0302B

Alfred and his successors built a number of fortifications against the Vikings, some of which were, or became, towns; hence the modern word 'borough', derived from Old English burh, 'a fortified, or defensible place'. As the West Saxon kings gradually conquered the Midlands and the north, they replaced any earlier administrative units with shires on the West Saxon model, each based upon, and named from a fortified borough (Worcestershire, Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire), which acted as the administrative centre of its region. 10th century law-codes restricted the practice of minting to towns, where it could be overseen by royal officials; for the same reason, all trade except for minor local barter had to take place in urban markets. The 10th century also saw a shift in the focus of English trade, to take advantage of the route running from Viking Dublin in the west to Scandinavia and thence via the Viking settlements in central Russia and the Ukraine to Byzantium and the Islamic Empire.
Towns were also important for ecclesiastical organisation. Some of the earliest English bishoprics were founded in places which had been Roman towns; Canterbury, Rochester, London and York are the obvious examples. Moreover churches, whether monastic or secular, could be considerable centres of population, for to the communities themselves (whether monks, priests or nuns) we must add the dependents who worked the church's land and provided the daily labour for the running of the community. In the non-urbanised areas of Wales arid Scotland, such ecclesiastical communities might fulfil some urban functions. In England some towns originated in ecclesiastical settlements. At Peterborough, for instance, a monastery existed as early as the 7th century, when it was known as Medeshamstede, 'the homestead in the meadow�. The continuous history of both church and town begins, however, with its re-foundation as a Benedictine abbey, allegedly in 966. The second abbot, Coenwulf (r. 992-1006), is said to have surrounded the monastery and its attendant dwellings with a wall, after which the place became known as Peterborough, 'the fortified place of [St] Peter'.
Though the pre-Conquest towns of England fulfilled true urban functions of manufacture and trade, they were not cut off, from the surrounding countryside. The burgesses (burhwaru) had their town fields, presumably given over to arable and market gardens, and some rural estates included urban property; the abbot of Westminster, for instance, had four houses in Colchester as part of his manor of Feering in Essex. This not only furnished a town house for the lord of the estate but also (and more importantly) provided access to an urban market. Most communities probably aimed for basic self-sufficiency; neighbouring settlements might share local resources like woodland (for. fuel and timber), pasture (for cattle arid sheep) or marshland (wild-fowling, reeds for thatching, fishing). Some goods, however, had to be acquired by trade. One essential commodity was salt, whether produced by boiling from sea-water, or from the brine-springs particularly abundant in western England, exploited at Droitwich (Worcestershire) and at Nantwich and Middlewich (Cheshire).
It remains true that all the peoples of Britain at the first millennium lived in a predominantly rural society, and farming, whether arable or pastoral, was the main occupation. The climate was warmer and drier in 1000 than it is today, but subsistence farming was probably all most people could manage, and they were very dependent on the weather; a bad harvest, or an outbreak of disease among their animals could spell ruin. People too were at the mercy of' infection, and plague was a recurrent scourge. One result was a high rate of infant mortality, though for those who survived childhood, life, expectancy was not much less than it is now. The next period of danger was late adolescence, which claimed the lives of young women through problems associated with pregnancy, and of young men through fighting of various kinds; warfare was endemic throughout the Middle Ages, and in a society where most people (even slaves) bore arms, any disagreements were potentially fatal.
The population of Britain in the year 1000 cannot be estimated with any accuracy. England may have supported 2,500,000 people (the estimate is derived from the figures given in Domesday Book); Scotland's population was perhaps 500,000, and. that of Wales probably less. The mountainous heartland of' Wales seems to have been little inhabited and was more heavily wooded than it is today. Permanent settlements were confined to the coastal regions, at river-mouths, with access to the sea, or in the valleys, usually on the river terraces away from the damp and ill-drained valley-floors. Scotland, too, was more heavily wooded than it is now, and with native deciduous, broad-leaved trees rather than conifers. As in Wales, the population was scattered in small and often isolated communities, with a concentration in the river valleys; most upland settlements were probably seasonal encampments for summer grazing. The best documented area of Scotland is Lothian in the south-east (a region formerly part of English Northumbria); here the primarily pastoral economy was accompanied by arable farming and characterized by larger, village settlements. Far to the north, in Orkney and Caithness, the Earls pursued an independent path, their society and customs deriving from Scandinavia, rather than from British roots. Their settlements were dominated by the need for access to the sea by means of a suitable harbour or beaching-ground. The inhabitants Iived not merely by farming, but also by fishing and hunting; and of course by sea-borne raids on their neighbours.
As for England, the countryside of 1000 would look very strange to our eyes, not merely because of the much smaller population and the obvious changes which time has wrought. The very pattern of settlement would seem different. We are used to seeing, at least in the broad swathe of 'Middle England', a network of villages, each with its group of houses clustered around a church, lying among its fields and pastures. Even in urban areas, like the outer London suburbs, such 'villages' can still be discerned among the enveloping Victorian terraces and modern housing estates. But English villages are in fact fairly recent phenomena, which were only beginning to assume their later form in 1000. Many people still lived in dispersed settlements, hamlets and farmsteads rather than villages. These early settlements can be traced only by very careful excavation, for, apart from the major churches, most buildings were constructed of wood which, unlike stone or brick, leaves little trace on the ground. Timber houses do not last as long as those built in stone; and, which is perhaps more important, they are also easy to dismantle and re-erect elsewhere. Both factors enabled settlements to shift their sites with relative ease, though usually within stable boundaries which in many cases still define the modern parish.
The processes which produced the 'classic' villages of middle England were many and various, but one of the significant factors is the nature of land tenure. In all the regions of Britain, the norms of society reflected rural concerns, especially the possession and exploitation of land. Money and moveable wealth (treasure, for instance) were not negligible as sources of prosperity; indeed lavish display was very important in signalling status, both among the lay aristocracy and for the Church. But land was more vital still. Possession of land conferred and demonstrated status; it was used to assess liability to renders and services and, among the English, tax; and it enabled its possessors to dispense patronage and influence. In all the regions of Britain, a three-fold social structure can be discerned, encompassing nobles, free men and slaves. Gradations of wealth and status can usually be distinguished within the first two groups; the slaves, categorised as property, are set off from the others, even when there is little economic distinction as (for instance) between a slave-ploughman settled on a piece of land by his owner, and a dependent peasant holding land from his lord. More in Part C....