A reappraisal of Eleventh-Century Settlement in the Eastern High Weald
A REAPPRAISAL OF ELEVENTH-CENTURY SETTLEMENT
IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
The High Weald is usually considered to be an area of poor soils and relatively late
settlement, overshadowed by the more prosperously settled coastal areas to the
north and south. Many believe that the High Weald was in times past a marginal
land, difficult to subdue, which even though permanent settlement had already been
established 'was in the late llth century grossly under-exploited' (Brandon 2003,
52). The evidence appears to support a marked distinction in wealth and density of
population between the settlement of the coastal fringes of Kent and Sussex and the
High Weald. However, does this mean that High Weald settlement was particularly
sparse? A reappraisal of the evidence questions whether it was especially sparse,
particularly when compared to other parts of the country: notably with places that
were not exceptionally prosperous, but not marginal either.
lbis article sets out to re-examine the evidence for the extent and density of eleventhcentury
settlement in selected hundreds and parishes of the eastern High Weald as
represented in Domesday and other contemporary sources. It explores how much
of the eventual settlement pattern existed and how populous the area had become.
The lack of archaeological evidence for early medieval settlement means that the
documentary sources are of particular importance: 1 these sources are investigated
so as to estimate the nature of settlement in the eleventh century, either directly,
or by implication. The existence of a church, for example, can be an indicator of
associated permanent settlement, and the evaluation ofthe different sources for Kent
and Sussex help to understand how well this part of the High Weald was settled.
Settlement is defined by its attributes; for example, settlement pattern describes
how settlement is distributed within the landscape, whether it is dispersed or
nucleated. Settlement form describes its structure, or morphology - especially how
different elements relate to each other spatially. Rural settlement is taken to mean
the combination of its essential parts, its built environment (habitation elements)
as well as the spatial resources (fields and woods etc) that makes it economically
and socially viable. How these elements have developed over time is of particular
interest to settlement studies, especially in relation to those settlements that have
persisted to this day.
Eleventh-century settlement in lowland England was sparse in comparison to later
times: even the population of its greatest cities were smaller than many country
towns today.2 The issue about the state of development of settlement is, therefore,
one of comparison and informed judgement between areas at any one time: would
105
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
Eastern High Weald
40
-=-=--==--Kllomelers
0 5 10 20
Location of the
Study Ar.eas
N
C> Crown copyright 2009 An Ordnance Surwy/EOINAl[lglmap oupplled service
Fig. 1 Location of the Study areas. © Crown copyright 2009. An Ordnance Survey/
EDINA/Digimap supplied service.
106
REAPPRAISAL OF ELEVENIH-CENTIJRY SETTLEMENT IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
the eye of a travelling man, experiencing the agricultural realm of England in the
eleventh century, have seen the Eastern High Weald as an area of settlement more
sparsely developed than elsewhere?
l11e article, therefore, attempts (maybe for the first time for the High Weald) to
compare the level of resources recorded in Domesday with another comparable
area outside the South-East, on this occasion the townships in the Huntingdonshire
Ouse Valley. Thereby, it is hoped to throw light on how 'marginal' High Weald
settlement actually was. However, the results of this comparison remain tentative,
partly because the Wealden data is less abundant than should ideally be the case,
but also because a comparison with only one other area (the Huntingdonshire Ouse
Valley) is insufficient to be certain about the conclusions. However, the results are
encouraging and give new insights to the state of contemporary settlement in this
part of the High Weald.
Overview of the Study Areas
The study areas (see Fig. 1) featured in this article are ones that were used in
an e>..1ensive longitudinal research project looking at origins and development
of some settlements along the eastern Rother valley of the High Weald and the
Huntingdonshire Ouse valley (Chester-Kadwell 2010). The areas were selected
partly because of their topographical similarity, but also because of a shared
original settlement pattern of wood pasture communities; although by Domesday
in Huntingdonshire a system of common agricultural management was practiced,
causing the decline of its dispersed settlement pattern. The framework for eleventhcentury
settlement in each of the areas is discussed as follows.
Eastern High Weald. This was an area of small hundreds and large parishes. The
study area featuring in this article looks at selected settlements along the catchment
area of the River Rother. It focuses on the Domesday hundreds of Rolvenden
and Selbrittenden in Kent (looking at the parishes of Benenden, Rolvenden, and
Newenden), and the hundreds of Shoyswell, Henhurst, Hawkesborough and part of
Staple in Sussex (looking particularly at the parishes ofEtchingham, Salehurst and
Bodiam).3 Although the connection between hundreds and Domesday parochia
is not always clear, it is possible to relate eleventh-century churches to the later
medieval parochial structure that has come down to the present day in the form
of civil parishes. This establishes a basis for a comparison with later settlement
structures.
Unfortunately, knowledge of the High Weald hundreds in Kent is very limited, so
that the data available for an area comparison of the eastern High Weald with the
Ouse valley is effectively restricted to the Domesday record for the three adjacent
Sussex hundreds of Shoyswell, Henhurst, and Hawkesborough in the Rape of
Hastings. The entries for these hundreds contain a fuller record than is usual for the
High Weald (although regrettably, an incomplete one) because of an administrative
technicality involving the 'Pevensey outliers' (explained below).
The Huntingdonshire Ouse Valley. Huntingdonshire was a county oflarge hundreds
containing townships that at Domesday were served by well established parochia,
many in the process of dividing into the smaller parishes generally established
107
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
by the thirteenth century. The townships in the study area fall mainly within the
hundreds of Toseland and Hurstingstone, but excepting one that falls within the
hundred ofLeightonstone. l11e Ouse Valley lies on the eastern edge of the Midland
open field system and by the eleventh century the settlement pattern was becoming
more nucleated and the system of common field management was being extended
and developed throughout the region. However, it had previously been an area of
distinctive wood pasture (for which the place name and landscape evidence still
remains) and this had not been completely extinguished by the eleventh century. At
Domesday this part of the Ouse Valley, whilst not being as well populated as parts
ofNorfolk (for example), had riparian settlements that were of moderate prosperity,
but also regions above the river valleys that would not be fully exploited until the
thirteenth century. These factors make it a good comparator for the eastern High
Weald.
The two areas chosen for the comparison study are both centred on a defining river
system, which has created significant alluvial deposits amenable to early settlement
(see Figs 2 and 3). The river valleys in both areas contrast with once heavily wooded
hills, and both are associated with significant wetlands that give eventual access to
the sea (Romney Marsh for the High Weald and the Fens for the Ouse valley).
The High Weald is part of the Wealden region geologically, although topographically
it forms a distinct sub-region that needs to be considered on its ovvn
merits (Thomas 2013, 4). The eastern High Weald is in some respects different
to its more western reaches. It was, historically, accessible from the sea with the
Rother being navigable as far as Bodiam or Robertsbridge for much of the Middle
Ages (Eddison 1985). It was also rather less wooded than many other parts of
the region and there is a higher percentage of better soils, especially along the
course of the Rother and its tributaries. These factors may also be exl)ected to have
affected the manner and development of its settlement.
The chosen section of the Ouse Valley is situated in the historic county of Huntingdonshire
(now in Cambridgeshire). The River Great Ouse enters Huntingdonshire
at St Neots, the site of a Saxon monastic foundation, and flows north and then
eastwards for about twenty miles to Earith, a fen edge settlement, before leaving
the district. It fonns a distinct sub-region that geographically has characteristics in
common with the eastern High Weald.
The Settlement Debate
Bedevilling the whole issue of the establishment of permanent settlement in
the eastern High Weald, and its extent at any particular time, is the lack of clear
archaeological evidence for early medieval settlement generally, and including the
immediate post-Conquest period. Earlier writers like Witney, Everitt and (to some
extent) Brandon have chosen to read this lack of evidence as proof that no early
permanent settlement existed and that later settlement was especially sparse. Later
writers like Gardiner, Harris, and Thomas are more cautious: they maintain that
the lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of early settlement, as there are good
reasons why the evidence may be hard to locate (Gardiner 1990, 33-35). Early
Saxon habitation is notoriously difficult to find and easily missed, and there is the
potential for earlier settlement evidence to be hidden under, or destroyed by, later
108
REAPPRAISAL OF ELEVENIH-CENTIJRY SETTLEMENT IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
1
N
Ticehurst
0
Benenden
0
B=Bodiam
E = Etchingham
N=Newenden
S = Sandhurst
Crown copyright 2009 An Ordn.illnc@' Surv@'y/EDINA.IDigm\ap sup pi Sl!!NIC@
o -- - - - _____________ _ _ _ 20 kilometres
= c. 12 miles
LEGEND @) River Rother
land liable to inundation ... Hexdon Channel
D land above 30 m
* Newmill Channel
• Kent Ditch
Fig. 2 T he Topography of the Eastern High Weald. © Crown copyright 2009. An
Ordnance Survey/EDINA/Digimap supplied service.
development. Ibis lack of evidence may partly arise from the comparatively little
developer-funded archaeology in the High Weald.
Field walking and metal detecting, which have been very productive in other parts
of the country, are difficult in an area of mainly pastoral fanning (as the High Weald
has reverted to in recent years), and the Portable Antiquities Scheme has not yet
recorded much in terms of Saxon finds. For whatever reason, archaeological evidence
for Saxon settlement in the Weald has been less forthcoming (Gardiner 1990, 47) and
the search less systematic with fewer resources applied than elsewhere. Unless or
until more archaeological evidence is available the question of settlement continuity
and the chronology of settlement formation will always be an area of difficulty.
The lack of archaeological evidence means that there has to be a greater reliance
109
l
LEGEND
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
N
0 -----------------20
__________________ Kilometers
= c 12 miles
fenland below 7 m
D land above 30 m
«
Fig. 3 The Topography of the Great Ouse Valley study area. Crown copyright 2009.
An Ordnance Survey/EDINA/Digimap supplied service.
on other kinds of evidence, such as place-name studies, and the landscape itself
(including the results of environmental archaeological analysis). However, it is
the documentary evidence that, as it becomes more abundant post-Conquest, is
of potentially greater significance when making assessments of settlement in the
eleventh century.
For many historians the High Weald as a whole was an area of Saxon colonisation
by piecemeal advance driven by a process of resource exploitation by the
peripheral estates. In this view, estates in the coastal fringes of Kent and Sussex
sought seasonal pannage for their swine within the forest that led them further and
deeper into the uninhabited Weald. Within this process Wealden settlement was
typified by impennanent, seasonal settlement in the Early Saxon period, followed
by the gradual establishment of pennanent settlement into the Late Saxon period.
110
REAPPRAISAL OF ELEVENIH-CENTIJRY SETTLEMENT IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
However, the pattern of pennanent settlement was still incomplete in some areas
of the High Weald at the time of Domesday. l11is emphasis on a lack of continuity
with pre-Saxon land use in the High Weald, the impennanence of early settlement,
together with the importance of transhumance in tenns of economic and social
activity, became the dominant model for the origins and development of settlement
morphology of the High Weald until very recent times.
l11e origins of this traditional view of Wealden settlement can be found in the
work of Edward Hasted (1798) and Robert Furley (1871), both historians of the
Kent Weald. Hasted, writing in the latter years of the eighteenth century at a time
when the role of the old Lathe and Hundred administrative units were still (just)
more than a memory, recorded a wealth of contemporary information still relevant
to modem scholarship. Furley's History of the Weald of Kent (1871) is very much in
this tradition but with a later style of scholarship and also recorded an extensive list
ofWealden dens (wood pastures) still considered valuable reference material today.
Others followed, but amongst the most influential texts supporting the traditional
view has been Kenneth Witney's The Jutish Forest: a study of the Weald of Kent
from 450 to 1380 AD (Witney 1976), Alan Everitt's Continuity and Colonization:
the Evolution of Ken fish Settlement (1986), and a number of contributions by Peter
Brandon (1974; 1978; Brandon & Short 1990), including his recent The Kent and
Sussex Weald (2003).
Witney's research was, by his own admission, strongly influenced by Jolliffe's
Pre-Feud al England: the Jutes ( 1933) and Du Boulay's The Lordship of Canterbury
(1966). He relied upon a wide range of evidence, including place name evidence
such as that supplied by Wallenberg in The Place Names of Kent ( 1934), the
large number of early Saxon charters, Domesday Book, as well as later historical
sources including manorial records. Witney's great contribution to our knowledge
ofWealden settlement was his detailed analysis of the development of the Wealden
dens and the drove ways linking them to the northern manors. Comparable research
conducted in the Sussex High Weald, looking at the relationship between the
manors on the Sussex coastal plain and their outliers in the High Weald also shares
many ofWitney's conclusions. Everitt believed that in Kent there was a degree of
continuity between Roman and Saxon settlement in the coastal fringes, but did not
find evidence for continuity in the Weald - although some of Everitt's arguments
have been called into question by more recent authorities (Thomas 2013, 2-3).
During the last fifteen to twenty years the development of improved techniques
and understanding of the strength and weaknesses of different evidential resources
has led to a re-evaluation of the evidence itself. This, more than the turning up
of completely new sources of evidence, has led to a shift in how early settlement
patterns are understood. For example, Mark Gardiner has argued that in the
eastern Sussex Weald permanent settlement was more widely established than had
previously been considered the case and that most of the High Weald as a whole
had permanent settlement by 1086, 'even in the most distant areas of the Weald'
(Gardiner 1995, 68). Roland Harris, in his overview of the most up-to-date Kent
and Sussex Weald research, generally supported the idea that pennanent settlement
occurred earlier rather than later, and that there was most probably some level of
continuity with the Romano-British practice of transhumance (Harris 2003, 25).
Gabor Thomas in a paper given in 2007 to the South East Research Framework
111
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
challenges earlier assumptions that the Weald was colonised piecemeal from
the edges inwards, but instead suggests that colonisation was an expansion of
settlement from within - that is, the Weald was fully explored and known early on
(possibly through transhumance) and more permanent settlement was produced on
the back of this (Thomas 2007).
In conclusion, it is fair to say that the early history of High Weald settlement is
still very much open to debate. This article is a modest contribution to this debate:
it suggests a re-appraisal of some of the evidence can provide new insights into the
level of settlement development in the immediate post-Conquest period.
Churches as Evidence of Settlement
Churches are an indication of permanent and developed settlement that is at least
substantial enough to bear the cost of supporting and maintaining the ecclesiastical
infrastructure required for the local church to function. The sources for churches in
the eastern High Weald are well kn0\\'11 and have been commented upon by a number
of scholars over the years, but often with the sources from one county being explored
in isolation from the other. This is an opportunity to summarise the evidence for
both Kent and Sussex, specifically in the context of wider settlement studies.
Domesday is very uneven in its recording of churches nationally. In some
counties (such as Huntingdonshire, for example) it gives an almost complete record
of the number of churches existing at the time. For the eastern High Weald
generally, it is not particularly good, but other contemporary evidence exists that
helps to overcome this deficiency. They are the Domesday Monachorum, the
Textus Rojfensis for Kent,4 as well as other sources relating to the existence oflocal
churches for Sussex, including the Chichester Cartulary, the foundation charter for
St Mary's at Hastings, and the later, but still relevant, Taxatio of 1291. The aim
here is to examine this evidence in order to establish where churches existed on the
assmnption that these places must also have had communities to support them.
The collected list of churches in the Domesday Monachorum identifies where
contemporary churches were situated, but it is what can be inferred from it about
local Wealden settlement that is of especial interest (Fig. 4). Examination of the
Domesday Monachorum helps to explain not only what places were extant in the
eleventh century, but also something of their relative importance. The first list in
the collection is of those churches owing dues to the archbishop for chrism at Easter
and the amount is an indication of the status of the church concerned, minsters and
parish churches paying more than chapelries, for example. Thus, Appledore - a
late Saxon minster church on the eastern boundary of the area under discussion
(Riddler 2004, 33) - had a customary due of 7s., which was twelve times the
minimum payment listed in the Domesday Monachorum of 7d. Other churches
in the eastern High Weald listed there were Sandhurst, Rolvenden, Woodchurch,
Benenden, and Cranbrook, which were all assessed at 28d. paid directly to the
archbishop and probably indicating their status as parish churches. St Peter's,
Newenden, appears in the second list under the churches that paid their dues to
the Abbey of St Augustine, Canterbury, and is listed as a church subordinate to
Lyminge. Considering the importance ofNewenden in Domesday this subordinate
status might seem surprising (see below). The third list (after mentioning the dues
112
REAPPRAISAL OF ELEVENIH-CENTIJRY SETTLEMENT IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
• Domesday Churches In bolh counthJs
Oth9r KENT CHURCHES
9 Domesday Monachotum churches 11st 1
DM Churches liSI 2
., DI.I Chut<:hos list 314
EAST SUSSEX
Other SUSSEX CHURCHES
Q Churche• 1/$/ed ;,, the CMchester Ce'1111a,y
rlJ Churches llsted Jn the Tsx-atlo
Cranbrook
•
EAST KENT Tenrerden Woodchun;h
•
•
Battle Abbey
Boundary or lhe Rape of Hasting11
::::c.12 miles
Fig. 4 Eleventh-century churches in the Eastern High Weald. Map constructed using
infonnation from Morris 1976; 1983.
owed by the minster churches 'before the coming of Lord Lanfranc as Archbishop'
- i.e. superseded by the dues in the first list) aJso includes the churches 'of the
tenure of St Augustus and beyond' (considered as a fourth list in the collection
by Neilson (1974, 257a)). Amongst them are Stone in Oxney and Tenterden, both
owing 7d., which may indicate that they were not yet established parish churches.
T11is evidence suggests that most churches recorded in later medieval records
in this part of the Kentish High Weald were already in existence by the eleventh
century. The inference must be that there was sufficient permanent settlement to
support these churches, and this paints a more encouraging and complete picture of
settlement distribution than is implied by Domesday alone. Effectively, the eastern
High Weald in Kent can claim to have attained a nearly complete complement of
its medieval churches by the eleventh century, a feat that was only achieved in the
Huntingdonshire Ouse Valley by the early thirteenth century. In the Huntingdonshire
study area fifteen 'mother' churches and two others later identified as chapelries
were mentioned in Domesday. By the thirteenth century, there were thirty-four
churches and chapels of which twenty-one were parish churches. The average
(estimated) size of Domesday parochia was about 4,000 acres, whilst the average
size of parishes in the thirteenth century was about 3,000 acres.
113
BRENDAN CHESTER-KADWELL
Unfortunately, the evidence for eleventh-century Sussex churches is piecemeal.
Other than churches recorded in Domesday, it relies either on information gathered
from charters (such as that connected with the foundation of St Mary's free chapel
at Hastings) or deductions from the list of churches contained in the Taxatio of
Pope Nicholas IV of 1291 (Rushton 1999, fig_ 2, Appendix 2). Domesday mentions
a church at Salehurst in Henhurst hundred and another in Shoyswell hundred at
Hazelhurst in what is now the parish of Ticehurst (Morris (ed.) 1976, 9, 82; 9,
60), although it is unclear whether the churches at Hazelhurst and Ticehurst were
different churches on separate sites, or an earlier and later name for the same site .
Churches at Ewhurst and Bodiam were mentioned in the Chichester Cartulary
in the eleventh century, and the former church is believed to have been a late
Saxon minster (Rushton 1999, 141 fig_ 5). Ewhurst was also one of those granted
as a prebendary to Hastings College at its foundation (or re-establishment) by
the Count of Eu sometime before 1086 (Gardiner 1989, 44). It is possible that
Ewhurst's original parochia could have ex1ended over the hundreds of Henhurst
and Shoyswell prior to the establishment of Salehmst and Hazelhurst, which each
seem to have originally been the churches for their individual hundred. However, if
this was so their previous relationship left no sign in the evidence that has survived
from the eleventh century. Etchingham does not appear to have had its own church
until later and an earlier church mentioned in the Taxatio as being at Burgham, a
short distance away from the present church, appears to have been a chapelry in
Salehurst. Etchingham was not formally established as a separate ecclesiastical
parish until it obtained burial rights in 1362, and the present church was built soon
after (Saul 1986, 140).
It is impossible to arrive at a verifiable chronology for the Sussex churches in
the Rape of Hastings, but the evidence suggests that the process of church building
and parish formation in the Kent High Weald was in advance of that in East
Sussex. However, this apparent discrepancy between the two counties may be as
much a matter of the quality of the records that survive or the manner of church
foundation and need not imply that settlement in the Sussex eastern High Weald
was substantially different to that in Kent.
Evidence for parish formation was emerging in the eleventh and twelfth centuries
in both Sussex and Kent. Parish boundaries became clearly demarcated soon after
their foundation, driven by the need to know the land from which tithes could
be derived (Morris 1989, 210) and parish boundaries once established tended to
remain fixed for long periods. However, the boundaries of the emerging parishes
rarely conformed to the territorial divisions of the hundred. This complexity makes
the hundred difficult to deal with within eleventh-century settlement studies and,
therefore, being able to relate the contemporary parochial strncture to the hundred
system is useful: it helps in the establishment of continuity and geographical
location of settlement over time.
Domesday Settlement in the Eastern High Weald (Fig. 5)
Settlement as recorded in Domesday is expressed as manors or townships within
a particular hundred. The parish (ecclesiastical or civil) had not yet taken on the
significance it later had (and in fact still has) for defining the boundaries of local
114
REAPPRAISAL OF ELEVENIH-CENTIJRY SETTLEMENT IN THE EASTERN HIGH WEALD
* Ootnesda:y settlements mentioned In lhe
study area
* Domesday settlements outside the slu