the medieval fields of strettington, west sussex, and the evolution of land division

The Medieval Fields of Strettington, West Sussex, and the Evolution of Land DivisionAuthor(s): Alan NashSource: Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 64, No. 1 (1982), pp. 41-49Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and GeographyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/490907 .

Accessed: 04/12/2014 04:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 4 Dec 2014 04:36:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=swedish

http://www.jstor.org/stable/490907?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE MEDIEVAL FIELDS OF STRETTINGTON, WEST

SUSSEX, AND THE EVOLUTION OF LAND DIVISION BY

ALAN NASH*

ABSTRACT. The medieval fields of Strettington in West Sussex, England, are examined using a combination of field methods, documentary research and morphometric analysis. It is argued that the findings suggest field planning was practised in Southern England and its evolution was part of an overall accommodation of population increase.

Introduction An increasing amount of evidence has been gat- hered in recent years to show that many English medieval field systems were not the result of gradual and haphazard developments, but rather were the outcome of conscious planning, both in terms of their organisation, and in their physical layout (G6ransson, 1961; Roberts, 1972). In this they share many characteristics in common with parts of Sweden (G6ransson, 1958, 1971; Han- nerberg, 1959). This phenomenon has only pre- viously been demonstrated in England for northern counties (Sheppard, 1976; Harvey, 1980), but an examination of the field system of the village of Strettington, east of Chichester, in West Sussex indicates the possibility that field sizes were similarly regulated in this part of Southern England during the later Middle Ages.

In order to do this however it is first necessary to reconstruct the medieval field layout of the village, and to appreciate the problems inherent in such a study it is essential to consider initially what documentary evidence is available and what limitations are encountered. Ideally, of course, the best source for such a study would consist of a map and a village survey, or terrier, but unfortunately such sources are either un- available for the Middle Ages, or are not in an appropriate form. For example, the earliest detailed Sussex maps are of the seventeenth century (Steer, 1962), whilst manorial court roll proceedings, charters and fines only mention land which comes within their immediate concern (Redwood and Wilson, 1959). These can only be used to study a landscape if they are

pieced together over many decades, and the best example of this remains that done for Laughton in East Sussex (Moore, 1965). Precisely because these examinations are built up using perhaps several centuries of material relating to individual landholding transactions they are of little use in analysing a field system at any one point in time. Furthermore, a large amount of evidence would be required if such pictures, or 'crosssec- tions' through time, were to be constructed, and even more would be needed if repeated cross- sections were required in order to trace the development of an entire field system through the Middle Ages. However, unfortunately, the survival of documentary material is very rarely sufficient for such a purpose, and this is certainly the case for Strettington. In order then, that the examination of its field system can be pursued it is necessary to adopt a variety of techniques and assumptions which will, in effect, increase the amount of evidence available for interpretation. Thus, one can analyse the medieval field boundaries of an area by either the examination of the present day landscape through field work (Baker, 1968), or by the study of eighteenth-century estate maps (Beresford, 1950) using morphometric analysis, which requires the detailed examination of the measurements used (Hanner- berg, 1976). Both of these techniques require that the continuity assumption is made, and this requires that the medieval boundaries under consideration remained continuously used, pre- serving their original alignment until the period when they could be accurately analysed (Fin- berg, 1955; Phythian-Adams, 1978). It is essential, because the continuity of boundaries is fundamental to the present inquiry, that this assumption is first demonstrated to apply, before detailed examination can proceed.

Boundary countinuity The fields of the village of Strettington offer much potential for the examination of their medieval layout because of the way in which the major boundaries of the system can be dated.

* Mr. A. E. Nash, Dept. of Geography, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6.

GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER B, 1982: 1 41



t East Dean earthwork

EastDL1,, a ,

Halnaker

a , L

- •

- .---

rJORTH FIELD--- b ------

EAST FIELD-

Westerton

/\•

k ~ - ~

•

Halnaker

--WEST, FIELD -'

0 1000

* •

Tangmere yards

Chichester

a PIP FURLONG I HANGLE CROFTS FURLONG

b HANGMANS FURLONG j NORTH FURLONG

C MIDDLE FURLONG k DELL FURLONG

d HOME FURLONG I HOME FURLONG

e THE BITTOM m MIDDLE FURLONG

f NORTH FURLONG n STONY FURLONG

g HOME FURLONG O TOWN FURLONG

h MIDDLE FURLONG ... PARISH BOUNDARY

Fig. 1. Strettington in 1768. Source: West Sussex Record Office, CAP. 1/29/7.26.

The best overall description of the Strettington field system is shown in Figure 1, and is provided by an estate plan drawn and surveyed in 1768 (West Sussex Record Office CAP. 1/29/7.26). That this was accurately surveyed and drawn can be demonstrated by comparison with maps produced by the Ordnance Survey, in their first and subsequent editions (1813, 1909, 1974). The map of 1768 provides an essential beginning for the investigation because it shows the field system of Strettington before enclosure. Sub- sequent maps would have been of less value since the pattern of land tenure, and many field boundaries, were radically altered as the Enclo- sure Commissioners reorganised the distribution of land-holding inherited from the Middle Ages (Tate, 1949). Thus, having established the pre- enclosure boundaries for Strettington it is necessary to consider how far these pre-enclosure boundaries, shown as existing in 1768, re- flect those of the medieval period.

Strettington is a valuable example in this re- spect for almost all its major boundaries appear to be important features in their own right, and to have had an early origin. Thus the southern

I+ Home Farm East Dean wall

vvwlwwvrvv Earthwork t m-- '3!!I"T Road abandoned

-&& **~ 4 by 1909 --,.Halnaker (in

Waterbeach use by 1813) Waterbeach

•

East Lavant New e oad

(buit before 1813) Halnaker

Westerton /Hainaker

Strettington ?Farm *

Temple Bar

Tangmere

Chichester

- - Footpath ........... Parish boundary Q9*•9 Plantation 0 1000

@ @ Line of hedgerow count yards

Fig. 2. Strettington: the modern layout. Sources: Ordnance Survey 1813, 1909.

boundary of the system, as shown in Figure 2, runs along Stane Street, a roman road constructed perhaps between 60 and 70 A.D. (Margary, 1949) and running north-eastwards from Chichester. The original northern boundary, before being shifted slightly southwards by enclosure, ran along the line of the Devil's Ditch, an Iron Age earthwork, (Wilson, 1956; Williams- Freeman, 1934) and somewhat earlier in origin than the roman road to the south (Allcroft, 1922; Cunliffe, 1971). The village street is likely to be at least as old as Domesday when the village was first recorded (Parish, 1886, p. 81), and certainly its irregular alignment would confirm this opin- ion. On the west, a parish boundary between the churches of Boxgrove Priory and Westhampnett was followed. Such boundaries are of great antiquity, incorporating in many cases pre-Christian boundaries and certainly dating in an ecclesiasti- cal function, from the Saxon period (Sylvester., 1967). The existence of many Saxon and Norman churches in Sussex can be seen as a sufficient indication of this and in this context, the dates of 619 and 700 A.D. respectively for the foundation of the present buildings at Boxgrove and West- hampnett would appear to concur with such a conclusion (Hills, 1869; Salzman, 1953 pp. 177-9; Taylor and Taylor, 1965 pp. 643-5). Only the extreme eastern boundary, cannot be so

42 GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER B, 1982: 1



THE MEDIEVAL FIELDS OF STRETTINGTON

easily dated as it follows no obvious feature. However, in all probability, it cannot have strayed far from its mid-eighteenth century posi- tion due to the existence in the east of the open fields of the villages of Halnaker and Boxgrove (West Sussex Record Office, Goodwood Mss E30), both villages at least as old as Strettington, being also recorded in 1086, and certain, given their recorded populations, to have farmed up to the boundary shown (Parish, 1886, pp. 79 and 81).

Thus, the outer boundaries of the field system can be accurately mapped from a survey of 1768 and these boundaries can be shown to be of a great antiquity, pre-Saxon in two and perhaps three cases, and certainly before Domesday in all cases. It now remains to be shown whether these boundaries were in fact those used by medieval farmers in the area, that is, to show theirfunc- tional continuity. This is necessary because a feature such as an earthwork or a roman road, may have been neglected in the past as a boundary-either because its purpose was forgotten and the feature itself fell out of use, as in Stane Street further into the Sussex Weald (Curwen, 1929, p. 105) or because while the feature existed and was known, it was on the extremity of the manor and was not the one that was actually used to delimit fields-another inner boundary being utilized for this purpose.

This, in fact, is a very difficult problem to resolve. However, it is clear that the presence and function of the roman road was not forgotten by the early Saxon settlers of Strettington. The earlier forms of the village name show with cer- tainty that the feature was known, and indeed incorporated as part of the place-name, 'Stra- tone' as the Domesday Survey of 1086 records (Mawer and Stenton, 1929; Darby and Versey, 1975, p. 431) "the homestead of the dwellers by the Street". Thus, it is highly unlikely that the road could have fallen out of use, as it did elsewhere, but rather was retained as a route-- way, and as such must have proved an effective boundary for any development of agriculture in the area. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to use place-name evidence to examine whether the other features were used as boundaries and another technique must be used for this. Without documentary evidence, this must rely on field work.

A technique known as "hedgerow analysis" has been developed by historical ecologists

which enables hedgerows to be dated with some precision (Hooper, 1968, 1970). This uses a general formula which an be stated as shown in the equation (1) below.

Age of hedge (in years ) = 99 x Number of species-16 (1). Thus put briefly the number of plant species contained within a ten-metre length of hedge can be shown to be equal to the age of that hedge. This simple rule has been shown to hold for many hedges which can be dated by documentary and other means throughout the country, and thus may prove to be a valuable additional technique which can be used for historical purposes. However, there are three major problems associated with its use. Firstly, more than one species may have been planted in the original hedge; this is certainly the case for some enclosure hedges, and means the equation shows them to be older than they in fact are. Secondly, local soil conditions and land management can cause variations in the speed of colonisation of the hedgerow by different species (Harvey, 1974; Payne, 1974). This means that it may be necessary to adjust the equation for local conditions, and in view of this, it would be useful to have a datum line of hedges dated by documentary means, but in Hooper's national survey no Sussex evidence was reported. A third problem is that there is as yet no agreement amongst ecologists over which species can be included in such analyses. Many consider bramble, for example, to be no more than a weed and to be ignored, although for general purposes it should be noted, a standard list does not exist (Pollard, Hooper and Moore, 1974).

In order to use hedgerow analysis it is necessary to establish how many different plant species grow in a ten metre length of hedgerow (Hewlett, 1973). Because the method is impre- cise, it is sufficient to use ten pace intervals instead, provided this unit of length is consis- tently used throughout the study. In the case of Strettington all existing hedgerows were examined, but because of hedgerow clearance only four now remain: those along the parish boundary, Stane Street and the division between North Field and East Field. The northern boundary, whilst clearly of enclosure origin, was also included to provide local evidence for a dateable hedgerow. The results from this analysis are presented in Figure 3, which indicates the overall average number of species recorded for each of the four hedgerows as well as the average for




NASH

No. of species Hedgerow count Average no. of species

6- 5 4--

Stane Street

3'78 -2 (1: Old Man's Beard, 2: Bramble,

1 1 2.3 1 3: Elder, 4:Field Maple, 5:Elm, 2,3,435 1,2,5.1,21,31,2,6j2,4, 1,2,7,8,92,3 6: Hazel, 7:Oak, 8:Sloe, 9: Briar.)

316B8 yrs. 3- 2 Footpath

2730 215 2g5[235 2,3,5 25 25 2,5o25

2,3,52,5 170. 3yrs.

6- 5 - T 4 Parish boundary 4 00 3- (10: Hawthorn. 11: Dogwood.)

2 1,3,4 - 1 3 10, 3,4 1 2 338.6yrs.

1-,0,11 1,3 3,6, 1,3,9 103 6,81 0023,6,11 2,6, 6

4- 2 2

12 210 Halnaker Road 2'60

0 .121012110,12112 10,10,12101 10,13 (12:Broom, 13 Ash.) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 200yrs.

Units of ten paces

Fig. 3. The analysis of hedgerows. For location of count, see figure 2.

each individual sample length studied. The species noted are indicated for these provide a further indication of age. It should be noticed that bramble (Rosaceae rubas) and Old Man's Beard (Clematis vitalba) were taken to be diag- nostic species in this study because, as can be seen, they were not ubiquitous and would thus seem to be useful as indicators of the rate of colonisation. Figure 3 also gives the estimated age of each hedgerow in years using a revised formula derived from the number of species recorded in the enclosure hedge. On the basis of this hedge being planted with one species in approximately 1800 the revised equation (2) can be derived as shown.

Age in years = 99 x number of species - 57.4 (2). The ages, at face value, are not encouraging but reflection shows this not to be the case.

An under-recording of species in any of the hedgerows, or an incorrect date for the enclosure hedge could easily cause an under-estimation in age of several centuries. Furthermore, a variety of other circumstantial evidence points to the age of these hedges. The presence of oak, elm and hazel has been suggested by historical ecologists to indicate an old age (Hooper, 1972), and these are found along three of Strettington's boundaries. In a number of places, as Figure 3 shows, six species are counted on both the parish boundary and the roman road, which allowing for error, would indicate at least a thirteenth century date for these lengths. Finally, the footpath boundary showed signs of having been re- cently heavily interfered with, but nevertheless, it stood on a bank of up to half a metre in places,

and this has been taken as an indication of considerable age elsewhere (Hewlett, 1973). Thus, it would appear that in terms of establishing approximate dates for these hedges, as far as it is possible to judge from this crude method, the major boundaries do appear to be at least medieval. It is also encouraging to note that both the roman road and the parish boundary do have considerably more species than the other hedges examined, thus establishing a relative chronology which would confirm a priori expectations and also validating the technique of hedgerow dating intself, albeit in a simple way. Moreover, whilst these figures obviously cannot be used to give absolute dates for the boundaries, they do serve to show that the divisions erected on these features are probably of considerable antiquity and, by implication, that they were used as boundaries for the cultivated area in the Middle Ages. Thus, it can be shown that the results of fieldwork indicate that the layout of the 1768 can be accepted as probably representative of at least the medieval layout of Strettington.

Morphometric analysis If the assumption can be accepted that the boundaries of the pre-enclosure map are indica- tive of the field system's layout in the Middle Ages, then further examination of the 1768 map is possible. Specifically, a detailed study of the dimensions of the fields and the individual strips of land held in the three open fields of Stretting- ton in the eighteenth century might provide some evidence concerning the internal plan of the medieval field system, it may also show if there was a conscious attempt made to regulate the shape or area of these strips and fields. It must however be realised that in this case no evidence can be provided for the antiquity of individual strip boundaries. Changes were obviously possible, although the most obvious one, that of land sale and amalgamation would still leave many internal boundaries preserved. The assumption of continuity must be made, but this does not appear unreasonable since it has been demonstrated for the major boundaries of the system.

Each strip shown on the pre-enclosure map was measured in terms of its length, and width and its area was calculated. The results of this examination are presented in Table 1, but before this evidence is discussed it is necessary to re- member two major types of error which are





Table 1. Analysis of the dimensions of open field strips at Strettington.

1. WIDTH -

Width (in Number of % (total = Width in customary perch Statute feet) strips 100 %) lengths (in Statute feet)

(total = 375) 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5

21 52 16 1.40 1.35 1.31 1.27 26 23 7 1.73 1.67 1.63 1.58 31 73 22 2.06 2.00 1.94 1.88 42 32 10 2.80 2.71 2.63 2.55 52 38 11 3.46 3.35 3.25 3.15 62 20 6 4.13 4.00 3.88 3.76 73 13 4 4.86 4.71 4.56 4.42

Mean = 47.682 statute feet; Mode = 31.182; minimum recorded = 10.394; maximum recorded = 228.668

2. LENGTH -

Length (in Number of % (total = Length in customary perch Statute feet) strips 100 %) lengths (in Statute feet)

(total = 375) 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5

520 15 4 34.66 33.55 32.50 31.52 530 16 5 35.33 34.19 33.13 32.12 551 11 3 36.73 35.54 34.44 33.40 561 16 5 37.40 36.19 35.06 34.00 572 12 4 38.13 36.90 35.75 34.67 582 15 4 38.80 37.54 36.38 35.27 603 13 4 40.20 38.90 37.69 36.55

Mean = 598.699 Statute feet; Mode = 530.094 and 561.0; minimum recorded = 197.486; maximum recorded = 1,038.360

3. AREA -

Area (in Number of strips % (Total = Area in customary acres (in square Statute (total = 375) 100 % sq. Statute perches)

160 120

40.0 12 3 0.25 0.33 48.0 5 1 0.30 0.40 55.0 5 1 0.34 0.45 64.0 5 1 0.40 0.53

Notes: This table shows those corrected dimensions which comprise the highest percentage of strip width, length and area. The average (mean) and the single most commonly occurring dimension (mode) are given for each.

likely to be present (Roberts, 1971). Firstly, the original survey may have been faulty and whilst the major boundaries have been checked on subsequent accurately surveyed maps, this is not possible for the internal strip divisions. Sec- ondly, because of the scale factor employed in the original map, measurement errors of even one millimetre will be responsible for a possible error in strip size of 5.197 statute feet in actual terms (see Conzen, 1960, p. 31; Slater, 1981, p.

212). However, although these factors will cause specific errors they are unlikely to be able to mask any overall patterns which are found, especially since the error can be assumed to be a constant factor for all strips measured.

The results for Strettington's strips show that at least for the width dimension there does appear to be a tendency for strips to concentrate about a figure of 31.182 statute feet, which will be called the "unit-width". It is less clear which




NASH

unit-measure was the most preferred length for a strip, but there does appear to be a concentration around 561.0 statute feet and this conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the relation between strip width and length 18:1, is one derived from the octonal system. Such a system is based on fractions and multiples of eight, rather than ten as in the decimal system, and was one which was preferred by Saxon and medieval systems of measurement and general reckoning (Sheppard, 1974). A unit-size for area is more difficult to show but there does appear a tendency for one of 40.476 square statute yards to emerge. This tendency to concentrate on certain specific unit- sizes can be shown to be not accidental if it can be demonstrated that the sizes themselves are likely ones to have been employed given the measuring system used at the time when the fields may have been laid out. In terms of statute units, of course, none of the unit-measures appear likely, but this is to be expected since research has shown that local 'customary' measures were used rather than the statute ones, and that these exhibited considerable variation across medieval Sussex, both in terms of the length of the perch and the area of the acre locally employed (Nash, 1978), and this has also been shown nationally (Petrie, 1877; Prior, 1924; Howells, 1967; Zupko, 1969; Dilley, 1975).

Thus, if the hypothesized unit-measures for Strettington are examined in terms of the customary measures from which they are likely to have been built up the results produced in table I are obtained. The evidence certainly does seem to indicate that some kind of local measure was being used, for this explains the concentration on certain unit sizes, but which exactly it was is difficult to say. The likely possibilities based on other Sussex evidence (Nash, 1978) are listed in Table I and as can be seen from this the most probable are the local perches made up of 15.0, 15.5, and 16.0 statute feet. A perch of 16.0 statute feet would be likely, given its recorded use in nearby Aldingbourne in a terrier of 1251 (Peckham, 1924, p. 24). One of 15.0 statute feet would be possible, given recent work on customary measures elsewhere in the country (Huggins, 1978), and one of 15.5 statute feet would appear possible based on calculations produced in the table. Obviously, it is very difficult at this time to resolve a difference of twelve inches between the contending perches. Furthermore, it must be realised that whilst it is

easy to show many different sizes of perch could be divided into a given length, this is no more than a simple arithmetical operation and does not, in itself, demonstrate that such a perch length was the one actually used. Consequently, it would be wrong to insist on any specific perch size as being demonstrably the correct unit here. However, what does appear from the evidence presented in Table 1, is that a unit-measure was being used to control strip dimension, and that a local perch within the range 15 to 16.0 feet was the basis for it. The adoption here of a 15.5 statute feet perch is an attempt to recognise this fact, for such a perch size, whilst having no documentary evidence, lies well within the proven range of the local customary measures in the region and is a possible component of the unit-measures of 31.182 and 561.0 statute feet. Furthermore, by coincidence, it stands as an ideal compromise between the two other most likely perches. Of course, the possibility exists that the 15.0 or the 16.0 feet perch might be the right local perch, but it is impossible to be any more precise here, given the above limitations of the technique. Moreover, the alteration of six inches will in no way alter the conclusions presented below.

The customary measure adopted for area seems clearer for the unit-area does appear to be almost exactly one third of the local customary acre of 3630 square statute yards. Such a measure is found in many nearby localities of West Sussex (Nash, 1978) and the fraction, one third, is also a very common one (Cooper, 1853; See- bohm, 1914). This finding, moreover, reinforces the conclusion made above that the width and length unit-measures themselves were being consciously produced at Strettington, for they were the components of such local customary acres. Whether it was the purpose of the initial planning to establish regulation of width and length, or area it is difficult to determine, for the physical outcome is clearly identical, but this is a problem returned to later in this discussion. However, the analysis of field dimensions, specifically the North and East Fields, within the constraints imposed by the boundaries and errors inherent in map analyses, does suggest an attempt was being made to produce two fields approximately equal in size using a square "module" of about 110 local perches in length. Furthermore, an examination of all three fields suggests an attempt was made to make all fields





I 72.56ac. o

I

79*29ac.

Acreage given in statute units 0 500 000 Length in 15-5 ft.perches*-110-. yards

Fig. 4. A possible reconstruction of Strettington's medieval layout.

equal in area, each field containing approximately 76 statute acres, or 57 customary acres, if the above assumptions are accepted. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 4. Why the third field, the West Field, was not planned in terms of length and breadth as the other two appear to be, but only in terms of area is problematic. The best explanation is that two phases of planning may have occurred. The first was more simple and saw the equalisation of areas and affected all three fields. The second stage was the overall planning of field shape (Beckwith, 1967) which at Strettington appears to have involved only the North and East fields. Certainly, it is difficult to see how this relative chronology could be re- versed, since then the West Field would also need to have been planned in shape as well as area.

Such conclusions of course, if based solely on field work and map interpretation, would of necessity remain speculative (Beresford, 1957). At Strettington, however, it is possible, also to use documentary evidence relating to the problem in order to further examine these specula- tions and so to test their possible validity.

Documentary evidence A feudo unius militis or knight's fee was the subject of a fine at Strettington in 1206 and appears to be the same one mentioned 28 years

later when two-thirds of a knight's fee were stated as being held by Walter Lymsey, and the remaining third by Margaret de Lymsey (Salz- man, 1903, nos. 103 and 298). It is possible, because of the united nature of Strettington, to argue that the whole area formed the knight's fee in question. Whilst there existed no standard size for such a unit, the area of Strettington, 222.37 statute acres (or 166.78 customary acres, using an acre of 3630 square statute yards) is compati- ble with area for fees elsewhere, for example at nearby Tangmere, and at Alciston (Budgen, 1946; Wilson, 1961). This suggestion gains cre- dence from the fact that the three fields of the village are of equivalent acreage which indicates that division into thirds would be a relatively straight forward operation. It furthermore indicates that the equalisation of their areas must have occurred before 1235, the date after which the fee was probably divided. This terminus ante quem would also mark the latest point when the apparently regulated village could itself have been laid out, lying as it does between the two sections, and thus presumably between the two parts of the knight's fee. By 1241 the fee is re- united in Walter de Lymsey's hands (Round, 1899) and in 1249 passes to a Nicholas de Lime- sie as a united landholding (Maxwell-Lyte and Holmes, 1894; Salzman, 1953, p. 145). Thus, if the eastern section alone was refined by a further planning to produce two approximately square fields, this must have occurred between 1235 and 1249 under Walter de Lymsey. This is because as he held two-thirds of the fee, he presumably held the North and East fields, the subjects of this planning. This dating is of course speculative, but is confirmed by a number of other pieces of evidence. Firstly, any remodelling cannot have happened any later than the late Middle Ages on the basis of the hedgerow evidence detailed above. Secondly, as time progresses, the property market, gifts to the church and inheritance would divide up control of the fee (see Baker, 1964) and make it increasingly difficult to re- model it. Thirdly, at about this date Aldingbour- ne and perhaps places near it, switch from local customary measures to the ones enforced by statute (Peckman, 1925, pp. 34 and 129), so that any remodelling done after the thirteenth century would be based on a 16.5 statute feet perch. Fourthly and finally, evidence from other parts of England, especially Yorkshire indicate that the thirteenth century was a period in which




NASH

many village field systems were being regulated by conscious planning (Roberts, 1970; Sheppard, 1976).

Summary In conclusion, it has been shown that in order to even attempt to examine medieval field-systems, all possible sources of evidence must be used, for only by a combination of fieldwork, morphometric analysis and documentary research can a balanced interpretation be derived. The analysis of Strettington's fields has indicated that the boundaries of the pre-enclosure map represent, as far as can be seen, those of the medieval system and thus validates the assumption of functional continuity for those boundaries. It has further been shown that at least one, and perhaps two, stages of remodelling of the field system occurred by the thirteenth century. The first of which was concerned only with areal equality, and the second with a perhaps more sophisticated linear regulation. It is probable that this later development could only develop once areal equivalence had been achieved, perhaps in ac- cordance with earlier more abstract notions of "shares" in a landholding held by earlier pre- Domesday tenants (Dodgshon, 1973).

Finally, the evidence from Strettington may be of some more general value in suggesting why field planning and subsequent remodelling of field shape occurred at all, and the date for its later refinement at Strettington, the thirteenth century, may for example, illustrate this best. It can be argued that in the face of an increased pressure on the supplies of available land, caused by the general population increase nationally from 1250 onwards (Postan, 1950; Nash, 1980) it became essential to be far more precise over property rights and land tenure (North and Thomas, 1973). As a consequence of this, the detailed measurement of strips replaced earlier more vague divisions, and perhaps even their re-modelling took place to facilitate this (Nash, 1976, pp. 55-63). Thus, at Wahull in Bedford- shire a court roll entry for 1173 notes ". everybody shall surrender his land to be measured anew with the rod by the old men" under- lining this new-found concern with precision (Vinogradoff, 1905). In the same way the earlier and more simple regulation of just area may have been similarly prompted by rising population, stimulated perhaps by the undoubted high pro-

ductivity of medieval agriculture along the wealthy Sussex coastal plain (Pelham, 1937; Glasscock, 1965; Brandon, 1972). In short then, the explanation for the evolution of more sophisticated means of land division may have been adjustments which were prompted by the same factors which caused other adjustments in field-systems and farming (Boserup, 1965; Baker and Butlin, 1973), and made to accommodate the increasing demands a rising population put on the limited agricultural resources available during the later Middle Ages.

Acknowledgements The author wishes to express his thanks to the West Sussex Record Office and the Duke of Richmond and Gordon for permission to consult documents in their possession, and the West Sussex Record Office staff for their help; Dr. Glasscock for helpful comments; Mr. and Mrs. A. E. Nash for assistance in the field; Sheila Ottewell for drawing the diagrams; and the research fund of the Vaughan Cornish Memorial Research Institute for a grant to cover the cost of illustrations.

References Allcroft, A. H., 1922: The Sussex War Dyke: a pre-Roman

thoroughfare. Sx. Arch. Coll., 63: 54-87. Baker, A. R. H., 1964: Open fields and partible inheritance on

a Kent Manor. Ec. Hist. Rev. Sec. ser. 17: 1-23. - 1968: A note on the retrogressive and retrospective ap-

proaches in historical geography. Erdkunde, 22: 243-4. Baker, A. R. H. and Butlin, R. A. (eds.), 1973: Studies of Field

Systems in the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 702 p.

Beckwith, 1., 1967: The remodelling of a common-field system. Ag. Hist. Rev., 15: 108-113.

Beresford, M. W., 1950: Maps and the medieval landscape. Antiq., 95: 114-118.

- 1957: History on the ground. London. Boserup, E., 1965: The Conditions of Agricultural Growth.

London. Brandon, P., 1972: Cereal yields on the Sussex estates of

Battle Abbey during the later Middle Ages. Ec. Hist. Rev., sec. ser., 25: 403-420.

Budgen, W., 1946: The acreage of the Sussex hide of land. Sx. Notes and Queries, 11.

Conzen, M. R. G., 1960: Alnwick, a study in town-plan analysis. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 27.

Cooper, W. D., 1853: A Glossary of Provincialisms in Use in the County of Sussex. Second Edn., Brighton.

Cunliffe, B., 1972: Excavations at Fishbourne, 1961-1969, Vol. I.- The Site. Soc. of Antiq., London, 214 p.

Curwven, E. C., 1929: Prehistoric Sussex. Homeland Associ- ation, London.

48 GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER B. 1982: 1




Darby, H. C. and Versey, G. R., 1975: Domesday Gazeteer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dilley, R. S., 1975: The customary acre: an indeterminate measure. Ag. Hist. Rev., 23: 173-176.

Dodgshon, R. A., 1973: The landholding foundations of the

open-field system. Past and Present, 67: 3-29. Finberg, H. P. R., 1955: Roman and Saxon Withington: a

Study in Continuity. Dept. of Eng. Loc. Hist., Univ. of Leicester, Ist Series, 8, Leicester.

Glasscock, R. E., 1965: The distribution of lay wealth in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Arch. Cant., 80: 61-8.

Goransson, S., 1958: Field and village on the island of Oland. Geogr. Ann., 40B: 101-155.

- 1961: Regular open-field pattern in England and Scandi- navian solskifte. Geogr. Ann., 43B: 80-104.

- 1971: Village planning patterns and territorial organisation. Act. Univ. Upsal., 4.

Hannerberg, D., 1959: Solskifte and older methods of parti- tioning arable land in Central Sweden during the Middle Ages. Ann. de I'Est., Mem. 21: 245-59.

- 1976: Models of medieval and pre-medieval territorial organisation. J. Hist. Geog. 2: 21-34.

Harvey, J. H., 1974: Hedges and local history. Loc. Hist., 11. Harvey, M., 1980: Regular field and tenurial arrangements in

Holderness, Yorkshire. J. Hist. Geog., 6: 3-16. Hewlett, G., 1973: Reconstructing a historical landscape from

field and documentary evidence, Otford in Kent. Ag. Hist. Rev., 21: 94-110.

Hills, G. M., 1869: The church of Westhampnett. Sx. Arch. Coll., 21: 33-43.

Hooper, M., 1968: Hedges. Ag. Hist. Rev., 16: 84. - 1970: Dating hedges. Area, 4: 63-5. - 1972: Hedges and local history. Standing Conference on

Local History, London. Howells, B. E., 1967: The distribution of customary acres in

South Wales. Nat. Lib. Wales J., 15: 226-33. Huggins, P., 1978: Excavation of Belgic and Romano-British

farm with Middle Saxon cemetery and churches at Nazeingbury, Essex, 1975-76. Essex Arch. Hist., 10: 29-117.

Margary, I. D., 1949: Roman Ways in the Weald. Phoenix House, London. 287 p.

Mawer, A. and Stenton, F., 1929: The Place Names of Sussex. English Place Names Society, Cambridge.

Maxwell-Lyte, H. C. and Holmes, T. S., (eds.) 1894: Bruton and Montacute Cartularies. Somerset Record Society, Taunton.

Moore, J. S., 1965: Laughton: A Study of the Evolution of the Wealden Landscape. Dept. of Eng. Loc. Hist., Univ. of Leicester, Ist Series, 19, Leicester.

Nash, A. E., 1976: Morphometric Analysis-its Relevance to Historical Geography. A case Study of Field Sizes in Sussex. Unpublished B. A. dissertation, University of

Cambridge. 85 p. - 1978: Perch and acre sizes in Medieval Sussex. Sx. Arch.

Coll., 116: 57-67. - 1980: The mortality pattern of the Wiltshire lords of the

manor. Southern History, 2: 31-43. North, D. C. and Thomas, N., 1973: The Rise of the Western

World. Cambridge.

Parish, W. D. (ed.), 1886: Domesday Book in Relation to the County of Sussex. Sx. Arch. Soc., Lewes.

Payne, M., 1974: Hedgerow species diversity, in Field Studies in Dorset. Department of Geography, Cambridge.

Peckham, W. D., 1925: Thirteen Custumals of the Bishop of Chichester. Sussex Record Society, Lewes.

Pelham, R. A., 1937: The agricultural geography of the Chic- hester estates in 1388. Sx. Arch. Coll., 78: 195-210.

Petrie, W. F., 1877: Inductive Metrology. London. Phythian-Adams, C., 1978: Continuity, Fields and Fission:

The making of a Midland Parish. Dept. of Eng. Loc. Hist., Univ. of Leicester, Third Series, 4, Leicester, 53 p.

Pollard, E., Hooper, M. D. and Moore, N. W., 1974: Hedges. Collins, London.

Postan, M. M., 1950: Some economic evidence of declining population in the later Middle Ages. Ec. Hist. Rev., Sec. Ser., 2: 221-45.

Prior, W. H., 1924: Notes on the weights and measures of Medieval England. Bulletin du Cange: Archivum Latinita- tis Medii Aevi, 1: 77-170.

Redwood, B. C. and Wilson, A. E., 1959: Custumals of the Sussex Manors of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sussex Record Society, Lewes.

Roberts, B. K., 1970: Timeless villages from Medieval Eng- land. Geog. Mag. 42: 598-607.

- 1971: The study of village plans. Loc. Hist., 9. - 1972: Village plans in County Durham. A preliminary

statement. Med. Arch., 16: 33-56. Round, J. H., 1899: Some early Sussex Charters. Sx. Arch.

Coll., 42: 75-86. Salzman, L. F., 1903: An Abstract of Feet and Fines Relating

to the County of Sussex. Sussex Record Society, Lewes. - (ed.), 1953: The Victoria County History of Sussex, vol. 4.

Inst. Hist. Res., London. 253 p. Seebohm, F., 1914: Customary Acres and their Historical Im-

portance. London. Sheppard, J., 1974: Metrological analysis of regular village

plans in Yorkshire. Ag. Hist. Rev., 22: 118-135. - 1976: Medieval village planning in Northern England; some

evidence from Yorkshire. J. Hist. Geogr., 2: 3-20. Slater, T. R., 1981: The analysis of burgage patterns in

medieval towns. Area, 13: 211-216. Steer, F. W., 1962: A Catalogue of Sussex Estate and Tithe

Award Maps. Sussex Record Society, Lewes. Sylvester, D., 1967: The Church and the geographer, in Steel,

R. W. and Lawton, R., Liverpool Essays in Geography. University Press, Liverpool.

Tate, W. E., 1949: Sussex enclosure acts and awards. Sx. Arch. Coll., 88: 115-156.

Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J., 1965: Anglo-Saxon Architecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2 vols, 734 p.

Vinogradoff, P., 1905: The Growth of the Manor. London. Williams-Freeman, J. P., 1934: The Chichester entrench-

ments. Sx. Arch. Coll., 75: 65-104. Wilson, A. E., 1956: The beginnings of Roman Chichester. Sx.

Arch. Coll., 94: 100-143. - 1961: Custumals of the Manors of Laughton, Willingdon

and Goring. Sussex Record Society, Lewes. Zupko, R. E., 1969: A dictionary of English Weights and

Measures. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.




the medieval fields of strettington, west sussex, and the evolution of land division

Documents