Codificación de una Aplicación en modo Agenda

This chapter presents the results of an analysis of settlement patterns in the Upper Calder Valley using the comparative replication methodology discussed in Chapter 2.

The validity of the morphological methodology used by Roberts and Wrathmell is tested first by replicating the original study for the study area. The robustness of this morphological approach is then tested by replicating the process again using a different map source that presents settlement at a more detailed scale.

The morphological approach adopted by Roberts and Wrathmell is principally concerned with seeking to derive geographical meaning from settlement patterns.

Their work is focused on identifying a hierarchy of provinces and sub-provinces, not with the process that resulted in these patterns. Only theoretical models of the process are provided, the only evidence used being pre-existing sample case studies that are used to illustrate the geographical framework. The only result of replicating the study therefore is validation of the nineteenth-century settlement pattern.

Replication of Roberts and Wrathmell’s study was based on the original methodology of counting settlement units within 2 km grid squares on the Ordnance Survey Old Series 1 inch to 1 mile map. This threw up a number of practical and theoretical issues that are outlined in Appendix 1. The most significant problem in conducting the replication proved to be the lack of clarity in the Ordnance Survey maps as produced in the Margary edition that was used as a source by the original study.¹ The use of

1 The Old Series Ordnance Survey maps of England and Wales, Scale: 1 inch to 1 mile: A reproduction of the 110 sheets of the Survey in early state in 8 volumes, Vol.8 Northern England and the Isle of Man, (Lympne Castle, Harry Margary, 1991); The Old Series Ordnance Survey maps of England and Wales, Scale: 1 inch to 1 mile: A reproduction of the 110 sheets of the Survey in early state in 8 volumes, Vol.7

140

'schematic rendering' of buildings, in which outlines are imprecise and the buildings can appear as 'mere smudges', made the accuracy of counting settlements difficult.² The density of shading in the hachuring used to indicate slope also often obscured settlements.

These issues of symbology, together with the obvious limitations of the 1 inch to 1 mile scale, meant that the Margary map has significant limitations as a source for understanding the scale and density of settlement. In order to assess just how great those limitations are, the same methodology was applied to a slightly earlier but larger scale map, the Map of the Parish of Halifax produced by J.F. Myers in 1835 at a scale of about 2.6 inches to 1 mile.³

In the interests of obtaining the most accurate result possible, much more time and attention was devoted to this exercise than would have been possible in the original study of the whole country. The benefits of focusing on a local area also meant that it was possible to count the whole of that area rather than limit it to eight sample 2 km by 2 km squares as was done in the Rural Settlement study.⁴

The Rural Settlement Atlas shows the Upper Calder Valley as being a mixed area of

‘High’ and ‘Very High’ dispersion density as shown in the extract of the settlement map in Figure 3.1. Replication of the study using the original source of the Margary maps shows that in fact it is a mixed area of ‘Extremely High’ and ‘Very High’

North-central England, (Lympne Castle, Harry Margary, c.1989). Hereafter referred to as the Margary map.

2 B.K. Roberts and S. Wrathmell, An atlas of rural settlement in England, (London, English Heritage, 2000), p.9.

3 J.F. Myers, Map of the Parish of Halifax in the West Riding of the County of York, showing the township, borough and manorial boundaries, from an actual survey made in the years 1834 and 1835.

[Scale, about 2 1/2 inches = 1 mile], (Halifax, [1836?]).

4 See Chapter 2 p.122.

141

density, as in much of adjacent Lancashire. The density gradings of each 2 km grid square are shown in Figure 3.2 for both the Margary and Myers maps.

The greater detail obtainable from the larger scale Myers map resulted in even higher density numbers in all but five squares, sometimes doubling the original number counted on the Margary map. The density band thus tended to increase in most squares. However the density pattern remained broadly the same as found in the replication of Margary. Where more units were counted in Margary than in Myers, the difference can be explained by one of two reasons. First, that indistinctness in

Upper Calder Valley

Figure 3.1 Dispersion and nucleation patterns identified in the Rural Settlement study. After Figure 1.14 in Roberts and Wrathmell, Region and Place, p.29.

142

Margary resulted in an overcount which was resolved by the greater accuracy of Myers. Second, that a small scale deviation in Myers, documented in Appendix 1, resulted in a smaller number of units within the sample square. The overall extent of the increase in the number count means that any degree of inaccuracy in the counting is very unlikely to make a significant difference to the resulting settlement pattern.

There can be little doubt that part of this discrepancy in results between the Atlas and the replication is due to the greater levels of time spent on obtaining accurate counts.

However if similar discrepancies were to be found in other areas, then it also raises doubts as to the validity of some of the sub-provinces and regions identified on the basis of dispersion scoring. Paradoxically, the higher levels of dispersion density tend to suggest that the printed Atlas was correct in giving the impression that the Upper Calder valley is located within the so-called ‘Lancastrian lowlands’ sub-province rather than the ‘Pennine Slope’ sub-province as in the GIS version of the Atlas.⁵ In turn this also confirms that the whole of the study area belongs in the Northern and Western Province rather than the Central Province.

The replication also shows that the number banding used is inadequate to represent degrees of higher level density. It is notable that on the national map only areas of Lancashire are graded as having ‘Exceptionally high’ density, a classification that covers densities of greater than 35 units per 2 square km grid. As shown in Figure 3.2, the Upper Calder Valley has densities that reach over 90 units, a level of density completely obscured by the Rural Settlement study classification. It is clear therefore that the banding is geared to work with the much lower density levels apparent elsewhere in the country.

5 See Chapter 2 pp.68-9.

1

Outside Outside Outside 0 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside 0 Outside Outside Outside Outside

KEY

144

The density gradings of the 2 km grid squares also show that the spread of dispersed settlement is much greater than suggested by Roberts and Wrathmell. Figure 3.3 reproduces the regional pattern of rural settlement for the study area from the GIS version of the Rural Settlement Atlas which allows a greater level of detail than the printed Atlas.⁶ The pattern delineates a band of high density following the valley surrounded by areas of extremely low density. The density gradings derived from the replication of the methodology using the Margary map shows that this seriously misrepresents the settlement pattern of the area by suggesting that most of the areas beyond the main Calder valley were unpopulated, whereas in fact only the land above the 300 metre contour is devoid of settlement, and even segments of that have some habitation.

Figure 3.3 contrasts the pattern in the Atlas with a pattern derived from the density gradings for the Myers map. Although the broad pattern is similar to that in the Atlas, particularly at a national scale, the omission of smaller areas of lesser but significant density paints a picture of settlement in upland areas being confined to major valleys.

Like the Upper Calder Valley, the major valleys of the Yorkshire Dales and County Durham are shown in the Atlas as pushing into areas of ostensibly uninhabited waste, ignoring settlement in the smaller tributary valleys.

6 Atlas of Rural Settlement in England, GIS version available at

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/archaeology/atlas-of-rural-settlement-gis/ as at 18 January 2013.

Figure 3.3 Comparison of the settlement patterns of the Upper Calder Valley as

shown in the GIS version of the Rural Settlement Atlas for 1838-9 and as shown on the Myers map of 1835. The Myers pattern does not show the limited areas that have a

medium density or less. The named settlements are referred to in the text.

145

146

It is worth bearing in mind that Roberts and Wrathmell warn that boundaries in their maps form ‘a band approximately one and a half to two kilometres in width’ and should be regarded as transition zones.⁷ While it is also axiomatic that the scale of a national map necessarily obscures local detail, this is insufficient to explain the discrepancies. The explanation can be found in the GIS version of the Atlas which shows that the sample areas used in the Upper Calder Valley were, with one

exception, limited to obvious areas of settlement.⁸ Generally the GIS Atlas makes it clear that sample areas chosen by Roberts and Wrathmell were not based on a logical pattern, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the choice of areas to be

sampled was a subjective one. For example, there are no sample areas in the uplands to the north of the Calder valley but there are several in the uplands to the south of the study area. The results of the replication studies emphasise the fact that the Rural Settlement Atlas is ‘an impression of overall densities of dispersion’ rather than an accurate depiction of local areas.⁹

Figure 3.3 also shows the various grades of nucleations identified in the GIS version of the Atlas, although Lowerre has explained that the way in which the original Atlas maps were produced resulted in some inaccuracy in positioning of nucleations in this GIS version.¹⁰ The pattern indicated by the Myers map highlights both the simplicity and the inaccuracy of the Atlas representation of nucleations. The Atlas only shows one village, two hamlets and two ‘small hamlets’ whereas Myers shows ten villages and 44 hamlets. The discrepancy in nucleations emphasises both the different ways in which nucleations can be categorised and the subjectivity involved. It was pointed out

7 Roberts and Wrathmell, Atlas of rural settlement, p.45.

8 The locations of the dispersion scores and hamlet counts in the GIS version represent the centre points of the sample areas. A.G. Lowerre, The Atlas of Rural Settlement in England GIS: documentation, (English Heritage, 2011), p.11.

9 Roberts and Wrathmell, Atlas of rural settlement, p.13.

10 Lowerre, The Atlas of Rural Settlement in England GIS: documentation, p.4.

147

in Chapter 2 that Roberts and Wrathmell did not define their categorisation of nucleations whereas the analysis of nucleations on the Myers map was based on an interpretation of the number of settlement units involved. However, it is surprising that the Atlas shows so few nucleations in the study area and the contrast with the interpretation drawn from the Myers map must raise questions as to Roberts and Wrathmell’s belief that their distribution map of nucleations is ‘well-founded and reliable’.¹¹

Roberts and Wrathmell accept that another person grading nucleations would arrive at

‘slightly’ different allocations between their five grades.¹² However the example of Withens, an isolated settlement cluster on the moors above Cragg Vale, is instructive on the issues of subjectivity. The Atlas grades this cluster as a small hamlet. This author has treated it as a collection of dispersed farmsteads, based on the similarities with the surrounding pattern of such settlement. On the Margary map, the cluster appears to consist of twelve farmsteads over an area of 790,000 square metres; (the Myers map showed that it was actually fifteen). In contrast, the settlement cluster of Mankinholes on the other side of the hill comprises roughly the same number of settlement units, distributed close together on either side of a road and covering an area of only 22,000 square metres. Mankinholes was graded as a hamlet by this author but was completely ignored by Roberts and Wrathmell.¹³

Replication of the Rural Settlement study using the original Margary map suggests that the difference is not only one of interpretation and subjectivity but also of inaccuracy. The Margary map shows eight villages and 48 hamlets based on the

11 Roberts and Wrathmell, Atlas of rural settlement, p.11.

12 Ibid.

13 See Figure 3.3.

148

definitions of nucleations used in this study, in contrast to the ten villages and 44 hamlets shown by the larger scale of the Myers map. It is worth bearing in mind that the Myers map was surveyed a few years earlier than Margary. The larger scale of Myers allowed more accurate interpretation of settlement clusters, so that some hamlets became villages, while some hamlets became single farmsteads and vice versa. Only 28 of the hamlets identified on the Myers map were identified as hamlets on Margary, but another twenty Margary hamlets were identified as single farmsteads on Myers.

The Rural Settlement study seriously misrepresents the nineteenth-century settlement pattern of the Upper Calder Valley by suggesting that most of the upland areas were unpopulated and that there was only a thin band of high density following the main valley. Replicating the Rural Settlement study, and cross checking the results with a larger scale map of the same period, has shown that in fact this part of the South Pennines was characterised by extraordinarily high levels of dispersed settlement.

Settlement extended deep into the heart of the uplands, largely following river valleys.

Only above the 300 m contour does settlement fade out. It is also difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Rural Settlement study also seriously undercounted the number of nucleated settlements in the study area, however these are defined.

In a national survey using sampling techniques finding these discrepancies at a local level is not perhaps unexpected. What is of concern is not only that the sample areas of dispersed settlement appear to have been chosen on a subjective rather than a consistent basis, but also that so few samples were done in certain areas. In the case of the study area this has led to a characterisation of nineteenth century settlement that is misleading. Furthermore the subjectivity and inaccuracy in categorising nucleations

149

suggests the need for an accepted classification that can be deployed by other

researchers. Both these factors belie Roberts and Wrathmell’s claim that replication of their work would produce comparable results.¹⁴ It is clear that the Rural Settlement Atlas can only be taken as an indication of settlement patterns and density rather than as a statement.

Roberts and Wrathmell are at pains to point out that the Rural Settlement study is a top down exercise, one purpose of which is to provide a context for more local studies.¹⁵ However, the results of a national survey that inevitably needed to use a 1 inch to 1 mile map, and that also used sampling techniques, has failed to recognise the unique settlement characteristics of the South Pennines. By using a national

classification of density, the ranges involved appear to have been geared to

characteristics predominant in lowland areas. The net result of this top down approach is an unintentional bias against the uplands of the study area which raises questions as to the accuracy of the survey, at least for other upland areas. Chapter 2 has already identified serious concerns as to whether the local regions and sub-provinces that Roberts and Wrathmell draw out of their results are in fact identified and characterised correctly where they include upland areas. The results of this replication serve to emphasise that point even more strongly. As the basis for a local study, the morphological framework provided by the Atlas is of less utility than claimed therefore.

14 Roberts and Wrathmell, Atlas of rural settlement, pp.11, 13.

15 Ibid., p.19; B.K. Roberts and S. Wrathmell, Region and place: a study of English rural settlement, (London, English Heritage, 2002), p.83.

150

Chapter 4