Chapter 9 Origin of open fields Previous studies The literature ofpre-enclosure fields is immense; discussion about their origin has taken place for over a century and doubtless will continue}. Firstly, it is necessary to make a brief review of theories previously put forward to explain open fields. Less than 50 years after the end of the main enclosure movement in 1840, when almost every parish in the country had been enclosed, open fields were recognized as worthy of study and their implications for manorial and social history were considered. Seebohm, writing in 1883, studied Hitchin, Herts., as a model. Although the data are rather late for a 'medieval' system (1816), Seebohm was able to describe the main elements, showing that at Hitchin the landscape comprised of long narrow strips, or lands, grouped into blocks called furlongs, the furlongs themselves being grouped into three large areas called fields, which were open and hedgeless. The fields occupied most ofthe available area and were cultivated on a three-year rotation, one year being fallow. " The meadow land was divided into strips as well, and there were common grazing rights over both meadow and fallow at certain times. He also noted that the arable strips were separated by narrow strips of grass called balks and assumed that these were a medieval feature; in this he was incorrect, although the error has often been repeated and passed into many standard works subsequently. Seebohm thought that strip-fields were the consequence of communal ploughing, each person providing an animal or the plough, and getting one or more of the ploughed strips as a reward2• He drew upon Welsh laws, since such fields occur in Wales, and he thought that the system was older than the Saxon era, having Roman or even Iron Age antecedents. He met a problem when examining German evidence because he expected that the Saxon homeland in northern Germany would have field systems with the same characteristics as Hitchin, that is a regular two or three-field arrangement with common grazing. Such fields were unknown in the north, but were common in central Germany, where there had been Roman influence, hence the postulation of a Roman origin. In 1892 Vinogradoff, studying medieval tenure, thought that strip fields were created for equalising shares in terms ofland quality, and were part ofan arrangement intended to emphasize the superiority of the community over individual rights3• He too drew on Celtic models as prototypes where land was held by tribal or kindred groups with temporary occupation of strips-by individuals. 1 A. R. H. Baker, Ag. Hist. Rev. 31 (1983) pp. IS9-{)4. 2 Seebohm, 1883; 1912 edn., pp. 65-6, 113-4. 3 Vinogradoff, 1892, p. 237. 125" 126 THE OPEN FlELDS OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE Maidand did not believe there was any evidence that a communal tenure ofland ever existed4. He showed that the only examples were lands held by burgesses of some medieval towns, and that their origin was late, in the fourteenth century, and that no such cases existed in Saxon or earlier times. He accepted that strip fields were a reasonable method of share ,holding, but stressed that the existence of intermixed holdings did not imply that ownership was communal; each land remained the private property of the owner. Gray, in 1915, gave much more detail on the variation of English field systems5. He defined six different types, the regular two- or three-field arrangement (such as Hitchin) being confined mainly to the Midlands. He supposed variations in different parts the country were oftribal origin, and thought that the Midland system had been introduced by early setders from the Saxon homeland. At the same time he considered the possibility that the Celtic infield - outfield system was an early prototype for the development of a two-field cropping arrangement. Bishop, in 19356, looked at assarting processes in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Yorkshire. He showed that newly cleared parcels ofland were held by freeholders and were described as additional acres belonging to the regular holdings of bovates and oxgangs (equivalent to yardlands); so there were grants ofbovates and, say, 5 acres of assart. It was suggested that assarted land would be gathered together to add more yardlands (oxgangs) to a particular vill. He noted that for some villages there were thirteenth-century furlongs (flats) with the same persona) names as the twelfth-century land holders (eg Gikelflat at Balderby), and postulated that' a piece of land held in severalty by Gikel as his own property, had, a century later, become incorporated into the subdivided fields. Such a mechanism could be envisaged at an earlier date, small groups of people creating strip fields piecemeal, furlong by furlong, over a long time. In Bishop's examples there seem to be no topographical studies, so it is not possible to kllow whether Gikelflat was so named because it was located next to Gikel's house on the edge of the village, rather than because he had once owned the land. Bishop proposed a mechanism for assarted property to become open-field land held in multiple ownership, citing cases of holdings already shared between many owners which might be further split between sons and widows to form fragmen'ted pieces eventually leading to strips. 7 The Orwins approached open fields from a practical viewpoint in 1938 • They saw strips as being the physical result of using a plough with a fixed mouldboard throwing soil to one side. Back and forth ploughing over short distances was not very convenient and a long strip would be a preferred shape. They viewed assarting as an important process in the fragmentation of fields, and saw the Saxons as pioneers in a wild countryside, analagous to Europeans settling in North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, wresting arable out of untamed land. Much interest in field systems has taken place since 1950, with more evidence from regional studies. Thirsk (1964) did not think that mature common fields, which she defined has having four essential elements; sub-division, rights of common over arable, common waste, and a village assembly (manorial court) to control the process, could have been created ab initio. She also stressed that systems appearing similar in the late 4- Maitland, 1897; 1960 edn. pp. 4-04-10. 5 Gray 1915. 6 T. A. M. Bishop, 'Assarting and the growth of open fields', £C. Hist. Rev. 6 (1935) p.13. 7 C. S. Orwin and C. S. Orwin. The Open Fields, 1938. ORIGIN OF OPEN FlELDS 127 Middle Ages may have had different origins. Partible inheritance, the division of land equally between sons and partners, were seen to be prime factors in causing subdivision ofwhat was once a sizeable piece of ground or assart8. A partible inheritance scheme of division followed the suggestions made by Bishop, it being assumed that what he put forward as 'somewhat speculative' was a proven fact; many subsequent writers have continued this incorrect assertion. Complete mature systems were suggested by Thirsk to be as late as the thirteenth century, and created by rearrangement of earlier irregular ' parts. Titow disagreed with Thirsk's theories, suggesting that a regular order could have been made when the Saxons formed their townships9. He pointed out th~t there was no evidence of partible inheritance and division amongst coparceners which could be invoked as a mechanism of subdivision. He did not think that regular ordering oflands was a late organization or it would be known from historical sources, and pointed out that there was plenty of evidence for an early equal distribution of lands between cropping units. Baker and Butlin edited a series of essays in 1973, which showed the variety and complexity of British field systems lO• There are pockets of subdivided fields, even in the Midland area, and w~ole regions, like East Anglia and Kent, where holdings are not scattered around the township, but concentrated in a particular part. More detail for areas in the North became available, and Gray's classification and extent of types had to be revised. In 1975 McClosky considered the problem of scattered arable lands. 11 • He suggested that the scattering of lands was an aversion of risk to crops by such events as thunder storms and plant disease. It would also protect against the variability of English soil types, so that, for example, a scattered holding would prevent all the crop being planted on a part of the township with light land and risk being stunted in a'dry season. Dodgshon gave an account of the origin of British fields, in 198012. He put forward township splitting as being a mechanism of creating regulated fields. Small townships, resulting from such splitting, may well have been bereft of grazing resources, and would have to develop a common grazing arrangement including use offallow. Such a major event would give occasion for villagers to make any necessary improvements, and probably involve a new allotment of strips. Rowley edited a volume ofpapers describing possible origins of open fields in 1981 13. Fox discussed the Midland system and pointed out that an essential feature was equal distribution of arable holdings between the great fields, and the regular laying down of one field to fallow. He showed that such arrangements were widespread in lowland England by the twelfth century, and may have been present in the tenth century. He agreed with Thirsk that an organized mature system probably had involved a reorder- ing, necessary when arable had encroached on pasture to such an extent that the only 8 J. Thirsk, 'The Common Fields', Past and Present, 29, 1964, pp.