As the first proper post on this blog it seems appropriate to begin with that erstwhile starting point of local histories – Domesday Book. The modern parish of Bayton, perched on the Worcestershire side of the hundredal boundary between Stottesdon (Salop.) and Doddingtree (Worcs.), contains two manors recorded in the 1086 Domesday survey – Bayton to the west of the parish and Carton to the east (Fig 1). The relevant entries can be consulted via the Open Domesday here and here – or, for readers who prefer a hard copy, as entries 15,6 and 19,10 in the Phillimore Domesday. The Domesday entries for Bayton offer a detailed glimpse into life during the transition from the late Anglo-Saxon to the Norman periods, and, for our purposes, provide a crucial starting point for the study of the parish in the Middle Ages.
Out with the old, in with the new – Lordship in Norman Bayton
The impact of the Norman Conquest is reflected in the Domesday Book by the changing names of pre- and post-conquest landholders. Prior to 1066 the majority of landlords in England had been English, a situation almost wholly reversed by 1086 when only 8% of landowners had English names – the result of what Dyer aptly describes as ‘the largest transfer of property ever seen in English history’. This ‘classic’ Domesday pattern of shifting landlords is clearly visible at the manor of Bayton. Formerly two pre-conquest manors held by Edric and Leofwin, the merged 1086 Bayton manor was held by Ralph de Tosny, a significant Norman landowner with 110 post-conquest holdings across the country. Almost 40% of de Tosny’s Domesday estates were located in Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and almost 11% in the Doddingtree hundred, in which he was the largest single landholder – evidently a powerbase of considerable local importance.
While the manor at Bayton followed the classic transition from English to Norman hands, that at Carton did not – albeit for quite unusual reasons. Before the conquest the manor at Carton had been a holding of Richard Scrope, a Norman who was granted land in Herefordshire by Edward the Confessor and by 1066 had amassed some 8 manors in a band across Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire; his holding at Richard’s Castle (Herefs.) contains one of the few likely pre-conquest castles in England and Wales. This pre-conquest Norman manor by definition could not have been transferred from English hands in the aftermath of the conquest, and instead descended to Scrope’s son, Osbern, himself a Norman landowner of some significance; before 1066 he held 24 manors, expanding to 111 in 1086.
In any case, the demonstrable absence of post-conquest English lords at Bayton and Carton seems to have extended to lesser landholders too. Both estates were held by sub-tenants – at Bayton, Rainer, and at Carton, Odo. While little is known of these individuals their names are tellingly derived from Old Germanic rather than Old English, suggesting that both were most likely Normans – or at least Frenchmen – themselves.
Populating Norman Bayton: Demographics and social structure
So much for the lords – what about the peasants? The entries for Bayton and Carton record some 20 and 12 households respectively, settlements of medium to small size by national standards. What is true nationally is here also true in local terms; when the 40 Doddingtree estates are ranked by numbers of households, the Bayton estate comes in 14th place and Carton in 25th.
The composition of these households sheds considerable light onto the complex social structures existing in Norman England. Four non-lordly household groups are present at both manors – villagers, smallholders, slaves and riders; conversely, other contemporary groups found in Doddingtree hundred – the freeholders, cottagers and certain specialists – are absent.
The relative proportions of household types in Bayton and Carton differ noticeably from the notional average for Doddingtree manors, presumably reflecting basic differences in the organisation of estates; that at Carton was evidently dependent on slave labour, while that at Bayton reliant on smallholders (Fig 2).
If certain assumptions are made about the compositions of Domesday households it is possible to turn these figures into population estimates. The most straightforward method is to apply a simple multiplier to household numbers, although this relies on several unspoken assumptions about the definitions of households, their average sizes, and omissions from the survey. A more sophisticated method proposed by Goose and Hinde takes into account these factors and proposes both low and high estimates; using this approach, we can estimate populations of between 77-125 at Bayton and 24-75 at Carton. Evidently these estimates fluctuate quite substantially, but provide a useful approximation of the likely limits between which real population sizes probably fell.
Agriculture and economy in Norman Bayton
Behind these communities lay a relatively sophisticated agricultural economy, on which Domesday sheds much light.
Sustaining the living standards of the lord and his household was the demesne land, the scale of which can be inferred from the number of ploughs in the lord’s possession. At Bayton some three ploughs were in demesne, while at Carton two ploughs were in demense; pulled by teams of eight oxen apiece, such ploughs were each capable of cultivating up to 100 acres per year, giving a potential yearly demesne acreage of 300 acres in Bayton and 200 acres in Carton. The absolute extent of manorial demense might in fact be larger – or indeed, smaller – than these figures suggest, as there is no indication in the relevant entries as to whether there were additional holdings held in fallow each year, or whether tenant ploughs were also employed to work the lord’s fields. If these ploughs were used to maximum capacity, some 24 oxen would be required to farm the demense at Bayton and 16 for that of Carton. Each plough would need to be manned by two people; at Carton this task would have been conducted by slaves, while at Bayton it would presumably have been one of the obligations of the villagers and smallholders.
Records of tenant ploughs can similarly be used to infer the nature and scale of peasant holdings. The 18 peasant households of Bayton held some 12 tenant ploughs, the potential equivalent of 1200 acres of farmland – as much as four times the size of the lord’s demesne. These ploughs required some 96 oxen to pull them; each peasant household might have held 4-5 oxen, joining together when needed to form complete ploughteams. Evidently the two-person teams required to use the ploughs most efficiently could not have been formed if only operated by (presumably male) heads of households, suggesting that women or younger family members played a crucial role in peasant farming. At Carton the four peasant households shared 1 ½ ploughs, the equivalent of 150 acres of farmland; however, Domesday notes that three extra ploughs were possible, potentially suggesting that peasant fields were not exploited to their full potential. Quite what crops were sown on the fields is unclear, although wheat, rye, corn and oats are likely candidates.
Crops needed to be ground into flour, buildings and equipment built and repaired and spiritual needs fulfilled; the evidence for these services – or the lack thereof – can be found in the manorial appurtenances listed in the Domesday entries. The manor at Bayton possessed a mill, valued at 5s, which would have processed flour for both lord and peasant – albeit for a fee. The site of this mill is unknown, but would presumably have been along one of the tributaries of the River Rea. The manor at Carton included woodland, 0.5 leagues long and 3 furlongs wide, which might have supplied timber for building and grazing land for pigs. Curiously, no woodland is recorded at Bayton, despite abundant toponymic evidence for woodland in the parish; this might suggest that the Domesday manor did not extend as far north or south as the modern parish, but alternatively this woodland might simply have been omitted from the survey records. The services of smiths and priests would have been required to cater for the practical and spiritual needs of the population – neither are recorded at Bayton or Carton, but services may have been enlisted from the smiths and priests of neighbouring Sodington and Alton.
The records of Domesday therefore suggest two small-to-medium sized manors at Bayton and Carton, organised around mostly self-sufficient agriculture but also enmeshed in a wider local economy. This is also suggested by the tax assessments levied on the manors, which for Bayton were levied on 3.5 hides – a medium-sized sum – and 1.25–1.3 hides at Carton – a small sum.
The manorial valuations tell a similar story, totalling £4 for Bayton and 5s for Carton; these are presumably the annual payments rendered to the lord of the manor, although whether they represent peasant rents, total manorial income or net manorial output is unclear. Both manors list at least two values – one value pre-1066, another in 1086, and, in the case of Bayton, another c.1070 – revealing that the differences in manorial size and wealth had been well established by the time of the Domesday survey. They also demonstrate that quite substantial changes in value had taken place in both estates during the post-conquest period. At Bayton the estate value had halved by c.1070, yet expanded to 133.3% of its pre-conquest value by 1086; the manor at Carton was worth only half its pre-conquest value in 1086.
The causes of these changed values are uncertain. The traditional argument that declining values should be associated with the destruction of English estates by Norman knights is unconvincing; Carton, a demonstrably pre-conquest Norman manor, had undergone a marked contraction in value by the time of the Domesday survey, while the early contraction at Bayton had been totally reversed in the same period, as it had been in the neighbouring pre-conquest English manors of Alton and Mamble. Presumably such changes in value were a product of the interplay of several factors – including among others changes in soil conditions, population, the extent of farmed ploughland and structural changes in manorial organisation. Bayton might offer an example of the latter, being the product of two merged pre-conquest manors; the consolidation of both estates might feasibly have been more efficient than when isolated, albeit after a brief period of economic dislocation. In any case, it is impossible to be absolutely certain; the value of the Domesday record must be that it allows us to ask the question at all.
 Dyer 2002, p 80.
 Stenton 1989, p 562; Remfry 1997
 On the distinction see Lewis 1995
 Sproat 2013
 Goose and Hinde 2007
 Dyer 2002, p 92
 Moore 2000, p 21
 The topic of a future post!
Dyer, C. 2002. Making a living in the Middle Ages. New Haven: Yale University Press
Lewis, C. 1995. The French in England before the Norman Conquest. In C Harper-Bill, ed. Anglo-Norman Studies: XVII Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1994. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. pp 123-144.
Moore, J. 2000. From Anglo-Saxon to Anglo-Norman: North Gloucestershire in Domesday Book. Deerhurst Lecture 1998. Deerhurst: The Friends of Deerhurst Church.
Remfry, P. 1997. Richard’s Castle, 1048 to 1219. Worcester: SCS Publishing.
Stenton, F. 1989. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.