Agricultural History Review, Volume 55 Part 2 (2007), p. 310

The possible emergence between about 800 and 1200 of nucleated settlement and common-field systems continues to present problems to landscape historians and archaeologists. The form and chronology of the introduction of nucleated settlement and common fields across central southern England in the later Saxon and early medieval centuries remain contested, as does the connection between settlement nucleation and common fields, and the restriction of such landscapes to ‘champion’ England.

The book reviewed here focuses on twelve parishes within the medieval royal forest of Whittlewood, lying across the borders of Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, an area of wood and wood-pasture relatively marginal and atypical given its location in the heart of ‘champion’ England. It aims to explore the problems outlined above in the belief that ‘many English landscapes and settlements followed similar paths of development, so … the interpretation [of this research has] significance beyond the boundaries of Whittlewood’ (p.xvii).

This is an engaging and readable book which provides a consistent and coherent narrative, describing the development of a localized landscape from the prehistoric into the early modern periods. As the landscape history of a diverse and under-researched region, it is first class. There is, however, some ambiguity concerning the link between the narrow geographic focus of the book and the wider questions it hopes to address. That difficulty lies squarely in the applicability of its results to landscapes of nucleated settlement and large open arable fields, since Whittlewood is not representative of ‘champion’ England.

Whittlewood appears to have been a lightly-populated area from the post-Roman centuries onwards, characterized by large areas of woodland and grassland. It was peripheral to the more arable regions in which estate centres were located, and with which its landscape contrasts. Its pastoral character appears, moreover, to have been deliberately protected and preserved throughout the late Saxon and early medieval periods, so that not only were settlement planning and common-field creation delayed until much later than elsewhere, but significant areas of wood and wood-pasture survived into the medieval landscape. Such differences in landscape character and in the contexts of landscape change must suggest doubts about the general applicability of Whittlewood to questions about the chronology and origins of the form and distribution of nucleated settlement and common fields. It seems unlikely that the political, economic and cultural drivers in predominantly arable areas in the eighth and ninth centuries were identical to those in a region of mixed husbandry two centuries later.

On the other hand, many of the more generalized conclusions drawn by the authors resonate with those of current research in areas more typical of ‘champion’ England. Settlement nucleation throughout the Anglo- Saxon period does appear to be a more hesitant, staged and complex process than hitherto supposed. Settlement planning does appear to be a late phase of that process. Common fields do appear to result from slow expansion from an arable core. And, perhaps most importantly, ‘What cannot be substantiated anywhere but in a few special cases … is a link between nucleation and the abandonment of outlying farmsteads, the freeing up of the countryside, and the laying-out of the open fields’ (p.104). Such general conclusions, while important, now need more refinement.

It seems that the Whittlewood Project, far from being complete, has only just begun. The important distinction between Whittlewood and champion landscapes needs to be grasped firmly and set at the centre of research. That research needs to test rather than state the belief that processes of settlement nucleation and common field creation followed roughly the same trajectories across the central province regardless of agricultural economy or of period, by comparing Whittlewood with straightforwardly champion parishes. This might allow the construction of detailed chronologies and processes that flesh out and make more meaningful the more general conclusions now current.

This fascinating and detailed study of the landscape development of twelve parishes in central England has done what good research should: illuminate problems as well as conclusions and point the way to further work. It will provide a rich resource for many years to come.