>> Friends of mine had a mixed farm south of Hereford, with about 30 cattle and 100 sheep. >>They used to count them every night > I'd love to know their method of counting them. Were they able to stand on > higher ground and count them as they were comparatively stationery or did > they drive them, one by one, through a narrow gate? Were these animals > grazed on enclosed fields or on moorland? > Audrey > When I stayed with them, my friends used to walk amongst them and separate the counted from the uncounted - as far as I recall. It was a 60-acre farm on a hillside, with paddocks. With practice, one could become quite accurate, I expect. I would think this way of counting would be "traditional", and farmers in all ages would have done it. Driving animals through gates would require driving them back through at the end, to get them back in the right paddock! Practice can make perfect. My Dad grazed sheep in Australia, and when it was time to sell some (300 or so at a time) we boys would persuade them down a "race" (narrow corridor) at the sorting yards while Dad stood at the other end. He swung a wooden gate with one hand to separate those being sold and those not, and counted with the other. All the men did this, and they were accurate almost always. After driving the sheep to the transport-place, they were counted onto the train just to double-check. Gordon

> <<When it came to horses around our way in the 17th century, it seems that these were more like the Range Rover or the Ferrari of their times. Only the more wealthy had them and particularly those for riding were highly valued and mostly mares.>> > > Well, that's true as far as riding horses goes, but in fact peasant-owned draught horses, used for ploughing, harrowing, carting etc, were common in most medieval villages, and very common by the early modern period. In the early medieval period oxen were the most common draught animals in most parts of England, but they were gradually replaced by horses, a process that was largely completed in most parts of the country by the 17th century (and much earlier in some parts - the Chilterns, for example, were using all-horse teams as early as the 14th and 15th centuries. > I am just reading about the latter years of the Civil War (1645+), when both parties regularly replaced horses killed in combat, by scouring the neighbourhoods they marched through. For work-horses, that would be - hardly cavalry steeds, I assume. How that practice must have added to the workloads of the farmers! Did they go back to oxen, for the duration? Well, they must have done, unless they pulled the ploughs themselves. Gordon Barlow

>I came across the word "ing" the other day, claimed to be the word for a >meadow in East Anglia It is normally reckoned to be a word either for household or group, or small settlement, where said household chose to live. So Haddenham - Hadd/a/s ing's piece of real estate in a larger settlement. Bocking - Bocc/a/'s settlement; Dinton aka Donington or Danington - the Danish chap's settlement. I have not come across it as just a single field - only in relation to a person and his lot. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

> Surprisingly Brandon (Suffolk) seems to have had 10 fields and quite a lot > of waste. They operated an infield/outfield system - whether this was Danish > influence or as a result of the majority of the manor having been in the hands > of the monks at Ely for several centuries I do not know. I have been told > that East Anglia seems to have had different field systems from the Midlands. > Leigh Driver > I came across the word "ing" the other day, claimed to be the word for a meadow in East Anglia as late as the 17th Century. Does anybody know how common that word was, in England, and for what period of time? Is it a Danish word, or Dutch, or what? Gordon Barlow

> ... you didn't spend time counting each > sheep or hen but rather made a very rough estimate. Exact numbers would have > been saved for taking them to market. > Audrey > Not always, I think, Audrey. Friends of mine had a mixed farm south of Hereford, with about 30 cattle and 100 sheep. They used to count them every night, just to make sure none had strayed or gotten bogged in a ditch. Every once in a while - sure enough - one or more did get bogged, and on one occasion a cow was found to have died giving birth in a ditch. The counting was a chore, but they reckoned it was worth while. Gordon

I think that Matt gave some good answers on the various ways of controlling the beasts, particularly the little ones that are always the worst for adventuring. Having seen items for hurdles in inventories, I tend to agree about this solution in temporary penning in various parts as the hurdles could be removed and taken to wherever the cattle needed to graze next. Sheep may have been more difficult as they can jump quite high. I don't know if it made the national news a few years ago but those putting fences along the M62 to keep sheep off the road held sheep-jumping trials to see how high the fences needed to be. The result was some fairly high fences. Cows and calves tend to barge their way through. When it came to horses around our way in the 17th century, it seems that these were more like the Range Rover or the Ferrari of their times. Only the more wealthy had them and particularly those for riding were highly valued and mostly mares. I still have a vision of 'Little Boy Blue' suddenly being shook awake, blowing his horn and all the villagers come running with sticks and other implements to round up those awkward sheep and cows. At just what stage in the development of fields this may have happened or where abouts in the countryside, I haven't quite yet decided. Going from field names in the manor of Glossop in the 17th century it would seem to me that there had been some sort of open field system operating on that manor but the smaller manors on its boundaries don't seem to show similar signs. Unfortunately, neither is there similar information in the form of a very convenient survey made in the 1660s for Glossop. More research is about to be undertaken on these parts so perhaps we'll find something else that will contribute. Regarding the dimensions of strips - I have been told that these varied and the larger ones are the most recent - some as late as the 19th century. The large ones, however, were more a method draining the land. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Common vs Open > In message <BAY14-DAV17dWfFMVpH00012150@hotmail.com>, David Pott > <davpott@hotmail.com> writes > >Hello Audrey > > > >> However, I would like to know if there is evidence of the meadows being > >> enclosed in some way to stop cattle from getting on to the part of land > >that > >> was growing winter fodder > > > >There were very few if any herds of cattle, nor with the exception of sheep, > >any livestock farming as such until after the enclosures. > This is patently wrong, if you study inventories taken in summer, which > give detailed lists of all possessions including livestock. Farmers > could own numerous animals, (not in the American sense of huge wandering > herds, but sizeable numbers), and they certainly owned horses, oxen and > cows, as well as expendable bullocks. It is true that, while stores were > a permanent feature, many of them were killed and salted down for > winter, because of lack of enough fodder, which was one of the reasons > for applying for enclosures. > > What few animals > >that were kept would have been grazed on their owners land > But the whole point of this enquriy is that it refers to areas with the > openfield system, when the various famers did not normally HAVE grazing > land which was enclosed but instead the right to graze on common > pasture. The questions concerned how the little devils were kept off the > arable and the hay fields. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

In message <BAY14-DAV17dWfFMVpH00012150@hotmail.com>, David Pott <davpott@hotmail.com> writes >Hello Audrey > >> However, I would like to know if there is evidence of the meadows being >> enclosed in some way to stop cattle from getting on to the part of land >that >> was growing winter fodder > >There were very few if any herds of cattle, nor with the exception of sheep, >any livestock farming as such until after the enclosures. This is patently wrong, if you study inventories taken in summer, which give detailed lists of all possessions including livestock. Farmers could own numerous animals, (not in the American sense of huge wandering herds, but sizeable numbers), and they certainly owned horses, oxen and cows, as well as expendable bullocks. It is true that, while stores were a permanent feature, many of them were killed and salted down for winter, because of lack of enough fodder, which was one of the reasons for applying for enclosures. > What few animals >that were kept would have been grazed on their owners land But the whole point of this enquriy is that it refers to areas with the openfield system, when the various famers did not normally HAVE grazing land which was enclosed but instead the right to graze on common pasture. The questions concerned how the little devils were kept off the arable and the hay fields. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Hi David and Eve et al I think it must have varied tremendously according to quite small localities. Around where I live on the edge of the High Peak, there are roads which give clues as to how some of the animals were managed, e.g. Lower Fold which is part of the A626. Regarding the keeping of several animals, I agree that most kept comparatively few in the 17th century for instance but there was a farmer that was clearly cattle farming to an extent. I forget just how many animals were in his possession but he did seem to be breeding them, even though he may have had to take the cows some distance to find the bull. The enclosure act wasn't obtained until near the end of the next century so he must have found a way of keeping his animals close to home. The act and the map that accompanied it gave plenty of detail on the waste and its enclosure but told more or less nothing about the way the rest of the land was managed, lower down. As not only was the river diverted at the end of the 18th century but a fair number of cotton mills were built with the necessary reservoirs to go with them so it's rather hard to assess just how the fields may have been in the smaller manors of our chapelry. In the Peak itself there are a number of signs of the old strips and the land around Taddington is ideal for showing how the three field system was managed there. It is, however, hard to generalise. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Pott" <davpott@hotmail.com> To: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net>; <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Common vs Open > Hello Audrey > > > However, I would like to know if there is evidence of the meadows being > > enclosed in some way to stop cattle from getting on to the part of land > that > > was growing winter fodder > > There were very few if any herds of cattle, nor with the exception of sheep, > any livestock farming as such until after the enclosures. What few animals > that were kept would have been grazed on their owners land or upon the > common. That isn't to say the odd one didn't find its way to somewhere it > shouldn't be. > > David Pott > > KFHS 8776 > The Beaver Inn, Ashford, Kent. > > The Elmsted site http://members.lycos.co.uk/elmsted/index.html >

Hello Audrey > However, I would like to know if there is evidence of the meadows being > enclosed in some way to stop cattle from getting on to the part of land that > was growing winter fodder There were very few if any herds of cattle, nor with the exception of sheep, any livestock farming as such until after the enclosures. What few animals that were kept would have been grazed on their owners land or upon the common. That isn't to say the odd one didn't find its way to somewhere it shouldn't be. David Pott KFHS 8776 The Beaver Inn, Ashford, Kent. The Elmsted site http://members.lycos.co.uk/elmsted/index.html

In message <004501c47c6c$4a6d3640$10cdfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Thank you Eve. > >However, I would like to know if there is evidence of the meadows being >enclosed in some way to stop cattle from getting on to the part of land that >was growing winter fodder, i.e. hay. If there was no enclosure at all, what >was to stop them walking onto the grass and grazing it, just as they would >on the common grazing land. It's an interesting question - I don't recall seeing any refernce tpo permanent enclosure , though moveable wattle fencing might be used. And heavy animals could be tethered or hobbled - there are some references to an animal let loose 'without a log' causing havoc. Locally, the hay meadows were a fair old walk from the rough pasture, and it would take a determined stray with a road map to get there. The herd boys were armed with goads and switches which could discourage most wanderers. In the case of sheep, having a word in the ear of the bell-wether may work or yelling cumbyer! They can't reverse, of course, which means the route out will have to be in a wide circle. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

NIcely detailed description. I would recommend anyone passing along the A1 to divert to visit Laxton, Nottinghamshire: the last surviving open-field strip-farming village left in England. (You can watch an explanatory film and buy a nice mug to commemorate your visit in the small information centre opposite the decent village pub.) SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 06 August 2004 13:02 Subject: RE: [OEL] Common vs Open > >Can anyone clear up for me the distinction between a 'common arable > >field' and 'an open arable field'? Were both divided into strips? It's >in connection with 17th and 18th century enclosure. > > > > There is no difference, Leigh. They both meant large unenclosed fields divided into many long, narrow strips (bundles of strips running parallel to each other being often grouped into furlongs). Each farmer would have a number of strips scattered all through the various furlongs and fields. The strips would have originally been about a pole wide (ie about 16.5 or 18 feet wide) and a furlong long, thus about a quarter of an acre in area, but over the centuries many of them would have been combined with adjacent strips to make wider strips of half an acre or an acre or even more. > > In the Midland zone of England (a broad belt which actually stretched from Northumberland south and then southwestwards across the Midlands to Dorset) all the arable land of a village would typically be divided into just two or three such open fields. In other regions open fields would also be found but they would usually be smaller and not comprise the entire arable land in the village, some of which would be divided into the small hedged/walled fields we now find everywhere. > > Open/common fields were associated with a communal form of farming, in which everyone owning strips in the same furlong, or even in the same field, had to plant the same crop, and when there was no crop growing everyone had the right to graze their livestock over the entire field. Every year a different part of the parish's arable land, usually a complete open/common field, would be left fallow (ie nothing would be planted) to give the soil a chance to recover its fertility and to provide year-round grazing. > > They were called open fields because there were no hedges or walls or fences between the strips, and were also called common fields because everyone had the right of common pasture over everyone else's strips. > > Back in the 1960s some historians tried to see a distinction between common fields, which (they believed) were subject to the system of common farming and fallowing and pasturing I have just described, and open fields, which (they believed) were just areas of unfenced strip fields which were not farmed in common and in which each farmer could plant what he wanted, when he wanted, and over which no one else had pasture rights. This latter system has been shown to have been extremely rare, if it ever existed anywhere, and it is now generally accepted that the phrases 'open field' and 'common field' were entirely interchangeable. > > Matt Tompkins > Blaston, Leics > > ______________________________

<<However, I would like to know if there is evidence of the meadows being enclosed in some way to stop cattle from getting on to the part of land that was growing winter fodder, i.e. hay. <snip> One Little Boy Blue alone would have been useless. Perhaps the horn was his early warning system to call out the whole village.>> You're quite right, Audrey, keeping livestock out of meadows (and fields of growing crops) was a constant problem, as is attested to by the repeated by-laws trying to deal with the problem, and prosecutions for breach of the by-laws, found in countless manor and parish records. The open field system lasted something like a thousand years, and operated across many parts of England, so I expect several different ways of keeping livestock out of meadows were used at different times and in different places. Some that I know were in use in the Midlands at the end of the middle ages were: 1. putting up a temporary fence of hurdles. This might be to keep livestock out of places where they were not supposed to be (like a meadow) or to confine them within a certain area (for example, sheep were often folded each night on a different fenced-in area of the fallow field to ensure that their valuable dung fertilised the land). 2. tethering them - obviously this only applied to small numbers of beasts - entire flocks or herds couldn't all be tethered 3. having herdsmen to keep them where they were supposed to be. Some manors/parishes had full-time adult herdsmen employed by the whole manor collectively, and all the livestock pastured on the common pastures, meadows and fields had to be placed under his control. At other times each individual was responsible for controlling his own animals, and one can well imagine that the task would often have been given to children. And yes, I do think that is exactly what the nursery rhyme Little Boy Blue is describing. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

<<I have a transcript of the burial record of Constantia FUSDALE in Alrewas, Staffordshire, in 1612, and appended to her name is the phrase 'quedam serva.'. This has been translated as 'a certain servant or protector'. Is there any reason why this phrasing was used, rather than just 'a servant'? Or is it that the translation is incorrect?>> At this date 'serva' would most likely have meant servant (in the sense of employee of any sort - not necessarily a house-servant). Medieval and early modern sources often describe a person or thing as 'quidam' (fem. quedam) in circumstances in which we would nowadays regard the word as superfluous to the sentence. It is best translated as 'certain', but often if you just leave it out you will get the sense of the sentence perfectly. Alternatively, it may be that the word was 'quondam', with the 'n' omitted and replaced by a short horizontal stroke above the word as a contraction mark (o and e were sometimes written very similarly) - which means 'formerly', so she would have been a former servant. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

Thank you Eve. However, I would like to know if there is evidence of the meadows being enclosed in some way to stop cattle from getting on to the part of land that was growing winter fodder, i.e. hay. If there was no enclosure at all, what was to stop them walking onto the grass and grazing it, just as they would on the common grazing land. You could send a boy or two to keep a handful of animals in the right place but even then it would not be an easy task without some form of fencing, hedges and/or ditches. If you have ever tried to herd sheep and take them to another field without using dogs, then you will know how hard it is. I remember trying to do this with three adults and four or five children. It was very nearly impossible and this was in enclosed fields, albeit fairly large ones. One Little Boy Blue alone would have been useless. Perhaps the horn was his early warning system to call out the whole village. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> Cc: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Common vs Open > > >tithes generally consisted of sheaves of corn and and hay, presumably meadow > >land was managed in some way. An open unenclosed field would not have been > >practical. > Locally, the lot system was operated. When the meadow was ready for > cutting, little lads were handed markers, and ran through the field > flattening a small trackway. The tenant then mowed exclusively between > his marker and the next man's/ Open to corruption I would say, if you > bribed your marker-lad to run at an angle or moved over a foot or two at > the start. Still, a clout round the ear with a scythe or sharpening > stone would deal with that. > > Do you think the nursery rhyme of "Little Boy Blue" would have > >been making reference to ways of dealing with the problem of keeping cattle > >in the "right" places in this system? > Lads did have to monitor the cattle feeding on their commons and waste > grazing was generally well away from the hay meadows. There was trouble > if you cattle got into any field where they were not supposed to be - > but if they had meanwhile had a good tuck in, could be worth it. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >

I have been taught that there are three numbers in the Bible which are representative rather than precise. They are 3, 7 and 40. 3 is a very short time, 7 a middling period and 40 a long time. Perhaps it was a way of flagging the importance of the act and its description rather than giving accurate detailed measurements, i.e. this event is extremely/fairly/rather important and not "this took x amount of days, months, years or was such a height, depth, width". As Eve said, you didn't spend time counting each sheep or hen but rather made a very rough estimate. Exact numbers would have been saved for taking them to market. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: <GaryIvoDe@aol.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:03 PM Subject: [OEL] FORTY > 'forty foot broad, and forescore ells long' - it makes one wonder whether > Elizabethans used 'forty' and 'fourscore', not as precise measurements but > rather as a general but imprecise indication of large size or number. > ======================== > The Bible reflects the use of "forty" in much the same way. Forty days and > forty > nights of rain and wasn't it forty years of wandering in the desert? An > imprecise > length of time but a long time. > > Gary > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

I'm always reluctant to horn in on your erudite and witty conversations (they are delightful), but the references to four/forty/etc. remind me of the old phrase in my part of the world: "forty-eleven." Of course in Hoosier dialect it's "fordyleven" and means no more than much or many. ~~Dixie in Indianapolis

Thanks so much to all of you who have replied to my request for clarification on this matter - I'm a lot less confused now! Also the follow-up discussion has been most illuminating. Surprisingly Brandon (Suffolk) seems to have had 10 fields and quite a lot of waste. They operated an infield/outfield system - whether this was Danish influence or as a result of the majority of the manor having been in the hands of the monks at Ely for several centuries I do not know. I have been told that East Anglia seems to have had different field systems from the Midlands. A fascinating subject. Thanks again Kind regards Leigh Driver

>tithes generally consisted of sheaves of corn and and hay, presumably meadow >land was managed in some way. An open unenclosed field would not have been >practical. Locally, the lot system was operated. When the meadow was ready for cutting, little lads were handed markers, and ran through the field flattening a small trackway. The tenant then mowed exclusively between his marker and the next man's/ Open to corruption I would say, if you bribed your marker-lad to run at an angle or moved over a foot or two at the start. Still, a clout round the ear with a scythe or sharpening stone would deal with that. > Do you think the nursery rhyme of "Little Boy Blue" would have >been making reference to ways of dealing with the problem of keeping cattle >in the "right" places in this system? Lads did have to monitor the cattle feeding on their commons and waste grazing was generally well away from the hay meadows. There was trouble if you cattle got into any field where they were not supposed to be - but if they had meanwhile had a good tuck in, could be worth it. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

> I have received the following from Halbert's, some from Bath, Ohio and > others in Utah: > They are primarily phone listings. Some are birth and death records. > All in all, I consider it garbage even tho' some of my ancestors are > mentioned. All the following links deal with Myths, Hoaxes and Scams designed to part the unsuspecting genealogists from their time, money and yes, even your genealogical data. http://www.cyndislist.com/myths.htm#Other http://www.abcgenealogy.com/Myths_-_Hoaxes_-_Scams/ http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com/ Halbert's and companies of that ilk have been around for years. What keeps them going? The monies of the uninformed for the most part. http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com/shame/halberts.htm The above link discusses Halbert's. Here's the sites main link Check out the Genealogy Hall of Shame link in the right hand menu . Check it out and pass it on. http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com/ Caveat emptor....the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality before buying....(or the shorter version)..... buyer beware... When it comes to purchasing genealogical goods, services, and etc. CHECK IT OUT FIRST. Search out information on the company and its products. Use all the means at your disposal. On the Internet use search engines (Google, Yahoo, Alta Vista, to name a few), newsletters and etc. to find out all you can before ordering. Deal with reputable companies. Make sure you know what your getting and what your paying for it. For the most part one can rarely buy a book of your families history. Unless one of your relatives has written one for you. Otherwise your research and the quality of information you use is all you have in recording a history of your family. Happy Hunting - Denne meldingen er sjekket for virus av Norton Anti-virus - This message was checked for virus by Norton Anti-virus

In message <001001c47bbb$a84a9f20$4fb32d50@john>, John <overholt@tiscali.co.uk> writes >For 25 years or so there has been an American outfit, usually referred to >as Halberts (though they operate in numerous guises), who have numerous >convictions for postal fraud as a result of selling somewhat spurious >publications. >Their supposed family histories generally seem to be called "The World Book of - >--- (a surname)". >About 10 years ago this firm of con artists bought Burke's Peerage and they >were running the same scan in the the UK. > > Now a new name has arrived on the scene, at least in the UK, >calling themselves William Pince Publishers based in Southall >and Pince calls himself a genealogist and Chairman >of S.G.N.Genealogical Foundation. His wildly over-priced book is called >"The -----Family Chronicle" Ues, I huave seen a refernce to this - very suspicious type of offer, aimed at collecting money from the gullible. > >The offer letter is uncannily similar to Halbert's modus operandi and my purpose >in writing is to warn the unsuspecting not to touch this rubbish with a barge >pole! -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society