Open-Field System and Nuclear Villages
My last several blog posts have dealt with enclosure, so I wanted to continue my research into English land policy. This week, I investigated beyond the Tudor dynasty and hope to synthesize information about medieval land planning. My research leads me to believe that the Anglo-Saxon style of nucleated villages and common pastures established the circumstances of later enclosure movements.
The transfer of property from the Romans to the Anglo-Saxons allowed the land to recover during the Middle Ages. In order to provide for themselves overseas, Romans who lived in Britain severely exhausted the land for natural resources. The Anglo-Saxons allowed for these tracts of land to revert back to pasture or woodland to support some of their economic activities. The Anglo-Saxons maintained forestry in order to attract wild game; thus, hunting rights could then be sold to wealthy patrons. The dedication of woodland meant that remaining arable fiefs needed to be reorganized to increase their agricultural yields, which helps to explain why the “increasing self-sufficiency of the individual manor required under the feudal system may have supplied much of the impetus necessary for such [land] reorganization to take place” (Hooke et al., “The Evolution of the English Village,” p. 203). With more land reserved for forestry, feudal laborers had to find a way to cultivate the most crops out of their land.
The solution involved reorganizing fief land plans to maximize the amount of farmland without threatening the services and facilities needed by workers. This led to the clumping of villages and development of the “open-field” system. This system of agriculture allotted farmers private tracts of land in three to four common fields between sowing and harvest. After initial harvest, the tracts would revert to common use until plowing in early spring. By providing common labor opportunities to the peasantry, the open-field system “constituted a superior solution to the alternative of private ownership and individual decision making” (Dahlman, “The Open Field System and Beyond,” p.384). Common land gave peasants an incentive to work towards an agricultural surplus and adopt the latest innovations in farming.
The open-field system also contributed to the emergence of the “nuclear village” in rural planning. During the time of the Anglo-Saxons, most villages began as clusters of small farming units around a church of lord’s manor. Because the population density was the highest in these areas, the feudal lord or parish would establish facilities to serve the commoners and generate extra income. Combined with the open-field system, village clumping produced a manorial land plan that became commonplace in the English countryside (https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/0377mc11.gif) If this looks familiar, it is because this plan continued to be replicated in the lowlands until enclosure movements began to privatize the fields.
Excellent work – I’m enjoying the examination of rural systems, and intrigued as to how this will connect.
You wrote, “This system of agriculture allotted farmers private tracts of land in three to four common fields between sowing and harvest. After initial harvest, the tracts would revert to common use until plowing in early spring. By providing common labor opportunities to the lower classes…”
I have a couple of questions. I had understood that these fields were divided into strips, both because of plowing difficulties (oxen don’t turn on a dime) and in an effort to fairly divide good and poor soil. If that’s true, I’m trying to figure out what use could be made of common land during the winter? Seems hard to benefit from strips.
Also, I wouldn’t use the term “lower class” here. Not that they weren’t rural lower class, but I think it’s more accurate to use a term like peasantry, since “lower class” will be used later by historians as a synonym for “working class”, both in England and France.
Got it! Upon second read, I agree that “peasantry” is the better word. I’ll make sure to go in and make the correct edits.
As for the seasonal common land, I am afraid I don’t actually have an answer. I used the Penguin Illustrated History of Britain and Ireland textbook for this blog post, and the section on “Medieval Landscapes” did not go into additional detail about that. I’m thinking that seasonal privatization might be a good blog post topic for the future, as it would contribute to the ongoing theme of land policy. I’ll have to dig around the databases to see what I can find; thanks for the suggestion!