Selected Sources translated and annotated. Manchester University Press; Manchester.

BARNWELL, P S, and GILES, C, 1997, English Farmsteads, 1750-1914. Swindon: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

BARROW, G W S, 1966, The Anglo-Scottish Border, Northern History 1, .21-42.BARROW, G W S, 1969, Northern English society in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,

Northern History 4, .1-28.BARROW, G W S, 1973, Pre-feudal Scotland: shires and thanes, in The Kingdom of the

Scots: Government, Church and Society from the 11th Century to the 14th Century. London, 1-68.

BARROW, G W S, 1974, A note on Falstone, AA5, 2, 149-52BARROW, G W S, 1998, The uses of placenames and Scottish history - pointers and

pitfalls, in S. Taylor (ed.) The Uses of Place-names. Edinburgh, 54-74.BATES, C J, 1889, The dedications of the ancient churches and chapels in the Diocese of

Newcastle, AA2 13, 317-45.BATES, C J, 1891, The Border Holds of Northumberland, AA2 14.BATES, C J, 1895, The History of Northumberland. London.BEAN, J M W, 1954, The Percies’ acquisition of Alnwick, AA4 32, 309-19.BEAN, J M W, 1958, The Estates of the Percy Family, 1416-1537. Oxford.BECKENSALL, S, 1992, Northumberland Place Names. Rothbury.BIRLEY, E, 1961, Research on Hadrian's Wall. Kendal.BONSER, K J, 1970, The Drovers.



BOSANQUET, R C, 1933-1934, The Roman tombs near High Rochester, PSAN4, 6, 246-251.BOWDEN, M, 1990 (unpub.), Harbottle Castle - Archaeological Survey Report. Royal

Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (Newcastle).BRUCE, J C, 1857, An account of the excavations made at the Roman station of Bremenium

during the summer of 1855, AA2, 1, 69-85.BRUCE, J C, 1858, An account of the excavations of 1852, in Memoirs illustrative of the

History and Antiquities of Northumberland: Proceedings of the Archaeogical Institute, Newcastle Meeting, 1852, Vol 1, 135-149.

BRUCE, J C, 1867, The Roman Wall, 3rd edition; London & Newcastle upon Tyne.BRUCE, J C, 1875, Lapidarium Septentrionale, or a Description of the Monuments of Roman

Rule in the North of England. London & Newcastle upon Tyne.BRUCE, J C, (ed.) 1880, A descriptive Catalogue of Antiquities, chiefly British, at Alnwick

Castle. Newcastle upon Tyne.BULMER, T F, (ed.), 1887, History, Topography and Directory of Northumberland.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.BUTLIN, R A, (ed.) and STALEY N, (cartography), 2003, Historical Atlas of North

Yorkshire. Westbury Publishing; Otley, West Yorkshire.CAMDEN, W, 1722, Britannia. (ed. E. Gibson), London.CASEY, P J, and SAVAGE, M, 1980, The coins from the excavations at High Rochester in

1852 and 1855, AA5, 8, 75-87.CATHCART KING, D J, and ALCOCK, L, 1969, Ringworks of England and Wales,

Chateau Gaillard 3, 90-127.CATHCART KING, D J, 1983, Castellarium Anglicanum; 2 Vols. New York.CHARLTON, D B, 1986, The Story of Redesdale. Northumberland County Council;

Hexham.CHARLTON, D B, 1987, Upper North Tynedale: A Northumbrian Valley and its People.

Northumbrian Water, Newcastle upon Tyne.CHARLTON, D B, 1996, Fifty Centuries of Peace and War. An Archaeological Survey of

the Otterburn Training Area. The Ministry of Defence Otterburn Training Area.CHARLTON, D B, 2004, The Archaeology of the Otterburn Training Area, in P Frodsham

(ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136; York, 324-37.

CHARLTON, D B, and DAY, J C, 1976, Upper Redesdale, Northumberland: an archaeological survey, in P A G Clack and P F Gosling (eds) Archaeology in the North, 228-242.

CHARLTON, D B, and DAY, J C, 1978, Excavation and Field Survey in Upper Redesdale, AA5 6, 61-86.

CHARLTON, D B, and DAY, J C, 1979, Excavation and Field Survey in Upper Redesdale: Part II, AA5 7, 207-233.

CHARLTON, D B, and DAY, J C, 1982, Excavation and Field Survey in Upper Redesdale: Part IV, AA5 10, 149-170.

CHARLTON, D B, and MITCHESON, M M, 1983, Yardhope. A shrine to Cocidius? Britannia 14, 143-53.

CHARLTON, D B, and MITCHESON, M M, 1984, The Roman cemetery at Petty Knowes, Rochester, Northumberland, AA5, 12, 1-31.

CHARLTON, E, 1859a, Notes on North Tynedale in 1279, AA2 3, 147-157.CHARLTON, E, 1859b, The inquisition after the death of Adam de Charlton of Tyndale,

AA2 3, 261-262.CLACK, P A G, and GOSLING, P F, 1976, Archaeology in the North. Report of the

Northern Archaeological Survey. Northern Archaeological Survey with HMSO.



Corpus Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Volume I: County Durham and Northumberland. R Cramp (1984), Oxford University Press for the British Academy; Oxford.

COLLINGWOOD, W G, 1927, Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age. London.CONZEN, M R G, 1969, Elsdon, in J Philipson (ed.) Northumberland National Park,

HMSO, London, 71-82.COWEN, J D, 1935, Prehistoric section, in A History of Northumberland. XIV: The Parishes

of Alnham, Chatton, Chillingham, Eglingham, Ilderton, Ingram and Whittingham. The Chapelries of Lowick and Doddington, (ed.) M Hope Dodds, Newcastle upon Tyne, 21-67.

COWPER R A S, 1970-71, Northumbrian drove roads, Journal of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne Agricultural Society 24, 30-33.

CRAMP, R, and MIKET, R, 1982, Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon and Viking Antiquities in the Museum of Antiquities, Newcastle upon Tyne. University of Newcastle upon Tyne; Newcastle upon Tyne.

CRASTER, E, 1954, The Patrimony of St Cuthbert, The English Historical Review 69, 177-99.

CRONE, G R, 1961, Early Maps of the British Isles AD 1000-1579. 2 parts; London.CROW J, 1993, Survey and excavation at High Rochester, Northumberland 1992, Universities

of Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 1992, 16, 30-34.CROW J, 1994, High Rochester, survey and excavation 1993, Universities of Durham and

Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 1993, 17, 29-37.CROW J, 1995a, Housesteads. Batsford, London.CROW J, 1995b, High Rochester 1994: Third Interim Report. Dept of Archaeology,

University of Newcastle upon TyneCROW J, 1998, Harbottle Castle, Survey and Excavations 1997. (unpublished report

prepared for The Northumberland National Park Authority). University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Department of Archaeology.

CROW J, 2004a, Survey and excavation at Bremenium Roman fort, High Rochester 1992-98, in P Frodsham (ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136; York, 213-23.

CROW J, 2004b, Harbottle Castle. Survey and Excavations 1997-99, in P Frodsham (ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136; York, 246-61.

DANIELS, R, 2002, Medieval boroughs of northern England, in C. Brooks, R Daniels and A Harding (eds.) Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Durham; Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5, 185-196.

DAY, J C, and CHARLTON, D B, 1981, Excavation and field survey in upper Redesdale: Part III, AA5, 9, 267-298.

DIXON, D D,1895, Whittingham Vale, Northumberland: Its History, Traditions, and Folk Lore. Newcastle upon Tyne.

DIXON, D D, 1903, Upper Coquetdale, Northumberland: Its History, Traditions, and Folk Lore. Newcastle upon Tyne.

DIXON, P, and MARSHALL, P, 1993, The Great Tower in the Twelfth Century: The Case of Norham Castle, Archaeological Journal 150, 410-32.

DIXON, P J, 1985, Deserted Medieval Villages of North Northumberland: A Settlement History from the Twelth to the Twentieth Century, (2 Vols) Unpub. PhD thesis, University of Wales

ELLIS S G, 1995a, Tudor Frontiers and Noble Power: the Making of the British State, Oxford.

ELLIS S G, 1995b, Frontiers and Power in the early Tudor State, History Today 45, 35-42.FAIRCLOUGH, G, 1983, Fortified Houses and Castles, in P A G Clack and J Ivy (eds.) The

Borders; Durham; 81-99.



FAULL, M, and WOODHOUSE, S A,1981, West Yorkshire: an Archaaeological Survey to AD 1500. Wakefield.

FENTON, A, 1976, Scottish Country Life. Edinburgh.FRODSHAM, P, (ed.) 2004, Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for

British Archaeology Research Report 136; York.FRODSHAM, P, and WADDINGTON, C, 2004, The Breamish Valley Archaeology Project

1994-2002, in P Frodsham (ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136; York, 171-89.

GATES, T G, and O’BRIEN C, 1988, Cropmarks at Milfield and New Bewick and the recognition of Grubenhauser in Northumberland, AA5 16, 1-9.

GRIFFITH, E, 1974, A History of Northumberland Water Mills. Unpublished.GRUNDY, J, 1988, Historic Buildings of the Northumberland National Park: A Report to

the National Park Authorities. Napper Collerton Partnership.HALL, G R, 1889, Notes on a pre-Conquest memorial stone from Birtley, and fragments of

crosses from Falstone, North Tynedale, AA2 13, 252-77.HALLAS, C, 1999, Rural responses to Industrialisation – The North Yorkshire Pennines

1790–1914. Peter Lang; Bern.HALSDANE, A R B, 1968, The Drove Roads of Scotland (2nd edition), Edinburgh.HARBOTTLE, B, 1974, Note on excavation at The Belling, Archaeological Newsbulletin

CBE Group 3, May, 9-10.HARBOTTLE, B, 1977, Note on excavation at The Belling, Archaeological Newsbulletin

CBE Group 3, 13.HARBOTTLE, B, and NEWMAN, T G, 1973, Excavation and Survey on the Starsley Burn,

North Tynedale, 1972, AA5, 1, 137-75.HARRISON, 1577, Description of Britain.HART, C R, 1975, The Early Charters of Northern England and the North Midlands .

Leicester University Press; London.HARTSHORNE, C H, 1858, Memoirs illustrative of the history and antiquities of

Northumberland - Proceedings of the Archaeological Institute at Newcastle, 1852. Vol. II, Feudal and Military Antiquities of Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. London.

HARVEY, P D A, 1993, Maps in Tudor England. The Public Records Office/The British Library; London.

HEDLEY, I, 2004, Metal hills and kelties: Signposts to an industrial past, in P Frodsham (ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136; York, 306-23.

HEDLEY, W P, 1968, 1970, Northumberland Families. 2 vols., Newcastle upon Tyne.HIGHAM, N, 1986, The Northern Counties to AD 1000. London.HIGHAM, N, 1993, The Kingdom of Northumbria AD 350-1100. Alan Sutton; Stroud.HIGHAM, R and BARKER, P, 1992, Timber Castles. London.HODGSON, J, n.d., (post 1810) A Topographical and Historical Description of the County of

Northumberland. (in 'The Beauties of England and Wales' series).HODGSON, J, 1822, Observations on the Roman station of Housesteads, AA1, 1, 263-320

(271 - 'urns of native type' found by 18th century ironstone prospectors at Petty Knowes).

HODGSON, J, 1827, History of Northumberland, part 2, vol. I: Containing the History of the franchise of Redesdale, and of the Umfreville Family; Also, of the Parishes of Elsden .... Newcastle upon Tyne.

HODGSON, J, 1840, History of Northumberland, part 2, vol. III: Newcastle upon Tyne.HODGSON, J C, 1907, Holystone, AA3 4, 107-46.HODGSON, J C, 1908, An attempt to elucidate the descents of the family of Alder of

Prendwick, AA3 5, 16-39.HODGSON, J C, 1916, Notices of ruined towers, chapels, etc., AA3, 13, 1-16.



HODGSON HINDE, J, 1869, Inedited Contributions to the History of Northumberland. (Privately published, Newcastle upon Tyne).

HONEYMAN, H L, 1927, The Golden Pots, AA4, 4, 90-103.HOOLE, K, 1984, North-Eastern Branch Lines Past and Present. Oxford Publishing Co.;

Poole.HOPE TAYLOR B, 1977, Yeavering: An Anglo-British Centre of early Northumbria.

London: HMSO.HORSLEY, J, 1732, Britannia Romana. London.HUGILL, R, 1939, Borderland Castles and Peles. London.HUNTER BLAIR C H, 1932-34, Harbottle Castle; History of the Berwickshire Naturalist's

Club 28, iii, 215-231.HUNTER BLAIR C H, 1944, The early castles of Northumberland. AA4, 22, 116-70.HUNTER BLAIR C H, 1947-49, Elsden; History of the Berwickshire Naturalist's Club 31,

40-47.HUNTER BLAIR C H, 1957, Herbert Lewis Honeyman, AA4, 35, 252-59.HUTCHINSON W, 1778, A View of Northumberland, 1776. Vol. 1, Newcastle upon TyneJARRETT, M G, 1987, The Deserted medieval village of West Whelpington,

Northumberland, AA5, 16,JARRETT, M G, 1988, The Deserted medieval village of West Whelpington,

Northumberland, AA5, 17,JENKINS, S C, 1991, The Rothbury Branch. The Oakwood Press; Headington, Oxford.JOBEY, G, 1960, Some rectilinear farmsteads of the Roman period in Northumberland,

AA4, 38, 1-38.JOBEY, G, 1962, A note on scooped enclosures in Northumberland, AA4, 40, 47-58.JOBEY, G, 1964, Enclosed stone-built settlements in north Northumberland, AA4, 42, 41-

64.JOBEY, G, 1965, Hill-forts and settlements in Northumberland, AA4, 43, 21-64.JOBEY, G, 1973, A Romano-British settlement at Tower Knowe, Wellhaugh,

Northumberland, AA5, 1, 55-79.JOBEY, G, 1974, A Field-Guide to Prehistoric Northumberland, Part 2. Frank Graham;

Newcastle upon Tyne.JOBEY, G, 1977, Iron Age and later farmsteads on Belling Law, Northumberland, AA5, 5,

1-38.JOBEY, G, 1978, Iron Age and Romano-British settlements on Kennel Hall Knowe, North

Tynedale, Northumberland (1976), AA5, 6, 1-28.JOBEY, G, 1982, The settlement at Doubstead and Romano-British settlement on the coastal

plain between Tyne and Forth, AA5, 10, 1-23.JOBEY, G, 1983a, A note on some northern palisaded sites, in A Connor & D V Clarke

(eds.) From the Stone Age to the Forty Five. Donald; Edinburgh, 197-205.JOBEY, G, 1983b, Excavation of an unenclosed settlement on Standrop Rigg,

Northumberland, and some problems related to similar settlements between Tyne and Forth, AA5, 11, 1-21.

JOBEY, G, 1984, A settlement on Boggle Hill, Thorneyburn (NY 783862), AA5, 12, 241-242.

JOBEY, G, and TAIT, J, 1966, Excavations on palisaded settlements and cairnfields at Alnham, Northumberland, AA4, 44, 5-48.

JOLLIFFE, J E A, 1926, Northumbrian institutions, The English Historical Review 41, 1-42.JONES, G. R. J. 1976 Multiple estates and early settlement, in Sawyer P. H. (ed.) Medieval

Settlement, Continuity and Change. London, 15-40.



KAPELLE, W E, 1979, The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its Transformation, 1000-1135. London

KEEN, L, 1982, The Umfravilles, the castle and barony of Prudhoe, Northumberland, Anglo-Norman Studies 5, 165-84.

KELLY, 1910, Kelly’s Directory of Durham and Northumberland.KNOWLES, W H, 1899, The bastle house at Doddington, Northumberland, AA2, 21, 293-

301.LAWSON, W, 1971, The Newcastle to Carter Bar Road (A696 and A68), AA4, 49, 187-209LAX, A, 1999, Border troubles and Border farmers: A study of bastle houses in the upper

Tarset Valley, Northumberland, in ‘We were always chasing time.’ Papers presented to Keith Blood, (Northern Archaeology 17/18, Special edition), 165-172.

LOMAS R, 1996, County of Conflict: Northumberland from Conquest to Civil War. East Linton.

LONG, B, 1967, Castles of Northumberland. The Medieval Fortifications of the County. Harold Hill; Newcastle upon Tyne.

McCORD, N, 1982, An Introduction to the History of Upper North Tynedale, (Northumbrian Water)

McCORD, N and THOMPSON, R, 1998, The Northern Counties from AD 1000, Longman; Harlow, Essex.

McDONNELL, J, 1988, The role of transhumance in northern England, Northern History 11, 1-16.

McNAMEE, C, 1997, The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland, 1306-1328. Tuckwell Press, East Linton.

McOMISH D, 1999, Wether Hill and Cheviot Hillforts, in ‘We were always chasing time.’ Papers presented to Keith Blood, (Northern Archaeology 17/18, Special edition), 113-121.

MACDONALD, S, 1979, The role of the individual in agricultural change: the example of George Culley of Fenton, Northumberland, in H S A Fox and R A Butlin (eds.) Change in the Countryside: Essays on Rural England, 1500-1900. London: Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, no. 10.

MACKENZIE, E, 1825, An Historical, Topographical and Descriptive View of the County of Northumberland and Parts of County Durham situated North of the River Tyne with Berwick upon Tweed. 2nd edition; Newcastle upon Tyne.

MACKICHAN, N D, 1998, The Northumberland Central Railway, its Concept and Context. Whittingham, Northumberland.

MACLAUCHLAN, H, 1852a, Memoir written during a Survey of the Watling Street, from the Tees to the Scotch Border, in the years 1850 and 1851. London.

MACLAUCHLAN, H, 1852b, The Watling Street. The chief line of Roman Communication leading across the Counties of Durham and Northumberland, from the River Swale to the Scotch Border. London

MACLAUCHLAN, H, 1864a, Memoir written during a Survey of the eastern branch of the Watling Street, in the county of Northumberland, in the years 1857, 1858 and 1859 . London.

MACLAUCHLAN, H, 1864b, Eastern branch of the Watling Street, in the County of Northumberland, together with a branch extending from High Rochester to Whittingham. London.

MACLAUCHLAN, H, 1867, Notes not included in the Memoirs already published on Roman Roads in Northumberland. London.

MAWER A, 1920, The Place Names of Northumberland and Durham. Cambridge.MEIKLE, M M, 2004, A British Frontier? Lairds and Gentlemen in the Eastern Borders,

1540-1603. Tuckwell Press; East Linton.MIKET, R, 1976, The evidence for Neolithic activity in the Milfield basin, Northumberland,

in C Burgess and R Miket (eds.) Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC, Oxford; British Archaeological Reports, British Series 33, 113-146.



MILLER, E, 1976 for 1975, Farming in northern England during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Northern History 11, 1-16.

MILLER, H, 1887, Geology of the Country around Otterburn and Elsdon. Memoirs of the Geological Survey.

MITFORD, E B, 1939, Life of Lord Redesdale. MITFORD, R, 1989, From Bremenium to High Rochester. (unpub. BA diss., Dept of

Archaeology, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne).MOORE, M, 1915, The Lands of the Scottish King in England: The Honour of Huntingdon,

the Liberty of of Tyndale and the Honour of Penrith. George Allen & Unwin Ltd; London.

MORRIS, C D, 1977, Northumbria and the Viking settlement: the evidence for land-holding, AA5, 5, 81-103.

NCH XI (1922), A History of Northumberland. XI: The Parishes of Carham, Branxton, Kirknewton, Wooler and Ford. K H Vickers (ed.), Newcastle upon Tyne & London.

NCH XIV (1935), A History of Northumberland. XIV: The Parishes of Alnham, Chatton, Chillingham, Eglingham, Ilderton, Ingram and Whittingham. The Chapelries of Lowick and Doddington. M Hope Dodds (ed.) Newcastle upon Tyne & London.

NCH XV (1940), A History of Northumberland. XV: The Parishes of Simonburn, Rothbury and Alwinton, with the Chapelry of Holystone and the Lordship of Kidland. M Hope Dodds (ed.), Newcastle upon Tyne & London.

O’BRIEN C, 2002, The early medieval shires of Yeavering, Breamish and Bamburgh, AA5 30, 53-73.

O’BRIEN C, and MIKET R, 1991, The early medieval settlement of Thirlings, Northumberland, Durham Archaeological Journal 7, 57-91.

O'NEIL B, 1960, Castles and Cannon. Oxford, 42-45.OSWALD A, JECOCK M, and AINSWORTH S, 2000, An Iron Age hillfort and its

environs on West Hill, Northumberland. English Heritage Survey Report.OSWALD A, and McOMISH D, 2002, An Iron Age hillfort and its environs on St Gregory’s

Hill, Northumberland. English Heritage Archaeological Investigation Report Series AI/1/2002.

OSWALD A, 2004, An Iron Age hillfort in an evolving landscape. Analytical field survey on West Hill, Kirknewton, in P F Frodsham (ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136; York, 202-12.

OWEN, S F, 2003, Redewater Views 1912 – 1937. The Heritage Centre, Bellingham.PARSON and WHITE, 1828, History, Directory and Gazetteer of the County of

Northumberland.PEASE, H, 1924, Otterburn. The Tower, Hall and Dene and the Lordship, or Manor, of

Redesdale, AA3 21, 121-31.PETER McGOWAN ASSOCIATES with CROW, J, and RUSHWORTH, A, 2002,

Housesteads Roman Fort, Conservation Plan. 2 vols. English Heritage.PEVSNER, N, GRUNDY, J, McCOMBIE G, RYDER, P, WELFARE, H, and LINSLEY S,

2001, The Buildings of England: Northumberland. Reprinted 2nd edition; Yale University Press, London.

PLACKETT, R L, 1996/97, Roads and Tracks in the English Middle March. Part one from Roman Road to the New Line, Tyne and Tweed, 51.

PLATT C, 1981, The Parish Churches of Medieval England. London: Secker & Warburg.PLATT, C, 1982, The Castle in Medieval England and Wales. London.PSAN2 iv, (1889), 10,: Falstone.PSAN2 ix, (1900), 229-47, Harbottle, Alwinton and Hepple Woodhouses.QUINEY, A, 1976, Elsdon, Archaeological Journal 133, 173-178.RAINE, J, 1852, The History and Antiquities of North Durham.RAMM, H G, McDOWELL, R W, and MERCER, E, 1970, Shielings and Bastles. Royal

Commission on Historical Monuments (England); London.



RENNISON, R W, 1979, Water to Tyneside. Gateshead.RICHMOND, I A, 1936, Excavations at High Rochester and Risingham, 1935, AA4, 13, 170-

198.RICHMOND, I A, 1940, The Romans in Redesdale, in M Hope Dodds (ed.), A History of

Northumberland XV, Northumberland County History Committee; Newcastle upon Tyne, 63-154.

RIDPATH, G, 1848, The Border History of England and Scotland (1979 facsimile reprint of the 1848 edition). Edinburgh.

RITCHIE, R L G, 1954, The Normans in Scotland. Edinburgh.RIVET, A L F, and SMITH, C, 1979, The Place-names of Roman Britain. 2nd edition;

London.ROBERTS, B K, 1972, Village plans in County Durham: a preliminary statement, Medieval

Archaeology 16, 33-56.ROBERTS, B K, 1976, The northern village: an archaeological perspective, in P A G Clack

and P F Gosling (eds) Archaeology in the North, 255-265.ROBERTS, B K, 1977, Rural Settlement in Britain. Longman; Folkstone. ROBERTS, B K, 1987, The Making of the English Village. A Study in Historical

Geography. Longman; Harlow, Essex. ROBERTS, B K, 1990, Back lanes and tofts, distribution maps and time: Medieval

nucleated settlement in the North of England, in B E Vyner (ed.) Medieval Rural Settlement in North East England, Durham, 107-125.

ROBERTS, B K, 1996, Landscapes of Settlement. Prehistory to the Present. Routledge, London and New York.

ROBERTS, I D, 1992, Upland Farming in Northumberland (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

ROBERTS, I D, and WEST, M, 1998, Bellingham North Tynedale and Redesdale. Tempus.ROBSON, R, 1989, The Rise and Fall of the English Highland Clans: Tudor Responses to a

Medieval Problem. EdinburghROUND, J H, 1910, Peerage and Pedigree: Studies in Peerage Law and Family History.

2 vols; London.RUSHWORTH, A, 1996, High Rochester Fort: A Documentary Assessment of Post-Roman

Occupation (unpublished report; commissioned by The Northumberland National Park Authority). The Archaeological Practice, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

RUSHWORTH, A, and CARLTON, R J, 1998, Harbottle Castle: A Documentary Study. (unpublished report; prepared for The Northumberland National Park Authority). The Archaeological Practice, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

RYDER, P, 1990, Bastles and Towers in the Northumberland National Park. Unpublished report for Northumberland National Park Authority.

RYDER, P, 2004, Towers and bastles in Northumberland National Park, in P Frodsham (ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136; York, 262-71.

St. JOSEPH, J K, 1950, Castles of Northumberland from the air. AA4, 28, 7-17.SALWAY, P, 1965, The Frontier People of Roman Britain. Cambridge.SEWELL, G W M, 1992, The North British Railway in Northumberland. Merlin Books;

Braunton, Devon.SMITH, D J, 1962, The shrine of the nymphs and the genius loci at Carrawburgh, AA4, 40,

59-81.SPRING, D, 1963, The English Landed Estate in the Nineteenth Century: its Administration.

Johns Hopkins; Baltimore.STOBBS, A W, 1986, Memories of the LNER: Rural Northumberland. PenrithTATE G, 1866, 1868-9, The History of the Borough, Castle and Barony of Alnwick. 2 vols;

H H Blair, Alnwick.TATE G, 1868, Harbottle Castle; in Berwickshire Naturalist's Club 5, 427-37.



TAYLOR, C C, 1983, Village and Farmstead. London.TAYLOR, G N, n.d., The Valley of the Fords: 900 Years of Redesdale. Privately printed.TAYLOR, G N, n.d. (b), The Story of Elsdon. Frank Graham, Newcastle upon Tyne.THOMPSON, D M, 1977, Female Agricultural Workers’ Costume in the Borders from 1890

to 1939. A consideration of functional aspects and self-consciousness of style. Unpublished MA thesis, Open University.

TOMLINSON, W W, 1888, Comprehensive Guide to the County of Northumberland. Newcastle upon Tyne.

TOPPING, P, 1981a, The prehistoric field systems of the College Valley, north Northumberland, Northern Archaeology 2(1), 14-33.

TOPPING, P, 1981b, Hethpool stone circle, Northern Archaeology 2, 3-10.TOPPING, P, 1983, Observations on the stratigraphy of early agricultural remains in the

Kirknewton area of the Northumberland Cheviots, Northern Archaeology 4(1), 21-31.

TOPPING, P, 1989, The context of cord rig cultivation in later prehistoric Northumberland, in M Bowden, D Mackay and P Topping (eds.), From Cornwall to Caithness: Some Aspects of British Field Archaeology, Oxford; British Archaeological Reports, British Series 209, 145-157.

TOPPING, P, 1997, Different realities: the Neolithic in the Northumberland Cheviots, in P Topping (ed.) Neolithic Landscapes. Oxbow; Oxford, 113-23.

TOPPING, P, 2004, Hillforts, farms and fields. Excavations on Wether Hill, Ingram 1993-2002, in P Frodsham (ed.) Archaeology in Northumberland National Park. York; Council for British Archaeology Research Report 136, 190-201.

TREVELYAN, G M, 1931, The Middle Marches, in Clio, a Muse. Longmans.TUCK, J A, 1971, Northumbrian Society in the fourteenth century, Northern History 6: 22-

39.TUCK, J A, 1985, War and society in the medieval North, Northern History 21, 33-52.TUCK, J A, 1986, The emergence of a Northern nobility, 1250-1400, Northern History 22,

1-17.VINOGRADOFF, P, 1908, English Society in the Eleventh Century: Essays in English

Medieval History. Oxford.WADDELL, J, 2003, Mills around Otterburn, Northumbrian Mills 22, 5-6.WADDINGTON, C, 1998, Cup and ring marks in context, Cambridge Archaeological

Journal 8(1), 29-54.WADDINGTON, C, 1999, A Landscape Study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic in the Milfield

Basin, Northumberland. Oxford; British Archaeological Reports, British Series 291.WADDINGTON, C, BLOOD, K, and CROW, J C, 1998, Survey and excavation at

Harehaugh hillfort and possible Neolithic enclosure, Northern Archaeology 15-16, 87-108.

WALLIS, J, 1769 The Natural History and Antiquities of Northumberland. W & W Strahan; London.

WALTON, J, 1962, The Border – a National Forest Park Guide.WARN, C R, 1975, Rural Branch Lines of Northumberland. Frank Graham; Newcastle

upon Tyne.WATTS, S J, 1971, Tenant-right in early seventeenth-century Northumberland, Northern

History 6, 64-87.WATTS, S J, 1975, From Border to Middle Shire, Northumberland 1586-1625. Leicester.WELFARE, A, 1995, The Mote Hills, Elsdon, Northern Archaeology 12, 45-50.WELFARE, H, 2002, The Uplands of the Northern Counties in the First Millenium BC, in

C. Brooks, R Daniels and A Harding (eds.) Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Durham; Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5, 71-77.



WELFARE, H, BOWDEN, M and BLOOD, K, 1999, fieldwork and the castles of the Anglo-Scottish Borders, in P Pattison, D Field and S Ainsworth (eds.), Patterns in the Past: Essays in Landscape Archaeology for Christopher Taylor, Oxford, 53-60.

WELFARE, H, and SWANN, V, 1995, Roman Camps in England: The Field Evidence. RCHME/HMSO, London.

WELLS, J A, 1998, The Railways of Northumberland and Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1828 – 1998, (Powdene Publicity).

WELSBY, D A, 1982, The Roman Military Defence of the British Provinces in its Later Phases. BAR 101, Oxford.

WHITTAKER, H, 1949, A Descriptive List of the Maps of Northumberland 1576-1900. Newcastle upon Tyne.

WILSON, K, AND LEATHART, S, 1982, The Kielder Forests. A Forestry Commission Guide. Forestry Commission.

WILSON, R J A, 1988, A Guide to the Roman Remains in Britain. 3rd Edition, London.WINCHESTER, A J L, 1978, The medieval vill in the Western Lake District: Some

problems of definition, CW2 78, 55-69.WINCHESTER, A J L, 1987, Landscape and Society in Medieval Cumbria. Edinburgh.WINCHESTER, A J L, 2000, The Harvest of the Hills: Rural Life in Northern England and

the Scottish Borders, 1400-1700, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.WOOD, J, 1822, Some account of a Saxon inscription, on a stone found near Falstone in the

County of Northumberland, AA1 1, 103-4.WRATHMELL, S, 1975, Deserted and Shrunken Villages in Southern Northumberland

from the Twelfth to the Twentieth Centuries. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Cardiff.

WRIGHT, G, 1989, The Northumbrian Uplands, David and Charles.YOUNG, A, 2003, Railways in Northumberland. Martin Bairstow; Farsley, Leeds.YOUNG, R, 2002, The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in Northern England, in C.

Brooks, R Daniels and A Harding (eds.) Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Durham; Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5, 19-27.



13. APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF HISTORIC DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF MODERN PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF SITES AND MONUMENTS

APPENDIX 5: LIST OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS (GRUNDY 1988)

APPENDIX 6: PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE CATALOGUE

APPENDIX 7: NORTHUMBERLAND RECORDS OFFICE CATALOGUE

[NOTE: Historic Maps & Documents (M&D), Historic Photographs (HP) and Modern Photographs (MP), listed in Appendices 1 & 2, are archived in digital form with the Northumberland National Park Authority and Northumberland Records Office]
