Dr. Piers Dixon of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland opened the workshop by welcoming the audience on behalf of the RCAHMS. Regrettably, Chris Dyer was unable to attend and sent his apologies. The opening address was given by Piers Dixon, who outlined the ways in which this workshop was pertinent to the theme of the broader research programme, Perceptions of Medieval Landscapes and Settlements. He identified the four workshops of the programme: Planning and Meaning (differentiation between regions, private and public buildings, plans), Working and Sharing (study of boundaries, adaptation to landscape, perception of landscape), New People and New Farms (migration, use of new landscapes by migrants, awareness of the inheritance of the past) and Belonging, Identity and Interaction (interaction between settlements, sustainability, community change in the long-term).

The first session was chaired by Dr. Oliver Creighton (Exeter University) and was composed of four papers. Two of the papers dealt with transhumance and pasture and the other two with medieval landscapes. The speakers addressed aspects of our understanding of medieval landscapes and raised questions about the need for further collaborative research between the disciplines of Arts and Humanities and of Social and Environmental Sciences.

The first paper by Dr. Piers Dixon examined the relationships between outfields, grazing and cultivation. He stressed that the key problem lies with fieldwork data and its interpretation in the light of other sources. He also identified the various inter-related themes arising from the study of Donside (Aberdeenshire); forest reserves, shielings and commonties; deer dykes, outfield folds and crofts; and the disappearance of lowland shielings. Dr. Dixon’s main aim was to identify the relationships between forests and shielings; crofts, outfield enclosures and head dykes; and lastly the expansion of settlement and the disappearance of shielings. With this in mind, Dr. Dixon discussed the various kinds of boundaries, crofts and settlements that existed in Aberdeenshire and how they were related. Field survey data enabled a better understanding of the origin of different types of settlements, whereas documentary analysis suggested that by the twelfth century there was already an established settlement landscape with detached portions of parishes in highland areas. Grants of free forest were made to monasteries and private landowners in lowland Aberdeenshire during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as at Fintray and Tarves. There is a strong possibility that these lands were subsequently enclosed for farming, but no physical evidence has survived. However, Dr. Dixon pointed out that they were indeed defined areas, and that the documented boundaries of Cordyce forest, for example, could still be traced topographically. In the early sixteenth century, the crown was granting lands in highland areas in free forest, such as the forest of Corcarff to Lord Elphinstone in 1507. This forest contained no shielings, but revealed a post-medieval settlement expansion, visible as buildings with turf-covered walls. Shielings, as in the core of the forest of Mar, were excluded, but were to be found in neighbouring glens. In Glenernan, there was also documentary and archaeological evidence for settlement expansion during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and for the enclosure of outfield. Dr. Dixon noted that this locality had been treeless since 230 AD on the basis of paleo-environmental data and it was suggested it had been used mainly for grazing with some spatial management of grazing, possibly enclosure, in the post-medieval period. On the face of it, this data was indicating the same thing as the archaeological and documentary evidence for the post-medieval period. Could the presence of ‘Shiel’ place-names in lowland areas of Aberdeenshire be an indication of shieling grounds transformed to farms during this same period of expansion? Dr. Dixon concluded by suggesting that his study of the shifting balance of hunting forest, transhumance, pasture and outfield in medieval and post-medieval Aberdeenshire should be extended further and that a comparative study with other parts of Scotland might help us to better grasp when changing patterns occurred and under what circumstances.

Dr. Sam Turner (University of Newcastle) echoed some of the themes introduced by Dr. Creighton during his presentation on the distribution of medieval landscape resources. Dr. Turner focused on the perception of landscape in the past and present times and introduced the concept of marginality. He stressed that the language used by the various disciplines involved in the study of landscape varies from one discipline to another and that it could lead to misunderstanding. For instance, historical geographers whose work has dominated landscape scholarship and landscape historians tend to disagree regarding the definition of landscape. While cultural geographers claim that landscape is best understood as a cultural link, landscape historians argue that it should be understood as a representation of the culture. Dr. Turner claimed that this conceptual division amongst scholars lay in their perception of landscape and that it would be eliminated by the adoption of a clearly defined language. The question of definition seems to be one of the key issues in environmental history. Dr. Turner underlined that the idea of marginality, and especially that of marginal community, is a relative construct, which varies according to what it refers i.e. places or people. Marginality can be divided into three main themes: ecological, economic and socio-political. Ecological marginality is a concept used by archaeologists to explain the geographical place of settlement (core – periphery theory) using the altitude and temperature to define marginality. Ecological marginality helps define ecological zones and explain the fluctuating patterns of land-use, the adaptation to climate, subsistence and change of economic strategy, and cultural perception of the surroundings. Dr. Turner stressed that economic marginality does not go necessarily hand in hand with the concept of ecological marginality but that this concept is often use in the explanation of economic systems. Socio-economic and political patterns may be best explained in term of sustainability through the prism of economic marginality. Dr. Turner restated that perception plays a key role in the definition of marginality and that it should always be defined according to context. For instance, upland places might look marginal to us but they certainly were not perceived as such in the past. Some of them were used as meeting places where various matters were discussed by the inhabitants. Dr. Turner concluded by pointing out that when studying sites that are often considered as marginal, scholars from various disciplines should bear in minds the specific meanings those places had for the inhabitants and therefore examine them within an appropriate historical, cultural and political context.

Professor Andrew Fleming (University of Lampeter) focussed on the ‘home-grange’ medieval and post-medieval site of Penardd that belonged to the Cistercian Abbey of Strata Florida, Ceredigion. Founded in 1164 AD by Robert Fitz Stephen, the Abbey was relocated two miles north-east of its original site between c. 1180 and 1200AD and its dissolution recorded in 1539AD. A group of medieval farms belonging to Strata Florida was recently excavated. The site offers natural resources, such as woodlands, rivers and a pond, allowing the monastic community to develop a mixed economy based on husbandry and fishing. The farms presented similarities regarding buildings layout and structure. The Penarddoppa farm had enclosed buildings facing each other, separated by a corridor that was thought to be an animal entrance from the medieval period. The Penardscubo farm’s buildings were not enclosed and no ‘animal’ corridor has been found. This structure seems to be of a later period. At Troody, buildings are not parallel, four entrances are present (two in by land and two out by land) and there is both a back garden and a pond within the enclosure. Eighteenth and nineteenth century enclosures are clearly visible. There is also a sheepcote. Professor Fleming concluded by outlining that the next step would be to assess the relationships between the Abbey and the medieval farms. He also highlighted that although historians and archaeologists’ interpretations regarding monastic landscape vary, collaboration between them would offer a better comprehension of the site and the land-use by this medieval community.

In his paper on Shielings and Upland Pasture on Ben Lawers (Perthshire), Mr. Steve Boyle (RCAHMS) summarized the numerous farms located near Loch Tay and their use of shielings. He identified eight shieling grounds on five different sites, where tenants grazed their livestock during a period of six weeks each spring/summer. An eighteenth century survey identified 450 huts, the structures of which were either in stone and rectangular, or in turf and circular. Mr. Boyle informed the audience that the turf circular structures are the earliest examples while the stone rectangular huts are from a later period. There are in total 1200 mapped structures related to peat-cutting. During the sixteenth century, tenants were responsible for the maintenance of dykes and structures. Shieling grazing was regulated: from 1^st May to 8^th June, livestock should graze on ‘low shieling’ i.e. above the head-dykes and from 8^th June onwards, it should be conducted to ‘high shielings’ or upland pastures/shielings. Furthermore, in order to avoid soil erosion and to improve grazing, tenants also had to alternate shielings every five years. Recent excavations by the University of Glasgow have shown that during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there was an increase in grass-land that could be interpreted by an economic change through ‘commercialization’ of grazing grounds for milking cattle. In order to better understand the use of shielings and upland pastures, Mr. Boyle concluded by suggesting that relationships between ‘low’ and ‘high’ shielings should be addressed within an inter-disciplinary framework of historians, archaeologists and palaeo-environmentalists.

Dr. Richard Oram (University of Stirling) closed the first session by highlighting the three issues that need to be addressed in the future. The first main issue touched the language used by the various disciplines involved in environmental history and the consequent potential for misunderstanding between these disciplines. The second regards our perception and understanding of the landscape, as well as the nature of its exploitation by past generations. Then Dr. Oram came back to the concept of marginality discussed by Dr. Turner. The discussion returned repeatedly to the interdisciplinary side of environmental history and the need to find a common language that will satisfy the disciplines involved. Participants discussed the cultural and socio-economic characteristics of the landscape in terms of ideals and rights attached to it. For instance, rented shielings for milking cattle and pasture brought incomes and were worth more than arable land, whereas nowadays arable lands are often considered more valuable than upland pastures. In England, peat-cutting and the cutting of wood were highly controlled by owners and peat was used in order to preserve timber for deer forest, whereas in Scotland legislation regulated peat-cutting from the fifteenth century until the eighteenth century when it began to be commercially exploited. This first session demonstrated two important points: the totality of the landscape as a resource and that shielings represented an economic asset that must be further investigated.

The second session, Woods and Pastures, was chaired by Dr. Stratford Halliday (RCAHMS). The reconstructions of medieval woodlands, together with an understanding of the management of forest resources, moorland and uplands land-use, are recurrent topics in the field of environmental history. The speakers of this session focussed also on the rights attached to these resources.

In his paper, Reconstructing Medieval Woodland, Dr. Philip Sansum (Forestry Commission) examined the long-term exploitation of woodland resources from c.1000 to c.1700AD and the effect of such land-use on the character of the vegetation. By exploring documentary records on Campbell lands in the west coast of Scotland, and especially the Lochaweside area, Dr. Sansum was able to reconstruct woodland management and exploitation throughout the medieval period. He identified four main uses of woodland: cutting wood, bark peeling, herbivore grazing (domestic livestock) and planting. Wood was cut for small poles and rods for house and boat building but also for smaller items such as basket houses. Woodland management was essential for a regular wood harvest. Bark peeling for tanning was another use, although it was a criminal offence to peel bark without permission from the owner. Cattle grazing in woodland and collection of scrub used for hedging material, in order to enclose and protect woods, are recorded activities during this period. It seems that planting was developed at a later period. Among the most common species were oak, birch and alder. Thus, Dr. Sansum’s research suggests that from c.1000 to c.1700 AD, owners achieved sustainability through the development of woodland management.

Dr. Althea L. Davies (University of Stirling) explored this topic further in her paper, Environmental and Socio-economic Drivers behind Medieval Upland Land-use. Dr. Davies noted that the paucity of both high-resolution pollen sequences and integrated, detailed studies impede a full appraisal of the Scottish medieval environment. As no clear pattern of land-use emerged, there was a risk of misinterpretation and spurious correlations, leading inevitably to a misunderstanding of the socio-economic context and vice-versa. The main point of discussion considered whether it was appropriate to extrapolate general information to a more local scale in order to understand the course of environmental changes through the ages. Dr. Davies commented on the ecological changes induced by changes in the summer grazing regime and the tendency for palynologists to fit pollen evidence to regional events recorded in the historical literature. Therefore, Dr. Davies chose to apply a palaeoecological approach (pollen-based) in order to examine forces behind environmental change between the thirteenth and the seventeenth centuries. She presented two case studies: Wether Hill in Northumberland and Leadour in Perthshire. Dating evidence in Wether Hill was rather poor. Although the monastic community controlled sheep grazing during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in some areas of the Cheviot uplands, it seems reasonable to assume that such grazing together with the formation of nucleated villages, by the twelfth century at latest, and the consecutive population growth, together with the development of upland agricultural cultivation, were as much drivers for environmental changes in the area. From the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, warfare and disease ended the population expansion and the area witnessed agricultural recession with the enclosure and conversion of some arable to pasture. In Leadour, Perthshire, it seems that since the fourteenth century, land management was the most important force behind environmental changes. In c.1400, birch, ash, rowan and willow grew in the fields but although general regulations protected trees and tree planting from the sixteenth century, barony court records show twenty-four entries for the destruction of woods for the years 1614-1620. During the first half of the seventeenth century, it seems that, in response to economic and market incentives, owners cleared the remaining trees in order to gain more grazing and cultivation grounds at shielings. Dr. Davies concluded that the transition from species-rich grassland to grass heath in Wether Hill was caused by a change in grazing regime, possibly to summer grazing, but the lack of detailed shieling and hill grazing documentation in both England and Scotland leave the debate open. Further enquiry needs to be made in order to get a clearer picture of environmental and socio-economic drivers behind upland land-use during the medieval period.

In his paper, Townships and Managing Forest Resources in Sixteenth Century Strathavon, Dr. Alasdair Ross (University of Stirling) analysed a document dated c.1590 which surveyed the numbers and types of trees required by the townships in two-thirds of the parish of Kirkmichael (Banffshire), which formed part of the lordship of Strathavon in the eastern Cairngorms. This survey detailed the trees needed to maintain all the township structures and everything else made from wood on an annual basis. The document was produced in order to defend a court case, where the defendant had been accused of destroying the forest resource by his superior lord. Thanks to this document, the judges agreed with the defendant that he only used as many trees as were absolutely necessary and dismissed the prosecution case against him. This would tend to imply that the information contained in this survey was not misleading. The survey lists every building in the fourteen townships, a total of 361 structures (excluding shielings). To maintain all these buildings, in addition to the wooden ploughs, wooden utensils, and other tools needed for husbandry, required a total of around 120,000 birch, alder, hazel, aspen and rowan trees per annum. Although it is difficult to quantify this total in the absence of palaeo-ecological data, it would suggest that the local woodland must have been a carefully managed resource in order to sustain this annual requirement for wood produce. Because the survey also lists every structure in the townships, it demonstrates that no two townships were identical in the numbers and types of structures they possessed. An analysis of this data further indicates that these townships may have performed different functions within the economic activity of the whole lordship.

Dr. Angus Winchester (University of Lancaster) continued the land-use theme in his paper, Changing Perceptions of Moorland and Fell in Medieval Northern England. He began by emphasising our lack of knowledge about the medieval perception of upland areas. Though these are uninhabitable, they were of vital importance for the people as peat resources and pastures. Furthermore, the division of land by lords throughout the medieval period separated de facto the population of tenants and proprietors. Land was divided into ‘open forest’, where tenant settlements were allowed, and ‘closed forest’, or hunting grounds. This could be compared to the difference between demesne and tenant land, with the maintenance of game stock kept for the owner’s use. Besides, Dr. Winchester indicated that there are references to ‘forests’ in the late medieval period which represented, as above, different parts of the seigniorial lands such as the forest which may be equated with the uplands of the estates, while the manorial part was represented by the lowlands. In any case, the lord decided on the use of the land. Dr. Winchester outlined the importance of transhumance in the Pennines, as well as the status of ‘forest’ or ‘chase’ that covered very large areas in England. He then discussed and compared the settlement patterns in the Miterdale/Eskdale valleys and those situated in the Wasdale valley, the most mountainous of the Lake District valleys. During the fourteenth century, four vaccaries within the deer forest with seigniorial enclosures were identified. Tenants had to pay for the right to graze their livestock, whereas in the Miterdale/Eskdale valleys, grazing was free of charge and tenants shared common rights over the lands. In addition, each farm was assigned a cow pasture. From the seventeenth century onwards, cow pastures were enclosed. Dr. Winchester concluded by summing up the diversity of farming and settlement patterns: ‘forests’ were private/seigniorial lands, stinted and places in which tenants could take and feed their livestock in the lord’s or king’s forests (agistment) while the manorial or hill wastes were public/community  lands, unstinted and places in which tenants had common rights over grazing.

Dr. Richard Tipping (University of Stirling) concluded the second session by summarising the different questions arising from the papers. He stressed that collaboration between disciplines was a key factor for the successful outcome of environmental history research. Like Dr. Oram earlier, Dr Tipping pointed out the need to address language and definitions; this will be a significant factor in the development of the discipline and its research. He then discussed the need for more integrated studies and the effectiveness of interdisciplinary research to fill the gap left by missing or incomplete medieval records. Dr. Tipping emphasized that our perception of the landscape plays a role in the assessment of past land-use. He suggested that the ‘emotional aspect’ of modern perception should be balanced by a critical analysis which will, in turn, lead to a better understanding of the decision-making process through the ages. Dr. Tipping concluded by outlining that although today’s research tend to focus on uplands (subsistence economies), academics should also explore the mentality and culture of the inhabitants because we cannot isolate people from the landscape.

 

Outcomes of workshop

The importance of our own perception of medieval landscapes remained at the centre of the discussion. Some participants suggested that the use of medieval painting and written sources from the Middle Ages would enable scholars to grasp contemporary views of their medieval environment. Place names should also be integrated into research because they are evidence of people’s perception of their natural surroundings and their use/exploitation of natural resources. Proper names might indicate, too, their ‘place’ in the environment as well as their activities. For instance, it has been stressed that most Mercians and Picts identified and named themselves according to land resources. Most participants agreed that there was a lack of communication between disciplines and concurred that researchers should work towards closer collaboration across the disciplines.