An archaeological and historical - Archaeology Data Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mottisfont Estate archaeological survey CKC Archaeology Page 20 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ───────── medieval name given to a scythsmith (Currie 1998b, 190). Other trades and professions are hinted at from surnames such as John le Tinker, Robert le Cowherd, Ade le Tanner, John le Muleward (miller), and John le Marshal (13M63/3, passim). In conclusion, medieval Mottisfont seemed to be a moderately large rural community, possibly with the main settlement grouped around the church and the priory gate. There were possibly outlying settlements along the local lanes, particularly along the B3084. A number of later medieval and 16th century buildings still survive here attesting to a scattered community, possibly of an interrupted row type. There would seem to have been three main open fields, North, South and West Field. North and South Fields were listed as attached to Mottisfont, whereas West Field is 'de Cadebury'. The field names listed allow a rough location of these fields. North Field appears to have been to the north of Benger Lane. South Field was at least partly south of Hatt Lane, although it may also have included the land between Hatt and Benger Lanes. The West Field of Cadbury probably extended from the vicinity of Cadbury Farm down into the valley of Dunbridge. This field would appear to have been the largest of the three, based on the greater number of furlong names that appear to be attached to it. The rental also mentions some meadowland. The majority of this appears to be around the abbey, and included within the priory precinct. Rushton (1999) has suggested that this was to enable this valuable resource to be managed directly by the priory. He has also drawn attention to the fact that there seems to be very little land held by the tenants of the manor. There is also very little mention of customs owed the priory, nearly all the rents being paid in cash. The exceptions to this rule involve barely 4 acres of arable land, some small plots attached to the tenements and a marlpit. The only villager owing customary service appears to be Robert Poydas, who has to help with the washing of the lord's sheep (HRO 13M63/3, folio 7v). This seems to imply that the priory was managing its lands at Mottisfont directly, with the tenants being paid for their work. This does not appear to be the case on the priory's other estates, where customary works are still required from the tenants. It is of interest to compare the Mottisfont rental and custumal with that of another Hampshire Augustinian house, Southwick Priory, near Portsmouth. This latter document dates from c. 1248, nd shows that the tenants of Southwick performed extensive labour services (Hanna 1988-89, i, o. 193). It is uncertain whether this difference represents a genuine contrast in land management etween the two monasteries, or is a reflection of the different dates of the two documents. Another oddity of the Mottisfont rental is the lack of mention of common pasture and woodland. One wonders where the sheep that Robert Poydas has to wash are grazed. For part of the year, the meadowland probably served this purpose, but they could not be kept there all year or there would be no hay crop. Likewise, what has happened to the extensive woodlands that cover Mottisfont parish today? Although one has to be cautious in interpreting the disposition of the lands, there would appear to be no references to land in the northern part of the National Trust ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ───────────
Mottisfont Estate archaeological survey CKC Archaeology Page 21 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ───────── estate where the larger acreage of woodland is today. One might assume that isolated copses apparently within the compass of the three open fields might have grown up after the 1340s. These include Westfield and Mason's Copses within what appears to be the medieval West Field, and Herless Copse, Queens Copse and Bounds Bottom within what appears to be the medieval North Field. There is no knowing how the village was affected by the Black Death, and the conomic disruption of the later medieval period. t is curious that nearly all the Mottisfont woodlands, except some areas of those in the far north f the parish, have grown up over old quarry areas. Does this suggest that they evolved, not in heir own right as woodland, but as a by-product of another activity. That is, once the quarry was exhausted, the land became largely waste, until colonised by scrub that later developed into woodland. There are two quarries mentioned in the rental, demonstrating that marling and other forms of quarrying was already under way in 1340. he quarry pits in Mottisfont derive from a number of different activities. There are chalk pits, arl pits, clay pits, and possibly gravel and sand pits. The rental mentions the name 'Chalkpark'. park is an enclosure from which certain commodities are taken. The most obvious being a deer park for deer, but medieval people had parks for keeping all sorts of animals. Could chalkpark suggest an enclosure from which chalk was taken? The rental makes it clear that at least one of the pits it records was a marl pit (HRO 13M63/3, folio 8v). From this it seems that it was a medieval practice in Mottisfont to marl the land. Could this have been such an intensive activity that after many centuries it resulted in a massive shrinkage of available arable land? It is estimated that around 20% of the Mottisfont estate woodland has reverted to that state after having been used for quarrying. This process had clearly begun in the medieval period, and was largely complete by 1724. We therefore have an unusual wooded landscape that has not evolved ecause woodland was the most effective method of managing the land, but because the decimation of former arable land was so widespread that no other effective economic use could e made of the worked-out quarries. 5.1.3 After the Black Death Very little is known about the manor and its landscape after the Black Death. It is only possible to make some general assumptions based on the history of the priory itself. The priory seems to have suffered as a result of the plague, as did so many others. In 1349 Robert de Bromore was elected prior, his predecessor, Walter de Blout (the writer of the rental), probably having died in the plague. He ruled for barely a year, possibly another plague victim, and was replaced in 1350 y Richard de Caneford. Richard lasted only two years. When he was replaced there was no one uitable left at the priory, and Ralph de Thorleston had to be brought in from Leicester to take his place (Cox 1903, 174-75). Such a quick turnover suggests that the priory was hard hit by the plague, and one might assume that the village suffered likewise. In 1353 Henry of Lancaster, who had taken over as the priory's patron, petitioned the pope for an indulgence to all who visited the priory on Trinity Sunday, or who contributed towards its ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ───────────
Page 1 and 2: Mottisfont Estate archaeological su
Page 19: Mottisfont Estate archaeological su
Page 71 and 72:
Mottisfont Estate archaeological su
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113:
show all

An archaeological and historical - Archaeology Data Service

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?