Marco para la Implementación de SBRDs

Having decided to research the development of exclusivity and landscape design within a regional context, the choice of region was governed by a number of factors, including the availability of source material for elite families and residences, and sources relating to other social groups in regional society. A diverse range of topographies and tenurial structures was also required along with boundaries that could be justified and defined objectively. East Anglia fulfilled these requirements and has therefore been chosen as the spatial parameter for this thesis. The term East Anglia can be used in a general sense meaning eastern England but the original meaning was the geographical extent of the kingdom of the East Angles, covering the modern counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and parts of Cambridgeshire but excluding Essex, the kingdom of the East Saxons.4 The advent of Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) and other English Heritage sponsored

3 _{Taylor, C. C (1998a) “From Recording to Recognition” in Pattison, P. (Editor) There By Design: Field}

Archaeology in Parks and Gardens.

4 _{Scull, C.,(1992) “Before Sutton Hoo: Structures of Power and Society in Early East Anglia” in The Age}

49

research projects have provided new spatial parameters for some regional landscape studies.5 In their study of historic field systems in East Anglia, Martin and Satchell based their research in the ‘Anglia’ and ‘Wash’ sub-provinces of the ‘South-eastern Province’ of England as defined by Roberts and Wrathmell in the Atlas of Rural

Settlement in England.6 However, the research presented in this thesis has been conducted within a region made up of the historic counties of Norfolk and Suffolk and referred to here as East Anglia.

The region of East Anglia, in common with all such divisions of territory, contains many different districts or pays, each with different characteristics. At a basic level, it could be subdivided into “the two landscapes of Lowland England” as defined by Oliver Rackham, with ‘planned countryside’ to the north and west, and ‘ancient countryside’ to the east and south of East Anglia.7 Rackham’s division contrasts areas historically dominated by open field arable and little woodland with wood-pasture districts, where isolated farms stand in an anciently enclosed landscape. This is clearly an over- simplification and a more detailed view can be had by looking at soil associations and landscape regions. These have been combined in Figure 7 and reveal a more complex picture, comprising ten areas based on the characteristics of the underlying soil type and resulting patterns of land use and tenure. The landscape regions of East Anglia, as defined here by Wade-Martins and Williamson are useful as the characteristics of soils and landscape regions affected the location of elite residences and the type of grounds that could be created around a mansion.

5

Geographic Information System based, large scale mapping that attempts to characterise the historic landscape by creating polygons representing various categories of fields systems and other extant features. Approaches to historic landscape analysis vary between individual HLC projects.

6

Martin, E., & Satchell, M., (2008) Wheare most Inclosures be - East Anglian Fields: History,

Morphology and Management: East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 124, Suffolk County Council

Archaeology Service; Roberts, B. K., & Wrathmell, S., (2000) An Atlas of Rural Settlement in England London, English Heritage

7

50

Figure 7: The Principal Soil Types and Landscape Regions of East Anglia 8 The predominant forms of land use and tenure also had a significant impact on the way an elite landscape could be developed. Whether land was held by freeholders who had the right to buy sell or exchange their holdings, or by unfree tenants who held their land at the will of the lord or by copyhold could greatly affect the ability to create large areas of managed demesne around a residence. Extensive open fields where the pieces were occupied by large numbers of freeholders could prove difficult to acquire, whereas the acquisition of a tenement that consisted of a block of enclosed fields around a homestead might be more straightforward. A large expanse of common pasture near to an elite residence would have increased the levels of interaction between the inhabitants and the elite whilst an existing block of in-hand demesne around a new residence greatly eased the process of creating exclusive spaces.

The nature of settlement in East Anglia is of considerable relevance to the research presented in this thesis. In addition to the work of Roberts and Wrathmell several other historical and archaeological studies have been taken into consideration. A considerable body of research into settlement desertion and contraction in East Anglia exists, several studies having been published as East Anglian Archaeology reports.9 These indicate that

8 _{Soil types after Williamson (2006) England’s Landscape: Volume 2 East Anglia p 2; Landscape regions}

after Wade-Martins, S., and Williamson T., (1999) Roots of Change. The Agricultural History Review, Supplement Series 2, p. X.

9 _{For Example - Davison, A., (1988) Six Deserted Villages in Norfolk, East Anglian Archaeology Report}

No. 44. Norfolk Archaeology Unit, Norfolk Museums Service; Davison, A., (1990) The Evolution of Settlement in Three Parishes in South-East Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 49. Norfolk

Archaeology Unit, Norfolk Museums Service; Butler L., & Wade-Martins., P. (1989) The Deserted

Medieval Village of Thuxton; East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 49. Norfolk Archaeology Unit,

Norfolk Museums Service; Dymond, D., & Virgoe, R., (1986) ‘The Reduced Population and Wealth of Early fifteenth-century Suffolk’ Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology XXXVI, Part 2, pp.

51

in many parts of East Anglia there were a greater number of settlements than recorded in the nineteenth century sources. In addition, the density of dispersal appears to have been greater in the west of East Anglia than suggested in the Atlas of Rural Settlement.10 Another important factor to consider when looking at differences in settlement patterns across East Anglia is the phenomenon known as common-edge drift. From the eleventh century nucleated settlements around churches began to break up, with new homesteads being established around the edge of fens, heaths and greens.11 The movement continued throughout the medieval period, creating ribbons of settlement along the edge of commons, as in the example from West Lexham in Figure 10 (page below).East Anglia had more common-edge settlements than any other region of England, with a particular concentration towards the north. It has been argued that this may be the result of very high population levels in the medieval period, combined with a complex manorial structure and a greater than normal number of free tenures, which encouraged the early colonisation of extensive areas of waste.12

Whilst settlement patterns and land use influenced the development of elite landscapes so too did the presence of major commercial and administrative centres. The assizes brought large numbers of the gentry to Norwich and Bury St. Edmunds to dispense justice, and both were important markets and centres of ecclesiastical authority. Added to this were the networks of trade and production, spreading out from the ports of King’s Lynn, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Blakeney, and from the market towns to settlements across East Anglia along roads and waterways. These communication routes continued into the rest of England, to London and via the North Sea, to Europe and beyond. The hinterlands of major centres such as Bury St. Edmunds and Norwich provided locations for the residences of individuals whose rank or business interests required their presence at assizes or other gatherings. Those with sufficient resources could live further afield whilst also maintaining a town house, or in the case of the Dukes of Norfolk, a city palace.

73-100; Rogerson, A., (1997) Barton Bendish and Caldecote: Fieldwork in South-West Norfolk East

Anglian Archaeology Report No. 80. Norfolk Archaeology Unit, Norfolk Museums Service

10 _{Roberts, B. K., & Wrathmell, S., (2000) An Atlas of Rural Settlement in England London, English}

Heritage, pp. 20 & 22.

11 _{Williamson, T., (1993) The Origins of Norfolk, Manchester University Press, pp. 167-8} 12

52 Figure 8: East Anglian Roads and Ports. Routes described by John Ogilby in 1675 and roads recorded in 1748 as ‘Direct’ routes. 13 Significant ports in late-medieval and early-modern East Anglia.14

The routes shown above were recorded in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries so can only give an indication of possible medieval and sixteenth-century roads, or of the myriad of minor roads and paths that allowed people to move around East Anglia. However, the principal routes are likely to have been in existence in some form and would have allowed the elite to travel between residences and places of business both within and out with East Anglia. The routes taking travellers towards London, through Hertfordshire and Essex, were of particular significance for courtiers and officers of state, who made frequent journeys between East Anglia and the capital. These roads also allowed livestock, agricultural produce and other merchandise to be taken to London. Coastal ports and navigable waterways were conduits for goods and people, allowing trade with, and transport to and from other regions of Britain and Europe.

13

Britannia depicta or, Ogilby improved by Emanuel Bowen. Facsimile Edition 1970 Newcastle upon Tyne, Graham, plates 43; 46; 52; 74 & 76. Thomas Kitchin, 1748 ‘Norfolk’ in The London Magazine

14 _{Bailey, M., (2007) Medieval Suffolk, Woodbridge, Boydell; Rutledge, E., (2005) “Medieval and Later}

ports, trade and fishing up to 1600” in An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Third Edition. Edited by Trevor Ashwin and Alan Davison. Chichester, Phillimore.

53