Emily Forster

Modern studies show that soil erosion results in a loss of ecosystem function, particularly fertility, and is a cause of declining agricultural yields. However, despite the well‐attested high rates of soil erosion across Roman and medieval Europe there appears to have been little or no soil‐associated decline in agricultural production—the soil erosion paradox. Small low‐slope erodible lowland catchments offer the opportunity to examine this question when sufficient historical information is available. Here, we show that, since its disconnection from the main River Severn (UK) floodplain in the mid‐Holocene, the small Hatfield Brook catchment experienced high rates of soil erosion and alluviation (~2 mm year ⁻¹ ) associated with extensive catchment‐bound open‐field system agrarianism. Scientific and historical data both indicate increases in activity during the early medieval and medieval periods, associated with landscape control by the Bishopric of Worcester (BoW). Agricultural expansion by the church from the late 11th to mid‐13th centuries AD extended further into lower valley slopes and alluviated flatlands, tilled using the heavy plough, and catchment hinterlands were further cleared of woodland via assarting, all leading to greater soil erosion. After AD 1250, the power and influence of the Bishopric of Worcester declined with arable cultivation and a move towards pastoralism leading to a reduction in soil erosion, increased slope stability and floodplain deposition. This suggests that in the low‐relief erodible lowlands of Europe one solution to the erosion paradox is that most of the sediment generated by open‐field cultivation was trapped in the basin and created new, flat, and highly productive agricultural land producing both a sustainable farming system and a non‐linearity in the relationship between population and soil erosion. Further modelling‐based research is needed though to identify the relative role of the manipulation of fertility through manuring and new land‐creation.

Early medieval farmers expanded cereal production largely by adopting ‘low-input’ forms of farming. These involved increasing the area of land under cultivation while decreasing the amount of ‘input’—manure and human labour—per land unit. Weed flora vary according to soil fertility and tillage, and the seeds of arable weeds that grew among medieval crops and were preserved with them provide a valuable indicator of soil conditions. Analysis of weed flora is used here to distinguish crops grown in low-input (‘extensive’) conditions from those grown in higher input (more ‘intensive’, presumably smaller scale) conditions. This is complemented by an analysis of the stable isotope values of cereal grains to investigate how intensively crops were manured and whether cultivation expanded onto heavier, more productive soils. Finally, a national database of archaeobotanical remains is interrogated to establish what arable weeds reveal about the chronology and regional trajectory of arable ‘extensification’. The results reflect a shift to ‘low-input’ regimes beginning around the eighth century, indicating an expansion in the scale of arable farming.

Systematic crop rotation, whereby farmers followed an agreed sequence of sowing and fallow, was a fundamental feature of medieval farming. A regular short fallow period enabled more land to be brought under the plough while the fallow field provided valuable grazing. A review of what written sources suggest about crop rotation is followed by a consideration of how archaeobotanical remains can be used to distinguish between crops grown in rotation, crops grown in separate fields, and mixed crops such as maslins. Analysis of arable weeds reveals evidence for seasonal sowing while the stable isotope signatures of medieval cereal grains are analysed to investigate the likelihood of systematic rotation. Increased uniformity of crop stable isotope values from the tenth century onwards, supported by evidence for seasonal sowing, indicates that this period saw the widespread adoption of systematic crop rotation.

Chapter 1 examines the new forms of cereal farming that developed between c.AD 700 and 1300. These involved expanding the amount of land under cultivation and ultimately enabled landowners to amass wealth by exploiting the labour of others. Increases in agricultural outputs in the later part of the period are well documented, but the nature of the farming regimes that underpinned this growth are much debated. The lack of agreement regarding whether there was a period of ‘revolutionary’ change or a gradual process of ‘cerealization’, and how closely innovations like the mouldboard plough and systematic crop rotation were linked with each other and with field and village form, is explored. It is argued that new, direct evidence is needed and the range of bioarchaeological data now available is introduced. The ‘mouldboard plough package’ is introduced as a framing device, the regional and chronological frameworks used are introduced, and the structure of the volume is explained.

This chapter considers the implications of the evidence presented in Chapters 3–6. It concludes that the ‘long eighth century’ was a period of innovation in farming regimes that brought a new emphasis on surplus production. The tenth to early eleventh centuries saw the establishment of ‘proto-manorial’ settlement complexes alongside more widespread take-up of the mouldboard plough and systematic rotation, as well as a calibration of cropping regimes to local conditions. The mid-eleventh and twelfth centuries, when planned, ‘nucleated’ villages were established in many parts of the country, are not obviously associated with agricultural innovations but did see a ‘scaling up’ of production and increasing take-up of systematic rotation and the plough. The potential drivers of these developments—technological innovation, demographic change, local lordship, climate change, long-distance trade, etc.—are considered in relation to regional patterns. The conclusion revisits the question of whether there was a medieval ‘agricultural revolution’.