The English Village Community / Examined in its Relations to the Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open Field System of Husbandry; An Essay in Economic History (Reprinted from the Fourth Edition)

by Frederic Seebohm

II. LOCAL EVIDENCE OF CONTINUITY BETWEEN ROMAN AND ENGLISH VILLAGES.

There yet remains one test to which the hypothesis of continuity between the British, Roman, and English village community and open-field system may be put.

Doubts as to the extermination of the British population by the English invaders.

It has sometimes been inferred, perhaps too readily, that the English invaders of Roman Britain nearly exterminated the old inhabitants, destroying the towns and villages, and making fresh settlements of their own, upon freshly chosen sites. If this were so, it would, of course, involve the destruction of the open fields round the old villages, and the formation of fresh open fields round the new ones.

The passage in Ammianus Marcellinus has sometimes been quoted, in which he describes the Alamanni, who had taken possession of Strasburg, Spires, Worms, Mayence, &c., as encamped outside these cities, shunning their inside 'as though they had been graves surrounded by nets.' [632] But this was in time of war, and no proof of what they might do when in peaceable possession of the country.

Mr. Freeman also has drawn a graphic picture of Anderida, with the two Saxon villages of Pevensey and West Ham outside of its old Roman walls, and no dwellings within them. But it would so obviously be [p425] much easier to build new houses outside the gates of a ruined city, or, perhaps, we should say rather fortified camp, than to clear away the rubbish and build upon the old site, that such an instance is far from conclusive. Nor does the fact that in so many cases the streets of once Roman cities deviate from the old Roman lines prove that the new builders avoided the ancient sites. It proves only that, instead of removing the heaps of rubbish, they chose the open spaces behind them as more convenient for their new buildings, in the process of erecting which the heaps of rubbish were doubtless gradually removed.

Is there evidence of continuity in the rural villages?

But, in truth, cases of fortified cities are not to the point. What we want to find out is whether, in the rural districts, the British villages, with their open fields around them, were generally adopted by the Romans, and whether, having survived the Roman occupation, the Saxons adopted them in their turn.

e.g. in the Hitchin district.

It may be worth while to recur to the district from which was taken the typical example of the open fields, testing the point by such local evidence as may there be found.

The Icknild way and other ancient roads.

Among the ancient boundaries of the township of Hitchin, or rather of that part which included the now enclosed hamlet of Walsworth, was mentioned the Icknild way—that old British road which, passing from Wiltshire to Norfolk, here traverses the edge of the Chiltern hills. It sometimes winds lazily about uphill and down, following the line of the chalk downs. In many places it is merely a broad turf drift way. Here and there a long straight stretch of a mile or two suggests a Roman improvement upon [p426] its perhaps once more devious course. Here and there, too, are fragments of similar broad turf lanes leading nowhere, having lost the continuity which no doubt they once possessed. Sometimes crossing it, sometimes branching off from it, sometimes running parallel to it, are also frequently found similar winding broad turf drift ways, or straight roads of apparently British or Roman origin. It crosses Akeman Street at Tring, Watling Street at Dunstable, and Irmine Street at Royston. Neither Dunstable nor Royston, however, are examples of continuity, being comparatively modern towns, neither of them mentioned in the Domesday Survey. Hitchin lies about half-way between the cross-roads.

The district under its Belgic kings.

The district included in the annexed map, of which Hitchin is the centre, was a part of Belgic Britain. According to Cæsar this had been under the rule of the same king as Belgic Gaul, and upon the evidence of coins and certain passages in Roman writers, it is pretty well understood to have been, soon after the invasion of Cæsar, under the rule of Tasciovanus,[633] whose capital was Verulamium, and after him of his son Cunobeline, whose capital was Camulodunum. The sons of the latter (one of them Caractacus) were prevented from succeeding him by the advance of the Roman arms.[634] The intimate relations of the two capitals at Verulam and at Colchester explain the existence of the roads between them.

Maps of the Neighbourhood of Hitchin, The Hills at Meppershall, Litlington, and Toot Hill at Pirton.

See [Larger].
Go to: [List of Illustrations]

The dykes which cross the Icknild way at [p427] intervals, East of Royston—the Brent dyke, the Balsham dyke (parallel to the Via Devana), and the Devil's dyke, near Newmarket—seem to indicate that here was the border land between this district and that of the Iceni (Norfolk and Suffolk).

Coins of Tasciovanus and Cunobeline.

Sandy (the Roman Salinæ), at the north of the district in the map, is known, from the evidence of coins of Cunobeline, to have been an important British centre. A gold coin of Tasciovanus, and other British coins, have been picked up on the Icknild way, between Hitchin and Dunstable. A gold coin of Cunobeline, and many fragments of Roman pottery, have been found about half a mile to the east of Abington, a village a little to the north of the Icknild way, near Royston.[635] Coins of Cunobeline have also been found at Great Chesterford. A copper coin of Cunobeline was picked up in a garden in Walsworth, a hamlet of Hitchin, and British urns of a rude type have been recently found on the top of Benslow Hill, the high ground on the east of the town.

Pre-Roman roads, &c.

The map will show in how many directions the district is cut up by Roman roads, which, as they evidently connect the various parts of the domain of the before-mentioned British kings, were probably, with the Icknild way itself, British tracks before they were adopted by the Romans.

Almost every commanding bluff of the chalk downs retains traces of its having been used as a hill fort, probably in pre-Roman times, as well as later, while the numerous tumuli all along the route of the Icknild way testify, probably, to the numerous battles fought in its neighbourhood. [p428]

Its Roman conquest under Claudius and Aulus Plautius, about A.D. 43.

Probably this district fell under direct Roman rule after the campaigns of Aulus Plautius and Claudius, about A.D. 43.[636] The direction of the advance was probably across the Thames at Wallingford, and along the Icknild way, from which the descent upon Verulam could well be made from Tring or Dunstable down what were afterwards called Akeman Street and Watling Street. Under the tumulus near Litlington, called Limloe, or Limbury Hill, skeletons were found, and coins of the reign of Claudius, and of later date. It is possible that the battle was fought here in a later reign which brought the further parts of the district under Roman rule.

The Saxon conquest about A.D. 571.

The date of the Saxon conquest of this district may be as definitely determined. It preceded the conquest of Bath, Cirencester, and Gloucester by a very few years. It may be pretty clearly placed at about A.D. 571, when, according to the Saxon Chronicle, 'Cuthwulf fought with the Brit-weals at Bedcan-ford (Bedford), and took four towns. He took Lygean-birg (Lenborough) and Aegeles-birg (Aylesbury), and Bænesingtun (Bensington) and Egonesham (Eynsham).' This was the time when Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Oxfordshire fell into the hands of the West Saxons.

The old boundary of the ecclesiastical division of the country before the time of the Norman conquest included this district, with Bedford, in the diocese of Dorchester. The boundary probably followed the lines of the old West Saxon kingdom, and shut it off [p429] from Essex and the rest of Hertfordshire, which were included in the diocese of London.

The district, therefore, seems to have remained nearly 400 years under Roman rule, and under the British post-Roman rule another 100 years, till within twenty-five or thirty years of the arrival of St. Augustine in England, and the date of the laws of King Ethelbert, and within little more than 100 years of the date of the laws of King Ine, which laws presumably were founded upon customs of this district, once a part of the West Saxon kingdom.

Do the Roman remains suggest continuity?

The question is whether the position of the Roman remains which have been discovered in this neighbourhood points to a continuity in the sites of the present villages between British, Roman, and Saxon times. This question may certainly, in many instances, and, perhaps, generally, be answered distinctly in the affirmative.

The town of Hitchin, or 'Hiz,' i.e. 'of the streams.'

Take first the town of Hitchin itself. Its name in the Domesday Survey was 'Hiz,' and there can be little doubt that it is a Celtic word, meaning 'streams.' [637] The position of the township accords with this name. The river 'Hiz' rises out of the chalk at Wellhead, almost immediately turns a mill, and, flowing through the town, joins the Ivel a few miles lower down in its course, and so flows ultimately into the Ouse. The Orton[638] rises at the west extremity of the township, in [p430] a few hundred yards turns West Mill, and forms the boundary of the parish till it meets the Hiz at Ickleford, where the two are forded by the Icknild way. The Purwell, rising from the south east, forms the boundary between the parishes of Hitchin and Much Wymondley, and then, after turning Purwell Mill, and dividing Hitchin from Walsworth Hamlet, also joins the Hiz before it reaches Ickleford. Thus two of these three pure chalk streams embrace the township, and one passes through it giving its Celtic name Hiz to the town.[639]

Its Celtic name.

It is not likely that either the Romans or the Saxon invaders gave it this Celtic name.

British and Roman remains.

As already mentioned, on the top of the hill, to the east of the town, British sepulchral urns have been recently found.

A Roman cemetery, with a large number of sepulchral urns, dishes, and bottles, and coins of Severus, Carausius, Constantine, and Alectus, was turned up a few years ago on the top of the hill on the opposite side of the town, in a part of the open fields called 'The Fox-holes' [640]—a plot of useless ground being often used for burials by the Romans.

Another Roman cemetery, with very similar pottery and coins, has been found on Bury Mead, near the line where the arable part ceases and the [p431] Lammas meadow lands begin. Bury field itself (i.e. the arable) has been deeply drained, but yielded no coins or urns.

Occasional coins and urns have been found in the town itself.

This, so far as it goes, is good evidence that Hitchin was a British and a Roman before it was a Saxon town.

In the sub-hamlet of Charlton, near Wellhead, the source of the Hiz, small coins of the lower Empire have been found. As already mentioned, a coin of Cunobeline was found in the village of Walsworth. In even the hamlets, therefore, there is some evidence of continuity. At Ickleford, where the Icknild way crosses the Hiz, Roman coins have been found.

Much Wymondley.

The next parish to the east, divided from Hitchin by the Purwell stream, is Much Wymondley.

The evidence of continuity, as regards this parish, is remarkably clear. The accompanying map[641] supplies an interesting example of open fields, with their strips and balks and scattered ownership still remaining in 1803. These open arable fields were originally divided off from the village by a stretch of Lammas land.

Roman holding perhaps of a retired veteran.

Between this Lammas land and the church in the village lie the remains of the little Roman holding, of which an enlarged plan is given. It consists now of several fields, forming a rough square, with its sides to the four points of the compass, and contains, filling in the corners of the square, about 25 Roman [p432] jugera—or the eighth of a centuria of 200 jugera—the extent of land often allotted, as we have seen, to a retired veteran with a single pair of oxen. The proof that it was a Roman holding is as follows:—In the corner next to the church are two square fields still distinctly surrounded by a moat, nearly parallel to which, on the east side, was found a line of black earth full of broken Roman pottery and tiles. Near the church, at the south-west corner of the property, is a double tumulus, which, being close to the church field, may have been an ancient 'toot hill,' or a terminal mound. In the extreme opposite corner of the holding was found a Roman cemetery, containing the urns, dishes, and bottles of a score or two of burials. Drawings of those of the vessels not broken in the digging, engraved from a photograph, are appended to the map, by the kind permission of the owner.[642] Over the hedge, at this corner, begins the Lammas land.[643]

How many other holdings were included in the Roman village we do not know, but that the village was in the same position in relation to the open fields that it was in 1803 is obvious.

Ashwell.

Ashwell also evidently stands on its old site round the head of a remarkably strong chalk spring, the clear stream from which flows through the village as the river Rhee, a branch of the Cam. Early Roman coins and sepulchral urns have been found in the hamlet called 'Ashwell End,' and a Roman road, called 'Ashwell Street,' passes by the town parallel [p433] to the Icknild way. Near to the town is a camp, with a clearly defined vallum, called Harborough Banks, where coins of the later Empire have been found. A map of the parish, made before the enclosure, and preserved in the place, shows that it presented a remarkably good example of the open-field system.

Plan of the Parish of Much Wymondley.
Enlarged Plan of the Roman Holding.

See [Larger].
Go to: [List of Illustrations]

Roman villa and cemetery.

An instance of continuity as remarkable as that of Much Wymondley occurs at Litlington,[644] the next village to Ashwell, on the Ashwell Street. The church and manor house in this case lie near together on the west side of the village, and in the adjoining field and gardens the walls and pavements of a Roman villa were found many years ago. At a little distance from it, nearer to the Ashwell Street, a Roman ustrinum and cemetery were found, surrounded by four walls, and yielding coins of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Quintillus, Carausius, Constantine the Great, Magnentius, &c. A map of this village is appended.

When the Roman villa was discovered, the open fields around the village were still unenclosed, and the position of Ashwell Street was pushed farther from the village at the time of the enclosure.

The tumulus called 'Limloe,' or 'Limbury Hill,' lies at the side of the road leading from the Icknild way across the Ashwell Street to the village, and immediately under it skeletons with coins of Claudius, Vespasian, and Faustina were found, as already mentioned.

Ickleton and Chesterford.

A few miles further east than Royston are two villages, Ickleton on the Icknild way, and Great [p434] Chesterford a little to the south of it. That both these places are on Roman sites the foundations and coins which have been found attest.[645] There are remains of a camp at Chesterford, and coins of Cunobeline as well as numerous Roman coins have been dug up there.[646]

Hadstock.

At Hadstock, a village near, in a field called 'Sunken Church Field,' Roman foundations and coins have been found.[647]

Other instances of continuity in the sites of villages.

Proceeding further east the list of similar cases might be greatly increased. But keeping within the small district, in the following other cases the finding of Roman coins in the villages seems to be fair proof of continuity in their sites, viz.:—Sandy, Campton, Baldock, Willian, Cumberlow Green, Weston, Stevenage, Hexton, and Higham Gobion.

Ancient mounds and earth works.

Two remarkable instances of ancient mounds or fortifications close to churches occur at Meppershall and Pirton, of both of which plans are given. The Pirton mound is called in the village the 'toot hill.' These mounds in the neighbourhood of churches may be much older than the Saxon conquest. Open air courts were by no means confined to one race.[648] Roman remains have been found in the neighbourhood of both these places, but how near to the actual village sites I am unable to say.[649]

Leaving out these two and many more doubtful cases, and without pretending to be exhaustive, there have been mentioned nearly a score in which Roman [p435] remains or coins have already been found on the present sites of villages in this small district.

Roman Pottery Found at Great Wymondley, Herts. March 1882.

See [Larger].
Go to: [List of Illustrations]

Strong evidence of continuity in this district.

So far the local evidence supports the view that the West Saxons, who probably conquered it about A.D. 570, succeeded to a long-settled agriculture; and further it seems likely that, assuming the lordship vacated by the owners of the villas, and adopting the village sites, they continued the cultivation of the open fields around them by means of the old rural population on that same three-field system, which had probably been matured and improved during Roman rule, and by which the population of the district had been supported during the three generations between the departure of the Roman governors and the West Saxon conquest.

But it may perhaps be urged that these districts, conquered so late as A.D. 570, may have been exceptionally treated. If this were so, it must be borne in mind that the whole of central England—i.e. the counties described in the second volume of the Hundred Rolls as to which the evidence for the existence of the open-field system was so strong—was included in the exception. Indeed, if the line of the Icknild way be extended along Akeman Street to Cirencester, Bath, and Gloucester, the line of the Saxon conquests which were later than A.D. 560 would be pretty clearly marked. The laws of Ine, pointing backwards as they do from their actual date, reach back within two or three generations of the date of the Saxon conquest of this part of Old Wessex.

The Hitchin district hardly exceptional.

It would be impossible here to pursue the question in detail in other parts of England. Perhaps it will be sufficient to call attention to the many cases [p436] mentioned in Mr. C. Roach Smith's valuable 'Collectanea,' [650] in which Roman remains have been found in close proximity to the churches of modern villages, and to his remark that a long list of such instances might easily be made.[651]

The number of such cases which occur in Kent is very remarkable, and Kent was certainly not a late conquest.

I will only add a passing allusion to the remarkable case at Woodchester, in Gloucestershire, where the church, present mansion, and Roman villa are close together,[652] and mention that in two of the hamlets on the manor of Tidenham—Stroat and Sedbury (or Cingestun)—Roman remains bear testimony to a Roman occupation before the West Saxon conquest.[653]

The fact seems to be that the archæological evidence, gradually accumulating as time goes on, points more and more clearly to the fact that our modern villages are very often on their old Roman and sometimes probably pre-Roman sites—that however much the English invaders avoided the walled towns of Roman Britain, they certainly had no such antipathy to the occupation of its villas and rural villages. [p437]