Rectilinear Field Systems and Dispersed Settlement in

South Somerset and Dorset

by John Davey

Abstract
Geophysical survey coupled with trial excavation and cartographic analysis have revealed large
but discrete regions in south Somerset and Dorset in which rectilinear field systems have been
fossilised in the modern landscape. Excavation has shown these field systems to originate in the
late prehistoric period and continue in use, albeit in a modified state, and with fluctuating
intensity, into the modern era. This observation is of great significance for the early medieval
period, because it suggests that there was relative stability in the rural economy from the Late
Roman to the Late Saxon period. Land division and land holding may also have continued, until
the establishment of manors and nucleated villages during the Late Saxon period.

Further analysis of communications and dispersed settlement patterns associated with these field
systems has given rise to a new model for the distribution of dispersed settlement and the
subdivision of land units within areas of rectilinear field systems.

Introduction
C. C. Taylor was the first to recognise and highlight the fact that parish and tithing boundaries in
Dorset frequently subdivide the landscape into parallel narrow units. These land units generally
cut across the topographic grain from valley floor to ridge top. His cartographic and documentary
analyses of tithings in south west Purbeck and the Piddle, Winterborne and Frome Valleys are
cases in point (Taylor 2004, 52-62; 113-4). Fleming in his research into the Dartmoor Reaves,
was the first to demonstrate that prehistoric land division could take the form of long co-axial
field alignments (Fleming 1978). Keen noted that long field alignments, running parallel to the
upper Yeo Valley in the Sherborne region of west Dorset, were aligned perpendicular to a Late
Saxon herepath. This led him to suggest that they were of Middle Saxon origin (Keen 1984).
Williamson developed the idea of rectilinear field alignments further and was the first to
demonstrate at Scole-Dickelburgh that field systems of prehistoric origin can themselves be
fossilised in the modern landscape (Williamson 1987). More recent work by Fleming (1989),
Oosthuizen in west Cambridgeshire (2003) and the author in south east Somerset and north
Dorset (Davey 2005, 63-83) have demonstrated the wider distribution and survival of such
rectilinear or co-axial systems of land division.

The above studies have shown that long co-axial alignments divided the land during the late
prehistoric period, particularly in areas of gently sloping river valleys, cutting across the
topographical grain. The units thus created were partly territorial and partly economic in function,
ensuring that each social group were afforded a share of landscape resources from the valley floor
meadows to the arable lower slopes and upper pastures and woodlands. Intensification of land use
during the Late Roman period seems to have led to the formal subdivision of these larger units
into individual fields whose boundaries have been continuously modified over the ensuing
millenia, but still within the prevailing co-axial alignments. However, none of the above studies
have addressed the distribution of settlements within these field systems, nor the implications for
the early medieval rural economy.

85
Case Study 1: Horethorne Hundred, Somerset.
Figure 1 shows the extent of the hundred of Horethorne, Somerset, as it was at Domesday. It is
clear that the overall area of the hundred is approximately rectangular in shape, with a large
chunk missing from the south east corner. This corresponds to a 7th century or earlier
ecclesiastical estate at Sherborne in Dorset, which has been removed from Horethorne prior to
AD 1086. The regular arrangement of parish boundaries within Horethorne hundred is also clear,
particularly in the east where the parish boundaries of North Cheriton, Horsington, Abbas and
Templecombe and Henstridge all have long alignments conforming to that of the hundred as a
whole, that is in a ENE-WSW direction. These alignments run perpendicular to that of the Cale
Valley, the western slopes of which are entirely occupied by the eastern half of Horethorne
Hundred. The Cale Valley forms part of the northern arm of the wider Blackmore Vale. The
watershed for the Cale runs approximately along the western boundaries of North Cheriton,
Horsington, Abbas and Templecombe and Henstridge. On a wider scale, the long alignments of
Horethorne Hundred run perpendicular to a series of geological strata of Jurassic age that
dominate the landscape of south east Somerset and North Dorset. The oldest being the Yeovil
Sands and Inferior Oolite in the west running through the Fuller’s Earth and Great Oolite series to
the Cornbrash and

Figure 1: Horethorne Hundred parish boundaries circa 1840 (After Dunning 1999, 73)

86
Figure 2: Horethorne Hundred field alignments showing selected dispersed settlements. Red dots represent nucleated
settlements along the modern A357, other coloured dots represent parallel bands of dispersed settlement (After Davey
2005, 69)

Oxford Clay in the East. These strata form a series of dips and scarps all running perpendicular to
the long alignments of Horethorne Hundred.
Furthermore, figure 2 shows that modern field boundaries also conform to the Horethorne long
alignments, together with many of the lanes and roads. Of course it is difficult to date field
boundaries depicted on modern or 19th century maps, without recourse to archaeological
excavation. It would seem perfectly reasonable at first glance to assume that the field boundaries
post-dated the formation of the parish boundaries in Horethorne. However, Williamson
convincingly dated a similar field system at Scole-Dickelburgh to the late prehistoric period
through the stratigraphic relationship between the field boundaries and the Roman Pye Road
(Williamson, 1987). Similar stratigraphic relationships in Horethorne demonstrate that the field
system actually predates the formation of, not only the parish boundaries, but also the Domesday
County boundary between Somerset and Dorset.
Figure 2 demonstrates that the alignments of these field boundaries continue into Sherborne. This
raises the possibility that the early medieval ecclesiastical estate at Sherborne may once have
formed part of a larger rectangular land unit from which Horethorne Hundred subsequently
evolved. The stepped nature of the 1086 county boundary between the parishes of Oborne
(Dorset) and Poyntington (Somerset) suggests that the rectilinear field system was already in
place when these manorial boundaries were formed. The County Boundary later followed these
pre-Domesday manorial boundaries. The field alignments in Sherborne depicted on figure 2 were

87
first recognised as significant by Keen (1984) who suggested they were of Saxon origin and
planned by the monks of Sherborne. His reasoning was that; not only did the later Bristol Road
cut across the pre-existing field boundaries, but that the field system was also aligned on the road
from Sherborne to Marston Magna (The modern B3148). This road is recorded as a herepath in
10th century charters relating to Rimpton (Costen 1985) and forms the western boundary of
Rimpton and Sandford Orcas parishes. Keen assumed that the field boundaries and the herepath
were broadly contemporary and was further convinced by the available context for their
instigation by the monks of Sherborne. However, this analysis is based on the assumption that the
field boundaries did not extend beyond the Sherborne estate. Keen also assumed that the herepath
was newly created in the Saxon period, rather than representing the Saxon designation of a pre-
existing route. Aston (1985, 146-8)) made an independent study of communication and settlement
patterns in south Somerset, concluding that the alignment of the Sherborne to Marston Magna
road may in fact be prehistoric in origin. This was a highly speculative conclusion however. Thus,
from the available evidence, the Horethorne field system appeared to be Saxon or earlier in
origin. Excavation was necessary in order to refine these conclusions.

Englands, Charlton Horethorne.

The opportunity to explore the date of the Horethorne field system arose during fieldwork
associated with the South Cadbury Environs Project (SCEP) in 2003. Cooper (2004) first
identified earthworks, accompanied by a scatter of Late Romano-British pottery, within fields
known as Englands at the eastern extremity of Charlton Horethorne parish. They are located at
the top of a high plateau of Forest Marble, which forms the watershed between the drainage
basins of the River Parret in Somerset and the River Stour in Dorset. It is as far from modern
settlement as it could be in this area, on the modern boundary between Charlton Horethorne,
North Cheriton and Horsington parishes. The nearest settlement of any kind lies 1km to the NE at
Clare Farm and the nucleated village of Charlton Horethorne lies 1.5km to the SW. The habitative
nature of the name Englands, therefore, seemed to refer to the Romano-British site identified by
Cooper. Furthermore, the Saxon origin of the name Englands implies that a settlement was still in
existence on the site at the beginning of the Late Saxon period (Field 1972). Thus the site
represents a potential example of continuity of settlement site from the Late Roman to Middle
Saxon period. It was considered that a gradiometer survey of the site would be of considerable
benefit.

Gradiometer Survey and Excavation.

The survey was carried out using a Bartington grad601/2 dual sensor fluxgate gradiometer, during
July 2003 and the results are displayed in figure 3. It is clear from the survey that a considerable
settlement existed on both sides of a double ditched trackway consisting of at least three buildings
through at least two separate phases. Figure 3 represents a slight refinement of the previously
published interpretation (Davey, 2004, 84; 2005, 48). The track itself is aligned on a section of the
main road from Sherborne to Wincanton. This alignment in turn follows that of the rectilinear
field system identified in Horethorne Hundred. The settlement is also laid out on

88
Figure 3: Englands, Charlton Horethorne: geophysical survey results and interpretation

similar alignments suggesting that dating the settlement would provide a Terminus Post Quem for
the field system. Further geophysical anomalies in the survey are directly aligned on the Charlton
Horethorne parish boundary and modern field boundaries in the immediate vicinity.
However, the morphology of the settlement, at least in its major phases, appears Romano-British
rather than post-Roman or Saxon. Sample excavation was necessary, in order to demonstrate
whether the settlement continued into the Saxon period and to date field alignments in the
vicinity.

The results of this excavation have been published elsewhere (Davey, 2004) and a brief summary
only is presented here.

Two trenches were excavated during early September 2003 with the intention of dating phases
identified in the geophysical survey. They were deliberately located away from any potential
house platforms; the sheer volume of artefacts recovered from such an excavation would have
been disproportionate to the aims and available resources. Thus, Trench 1 was located at the
junction of two linear anomalies, the first being associated with one of the main settlement phases
and the other with a group of alignments running diagonally N-S across the settlement. Trench 2
was located at the intersection of the first anomaly in Trench 1 and another associated with a
second major settlement phase. The excavation achieved its limited aims in that the phasing
outlined in figure 3 was confirmed stratigraphically and broad date ranges could be assigned to
the individual phases. The broader aims of identifying a post-Roman settlement site was not
achieved, although this does not mean that the Late Roman settlement at Englands did not
continue to be inhabited into the 5th and 6th centuries and the field-name evidence still supports
the likelihood that it did.

89
Discussion

The survey and excavation at Englands, Charlton Horethorne has provided an approximate date
for the inception of the Horethorne Hundred field system sometime during the 1st to 2nd centuries
AD. However, it must be noted that this provisional date can be refined by reference to
observations that took place during the construction of a water pipeline from Bowden Reservoir
to Penselwood (Newman et al. 2001). A number of Romano-British ditches were aligned
perpendicular to the parish boundary between Horsington and Templecombe. They were
distributed in two separate areas. To the east, a group of ditches with ‘u’ shaped profiles
contained 3rd-5th century pottery. It is possible that these ditches could have silted up any time
prior to the 10th century. The second group was situated close to an Anglo-Saxon cemetery
excavated in 1992 (Newman, 1992). The ditches had ‘v’ shaped profiles and contained pottery
dating to the 1st to 2nd centuries AD. Both groups of ditches were aligned with the Horethorne
Hundred field system. However, a third site located between the two mentioned above, revealed a
ditch aligned at a slight angle to the parish boundary and dating to the Late Iron Age. This is
tantalising evidence that the Horethorne Hundred alignments may have originated in the late
prehistoric period and their use was intensified, first in the early Romano-British period and again
in the 3rd century. Furthermore, the Iron Age ditch is aligned close to that of a parish boundary.
This lends weight to the theory that co-axial field systems developed first, as a number of parallel
ranch or estate divisions that were gradually infilled by parallel rectangular fields (Wykes, 2003,
47). Further evidence to support the prehistoric origins of the Horethorne Hundred system comes
from SCEP fieldwork directed by Tabor at Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne. Here, alignments
associated with the Horethorne system were shown by excavation to have silted up in the Late
Iron Age (Tabor (ed.) 2002, 57-67; 2004, 27-55).

The field system itself forms only one part of an integrated rural economy. Evidence for further
aspects of this economic system such as communications and settlement patterns can also be
identified in Horethorne Hundred. Figure 4 shows the area in the immediate vicinity of the village
of Charlton Horethorne. It can be seen that the double ditched track, revealed and dated to the
Roman period at Englands, forms part of a wider system of communications within a dispersed
settlement pattern. This communications and settlement pattern is integrated within the
Horethorne Hundred rectilinear field system. Costen has shown, through his analysis of Late
Saxon charters in Rimpton, that communications patterns are remarkably stable in SE Somerset.
100% of roads mentioned in the 10th century Rimpton charters are still in use today (Costen
1985). Because communications link settlements and fields, it is not difficult to see that the
system of lanes and tracks would remain unchanged as long as the settlement pattern and field
system also remained unaltered. It has been noted elsewhere that Charlton Horethorne is a rare
example of a parish in SE Somerset where a single nucleated village has arisen at the expense of
surrounding dispersed settlement (Davey 2005, 53). Figure 4 suggests a mechanism by which this
may have occurred. Plot boundaries in the vicinity of Charlton Horethorne church suggest that a
planned double row settlement once formed the core of the village. This planned settlement has
been subsequently altered, but it is clear that originally the church yard and neighbouring plots
extended further to the west and that a central spine road ran north-south through the middle of
the plots. This north south alignment represents a departure from the prevailing alignments of
Horethorne Hundred and is clearly superimposed upon and post dates them. Similar double row
settlements have been dated to the Late Saxon period at Abbotsbury, Stalbridge and Sturminster
Newton in Dorset (Davey 2008; 2009a; 2009b). It may be that Charlton Horethorne village, in its
original form, represents a planned Late Saxon double row settlement planted on a newly built
herepath from the royal estate centre, and known hub of herepaths, at Milborne Port. This

90
Figure 4: Communication patterns in Charlton Horethorne

possible herepath may have linked Milborne Port with the Fosse Way and Bath to the north, via
Blackford Hollow.

The creation of the Late Saxon planned settlement at Charlton Horethorne seems to have been a
deliberate and royally sponsored act; Charlton Horethorne formed part of the royal estate at
Milborne Port at Domesday (Thorn & Thorn 1980). This planned nucleation was at the expense
of the neighbouring dispersed settlements and it is likely to have been at this time that the
Romano-British settlement of Englands finally went out of use. The disruption of the settlement
pattern seems also to have led to the disruption of the communications pattern in Charlton
Horethorne. Instead of the rectilinear patterns of lanes, a new radial pattern centred on the
nucleated village emerged. This change was likely to have occurred over a protracted period of
time. In fact it may have been as late as 1752-3 when the diagonal road was driven through the
centre of the double row of house plots. It was at this time that the first turnpike act relating to
Dorset was passed. This act instigated the Shaftesbury and Sherborne Turnpike Trust, concerned

91
primarily with the Great Western Post Road from London to Exeter and Plymouth. However, it
also included provision for four shorter side roads of which the Sherborne to Wincanton road was
one (Good 1966, 124).

The pattern of settlement in Horethorne Hundred has also been plotted on figure 2. This depicts
both nucleated villages and dispersed farmsteads or hamlets with a potentially early habitative
name element. The distribution of these settlements falls into broad bands highlighted through
colour coding. Perhaps the most obvious band is the line of nucleated settlements at the eastern
end of the hundred lying along the modern A357 from North Cheriton to Stalbridge. These
settlements lie along a spring line at the junction of the Cornbrash and the Oxford Clay. Dispersed
settlements on either side of the nucleated band tend to lie away from the modern north-south
routes but close to the east-west lanes aligned with the Horethore Hundred field system. The
distribution of settlements within Horethorne Hundred is shown to be highly regular and evenly
spaced within the rectilinear pattern. This suggests that the land units associated with them might
also be regular and rectangular. These ideas will be discussed further below.

Case Study 2: Christchurch Hundred, Dorset

Introduction

A settlement at Christchurch probably originated in the Middle Saxon period, if not before. The
main archaeological evidence is the presence of a large Middle Saxon cemetery at Bargates and a
Mid-Late Saxon oven at the northern end of the town, immediately south of the subsequent line of
the Late Saxon burh bank (Jarvis 1983, 34-7; 104-134). The cemetery certainly suggests that the
wider area of Christchurch was occupied by the late 6th to 7th century AD.

The first documented mention of a settlement at Christchurch can be found in the AD 900 entry
of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle in which a ‘ham’ or residence at Tweoxneam (Christchurch) is
seized by the aetheling Aethelwold (Jarvis 1983, 9). This clearly suggests that Christchurch
contained a royal residence by AD 900, and was likely to have functioned as an administrative,
economic and religious centre for a large estate. This estate may have been similar in extent to the
later Christchurch Hundred. Hase (1988) has suggested that Christchurch may have been the site
of an early Minster church administering to a large parochia, possibly as early as the mid-8th
century. Although there is no explicit dating evidence to substantiate this claim, other Minster
churches in Hampshire have been dated to this period and there is no specific reason to suggest
that Christchurch was founded any later. The marginal site at Christchurch may have resembled a
low island rising from the surrounding marshes in the 8th century, a situation favoured by other
early monasteries in South West Britain (Muchelney and Glastonbury for example).

Keen has also proposed a large parochia for a pre-conquest Minster at Christchurch, including the
later parishes of Christchurch, Holdenhurst, Ringwood, Sopley, Milton, Hordle, Milford,
Lymington, Boldre, Brockenhurst, the larger part of the parish of Beaulieu, and parts of Harbridge
and Ellingham. Apart from Beaulieu, Harbridge and perhaps Ringwood and Ellingham, the
churches of all these parishes remained as dependent churches of Christchurch priory throughout
the 12th century. Keen further suggests that the extent of a royal estate would have been identical
with the parochia and that a significant population already existed at Christchurch by the early 9 th
century (Keen, 1984, 227-8; 242). The juxtaposition of early Minster and royal residence is

92
repeated elsewhere (Cheddar, for example). The origins of this estate and its central place are not
known.

Christchurch (Twynam) is listed in the burghal hideage, clearly indicating that it was considered a
town by the early 10th century.

The modern name of Christchurch is relatively recent, being first recorded in 1177 and refers to
the Priory, which was founded circa 1150 (Penn, 1980, 38). Early forms of the name include
Chrischarche de Twenham and Christeschirche. Before the foundation of the Priory, the town had
been known variously as; Tweoxneam, Tweonea (10th century) and Thuinham (11th century)
(Page, ed. 1912, 83). This name is generally accepted to mean ‘place between the rivers’ derived
from the Old English betweonan + ea (dative plural eam) (Penn, 1980, 38; Mills, 1991, 80).

The topography of the region comprises the river valleys of the Stour and the Avon, which empty
into Christchurch Harbour. The town itself occupies a narrow low gravel ridge between the two
rivers and immediately north of the harbour. The lower courses of the rivers are low-lying and
regularly flooded. Marshland still dominates this part of the region, notably at Stanpit marsh and
Barlins. Either side of the central vale, the ground slopes gently up to the New Forest on the east
and the former heaths, now developed for the urban area of Bournemouth, to the west. The
Bournemouth heaths and the New Forest both represented vast tracts of unenclosed marginal land
as late as the late 19th century incorporating large areas of common. However, between the river
valley marshes and the unenclosed heaths and forests, is a narrow strip of cultivable land
historically occupied by dispersed settlement and organised into tithings of Christchurch
Hundred.

Field Systems

The hundred of Christchurch passed to the Malmesbury estate during the 18 th century and a map
was produced depicting the various tithings and the land occupied by the estate tenants (figure 5).
This map, held at Hampshire Record Office (HRO 9M73-139), provides a rare accurate depiction
of land division in the region prior to the late 19th century parliamentary enclosure. A tracing of
the map (figure 6) shows more clearly the late 18th century field boundaries and a number of
interesting field patterns. These include oval enclosures at Street and Nea.

The area now known as ‘Purewell’ was originally called ‘Street’. The settlement of La Stret
formed part of the manor of Somerford and belonged to Christchurch Priory before AD 1150
(Page, 1912, 83-101). The settlement appears to be accompanied by or contained within a large
curved enclosure, delineated in the modern townscape by the line of The Buttery, a ditch north of
Scotts Hill Lane. This ditch may represent a primary boundary feature of the settlement serving to
drain the low-lying marsh as well as enclose maximum area for minimum length of boundary.
The curving shape of the ditch suggests that there had been few pre-existing restrictions to
enclosure at that time. Field boundaries suggest that a curving drainage ditch was also constructed
on the south side of the settlement.

This has been modified through the cultivation of furlongs with reverse ‘s’ curves during the later
medieval period. This and other reclamation works in the marsh to the south of the settlement
may have been carried out under the auspices of the Priory.

93
94
Immediately east of Nea there is a large detached portion of Milton parish with boundaries that
approximate to an oval. This contained a single large ornamental villa in 1796 but may have
originated as a 1-hide unit enclosed from waste during the early medieval period. The two
enclosures outlined above lie on the fringes of the band of cultivable land within former marsh
and forest respectively.

The most pertinent aspect of the map for this current paper however, is the depiction of rectilinear
field alignments arranged into tithings running perpendicular to the corresponding river. That is,
those on the east side of the hundred have long axes perpendicular to the river Avon, and those on
the west run perpendicular to the river Stour. Furthermore, the regular land division only extends
in the strip of land between the floodable marshes and the unenclosed heaths and forest.
Parliamentary enclosures came late to the Christchurch region, bitterly opposed and resisted by
the townspeople. The Portfield in Christchurch was not finally enclosed until the late 19th century.
Other common fields at Stanpit and Street were also enclosed during the 19 th century. The 1796
map then, depicts a pre-enclosure landscape, demonstrating that the regular rectangular fields are
not the result of parliamentary enclosures. Unfortunately, there is no further independent dating
evidence for this field system. Nevertheless, the fact that tithing boundaries follow the same
alignments suggests that they be medieval or earlier in origin. Similar field systems in Horethorne
Hundred and East Anglia have a pre-Roman origin. It is purely conjectural, but in Christchurch,
the proximity of Hengistbury Head might provide an economic context for pre-Roman land
division in the region.

Discussion

The discovery of a previously unrecorded system of co-axial land division, fossilised in the
modern landscape of the Christchurch region is significant. Further similar field systems can be
identified in discrete areas throughout Somerset and Dorset running perpendicular to chalk and
limestone scarps and valleys.

In some respects the question of origins is irrelevant for the purposes of this paper. The
Christchurch field system was in existence by the medieval period and it is the distribution of
medieval dispersed settlement within it that will be considered here.

Within the limited area covered by the 1796 map it is clear that the medieval settlements are
regularly spaced, both running up the slope to the east and along the strike of the valley to the
north. Thus we get columns of settlement sites; Stanpit - Bure- Nea; Street - Somerford-
Hubborne; and Staple Cross- Roeshott Farm. It is unclear as to whether settlements at Mudeford
and Highcliffe existed during the medieval period.

Similarly, on the west side of the region, the medieval settlements are also regularly spaced in
pairs; Tuckton and Southbourne; Iford and Pokesdown. Furthermore, figure 7 (traced from the OS
1st edition 6 inch series maps) shows that this settlement pattern extended beyond the confines of
the four tithings and continues up the respective river valleys to the north and west. It is also
apparent that the lanes and tracks linking the settlements are regularly arranged into rectangular
blocks. This is particularly clear on the eastern slopes of the Avon Valley. The larger nucleated
villages lie in a string along the course of the rivers themselves. Sopley, Winkton, Burton, Wick,
Tuckton, Iford and Holdenhurst. Behind these larger settlements are a series of regularly spaced

95
hamlets and farmsteads. Thus we have a three tiered settlement pattern; one row alongside the

Figure 7: Settlement and Communications Patterns in the Christchurch region (from the OS 1 st edition 6 inch maps,
1870).

river, the second at regular intervals in a row behind (The Bockhamptons, Waterditch Farm,
Somerford and Bure) and a third group on the edge of the forest (Bransgore,
Neacroft,Godwinscroft,Waterditch, Roeshot Farm, Hubborne and Nea).

The Bockhamptons (North, Middle and South Bockhampton) form a particularly interesting
group in that these dispersed settlements do not lie at nodes within the communications pattern,
but rather along an isolated stretch of track running perpendicular to the river.

These observations on settlement, field and communications patterns within a regular rectilinear
arrangement cry out for an integrated model of explanation.

Towards a new Model

Figure 8 shows the generally accepted landscape model of dispersed settlement.

The settlement itself lies at the centre of its land unit. Arable or the most intensely cultivated
infields lie close to the settlement with unenclosed or less intensely cultivated pasture around it.
Communications patterns connect the settlement with its regularly spaced neighbours in a radial
pattern. This geographical model owes much to Christaller’s central place theory. However,
Christaller’s model was chronologically static and assumed that settlement and associated land

96
Figure 8: A rural economic model (after Christaller)

units occupied a previously blank canvas. In other words there was no system of settlement or
land division preceding them, casting a residual influence on the pattern. This is clearly not the
case for medieval dispersed settlement within a pre-existing system of Roman or late prehistoric
land division and communication.

A more appropriate model for the Horethorne and Christchurch Hundreds is forthcoming from
geographical studies of the Dutch Polders described by Chisolm (1968, 62). Here vast tracts of
flat land have been reclaimed from the sea over the last few hundred years or more. It was found
that the most efficient way of dividing the land into farm units was in a rectilinear pattern similar
to a co-axial field system. When considering the position of farmsteads within these land units a
number of different options were available, illustrated in figure 9. In 9b the farms are placed at
the centre of their land holdings. This would have made it easy to cultivate the land, but
unfortunately the farm would have been further from the major communications routes making it
more expensive to transport produce or obtain supplies. The farmhouse would also have been a
long distance from its nearest neighbour should co-operation be necessary, at harvest or in a
crisis. The second alternative (figure 9c) represents nucleated settlement. Here the advantages of
communication and co-operation between neighbours are paramount. The main disadvantage is
that each farmstead lies at such a distance from its cultivable land to render production in the
farthest corners unsustainable. A successful rural economy is dependent on a balance between
settlement, field system and communication. Figure 9d illustrates just such a balance, or
compromise between the conflicting requirements of rural production, co-operation and
distribution. On the one hand, the settlements are relatively close to the centre of their land unit,
whilst on the other they are close to a linking track. Furthermore, the settlement is paired with a
neighbour allowing for co-operation and pooling of resources in times of need.

97
Figure 9: A new model for the distribution of dispersed settlement within rectilinear field systems (after Chisholm 1968)

Nucleated villages and markets tend to lie close to the major communication routes, which are
represented by significant watercourses during the medieval period or, as in the case of
Horethorne Hundred, a major road. A tithing, manor or parish extends back from the nucleated
settlement, with paired dispersed farmsteads evenly spaced and strung out along a lane running
perpendicularly back from the river. It is notable in the Bockhampton group of hamlets, that the
settlement has been dragged away from the central point in their respective rectangular blocks,
towards the nearest nucleated settlement. This is explained under the above model by the
economic pull of the nearest market and major communication artery (The River Avon). This
location provides for easier distribution of their produce.

Conclusions

The model outlined above is essentially an economic or geographic one. It seeks to explain the
interrelationship between settlements, communications and Field systems in terms of their
function and their position in the landscape. As such it is only one side of the coin, it does not
explain land holding in terms of social relationships or historical events. Furthermore it is only
relevant in a specific physical landscape context. Co-axial or rectilinear field systems that have
survived into the modern landscape tend to be located on relatively gentle and consistent
gradients, where a wide river valley, or series of parallel valleys, displaying broad consistency of
slope over a considerable distance. The model also remains to be tested and refined, not only in
the social sphere, but also within its narrow economic remit and for each major period in which
rectilinear field systems are in use. Nevertheless, the model represents an important step forward

98
in understanding the economic processes that have contributed to the shaping of the landscape
over the last two millenia.

Work in Charlton Horethorne and the wider region of south east Somerset has shown that the
survival of rectilinear communications patterns is dependent upon the survival of dispersed
settlement. Where nucleated settlement arises in the Late Saxon period or later, then radial
communications patterns tend to follow (Davey 2005, 102).

Nevertheless, dispersed settlement patterns can be considered the norm over large parts of the
country for the majority of the last two millennia. Patterns of production and redistribution of
produce may vary however, both chronologically as well as spatially.

Yet, in the Christchurch region, this variation may have been minimal. Hengistbury Head
represented an important market or redistribution centre during the Late Iron Age and early
Romano-British periods. By the Middle Saxon period this regional market had shifted to the royal
caput of Christchurch. Both central places were situated on the edge of Christchurch harbour,
close to the confluence of the rivers Avon and Stour. This suggests that not only has land division
and dispersed settlement patterns remained stable in this region since the late prehistoric period,
but the major routes of communication and distribution have also. Under these circumstances it is
reasonable to suggest that the rural economic model outlined above may also have remained
relevant since the Late Iron Age.

In some respects, this model represents a refinement of that put forward by Williamson in order to
explain the distribution of rectilinear land division. His suggestion that the land was divided in the
late prehistoric period into territories, each with a share of lowland meadow, lower slope arable
and upper valley pasture and forest, may still hold for the late prehistoric period (Williamson
2003, 40). It may have been as early as the Romano-British period however, that the land was
further subdivided into individual and regularly arranged farmsteads for the purpose of
intensification of production. Peterson has argued for Williamson’s co-axial alignments in south
Norfolk being formed through a process of centuriation during the 1st century AD. He reaches this
controversial conclusion through the computer-aided analysis of field boundaries (Peterson 2004).
Centuriation was a method of planned land division in Roman Colonia of the 1st century AD. The
land units thus divided tended to be square with sides of 10 or 20 acta (20 acta approximates to
710m). Very little evidence for square units of this size has ever been recovered in Britain,
leading to suggestions that centuriation was not employed in Britannia. However, it may be worth
noting that the lengths of the rectangular units suggested to the east of the River Avon in the
Christchurch region vary from approximately 680m to 1230m, with those on the upper slopes
being consistently closer to the 700m mark. These casual observations do not constitute good
evidence for centuriation in the Christchurch region. Nevertheless, based on the excavated
evidence from Horethorne Hundred, it is clear that the use of these co-axial systems were
intensified and modified during the Romano-British period. It may be the pre-existence of such
systems of late prehistoric land division that precluded the need impose a rigid system of
centuriation in Britain during the 1st century AD.

We have seen in Horethorne Hundred that Charlton Horethorne represents an isolated example of
a parish in which a single nucleated village has arisen at the expense of dispersed settlements.
Elsewhere in the hundred the regular pattern of dispersed settlements, linked by a rectilinear
system of lanes and fields, has survived. One particular settlement at Holway lies within a
rectangular 1-hide unit defined by parish boundaries. Bede mentions the hide in the 7th century as

99
being the unit of land required for the support a family. Charles-Edwards also maintains that it
was the land required to maintain the status of a normal freeman, ploughed by 1 plough with
origins earlier than the Saxon kings who used it as the basic unit of taxation (Charles-Edwards,
1972, 4-5). Barnwell (1996) goes as far as to suggest that the hide represents a continuation,
under a different name, of the Roman centuria. The survival of such land units possibly dating
from the creation of the rectilinear field system is plausible in an integrated rural economy in
which field boundaries, settlement and communication patterns have also survived. It suggests a
remarkable degree of continuity, not only of field system but land tenure and social organisation
as well.

Furthermore, the creation of a couple of oval land units at Street and Nea, demonstrates that the
usefulness of the hide as the basic unit of land holding and taxation continued into the early
medieval period. Because the well-drained land was already subdivided and cultivated however,
new units were enclosed from the former waste on marginal marsh or forest and with curved
boundaries reflecting the lack of pre-existing restrictions to enclosure.

The rural economic model presented in this paper requires a certain level of agricultural
specialisation for farmsteads during the Romano-British and medieval periods. This is because
the broad range of resources distributed across the valley slope as a whole during the Late Iron
Age were no longer available within subdivided 1-hide units. In very general terms, those on the
lower slopes might specialise in arable or dairy with those on the upper slopes more dependent on
pastoral regimes. Variations in the underlying geology and soils will also affect the agrarian
regime within individual farms. This specialisation may be reflected in the names of the
settlements east of the River Avon in Christchurch Hundred. Burton and Bure might suggest
arable farms on the lower slopes; the Bockhamptons suggest proximity of woodland or game, boc
meaning beech tree or bucca meaning male goat or deer (Gelling 2000, 222). Neacroft and
Godwinscroft are suggestive of small upper slope farmsteads on the edge of common pasture. The
remaining place names are largely topographical in origin.

Perhaps of greater significance for the early medieval period is the insight these field systems
provide into the rural economy during the Roman to medieval transition. Firstly, although it is
not claimed that the field boundaries depicted on 18th and 19th century maps represent a direct
continuity of specific fields from the Roman period, it is clear that there has not been a major
upheaval in land use during that time. Large areas of farmland were not abandoned to woodland
or unenclosed waste. There were not vast tracts of regenerated forest or virgin land into which the
Saxons could insert their open fields and nucleated villages. There may have been a reduction in
the intensity of rural production, from arable to a largely pastoral economy in many places. This
would have been most effectively achieved through the continued use of already established field
boundaries. The corralling of livestock would be facilitated in this way, enabling the farmer to
control the consumption of pasture, only allowing his stock on to particular fields in rotation
when the grass had regenerated. Small former arable fields linked by hedged lanes are ideal for
this purpose.

The study of the early medieval period has been plagued by culture-historical approaches in
which archaeological evidence has been made to fit pre-existing notions concerning the ‘Dark
Ages’ for which dubious and non-contemporary historical documents have provided the source
material. The lack of good archaeological evidence, spanning the Roman and early medieval
periods, has exacerbated the problem. The high visibility of Roman settlements contrasts starkly
with elusive early medieval sites. Esmonde Cleary (2001) has called for new strategies to

100
overcome this material discontinuity. One such strategy is to examine sites or classes of
monument that span the two periods. This paper has shown the potential for land division to
bridge the gap between the Roman and early medieval periods. The evidence suggests that despite
the reduction in durable material culture following the collapse of Roman administration in
Britain, the rural economy continued in a very healthy condition. In fact it may have been the
health of the rural economy that facilitated, in the late 10th century, the rapid rise of Alfredian
Wessex, the construction of burhs, the maintenance of herepaths and the subsequent rise in socio-
political complexity associated with the unification of England.

References

Aston M. 1985 Interpreting the Landscape, Batsford,
London.
Barnwell P. S. 1996 ‘Hflaeta, ceorl, hid and scir:
Celtic Roman or Germanic?’ in Griffiths (ed), 53-61.
Charles Edwards T. M. 1972 ‘Kinship, Status and the
Origin of the Hide’, Past and Present 56, 3-33.
Chisolm M. 1968 Rural Settlement and Land Use.
Hutchinson, London.
Blair J. (ed) 1988 Minsters and parish churches: The
local church in transformation 960 – 1200. Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 17
Cooper G. 2004 ‘Gradiometer Survey and Excavations
at Englands, Charlton Horethorne 2003; Introduction’,
in Tabor (ed) 2004, 75-6.
Costen M. 1985 ‘Rimpton in Somerset, A Late Saxon
Estate’, Southern History 6, 13-24.
Davey J. E. 2004 ‘Gradiometer Survey and
Excavations at Englands, Charlton Horethorne 2003’,
in Tabor (ed) 2004, 77-84.
Davey J. E. 2005 The Roman to Medieval Transition
in the Region of South Cadbury Castle, Somerset.
BAR British Series 399
Davey J. E. 2008 Abbotsbury Draft Historic Urban
Characterisation Report. Dorset County Council and
English Heritage
Davey J. E. 2009a Stalbridge Draft Historic Urban
Characterisation Report. Dorset County Council and
English Heritage
Davey J. E. 2009b Sturminster Newton Draft Historic
Urban Characterisation Report. Dorset County
Council and English Heritage
Dunning R. W. (ed.) 1999 A History of the County of
Somerset, vol.7, Institute of Historical Research,
Oxford University Press.
Esmonde Cleary S. 2001 ‘The Roman to Medieval
Transition’, in James S & Millett M (eds.), 90-97.
Field J. 1972. English Field Names. David & Charles,
Newton Abbott.
Fleming A. 1978 ‘The Prehistoric Landscape of
Dartmoor. Part 1: South Dartmoor’, in Proc Prehist
Soc 44, 97-123.
Fleming A. 1989 ‘The Genesis of Co-axial Fields
Systems’ in Van der Leeuw & Torrence (eds), 63-81
Gelling M. 2000 Place-Names in the Landscape.
London; Phoenix Press
Griffiths D. (ed.) 1996 Anglo-Saxon Studies in
Archaeology and History 9, Oxford University
Committee for Archaeology.
Good R. 1966 The Old Roads of Dorset.
Bournemouth: Horace Cummin
Hase, P.H. 1988 ‘Mother churches of Hampshire’, in
Blair (ed), 45-66
Haslam J. (ed) 1984 Anglo Saxon Towns in Southern
England. Chichester: Phillimore
James S & Millett M (eds.) 2001 Britons and Romans:
Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, CBA Res. Rep.
125.
Jarvis, K. S. 1983 Excavations in Christchurch 1969-
1980, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological
Society, monograph series 5
Keen L. 1984 ‘The Towns of Dorset’, in Haslam J
(ed), 203-47.
Mills, A. D 1991 A Dictionary of English Place-
Names, Oxford University Press
Morton, A 1992 Excavations at Hamwic: Volume 1.
CBA Res. Rep. 84
Newman C 1992 ‘A Late Saxon Cemetery at
Templecombe’, Proc Somerset Archaeol and Nat Hist
Soc 136, 61-72.
Newman C. Morris E.L. & Bonner D. 2001 ‘Iron Age
and Romano-British Sites Along the Bowden
Reservoir Link Pipeline, South-East Somerset’, Proc
Somerset Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc 143 (for 1999), 1-
27.
Oosthuizen S. 2003 ‘The Roots of Common Fields:
Linking Prehistoric and Medieval Field Systems in
West Cambridgeshire’ in Landscapes 1, 40-64
Page, W 1912. Victoria County History of Hampshire
and the Isle of Wight, London, Constable and
Company
Penn, K. J. 1980 Historic Towns in Dorset, Dorset Nat
Hist and Archaeol Soc, monograph series 1
Peterson J. W. M. 2004 ‘Coaxial landscapes in South
Norfolk and beyond: another view’, In The Annual:
The Bulletin of the Norfolk Archaeological and
Historical Research Group, 13, 61-72.
Tabor R (ed). 2002 South Cadbury Environs Project
Interim Fieldwork Report, 1998-2001, University of
Bristol, Centre for the Historic Environment.
Tabor R. (ed.) 2004 South Cadbury Environs Project
Interim Fieldwork Report, 2002-2003, University of
Bristol, Centre for the Historic Environment.

101
Taylor C. C. 2004 The Making of Dorset. paperback
edition. Wimborne: Dovecote Press
Thorn C. & Thorn F. (eds.) 1980 Domesday Book,
Somerset, Chichester: Phillimore.
Van der Leeuw S. E. & Torrance R. 1989 What’s
New: a closer look at the process of innovation. One
World Archaeology 14. London: Unwin Hyman
Williamson T. 1987. ‘Early Co-axial Field Systems on
the East Anglian Boulder Clays’, in Proc Prehist Soc
53, 9-31.
102
Williamson T. 2003 Shaping Medieval Landscapes;
Settlement, Society and Environment. Windgather
Press, Macclesfield.
Wykes R. 2003 Prehistoric Agricultural Landscapes:
The Limestone Region of the SW in the Counties of
Somerset, West Wiltshire and Gloucestershire,
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol.