THREAD. I fell in love with landscape history in 1984 when I read this book: the author explained, through worked examples, how maps (on rainy days like today) & explorations on the ground can reveal the history of our familiar landscapes. For example... 
2. Here’s a modern (1980’s) map of Pockley in N Yorks. which, Taylor explained, had previously been described as ‘an unplanned village of elongated form’. He took a closer look and came up with a quite different interpretation...
3. The modern map, he argues, is belied by the evidence on the ground of abandoned house sites & property boundaries. When they are added to the modern map they reveal (a) that ‘the N part of the village is a planned [medieval] settlement of typical* form’
*of which more, later
*of which more, later
4. & that (b) to its S a planned extension to the village was added consisting of ‘houses set around a green which was later built over’.
(c) to the SW of the S extension is at small agglomeration of cottages & farmsteads’ of indeterminate origin.
(c) to the SW of the S extension is at small agglomeration of cottages & farmsteads’ of indeterminate origin.
5. Why did Taylor think the N part was planned? Because all the properties
(a) shared the same front and back boundaries
(b) were equal in area
Landscape historians explain these as planned because it’s difficult to see how this might happen by chance or over time.
(a) shared the same front and back boundaries
(b) were equal in area
Landscape historians explain these as planned because it’s difficult to see how this might happen by chance or over time.
6. Settlements, or parts of settlements that grow organically are more likely, they argue, to have boundaries that are irregular and properties that vary in area - like the cottages & farmsteads to the SW of the southern extension.
7. And why did Taylor think the green in the S extension was planned? For the same reason: it makes a very regular rectangle that may well have been laid out by a medieval surveyor.
8. And you can see just the same characteristics at Apppleton-le-Moors, Yorks., in another wonderful book which uses air photos to demonstrate the components of planned #medieval villages.
So: how about trying this out in practice?
So: how about trying this out in practice?
9. Well. Here’s an Ordnance Survey map of Balsham, Cambs., in 1900. Once more there’s little evidence of planning and, again, it looks as if the village has grown organically as houses were added here and there over time. BUT
10. ...the Victoria County History have published a redrawing of a map of Balsham made in 1617 (british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol6…) and, because it’s so pretty, I’ve added the original for your delectation too. That looks a lot more promising.
11. You’ve probably spotted the area with shared front & back boundaries. And, if you look at the S ends of these properties you’ll see they probably originated as units of the same area, changed somewhat over time.
12. The W & E boundaries of the block are less obvious.
- to the E: the properties beyond the shaded area don’t continue the front/back boundaries & are irregular, so I’ve discounted them.
- to the W: the 2 properties beyond the shaded area do share the same front boundary, but
- to the E: the properties beyond the shaded area don’t continue the front/back boundaries & are irregular, so I’ve discounted them.
- to the W: the 2 properties beyond the shaded area do share the same front boundary, but
13. .. their back bounday is irregular and it’s hard to see whether it cuts across their original length, or whether they’re a later addition. So, for caution’s sake, I’ve omitted them.
14. ‘Aha’, I can hear you say - ‘but there’s another planned-looking block.’ Yes! there is another, coloured yellow. Also sharing front & back boundaries Here, most have been amalgamated with their neighbours & only the 2 most easterly properties may preserve the original widths.
15. So, how many properties do you (roughly) make in each block, taking their typical widths against the back boundary as a measure?
- the pink block has quite a few with the same width to use as a standard;
- I’d use the 2 easterly ones in the yellow block to measure with.
- the pink block has quite a few with the same width to use as a standard;
- I’d use the 2 easterly ones in the yellow block to measure with.
16. There’s no right answer as no-one actually knows how many there were, but it’s fun to do and, as I’ll show you there’s a point.
17. OK. Well, I make it 12 in each block. But the answer’s variable and students usually estimate between 11-13 in each, sometimes a bit more or a bit fewer. Why is this interesting?
18. Because in 1086, Balsham (almost all of it) belonged to the Abbey of Ely and Domesday a Book records that the Abbey had 12 villeins and 12 smallholders on the manor.
19. But by 1251 there were 93 tenants on the manor (british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol6…). That increase suggests that the planned #medieval village at Balsham was originally laid out nearer to 1086 and may thus have an 11thC origin.
20. This is a game that anyone can play. It’s important, tho, to find the answer that *is* rather than the answer one wants; i.e. not to make the evidence fit a desired answer. And to remember that this is just the beginning of a possible explanation, not the end of a certain one
21. Test (& adjust) the interpretation against every other piece of evidence you can find to make it as strong as possible. You can see that that for Balsham still has a long way to go. March is more complete. I hope you’ll have fun exploring your own landscapes!
END (for now)
END (for now)
22. PS I meant to say: DB & other sources show that, in Cambs. at least, land held by each smallholder (bordarius) was generally half or less the area of a villein holding so at Balsham we can conjecture that villeins occupied the pink block & smallholders the yellow one.
