The Breckland Pine Rows - Norfolk's Biodiversity

contained within Eriswell and Icklingham, and while extending into the northern parts of
Mildenhall (the old township of Wangford) it stops abruptly at the boundaries of
Lakenheath, Lackford, West Stow and Wordwell (Figure 4). In a similar way, the marked
concentration around Cockley Cley in Norfolk – which the map reveals is actually
centred more on the adjacent parish of Gooderstone – resolutely fails to extend into the
adjoining parishes of Oxburgh, Foulden, and Hilborough.
The Antiquity of the Pine Rows
The most obvious explanation for this relationship with parish boundaries is that the
distribution of the pine rows reflects the planting policy of particular estates, which were
themselves often conterminous with parishes or groups of parishes. At first sight such an
explanation seems convincing: the two main concentrations, around Cockley Cley and
Elveden, could thus be associated with the large landed estates based on Cockley Cley
Hall and Elveden Hall respectively. Closer inspection, however, soon reveals that this
cannot be correct. Although the Elveden estate now includes much land in Eriswell and
Icklingham, this was not the case in the early and middle years of the nineteenth century.
Icklingham was then owned, almost in its entirety, by the Gwilt family, while Eriswell
was in divided ownership, but with the Company for the Propagation of the Gospel in
New England, no less, as the main owner (Postgate 1960).
An alternative explanation would link variations in distribution to the chronology of
enclosure – that is, the replacement of a landscape of arable open fields, brecks and heaths,
with one of enclosed fields owned and occupied in severalty: for in general terms each
parish has its own enclosure chronology, different (often radically so) from that of its
immediate neighbours, so that the age of field boundaries can change dramatically at
parochial boundaries.
The enclosure history of the Breckland parishes is complicated. Because many settlements,
especially in the centre of the region, experienced severe contraction or desertion in the 14 th ,
15 th and 16 th centuries, they often became the sole property of particular proprietors, and
were thus technically enclosed – in the sense that they had a single freehold owner and no
common rights – long before the eighteenth century. However, the date at which (and extent
to which) they were enclosed in physical terms displays much variation. Some were divided
into fields at an early date, such as Buckenham Tofts, shown on an estate map of 1700
(NRO Petre Mss Box 8). But others often remained physically unenclosed into the
nineteenth century, their arable land remained as open fields, with intermixed strips held by
tenants, while their heaths continued open and unreclaimed. Such landscapes were often
transformed during the early nineteenth century, when grain high prices and a fashionable
concern for ‘improvement’ saw the removal of common arable, and large-scale (if often
short-lived) reclamation of heathland.
Other parishes, particularly towards the perimeter of Breckland, were enclosed by
parliamentary act in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the actual award –
fixing the new pattern of boundaries, and dividing the land between the various proprietors
and common-right holders – usually coming between three and eight years later. By the
terms of each award, the allotments given to landowners in lieu of land in the open fields,