Charter Bounds of Kent Project: Kent Place-Names Research Group
Kent has an exceptional number of early medieval charters containing grants of land or other property rights. Naturally, they contain a description of the scope of the grant. For land grants, they usually describe the key markers along the perimeter, usually called their bounds.
It would be useful to have a comprehensive list of these territories with key information. The KAS Place- Names Group proposes to create this list. The goal would be to produce a database on the KAS site, with texts, links to the original documents on sites such as the British Library digitised manuscripts, discussions of the meanings and, wherever possible, a suggested route for people to follow around the rough course of these bounds. This resource would find a home on the KAS website as it develops. Completing the list would take several years, but some material could be available fairly quickly, and then developed and revised over time.
There are around 50 sets of charter bounds for Kent, produced at different points across five centuries and covering places across the historical county. Certainly, there are several for Canterbury and for Rochester but the geographical spread of the rest is wide, from Bromley to Thanet, from Graveney to Romney (Fig. 3).
An introduction to charter bounds
The basic charters are almost always in Latin but the bounds are much more usually written in old English, particularly in the later Anglo-Saxon period.
Latin was the language of the law, the court and the church, but as it was important for the precise bounds of the estates to be understood and potentially applied in disputes for many generations, then they had to be written in the vernacular.
The intended longevity of these land grants affected the sorts of markers used to describe points along the perimeter. Ephemeral structures, including wooden buildings and field boundaries, would be useless for this purpose. ‘The Anglo-Saxons were content for their buildings to share their own short life spans’.[fn1]
Instead, permanent geographical features were used as far as possible, such as distinctive valleys and gaps, hills, ridges, rivers and ponds. These might be supplemented by adjoining property boundaries in preference to specific structures. The most common wood feature might be an old marker tree, perhaps one left when the surrounding woodland had been cleared. The ‘hoary apple tree’ where Harold ordered his troops to meet before the Battle of Hastings illustrates the importance of such features. Such trees will be long gone but it is interesting to note that they were expected to be much more permanent features than even great halls and chapels. Even in the scarce towns (only Canterbury and Rochester deserve the name at any point in this period), it is streets and old, often Roman, stone features that are used.
Despite the passage of a millennium or more, a lot of these more permanent features remain. Of course they might be split by roads, railways and later settlements but they are rarely obliterated. This is why it is possible to sketch at least parts of the boundaries of many of these land grants in the modern landscape.
A few of the early charters do not give precise bounds. So, for example, Wihtred of Kent’s grant of 5 sulungs at Littlebourne in 696 or 711 CE has no more detail than, ‘Five sulungs at Littlebourne, with all appurtenances belonging to it’.[fn2] At that time, no more detail was required because the boundaries were well-understood by the relatively small, stable communities involved. However, as the population grew and royal lands were further broken up, more territorial detail was required, since the land grants now regularly cut across the grain of both
topography and settlements. Moreover, there was a greater expectation that the properties could be subject to legal or political challenges.
Such grants depended on someone with detailed knowledge of the landscape, who had walked it often and could describe the relevant features.
Normally, though not invariably, the bounds go in a clockwise direction from the starting-point, which is often a prominent local feature such as the estate centre. So, find the starting- point and you have some chance of identifying the rough bounds.
By late-Saxon times, land grants tended to be measured in hides, the equivalent of mansa, the usual Latin word used in these charters. A hide was thought to be the amount of land required to support a household. The area implied by these terms was not invariable especially if, as in Kent, the hide was supplemented by access to external dens for wood-pasture.3 However, a hide was usually around 120 acres, certainly by the late-Saxon period.[fn4]
The size is also indicated by the number of bounds markers. This is because topographical identifiers are usually given at angulations, where the boundaries sharply change course. For example, in 939 CE King Aethelstan granted an estate of 12 hides (around 1440 acres, 6 km2 or 2.25 miles2) at Meopham, identified by about twelve boundary markers.[fn5] In 814, when King Coenwulf of Mercia granted an estate of 10 sulungs (about 20 hides) at Bexley, it required around 20 markers.[fn6]
How (and how far) can we identify these boundaries?
Several catalogues of these charters have been produced over the years. The most useful and comprehensive is the one first produced by Peter Sawyer in 1968, much revised and extended by later scholars.7 Sawyer provided translations of some charters but these are rough, literal versions which should not be taken as authoritative. For example he always translates geat as ‘gate’ when, unless it refers to town gates in Rochester or Canterbury, the word almost invariably means ‘gap’.
[fg]jpg|Fig 1: In a Downland landscape, is this a gap? Photo courtesy of John Death.|Image[/fg]
Although Sawyer’s rudimentary translations can be misleading, the continuing University of Toronto project, Dictionary of Old English (DOE) is authoritative. It has greatly improved our understanding of the wider range of possible meanings to be attributed to Old English words.8 For specific, local uses, there is also valuable information in Alan Everitt’s seminal Continuity and Colonization. For example, he suggests that, on the Downland, geat can refer to a droveway, a common feature as livestock was driven to Wealden dens or coastal marshes.9
Many charter bounds have, of course, been discussed and locations tentatively or sometimes more emphatically given. Some of these identifications are certainly reliable but they could all be usefully reviewed against more modern understanding both of place names and old English more generally.
They also need to be reviewed against both the actual size of estates given and the evidence on the ground, however much that might have changed over the centuries. There has been a tendency for even some of the most-respected older authorities to ignore the overall size of the estates in stating where the bounds might be on the ground. For example, in 1928, the great Kent place-name scholar, J. K. Wallenberg, imagined the Meopham estate was a territory about the size of the current civil parish.
However, this is an area of 4713 acres, or about 39 hides, rather than the 12 hides actually granted.
In the past, dubious assumptions have been made, for example about the scale of features described.
For example, some imagine every hrycg (ridge) must be a feature the size of a Downland scarp rather than a more common but less dramatic spur of high ground between two small valleys or depressions. Furthermore, later historical developments are often assumed to have much earlier origins than are actually the case.
For example, the parish structure in England developed in the later 10th century but it is sometimes used to define much earlier boundaries rather than seeking to identify an alternative. In the process, the charter evidence has been ignored. On the whole, it is best to start with the given size of the estate granted. That will then provide a sense of scale. If an area does not include a ravine or a scarp, then a smaller-scale feature is certainly intended.
[fg]jpg|Fig 2: Here’s a hrycg. Even with no rights of way, we can still see where the old bounds would have gone. Photo courtesy of John Death.|Image[/fg]
How to approach these tasks
It can be seen that a number of distinct skills and interests are involved in these tasks. No one needs to have them all, since it is necessarily a collaborative project, with documentary, archival and field work all playing a role and, in most cases, some translations from early medieval Latin and old English. This is work for a group and it is hoped that local societies and interested residents will wish to look at the bounds for their own localities. Much debate can be anticipated as people identify the likely size of the estate and then try to map it on the ground.
Some charter bounds seem straightforward and have been widely discussed. For example, the earliest surviving charters, S1 and S2, are Aethelberht’s grants in Rochester and Canterbury respectively, and they largely follow the Roman streets and city gates, and, in Canterbury, St Martin’s church. Nevertheless, there has still been debate on the precise course of these perimeters.
So the first task is to collate the existing information from the range of sources where this might be held.
The freely-available texts of the charters can often be checked against the digitised charters themselves.
These can be relied on but published translations, including in Archaeologia Cantiana, might well be rather ancient themselves, too literal or, particularly for the Latin bounds, rather too classical.
Even where the bounds seem fairly certain, they need checking and, for many bounds, it might well be a case of starting from scratch with maps (old as well as modern) and on the ground.
It should be emphasised that it is often impossible to identify or follow a precise line at every point. Using modern rights of way, one is sometimes looking into the old estate from nearby or, indeed, looking out from within it.
The Place-Names Group hope that interested people across the county will wish to join this endeavour. We hope that expressions of interest can be followed by a meeting to share knowledge and establish or explain methodologies. If you wish to be involved in any way, please send a message to the group at: placenames@kentarchaeology.org.uk
The Kent Place-Names Research Group are involved in the study of place names, or toponymy, including an interest in their origins, meanings, usage and types. The group arranges events and conferences, shares resources and encourages publication.
[fn]1|John Blair, Building Anglo-Saxon England, Princeton UP (2018), 84[/fn]
[fn]2|S16: www.esawyer.org.uk/charter/16.html: ‘quinque aratrorum que appellatur Litleburne, cum omnibus ad se pertinentibus.’ The Latin aratrum means ‘a plough’, like the Old English sulh. The earliest charters tend to give even the charter bounds in courtly Latin.[/fn]
[fn]3|Hooke, Della, ‘Pre-Conquest Woodland: Its Distribution and Usage’, The Agricultural History Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (1989), 116.[/fn]
[fn]4|Grierson, Philip, ‘Weights and Measures’ in RWH Erskine & Ann Williams (eds.), the Story of Domesday Book (2003), 121-3.[/fn]
[fn]5|S447. Þis synt þa land gemæro to Meapham … The charter is held by the British Library [Cotton MS Augustus II 23]: www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Augustus_II_23. Text and basic translation: www. esawyer.org.uk/charter/447.html.
The Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England identifies this minister as Eadwulf 33 (http://pase.ac.uk/index.html).[/fn]
[fn]6|S175.[/fn]
[fn]7|Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Biography, now available freely in a revised, updated and expanded version online: www.esawyer.lib.cam.ac.uk/about/index.html. The Sawyer number is used for the charters referred to in this article.[/fn]
[fn]8|www.doe.utoronto.ca/pages/index.html. A to Le is currently available online, though not to individual researchers without a subscription. For the rest of the alphabet, there is the more limited Bosworth-Toller Anglo- Saxon Dictionary the online version of the classic dictionary, 1898–1921 (https://bosworthtoller.com/).[/fn]
[fn]9|Everitt, A, Continuity and Colonization: the evolution of Kentish settlement, (1986), 129–132 on Downland place- name elements; 160 on geat.[/fn]
It has been noted that the Electronic Sawyer Archive used in multiple references has ceased to be maintained, and therefore, many of these links are no longer functional. The home page is still live and has details and general information. www.esawyer.org.uk.
The British Library MS link is also no longer functioning. This is likely to be due to the ongoing issues sustained following a cyber-attack. For further information, contact the Library directly. www.bl.uk.
[fg]jpg|Fig 3: Location map of the known Charters in Kent.|Image[/fg]
[tb][th]Point No.|Location|No. of Charters|Sawyer Charter No.[/th]
[tr]1|Bromley|2|331/864[/tr]
[tr]2|Bexley|1|175[/tr]
[tr]3|Littlebrook|1|885[/tr]
[tr]4|R Darent fishery at Ginanhecce|1|849[/tr]
[tr]5|Kemsing|1|186[/tr]
[tr]6|Meopham|1|447[/tr]
[tr]7|Trottiscliffe|1|129[/tr]
[tr]8|Cliffe|2|7/291[/tr]
[tr]9|Frindsbury|2|65/638[/tr]
[tr]10|Rochester|6|1/32/131/266/327/339[/tr]
[tr]11|Cuxton|1|321[/tr]
[tr]12|Wouldham|1|885[/tr]
[tr]13|West Malling|1|514[/tr]
[tr]14|Strood|1|1276[/tr]
[tr]15|Tenterden|1|1215[/tr]
[tr]16|Farleigh|1|350[/tr]
[tr]17|Faversham|2|177/178[/tr]
[tr]18|Graveney|1|169[/tr]
[tr]19|Oswaldingtune, nr. Ashford|1|464[/tr]
[tr]20|Godmersham|1|1434[/tr]
[tr]21|Mersham|2|332/328[/tr]
[tr]22|Romney|1|168[/tr]
[tr]23|Horton nr Canterbury|1|319[/tr]
[tr]24|Westenhanger|1|974[/tr]
[tr]25|Canterbury|4|02/03/187/1629[/tr]
[tr]26|Wickhambreux|1|535[/tr]
[tr]27|Folkestone|1|510[/tr]
[tr]28|North Minster, Thanet|1|489[/tr]
[tr]29|West Cliffe, near Dover|1|1044[/tr]
[tr]30|Thanet|1|512[/tr]
[tr]31|Borstal, Rochester|1|165[/tr]
[tr]---|---|---|---[/tr]
[tr]Total||47|[/tr][/tb]