Canterbury Christ Church University's Repository of Research Outputs Http

Canterbury Christ Church University’s repository of research outputs http://create.canterbury.ac.uk Please cite this publication as follows: Seaman, A. (2017) Further research on a predictive model of early medieval settlement location: exploring the use of field-names as proxy data. Medieval Settlement Research, 32. ISSN 2046-5211. Link to official URL (if available): This version is made available in accordance with publishers’ policies. All material made available by CReaTE is protected by intellectual property law, including copyright law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Contact: [email protected] Further Research on a Predictive Model of Early Medieval Settlement Location: Exploring the Use of Field-Names as Proxy Data Andy Seaman, School of Humanities, Canterbury Christ Church University Introduction Early medieval (fifth to eleventh century) settlement sites are notoriously difficult to identify in Wales. Despite decades of concerted research less than twenty-five settlements have been firmly identified, and few of these have been excavated and published to modern standards (Edwards, Davies and Hemmer 2016). The lack of sites is confounded by the fact that the majority of those which have been identified are interpreted as high-status defended settlements of the late fifth to seventh centuries, and thus far few ‘ordinary’ rural settlements have been identified. As a consequence our understanding of site types and rural settlement patterns in Wales is underdeveloped in comparison to other parts of early medieval Britain and Ireland. It was for this reason that the author developed a GIS-based ‘predictive model’ of early medieval settlement location focused on a 100km2 study area in the eastern Vale of Glamorgan (see Figure 1), the results of which were published in this journal (Seaman 2011). The model used soil type, hydrology, topography and Roman and later medieval settlement evidence to define four ‘settlement zones’. Zones 1 and 2 were interpreted as being the most likely to contain settlement evidence, and therefore where prospection techniques, such as geophysics and metal detector survey, could be most profitably targeted, whilst zones 3 and 4 were identified as being more marginal and less intensively settled. Zones 1 and 2 could be further subdivided by aspect and slope, with areas on south-facing gently sloping ground being considered the most likely to yield settlement evidence. It was also suggested that the model might be useful for exploring patterns of medieval land-use. At the time that the model was developed there was little direct evidence available with which to test the validity of the settlement zones or their utility for exploring patterns of land- use. Subsequently, however, the author became aware of the potential that field-names and state of cultivation data recorded in post medieval sources have to illuminate earlier patterns of settlement and land-use. Thus in 2013 a project was developed that aimed to use field- names and associated state of cultivation data recorded in the nineteenth century Tithe survey maps and apportionments as proxy data to test the validity of the model. In this short article I will briefly consider the value of field-names to settlement archaeology, outline the project methodology, examine its results, and consider the wider applications of this research methodology. 1 Figure 1: Figure 1: Location map of the study area. The study area focused on the parishes of Wenvoe, Sully, St Lythans, St Andrews Major, Penmark, Penarth, Michaelston le Pit, Merthyr Dyfan, Llandough and Cogan, and Llancarfan (Source: Author). Field-names as a Source for Landscape Archaeology Historians and historic geographers have long acknowledged that field-names are a vital source of evidence for the medieval landscape that provide information on a range of themes, including the location of settlements, agricultural land-uses, and the formation of field systems (for example Baker and Butlin 1973). Archaeologists, however, have generally been slower to draw upon the evidence offered by field-names, despite their value being briefly remarked on by Mick Aston and Trevor Rowley in their pioneering book on landscape archaeology (Aston and Rowley 1974: 66). This is especially surprising for those areas, such as early medieval Wales, which lack native pottery traditions and where fieldwalking is of limited use for identifying settlement sites. Indeed, Richard Jones and Della Hooke have recently noted that in these areas habitative field-name elements such as cot, tūn, wīc, worth, or bold, might provide the only readily detectable evidence for medieval settlements (Jones and Hooke 2012: 38). At Shapwick (Somerset), for example, field-names recorded in later medieval surveys that incorporated Old English habitative elements such as wīc and worth provided evidence on the locations of early medieval settlements that was subsequently confirmed by archaeological investigation (Gerrard and Hall 2007: 963-6). The field-name element black (ddu in Welsh) is not habitative in itself, but is often interpreted as referring to land with noticeably dark appearance, perhaps reflecting the presence of anthropogenic soils darkened by processes such as burning from domestic fires or intensive manuring (Field 1972: 22; Jones 1973: 475). It has therefore been seen as an indirect indicator of the location of settlement sites or associated gardens/crofts (for example Field 1993: 211-12; Kissock 2 2006; Richardson 1996: 461). Not all ‘black’ field-names need be interpreted in this way however, and the element could also refer to natural features such as shady land, vegetation, areas of peaty soil, or derive from a personal name (Field 1972: 22; Owen and Morgan 2007: 33-4; Richardson 1996: 459). Field-names can also reveal information about vegetation, and the size, shape, use and character of fields (Field 1993). Moreover, since many field-names contain references to the pre-agrarian landscape they can provide insights about the time when land was brought into cultivation (Oosthuizen 2008: 323-4). Thus, field-names are also a valuable source for reconstructing patterns of medieval agriculture and land-use that should be placed alongside more traditional research methods, such as field-walking, topographic survey, and test-pitting. Rhiannon Comeau, for example, has recently used the distribution of Welsh terms such as llain (strip), ardd/gardd (garden), and cytir (shared pasture) recorded in Land Tax and Tithe records in conjunction with other sources of evidence to reconstruct patterns of medieval land-use in the parish of Dinas (Pembrokeshire) where poor medieval documentation has restricted the effectiveness of conventional research methods. This research has led to the reconstruction of a medieval landscape, the origins of which lie in the pre-Norman period, with a settlement pattern consisting of loosely nucleated hamlets and farmsteads, associated with open fields/infield and blocks of demesne arranged around shared pasture/outfield (Comeau 2009; 2012). Field-names must be used with caution however, and we have to be aware of a number of important caveats. British field-names can have a remarkable longevity, and names recorded in the Tithe survey apportionments and estate maps can sometimes be traced back to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Oosthuizen 2008: 323-5). Nevertheless, comparison between eighteenth century estate maps and Tithe surveys demonstrates that field-names can change within as little as fifty years, and whilst we can be confident that some names were coined in the medieval period, others may be much later (Rippon 2012: 80). Ideally, a researcher should find the earliest reference to a particular field-name, as spellings can change over time and the date of first use can have an important bearing on interpretation. However, very often our first record of a field-name is in the Tithe surveys of the nineteenth century, and in the absence of earlier documentation we cannot be certain of the accuracy of a particular derivation. Moreover, we cannot be sure that different instances of the same name will have the same derivation or meaning, and it can be particularly difficult to differentiate field- names that derive from personal names (Richardson 1996: 353). Errant spellings, local/regional dialects, and changing meanings also complicate interpretation. The term erw, for example, is derived from a measure of arable land, and has been used by researchers as an indicator of medieval arable open fields ( for example Thomas 1980: 345). However, it was later used as a general measure of land (Jones Pierce 1943), and it was probably this usage which was most common in the field-names used in this study. We must also be aware that fields may have been subdivided/amalgamated, and it is possible that a recorded name is associated to only a proportion of the original field to which to the name was attached. Finally, we have to be aware that a name such as ‘Castle Field’ could refer to a field in which there was a castle, or a field owned by a castle (Richardson 1996: 353). Indeed, most instances of habitative field-names encountered in this project, such as Tufton Field/Six 3 Acres (Penmark) and Nattleton Field (Sully), and Old Court Meadow (Cadoxton) were attributed to the latter category. Methodology The first step was to assemble a database of field-names and land-use data that could be geocoded to the British National Grid at the level of the individual fields. Where possible each field was then assigned to one of six agricultural land-use categories on the basis of the state of cultivation detailed in the apportionment: arable, pasture, meadow, mud flat, wood or orchard. A system of coding was also used to identify field-names that provide evidence for features of potential archaeological significance within or near to the field. The field-name database was then integrated with the predictive model settlement zones in a GIS and the two datasets interrogated for correlations.

Load more