"Close to Hennesbury Gate is a hut-circle known as Seven Lords’ Lands,"

from the fact that seven manors meet there.’ ‘A gunshot or two from Hennesbury Gate, and close to the parish boundary wall, is a very perfect hut circle, or aboriginal dwelling, known from medieval times as Seven Lords’ Lands, for it is a boundary point where seven manors meet. What a very evocative name – Seven Lords’ Lands, does not that conjure up images of seven noble knights standing on a hilltop and surveying the extent of their vast estates? If this was the case then they certainly were not the first to do so because despite what both Page and the Ordnance Survey of 1889 tell us Seven Lords’ Lands is in fact a prehistoric cairn. The now vegetation covered pile of rocks dates back to the Bronze Age and today stands at about 0.6metres at the centre with a 10metre diameter, Butler, There is evidence that a kerb of closely spaced surrounded the cairn which displays six of the original stones still in-situ. A sickening shallow depression in the centre of the cairn suggests that at some stage the monument has suffered at the hands of either antiquarians or looters. However for once this was not so forin 1946 Hansford Worth reported that the cairn circle had been converted into a shelter trench by; “some ingenious soldier. ”However, despite this intrusion the cairn remains in a fairly good state of preservation when compared to some of Dartmoor’s cairns. So much so that in Butler’s opinion there still may be an undisturbed burial underneath. If one looks at the wider landscape this cairn is by no means the only example in the area and is probably associated with the Bronze Age settlement at Foale’s Arrishes.To find an explanation of the place-name one must move away from the prehistoric era and leap forward to the medieval period when either by design or accident the cairn supposedly became a meeting place of seven manorial bounds. This theory held good for many years and has been proffered by many Dartmoor writers, . In all reality the seven manorial bounds co-join within the vicinity of the cairn not exactly at the cairn, these manors are; Widecombe Town, Natsworthy, Buckland, Bagtor, Halshanger, Great Houndtor and Dunstone with Blackslade. This phenomenon is by no means exclusive to Seven Lords’ Lands as up and down the country there are numerous examples of boundaries using prehistoric landscape features as markers. This can be argued is because such monuments have always been regarded as sacred and therefore afforded the respect of later generations.This story took an exciting turn in the 1990s when Dave Brewer stepped beyond the obvious and moved into the realms of Saxon ‘Hundreds’ and in particular the Kerswell Hundred which later became the Haytor Hundred. The Kerswell Hundred was split into two sectors, the first had its administrative centre around what is now Kingskerswell. The second sector although being called the Haytor Hundred did not encompass Haytor itself, it did however comprise of the following manors; Widecombe Town ( North Hall), Natsworthy, Spitchwick, Blackaton Pipard, Jordan, Buckland and Dunstone with Blackslade. It is known from the Cartulary of Torre Abbey that the sworn men of the Kerswell Hundred used to meet on a monthly basis at a hill then known as Kyngesdone. The purpose for these meetings was to allow the delegates to discuss and debate the various issues that had arisen within their respective hundred,Brewer, Therefore if this was the norm for Anglo Saxon administration would it not have been logical to say that also such sworn men from the Haytor Hundred also met on a monthly basis?In 1994 Mike Brown found a small piece of parchment lodged in the bowels of the West Devon Record Office which turned out to be a record of the beating of Buckland bounds from 1683. The description of Seven Lords’ Lands was as follows:‘Hoartsberry where the seven Lords meete and seven stones are pitched up together to each Lord a stone, and the stone that belongs to the Lord of the Manor of Buckland is the South Stone save one‘, Clearly this entry does not give the date and origins of this custom but along with the evidence from the Cartulary of Torre Abbey would suggest a long tradition. If meetings were held at Seven Lords’ Land then this would in effect classify the place as a ‘Moot Hill’, moot stemming from the old Saxon word for a court or council –möt .Other indicators to the age of the area can be seen in nearby Harefoot Cross and Harefoot Mires, both contain the element hēre which is an Anglo Saxon word meaning ”dignity or importance, Could this allude to Seven Lords’ Land as a place of importance or where dignitaries met .

There is enough evidence to show that Seven Lords’ lands has an important place in the historical record of Dartmoor especially as it is, to the best of my knowledge, the only place of its kind on the moor. However the monument has not been without its trails and tribulations as noted above but now the monument has suffered the indignation of being covered with gorse to such an extent that it’s almost invisible. The Dartmoor Magazine reported in the spring of 2008 that the editor on four occasions has reported this deplorable state of affairs to the Dartmoor National Park Authority. The then Chief Executive responded with the normal DNPA arrogance stating that as the monument was scheduled and that the authority had no responsibility of care towards it, Stanbrook, p.4. Stanbrook also reported that a member of the public had informed her that they too had written to the DNPA complaining about the state of the cairn. That was two years ago and there has been no reply forthcoming – what a surprise. It is interesting to see that the brand spanking new information centre which has just been built two miles down the road at Haytor was in 2007 projected to cost £336,750.00pWell, finally (September 2009) the gorse was cleared and again you can see the Seven Lord’s Lands cairn in all its glory, however the march of gorse and bracken is timeless and by 2014 it had started to regrow as can be seen from the photo above. In the summer of 2016 there was a mini digger doing some kind of work near to the cairn circle so maybe the vegetation will once gain be removed.tion of trees; roads, reddish-brown between red lines for principal routes; single red and reddish-brown for less-important roads; moorland tracks white between black lines; churches drawn in
elevation and in different sizes; Buckland Abbey and Tavistock named; boundary marks of Dartmoor named in scrolls and marked by a series of roundels; where boundary is indicated by individual
stones a cairn is drawn except for Siward’s Cross which is shown by a cross; where names are too close to be written legibly they are
marked by letter keyed to a list enclosed in rectangular cartouche,

Henry VIII ‘Informacions for my lorde prynce to the kynges most Honorable Counsell concernyng my said Lrde prynces Forest of Dartmoor in the Countye of Devonshire and in the mores & wastes to the same belongyn’ . ‘This lytell compas betokenyth the Foreste. The seconde compas betokenythe the waste which lyeth from the Forest unto that ys callyd the Commyners of Devonshire. The thirde compas Betokenithe the vyndefylde men there whiche be the kynges and myelorde princes is tenants. The fourthe compas betokenyth the hole shere of Devonshire. The lytell forykes aboute the corndyches ys callyd the Lypeyattes for to goo unto the wast more and Forest’ ‘Este lype yatte North ockenton yatte Weste pyke yeatte Southe sceryton yeatte’
‘The vyndefeld men of dene had Ougborowe The vyndefelde men of cornewode had Harfford The vyndefelde men of schystor had meavye The vyndefelde men of Shaye [Shaugh] and Whittechurche The vyndefelde men of Walkynton and Samford The vynefelde men of Okenton and Southawt: The vynfelde men of Gydley and Throwely The vyndefelde men of Chageford and Manaton’
For on the wintering of cattle on the King’s tenants lands of the Abbot of Buckfast ‘a close callyd knowthorne that the fyer bekon standith on This waye lyethe from Dartbrogge towardes the Forest of Dartmore’; ‘Parish church of Buckfastlee’ ‘foresta principis’:- ‘Seyridon yate, Pycke yate, Lepe yate, Ockenton yate’; areas marked along the edge of the circle by slashes and named:- ‘my lord of bath,South hill, Bucfaste, brent more, Ugburough, my lord bray, Devon, plympton’ opposite the gates ‘occidentalis porta, meridionalis ports, borealis porta; east, which should be opposite
‘Seyridon yate’ betokenyth the forest et comune universorum habetur sygnifith the mores from the forest to the come dyches as south holl more Buckfastlegh more Brent more Ugborrow more parcelles of those maners The third notyfith the privat grownde within the com diches tyled and inhabited’ the bounds of the Moor and property of the Abbot of Buckfast

Parish and the Forest of Dartmoor
Elizabeth Gawne
THE upper valley of the River Dart is larger and wider than the other river valleys of Dartmoor, and penetrates much farther into the centre of the uplands. It is almost entirely occupied by the Parish of Widecombe, and by the part of the parish of Lydford which contains the Ancient Tenements of the Forest of Dartmoor. Widecombe is the only parish which is entirely within the Moor, and was the last to be reached by the higher tides of land hunger, and the first to abandon its marginal fields when the pressure subsided. Many layers of deserted banks and boundaries can be seen on the hillsides, and their basic pattern can be followed in the shapes of the cultivated fields below.
A great deal has been written about the Ancient Tenements of the Forest, which had certain rights and obligations as part of the Royal manor of Lydford. The 35 tenements were contained in 15 somewhat scattered settlements, and were in fact only a very small proportion of the hill farms of Dartmoor. For most legal purposes they were part of the parish of Widecombe until 1816. The parishes which surround the Forest have long strips of upland common which connect them with the Forest boundary. These are the Venville parishes, with grazing rights in the Forest on payment of certain dues. They all contain typical hill farms at heights of 800 ft. to 1,100 ft., but their main settlements are on lower ground. Their high ground has always been kept mainly for grazing, and except where a small valley breaks the steep escarpment of the Moor, such as the valley of the Walkham in Walkhampton parish,  there are few signs of deserted fields and farms on their commons.
Five of the seven Widecombe manors in Fig 1 are mentioned in the Domesday Book. Blackslade and Natsworthy are among the highest Domesday manors on Dartmoor, Natsworthy at 1,100 feet being the highest of all. Outlying farms are mentioned at early dates in the few surviving records, for example 
At least the present area of cultivation must have existed during the 14th century, and the deserted medieval farm sites in the waste show that it had already begun to contract. No new farm names appear in later centuries. In the Forest, Babeny and Pizwell were mentioned in 1260; Dunnabridge was asserted in 1305, and others of the Ancient Tenements are mentioned before, or soon after this date. Settlement in the Forest was always less concentrated, and there are fewer deserted fields there.
The upper boundary of the Widecombe fields has hardly changed since the Tithe Apportionment of 1844, and as far as it can be followed from the first Ordnance Survey map it has also changed very little since 1809. But the present fields only cover about two-thirds of the area which was once under cultivation (Fig 2) The present cultivated soil is mainly a brown earth, rising to a black earth at an irregular height-line. The writer of a 1787 survey of Kenton Manor2 summed up hill farming in the outlying part of the manor in Manaton parish: This part of the manor is very Poor Cold and Hungry Ground, full of Rocks and Naturally Heathy, but by the extraordinary Pains and Cost of its Owners produces good Rye, some Wheat, but more Oats and
Barley.
This down-country view was balanced by Vancouver 1808, who pointed out the importance of the wastes, giving as an example the commons of Widecombe, where, he says, ‘in the month of October last, there were estimated to be no less than 14,000 sheep besides the usual proportion of horned cattle. The 255 men of 18 years and over from Widecombe and the Forest who signed the Oath of Protestation in 1642 including of course craftsmen, tinners and others farmed between them a total of about 130 tenements, rather less than two men to a farm. Small farmers helped on larger farms and did a bit of tinning on the side. It is difficult to compare the acreages of the farms because so much depends on the amount of rough pasture which was enclosed, but the lists of Poor Rates paid on the farms which are given in the Overseers' accounts show their comparative values,and are also a useful record of farms and their owners. The sums paid ranged from 1 shilling 6pence to 17 shillings, but
nearly 40 per cent paid between 2 and 6 and 3 and 6. This group of farms must originally have had some standard holding, probably one ferling. The same farms paid from 20 shillings to 26 shillings in Land Tax during the 18th century, on an assessment which for the whole parish ranged from 8 and 6 to 120 shillings, at 4 shillingsin the pound. There were tenements of all sizes, and no particular dividing line between large and small; and the combined evidence of Court Rolls, Tax Returns and other documents shows that

Fig 2 Widecombe Parish, showing areas covered by deserted fields
(hatched) and present fields (stippled)

exactly equal shares.
55
Each man had 19 and one half of the 96 acres, three 32-acre ferlings. An early 17th century survey of the estate of Mary Fitz , later known as Lady Mary Howard includes two holdings at Dunnabridge, each con sisting of 22 acres of arable in the common field of Dunnabridge, and 1and a half acres in the common meadow .The Overseers’ accounts show that in the 18th century the five holdings all belonged to two members of the Leaman family, and by 1844 they had been redivided as two farms. There was great cohesion within the hamlets, and although there was always a tendency for the small tenements to be amalgamated, this almost always happened inside the hamlet boundary, which remained intact.
Common Fields
The common fields attached to the nucleated hamlets have left their traces in field names and documents as well as on the ground, although very little is known about the actual sense in which they were common fields. Among the field names mentioned in the Tithe Apportionment are Longlands, Shortlands, Butland, Lawns, Shutes, Sallans ? (Selions), Grattons and Wares, all of which suggest strip fields of some kind, and are arranged in blocks on the map. Grattons, with variations such as Gradener and Gratna, is a common name. It can mean a stubble field over which there are common grazing rights; or the first crop of grass grown after land has been top-dressed with sea-sand. Sea-sand is known to have been used in Widecombe in the 17th century on a meadow called the Nepehay, Court Rolls of Widecombe, which was unfortunately flooded when a certain Vincent Andrew diverted the mill-stream. But the Gratton fields are almost invariably in groups, and this suggests a piece of ground which has been divided and en closed, but is still subject to grattoning rights. Another name which is apparently connected with open fields is ‘Wares’. It was common among the Ancient Tenements in 1838, but did not exist in Widecombe in 1844, unless names such as Bull Weir on Uppacot are a variation. In East Anglia ware land seems to have indicated a form of land tenure, particularly on marginal land, and it has been suggested that it was the converse of inland (Fig. 3). Possibly the name was connected with eare, or are, to plough, a word still known in Widecombe. A document of 1742 concerning the moiety of a tenement at Hexworthy (SX 654728) mentions: all that mead called Cholly Meadow, one close of land called Broome Park, one parcel of land called Larkland, one parcel of land containing one acre, and one parcel of land containing half an acre in Langland, one parcel of land containing half an acre in Great Ridgeware, half of an acre lying in Little Ridgeware, half an acre lying in the Bye, and one acre of land lying in Whitemeade. . . These parcels are far more scattered than the fields of any of the Hexworthy holdings at the time of the Tithe Apportionment, and could not possibly fit in with any of them. They must have been dispersed strips which were redistributed and converted into blocks at some time between 1742 and 1838. Landscore’ as a field name was not known in Widecombe, Buckland, Manaton or the Forest at the time of the Tithe Apportionments; but it was used to describe boundaries, bounded parcels in common fields or meadows, or bounded land over which there were common rights. ‘Closes and land score grounds’ at Blackslade appear in a document of 1588.
      The 17th-century survey of Mary Fitz’s estate which has already been mentioned includes ‘one rod of arable meadow and pasture called landscore land’ at Sherbourne, Sherberton in the Forest, and ‘80 acres of waste land called landscore ground’, which may possibly have been at Laughter. Landscores and Wares at Challacombe The deserted strip lynchets at Challacombe in Manaton parish (SX 695795) were described and mapped by Dr. Alfred Shorter (Antiquity, 1938). They belong to the outlying part of Kenton Manor in Manaton parish, and the Kenton Manor surveys show that they were still part of the Challacombe tenements at the end of the 18th century. It seems obvious that the farms were allowed to run down because the inhabitants found it more profitable to work in the Birch Tor and Vitifer mines, which were just over the Challacombe border. There are similar deserted strip lynchets at Soussons, on the other side of the ridge, and also at Blackaton, immediately to the
south. In the 18th century there were five tenements at Challacombe and two at Soussons.
The 1787 survey of Kenton manor (which unfortunately only exists in a 19th-century copy which has no map) lists in detail the fields of the two leasehold tenements of the manor in Challacombe. One of these is identifiable by its 12 fields, which correspond closely in their acreages with those of North Challacombe farm as given in the Tithe Apportionment of 1842. Apart from the 12 fields, there were in 1787 (but not in 1842) 31 landscores. The fields of the second tenement correspond with those of South Middle Challacombe Fig. 4. Challacombe area. The enclosed fields existing in 1842 are stippled. The areas showing deserted strip lynchets are hatched in 1842, with the addition of 37 landscores. The total acreage for the five Challacombe tenements all through the 18th century was 270 acres, which was reduced to only 157 by 1842. The two tenements at Soussons had 152 acres between them, compared with only 79 in 1842. It is clear that the landscores must represent the deserted strip lynchets (Fig. 4), The present fields of Challacombe, now a single farm, lie in the bottom of the valley. They mainly correspond with those of 1842. The deserted strip lynchets line the sides of the valley up to nearly 1,400 ft. The contour divisions on the eastern lynchet below. Those on the western side, which is considerably steeper—and, as Mr. W. G. Hambley, who farms Challacombe, points out, on different soil and better drained, are considerably more massive. They circle round the southern end of the Challacombe ridge, where they are divided by downhill strips, and then continue northwards above Soussons. The lynchets are divided into blocks of strips. These divisions must be the Wares mentioned in the survey. Without a map it is difficult to name them individually, but Mr. Hambley has been able to identify Hellens as the block immediately to the west of the mill, and Moor Soggs as the 21 acres at the extreme south-east corner of the fields. Many of the fields which belonged to individual Challacombe farms by 1787 had, from their appearance, been unenclosed strips not long before. At least three-quarters of the total farm acreages must once have been strips in common enclosures. Deserted medieval house sites near the present Challacombe farm house have been recorded (Linehan, 1966), but there is no sign of an inner boundary wall surrounding a contracted area within the lynchets, which reach the height of the highest of the local deserted fields. This must be a survival of the highland zone system of a small permanent infield, and a shifting cultivation of the outfield, a few years’ tillage, then a return to waste. As the local tin mines expanded the farms were allowed to run down, and unlike other local farms they were never converted to ley farming—permanent cultivation alternating between tillage and grass leys. The Challacombe valley preserves the original pattern of Dartmoor farms. There are obvious enclosed strip lynchets all through the
field pattern in the Widecombe area. They are of the tions of two or three strips put together, making fields of if to 3 acres. (Sometimes they are quite heavily lynchetted; but normally this has been prevented by good farmers, who con sidered it a crime if the bottom two or three furrows of a ploughed field were not carted uphill and deposited at the top.) For example, in 1844 the small meadows and enclosures of Dunstone Manor (Fig. 5) and a set of downhill strips (possibly permanent arable) below the road were still divided among the tenements of Lower Dunstone; while the strip lynchets above, part of the original outfield, were held in blocks, and had apparently once extended higher up the common. The larger fields of the demesne can be seen to the south. In many hamlets the change to ley farming would have come at the same time as the enclosure of open field strips, but it would in any case vary according to circumstances. The evidence of Hexworthy shows that on the outskirts strip fields
persisted in 1742, and the larger fields typical of late enclosure of strip fields are more common on the western side of the parish.

The exact status of the outfield is difficult to understand. Judging by the fringe of deserted fields above them, many of the farms seem to have abandoned a part of their share of it.
If more of the system of grazing rights and land tenure were known this might be explained. Even marginal land should have been useful as enclosed pasture. Unfortunately few of the farm acreages given in Widecombe documents and records are
specific enough to compare with those given in the Tithe Apportionment. There may have been some connection with the recognised area of grazing belonging to each farm, but this was very much larger than any patch of cultivation. The exact form of the boundary fence is also uncertain. A deed of 1672 gives a total of 79 acres at Lower Tor (SX 698726) including 20 acres of furse and heath; in 1844 there were only 60 acres altogether, the missing 19 acres being the furse and heath, which was never enclosed. On the other hand a 1720 lease of Oldsbroom farm (SX 668734) includes in the total of 45 acres 17 acres of heath and common pasture’. In 1844 the acreage was the same, and the 17 acres were clearly the five fields above the road. One local commoner with a memory which stretches back over several generations says that the farm lost its grazing rights by enclosing part of the common. Oldsbroom was a single farm at least as far back as 1700, and is detached from all other farms, an island by itself on Spitchwick Common. The 17 acres must have been en closed between 1720 and 1844; and it seems that although they were always recognised as part of the farm, they were originally subject to common grazing rights. The Poor Rate and Land Tax Assessments for Oldsbroom were exceptionally low, whereas the Tithe Apportionment a century later was normal for the size of the farm. Presumably unenclosed but bounded outfield, like unenclosed strips in an open field, was of low
value. (There were inconsistencies of this kind in taxes only on two other Widecombe farms—Blackslade and Foxworthy.) At this time large newtakes were being enclosed, but the Spitchwick commoners were particularly sensitive about encroachment because the common was inflexibly bounded by the river. Common rights apparently did exist over the recognised divisions of the bounded outfield. The 1787 Kenton Survey says of the part of the manor in Kenton parish that the tenements have ‘their marks’ on the commons, which they till once in fifteen or twenty years. The 1566 survey of Lord Dynham’s lands in Ilsington Manor records one tenant who held ‘on Etor Down 40 acres’, which were probably among the deserted cultivations (SX 7677) due north-west of the Moorland Hotel. These can be seen from the road near Hay Tor in the right conditions. From the arrangement of the deserted fields above the upper boundary of some of the present enclosures, it seems possible that a patch of outfield was sometimes shared between two or three farms or hamlets, for example in the small block of strip lynchets above jordan, Dockwell and Bittieford (SX7677) This could have created complications when enclosures began. (In fact it is surprising that the process went so smoothly that no records of disputes survive.) In some cases the ground immediately above the farm was impossibly steep. This would account for the concentration of deserted fields in the upper part of the Natsworthy valley.
Strip Lynchets
H. G. Bowen (1960) remarked that the Challacombe lynchets are a notable exception to the normal strip lynchets: They have squared ends, and though long, they do not have the extreme proportions of normal strip lynchets. Nevertheless they are arranged in parcels after the medieval fashion, and it is this regular disposition over a large area which above all would appear to distinguish them from the “Celtic” fields.’

Strip lynchets of this type are normal on Dartmoor. Farmers were accustomed to dig the outside furrows of the field, and also the corners and rocky patches (even in some cases within the last twenty years) with long-handled Devon shovels. This
accounts for the squared ends. There were no carts, only pack ponies or sledges, and elaborate ramps were hardly necessary, though field-ways occasionally ran along the contour. There are strip lynchets as massive as those at Challacombe at Hexworthy (SX 668729) and on Easdon Down in Manaton (SX736826). Sometimes the individual strips have been filled in between dividing lines running uphill (like those on the western side of the Challacombe valley) without matching along the contour. Possibly intervening strips have been ploughed out, but as Dr. Shorter (1938) said of those at Challacombe ‘they are of different lengths and widths and there seems to be no standard’. Occasionally single blocks of strip lynchets climb the slopes like short ladders with irregular sides (SX 764759, for example, near Bag Tor). On the other hand there is in some places an underlying pattern of very long terraces which have been subdivided by banks which run directly uphill. Some of the long contour lines on Rushlade Common (SX 7374) continue southwards along the field boundaries of Welstor for 3 to 4 furlongs. On aerial photographs it can be seen that there were once contour lines from a deserted field at Swallerton Gate (SX 740792) northwards through the fields of Great Hound Tor, and out on to Hayne Down, a distance of about half a mile. It is characteristic of this type that if they come to a dip or valley they go straight down one side and up the other. A collection of deserted strips near Venford Reservoir run in different directions, which is unusual on Dartmoor (SX 686717). The upper block is composed of strip lynchets, each of which is divided into two or three smaller strips (by slighter banks) which are from 20 to 25 yards wide. This can be seen clearly from the opposite side of the Dart valley, but is difficult to follow on aerial photographs or on the ground. Strips like this may have been ploughed out on other examples, which would account for the chunky proportions of some strip lynchets. There are smaller and more primitive deserted strip lynchets in the Widecombe area which may well be pre-Saxon. There are examples near the prehistoric settlement on Halshanger Common (SX 7 48 7 49), and on the eastern slope of Chinkwell Tor (SX 732 782), where deserted contour fields run between three prehistoric banks which climb the hillside. There are contour divisions inside the three prehistoric fields immediately to the north-west of the Foale’s Arrishes enclosure (SX737760). These are faint, with only slight lynchets, but unmistakable. On the western side of the same ridge is another small block (SX 731762) above a group of hut circles, and there are faint contour lines all over this hillside. There are others above Rowbrook (SX 682726). All of these are small and of irregular sizes, and all are near hut circles.
Downhill Strips
It is well known that strips which run up and down or across the slope have small lynchets which are easily ploughed out, and often leave little trace. Many of the squarish fields must once have contained them. ‘Fossilised’ examples remain at Natsworthy (Fig. 3) and Venton as well as Dunstone, and also at Pizwell and Huccaby in the Forest. Wider strip-shaped fields at Tor, Blackaton and other farms are probably made from two or three enclosed together. Apart from the strips below the terraces at Venford, there is a set of about a dozen deserted strips fanning out down the hillside between Blackslade Ford and Foale’s Arrishes, near a medieval longhouse site. These are about 40 ft. wide at their widest. A part of this set has been enclosed at a later time and covered with ridge and furrow. There are also deserted down hill strips of a more primitive type, not much more than 25 ft. wide and very irregular, near Week Ford at Huccaby (SX661725) and at Sherril (SX 682748). As the present fields occupy what must have been the best ground at most periods, many prehistoric fields and farms must underlie them, and some farmsteads must be on prehistoric sites. It is difficult to identify any traces of this in the later field pattern, except in the case of the prehistoric reaves which have been described in an earlier number of the Transactions . These reaves run across the Moor in long parallel lines, usually about 100 yards apart, ignoring all physical obstacles, such as streams and rocky hillsides. Their purpose is unknown, but they are apparently land rather than field boundaries. They have been used as marking lines for later fields and boundaries (Fig. 6) particularly among the
squarer fields. The strip lynchets are usually on a different Ridge and Furrow
65
In the 16th and 17th centuries men were allowed to till parts of the lord’s waste at 6d an acre (Widecombe Court Rolls). The cases recorded were few, and apparently refer to land on the open commons beyond the bounded outfield. Lines of ridge and furrow can be seen all over the commons from a distance, although it is difficult to measure it on the spot. Ridge and furrow on deserted fields is much clearer. The ridges are nearly always about 7 feet. 6 inches wide (though very irregular) and occasionally about 6 feet. or 9 foot. wide. There is also a type with ridges 10 foot to 15 feet wide, which must date from the time when the arrival of wheeled farm machinery made the wider ridges necessary. This is concentrated in a few places, particularly on large newtakes.  On contour fields it usually, but not always, runs contourwise. Otherwise it runs up and down, or sometimes slightly across the slope. Sometimes there is visible cross ploughing. There has been so much unenclosed ploughing of the commons on the eastern side of the parish that much of the prehistoric pattern has disappeared; but on the western side, particularly on Spitchwick common, the pattern is less disturbed. Vancouver (1808, p. 132) said of the district and of most of the rest of Devon that the fields were ploughed in ten-furrow ridges, with a 9-in. furrow, which would produce the 7 foot 6 inches ridge. He mentioned narrower ridges for potatoes, but these were not common in Widecombe. He did not mention extra
ploughing of waste or pasture because of the Napoleonic wars. According to the Tithe List of 1808 most farms only grew enough corn for home use. Parts of the newtakes were ploughed during the two world wars.
In the Isle of Man, land which was to be reaped by sickle was described as being divided into butts, a little more than 2 yards wide, ‘to make it easier to sow and reap the corn’ (Clague, 1911, p. 75). Thomas Quayle (1812, p. 52) said of ploughing on upland Manx farms that ‘no plough formerly penetrated above three inches into the soil, and the ridges were crooked and narrow, with broad headlands unturned altogether’. This would be a good description of the ridge and furrow on Dartmoor. Symmetrical geological patterns of stone stripes can be mis
taken for ridge and furrow, or even strip fields, but they can be

Fig. 3. Above. 'Fossilised' strip fields in the demesne of Natsworthy in 1844 The holdings are—1. Higher Natsworthy {Hyngeston). 2, 3 and 4. The three tenements in Natsworthy hamlet. 5. Ley. below. Part of Dunnabridge in 1838. The fields with Ware names are marked ' W'

 It seems likely that the Challacombe fields which were enclosed by 1842 represent the original infield (mainly meadow bnt probably containing some permanent arable) to which had been added a few pieces of ground which had formerly been covered by strip lynchets. The landscores could very well correspond with that part of the outfield in the Scottish run rig system which was manured by animals penned upon it in temporary
enclosures, and was broken up about once in ten years. (North Challacombe and South Middle Challacombe both held from 3-5 acres in each of the 10 main divisions of the landscores.) The open common may have taken the place of the other, unmanured, part of the run-rig outfield, which was tilled once in 15—20 years. The probable existence of the infield-outfield system on Dartmoor has been discussed in detail by Harinden and Wilkinson in their recent book, Dartmoor: a New Study (David & Charles).

                                                                 ©The Devonshire Association, December 2003
                           The Manor of Bagtor,
                                                                 Ilsington

          This paper traces the ownership of Bagtor manor in Ilsington parish, and that of its manor house and barton, from early times to the present Manorial court rolls are mostly locking and there are consequently gaps in the record which are unlikely ever to be filled. However, other sources, both unpublished, and published but in a different context, I have gone some way in helping to create a coherent account !
INTRODUCTION
                               The first known holder of Bagtor was Ordric. The Exeter Book of 1086) states that Roger held Bagtor from Nicholas formerly held by Ordric. Possibly this Roger was he who also held a portion of Buckland-in-the-Moor from Nicholas and was described as a man-at-arms. Bagtor paid tax for one virgate and consisted of land for five ploughs with one furlong and one plough in lordship. The manor had six villagers, two smallholders and one slave. There were three acres of woodland and pasture of one league in length and half a league in width. There were five cattle, three pigs, thirty-five sheep and fifteen goats. The value was 20 shilling,  but formerly 15 shillings , (Dimensions such as virgate and league in 1086 cannot be equated at all precisely with modern values and there have been many interpretations of their likely value. Notionally, in Devon a virgate may have been around thirty acres and a league one and a half miles). Nicholas was known as ‘Balistarius’ which has been variously
translated as bowman, gunner and chief engineer (the Latin word ‘ballista’ covered a variety of missile-throwing weapons). He was one of the French men-at-arms serving under William the Conqueror.

                                                                                                                                                                  The Manor of Bagtor
Ordric, most probably a Saxon, had before the Conquest, also owned lands at Holbeam, Ideford, Modbury, Ogwell, Rocombe, Stokeinteignhead and Webbery, all of which passed to Nicholas.
THE EARLY YEARS
The Testa de Nevil, a series of documents relating to feudal tenures, was collected and copied for the Exchequer in 1302 during the reign of Edward the first (1272-1307). It also contained extracts from financial
documents from an earlier time. An entry for the period 1235-43 showed that a William de Baggetorre held Bagtor for one knight’s fee from the Honour of Plympton (Whale, 1898, 238). In another document he is shown as holding Bagtor in 1238: Bagtor vill is in mercy for a foolish presentment. William de Bagggetore is likewise in mercy for the same, pledges Robert de la Heie and Thomas de Swinepath. By 1284-6 the manor was held by Thomas: Thomas de Baggetorre tenet villam de Baggetor pro homagio et servicio de Roberto filio Pagani, Robertus de comitissa predicta per idem servicium, et eadem de rege , et est j f.
Thomas of Bagtor holds the vill of Bagtor for homage and service from Robert son of Pagan, Robert of the aforesaid countess for the same service and the same of the king and is one fee. (Feudal Aids, 1899,339)
The same publication also shows that in 1303 Thomas held Bagtor and Aller in the Hundred of Haytor. At that date, too, a William of Bagtor held half a fee in ‘Horrygg’1 (Horridge). The Lay Subsidy Rolls for 1332 show a Geoffrey of Bagtor taxed for 2 shillings and Feudal Aids for the year 1346 show a Geoffrey of Bagtor paying 40 shillings and refers to Thomas as having once held it. By 1377 William de Brightlegh held Bagtor for one knight’s fee from Hugh de Courtenay.
Another reference to Bagtor is contained in a return around 1384 relating to fifteenths and tenths granted by the laity to Richard the second. These were taxes on the value of movables or chattels levied generally
at a tenth from towns and ancient demesnes and a fifteenth elsewhere. The tithing of ‘Bagetor’ paid 15 pence compared to 9 pence from Horridge, 18 pence from Staplehill, 18 pence from the hamlet of Sigford and 20 shillings 8 pence from the manor of Ilsington .

By 1428 at the latest a John Ford had succeeded to the ownership together with John Windyeat: Johannes Forde et Johannes Windyeat tenent di.f.m.in Bagetor quod Galfridus de Bagetor quondam tenuit ibidem.
John Ford and John Windyeat hold half a knight’s fee in Bagtor which Geoffrey of Bagtor once held. Feudal Aids, 1899,486) The earliest statement found relating the Bere family to Bagtor is by Risdon: ‘The Barton of Bagtor .... became the inheritance of the name of Bere’ (Risdon, 1811,135). Although not finally published until 1811 the material for Risdon’s book was collected between 1605 and 1630. A statement by Pole gives a little more information and spells the name differently which suggests that it is not a copy taken from Risdon’s work. Thus ‘William Hurst, aiderman of the cyty of Exeter ...married Julian daughter of ...Beare of Bagtor and had issue William and John’. Pole put no forename to Beare (Pole, 1791, 261). Westcote wrote that John Beare of Huntsham married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of John Chalvedon and had issue John and Julian, the latter married to William Hurst of Exeter, and that Hurst was five times mayor of Exeter. He made no mention of Bagtor (Westcote,1845, 461). Vivian shows this John Beare as having died on 27 December 1524 (Vivian, 1895). Izacke stated that William Hurst was bailiff of Exeter in 1512 and mayor in 1524,1535,1545, 1551 and 1561 (Izacke, undated). A Julian Beare of Huntsham, daughter of John Beare, was born around 1485 and married
William Hurst about 1507 so it is probable that Beare owned Bagtor before that latter date. These dates fit well with the statement by Alexander that William Hurst died in 1568 aged 96 (Alexander, 1929).An Inquisition Post Mortem4 on the death of a John Bear in 17 Henry VIII (1526) included the recital of a will dated 12 December of Henry VIII but it contains no reference to a daughter Julian or to Bagtor. The likely explanations are that Julian had died before her father or that, being already married, there was no call to leave her anything. It is also reasonable to suppose that Beare had disposed of Bagtor before he died. In fact there is evidence which shows that John Ford purchased Bagtor from John Beare in 1517. the fords of bagtor Pole states that ‘John Forde held Baggetorre in Kinge Henry eighth tyme 11509-1547] and his heire male now enjoyeth the same’ (Pole, 1791,

Where Ordric is mentioned

• Primary statement: The Exeter (Domesday) record shows that Bagtor (Bagetore/Bagathora) was held in 1086 by Roger as tenant of Nicholas the Bowman, and that before the Norman Conquest it had been held by a Saxon named Ordric1.

Exact phrasing found in modern summaries

• “Before the Norman Conquest of 1066, it was held by a Saxon named Ordric” 2.
• Domesday summary lists Lord in 1066: Ordricfor Bagtor 1.
• Local heritage entry records Bagtor as the Domesday manor ‘Bagethora’ held by Roger from Nicholas the Bowman and earlier held by Ordric 3.

Sources

• Wikipedia entry for Bagtor 2.
• Open Domesday, Domesday Book summary for Bagtor 1.
• Devon & Dartmoor Historic Environment Record (Heritage Gateway) for Bagtor Barton 3.
  

• Bagtor was a settlement in Domesday Book, in the hundred of Teignbridge and the county of Devon.

  It had a recorded population of 9 households in 1086, putting it in the smallest 40% of settlements recorded in Domesday.

  Land of Nicholas the bowman Households

  • Households: 6 villagers. 2 smallholders. 1 slave.

  Land and resources

  • Ploughland: 5 ploughlands. 1 lord's plough teams. 4 men's plough teams.
  • Other resources: 0.06 lord's lands. Pasture 1 * 0.5 leagues. Woodland 3 acres.

  Livestock

  • Livestock in 1086: 5 cattle. 3 pigs. 35 sheep. 15 goats.

  Valuation

  • Annual value to lord: 1 pound in 1086; 15 shillings when acquired by the 1086 owner.

  Owners

  • Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Nicholas the bowman.
  • Lord in 1086: Roger.
  • Lord in 1066: Ordric.

  Other information

  • Phillimore reference: Devon 48,7
    

The Manor of_ Bagtor
526). John Ford was probably born around 1485 (he had a daughter, Joan, born in 1509) and came to Ashburton from Chagford. John was a leading figure in Ashburton and had amassed many estates in Devon. It is possible, but unproven, that he was the direct heir of the John Ford jointly holding Bagtor in 1428. John’s ‘heire male’ was George, born in 1522. George was bequeathed some sixty per cent of his father’s estate and when he died in 1570 left only about one third of this. However, it would be wrong to suppose that this showed recklessness in his transactions though it is probable that he acquired debts which forced him to sell land. A substantial part of the proceeds of such sales was to raise money to help pay for a dowry for the marriage of his sister Margaret, their father, John, having made a greatly insufficient allowance for this in his will. On the positive side, on the death of George his estate was more compact than that which he inherited. 6 Bagtor, with other properties in Ilsington parish, passed died 1684 ,Henry Row Ford died circa 1679
Joanna Hockmore, Joan St. Clare, Elizabeth Popham, Katherine Drake, Eleanour Row Dormer Henry (Barton of Bagtor then passed io the Lears) on the death of George to his eldest son Thomas born in 1556. Thomas, by his wife Elizabeth Popham, had an heir Henry of Bagtor, and a second son John, baptised on 17 April 1586 at St Michael’s church, Ilsington, who became famous as an Elizabethan dramatist. Thomas died in 1610. Henry Ford of Bagtor married Katherine Drake, daughter of George Drake of Littleham in October 1612. In that same year, by a deed of 15 September, he conveyed Bagtor to John Drake and John Sampson. At that point Bagtor passed from the Ford family but only four years later, on 6 November 16167 Edward Gee of Tedburn Saint Mary, John Drake and John Sampson sold to: Kathren, widdow of Henry Forde of Bagtor, esq., the lordshippe and mannor of all Bagtorre with bowses, milles, gardens, landes, pastures, woodes, marshes, commons, waters etc, the capitall mansion howse, barton, farme and demesne landes of Bagtorre or so called... Henry and Katherine had a son and heir who became Sir Henry of Nutwell, MP for Tiverton and Secretary of State for Ireland. He married Eleanour Row, daughter of Sir Henry Row. Sir Henry Ford died in 1684 seriously in debt, and in his will dated 11 September of that year he left his estate to his devisees to be sold as necessary to pay his debts, funeral expenses and legacies to his four daughters.8 There was no specific mention in the will of the lordship and manor of Bagtor. The provisions of the will were much disputed and not finally resolved until an award of arbitration in 1692.’ This included, inter alia, awards of the high rent of Bagtor. The receipt of high rent was an indication of lordship and it is clear that Sir Henry was, indeed, the lord of the manor. From then until the present day the passage of the lordship of Bagtor followed the same route as that for Ilsington manor described in detail in an earlier issue of these
Transactions (Ransom, 1999,105-121). Sir Henry specifically devised the barton of Bagtor to his grandson Henry whose father was Henry Row Ford. This grandson has been wrongly attributed by Vivian in his Visitations, and subsequently by others, as the son of Charles Ford. Henry Row Ford was Sir Henry Ford’s eldest son and heir and was probably the child shown in the Ilsington parish registers as born on 20 November 1645 and entered as Henry son of Henry Ford esq.’ A manuscript of the House of Lords states that Henry Row Ford married a daughter of ’—Dormer esq; without any portion’ (House of Lords, n.d.). He died before his father, for the Woodbury parish registers show Henry Ford the son of Henry Ford, knight, of Nutwell as being buried on 13 November 1679.10 The ownership of Bagtor in the times of Sir Henry Ford, Henry Row Ford and the grandson Henry was complex and generated much legal activity which, indeed, found its way to the House of Lords.
From the manuscript mentioned above it would appear that in 1673 Bagtor belonged for a time to Sir Thomas Row of Swarford, Oxfordshire:
The late Henry Row Ford, Sir Henry’s son and heir, having purchased of Sir Thomas Row, Knt., late of Swarford. co. Oxon, and one Abraham Johnson his trustee, the Barton of Baytor, (sic) co. Devon, worth about 1001. a year, mortgaged it in 14 Car.II, to Sir Thos.Row for 1,4931.14 shillings, part of the purchase money which he and his father covenanted to pay. The father paid about 6221 on his son’s account but, the son neglecting to pay the rest, Sir Thomas entered in 1673, but died in the lifetime of the mortgagors. This mortgage was detailed in an indenture tripartite of 14 July 1672." Sir Thomas Row was eventually paid the covenanted purchase price out of that part of Sir Henry Ford’s estate (excluding the barton of Bagtor) by the devisees, and the barton became the property of the grandson of Sir Henry. Henry Ford was described as a merchant of London and there are several surviving records of his mortgaging of the barton and associated lands. In 1704 he conveyed the barton to Sir Henry Lear of Lindridge and John Lear of Shiphay.12
Henry Ford grandson of Sir Henry Ford and heir of Sir Henry, eldest son and heir of Henry Row Ford deceased, who was in his lifetime the oldest son and heir apparent of Sir Henry Ford. Indenture between
Henry Ford and Sir Thomas Lear of Lindridge, Baronet and John Lear of Shiphay, barton of Bagtor and other properties for 5s to hold for one year. This legal holding device, a lease and release, was finalised the
following day with the barton conveyed to the Lears for £2000.“ They held the barton of Bagtor for a very short time, it being leased in 1705 and conveyed in 1707 to Thomas Tothill of Bovey Tracy.

The Tothills were an Ideford family. Thomas married Elizabeth Drake, daughter of Sir Bernard Drake of Herebere, Bickington and Elizabeth Prestwood of Butterford. The marriage licence was dated 11 November 1701 (DCRS, 1941). His mother was the daughter of Thomas Prestwood of North huish and the widow by a previous marriage of Hugh Stawell whom she married on 26 July 1667 (DCRS, 1941). The Ilsington parish registers show that she was brought from Bickington to be buried at Ilsington on 6 August 1714. Thomas died sometime after 1744 as will be seen below but the exact year of his death has not been established. He was succeeded by his son, also Thomas, born on 17 November 1718 who became vicar of Uplyme. A marriage settlement was drawn up in 1744 relating to the forthcoming marriage of the Revd Thomas and Penelope Hill of Lydcott, Morval, Cornwall. Thomas senior was one of those taking part in the six-part indenture. Penelope was the only daughter and heir of John Hill. The marriage settlement included references to properties in Bagtor and several other neighbouring parishes. The Revd Thomas was succeeded by his widow. An interesting indenture dated 21 May 1765 is given below:  Indenture between Penelope Tothill of the city of Exeter, widow, and Jonathan Bussell late of Tiverton but now of Ilsington, yeoman. Penelope rents to Jonathan Capital Messuage, Barton farm, demesne lands of or called Bagtor with appurtenances, late in possession of John Miller, now Jonathan Bussell tenant; excepting Bagtor mills and fields etc. now in possession of Peter Tarr, and excepting and reserving unto Penelope Tothill her heirs and assigns etc. all those parts and parcels of the Capital Messuage or farm of Bagtor as follows: the two parlours in the front of the house, the hall, the chambers and closets over the said parlours and hall with the chambers and garretts over the staircase from the hall to the said chambers, and the stair case in the passage, the chamber called the School chamber with the closet on the other side of the passage almost opposite to the said school chamber, the Chappell, the larder called the Flesh House, the wine cellar adjoining thereto, the great Cyder Cellar, the room or chamber
over the house called the Bottle House, the partridge house, the meat house...
There were numerous outbuildings, woods and coppices also subject to reservations.

Definition of medieval

The adjective medieval literally means “of the Middle Ages,” i.e., the period between antiquity (the Roman world) and the early modern era 

Common chronological range

Historians most often treat the Middle Ages as roughly the 5th century to the 15th century: from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (commonly dated 476) up to the Renaissance and early modern transitions around 1400–1500 

Standard subperiods and their usual dates

• Early Middle Ages: about 500–1000.
• High Middle Ages: about 1000–1300.
• Late Middle Ages: about 1300–1500.
  These are conventional labels; exact boundaries vary by region and by the historian’s focus 

What authors usually mean when they write “medieval”

• Broad cultural sense: the social, political, religious, and material world shaped by feudal institutions, Christendom, and post‑Roman societies in Europe between Late Antiquity and the Renaissance 
• In specialised works an author may narrow the term (for example, “medieval urban law” might mean 1100–1400), so check the author’s period definition in introductions or captions 

Origin and first use of the word

The English term derives from Latin medium aevum “middle age.” The modern English adjective (often spelled mediaeval earlier) was coined in the 19th century from that Latin phrase; recorded modern forms date from the early 1800s (commonly cited 1825 for the form medieval/mediaeval) 

Quick guidance for reading historical scripts

When you encounter “medieval” in a text, assume 5th–15th centuries unless the author states otherwise; for precise work always look for the author’s explicit chronological scope because usages and boundary years differ by topic and region 

Bronze Age time boundaries overview

The Bronze Age is a cultural-technical phase defined by the pervasive use of bronze (an alloy of copper with tin or arsenic), alongside associated changes in technology, trade, burial practice, and social organisation. Its absolute dates vary widely by region because metallurgy and associated cultural changes spread at different times. Below are commonly used regional ranges and practical guidance for tagging or labelling gazetteer entries.

Common regional date ranges

• Near East and Anatolia
  Early Bronze Age: c. 3300–2100 BCE; Middle Bronze Age: c. 2100–1600 BCE; Late Bronze Age: c. 1600–1200 BCE.
• Aegean (Greece and Cyclades)
  Early Bronze Age: c. 3000–2000 BCE; Middle Bronze Age: c. 2000–1600 BCE; Late Bronze Age: c. 1600–1100 BCE.
• Central and Western Europe
  Broad Bronze Age: c. 2300–800 BCE; subdivided (Early/Middle/Late) roughly as Early c. 2300–1500 BCE, Middle c. 1500–1200 BCE, Late c. 1200–800 BCE.
• British Isles (including Devon and Cornwall)
  Broad Bronze Age: c. 2500–800 BCE; Early Bronze Age often starts c. 2500–2000 BCE (after Late Neolithic/Beaker horizons), Late Bronze Age ends c. 800 BCE.
• South Asia (Indian subcontinent)
  Indus-related Bronze Age/Harappan: c. 3300–1300 BCE (mature Harappan c. 2600–1900 BCE); local Bronze-using traditions continue and overlap with early Iron use.
• East Asia
  Bronze Age in China: roughly c. 2000–771 BCE (Xia-Shang-Zhou sequences; Shang c. 1600–1046 BCE is strongly bronze-rich).
• The Americas and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa
  No true widespread Bronze Age phase comparable to Old World sequences; metallurgy often appears much later and in different forms.

Practical guidance for mapping and gazetteer work

• Use region-specific ranges rather than a single global boundary.
• For ambiguous or single-site reports, prefer relative labels: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, or Bronze Age (broad)with a numeric range (e.g., Bronze Age c. 2500–800 BCE).
• Where chronology is uncertain, record both: cultural label(Bronze Age) and confidence/precision(e.g., high if radiocarbon dated; low if typological only).
• Include key local markers in metadata: metallurgy present; Beaker/urnfield/bronze-ritual features; radiocarbon dates range; typology links.
• Allow fields for overlapping phases (e.g., “Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age transitional”) and for caveats like reuse or later disturbance.

Why ranges differ and how to communicate that

• Start and end dates depend on: first local alloy production; availability of tin or copper sources and trade; cultural adoption of bronze technologies; and the arrival of ironworking.
• Use wording that communicates variability: “Bronze Age (regional: c. 2500–800 BCE)”or “Bronze Age — British Isles convention: c. 2500–800 BCE”.
• When precision matters, attach dating evidence: radiocarbon ranges, stratigraphic context, or diagnostic artefact types.

Short recommended labels for database fields

• Period label: Bronze Age
• Region qualifier: e.g., British Isles
• Numeric range: e.g., c. 2500–800 BCE
• Subdivision: Early / Middle / Late (if known)
• Dating confidence: High / Medium / Low
• Dating evidence: Radiocarbon; typology; stratigraphy; historical reference

The suffix ‘ton’ constitutes a sort of test word,” says Mr. Isaac Taylor, “ by which we are able to discriminate the Anglo-Saxon settlements.”1 “A tun or ‘ton ’ was a place
surrounded by a hedge, or rudely fortified by a palisade”

The passage you quoted is part of the author’s argument that Plympton’s name is unmistakably Anglo‑Saxon, and that the key to recognising this lies in the suffix ‑ton. The PDF you have open confirms this discussion in its treatment of early Plympton history .

🏰 What ‑tonActually Signifies

The core point is that ‑ton(Old English tūn) originally meant:

• An enclosed place— literally a fenced or hedged area

• A defended homestead or settlement— often with a palisade

• A farmstead that could grow into a village or manor

So when you see a place‑name ending in ‑ton, you are almost always looking at:

• A Saxon foundation, or

• A Saxon renamingof an older site they took over.

This is why Isaac Taylor calls it a “test word”: it reliably marks Anglo‑Saxon occupation or administrative control.