THE ISTEDS (de ISTEDE/YSTEDE) OF MAYFIELD c 1285

By Kevin Isted

The first known Isteds - William (Willo), Emma and John (Johannes) - appear with their surname variously spelt de Ystede and de Istede (phonetically the same) in the Custumals of the Manors of the Archbishop of Canterbury c1285, in the Borgh of Mayfield, in the Manor of South Malling (Loxfield Hundred), Sussex. (An image of an extract of this document CCA LitMs/E/24, copyright Canterbury Cathedral Archives, reproduced by permission, can be seen in the article 'Possible Origins of the ISTED Family and its Name' on this website.) This paper describes what I have managed to deduce about these earliest known Isteds and the life they may have led, from the Custumals and other references.

THE CUSTUMALS OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY’S ESTATES c1285

The feudal arrangements described in the Custumals are rather unusual compared with those applicable in the rest of Plantagenet England. The Archbishop’s estate was divided into 7 bailiwicks for administrative purposes. Each bailiwick was overseen by a Bailiff: a man of some standing appointed by letters patent who exercised the Archbishop’s baronial power. One of these bailiwicks: South Malling, in which Mayfield (Maufeud) was located, was further unusual as it was operated as one very large manor without any subordinate lords with their own courts. It was, however, divided into 2 groups of borghs: those ‘within the wood’ and those ‘without the wood’ (so called because they were either in or outside the forest area [the Weald] in South Malling) that were organised completely differently from each other.

The borghs ‘within the wood’, with the assumed meaning of their names in brackets, are:

Wadhurst (a wooded hill of a man called Wada);

Grenhurst (a green wooded hill);

Framfield (open land of a man called Frema);

Uckfield (open land of a man called Ucca); and

Mayfield (open land where Mayweed grows).

The above meaning of the name of Mayfield is the one that appears in most text books on place-names and is the one recognised by the Institute of Name Studies, Nottingham University. I have, however, also seen references that claim the name Mayfield is derived from a name meaning ‘Maid’s field’. I suspect some confusion has been caused in translation or transcription from early texts, as the Anglo-Saxon words for ‘Mayweed’ and ‘virgin’ are very similar - Maegethe and Maegthe respectively. I would normally tend to side with those who think it is from ‘Maegethe’ (May weed) rather than ‘Maegtha’ (virgin) as ‘field’ names are usually, but not exclusively, linked with personal names, vegetation and animals. However, I would tend to the other view if the Church in Mayfield (c960), before it was rededicated to St Dunstan, was originally dedicated to the Virgin Mary. In this case, and as the land was owned by the Church, ‘Maegthe felda’ i.e. ‘the Virgin’s field’, is more likely. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to establish the name of the church prior to its dedication to St Dunstan.

Each of the borghs ‘within the wood’ included what historians have described as a number of named hamlets. They should, perhaps, more accurately be described as sub-divisions of neif land, which may, or may not, have included a hamlet (a small village, usually without a church), while there may have been hamlets within the borghs that were not named in the Custumals. However, for ease of reference, I will continue to refer to these sub divisions of neif land as hamlets. Most of these hamlets were assessed as consisting of one virgate of land. A virgate was a measurement of variable size. However, within the Borgh of Mayfield it appears to have been consistently assessed at approximately 100 acres (40.5 hectares).

The Custumals for Mayfield c1285 included 12 hamlets. These hamlets (with the possible meaning of their names and any variation in size from one virgate shown in brackets) are:

Wadeshorn (a steep place of a man called Wada);

Knolle (a hill top);

Wateryard (2 virgates) (a well watered clearing in the woods);

Isenhurst (a wooded hill where iron was made);

Haddeleygh (a holy or a sunny meadow);

Eueresfeud (possibly land that had once been part of the estate of the Earl of Eur who at one time held land adjacent to Mayfield; or an even/flat field, or sheep pasture);

Ludewell (a well of a man called Luda);

Iardherst (3 virgates) (a meeting place in the woods);

Bunewater (a place of drinking water);

Stoney (¾ of a virgate) (stony ground);

Watsted (½ a virgate) (Wat’s or Walter’s place); and

Stanleygh (a stony meadow).

Some of the hamlets were largely held from the Archbishop by one person, or family/ people with the same surname, often with the same name as the hamlet, e.g. Iardherst was largely held by a number of people known as de Iardherst, who presumably took their name from the land they held. However, they and all the customary landholders in the hamlets were neifs (landed serfs, not free men).

It is not clear from the Custumals how much land the Archbishop directly retained (demesne – land not let to tenants), nor how much of it he might have used for agriculture, or had given over to common land for the people of Mayfield. However, he held: all, or most, of the forest in the borgh (assuming the coppice mentioned in the document were the only areas of wooded land let to tenants) from which he received dues for grazing rights; land for the Church of St Dunstan and the Archbishop’s Palace; and a small amount of farmland within the hamlets of Isenherst, Haddeleygh and Stanleygh, although circumstantial evidence suggests this may only have been temporarily held following the death of the customary landholder without leaving an adult heir. In addition to the monetary rent (8s 4d [42p] per virgate, apart from Haddelegh which rendered slightly more and Wateryard which rendered slightly less) each virgate of neif land had to render certain work services to the Archbishop each year. Those services rendered by the hamlets of Mayfield, which were similar to those in the other borghs within the wood, consisted of:

Hedging around the court at South Malling with 1 perch (5 ½ yards or 5 metres) of fencing;Roofing the grange at Stonham (another residence of the Archbishop) with poles from the Archbishop’s woods provided by livery of the Bailiff;

It is difficult to work out the true cost of the neif land in real terms. However, most of the work services had a monetary value attached to them and the total amount added up to £1 9s 9d (£1 48p) per annum. In addition to this the 8s 4d (42p) monetary rent has to be added, making a total of £1 18s 1d (£1 90p) per virgate. There is evidence to suggest that agricultural labour was generally assessed at 2d (slightly less than 1p) per day. On this basis, it would take 228 man days of agricultural labour to pay for a virgate of neif land. This is comparable with other places in the Archbishop’s estates where 4 days agricultural work per week were required for a virgate of nief land. In those days, people worked 6 days a week, apart from the Christmas and Easter weeks - approximately 300 working days per year. Of course, this was not just one man working all these days leaving 80 to 100 days per year to work his own land. The virgate of neif land was occupied by one or more extended families who would have shared the work. And as much of this work as possible – the fencing and manufacturing - would have been undertaken during the winter lull in agricultural work. In addition, many of the customary neif landholders sublet some of their land to other neifs and freemen for monetary rent, and on occasions work services. Indeed, John at Fenne, a freeman, held 40 acres of land from John de Iardhurst, the neif landholder of a virgate of land at Iardhurst, for 4s (20p), a certain amount of reaping and discharging the services belonging to ½ a virgate of land. This enabled John de Iardhurst to not only offset some of his money rent and work services, but to turn a little profit as well (i.e. John de Iardhurst made a profit of approximately 5% on monetary rent, 8% on work services, plus a couple of days reaping work worth 4d.). It is also possible that the customary landholders and subtenants owing work services may have paid someone to undertake some of the work services for them, especially some of the specialised tasks, e.g. the manufacture of the cask and trough. Even the fencing and roofing work may have been given to specialists. Indeed, there was a Thaccher (a thatcher) who was resident in Mayfield c1285 who may have undertaken the roofing work services for a fee. Additionally, those virgates that had no meadow still had to provide ½ trusses of hay and straw which they would either have had to purchase, or trade for, or possibly taken from their share of any common land in the demesne that may have been given over to meadow.

In addition to the listing of neif land in the hamlets, the Custumals contain 2 lists of landholders that include both free and neif. The first of these, in which the de Ystedes/ Istedes appear, is of the holders of freehold land, i.e. not neif land.

The final list is entitled Cotterelli. This was not the name of another hamlet, but merely the collective name used to describe the cottars (those with cots - smallholdings) both free and neif, who held land from the Archbishop’s customary free and neif tenants throughout the borgh. They were probably listed separately for some administrative purpose. There is, however, some inconsistency here, as the cottar subtenants appearing in the list of holders of freehold land also appear in the Cotterelli list (e.g. land held by John de Istede from William de Istede), although the subtenants of the customary neif landholders of the hamlets only appear in the Cotterelli.

The Custumals produce an interesting picture, with many freemen and freewomen being subtenants of neifs. And despite their apparent lower status, some neifs held more land than many free tenants. Indeed, the de Iardhersts of the hamlet Iardherst were the largest customary landholders in the borgh. Many neifs would have no doubt obtained a better living and accrued greater wealth than many of their free neighbours, even though they may have had to pay more and work harder for it due to the requirement to perform work services. Indeed, if neif customary landholders bought their freedom, they could have been required to relinquish their customary tenancy of the neif land. So there was probably little incentive for them to become free. There is, however, some circumstantial evidence to suggest that some elderly neif customary landholders may have bought or otherwise obtained their freedom, passing the neif land onto the next generation who were better able to perform the services due from the land. Indeed, it may have been in the Archbishop’s interests for this to happen.

Those borghs ‘without the wood’ were not sub divided into hamlets and the virgates were of a more familiar size – 15 to 30 acres. This may be an indication that the land ‘without the wood’ was generally more productive than the land ‘within the wood’, and that the variable size of a virgate was largely dependant on the dues and services that could be expected from the land. However, the relative isolation of those ‘within the wood’ and their necessary greater independence and their particular obligations may also have been a factor.

BACKGROUND TO THE FEUDAL ARRANGEMENTS IN MAYFIELD

It is uncertain why these unusual feudal arrangements existed in South Malling. However, South Malling had been held by the Archbishop of Canterbury since the early 9th century, and remained so after the Norman Conquest in 1066. The Archbishop in 1066 was Archbishop Sigmund, a Saxon strongly associated with the Godwins (King Harold’s family). Indeed, it was King Harold’s father, Godwin Earl of Wessex, who engineered the Archbishopric for Sigmund (until then the Bishop of Winchester, in Wessex) as a part of his power struggle with King Edward the Confessor. Sigmund’s Archbishopric probably left everything in South Malling much as it had been immediately before the Norman Conquest. Even King William would probably not have dared confiscate Church land, or seek to impose his will on it while consolidating his power in the country, especially if it might have risked bringing him into conflict with the Pope who had supported his invasion of England. Nevertheless, King William did not trust Archbishop Sigmund and persuaded the Pope to replace him as Archbishop with the Norman Lanfranc, in 1070. (Sigmund died in prison, in 1072, as a result of a hunger strike.)

However, while Archbishop Lanfranc and his successors leased some parts of their estates for a Knight’s fee (although not Mayfield up to the time in question), they did not make a wholesale imposition of powerful Norman Knights over Saxon freeholders and serfs in much of their Sussex estates, as happened elsewhere. Under the circumstances, it may have been in everyone’s interests for successive Archbishops to keep the whole area of South Malling as one large manor under their direct authority, with mainly relatively small, less powerful and unthreatening Saxon landholders.

The administrative organisation in South Malling, the landscape (e.g. there is no evidence that a strip field system was ever introduced), the landholdings, if not all the obligations of the virgate holders in 1285, may have borne a remarkable resemblance to what existed before 1066. It may also be possible, as suggested by T H Aston, in his paper to the Royal Historical Society, on the Origins of the Manor in England (1957), that landholders with similar obligations to William de Ystede/Istede equated to the highest of the three Anglo-Saxon ranks of ceorls (freemen between noble and slave) - the genates (the Saxon Knight class). It may even be that much of the land in Mayfield remained in the hands of the same families since before the Norman Conquest, until the Statute Quai Empores of 1290, which regulated for the sale of rights to land, and the later effects of the Black Death.

It has been suggested that Mayfield may be listed in the Domesday Book as Mesewelle (presumably a well of a man called Mesa) in the Rotherfield Hundred. This entry states:

‘The Count (The Count of Mortain) holds Mesewelle (Mayfield?) himself. Godwin (Earl Godwin, King Harold’s father) held it. Then and now for 4 hide. Land for 2 ploughs. They are there with 4 villagers and 5 smallholders. In lordship 1 plough. From woodland 30 pigs. Value before 1066 £4 now 40s. Of this land William of Warenne holds 3 virgates of land and 1 mill.’

There are some similarities between Mesewelle of 1085 and the 13th century Mayfield. Mesewelle consisted of 4 hides. A hide was a variable measurement that had more to do with the productivity of the land, or the rents and services that could be obtained from it, than its acreage, although it was generally assessed as 120 acres. However, a hide was always equivalent to 4 virgates, another similarly variable measurement. Both Mesewelle and Mayfield c1285 consisted of approximately 16 virgates of neif and free land. They also had woodland that supported pigs, although this could be said of practically anywhere in Sussex of the time. It is, however, interesting to note that a virgate of land in Mayfield, and elsewhere ‘within the wood’ c1285, was assessed as being around 100 acres, closer to the size of a hide of land in the borghs ‘without the wood’ in South Malling. This may have been due to the land ‘within the wood’ being of less productive value, although other factors may have played some part.

The population of Mesewelle recorded in the Domesday Book seems very small compared to Mayfield c1285, even given the 2 ½ to 3 times growth of the population of England estimated to have taken place from 1085 to 1348, when there was a sharp decline due to the Black Death. However, the Domesday Book only recorded landholders, not their families, servants, serfs or others which their land supported. The bulk of the land retained by the Count and the 3 virgates held by William de Warenne would no doubt have supported quite a number of neifs, and serfs without any landholding of their own. Perhaps some of the villagers (not villagers in the sense of living in a village, but larger landholders than smallholders) were Anglo-Saxon genates (the highest rank of coerl - freeman) who may have held virgates or more. The smallholders might have also been freemen, possibly pre Conquest geburs or kosttetlers. If so, most if not all of these probably held their land freely before 1066, but afterwards were tenants of the Count. Perhaps, Isted ancestors were amongst these freemen and occupied the land that their descendents held c1285. Unfortunately, the Domesday Book entry for Mesewelle does not give any names of individual landholdings or the names of the landholders. In any event, it is extremely rare to find a hereditary English surname dating from this period.

However, there is some doubt about Mesewelle and Mayfield being the same place, as Mayfield is thought to have been part of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s estate since early in the 9th century and not part of Earl Godwin’s estate at Rotherfield. And although the de Warenne family were known to have held land near Mayfield c1285, they were not known to have held land within the Borgh.

It seems a little odd that Mayfield was missed out of the Domesday survey, as it is known to have existed prior to 1066 and was thought to have been a notable place then. Perhaps, Mesewelle (Mayfield) was entered under the wrong Hundred. It could also be that Mayfield: was lumped together with some other parts of the Archbishop’s South Malling estate; or had been so devastated by King William’s men who ravaged the area in 1066 that it was still of little value in 1085; or perhaps the monks deliberately left Mayfield out of the Domesday Book for some reason on the instructions of their boss, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who held the Borgh. Speculation about this could make for an interesting post Conquest conspiracy theory. However, the Domesday Book was not perfect and Mayfield’s omission may have been a simple oversight, despite the claim in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles’ entry for 1085, about King William’s Domesday Book survey:

‘…So very closely did he let it be searched out that there was not a single hide nor rod of land – nor, further, it is shameful to tell, though it seemed no shame to do it – not an ox, a cow, a pig, was left out that was not set in his document; and all the documents were brought to him afterwards.’

*A square rod equalled 30.5 sq yards, or 25.5 sq metres.

GENERAL BACKGROUND TO LIFE IN MAYFIELD c 1285

The period towards the end of the 13th century and until the Black Death first appeared in 1348, was arguably one of the better periods for ordinary people in medieval England, despite the Scottish wars. Mayfield was a relatively isolated spot amongst the forest of the Sussex High Weald. The area, however, enjoyed a temperate climate and soil capable of producing reasonably good crop yields, although the farmers would have had to dig for marl, or chalk to burn to produce quicklime, to plough into their fields in order to break up the heavy clay soil and reduce its acidity. There was also plenty of forest pasture; access to good water from the many streams; a plentiful supply of wood for building material and fuel; and accessible iron ore deposits. The presence of a church closely associated with a saint – St Dunstan – and an Archbishop’s palace would also have brought employment opportunities and money into the local economy. Indeed, the Palace assumed even greater importance around this time, as Archbishop John Pecham (1279 to 1294), who came from Sussex, had the building renovated and extended. From then on, it became a favourite residence of Archbishops during summer months.

Mayfield being held by the Archbishop of Canterbury, rather than by one of the King’s secular barons, may also have been beneficial to the lives of the population. Indeed, the Custumals record that one man had never paid any rent due to poverty; something that might not have been tolerated by many secular lords. And, of course, those who held their land directly from the Archbishop of Canterbury, like William de Istede, were exempt from the taxes ( excedunt taxationem) of the Subsidy Rolls of 1295, 1327 and 1332, although their sub tenants had to pay. In any event, the Church played a large part in people’s lives. The local priests, in addition to their religious duties, would attend to the poor and sick within the parish. The law also required everyone to attend church on Sunday, if they were able. No doubt, the de Istede family attended service at St Dunstan’s Church. This was not only a time for worship, but an opportunity to socialise with friends and neighbours, and to meet others from within the wider parish community.

Apart from attending church on Sunday, social opportunities were also offered by the Thursday Market and the three day fair around St Dunstan’s Day (19 May), which had been granted by Charter obtained by Archbishop Boniface from King Henry III in 1260. The Thursday Market would have attracted people from all the local borghs ‘within the wood’ and the fair of St Dunstan would have drawn pilgrims and revellers from much further afield. Archbishop Pecham would no doubt have been in residence at the Palace in Mayfield during the fair. He was well known for being a bit of an eccentric, and during festivals was known to put on his friar’s robes and lead a grand and often riotous parade.

All these happy circumstances would have allowed for the development of a good mixed agriculture, a rudimentary cottage iron industry, a host of other cottage industries; and opportunities for trade in the village, the surrounding area, and possibly much wider. Indeed, the names of the subtenants listed as holding freehold land, indicate that a number were likely to have been merchants and craftsmen. Nevertheless, life was still hard and largely governed by the seasons and the vagaries of the English weather. The wrong weather in the wrong season could produce a poor harvest and cause famine. No doubt, family, friends, and neighbours would help each other out when times were tough, but when things got really bad it might have been every family for themselves. Even during normal times, a lot of Mayfield’s population, who were subsistence farmers, would have faced shortages during certain times of the year. Indeed, July was normally known as the hungry month, when grain stores were at their lowest before the harvest. At this time, many of the peasants would have needed to eke out their food by foraging in the forest, and perhaps by engaging in a little poaching. However, they may have been lucky as the harsh anti poaching laws were probably less likely to have been rigorously enforced by the Archbishop as the lords of the manor on adjacent estates would have done.

The de Istedes, however, would have been cushioned from much of these privations and indignities, due to their larger land holdings, their relative wealth, and their status as senior tenants from which they might have enjoyed a certain amount of patronage from the Archbishop and his Bailiff.

THE de ISTEDEs (c 1285)

The de Istedes, like everyone else living in Mayfield at the time, were commoners. There were also far grander families with larger landholdings in the other borghs of South Malling. However, William was clearly the largest freeman landholder of the Archbishop in the borgh of Mayfield by some way; being the only one who held as much as a virgate (A virgate of land in Mayfield equalled approximately 100 acres, compared to the more usual 30 acres elsewhere).

The following are extracts from the Custumals of the Manors of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Borgh of Mayfield, c1285, on which many of the deductions and assumptions about the life of the de Istedes are based:

William de Ystede/Istede, freeman, holds 1 virgate of land containing about 100 acres for 5s 4d paid at the four terms of the year, namely Christmas - 2s, Easter - 16d, midsummer - 12d, Michaelmas - 12d. And that he must hunt with bow and arrows for 12 days, and he must carry three cartloads of wood in his own wain to South Malling. He owes one hen and ten eggs at Christmas and he shall give gavelsuen if he has three pigs. He must help in keeping one nest of sparrow-hawks and the keeping is worth ½d. He owes suit at the lord’s court. He also holds 1½ acres for 3d, paid at the same terms.'

Emma de Istede, freewoman, holds 20 acres of land of which 2 acres are coppice for 7½d; at Easter 3¾d and Michaelmas 3¾d. She owes suit at the lord’s court.

John de Ystede/Istede, freeman, holds of William de Istede, freeman, 12 acres of land for 12d and he shall give a pig if he has 3 pigs.

The terms of William and Emma’s tenancies (as more fully described later) clearly indicate greater standing and responsibility, and a closer dependency with the Archbishop and his Bailiff than the other residents of the borgh.

Family Relationship

Hereditary surnames had existed in England amongst the Norman aristocracy as early as the 12th century. They began to become more prevalent amongst the general population in the 13th century; spreading from the south to the north. This process continued during the 14th century, and by the century’s close practically everybody in England had a hereditary surname. William, Emma and John were the first people known to have had the Istede name recorded in official records. However, it is probable that there was at least one generation before them, who were known as de Istede, as there is evidence to suggest the Custumals contain notes of all the changes in family title to land from the time of Archbishop Boniface (1241-1270). In any event, whether or not there were people who were formerly known as de Istede, it is quite possible given the lack of mobility of those who held land, whether free or not, it is likely that the same family had held the land for a number of generations before. It is, however, more likely that the place named Istede, where ever it was, from which these people took their name, had existed for quite sometime, as Istede is of Anglo-Saxon/ Old English derivation thought to mean ‘a place where yew trees grow’. There are a number of other place names in Sussex, beginning with a single syllable ‘I’, similarly derived from an association with yew trees that were known to have existed before 1066 from references in the Domesday Book. (See separate paper on the Possible Origins of the Isted Name). It is also generally accepted that Anglo-Saxon/Old English from which the name appears to be derived was the predominant language in England from the 5th century until 1100, and Middle English was predominant from 1100 until 1500. Of course, these are somewhat artificial dates indicative of an uneven and patchy evolution of the language, with Old English, or at least Old English words and phrases, predominating in many rural areas for more than a century beyond 1100. Indeed many Old English words persist, virtually unchanged, to this day.

It would, however, be natural to assume that all the de Istedes were close family and that all, or most, Isteds with a known Sussex pedigree are descended from them. However, it may not necessarily be the case that William, Emma and John de Istede were all close family. All the name de Istede indicates is that these people either originally came from, or currently lived at, a place called Istede. This name would not be out of place for the Mayfield area, or any forested area of England where yew trees grew and the right sort Anglo-Saxon/ Old English dialect had been spoken. There is, however, no indication in the Custumals c1285 that there was a place called Istede in Mayfield other than the existence of people with that name. Although the de Istede lands were as large, or larger, than most of the hamlets/sub-divisions of neif land recorded in the Custumals, there are no indications in the Custumals that it was regarded as a hamlet or a specific sub division of free land outside of the demesne, or that there was a farm of that name.

Nevertheless, it seems more likely that it was a specific formal sub division, or the largest free farm in the Borgh of Mayfield called Istede. Indeed, there are later records which indicate there were historically old freehold lands named Istede of almost exactly the same size as the de Istede lands c1285 (more on this later).

There is also circumstantial evidence in the Custumals to indicate that William, Emma and John de Istede were close family. Perhaps, the key to this is that William was the only one of the three who had any buildings on his land, as indicated by the fact that he was the only one to pay hen rent (more on this later). This begs the question of where Emma and John lived. There is no record in the Custumals of any other land being held by Emma and John de Istede anywhere in the Borgh of Mayfield, or anywhere else on the Archbishop’s estates. Of course, it is possible, in common with examples of the period they could have had more than one surname which they used in connection with various properties. However, these other examples appear to have been associated with residences and not just unoccupied land holdings in different areas. The assumption, therefore, is that William, Emma and John were close relatives who all lived together as an extended family on William’s property, and quite possibly in the same house (more on this later). This was not unusual at the time in question. What is less clear is what there exact relationship was. There are, however, some further clues to help narrow it down.

William and Emma were almost certainly the senior members of the family due to their holding land directly from the Archbishop, and the privileges and obligations derived from that, whereas John sub let his land from William. Emma must also have either been a widow or a single woman, as married women were not legally entitled to hold land in their own right, with the land going to their husbands on marriage; a situation which persisted in England until the Married Women’s Property Act (1882) became law. Emma is not referred to as a widow or a relict in the Custumals, so the possibility exists that she may have been a single woman who had inherited a proportion of the de Istede land from the previous generation. Emma being left property in her own right as a single woman could only have been done with the agreement of the heir, in case it might have made it difficult for the fulfilment of the dues from the land (rents and services.) If this were the case, it is likely that William and Emma were brother and sister and children of the previous holder of the land to whom William was the heir. It is, however, also possible that the land had been left under the same arrangement to a male sibling of William, and Emma was his widow and that she was holding the land for an heir until he came of age. The third possibility is that she was William’s mother and widow of the previous holder of the land. Indeed, it was usual for a husband to dower his wife with up to a third of his land at the time of marriage. He could not legally dower more, but could dower less than a third. However, if he made no specific dower the widow would be entitled to a third of her husband’s land at the time of marriage, but could make no claim on any land acquired by the husband since the marriage. Therefore, if Emma had been the widow of the previous holder of the entire de Istede land it would seem that he had dowered her with less than a third (20 acres) of his land, or he had increased the size of his landholding after their marriage to which she had no claim. In any event, it would seem that the previous head of the de Istede family held 120 acres of land from the Archbishop – more than a virgate in Mayfield, and the same amount as the usual measurement of a hide elsewhere.

I did, however, at one time consider whether Emma might have been a man, as Emma was an Anglo-Saxon/Old English masculine name, and that a mistake might have been made in translating the Custumals from Medieval Latin. Indeed, the Custumals contain a mixture of Norman personal names (e.g. William and John) and Anglo-Saxon personal names (e.g. Goda and Gonnora) even seemingly within the same family. However, I checked the source document in the Canterbury Cathedral archives and this clearly shows Emma as a ‘Libera’, i.e. a Freewoman. There are also other people recorded in the Custumals named Emma who are clearly female, e.g. Emma widow of le Ponte (of the bridge).

There is less evidence to the exact relationship of John with William and Emma. However, given the assumption that they lived on William’s property and were, therefore, of one family, it seems likely given John’s status as William’s tenant that he was either, William’s: brother; or a son, who probably wasn’t his heir and not due to inherit the land; or possibly, but less likely, his son-in-law who adopted the de Istede family name.

THE DE ISTEDE FAMILY LANDS – RENTS AND OBLIGATIONS

Location

As mentioned earlier, there is no indication in the Custumals where in the Borgh of Mayfield the de Istede land was located. There are, however, other and later dated historic documents containing details of a property named Istede, with Istede field names, consisting of old freehold land amounting to almost exactly the same acreage as the entire de Istede landholdings c1285. If these are one and the same place, as seems likely, the place named Istede, from which the family probably took its name, was located south of the village of Mayfield, in an area bordered by what is now: the Mayfield Road; the B2102; Waldron Down; and Pounslye Wood. Much, if not all, of this land was once part of the Borgh of Mayfield but is now outside of the boundary of the present day Parish of Mayfield. However, where the Istede farmstead c1285 might have been located on this land is less clear. (More on the location of the property called Istede in a separate paper.)

William’s land and monetary rent

‘holds one virgate of land containing about 100 acres for 5s 4d…’

William was the freeman in the Borgh of Mayfield who held the most acreage of land and is the only one described as holding as much as a virgate. The only other holders of virgates within the Borgh of Mayfield were two of the de Iardhersts who were neifs who in addition to their much higher monetary rent – approximately 60% higher – also owed work services for their land.

William paid an annual rent of 5s 4d (27p) for his virgate. However, the virgates in the hamlets that were all held by neifs rendered 8s 4½d (42p) each, apart from those at Wateryard which paid 4½d less and Haddelegh which paid 3 ½d more. The differences in the value of Wateryard and Haddelegh from the other neif hamlets may have been due to the productivity of the land. However, if I am correct about the location of Istede c1285, it would appear to have been amongst the flattest and probably most productive farmland in the Borgh of Mayfield. Therefore, the lower rate which William paid was a reflection of his higher status. Indeed, rents per acre generally increased the further they were let down the feudal chain from the Archbishop, taking due account of the services due from the land. On the same basis as the earlier calculation of the cost of the neif land, the total cost of William’s land would have been 10s 1d (50p), or 60 ½ days of agricultural labour, compared with £1 18s 1d (£1 90p) or 228 days worth of agricultural labour paid by neifs for their virgates – approximately 280% higher in real terms. The amount William had to pay, or work to pay, for his land is probably less than most current UK residents have to pay in real terms to support a mortgage or rent for their home.

Hen rent

‘He owes one hen and 10 eggs at Christmas’.

Hen rents are rather complicated and appear to mean slightly different things in different places. In the Borgh of Mayfield they relate to free tenants use of common land. As mentioned earlier, it was only charged to those holding land on which there were buildings. And William was the only one of the de Istedes to pay hen rent. The assumption, therefore, is that Emma and John did not live on the land they held but at William’s farmstead, if not in the same house. It was not unusual, c1285, for extended families to live together, extending houses or adding additional buildings as necessary.

Pig rents - Gavelsuen/Gavelswine and Pannage

William: ‘he shall give gavelsuen if he has three pigs’.

John: ‘he shall give a pig if he has three’.

Gavelsuen and pannage are terms that appear in the Domesday Book. They both relate to pasture rights in the forest. The payment of gavelsuen allowed free tenants to graze their pigs and keep their own pigsties in the forest. The payment of pannage only allowed them to graze their pigs in the forest for a few weeks during the autumn to allow the pigs to forage for mast (the fallen acorns, beechnuts, chestnuts etc). However, pannage does not appear to have been applicable in Mayfield, due to the universal application of ‘gavelsuen’.

It is interesting to note that William is the only tenant in Mayfield for whom it is specifically stated ‘he shall give gavelsuen’, as opposed to simply ‘a pig if he has three’ for all the other free tenants. However, it is thought that ‘a pig if he has three’ was the rate of gavelsuen that applied throughout South Malling. This was not the rate of gavelsuen referred to in the Domesday Book that is thought to have applied elsewhere in Sussex, i.e. ‘if he has seven pigs he shall give the third best pig; and if he has 14 he shall give the third best and the third worst; and he shall give no more for more than 14 and none for 6.’ Why this should be the case is unclear. It is, however, possible that two different rates applied in South Malling – the standard rate of gavelsuen for Freemen with larger landholdings who would probably have had more pigs; and ‘the pig if he had three’ rate for the Freemen with smaller landholdings and fewer pigs.

The reason why payment only accrued when there were three pigs and was applied to the third worst was to ensure tenants could retain the most viable breeding pair, although one communally kept boar could have serviced many sows. This not only provided better prospects for the tenants, but also continuing revenue for the Archbishop (the tenant-in-chief).

Hunting services

‘must hunt with bow and arrows for 12 days’

The requirement to hunt with bow and arrows for 12 days was not quite as simple as it seems. What William was actually required to do was provide 12 days hunting services for the Archbishop and his officials while they travelled or stayed ‘within the wood’. This would have meant arranging hunts for them to take part in for sport and the provision of game when they were in residence at the Archbishop’s Palace, in Mayfield. William may have organised and taken part in hunts on his own, or in conjunction with those with the same obligation in the Borgh – William le Frye and Christine Gadhywe (more about them later) – requiring the neifs in the hamlets who had the obligation to ‘hunt without bow and arrows’ to provide beating and porter services on the hunt. However, the obligation to hunt with the bow and arrows probably went with the land, and it is possible that William and the others with this obligation did not take part in all or any of the hunts. Indeed, it is unlikely that a woman at that time, like Christine Gadhywe, would have been chosen to personally hunt for 12 days with a bow and arrows, or indeed any of the others when they were in old age, although they would have retained the obligation and presumably the rights and higher status that went with it.

The provision of hunting services was an extremely important obligation, as the Archbishop of the time - John Pecham - was a keen huntsman and was thought to have spent a lot of time in Mayfield during the summer months. No doubt William and the others with the obligation would have taken as active a part in the hunts as they could. The obligation was also a privilege with a lot of advantages, particularly for those who enjoyed the sport, as there were strict laws that prohibited any but the favoured few from hunting deer or wild boar in the forests. They probably also had some additional hunting rights that would have been invaluable when fresh meat was less available following the autumn cull of domestic animals. William and the others would also no doubt have had a share of the kill, and as senior free tenants in the Borgh may on occasions have been invited to the Palace to feast on the game following a successful hunt. Perhaps William took part in hunts organised for the entertainment of King Edward I during his visits to Mayfield in 1297, 1299 and 1303. In any event, he would no doubt have been required, as the senior tenant of the Archbishop in Mayfield, to accommodate some of the King’s retinue on his property.

William may or may not have been exempt, by virtue of income, from the weekly practice with the longbow that was established in law by Edward I following the Welsh Wars. However, he would no doubt have been trained to be proficient with the bow from an early age, in order to fully assume his responsibility for the hunt when he inherited possession of the land and the obligations that went with it.

The longbow could not be used to good effect by everyone. Bowmen were trained from childhood on increasingly powerful versions of the bow. The bow usually measured around 6 ft (1.8 metres) and had an extreme range of about 400 yards. Experienced archers used bows with a draw of upwards of 80 pounds (36kg) to an extreme of about 150 pounds (68kg). (And those up to military standard would be expected to fire the arrows very quickly - putting at least another arrow in the air before the previous one had hit its target at long range.) So anyone proficient with the longbow would have needed to be comparatively fit and strong. It is, however, unlikely that William would have used a military standard longbow for hunting with a draw anywhere near the extreme poundage limit. He would also have used a broader headed, lighter shafted arrow for hunting; rather than the heavier shafted, armour piercing bodkin headed arrow of the type most commonly used on military service.

In any event, there appears to have been a tradition of expertise with the longbow in the area, as a Charter was given to Robert de Elchingham, of Bibleham (in the parish of Mayfield, but in the Hundred of Hawksborogh, in the Rape of Hastings) to raise 300 archers in 1312 (27 years after the date in question – 1285.) It is not known why the Charter was given, or what service the Bibleham archers saw. It is, however, possible that they were specially raised to take part in Edward II’s disastrous Scottish campaign which resulted in ignominious defeat at Bannockburn in 1314. If so, many of the archers may not have made it home. There is some evidence of a downturn in the local economy and land values shortly after this, which could have resulted from the loss of so many young men from the area.

‘Keeping one nest of sparrow hawks’

Keeping the nest of sparrow hawks was also a part of the provision of hunting services to the Archbishop and his senior officials. They would have been used for hunting smaller birds, such as pigeon, blackbirds and quail. (The female sparrow hawk is of more use for hunting as it is larger than the male and capable of hunting larger prey.) William may, therefore, have been involved in training the birds, as well as merely looking after them. However, the obligation went with the land and another family member or someone else may have trained and cared for the birds on William’s behalf. The sparrow hawks would also have had the additional use of scaring other birds away from crop fields especially during sowing. The sparrow hawk was a valuable bird, but it is unclear whether William would have been subject to the fine of 40s (£2), that the hamlets in the Borgh would have had to pay, if theirs had been stolen.

Carrying services

‘must carry three cart loads of wood in his own wain to South Malling’

William probably only provided the carriage service to South Malling with the wood being provided from the Archbishop’s forest by the serfs who worked his land. However, it is possible, but less likely, that the wood may have come from woodland that was a part of William’s landholding.

It is not clear what type of timber was required to be carried or to what purpose it was put. It could be that it was part of the wood the neif virgaters had to use on the various work services they were required to perform at South Malling. Alternatively, it might have been firewood for the residences of the Archbishop, his Bailiff and other officials at the administrative centre of the Manor of South Malling, just outside of Lewes. If so, this may have been the by-product of forestry work, land clearing, charcoal burning etc that might otherwise have gone to waste. The type of forestry work mentioned was probably ongoing in the area, but probably concentrated during the winter lull in farm work.

The obligation specifies that William must carry the wood in his own wain. By specifying a wain, a large four wheel vehicle used for carrying heavy loads, it implies that this was a significant amount of wood. It is possible that William may have had cart horses, or his draught animals may have been oxen. To pull such a load the 9 miles from Mayfield to South Malling would possibly have required a team of a minimum of 8 oxen. It would have taken an ox drawn wain a large part of a day to make the journey through the forest tracks and along the rough roads of the time. It would, therefore, have been necessary to make an overnight stop in South Malling to rest and feed the animals. No doubt, William would have taken the opportunity to conduct other business in South Malling or Lewes during these visits, or may have combined them with one of his attendances at court every three weeks. However, it is quite possible that William would have, at least on occasions, delegated this task to another member of the family or employed labour.

The oxen that pulled the wain would almost certainly have been castrated Red Sussex cattle, a breed that had been present in the Sussex High Weald since before the Norman Conquest. These oxen, as well as being beasts of burden, would have doubled as plough animals. It is, therefore, most likely that deliveries of the wood were planned to take place outside of the ploughing season and after the harvest, but before the winter set in and the roads became less passable. The oxen would have been worked from to 10 years of age before being fattened for slaughter, to maximise their utility.

Whether or not William may have owned draught horses capable of pulling a heavily loaded wain, he may have owned a pack horse or two – Rouncys or Sumpters - that he could also have ridden. He may, however, have aspired to own a Palfrey – the little sports car of the medieval horse world – which the Archbishop and his Bailiff would almost certainly have had – to take him speedily to South Malling for his regular attendance at court. The Palfrey was a small breed of horse, similar to today’s Icelandic breed, known for its stamina and very fast and distinctive gait. In addition to the usual horse gaits – walk, trot and canter – the Palfrey had two extra ones: the Tolt, a four way beat that provided a very smooth ride; and Flying Pace a two way beat that could propel the little horse up to 30 MPH.

Suit at Court

‘Owe suit at the lord’s court’

This was a position of some trust and responsibility, as those who owed suit at court, like William and Emma, were bound, amongst other things, to serve as juryman in the manorial/baronial court that would generally have been presided over by the Archbishop’s Bailiff at South Malling. They would have presided over civil cases, such as: feudal land issues, land disputes, questions of inheritance etc; and criminal cases at the Court Leet where sentences of death and mutilation could be passed. These various courts were intended to meet every third week. However, those who owed suit were bound to attend whenever summoned, unless they could bargain to pay a fee for lesser attendance.

I have not found any court records for Mayfield, although there may be some amongst uncatalogued records in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Archives at Lambeth Palace. However, while the requirement was to attend the Court at South Malling every third week, I suspect that it met less often and was occasionally convened in Mayfield when the Archbishop’s Bailiff was in residence. Indeed, I suspect that the courts for the other borghs ‘within the wood’ may also have been convened at the Archbishop’s Palace in Mayfield on occasions.

It is not known where sentences were carried out c1285. However, the Custumals record that in Wadhurst there was a pillory - where prisoners were secured as a punishment; or before imprisonment or execution, so that the public could assault or ridicule them. Wadhurst was also recorded as having a tumbrel – an open cart where condemned prisoners were conveyed to their execution. No such things were recorded in the Custumals as being in Mayfield at the time. Therefore, I assume that all such punishments in the borghs ‘within the wood’ were probably carried out in Wadhurst. These were most likely undertaken on Saturdays when a market was held there throughout the year, which would have attracted many people from the area.

Although there are no records that I can find that state this, I strongly suspect that the distribution of those who owed suit at court (one in each of the hamlets and 5 elsewhere in the Borgh of Mayfield) represented one for each tithing of the Borgh – the principle organisation for the maintenance of order and the pursuit of criminals. The system of tithing had its roots in the old Anglo-Saxon institution of Frankpledge, by which every person over 12 years of age was required to bind themselves in association with all the people in 10 or twelve of their neighbouring households for the good conduct of the rest. The collective group was then responsible to the King for the production of any offender required for trial or punishment. This was the first form of a police system for the maintenance of law and order. If I am correct in this assumption, the Borgh of Mayfield would have been geographically divided into 16 tithings that were probably, in common with many known tithings in other villages in Sussex, known by the name of the head of the tithing, e.g. the Tithing of William de Istede.

As mentioned earlier, it is assumed that William was the heir of a previous senior tenant and was always due to inherit possession of the land and the obligations that went with it, like owing suit at the Archbishop’s court. Under these circumstances, it may have been prudent to ensure he was given some education. It is, therefore, possible that he was sent for some schooling at a local church establishment, to learn to read and write, as well as something of feudal and criminal law. There were a host of possible options where he might have received such education. However, the most likely option might have been for him to travel the short distance outside the Borgh to the Collegiate Church of St Thomas a Becket, at Framfield, where he could have been taught by the monks.

It was perhaps more unusual for a woman to receive formal education and to owe suit at court in her own right. However, married women often took over the full legal responsibility from their husbands while they were away on military service or crusade; and when their husbands died and they obtained their dower; and when required to act as guardian until the heir reached majority. It may be that Emma had been required to assume her husband’s obligations for one of these reasons, or had acquired them, and the higher status that went with them, in her own right as a single woman.

In addition to William and Emma de Istede, there were the following 3 other named free landholders who owed suit at court:

William le Frye, who is referred to in the Custumals as:

‘holds 32 acres of which 2 acres are coppice for 15d. And he must hunt with bow and arrows for 12 days and he must bring to the hunt one hound if it is entrusted to him; and he owes suit at the lord’s court.’

His name means William ‘the free’, which is an indication of his and possibly his ancestors’ freeman status. This name may have been adopted at sometime to distinguish the person from another one with the same Christian name who was not free. Or alternatively, it may have been adopted by someone when they were freed from serfdom. It is interesting to note that the family of C B Fry, the famous cricketer, came from Mayfield. Perhaps William le Frye was one of his ancestors.

Christine Gadhywe, who is referred to in the Custumals as:

‘holds 12 acres of land for 13d. And she must hunt with a bow and arrows for 12 days and owes suit at the lord’s court.’

Christine may have inherited her property and her obligations and privileges as a single woman, or as her widow’s dower from her late husband of one third or less of his land at the time of their marriage, or as guardian for a son to inherit. Christine’s surname could be interpreted a number of ways, but most likely it meant either a good servant, in which case she may have been a favoured servant of the Archbishop at the Palace; or a producer of good colours – a dyer. If she were a dyer, a good proportion of her land was probably given over to growing dye-plants such as madder (red), woad (blue), greenweed (green) and weld (yellow). No doubt she would have used these singularly and blended to produce beautiful colours. Unfortunately, for her and her neighbours dye production caused a terrible smell. Perhaps Christine also had a working relationship with Ralph le Wevere (Ralph ‘the weaver’) who is also listed in the Custumals.

John Galet, who had two holdings of land referred to as follows:

‘holds 5 acres of land for 2 ploughshares at Christmas and owes suit at the lord’s court.’

And amongst the Cotterelli:

‘freeman, holds of Simon at Rede, neif, 20 acres of land for 26d; namely at Easter 13d and Michaelmas 13d and he does not give a hen because it is not built upon.’

It was not unusual, in Mayfield, for a freeman listed amongst the Cotterelli to hold land from a neif. It was, however, more unusual for a freeman not to pay any monetary rent to the Archbishop, but work services, e.g. 2 ploughshares – 2 days ploughing or 2 acres ploughed. It is possible to interpret the name Galet in a number of ways. One interpretation is ‘go free’. It may, therefore, be possible that either he or an immediate ancestor were freed neifs who were allowed to retain some neif land for the original work services. Perhaps the Archbishop or his Bailiff in granting him his freedom said ‘John ge let’ – John go free - and he decided to keep that as his name. The other possibility is that Galet is a contraction of Galleting, which itself is a variant of the name Golightly – the nickname given to a messenger. It may, therefore, have been that John Galet was a favoured messenger employed by the Archbishop or his Bailiff who may have given him the responsibility for owing suit at court despite his very small holding of freehold land from which this obligation derived, in lieu of any monetary rent.

There were 12 others who owed suit at court, one each from the hamlets of neif land, who are not named in the Custumals. Perhaps it was left up to the landholders within the hamlets to nominate or elect someone to represent them, rather than it being an obligation of a particular family or being derived from a specific landholding. If so, they might have been either a neif customary landholder; or a freeman sub tenant, like John at Fenne who held 40 acres of Iardhurst.

DE ISTEDE SUBTENANTS

William’s sub tenants

In addition to subletting 12 acres to his assumed close relative John de Istede, William also sublet a few acres to the following two people:

William le Cupere,

‘freeman, held 2 ½ acres from William for 2½d and gave him 1 hen and a pig if he had 3 pigs.’

As he had to give a hen and a pig, it appears there was some building on this land and he owned some pigs as he paid for forest grazing rights. William le Cupere may well have been William 'the Cooper', i.e. a barrel maker, or possibly William the wood cutter, from the Norman French word ‘cuper’ meaning to cut. There would have certainly been employment for him in either capacity.

Gilbert Faber,

‘neif, holds 2½ acres of the same William (de Istede) for 2½d and he does not give a hen.’

There is no mention of Gilbert giving a pig, but as a neif he may have had free grazing rights in the Archbishop’s forest. However, it specifically says he does not give a hen. This is a little curious, as hen rent was only applicable to freemen who had building on their land and Gilbert was a neif. It may, therefore, have been that hen rent, and possibly gavelsuen, while not being applicable to neif land, i.e. the customary land of the neif hamlets, it was applicable to freehold land, whether sublet to serfs/neifs by freemen. In any event, it would seem there were no buildings on the land leased to Gilbert. It may, therefore, be that he either lived in an unnamed and unknown settlement in the demesne or more likely they may have worked for William for wages and accommodation in a cottage on William’s land.

The name Faber is usually associated with a smith or metal worker. It may, therefore, be that he, or William if he employed him, was engaged in small scale ironworking as Mayfield and the Weald in general had been known for iron production from Roman times. Indeed, later Isted ancestors – Richard and Joan Isted were Ironmasters, probably of Moate Mill Forge in Bivelham. Perhaps iron working was an Isted family tradition stretching back to 1285 and beyond.

It is interesting to note that William let his land at the same monetary rate to all (John de Istede, William le Cupere and Gilbert Faber) at a relatively small profit margin on what he paid per acre, compared to other landlords. Neither did he require Gilbert Faber to pay a work service element for his land, which was usually expected from land let to a neif. Perhaps this showed an enlightened approach to servitude that was unusual for its day, or possibly a further indication that Faber, and possibly le Cupere, may have also been his employees.

Emma’s tenant

Emma sublet 1 acre of land to Simon Sage, a neif for 4d (2d at Easter and 2d at Michaelmas). While it looks extremely cheap it was over 400% of what Emma paid per acre. This seems a pretty sizeable mark up on the face of it, especially compared to the small profit margin charged by William. However, it might have been that as well as expecting some profit from subletting further down the feudal chain, this particular piece of land may have had something special about it that provided additional value compared to the average acre, e.g. easy access to water. As Simon Sage also leased land from Simon Cade, on the same terms, it is possible that the two pieces of land were adjacent and so provided the tenant with added value. In any event, if Simon Sage was Sage by name and sage (wise) by nature, I can only assume he made a reasonable bargain. Then, on the other hand, there could have been a touch of irony in his being named Sage.

Jack Cade who led a rebellion that bears his name in 1450 is associated with Mayfield, although he has also been described as a professional soldier from Ireland, and someone whose real name was Mortimer and an illegitimate son of a leading Yorkist. It could, therefore, be that Simon Cade was an ancestor of Jack Cade. In any event, a number of prominent people from Mayfield supported Cade’s rebellion. Cade is an old word for a cask or a barrel. It could, therefore, be that the first Cades were barrel makers, or that it was a nickname given to them because of their shape – presumably short and portly around the waist.

It is not known whether anyone in Mayfield supported the earlier Peasants Revolt, in 1381, during which their landlord the Archbishop of Canterbury – Simon Sudbury - had his head hacked from his body by the rebels and paraded through London on a spike. However, Simon Sudbury was unlikely to have been very popular amongst Mayfield’s peasants, as he and John of Gaunt were the instigators of the Poll Tax and the policy of fixing peasant wages back to the much lower levels that had existed before the Black Death had brought about a labour shortage and wage inflation.

THE de ISTEDE HOME

William paid a hen as part of the terms for holding his land, which was a condition for holding land with a building(s) on it. William was the only one of the de Istedes with this condition attached to his tenancy. If the assumption is correct that the de Istede land holdings were inherited from a common ancestor, it is likely that their lands abutted one another, as seems the case if their land was the Istede named in later dated documents. And as neither Emma nor John paid hen rent and, therefore, had no buildings on their land, it is possible that they all lived together in one place, if not one house on William’s property. It was not unusual for more than one generation to live in the same house, extending it, or building separate cottages nearby as necessary.

It is possible the Istede house may have been originally based on the design of an old Saxon Hall house or Long House, with separate divisions for living quarters, food storage and for keeping animals during the winter. The building would almost certainly have been oak timber framed, with wattle and daub walls (a network of lathes and twigs plastered with the local Wadhurst clay) and probably a thatched roof. There may also have been a separate kitchen building, in common with larger houses of the day, due to the risk of fire.

The house would most likely have had a toft (yard) where the family probably kept: a few Tamworth pigs; Pilgrim geese; and some chickens - probably the Dorking variety that had been introduced into Britain by the Romans. A few cows, almost certainly Red Sussex, may have been kept for milk and the production of cheese and butter, which might have been kept close by and brought into the yard for milking.

It is also possible that by this time, c1285, the house was more or less solely used by the family and they had a separate barn and other outbuildings for storing produce, winter fodder etc and for sheltering some animals during the worst of the winter. There would almost certainly have been a dairy area for churning milk and producing and storing cheese and a smoke house for curing meat – mainly ham. The smoking of meat would probably have been a job for the men, following the autumn slaughter of animals. However, the careful maintenance of the cured meat in storage and the production of cheese and butter would have been largely left to the women of the house. Other types of meat – beef and mutton - from the autumn cull would have probably been salted and stored in barrels, possibly made by William le Cupere (the Cooper), on property sublet to him by William de Istede.

The house would also have had a croft (garden) for growing vegetables and herbs. The herb garden would have been tended by the women of the house and kept for both culinary and medicinal purposes. Amongst the herbs grown would probably have been: parsley, fennel, celery, mint, summer savoury, catmint, mustard and coriander.

William also held 1½ acres (0.6 hectares) of land that was mentioned separately, that was more expensive to lease – 3d (2d per acre). It is impossible to be sure why this was, or for what purpose the land was used. It may have been close to his house and used as a smallholding to grow vegetables (probably, cabbage, garlic, onions, leeks, carrots and peas) and as an enclosure for his work animals – oxen and possibly a horse or two. Alternatively, this may have been removed from his main property and was for some other purpose, such as the site of a forge and/or a bloomery if the family were as suspected involved in iron working.

FARMING

The de Istedes like most people of their day would have derived most of their livelihood from farming. Their life would, therefore, have largely revolved around the seasons and the farming calendar

Spring

Traditionally, the farming year was held to start on Lady Day, 25 March, when agricultural work began in earnest after the winter lull. Plough teams would then start ploughing the fallow fields, when the soil was still soft enough to turn. The local conditions would have dictated the use of a heavy plough, with a mouldboard mounted on the right hand side behind the ploughshare which turned the sod. The plough would be pulled by a team of up to 8 oxen. The Red Sussex with their cleft hooves which splayed out when put down and closed up when lifted were ideal for the purpose in the predominantly wet heavy conditions and hillside fields. Two people were needed to operate such a plough team, which would be expected to plough an acre a day. Perhaps, William and John would have worked as a team, with William as the ‘ox-goader’ driving his team of oxen and John as ploughman, or perhaps they employed people to do this for them. At the same time, preparations would also begin for the planting of spring crops (barley, oats, peas, beans and vetches). Grains would be sown by the broadest method and sometimes sown as a mixture known as dredge. Pulses, like peas and beans, would also be painstakingly dibbled into small holes with a dibbling-stick at this time.

When the fields had been ploughed and sown, it was the job of the children to defend them from marauding birds with slings. William may also have exercised his sparrow hawks to frighten the other birds away and perhaps, in the process, catch a few birds suitable for baking in a pie. The seed would, of course, be quickly protected by harrowing with a heavy wooden frame with wooden pegs fixed into it. Nevertheless, seed protection would go on for a few weeks.

Cows that would already have been let back into pasture after a winter on sparse fodder would return to full milk in May. The de Istedes would have owned a few cows, which would almost certainly have been Red Sussex cattle, a breed that had grazed in the High Weald since before the Norman Conquest. They had an excellent reputation in the middle ages for both milk and beef production. Although now relatively rare, these cattle can still be found today. They are, however, bred much smaller than their medieval ancestors.

Lambs would also be weaned as early as possible as sheep’s milk and cheese was highly prized. Gardens would also have needed attention at this time. And any free moments would have been spent on maintenance work – hedging, ditching, and mending fences and farm buildings.

Haymaking was the major event of June. Meadows were relatively rare but some of the de Istede land would probably have been given over to this, as they probably aimed to keep as much breeding stock as they could over the winter. There may also have been some meadow outside of the demesne held in common by the people of the various hamlets. Haymaking was, therefore, often a communal activity, with teams of men working their way down the field with scythes, while the women and children followed behind to turn the hay to ensure it dried evenly. Finally it was gathered into large stacks. A good hay crop was vitally important as it provided the main source of winter fodder and determined how many animals could be kept through the winter to provide fresh meat and breeding stock.

Summer

Sheep shearing began in late June. William and John may have undertaken some of this work themselves or possibly employed someone with special expertise in this to maximise the yield. Although the South Downs was the most important sheep rearing area in Sussex, they were kept in the Sussex High Weald. William and the other larger landholders would have had some sheep – probably black face poll sheep that were most common in East Sussex. There appears to have been no mass autumn slaughtering of sheep in Sussex, an indication that they were predominantly kept for their wool. So the animals would no doubt have been kept in sheep cotes, or folded on fallow land, during the winter. This would have required additional land to be given over to meadow for the production of hay for winter fodder. The wool trade was extremely important in medieval England and merchants may have visited the area following shearing in June to purchase fleece, much of which may have been marketed on a collective basis and gone for export from the ports of Shoreham, Seaford, Winchelsea and Rye.

In July, weeding in the grain fields would begin in earnest, with special tools – one a Y-shaped fork on the end of a stick and another with a small sickle blade. The Y-shaped fork would be used to lift the leaves and the small sickle used to cut the weed at ground level. Flax and hemp would also be harvested in July. However, July was often a hungry month for many not as fortunate as the de Istedes, when grain stores were at their lowest ebb before the forthcoming harvest, especially if the previous year’s harvest had been poor.

The main grain harvest started in August, beginning with the winter crops – wheat and rye – followed by the spring grains – barley and oats. The timing depended very much on the weather. Not only were weeks of warm weather and gentle rain needed for a good crop, but several sunny days were required for the harvest. But if all went well, the harvest would start early in the month and be completed before the month ended.

Wheat was harvested with a sickle, cutting a couple of hands below the ear, leaving the long stalk standing. The other grains were cut closer to the ground with a long-handled scythe. An experienced team of 5, composed of 4 reapers and a binder, would aim to harvest 2 acres per day. The process was inefficient and lots of grain fell to the ground. Sometimes larger landholders like William would allow the poorest of peasants to glean (pick up) the fallen grain, before they put their livestock into the field to graze on the stubble. The church tithes (one tenth) of the harvest would be collected from the field and taken to St Dunstan’s tithe barn before the bulk of the crops were taken to the family barn for storage.

Autumn

In early September, once the cereal crops were harvested, it would be the turn of peas, beans and vetches to be brought in. Pressure then eased once all the harvest was in barns. However, the grain still needed to be threshed to separate the grain from the ear. This was done with a grain flail consisting of two pieces of wood (a handle and beater) joined by a leather thong. An experienced worker could thresh about 7 bushels (56 gallons or 215 litres) of wheat a day, and larger quantities of rye, barley and oats.

Once the grain was threshed, it was winnowed to separate the wheat from the chaff and straw. This would be done by tossing the grains on a winnowing sheet, allowing the wind to blow away the lighter chaff and straw, which was collected for use as animal feed. Finally, the grain was sieved to remove smaller weed seeds before being stored. Beans and peasecod were also carefully dried and stored for use as food and animal fodder over the winter.

If kept dry and free from vermin, grain could last for several years and large producers might try to build up a stock in years of plenty in preparation for the inevitable years of poor harvest. This, however, was not an option for small cottars who would also be hard pressed to purchase grain in lean times when prices rose. Flour had a much shorter shelf life, so milling the grain would be done as and when required.

By the end of September, the pigs would be driven into the woods to pannage (forage) for beechnuts and acorns. Pannaging lasted for about 6 weeks. William and John undoubtedly kept pigs, given their obligation to give gavelsuen (the worst of the pigs, if they had three). They may, however, have kept a lot of forest pigs, like the Tamworth, given the size and likely nature of their land and the plentiful forest pasture to which they had permanent access. The Tamworth was a hardy breed of forest pig that usually produced 2 litters a year. Pigs would have provided the mainstay of meat in the local diet. Their fat would also have been used for making candles and their skins tanned to produce soft leather garments.

Unless William was required to do so at another time, he may have taken the opportunity to meet his obligation to deliver the cart loads of wood to the Archbishop’s residence at South Malling, before the forest roads became difficult as winter approached and before the usual second ploughing of the fallow fields, in early October, prior to the sowing of winter crops of wheat and rye.

Martinmas (11 November) was the traditional day to commence slaughtering surplus livestock, and salting and smoking the meat to provide supplies for the winter. Nothing was put to waste; even the blood was carefully saved for making black puddings.

By mid November farm work had tailed off, apart from looking after the remaining animals. Perhaps William, assisted by John and any labourers they may have employed, might have started a winter programme of charcoal burning, iron smelting and forestry work, as and when the weather permitted. The de Istedes may also have worked their own marl pit, or lime kiln to burn chalk to produce lime, to spread on their fields to reduce acidity in the heavy soil.

EMMA’s LAND AND LIFE

Emma held 20 acres of land of which 2 acres were coppice – an area of woodland that would have been sustainably managed to provide regular supplies of fire-wood, building and fencing material; and perhaps for producing charcoal if, as suspected, the de Istedes were engaged in ironworking to some extent.

Emma didn't pay a pig for grazing rights, like William and John. This may be an indication that she did not own any pigs or other livestock and that her land, apart from the coppice, was entirely given over to arable farming. It is also perhaps further evidence that she lived with William and that her land was managed as one farm along with William’s and/or John’s land.

Emma and the other women of the house would primarily have been responsible for looking after the house; preparing food for the men; making and mending clothes; tending the chickens, geese etc in the toft (yard); tending the vegetables and herbs in the croft (garden); churning butter, making cheese; and managing the family stores of food. They and the children would also have foraged in the forests for fruits, nuts, berries and mushrooms, in order to supplement the family diet. They may also have undertaken some light work in the fields with the children, like scaring the birds away from the seed during planting, and helping to turn the hay to allow it to dry while the men reaped ahead of them in the meadow which was also a communal social occasion. However, given the relative prosperity of the family, it is unlikely the de Istede women would have needed to have undertaken heavier field work, unlike the women on subsistence farms and small cots.

It is likely that a small part of Emma’s, or the de Istede land in general, may have been given over to growing flax and hemp, for home use as well as a cash crop. Both plants would be pulled up by the root and laid in the sun to dry. The women would most likely have taken over the process of retting – placing the plants in a stream to wash away the fleshy parts. They would then beat the plants to separate the fibre before again hanging them up to dry. Hemp would then be ready for winding into rope and the flax ready for spinning.

Another small quantity of land may also have been given over to growing dye-plants such as madder (red), woad (blue), greenweed (green) and weld (yellow) again for home use and possibly as a cash crop. Emma and the other ladies may have made their own dyes from these, either singularly or in combinations to produce various coloured garments. Unfortunately, dye production caused a terrible smell and stained the skin.

There was a revolutionary rhyme attributed to John Ball, the ‘Mad Priest of Kent’ during the Peasant’s Revolt, in 1391:

‘When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman’.

So when William and John were out delving in the fields, Emma and the other women would probably have done a little spinning of flax and wool on a spinning wheel. They may also have had a simple loom for weaving their own cloth which they would then have made into clothes. Alternatively, they may have got John le Weaver, who was mentioned in the Custumals, to make the cloth for them.

The women’s key job, at least as far as the men were concerned, was to prepare food and have it ready for them when they were hungry. Breakfast would have consisted of porridge and/or bread and cheese. Lunch, would again have been bread and cheese, with the possible addition of an apple, some ham or black pudding, which the men would usually have taken with them packed in cloth to eat in the fields if they were working far from the house. Otherwise, they may have returned to the house, or the women and/or children might have taken their lunch to them.

When the men returned to the farm from their work, they would almost certainly have been served pottage from a pot the women would have kept topped up and cooking all the time. Practically anything might have been included in the pot, but a large proportion of it would have been made up of peas. Indeed, there is an old English nursery rhyme that recalls this:

‘Pease pudding hot, pease pudding cold – pease pudding in the pot, nine days old.’

This was a part of the staple diet of everyone, whether lord or peasant. The de Istedes, however, with the extent of their land holding in an area of reasonable mixed agriculture and access to game would have had a better and more varied diet than most which would have included more frequent and greater quantities and variety of meat.

In the house, the family would have eaten off wooden or pewter plates and out of bowls. They would have used knives and spoons, but forks were not available to them. They would, therefore, have used their fingers to eat a lot of their food and would almost certainly have soaked up the last of the pottage in their bowl with bread.

It is possible that Emma might have pressed apples from the family orchard for making cider and brewed ale that would have been consumed in reasonable quantities, from pewter mugs, by young and old with their meals. While many would frown on this practice nowadays, it was probably safer than drinking the water. However, due to the extent of their land, and the local topography, the de Istedes most probably had access to the source of a stream, rather than a well, where good water could be obtained throughout most of the year.

There had been huge quantities of wine flowing into the country after Henry II acquired good wine producing country in France, through his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine and the expansion of the Angevin Empire in France. However, all of this was lost during the reigns of his sons Richard and John and supplies were no doubt somewhat reduced as a result. Some wine would, however, have been produced in England at this time as the climate was warmer during what has become known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which existed from the 11th to the 14th century. There is, however, no evidence from the Custumals or other contemporary documents that there were any vineyards in Mayfield. It is, therefore, unlikely that the de Istedes consumed very much wine, if any, unless they dined with the Archbishop or his Bailiff at the Palace, in Mayfield, as the most senior tenants living within the Borgh; or in the hall at South Malling, when they fulfilled their obligation to attend court.

IRON WORKING

"Out of the Weald the secret Weald

Men sent in ancient time

The horse shoes red at Flodden Field

The arrows of Poitiers "

Rudyard Kipling (Puck's Song)

The Weald, in which Mayfield is situated, was known to have been the main centre of ironworking in England throughout the Roman period, and again during the 16th century when blast furnace technology was introduced. There is some documentary evidence that iron was produced in the area during Anglo-Saxon times and the medieval period – a 7th century grant of an iron mine, a reference in the Domesday Book, and records of sporadic purchases of iron by the Crown in the 13th and 14th centuries.

There is, however, little archaeological evidence of Anglo-Saxon or medieval ironworking. There is only one Anglo-Saxon site discovered in reasonably good condition. This was a non-slag tapping bloomery, different from the more numerous examples of Roman ones, but similar to those found in Schleswig-Holstein (where, coincidentally, the village of Isted is located and one of the places where the Anglo-Saxons are thought to have originated). What medieval archaeological evidence there is of ironworking is so poor that it is impossible to exactly determine what type of bloomery process was employed.

As mentioned earlier, there is some circumstantial evidence that William de Istede may also have been engaged in ironworking. If so, perhaps he was amongst those who supplied Edward I's armies during military campaigns to subdue the Welsh and Scots. Perhaps this was amongst the reasons why Edward I visited Mayfield in 1297, 1299 and 1303, where he may have met the de Istedes and other senior tenants of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps later Isteds may have also supplied arrowheads to the Bibleham Archers as well as for Poitiers etc. It may even be possible that Isteds had worked iron long before William de Istede and continued to do so long afterwards, up to the time of Richard and Joan Isted and their son Thomas who were Ironmasters in Mayfield during the 16th century. After Thomas died, there is no evidence of Isteds being involved in any large scale iron production. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that Edward Isted, of Warbleton, may have been engaged in iron production on cottage industry scale, as he was found guilty, in 1646, of digging up a road to obtain iron ore.

If William de Istede had been engaged in iron production, the various processes - mining for iron ore, roasting the ore, charcoal burning, smelting and working in a forge - would no doubt have all been conducted largely during the winter lull in agricultural work. The production of artefacts may well also have been concentrated during this time, but the forge would no doubt have been fired whenever necessary for emergency repairs, shoeing horses etc.

Ore was mined opencast, sometimes in large pits and sometimes in small bell pits. Evidence suggests that ore was initially located by prospecting along river banks, where the river had worn away the soft overlying clays revealing outcrops of iron bearing rock. Then once the initial high quality nodular ore had been exhausted, shafts were sunk to locate new deposits.

However, before the iron ore could be smelted, it needed to be broken into smaller pieces with a relatively large surface area to allow for a more efficient reduction process. Additionally, the ore tended to contain a good deal of water which needed to be got rid of before smelting. This was done by roasting it in a simple heap, or sometimes in a specially constructed hearth.

In addition to the iron ore, charcoal was required to generate the heat necessary to smelt iron. To produce this whole tree trunks, or stacked wood, would be burnt and covered with earth as a means of controlling the process. This was a relatively long job – around 3 days for a whole tree trunk – during which the burning would have needed to be given regular attention. Any number of types of wood could have been used for the process, but oak which was abundant in the area would have been predominantly used. Perhaps the wood required to produce charcoal was taken from Emma’s coppice.

The smelting process involved two operations: the chemical separation of the iron from its compound and the physical separation of the gangue – the non metallic part of the ore consisting of sands, silts and clay. This process can be carried out simultaneously in a furnace where the right conditions can be obtained, producing iron and the waste slag.

It is uncertain what type of bloomery these early Isteds might have used, although it was most likely a slag tapping shaft bloomery rather than an earlier Saxon non-slag tapping one. This would have had a small opening at the bottom with a shallow depression in front, into which the slag would be run off. The bloomery would have been constructed of the local Wadhurst clay, which is especially plastic and refractory, and can withstand the thermal stresses and high temperatures involved in smelting without undue distortion or disintegration. They would, therefore, have been capable of being reused many times with minimal repairs.

Regardless of the type of bloomery used, the first step would have been to raise the interior temperature to about 1,000 C. To do this a fire would have been kindled at the bottom of the bloomery, which would have been charged with charcoal and blown with bellows inserted through clay nozzles (tyeres). There may have been one set of bellows used, or two sets operating alternately which would have maintained a higher and more uniform level of blast. Once a sufficiently high temperature had been achieved, the ore would have been added in relatively small quantities along with roughly equal amounts of charcoal. Chemically what occurs in a bloomery is that burning charcoal with oxygen produces carbon monoxide CO, at a high temperature. As this rises through the bloomery it come into contact with the small particles of iron ore from which it captures more oxygen atoms converting it to carbon dioxide CO2. This leaves free iron particles which gradually coalesce. There would have been many iterations of adding small quantities of ore and charcoal over a long period. As a result the iron would collect at the base of the bloomery along with a steadily increasing pool of liquid slag. In a slag tapping furnace this would gradually rise to the level of the aperture at the base and be run off. In a non-slag tapping furnace it would collect in a cavity below ground level. At the end of the process the spongy bloom of reduced iron would be removed through the top of the slag-tapping shaft bloomery. Experimental archaeology using a reconstruction of a Roman bloomery of this type has produced 10kg a day. However, it is assumed that a skilled founder might have reasonably produced double this quantity.

Before the end product of the smelting could be used to work into tools, weapons etc the entrapped slag had to be removed from the bloom. This was done by heating it in a small open hearth forge to about 1,200 C until it became white hot. It would then have been moved to an anvil of stone, iron, or even wood, and hammered vigorously during which the entrapped slag would have literally squirted out. When the colour of the bloom showed that the heat had been lost, it would have been returned to the furnace and the process repeated until all the slag was banished. It was unlikely that they would have made a finished artefact at this stage, but would have merely been hammered into an iron block.

It would probably have taken a minimum of four people to produce iron by this method, working shifts to operate a double bellow system. Perhaps William, John and other members of the family, along with William Faber mined the ore and roasted it; felled and burnt wood to produce charcoal; and smelted the iron. They may have sold on some of the bloom to blacksmiths, or worked the iron into horse shoes and arrowheads for supply to the Crown; as well as making tools, plough shears, pots and pans, rims for wagon wheels etc for themselves and to sell to provide extra cash for some of life’s little luxuries that may not otherwise have been available to them.

The Wealden Iron Research Group conducts research into iron production in the Weald. Amongst other things, this includes field-walking to identify possible sites of past ironworking; archaeological digs; and experimental archaeology, e.g. experimental iron smelts in a reconstruction of a Roman slag tapping bloomery that is based on local archaeological evidence. I was fortunate enough to be invited to take part in one of these experimental iron smelts, in Ashdown Forest, in October 2005, to experience something of the work these early Isted ancestors may have done.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1285 Custumals is little more than a list of the free and neif tenants of the Archbishop of Canterbury which details how much land they each held, and the various rents and work services they owed for it. However, with a little knowledge of the feudal system and the history of the period, it is possible to paint a picture of what life may have been like in Mayfield of the time. The picture painted here of the life of the de Istede family, is a picture of possibilities. They were obviously the largest free land holders in Mayfield, and William and Emma had greater civic responsibility and would have enjoyed a higher status than their neighbours. Their life would almost certainly have revolved around agriculture and been governed by the seasons like everyone else in their community. Whether they were engaged in ironworking, or to what extent, is a little more difficult to predict. However, there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable degree of probability that they worked iron to some extent.

(updated 22 September 2006)


Bibliography:

Custumals of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sussex Estates c1285 (Sussex Record Society Vol 57 + Canterbury Archives)

Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, translated and collated by Anne Savage, (Pheobe Phillips/Heinemann 1982)

Doomsday Book – Vol 2 – Sussex , General Editor John Morris (Phillimore 1972)

Bosworth & Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary

Mayfield, A History, R C G Foster (1963)

Dictionary of British Place Names, A D Mills, (Oxford 2003)

A Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, T F Hoad ( Oxford 1985)

Internet Medieval Sourcebook

Deed of Covenant, Reference: Sussex Record Society D-205 dated 8 February 1647

The Iron Industry of the Weald, Henry Cleere and David Crossley (Merton Priory 1995)

Bulletin of the Wealden Iron Research Group, Second Series No 6 1986