Were there carucates and bovates in Renfrewshire?

Were there carucates and bovates in Renfrewshire?

 

The contention here is that carucates and bovates were not part of the earliest land-assessment system in this part of Scotland. We have carucates (Englished from Latin carrucata or carucata) and bovates (Englished from Latin bovata); or their English-language equivalents, ploughgates and oxgates. Each of these has a number of variants. So we can have ploughs, ploughlands, ploughgates, ploughgaits and ploughgangs. Or oxgates, oxgaits, oxgangs or oxingangs. A carucate or ploughland was eight bovates or oxgangs.

 

The evidence from Renfrewshire points against carucates and bovates being any part of an indigenous system of land-assessment. The documentary evidence for carucates is minimal and, in all cases, very early. Carucates were an imported term. The first Norman settlers here brought customs, and vocabulary, to their new estates. No doubt they tried to impose them. The only real evidence we have of carucates in Renfrewshire is when they are said to be measured. Use of the term ‘perambulation’ might simply mean walking the bounds of an existing estate. Measurement suggests a concrete attempt to impose a new system. We do not have many examples of the term carucate being used of land in Renfrewshire. Fewer still are those instances where the land was measured. (See file entitled ‘Early information about properties held by Paisley monastery’ for examples). In most cases it is quite possible that the word ‘carucate’ was just being used to describe a davach.

 

Bovates varied in size but there have been attempts to suggest a standard Scottish model of 13 acres to a bovate and therefore 104 (8 x 13) acres to a carucate. (The archetype is the example given by Lawrie in ESC (251) 1152-1153 which defines ‘unam carrucatam terre’ by Roxburgh as 104 acres). There is evidence of acres in Renfrewshire, in fact by the eighteenth century this was the standard unit for measuring farms – so many acres of arable, woodland, pasture etc. But this process took centuries to complete and did not go hand in hand with any intermediate phase of measuring in bovates and carucates. The first Norman landlords here may have brought the vocabulary, perhaps even measured out a few carucates, but the system did not embed itself.

 

It may have taken many years for bovates, and therefore carucates, to become standardised. From 1183 we have a survey, known as the Boldon Buke, of some of the parts of Northern England which Domesday Book had not reached. It covers the estates of the Bishopric of Durham in Durham and Northumberland. In Boldon Buke, bovates are the ubiquitous base-unit; carucates, being 8 times larger, are met with less often. The survey gives numerous examples of how widely bovates could vary in size. In general I am wary of using evidence from England to make a point about land-assessment in Scotland, not least because measures of length were slightly different. But standards may have varied just as much in Scotland.

 

The Paisley Rental gives us a good snapshot of conditions in Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire and Ayrshire. In the many hundred of leases described over the period 1460-c. 1550, I can only find one example of the use of the term bovate in Renfrewshire or Dunbartonshire. That is with reference to Edinbernan in Kilpatrick (Dunbartonshire) and is probably just a mistake. A glance at the fractions used is also informative. As with farms everywhere there were divisions as portions were allocated to different tenants. We find all the expected fractions, halves, quarters, thirds. We also find fifths, sixths, eighths and twelfths. But there is no sense of a predominance of eighths or sixteenths, as we would expect if bovates were the norm. In fact if there is one surprising feature it is how often we come across division by 12. There is good evidence of a duodecimal system at work in Renfrewshire. We also see this in the Paisley Rental in terms of the renders of cheese from some of the hill farms. They tend to use the ‘long hundred’ where 100 actually meant 120. RSS VIII (89) 1580-1 refers to:

ane hundreth stane of cheis, makand sex scoir in the hundreth … takin out of the landis of Auchinhayne in Glen within the parochin of Lochingyeoch,

(one hundred stone of cheese, reckoning six score (120) to the hundred … taken out of the lands of Auchinhayne in Glen within the parish of Lochwinnoch).

 

Since this part of the blog is about Renfrewshire I do not wish to get mired in a discussion about land-assessment systems in other parts of Scotland. However, it is perhaps helpful to take a broad-brush approach and give a flavour of what prevailed in some neighbouring areas. That way we can see that the pattern in Renfrew is not in any way puzzling or unique. It fits with what prevailed in this part of Scotland in early times. We simply don’t have the same early system of land-assessment as we find in south-east Scotland.

 

As to why? I think we can put this down to the Norman invasion and the imposition, by David I of a Scottish currency and a fiscal framework of merklands. Associated with the new coinage was a system of merklands and poundlands that was probably imported from England with David’s blessing and support.

 

The situation is Renfrewshire is well-illustrated by the Paisley Rental Book. When we look at neighbouring areas the first source to point to is the Rental Book of the Diocese of Glasgow for 1509-1570. This was transcribed, edited and printed by Bain and Rogers, along with the Protocol Book of Cuthbert Simon, in Liber protocollorum M. Cuthberti Simonis (Cuthbert Simon), 1499-1513; eds., Bain, J., & Rogers, C., London, 1875. English abstracts Vol I; Latin text Vol II.

 

The Rental Book occupies pp 41-215 of Volume I. On pp 219-228 is an Appendix which gives translations of the Latin entries in the Rental Book. The Rental Book is subdivided into returns by Barony. So, we have entries for the Baronies of Glasgow, Carstairs (Lanarkshire), Stobo (Peeblesshire) and Edilston (Eddleston, Peeblesshire). The entries for the Barony of Glasgow form substantially the largest section.

 

In brief, it can be said that the entries for Glasgow, Carstairs, and even Edilston, are overwhelmingly in portions of land described in shillings and pence, very occasionally merks (1 merk = 13s 4d). For instance ‘rentellit in xis iijd land’ (rentalled in 11s 3d land).

 

The exceptions prove the rule. On pp 82 and 163 there are references to 52 acres of West Niddry in Linlithgow. In a footnote on p 82 the editors link these 52 acres with a deed of c. 1340 which talks of a ploughgate in ‘Little Nudref’. (The original is to be found in Register of Glasgow, Volume I, No 290, pp 253-254, which is dated by Shead and Cunningham to 1342 x 1349). This gives a charter for a ‘carrucatam terre … in villa de parva Nudref’, (a carucate of land … in the town of Little Niddry). However 52 acres would, theoretically at least, only represent half of this ploughgate, and the words carucate or ploughgate or bovate do not occur here, in this context, in the Rental Book.

 

Where they do occur, or rather bovates and oxgangs occur, is in the context of the barony of Stobo. Virtually every entry for this barony includes one, or more, of the following terms: ‘bovata’, ‘hoxgang’ ‘ox gang’, ‘oxin gang’ and ‘oxin gait’. There is an entry for a ‘tuenty penny land’ in 1538 but, again, it is the exception that proves the rule. The contrast is complete and striking. The only Barony belonging to the diocese of Glasgow that worked in bovates was in Peeblesshire. Why Eddleston, also in Peeblesshire, did not, is a matter for further research.

 

We can cast our net wider if we look at records provided in: Munimenta Alme Universitatis Glasguensis. (Records of the University of Glasgow). C. Innes. Maitland Club, Glasgow, 1854, Vol 1. There are a number of items here that are helpful. (See also descriptions of these items in ‘The Table’ at the beginning of the volume).

 

The first (pp 277-280, c. 1638-40?) describes the ‘holding of kyne’ in the parish of Calder or Cader. This refers to the souming arrangements. Souming was an ancient practice, widespread in Scotland, whereby land was assessed in terms of its grazing capacity for different types of animal. The baseline was set in cattle, with sheep, goats etc set in multiples of cattle; horses in divisions thereof. The parish of Cadder could apparently soum 569 cattle. Most of the parish is given in terms of lands worth shillings and pence. But possibly about one-third of the parish is given in terms of ‘ploghes of land’ (ploughs of land).

 

The second (pp 297-301, c. 1649-1651) concerns the parsonage teinds of Kilbride. Not only does it give the teinds (parsonage and vicarage), but it also gives the valuations of the lands themselves. These are almost all given in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. One is given in merklands (1 merk = 13s 4d).

 

The third (pp 364-371) is a roll of the names of heritors (proprietors of lands) in the parishes of Monkland and Cader in 1659. For most properties a land-valuation is given. These are always in terms of pounds, merks, shillings and pence. For some properties we are only told that a heritor owns a part. Quite often, in these cases, the part is specified as an eighth or a sixteenth. But we do not meet the words bovates or carucates.

 

The fourth (pp 397-399, 1666) is an account of the vicarage teinds paid from the lands of the parishes of Calder (Cadder) and Monkland. The lands are given with their valuations. The lands are almost all given valuations in pounds, merks, shillings and pence.

 

If, then, we take the evidence from the Glasgow Rental Book and add to it the evidence from the records of the University of Glasgow; it points, overwhelmingly, to a landscape that was assessed in terms of poundlands, merklands, shillings and pence. This was not a landscape of carucates and bovates. This picture accords completely with the evidence from Renfrewshire. By way of contrast we can point to Stobo in Peeblesshire. There the landscape was entirely in bovates.

 

It is also useful to show how profoundly different the human landscape looked in other parts of Scotland. Many years ago Professor Donaldson argued that the history of Scotland could be looked at by looking at the history of the provinces of Scotland. Nowhere is that more true than in land-assessment. We have already seen how the situation in SE Scotland looks completely different to the situation in Renfrewshire, with respect to land valuation. We are fortunate that Birse Community Trust has posted to the internet the 1511 Rental of the lands in Birse parish, Aberdeenshire. This was transcribed, edited and translated by Dr Rachel Butter. It is splendidly straightforward and methodical. Most of the parish consists of townships with holdings of 2 ploughlands.

 

(Instead of ‘carucata/carrucata’, derived from ‘carruca’, a plough or plough-team, the rental uses ‘aratra’, the plural of ‘aratrum’, to indicate ploughs. But it is not the physical object, the plough, which is meant so much as ‘the ploughland’, which that plough creates).

 

These ploughlands are consistently of 8 bovates. Pasture land pays a cash rent and there were small parcels of land set aside for crofts to go with mills, brewing-houses and smithies. Everything is remarkably regular and there is only one property – Fingo(Finzean) – where there looks to be any sort of anomaly. Bovates were the agricultural building blocks of this parish; and they were consistently aggregated into ploughlands.

 

In conclusion Renfrewshire was not like the parish of Stobo; nor was it like Aberdeenshire. It, and many areas nearby, saw the landscape in terms of poundlands and merklands. This was a currency-based assessment system; not one based on measurement of arable areas.

 

Unfortunately the landscape of land-assessment is beset with pitfalls. Two of these loom before us as we make comparisons between Renfrewshire and other parts of Scotland. Firstly you could be forgiven for thinking that all ploughlands were equal. But, there is evidence that some ploughlands were more equal than others. Secondly we have to be aware of the difficulties when comparing what looks to be the same term in different languages. So we can compare oxgangs with bovates, ploughlands with carucates and ‘aratra’. But how do we make comparisons with arachors, which looks to be the Latin aratrum translated into Gaelic? And how do we relate any of these to davachs, which despite the Gaelic guise, may be a unit that was originally Pictish, perhaps even has a Pictish name?

 

Can we be sure of the nature of what these early scribes were referring to? Is a ‘Scottish’ carucate the same as a carucate, or is it a term just used to describe a davach? And how do we compare any carucates with davachs given that carucates were measured areas of arable land whereas davachs seem to have been subjective assessments of agricultural productivity. But this now takes us into areas that are not really germane to land-assessment in Renfrewshire. This synopsis is only really intended to demonstrate that carucates and bovates are not an integral part of the land-assessment overlay in this part of Scotland. Although we have rejected bovates as base-units in Renfrewshire it is clear that they functioned as such in SE Scotland. It seems fair to associate carucates and bovates with the northern extension of Anglian power from Northumbria, a process which may have ebbed and flowed over many centuries.