Water management and the economic environment in Eastern

Water management and the economic
environment in Eastern England,
the Low Countries and China c. 960-1650:
comparisons and consequences 1
rhis
rlrrir/" wes comptlJlltit1e
his/ory fllul
f1
m;cro-cIW;rOnftltnta!
stlltf.y
ra
disc/JSS liJf ismes ftt ~·t{{ke;"/ the re/r/tioJl,dJlps bfllUeen IN/ter mllJlageml'llt dUel
eronornic rieN'!opment in enlliroIJments whitlJ have been subject to pe,.ioc/ic
j/oad; JJg flnd in tbe trtlluirioll [rom u etllllld to drtlÎned fllndsl'apes. ft SUggl'JlS
1
dM! thl'
inrroduetion ofsucces4irlwtlter l1t!apr;on strntegies depended upou
rrJnge ofsocÎa! jUl/Cliom, (iud tlUtf ronuJ1l1u;ties 0/1 occasion bad sound
rl'llSOllS for nor pracetding {(Ijrb drtfiwlg(!. JJl tfdditiou. rhe articlr pro/lides
mi tlcademic resource for tlgellá{'s whic" afl.' ru,.rent~y seekiJlg to respolld ta
aÎticl1! ji'es!J-UJtlter wpp(y ismes. It t/OCJ" ,his I~y ('onsidering developmeuts il/
present-dal IJotspors ulitbin the U"ited Kingt/om and iJl soltthern Africtl in
(he ligbt ofthe tOllcfmiom d1't1wu jimf! its ftHt' swr!ies, indlldil/g n subsrflJlti/l1
Ollr jOtllsfd UpOJl nortlJ-flHtern CnmbridgeslJirr.
11
Andrew Wareham
School of Arts, Roehampton Unlverslty (London)
e-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Pre-modern water management has generally been viewed as responsive in the
sense rhar communiries invesred in program mes from the perspective ofsurvival
with li rrle concern for economic progress. Th is arricle reconsiders pre-modern
warer adaprion srraregies in relarion ra rhe economic opporruniries preselHeci
by excesses offresh-warer supply, anel brings rogerher compararive hisrory anel
micro-hisrory methodologies. Of course, ir has long been recognised rhar rhe
inregrarion of warer resources inro rhe economies of communiries rcsulrs in
farms of co1tecrive acrion which differ from rhose primarily associared wirh
land, bllt which ar rhe same time requil'c a degree of ilHegrarion between
rhe twO sysrems. Yer concerns wirh economic rrJnsformarions have generally
been focused upon land managemenr, wirh rhe consequence rhar analysis of
warer managemenr anel rhe econom)' has suffercel fromneglecr even rhough ir
enriches undersranding of rhe emergence allel elevelopmenr of feudalism anel
capitalism (Tys 2005; Hoppenbrollwe!"s & Van Zanden 200I). Fo!" ins!"ance.
water managemem programmes were critical ro two of the most dynamic
pre-modern economies which we re on the threshold of the industrious and
indllsrrial revol11tions, namely Song China (%0-1279) and the Low COllnrries
dlll'ing the Golden Age (0.1500-1700) (Kuhn 1987: 127-87: Davids &
Noordegraaf 1993), In borh cases Bood defences in coastal areas and drained
wetlands were integrated with irrigation channels and waterways ro srore and
redirect fresh water for human and agricultural needs, and to provide improved
water routes crucial for the lowering of transport casts in order to reed eities.
CUlTenr studies on this theme depend upon an intel'-disciplinal'Y framework
(Cook & Williamson 1999: Rippon, 1996, 1997 and 2000: Williams 1970),
bllt comparative analyses have been rarely undertaken by single authors in
order to take account of developments at the miero-environmentallevel.
This article suggests th ar analysis should be moved away from the apparently
crucial roles played by single agents in the introduction of new water
managemenr straregies, wherher rh ar eomprises rhe stare, monastic insrirutions
or rhe marker, and insread emphasizes the role of negotiation between agencies
in the establishment of acceptable economie and envil'onmemal straregies. In
particular, it nores rhar the decision ra drain werlands was nor only linked to
available technology, but also depended upon the social and legal relationships
between local landowners and cammllniries. The first part of this article
analyses general developmenrs in China, primarily under the Song, and in the
Low Countries, mainly during the Golden Age. The secand section discllsses
Eastern England, focusing attention lIpon deve10pments in the fenlands of
norrh-easr Cambridgeshire as a case study, while the third part considers the
impiieations of pre-modern experiences far the implementation of warer
management program mes In the current age within the United Kingdom
and in rhe deve10ping world.
Water management in pre-modern China and the
Low Countries
Since the 1950s studies of water con trol in pre-modern China have been
directed towards three rhemes; namely (1) the ways in which collecrive local
organisations ensured rh ar comlllllniries in risk prone areas developed and
prospered in dealingwith rhe excesses ofwarer suppl)'; (2) the inter-relarionship
berween hydraulic engineering and the power of rhe state; 3nd (3) the role
of water in econamic develapment, notably in the formation of regiollal
economic specialisarion (Flessel 1974). These themes are linked individllally
and colleetively wirh the making and remaking of rhe Chinese landscape.
Far illstanee, before the 7th century the central region ofJiagnan was a vasr
/()
Aoodplain rather than being the economie core of the region (Elvin 1994:
22 citing Shiba 1988: 185), and it was only in the 11 th century, after severa!
cenruries ofinvestment in hydraulic program mes, that local historical sources
began ra commem on the economic value of reservoirs and dykes in the
Hangzhou area. Shiba views the transformarion of the Chinese rural economy
as a series ofhydraulic adaptarions which began at the allllvial fans at the feet
of mOllntains before being extended in scale and technologicallevel and inra
different landscapes. Migrants brought their technical expertise from over
poplilated areas imo the periphery, and sent back foodsruffs and raw materiaIs,
thereby sustaining rapid population growth under the Song and a shift from
a 'pure agriclilrural society' to one th at had many of the charactetistics of an
'lirbanized civilization'(Elvin 1994: 20 citing Shiba 1988: 174-9).
Hydraulisation and politica! institutional power were closely linked, but
not in the manner ofWittfogel's oriental despotism thesis (Wittfogel 1955).
Under the Song there were negotiarions berween the facrion which wanted
ra srrengthen the nstal base of the state and ra secure berter military logistics
throllgh the construction of polders and waterways, and those advisers who
sougl1t ro maimain the viability of private polders in the interests of wealrhy
landowners. Since, though, landowllers often worked c10sely with the state, and
depended upon the state's power through conscription ra mobilize man power
these inreractions cannot be portrayed as state versus localiry, or progress over
conservarism (Elvin 1994: 30-1). In general, rhollgh, it was rhe state under
the Song which rook the lead in the establishment of hydraulic programmes,
while ir was left to local associations dominated by the gen try ra manage them,
alrhollgh it needs ra be nored that the initiative for the creation of polders
passed into private hands from rhe 13rh century (Elvin 1994: 21 ciring Shiba
1988: 41, 43,88). Yer the state was capable of reassetting its authoriry wh en
reqllired. Towards the end of the Ming dynasry (1368-1435) rhe landowners
who had previously been responsible for polder maintenance began ra move
into cities leading to a breakdown oflocal water management. From the late
16th century the state obliged tenam farmers who actually worked the land
to carry out the maintenance, while the landowners provided food, with all of
the obligations being dependent upon the acrual acreages worked and owned.
In general 'endless and expensive effons to hold rhe logistics of the empire
together through engineering' devoured capital and prevented the introduction
of cheaper maririme rransport (Elvin 1994: 24-5, 33).
Meanwhile, in the Low Counrries the agencies and agents responsible for
the initiation of major hydraulic programmes ranged from the COUllts of
Flanders during the Middle Ages to private associJrions of venture capitalists
during the early modern period. As Tys and Van Cruyningen comment the
combinarion of aristocratie aspirations, skilIs in enrrepreneurship and local
environmental knowledge led ra the remaking of landscapes (Tys 2005; Van
Cruyningen 2006). Benveen c.900 and c.1200 the counts of Flanders invesred
in embankments. dykes and other water-management technology in order
ra crcare a ncw economie and physicallandscape which concenrrared wealrh
and power in the hands of the (ounts aod (heir followcrs at rhe ex pense of
coml11unities offree peasanrs, in parallel wirh fcudal rransformarions in aeher
European regiol1s (1ys 2005). During the early 17(h century the accul11uiarion
of capital in eiries led loca1 ncrworks of kin and friends to invest in land
reclamarion projcccs which enjoyed vaeying rates of sliccess in the shorr and
medium rcrms. Over the longer term these processes reshaped pa[ccrns of
land ownership Îmo a Iandlord-capiraJisr, tenant-farmer and wage-Iabourer
sysrcm which prospered unril the Second World War, and which still inflllences
the organisation of agriclilture in the region dUl'ing the cUlTent age (Van
Cruyningen 2006).
Yet it is necessary tO set Out a complex view of the nature of progress in
relation tO water management. lncremenrs in water supply, as a consequence of
carefully organised water l1'lanagemenr program mes, could and did evenrually
lead ra the land running out. Van Tielhof and van Dam (2006) discuss such
a cycle in relarion tO the Rijnland, and how it led tO reorganisation in the
fiscal basis of peat dredging and land reclamation. The authors nOte that pear
dtedging proved ra be less of a threat than has been suggesred in preceding
studies, and that commllniries re modelled adaprion srraregies tO deal wirh
losses in the land area. Thus, histOrica1 modeIs which ser our a view ofhuman
progress as one rh ar moves from living in wet to dry landscapes misrepresenr
rhe Aexibiliry of adaprion srraregies during rhe pre-modern period.
This compararive discllssion of water management in China and the Low
COllntries draws arrentiol1 re duee factors:
1. investment in water management provided the means for intensive
economic growth, as weil as protection from Roods;
2. watcr adaption srrategies were connecred not only [Q environmenral
processes, but also ra rhe changing framework of political, economie and
social institurions; and
3. in some circul11srances hydraulic engineering eontribllted rowards
teehnologicallock-ins and reversions [Q wetland landscapes.
12
I S L E
•
N
ELY
0
miles
E L Y
km
o~'"
\)
" '"
'o~
~\)
""
~-:>
O~
"
5
CHIPPENHAM
,
EXNING
'"
CO
,
CHEVELEY
Q
HUNDRED
~
'<
()
HUNDRED
, .J4U
I
C'
"Y
:;><:
County Boundary
1/0 .lC:'O
"'<:-"'o 0
Boundaries of Ancienl Parishes
Boundaries of Parishes created in 20th century
Ancien! Boundary of Cheveley Hundred
CD
Figure 1.
Newmarket All Saints Parish
Parishes and hundreds in north eastern Cambridgeshire in the Middle Ages
and Early Modern Period. Based on Wareham 2002:2; reproduced by kind
permission of the Executive Editor, Victoria County History Series, Boydell
& Brewer Ltd.
The purpose of tuming to the evidence from Eastern England is to see how
far these duee themes are repeated, and whether its empirical evidence adds
any funher refinements ra an understanding of the relationship between
water management and the economie environment during the pre-modern
period. The fen lands of this region comprise a shallow basin of around
3,360 square kilomerres (1,300 square miles), divided between six eastern
English counties of Lincolnshire, Norrhamptonshire, Huntingdonshire,
Cambridgeshire, Norfolkand Suffolk, with silt and pear fens overlyingAmphili
an"d Kimmeridge clays. The peat fenlands, which comprise the richer soil on
account of their vegetation content, are concentrated in the southern level of
the fens, and have been the subject of all important recent archaeological survey
(Hall 1996). Alrhough warer adaprion srraregies which sustained pre-modern
communities within the area are thoroughly documemed, they have aften
been neglected by hisrorians who have suggested that the key developments
took place during the modern period. 1 Readers of 'Jaarboek voor Ecologische
Geschiedenis' will be familiar with articles which pay sufficient attention ro
the pre-modern period, but may be less weil acquainted with the historical
background of norrh-easrern Cambridgeshire. It may be helpful ar this stage
to provide a short inrroduction to its local history.
Water management strategies in north-eastern
Cambridgeshire
Nonh-easrern Cambridgeshire lies between Cambridge (Cambs.), Ely
(Cambs.) and Newmarker (Suff.). The basic framework of settlement and
government which persisted unril drainage was established dlll"ing the early
Middle Ages.' The three hundreds of Flendish, Staine and Staploe we re
the successors of earl ier Anglo-Saxon political units, with the Devil's Ditch
separating Staploe from its south-western neighbours. Sy the 11 th century
settlement was concentrated in nucleated villages, which generally occupied
weil drained, slightly elevated sites, often on the divide between arabie uplands
and the heath or the fen. Moreover, with the exception of Kennen, which
shares the Celtic name of its boundary river, the villages derived their llames
from üld English. lts parishes are generally divided between the fenlands
in nonh-west, arabie upland in the cenn"e and heathland in the somh-east.
Whereas the fens are characterised by ill-drained and organic soils, the heath
is covered with dry and light soils.
Setween the early and late Anglo-Saxon periods there was a change in the
economie value of the fens, as reAected in ecclesiastical sources. An Sth-century
saint's life commented on 'a most dismal fen ... 0verhlll1g by fog' arolll1d
14
N
•
ELY
I
I ""
f'
....
o
Comman Fenland
D
Open-Field ArabIe
C3
Heathland
,
r
~
,'\.
$1/
JWI.... •
I "" .~
_~
-:'.>.
~-~ ,'~"
\\,?'
i
t
'~.
~/
j,
So/l9m
'
Oae
.• '~_._(•
,"""
1Ck.:.~,
lIIl
"
.
~
'
,il<
"~$_"
~_'J,
Clayhlth
'>lil
~
,""
....
~
,.. '
~~
.......'
..78s,.,:;,,'
~
1111
...
.-~
'~.-'
... <.IJ,
~.
• -
,'~:'
\lij
u.
\...:;"~.'
Chrppenham
,.'
~
. ':.~ :~)
,,"',
Landwade
" -Snailwell
'..,'
.
... ; ..... '
Swaffham
/~
Prior
,"
,'.w ~ode... 'Longmeadow
/
.~
CAMBRIDGE
I
,
I
I
I
.',~:'
Great
,.
\
.,.,./
.... ;:/
,,
/
".
,
,,
,...
I ".,
Fulbourn
JI.'
I
Wilbraham
Hinton.
;""
. .'
...... UWe
.... ~
Cherry
/
".1
lêhe~fJ'Teversham '.:') ,(~. ~~ ·~i1braham
8r is
' "o,~. iI~.~11}
tb
"'g
....
\
"
-
/
• Bollistiam
Fen DinOn? e, .. ,ow
../
~"
/
""',
St
,,
-Burwell
rv1
',,~,'
~
"/••
._----~
Horni"l<!( ea"
- ~' ~~ "i ,'. '.' /:~swaflham
,;
~~.':" t' :'~ ':' Angerhale Bulbeek
.~_. ......... ',:
<r.
"I"'k
... -.:
"" .- Wickè" "" ,
•• - • .
"
'.
,'-ReaCh
"
>11.,,'
~
-')
';,~., .... ~ .',_;"I'-';'~
A,'"" '.<..
.;
~
'\"
... " ,
",,',
.....,
:
~.,
'S
\ .... '···'n
,.'
~.' "-"
.,'
•
.. ""
Islel1am
"--'-1, ~_.
v~.::",-~)~.::...'7 \'
.~~
... ..;, .".,.'
(J~<S!'"
t"~
\LIJ
..l
lI l 1.,:\IIIl'.t~ (~
·,;~:erIL~~:·~··:7;
,._~,
~
''2 ~1IIl
<
.,\-'''..
"7 ~\~~< ~"
_
\
...;
,
~fo/I~'~>'\.PlIé.::.r-~·~f'·'" Ford~m
:
i<'~0 '1:
""
...
""
\~.""-~'.
\lil)
lIIl
',cl,
~._~
',l" " Mer9 .: Soham
"'.\
/,:.:"
l .. _:-:~;~,
""
,.~~ I..
~
""',
i\l,
~
lIIl
~ . . . ~~
""",-,~
S
~
'..::.,
1..
Ol)
Rivers
..... ~
~.'
"" t'·'
..... , •• ""
\l~B~:..ay-":":':'-'-''''''---·
~
~
"",,'.-1 ..:
,~ ' " " , '
,""
,.. ... '::,• .!><lI.,."" "\
. ~
c:-::~,
f!
"",'
\lil:
",,' ~~
'"'
\ "'"
~
lIIl
""
\
I
.\_,
~~
öo_ .... :
". I
\
~
\
I
-',
""/
"' ...".~
....,"
,
","
/
, ...'.. . I
"
Figure 2.
" )
/
~
;"'_ I
o
!
,
o
miles
5
,
km
5
Landscape and settlement in north eastern Cambridgeshire c. 1600. Based
on Wareham 2002: 5; reproduced by kind permission of the Executive
Editor, Victoria County History Series, Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
Cambridge (CoIgrave 1956: 86-7), but sources drawn up in the late 10th
century and beyond cOIl1menred upon [he valuc of meres, gardens and other
fen land features in poetic and narrative farms (Blake 1962: 398-9; Greenway
1996: 320-1, 348-9; Mellows & Mellows 1966: 2; see also Mackie 1934:
221). This change arose from the esrablishmem of great Benedictine abbeys
on fen land islands at Ely, Peterbol"Ough (Nhams.), Ramsey (Hullts.), Thorney
(Cambs.) and Crowland (Lincs.) during the late 1Oth celltury. These mona"ic
lords played a key rele in maintaining water managemenr prograllllllcs unril
(he la re 15305. Vet (he context for (he establishment of medieval wJtcrways is
less commonly disclissed, panly because of perceptions which dwcllupon (he
'slowand less emerprising methads of the Middle Ages' (Darby & Ramsden
1973: 268), or which claim (har it was on(y in (he 18505 rhar 'men roo, were
freed frorn ancicnr clisrorn' as a consequcnce of the raming of excesses of
fresh-warer supply (Ravensdale 1974: 178).
Ir is necessary
tO
disringuish bcrween rh ree types of water management
engineering in (he fenlands before drainage:
J. warerways cU[ in rhe Roman period which were abandoned and became
sitted up;
2.
waterways originally cut in the Roman period, which then subject
3.
new warerways cut in the medieval period.
tO
reclltting in the Middle Ages; and
During the Roman period duee lodes were cm in norrh-eastern Cambridgeshire
to
link setdements on the edge of the upland with the River Cam for the
rransporration of farm produce and manufacrured goods, but from the
beginning ofthe 5th century changes in the fresh-water levels made it harder
to
keep these lades navigable, while the silting of the fens conrributed
to
the abandonmenr of scrtlemenrs, associared wirh rhe widel" collapse of the
Roman economy (Wareham 2002: 4). Yet much ofthe Roman infl"astrucrure
remained in pJace. and was subsequendy adapred in the medieval period in
order tO meet the rransportation and markering requirements of monastic and
village commun iries. Thar nor only resulted in the reclltting and maintenance
of Roman warerways, but also led ra invesrmenr in ncw navigation and
drainage channels. Discussion begins with investmenr in a transport waterway
which served the needs of a great monastic comlTIunity. beforc discllssing
invesrment in smaller navigation and drainage channels within l1orrh-easrern
Cambridgeshire.
,c
CllUt's dyke
Cnut's dyke runs from Bodsey Bridge, one and half kilomerres norrh of
Ramsey, in a sourh-easr co norrh-wesr direcrion, Aowing into the River Nene
at Pcrerborough. There are several reasons for accepring Asrbury's view [har
Cnur's dyke was built in rhe bte lOrh century racher dlal1 being a Roman
construction (Astbury 1958: 125; cf. Browne 1978: 67). The Roman Car
dyke and Cnut's dyke pass through similar mineral soils, but the former's
embankmcnrs are l1111ch morc subsranrÎal [hall the larrer's. Moreover, late
medieval and cady modern sources maintained that King Cnut (1016-35)
consrfucrcd the dyke named after him. while rhe name Cnur's dyke (Cnoures
delfe) and King's dyke (Kyngesdelf) are mentioned in eady 11 th-century
sources. Astbury suggests that Cnut's dyke was built during the reign of King
Edgar (957-75) (Astbury 1958: 126-7, 130), before being renamed on account
of the visies by King Cnur and his sons ro fen land abbeys by boat (Gerchow
1988: 195; Blake 1962: 153-4). The context for Astbury's hypo thesis deserves
funhcr considerarion.
Recent \Vork has demonsrrared [har communiries in the Anglo-Saxon period
were ski lied in building and mainraining srol1C and wooden bridges (Harrisoll
2004: 49, 52-4; Brooks 2000: 1-31). A parallel investment in waterborne
communicarions fits nearly inra a framework of subsranrial invesrmcnr in
public works. Thus, the late Anglo-Saxon state was able [Q Illobilise resources
far beyond those at the cotnmand oflandowners and monastic communities
in order to create public works 'pro bono' (Campbell, 2000). The speeific
motive for the building of Cnut's dyke was probably in order to undertake
the construction ofRamsey Abbey. The Liber Beneftrctomm of Ramsey Abbey
provides an account of the programme of building undertaken at Ramsey
during the late 10th century, which involved the use of canrilever machines
to build rhe S[Qne abbey church with the (Wo [Qwers at the cenrre and west
end (Macray 1886: 41). Thc same sou ree also records the extensive donarions
of the co-follnders of the community, namely JEtheiwine (d. 992), ealdorman
of East Anglia (962-92), and Oswald (d. 992), bishop ofWorcester (961-92)
and archbishop ofYork (972-92) (Macray 1886: 48-50, 52-5). Oswald had
ar his disposal the labour of thousands of tenants, while A:,thelwine was the
ruler of all immense ealdormanry stretch~ng from East Anglia to the south-
east Midlands (Dyer 1996; Hart 1992). The alliance between royal, monastic
and aristocratie power may al50 have reached out [Q illclude communitie5 of
free peasams. who would also have benehted from the economie gains which
arose from the building of a transport waterway which direcrly linked the
fen-edge [Q the Rivet Nene.
The original conrext for the constrllction of Cnut's dyke can be compared
wirh Monks' lode. 80th warerways were probably built in order ro move stone
inro the fen land shires for the consrrllction of Benedictine anel Cistercian
abbeys respectively. Furthermore, Asrbury suggesrs rhar the norrhern section
of rhe River Lark, which marks rhe eastern bounclary of norrh-eastel'l1
Cambridgeshire, was srraightened and deepened in order ro move srone for
rhe consrrucrion of Bury Sr Edmunds Abbey (Suff.) (Asrbury 1958: 155-6).
Ver these watcrways once built supported the cheap transportation of arher
commodities. The monks of Ramsey and Peterborough exchanged eels for
Barnack limesrone (Harr 1966: 112-13) and orher goocls were probably
rransporred by boar for sale ar celHres such as Cambridge and Therford
(Norf.). In shorr, some of rhe major fen land warenvays generally idenrified as
roman were probably built cluring the early Middle Ages, while other roman
waterways were recut and redirected in order to meet the needs of monastic
lords alld rheir tenants in village commllnities.
Reach and High lodes
Cnut's dyke was linked to a network of lesser waterways. Reach lode in
norrh-easrern Cambridgeshire, originally cm in rhe Roman period (Royal
Commission of Hisrorical Monumenrs 1972: 129), was probably recur
in rhe Iare Anglo-Saxon period, with its mie as a trading waterway being
documenred from rhe early 12rh century onwards (Harr & Lyons 1886: ii,
202).' Ir srrerched forfour and halfkilomerres, and by 1443 rhere was a 180meter hythe, built of chalk rubble, at the terminus.'l During the 15rh and
16th centuries corn taken from Ramsey Abbey's esrares was shipped throllgh
Reach, and irs inhabitanrs bequearhed ro heirs enrire or part shares of keels,
lighrers and barges'
Although the medieval fenland waterways which have been discllssed were
pri maril y built as pan ofa transport infrastrllctllre, others, sllch as High lade.
were non-navigable drainage channels. This cllrving lode, hrst recorded in
1580, was almosr cerrainly cm for rhe firsr rime during rhe Middle Ages,
running sollthwards and westwards lInril it mer the navigable Weirs which
Aowed inro Reach lodel Ir was replaced by Bunvelilode, cm by 1685, which
ran directly from sOllth-east ra north-west in order ro drain the parish's fens
(Royal COlllmission of Historical Monlllllenrs 1972: 42). Vet far centuries it
was [he medieval warenvay which maintained the value ofBurwell's feil lands.
Of course, the creation of the elllbankmenrs in medieval Eliropean wetlands
a!tered micro-ellvironmenrs,leading (Q the inrrodllction ofsw3lls, ducks and
herons in place ofcurlews ancl black-railed godwir (Hoffman 1996). In norrh-
'0
N
ELY.
Settlemenls
Roads
o
~
Ferry crossing
Rlvers and watercourses
(as recorded In medleval
and early modern taxis)
o,
miles
o
Figure 3.
km
5
5
Communications in north eastern Cambridgeshlre c.1800. Based on
Wareham 2002: 13; reproduced by kind permission of the Executive Editor,
Victoria County History Series, Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
eastern Cambridgeshire the wealth of the great eel fisheries at Bottisham and
Wicken perhaps arose from embankmenr during the late Anglo-Saxon period
(Fadey 1817-30: i, fols. 195d, 196a).
The general premise that meelieval c0I11111unities were characteriseel by a
minimalist response towards water management runs againsr the ti de of
evidence. Here ir has on1y been possible to highlight two aspects:
1.
rhe construction of waterways depended nOt only upon the agency of
the state, but also upon the involvement of a range oflocal comtnunities;
and
2. new waterways and embankmems were pan of a transport and drainage
infrastrtlctllre which reshaped the economy of micro-environments.
TeBrake comments: 'many cultures have found ways of living from sllch
bounty without actually draining them' (TeBrake 2000: lOG). There were
regional variatÎons in the ways in which coml11unities l11anaged landscapes
subject to seasonal Aooding. The pre-drainage managemcm of the fens in
norrh-easrern Cambridgeshire was primarily directed rowards the raising of
livesrock and the prodllcrion of dairy prodllce. There was na interest in the
construction of polders. Nor was there areversion ro settlemenr patterns
under the Romans, when interlocking waterborne and road cOll1l1lunications
had linked seven setdements on the fen edge (Wareham 2002: 4). During
the summer monrhs rhe fens were given over ro the grazing of livesrock, but
in the winter sedge anel turf were cut for fuel and building mareriais, with
the livestock being kept on the heath and fed with hay previollsly harvested
from meadows and fens. Shared access to fen land grazing rights was reglilated
rhrough custom or pecuniary arrangemenrs.
Ir is worrh raking a c10ser look at SOme of these arrangemenrs as set out in the
legal evidence. From the eady 13th century the tenants ofthe bishop ofEly in
rhe parishes of Fen DirtOn and Horningsea had exercised rights of common
bet\veen the fens in both parishes anel Bortisham,8 while in the 14th century
the three principal landowners in Swaffilam Bulbeek anel Swaffham Prior
shared the profits from agisting catde on the fens.' Financia1 payment allowed
the men of Fordham who were nor tenants of rhe Duchy manor ro feed rheir
livesrock on Sohatn's commons during [he 13405. 10 Ofcourse, tensions arose
bet\veen communiries as a consequence of the reglilatioll of rhe coml11ons. In
1533 the villagers of Fordham were ordered to Stop feeding more beasts on
[he fens in the slimmer [han could he mainrailled dllring the rest of rhe year. ll
PerIlaps [here was a connection between [hese evenrs and rhe complain[s in
1560 from neighbollring Snailwe11 rhar the men ofFordham were clltting turf
from Snailwell's fen. ll The nego[iatÎons over common rights scrved to define
[he relationships within and betwecn fen land communitÎes 50 [hat effective
economic equilibria were struck, wi[h a restriction on [he developmenr of
properry rights wi[hin rhc fens.
70
Againsr rhis background ir is worrh brieAy considering Cambridgeshire's social
structure during the early modern period. In fen-edge parishes during the late
16rh and early 17(h centuries there were a high proportion of moderarely
prosperous householders in CClltraSt to the divergence in the arabie upland
parishes between prosperous yeomen farmers and agricultural labourers
(SpufTord 1974: 28, 41-5: ld. 2000: 8). Moreover, as SpufTOl·d points our, a
person who was taxed on {WO hearrhs in the fens was better off than his or
her eoulHerparr living in rhe arabie uplands (SpufTord 2000: 8). Alrhough
there are difficulties with relating rhe late 17th century hearrh rax data ro
vernacular architecture, it is normally reckoned that in Cambridgeshire a onehearth house had berween twO and four rooms and was generally occlipied
bya labourer and his family, while a rwo-hearrh residence generally housed
a hllsbandmen and his kin wirh up to six rooms. The relarive imporrance of
peasanrs of a middling rank meanr rhat the arisrocracy had a relacively law
profile. The larger residences of the gemry and titled nobiliry were concenrrated
in rhe saurh-wesr of rhe counry during rhe 17rh cel1fury (Evans & Rose
2000: xxxi, lxviii -map A.9L and wirhin norrh-eastern Can1bridgeshire only
Chippenham Hall, wirh [hirry-nine hearrhs, was occupied bya family who
belongcd ro rhe ritled nobiliry.13 This pattern is most clearly demonsrrared in
Saham. In 1664 three-quarrers ofirs popll1ation lived in one- and rwo-hearrh
houses, and a far smaller percentage of irs householders were exempted from
taxarion, probably on account of poverry, than in rhe neighbouring parishcs
of Fordham and Isleham (Evans & Rose 2000: xxxix). Henee i[ provides a
suitable case study for understanding the soeial context of drainage.
DUI·ing the Middle Ages barely a tenth ofSoham, comprising 5,250 hectares
(12,999 acres), had been devo[ed ra arabie farming under the open-field
sysrem. H Saham was dominarcd by irs fens and mere. In 1625 its fens werc
reckoned ra comprise 3,398 hectares (8,398 acres), including Borders fen
at 844 hectares (2,087 acres)," while 0.1800 [he mere was assessed a[ 554
hectares (1,369.5 acres) (0. & S. Lysons 1808: 254). Dming [he Middle
Ages rhe mere and fens were exploired for pasturage. fishing, sedge and ru rf. 16
Be[ween [he eady 16[h and [he mid 17[h cenrmies [he fen land grazing of
cartle, sometimes taken in from ourside the parish, had sllpporred a rising
population linked ra a generalnational trend. I? Manor courts from rhe 14rh
century tried to prevenr over-clltting which led"ro rhe fens becoming warcrlogged, lil bur rhese orders were regularly ignored, as villagers carried rurf and
sedge far sale in Cambridge. 19 The vallIe of fenland resources meanr thar
village commllnities defended fen commons from inrrusion by neighbollrs'
Aocks and herds, bur Soham and Fordham shared extensive commons and
moors from rhe mid 14th cenrury ulltil rhe lare 17rh. 20 In short, there were
strong economic reasons for nor proceeding with the drainage ofSoham merc
and fens from rhe perspective of rhe local communiry, and rhe parish was
unafFected by Vermuyden's drainage program me.
,~
h.,
••
~
[Za
\
Church
-Vt
Buildings
~.
\\~
Old lnclosures
,I·
1\
GREAT.
Commcln Fields
Fens allolled in severally In 16305
Id
IIIJJ
~LA
10 Lord ol Manor
10 Bedford Level AdvBnlurers
ITlr
MET L A
~
CALLED
TH E
•
""m'
n
o
••o
z
S 0 HAM
N
MER E
\
\
"
,
'-,
'-..~
o
[)-
Figure 4.
22
rniles
km
2
:3
Soham's fens In the 1630s. Based on Wareham 2002: 490; reproduced by
kind permission of the Executlve Editor, Victoria County History Series,
Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
Berween 1630 and 1652 Vermuyden directed works under rhe commission by
Sir Francis Russeli (1593-1641) and the Bedford Level Advenrurers in order
to drain the fens (Darby 1956 & 1983; Harris 1953; Summers 1976). Their
work has generally been viewed as the central feature in rhe transformarion of
fen land landscapes from a watery wilderness re an affiuent landscape. leading
re rhe establishment of rhe Bedford Level Corporation. J11 such accoulHS
local communiries generally feature as rhe opponems of progress, living up
re perceprions of fenland men and women as inward-Iooking, suspicious of
mangers and slow (Q change (Chamberlain 1975; HOllgthon 1988). Yer sllch
approaches pass over the complexity of rhe local conrexr, and rhe role played
by smaller scale water management projects.
Perhaps local iniriative ro drain Soham's fenlands would have proceeded
more smoorhly if the Thornren family had remained as rhe principal resident
landholders wirhin rhe parish. The dynasry was descended from a villager
who in the 141 Os had been a bailiff and lessee of the largest manor in Soham,
namely Duchy manor,ll bul' in 1580 John Thornron (d. 1598) purchased
Snailwellmanor and rhe family became residenr squires rhere. u In 1626 the
Duchy manor was sold by rhe Crown ro Sir Robert Heath, solicirer, arrorney
general and chief justice of the ComnlOn Pleas (1631-4) of King Charles 1
(1624-1649)," Between 1621 and 1634 Sir Robert Heath received an income
of arallnd noo,ooo (Kopperman 1989: 247), which gave him the means ra
set about Soham's improvemenr. He can be compared wirh rhe merchanrs,
lawyets and entrepreneurs who established consortia in the establishmenr of
drainage progral11mes in the United Provinces during rhe same periad. He
reckoned rhar drainage would increase rhe annual renrs rendered from Soham
me re and irs neighbourhood from f30 to flO,OOO per annul11. 24
He began by seeking re regain con trol of rhe Duchy esrare, demesne and
copyhold. Lax managemenr had ellJbled rhe renanrs to lease rheir copyholds,
feil rirnber, Ier buildings decay and avoid paying heriors. The renanrs, rhough,
blocked his scheme by claiming rh ar ir was na langer possible to differenriare
benveen leased demesne strips from lands held by orher types of renure. 25
Hearh responded by successfully limiring rhe common rights of rurbary. Newly
erecred cottages were not allowed common righrs, which wete henceforward
to be linked to the ancienr mllnber of heanhs in each house. Of course,
sllch measures mayalso have helped the more established middle-ranking
families within (he village ro consolidate rheir common tighrs wirhin the fens.
Following an enquiry in 1627-8, Heath began ra endose 809 hectares (2,000
acres) of fens, l110stly in Great Metlal11 fen,26 but in 1630 protesrors, bearing
cudgels and pirchforks and placing rhe women ar rhe front of rheir ranks,
inril11idated rhe workers who were setting out fenced-off enclosures. r
Such acüon, though, did nor provide a permanem solmÎon of the dispme
in the community's favollL Probabi)' in order [Q resolve the matter a crowd
from Soham halted the coach ofQueen Henrietta Maria, wh en it was passing
duough Soham, per\1aps [Q present a petirion that wOllld secure rhe reversion
of rhe Duchy manor as dower property, but King Charles responded by
ordering the sherifFin 1633 ra sllppress the 'rebels' ..!8 Thc village eommuniry,
though, gained the upper hand wirh the collapse of royal aurhoriry in May
1641, when fen ces were thrown down, trees whieh had been planted on rhe
mere side were felled, canle were agisrcd and mowing was lInderraken. 19 ani)'
with rhe passing of the Bedford Level Act in 1663 was there any real progress:
ir allowed villages possessing eommon righrs re have the remaining e0ll1111Qns
divided among rhem in smal! allotl1lenrs proporrional te rhe number of rights
which rhe)' had owned, and esrablished rhe consrirurion of the Bedford Level
Corporation (Darby 1956: 78; Wareham 2002: 16). The division ofSoham's
fens was authorized in 1665-6, with lots averaging 6.5 hecmres (c.16-17
acres) being divided among 247 commoners while eel'rain areas were lefr in
common for poorer villagers. \0
A generarion later pan ofSoham's fens were being cropped wirh \Vhear, Qats
and coalseed. JI The establishmenr of peacc and a ncw mcans of exploiting
Soham mere during the 18th century can bc pmative1y connected ro arrisric
evidence. An engraving of Soham mcre by C.], Beek, based on the painring
by Claude-Joseph Verner (1714-1789), depicrs a picturesque and prosperous
scene (see figure 5). The purpose of rhe engraving may not only have been
te reRecr upon rhe remaking of the landscape, bur perhaps 31so ra commenr
upon rhe establishment of social stability, following rhe turmoil of rhe mid
17rh century, although of course l1luch more needs te be known about the
contexr of rhe local distribution of Beck's work.
Progress in rhe drainage of the fens was inrerminenr. Visirors ra rhe fen-edge
parishes commenred on Aooded landscapes: Richard Blome in 1673 nored
(hat the cOllnry ofCambridgc was 'not over fereile, occasioned by irs Fenns on
rhe norrhern parr sa over-charged wirh water [... l fenn)' grolll1ds grow grear
srore of willows, of which (he inhabi(Jnts reap good profir by making baskets
erc.' (Blome 1673: 49). Ver the involvemenr of local cOI11I11l1niries ar Soham
and elsewhere in fen drainage from the early 1670s began (Q iniriate a series
of changes. For insrance, in 1672 joint action b)' the lords ofSraw-cum-Qu)'
and Fen Dirron secured the drainage of a 40-hectare (1 OO-acre) block of fen
which lay in both parishes and which had been allotted to the Bedford Level
Advenrurers in 1637, wirh rhe water being exrracred via windmills and a runofF channel connecred to Whire Lake srrcamY Ficririous Iawsuirs were used
24
Figure 5.
Engraving of Soham by C.J. Beek. Reproduced with the kind permission
of the Cambridgeshire Collection, Cambridge CentraI Library.
on occasion to secure co-operative iniriarives, slich as at BouÎsham in 1677,
\Vhen lords, genrry and forry-~ve COlTImoners resolved (Q have the remaining
common fighrs allotted in severalry in lieu of common fights anached CO
houses,·B
Following the establishment of the Swaffham Drainage Commission in 1767
[here were advances across the region in the drainage and allotmenr of fens.
Wirh enclosure from c.1800 in Flendish alld Sraine hundreds the earlier
allormenrs were largely ignored, but in Sraploe hundred (hey were respecred,
and 17[h- and early lach-century channels and droveways have conrillllcd
into the 21 st century
(Q
provide rhe framework for land ownership and
fen land drainage (Wareham 2002: 4). In [he Ia[e 19th century, however, the
rradirionallink berwcen hearh, upland alld fen srarted ro fray as a consequence
of [he development of gallops and stud farms on the heath land linked to
horse-racing ar Ncwmarket, alld broughr an end co rranshumance berween
[he tluee landscape types (Wareham 2002: 18, 20). Vet befare the late 19[h
ceneury co-operarive uses of these rh ree landscapes slisrained local economies
allel communiries, which were in turn dependenr upon the applicarion of a
range of successful water adapriol1 srrarcgÎes.
Discussion
This artide considers the purposes and contexts of the establishment of
pre-modern water management srrarcgies wÎrhill a compararive framework.
Of course, differences in narional contexts led ra quire divergent lines of
developmenr in rer'll1s of the relationship berween water management and
the political order. Ver the combinarÎon of micro-hisrory wÎrh compararive
hisrory leads inro the type of new analytical perspecrive envisaged by Zeischka
(2006). This anicle has foclised ancnrioll upen the relarionship benveen
economie and social factors, but in 50 doing has touched upon Qcher key
rhemes, such as the ÎmportJllCC oflegal evidence. There is a norable contrast
in the absence of the role of law in regularing water management during
the early Middle Ages with ies prominence in the later medieva1 and early
modern sources. This difference raises quesrions on whether the relationship
berween law and community during the earlier medieval period made it easier
ro inrroduce large scale wa~er management program mes than in succeeding
centuries, or whether rhere is jusr a change in the volume of evidence?5.j If
there is ra be a comprehensive understanding of the issues which shaped the
introduction of new water management programmes in medieval and early
modern eastern Cambridgeshire within a comparative framework, then the
re1ationship between law and water management needs ro be fully addressed.
For the present, rhough, rhis anicle seeks ro draw anention to some of [he ke)'
factors which lay behind the inrroduction of water management srrategies in
the pre-modern period.
Water adaption strategies in the medieval and early modern societies discussed
here were not characterised by inactivity uncil challenged b)' [he crises of
Aoods, or the opporrunities offered by capitalism. Instead they were defilled
by striking an appropriate balance benveen environmental risk and economic
improvement. Alrhough ir Illay appear from a contemporary perspecrive ro
be a counter-inruitive statement, pre-modern communities may have chosen
not ro proceed wirh drainage and land reclarnacion in the enforcernent of
such srraregies. In rhar context it is necessary to dispense with [he a priori
assumprioll rh ar landscapes which are periodically Aooded are synonymous
wirh economic bottlenecks. Here ir is worth cornparing developrnenrs in
[he fenlands of Eastern England during rhe early Middle Ages with events
at Soham dUi-ing the 17[h century_ In [he early Middle Ages [he benefirs
which arose from the consrrucrion of dykes and ernbankrnents convinced
cornmunities ra work with the agency of the state in the remaking of the
environment. Economic gains inclllded a lowering of rransporration cosrs
and the creation of a landscape which supporred a system of farming geared
rowards yielding profits throllgh the grazing of livesrock. This economic
organisarion a1so provided poorer hOllseholds wirh livelihoods from fishing
)(;
and cutcing sedge and turf, and remained in place unril there was a shifr
rowards new water adaption strategies during the 17,h century. Yet Heath's
proposals for rhe drainage and enclosure ofSoham mere collapsed becallse rhe
village cOlTImuniry was dominared by rhose who belonged ra the middle and
lower ranks, and who judged tlut their families wOlild nor benefit from his
programme. Bur, Hearh's projecr did nor fail because oflack of capita}, or all
absence of rechnological knowiedge. Onlywirh rhe commllniry's participation
was ir possible ra proceed wirh rhe making of a new landscape.
Three observarions follow from this srudy:
1. pre-modern water managemenr was shaped by the relarionship berween
environmenral processes and rhe economie environmenr;
2. water adaprion srraregies ofren worked with excesses of warer sllpply in
order ra Aood the landscape on a seasonal basis, setting to one side the
opportllniries of drainage; and
3. rhe co-operarion of loca1 communities was of criticaI significance in rhe
applicarion of new water managemenr program mes.
These issues have a conremporary resonance. The reAooding of 5,000
hectares (12,300 acres) of fen wetlands is cllrrently progressing as part of a
twenty-year program me through the agency of the West Fens parrnership.Yi
Meanwhile, the National Trust inrends to acquire c. 3,500 hecrares (8,600
acres) in norrh-easrern Cambridgeshire over the next hundred years so as
to create a 'green lung' for the city of Cambridge, which will enable the
grazing of livesrock and the grO\ving of 'green crops', such as reeds and
bio-flle\S, linked ra the provision of recreational facilities,J6 QllestÎons arise
on the sustainability of such planned economic and environmenral sysrems
wÎ[hoU[ on-going subsidies from chariries and governmenr agencies, aftel'
the initial enrhllsiasm (and financial benefits) associated with the original
donations have passed. Alternatively rhere may need to be a change in rhe
political environment which accepts the need for greater tJxation in order ro
meet such costs. In short, an llnderstanding of the dynamics of pre-modern
fenland landscapes relates ro some ofrhe planning initiatives currently under
consideration within the fenland shires as a consequence of environmenral,
econoll1 ic and social factors.
The issues raised here also re1ate to contemporary deve!opments in pans
of the world where water management projecrs are moving in the opposite
directioll; namely the withdrawal of sllbstanrial volumes of water from rivers
which lead to redlIetions in Aoodwater levels and the minimisation of rhe
areas which benefit from and are sllsrained by Aoodwaters. For instance, the
Okavango basin in sourhern Africa is Aooded annually, bur its ourflow does
nor Aow into the sea. The recent decision by the Namibian Governmenr ro
proceed with the construction of a dam on the River Okavango upsrream of
the basin's delta. so as to generate electricit)'. \ViII reduce the river's ou tAow inro
the basin, and hence the extenr ro which it is Aooded seasonally.r The basin
includes national parks of olltstanding natural beauty. and local inhabitants
rely UpOIl rourism for their livelihoods. Ir is ra be hoped rhar th is new water
adaption strategy \ViII meet their needs, as weil as those of industrialisation.
In short, warer management is linked ro rhe inregration of complex human
and environmenral processes, which can both Illirture and hinder economic
growrh.
Two argumems are being pur forward here in relation to the application of
pre-modern hisrory to creating and mainraining sustai nable commu nities alld
economies in the currenr age and for the benent of fu tlI re gcnerations. Firstly,
and principally in relation to the developed world: the remaking ofiandscapes,
which takes account of earlier and 110 longel' exram environments in rhe light
ofclimate change, will be best served by drawing upon extensive documenrary
evidence in association with archaeology. landscape studies and othef relared
disciplines. Secondly, and more notably in relation ro the developing wodd:
knowledge of water management in richly documenred rural societies in the
past can he applied tO the developmcnr ofappropriare srrategies in present day
rural coml11unities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Against a backdrop of
pronoullced climatic change, water management adaption strategies need ra
be Aexible, taking accOunt of a wide range of miero-environlllcnral ourcomcs
and their relationships with the polities of unequal enrirlemenr in both the
developing and developed worlds (Sen 1999). The twin tragedies of Aood
and drought, as much as the specrres of famine and dearrh, can be prevenred
through poliey making based on sound knowiedge, which does not turn
exclusively ro either [he agency of [he stare or to rhe market, or for thar matter
all)' other single-agency panacea.
7R
Notes
Thc 3uthor is gr:neful ra seminar audiences al Leiden and Lomion (rhe lnsrirure of Historical Research
alld the School of Oriental alld African Studies) and the edirors anel referees of 'Jaarboek voor Ecologische
Geschiedenis' for their Cümmems.
2
Darby (I940) is concerned wirh agricllirure and settlemenr, while Hills (1967) focuses tlpan thè modern
period.
3
Un[ess orherwise stared [his paragraph is based on \,\fareham (2002: 4. \0).
4
In the earl)' 1070s when King \Xfilliam I (1066-87) srarioned (roops ra guard rhe dyke (fOrt'll) againsr the
forays of lhe rebel farces of Hereward the \'(lake (Slake 1962: 182).
5
Cambridge Universiry Library (CUL), EOe 7/12/6: court rail 21 Henry VI.
6
The Narional Archives: Pllblic Record Office, Londoll 1986, Ca/md,,/" ofPruent RolIs, /566-9 ("rNA: PRO
1986). p. 285, SC 6/765111-12, PROB 1114. fol. 58,11117, fol. 81
v.; 11/18. fol. 40; 11120. fol. 77;
11151, fol. 167v.; 11175, fol. 270v.: British Library Landall (BL) Additional MS. 5861, fol. 81 v.
7
Cambridgcshirc
8
The National Archi\'es: Public Record Office, London 1985: Curül Regis RolIs, I'oll/Hle elelJen (TNA: PRO,
1985), pp. 44-5: Ibid., SC 2/155/53, 111. 7.
9
Bdvoir Casde Mllllimcllts, Burgh Hall
,,,cl
COlllH)'
Record Office (CCRO) RJ55/7/81: [21] Elizabeth I; TNA: PRO LR 3/9A, p. 17.
CL
rolls 48 Edward 111; 22 Richard I.
lOTNA: PRO, Duchy of Lancaster (DL) 29/288/4717-18, 4721.
11
CCRO. L lI7515. 6, 8.
12
TNA: PRO, STAC 2/23, no. 172.
13
TNA: PRO, E 179/244/23, rOt. 75.
14
CCRO, m:lp 1656; Pembroke College Cam bridge Munirnems, Soham 0 8, 9.
15
TNA: PRO, E 134/3 & 4/Charles IIHilarr 5. m. 4.
16
Thc National Archives: Public Record Office, Lonclon 1905: Close Rolls ofHenry 111, /23/-4 (TNA: PRO.
1905), p. 218; BL Landsdowne Chaner 108: Ibid., STAC 2/3 no. 162; DL, 30/1/9, m. 6: DL 30/11 I I. lll.
2, 5d; DL 3011112, m. 4d; DL 3011114. m. 3d; DL 3011115, m. I; DL 30/1116, m. 1: E 318/3/133. m. 4;
REQ 2/11 lI8; 2/166118.
17
Ibid., E 179/81/163, lll. 2 and d.: REQ 2/272/19: Pembroke College Cambridge Muniments. Soham, N 3:
BL Harleian MS. 595, tol. 105; CCRO. P 1421111-2.
18
TNA: PRO, DL 301119. m. 6: DL 3011111, m. 5d.; DL 3011/12, m. 4d.; DL 3011114, m. 3d.: DL 3011115,
I: DL3û/1l16. m. I: DL 3011118.
Ill.
19
TNA: PRO, DL 30/1111,
20
Pernbroke College Cambridge MUllimcrus, Soham, BlO; PRO, JUST 2118, rot. 23d.: C 229/2. no. 31;
CCRO, 107, map of Soham in 1656, sheets C-E.
21
TNA; PRO. DL 29129014766, 47n DL 29129114780; DL 29129214794.
22
Ibid., CP 25/2193/844/22 & 23Elizabeth I Michaelmas, no. 9.
lll.
2.
23
BL Egenon MS. 2987, fol. 117: CUL, Doe. 1484: for wider context, see Kopperrnan (1989).
24
BL Egenon MS. 2987. fols. 67, 64; Kopperrnan (1989: 260).
25
BL Egenon MS. 2987, fol. 14; fols. 101 alld Y.; 126y.
26
TNA: PRO. E 12613, fols. 232v-33v.: E 134/3 & 4 Charles I/Hilar~' 5.
27
BL Egenon MS. 2987. fols. 27-32.
28
Ibid .. fols. 37y-42v.
29
Ibid .. fols.108v.; lil, liS, 118-19.
30
PRO, E 126/14, tols. 346v.-48: E 134/35 Charles ll/Michaelmas 54, mm. 2-8; C 229/4. nos. 23, 37: C
229/5. nos. 6, 10-1 I, 13, 24: C 229/8, nos. 21, 48.
31
Pembroke College Call1bridgc Munimems. Soham ~" 11.
32
CCRO, R 59/31/6.
33
Ibid.. R 59/14/2/1611.
34
\'Varcr righrs and rhe law are discusscd b)' GenIer (1004). Tbc :!lll"hor is gr:!tefu!
of Ihis issue.
35
For progress 011 ,his vel1lurc. see the website of ,he Ro)'a! Society for lhc Protecrion of Birds: hnp:llwww.
rspb.org. u kJ eng!alldlcas'<lngl ia/fenslweliandcrealio n/weT !andere:!lio n. asp.
]6
FOT ,hese deve\opmcllls, whieh are relaled tO bU{ diSlinCI fTom [he Nationa! Ti-us,'s properl)' at \'(/ickcll Feil
(Cambs.), see hltp:llwww.wicken.org.ukJnewpage1.htlll.
37
~()
to John
Langdon ror discllssion
FOT recel1l developmcllls in rhe Obwllgo basin. sec http://www.irn.org/programs/obvango/.
References
ASTIJURY,
A.K. 1958: Tbr Btock Fens (C:tmbridge).
BLAKE. E.O. (ed.) 1962: Liber Eliemis (London).
BL.OME. R. 1673: Brilfllmin. or n geogmpfJicn/ desrriplioll afrbt' kingt/Olm of Eng/mul. Scat/flutl fllld !re/nud.
wirh tbe is/n til/ti !('rri/ories ,berelo be/onging {. .. J (London).
BROWNE, O.M. 1978: Marerial Culture. in: J.J. \X111,KES & CR. ElRINGTON (cels.), Tbt' VictOl';n Histol'j of
,hf C{)//Ilf;e$ afhiJg/mul: A HisfOJ) ofCtl/nbridgeshirt' tllld ,!Je Me 0/ Dy, Roman Cl/lllbridge$!Jire, /lO/UnIi' v;;
(Oxford). PI'. 66·83.
BROOKS.
N.P. 2000: COI1l111l1uÎ,Îes dntl \'(Imflre 700~J400 (London).
Ci-IA1I.HJERLAIN.
CAMI'IIEI.l.
J..
M. 1975: Frnwomm: porrmit afwomen in
(11/
Eng!isb vil/ngt! (London).
2000: Tbr Aliglo-Snxo1/ Stfltf (London).
COL.GRAVE. B. (cd.) 1956: Felixs Lift afSr. Cf/fb/flC (Cunbridgc).
COOK. H. & \'VILLlA:>ISON, T. (e(ls.) 1999: \\'1ut'r MtIIUfgt'I1Jt'1lt ;n fIJt' ElIglish LlI1ulJCflpe. Fielt/, MfII"Sh fllld
Alt'lfdolV (Edinburgh).
CRUYNINGEN, P:
this volume).
VAN
200G: Profits and risks in drainage projccts in Sta:us·Vlaanderen, c.
1590~
1665 (in
DARIlY, H.C. 1940: rIJt' Medie/ltzl Fmlmul {Ist edn .. Cambridge}.
DARU\'. H.C. 1956: TiJe Dmillillg offiJt' Fms (2nd edn., Cllnbridge).
DARI\\'. H.C. 1983: TiJe CiJtlllgillg Fmlmuf (Cambridge).
DAIUI\'. H.C. & RAMSDEN. M.S. 1973: The Middlc Level ofthe Fens anel il's Rec!amation. in \Y/. PAGE.
G. PROB\' & S.1. LAl'I'S (eds.), \lictorifl Hisfory offiJt' Cal/wies ofEng/{//ul: A HisroJ)' a/fIJt' COltllfJ' of
HlIllfiligdoll. Ilolullle jij (London), pp. 249~90.
DAvlDs. K. & NOORDEGRAAF. L. (eds.) 1993: Tht' DllfciJ EcolJolII)' iu fIJI' Coldm Age. Nillt' Sfudies
(Amsterdam).
D\'(~R,
c.c.
1996: St Os\\'ald and 10,000 \X"lest Midlands peasants. in: Sf Osu,(tld ofWlorcesrer: Lift flud
IlIflut!I1((,. eds. N.1~ BROOKS & CR.E. CUBrrr (Leicester). pp. 174·93.
ELVIN. M. 1994: 1nl'l'oducrion. in ID.. H.
NISHIOIV\.
K.
"1~\r,IARU &
J.
KWEK.jflpfIIlt'Sestlldies
Ol}
tiJt' iJ;srory
aJtll(Ufr cO/urol ill GliJ/fI: fI se/eCf bjbliogmphy (Canberra).
EVANS. N. & RosF.. S. (eds.) 2000: Cfllllbridgeshire HMrfh Tt,.\' Rt'I'IIJ'IIs. Michflt'lulffs 1664 (London).
FARI.E\'. A. 1817·30: DomesdflY Book, ed. for thc Record Coml1lission. 4 vols. (London).
FI.I~ssn.
K. 1974: Dl'r Hlfltllg-bo 1I1ld die bisforiscbe H,"rirofl'c/J/lik ill Cb;lJfI (TUbingen).
GERCHO\V, J. 1988: Die Gedmkiiber/;eferrmg tier Angelsac!JSeII, má eiJ/em Katalog der Libri Vitae IInd der
Necrologien (Berlin).
GETZLER,
J. 2004: A History of\Y&ter Rigbts at Commo/J Law (Oxford).
GREENWAY, O. (ed.) 1996: Henr)', Archdeacon of Humingdon, Historia Anglorum: tbe History oftbe
ElIg/;sb (Oxford).
HALL, O. 1996: Tbe Fenlal/d Projt'ct, Number 10: Cambridgesbire SUrlliJ" tbe Me ofELy and \YIisbecb
(Oxfocd).
HARRIS, LE. 1953: Vel'lIIl1ydeJl mul tbe Fens (London).
HARRISON, O. 2004: TIJr Bridges ofMedieval Englmld: Transport and Society 400~1800 (Oxford).
HART, CR. 1966: Tbe ear/y charters ofEmtem Englmld, Srudies in Earl)' English Histor)' V (Leieester).
HART, CR. 1992: Athelstan 'Half-King' and his Family, in ID., The Danelfllv (London), pp. 569-604.
HART. W.H. & LYONS, P.A. ,886,Cartularitlm mouasurii de Rameseia, ii (London).
HtLLS, R.L 1967: MaclJines, mi/Is mld llucostLy necessiries (Norwich).
HOFFI\IAN, R.e. 1996: Economie developmenr and aquatie eeosystems in MedievaJ Europe, American
Historictlf Review, vol. 101, pp. 631-691.
HorPENBROUWERS, P. & VAN ZANDEN, J.L (eds.) 2001: Peasmlts illto firrmers? The Trausftrmatiou ofrlJe
rural ecol/omy aud society iJl the Low Commies (MIJdie Ages to uil/nemth cmtury) iJl the light ofthe Bmlller
debflte (Turnhout).
HOUGHTON, A. 1988: /l4emories oflsleba/1/ Village (lsleham).
KOt't'ER'\'lAN, P.E. 1989: Sir Robert HeatiJ 1575-1649: WiJldow
011
mi
Age (London).
KUHN, D. 1987: Die Song D,YJlastie (960 bis 1279): eiue neue Cesellscbtifi im Spiegel iIJrer Kllhur
(\'V'einhcim).
LAMBERT,
J.
1960: The Mt/king of/he Broads: a recollsidemtion of/heir origins in rhe light ofnew evit/m({'
(London).
LYONS. O. & LYONS, S. 1808: Magna Brittallia. bring a ('oucise ropogmphiml flUOullt ofthe seveml counries
ofBritaiu [. ..) Volume two, Part O1/e (London).
MACKIE, W.S. (ed.) 1934: Tbe b::eter Book: part ii: poe1J/s ix-.\x.\"Îi (London).
MACRAY, W.O. 1886: Cbronicoll Abbatiat' Ramesimsis (London).
MELLOWS, e. & MELLOWS. W.T. (eds.) 1966: 7JJe Pererbo1"Ougb ChroJ/icle (2nd edn., Pererborough).
POSTAN, M.M. 1973: \X1h)' was scienee baekward in [he Middle Ages?, in: ID .. Essa)'S in medi(,IJal
agl'iculture tllJdgment! probfems ofmediewlf ('COJ/omy (Cambridge).
~)
RAVENSDALF., J. 1974:
LiIlIJlt' 10 f1oods:
Ili/ftlgl' /II/u/mtpt's
011
Ibl' {'(/gl' oftbl' fins AD 450~1850 (C:nnbridge).
1972: All ilweltlOlY ofrb" bistol'im/ mOJlIlml'!lts ill tlJt'
1J0nb-Msl Cllmbridgl's!Jil'l' (London).
ROYAl. CO/l.'I/l.lISS10N OF 1-I1STOIUCAL MONUMENTS
COIIl/t] ofCI/1!1vl'idgl',
Vo!JfJlle tIIIO,
Rll'l>ON. S. 1996: 71)1' ClI'ent Ll'/ll'IJ: tbr {'/I(}!utioll ofa 1/'t'f/ltlu!!lIlIdscape (Yark).
RJpI'ON, S. 1997: Tbr SN't'f1/ &1II1II'Y: /II/u/smp" r/lolutioll (lIId /IIl'r1l1!1d l'edlll!lfuio1/ (London).
Rll'l>ON. S. 2000: Tbr trflllsjim!lfttiol/ ofColISMI W'nlal/ds (O:-:for<l).
SEN, A. 1999: D/'lll'lopmt'1It lIS frl'l'dom (Oxford).
SHIBA, S. 1988: S -dm' KOI/(II/ krizi-sbi krl/kVII (Srudics in the Econolll}' of Jiangn311 under rhe Song
Dy"'sty) (Tok)'o).
Si'UFFORD, M. 1974: Contl'llSfilig l'ommulIiries: EI/g/isb I'illllgers in tlJt' si.wemrb lIud sel'/'I/tel'!lrb ren1lll'ies
(Cambridge).
SI'UFFOIU), M. 2000: /:;guw ill IlJl' IfllJdsl'ttpl':
1'111'1" SOl'Îl''J'
ill Ellglf/lld. 1500-1700 (Aldershor).
SUMMERS, D. 197G: 71Jl' Cl'eflf Letll'/: fr IJisfOlJ' ofdnlil/(/ge IlIulimul rer/nmation il1 rbe Fens (London).
TEBnAKE. \XI.T 2000: Hydr:lulic engineering in the Ncthcrbnds during the Middlc Ages. in: P. SQUATRITI
(ed.), 7i>dm%gy nnf! C1J11l1gr il1 HisfOlY 3: \l?ol'king /lIitb \Y1ttl'r ill A]edielln/ EUl'Ope (Leiden).
TIELliOF, t\l. VAN & Dt\M.I~J.E.f\1. VAN 2006: Losing land, gaining water. Ecological and financial
aspects of rcgional water managemem in Rijnland. 1200-1800 (in [his \'olume).
TYS, 0, 2005: bndscape. sertlemem alld dike building in coastal Flanders in relarion [Q [he political
srr.Iregy of [he COllnt'S of Flanders. 900-1200, in: t\1. FANSA (ed.), Kultur/({1ulscIJafi MlIl"Seb ~ NflTUI',
Cesrbirbre, C"gl'lmml't (Oldenburg). pp. 1OG-12G. (Schriftcnrcihe des Landesllluseullls für Natllr llnd
Mensch Oldenhllrg, Heft 32)
\XlARi':HAM, A.F. 2002: Intt"odlletion, in: [D. & A.PM. WRIGIlT (eds.), Tbe Vicroria HiJtol),oftbe Cal/mies
ofEnglnlld: A l1isrOlY oJCf1IlIbl'itlgl'sbin' flIul tbe !sIi' off:.ÏJ\ Norrb-Ettstel"ll CalJlbridgesbire, /l01101Il' X
(Oxfoed). PI'. 1-24.
\'(.'HITE, L. Jr. 1973: Metlicl'tl/ (('e/m%g)' fllul sofia/ cbllllge (Cambl'idge).
\'(.'ILLIAMS. M. 1970: 71J(, dmillillg oflbe SOl//el'set üUl'ls (London).
\'(frnFOGEL. K. 1955: Oril'ltftll t/"spotislll: 11 COllljHfI'(uitle slJfdy oJtoftll power (New Haven).
ZEISCHKA, S. 200G: Dealing with di\'crsit}': small-scalc dikes in earl}' modern Rijnland. 17th - early 19th
cent'llf)' (in Ihis volume).

Download Report