1 Daylesford 2 Adlestrop
3 Donnington 4 Part of Maugersbury
5 Notgrove 6 Overbury & Conderton
7 Kemerton 8 Part of Bradon s Norton
9 Caldinccotan in Bredon 10 Woodchester
11 Ballingham 12 Llanwarne 13 Wonastow 14 Tidenham 15 itton 16 Llanbder 17 Undy 18 Caldicot 19 Tintem 20 St. M aughan’s 21 Llancillo 2 2 Kemeys 23 Llanarth 2 4 Clodock 25 Dixton 2 6 Rockfield
27 Llantilio Pertholey 28 Llanfaenor
29 Aust 30 Dunhampstead
31 Hellerelege, King’s Norton 32 W ican (Wick) 33 Alveohurch (Cotton Hackett)
34 Hartlebury (Whitlinge)
35 (W aresley)
36 (Land at)
37 Bishop’s C leave 38 Llandinabo
39 Llandogo 40Chepstow
41 Llantilio Crossenny 42 Llanfable
43 Bishton 44 Llanllwyd
45 Llwynwyd 46Cecin PenRhos (Llangynfyl)
47 Trelleck 48 Llansoy
49 Llandenny 50 Stoke Prior
51 Broadwas 52 Hallow
53 Grimley 54 Himbleton
55 C leeve Prior 56 Pershore Holdings
57 Lower Wolverton 58 Withington
59 Upton on Severn 60 Bently Holt
61 Oddingley 62 Cotheridge
63 Pendock 64 Little W itley
65 Cudley 66 Bredicot
67 Whittington 68 Clopton St. John’s in Bredwardine
69 Dumbleton/Kington
70 Knighton-on-Teme, Newnham & Eardiston
71 M athem 72 Dorstone
The group of estates found in the Cotswold complex can be explained to som e degree (though how great a degree is difficult to assess) by the physical environment. The eight estates found in this area could be explained by a mechanism that involved the choice of the W orcester authorities, involving a preference for the fairly good quality land here. However, these estates are supposed to be gifts to the church and the extent to which choice was exercised by the ecclesiastical leaders is problematic.
The cluster around W orcester can be seen to be composed almost exclusively of estates which are the subject of charters which either cannot be attributed to a date earlier than the mid eleventh century or else refer to leases by the church belonging to the late ninth and tenth centuries. Land which is the subject of a tenth-century lease must clearly have passed to the church at W orcester at some time previously and in nearly every case land associated with these properties can be found to be the subject of earlier charters, for example the estate at Alveohurch which is the subject of a late ninth-century lease (S 1272). The bounds are referred to in an earlier charter (S 117) dated to 780, in which the land is given for the use of the bishop of W orcester. However it does not follow that the bounds of a later lease reflect those of an earlier grant. This is illustrated by the case of Dunhampstead and Oddingly, the estates of which significantly overlap each other (see figure 4.3.9).
It is therefore not possible to attribute this cluster to a period much earlier than the tenth century, making it potentially much later than the other two groups identified above, though an earlier date cannot be absolutely ruled out. Certainly the fact that land mentioned in the leases is referred to in earlier charters, whether with coterminous boundaries or not, would suggest that during the eighth or ninth century some estates did exist in this area.
The situation around W orcester may be typical of a landscape where topography is more uniform. Here we find estates clustering around the focal point of W orcester itself, extending away from the centre notably along river networks and along the Roman road that reaches north east from W orcester through Bromsgrove to the fort at Metchley.
Although the question of choice as exercised by the religious centres is problematic on account of incomplete historical evidence, the organisation of the W orcester estates does appear to support the view that at least some level of choice or planning has taken place. It is difficult to see how such a sensible pattern of estates extending outwards along major route- ways, allowing for a much greater ease of connection, could occur if lands given to the church were wholly dependent on the possessions of the giver. If the givers were local land owners then the pattern would surely appear random to us and if the grants cam e directly from the crown, unless due consideration were given to the desires and convenience of the church, the pattern would be expected to be more random in an area of such homogeneity.
Thus, whereas the Llandaff estates appear to suggest a distribution that is dictated almost exclusively by the physical environment, the situation of the W orcester possessions is different. Here there is a sense of organisation and choice. T h e way in which the estates are clustered into groups which are not pre-determined by physical limitations and that they extend along rivers and the Roman road (both principal communication systems) does appear to suggest some planned structure.
A second source of evidence which may be put forward to support a degree of planned expansion is the number of larger estate units which have been assembled from smaller units which are adjacent. On only five occasions can this feature be seen in the properties of Llandaff and in each the situation is one where only two estates have effectively been joined together (though, it is impossible to know whether they were m anaged separately or as a consolidated whole). These are Llanfaenor/Llanllwyd, Llanarth/Llwynderi, Trelleck/Llandogo, Kemeys/Llanbeder and Chepstow/Mathern.
Amongst the W orcester properties joined estates are more prominent. In the Cotswold complex Adlestrop and Daylesford share an extensive boundary, whilst two of the Hartlebury estates and CudleyAA/hittington form double estates. However, the latter two cases are conjoined leases and may represent the splitting up of a single, earlier and larger estate rather than the joining of two earlier grants to the church.
Unique to the W orcester properties are the larger agglomerations of estates. The largest of all properties, that of Pershore abbey, is difficult to imagine without the idea that it is an amalgamation of smaller units, and is itself abutted by the following estates: Lower Wolverton, part of Bredon's Norton and Kemerton. Kemerton and the estate described as part of Bredon's Norton are themselves joined and Kemerton is also slotted together with the estates of
Caldincotan in Bredon and Overbury and Conderton (a single estate), forming a larger Bredon
unit, though its form is somewhat awkward.
T he finest example of such consolidation is the estate called Wican nestled between the Severn and the T em e (see figure 4.3.9). The history of this estate is far from certain. The earliest grant of property to W orcester in this area is a charter dated to 757-775, describing the gift of Wican and defining the property of the entire area outlined in this area except for the small western estate of Bredwardine. However, two later grants, one relating to Hallow dated 816 and one to Grimely dated 851, appear to define areas already within the original grant. All other divisions and charters relating to this group are leases. Both of the ninth-century grants, though appearing in 'Hemming', have been regarded as spurious by some: Stevenson regards the Hallow grant as spurious and the Grimely grant as genuine, but both Robertson and Fin berg regard the Grimely charter as spurious (Sawyer, 1968, 116 and 122). It is difficult to see why charters needed to be written for land already owned and the most likely explanation seems to be that the original grant of Wican referred more specifically to an area within this complex (Henwick would appear a good candidate deriving from the Old English Higna-wic meaning the wick of the monks (Ekwall, 1936, 235)) and that the extensive bounds are a later addition following a process of consolidation of which the later two charters, authentic or not, are the only