EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 29 Jan 2016, 17:18

Medieval Barnoldswick

Although the Domesday Book Major was produced in 1086 it is fair to say that the information relating to land holding and land use reflects the earlier centuries when the Anglo-Saxons and Skandinavians settled the landscape. If a direct comparison were to be made between the occupied landscapes of 900AD and 1086AD then we would see that by and large it was only the names of the overlords and their sub-tenants that had changed.

In the decades prior to the Norman Conquest the overlord of our area was Gamal. It is very likely that Gamal, who was based within the Leeds area, gained his extensive landholdings in the North of England through his military support of the king. A list of his lands included areas extending from Burnley (the lost village of Gambleside was probably named after him) through Cravenshire. This may have been the Gamal and his son, Gamal Barn (barn = 'the younger') who appear as sub tenants within the Barnoldswick and Gisburn Domesday entries. However, the Normans had taken over the overlordship in 1086 and we see that Roger de Poitou had the twelve carucates of taxed land within Barnoldswick at this time.

By locating these twelve carucates of agricultural land we can gain a valuable insight into the original extent and layout of Barnoldswick within the later Anglo-Saxon period. The first problem is to fix the extent of the area known as a carucate - the problem being that medieval land measures were largely based on the area of land that an ox or a plough team could plough within a day, a season or a year. Add to this the fact that the size of an acre differed across regions and we are struggling a bit! However, having plotted early field systems and boundaries through the use of aerial LiDAR data and air imagery, then measuring the resultant cultivation patterns, there is good reason to take the carucate (within our district at least) as having covered an area of some 120 acres. It is possible, then, to create a workable model for the pre-Norman land settlement of Barnoldswick.

Image

Original Barnoldswick field system core from LiDAR - the pattern we see today is a mixture of Iron Age and medieval fields overlaid by consequence of modern farming

Image

Basic plan of the 12 carucates of land taxed within Medieval Barnoldswick at the time of Domesday

It is also possible to use LiDAR evidence to find linear patterns within built-up areas in order to find the original layout of a town or village. This is a fairly straightforward task in the case of Barnoldswick as the core of the early village settlement can still be seen around the Wapping and Townhead districts. Location of the original field and tracks through LiDAR forms a base on which nineteenth century maps and air images can be overlaid - this allows for the stripping away of subsequential building development in order to form the original 'wire frame' of a settlement.

It is reasonably clear that Barnoldswick originally grew around an ancient ditched settlement (Bronze Age) that is still known to this day as The Hey. It is notable that the main prehistoric trackways have survived within the village, although some have changed course markedly over time. Barnoldswick was located at the crossroads of two arterial routes, one ran NS directly from the hillfort at Castercliffe (Colne) via Foulridge to the Barnoldswick village enclosure and on the ancient ford across the Ribble at Nappa. The other ran EW from a Bronze Age settlement at Middop (running parallel with the 'Roman' road through Brogden) to the Barnoldswick village enclosure, along Rainhall Road and up to join the 'Roman' road at Thornton.

It is interesting that Barnoldswick village did not develop alongside the Brogden to Elslack 'Roman' road. One reason for this is possibly that the land in between these two features (St. Mary's Mount area) appears (at this early stage in the survey) to have been a defensive site (minor hillfort) and subsequently a religious site and would not be readily settled.

The image below illustrates the ground evidence for buildings around a central raised area (the original prehistoric ditched settlement) probably during the period of the 12th to 16th centuries. Within this pattern we can expect to find the original buildings from when Bernulf and his contemporaries settled here. A valuable exercise would be to walk the old town area and plot the old extant toft boundaries - this should allow for buildings to be put on the plans along with their associated burgage crofts.

Image

Proposed burgage/toft/croft locations within Medieval Barnoldswick

User avatar
PanBiker
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 7412
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 13:07
Location: Barnoldswick - In the West Riding of Yorkshire, always was, always will be.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by PanBiker » 29 Jan 2016, 18:40

Fascinating John, I hope you don't mind, I have taken the liberty of inserting the images in your post rather than the links.
Ian

User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 43974
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Stanley » 30 Jan 2016, 04:12

Good work John, lots to think about.... The first thing that strikes me is that while the Domesday information is valuable it may well be that in the effort to impose order on the information they gathered the Commissioners did a lot of simplification, and that at breakneck sped. We know they were under immense personal pressure to get the job done and in order to achieve that they had to codify the information. We have to assume that some rationalisation had already happened under the Saxons. There was almost certainly some form of administrative district, what we loosely describe as a Manor perhaps but racking my brains this early in the morning I can't think of any concrete evidence of the name Bernulfswick (or its many variations) before the survey. Note that in Serlo's evidence at Kirkstall almost 100 years later he describes the location of the putative monastery by citing the names of several different settlements.
We see Barlick through our own frame of reference, as a village. Remember that historians are always guilty of imposing their own codification on available evidence, we love to give names to periods bounded by definite dates. In doing this we embed assumptions that are not necessarily helpful. The work you are doing reinforces the Serlo view in that our locality was more a collection of associated settlements which for administrative purposes were described as an entity and named after, or by the person the Commissioners took evidence from, in this case Bernulf, the man seen as the most important by the Commissioners and probably named to them before they arrived because in some way he had a connection further up the food chain. De Lacey certainly followed this concept because when he presented the land to Fountains Abbey it was described as a manor, almost certainly on the legal framework erected by the Domesday Survey. Even then, as we see from Serlo, it was seen as a collection of settlements which, while they almost certainly interacted with each other would see themselves as separate entities.
We can only guess about these attitudes but what becomes certain from your work is that the separation existed and also that the network of settlements was even more extensive than we hitherto suspected as your wider evidence points to a string of such minor centres extending out to the West. It gives us a basis to adjust our frame of reference, take into account the possibility of friction between them and allow for the most important element, the actions and attitudes of individuals.
That's as far as I want to push it this morning, I'm only just wakening up but none of this does violence to what you are revealing. It is wonderfully illuminating and reinforces some aspects of the history that I have always suspected which is always nice!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 30 Jan 2016, 10:52

Thanks to Panbiker for inserting the images. I did everything as usual - opened the image from gallery and copied image location then pasted but only the link appeared - I wondered if it was because I'd forgotten to resize to around 800 pixels?

Stanley - you're right of course - Domesday is both invaluable and misleading and, to me, the greyest areas are what was left out and where names are assigned to specified landholdings which, in turn, were listed in relation to taxation criteria so that we do not get the full picture. In some districts the pre-Norman Saxon estates can be assigned to abiding boundaries coterminous with the modern (pre-70s) shires although the sub-district thanage can be impossible to tie down - this period isn't called the 'Dark Ages' for nothing!

However, I'm hanging my hat on the tangible evidence we have in surviving landsape features. I'm convinced that we can show the bones of the various settlements that you mention as having been within a wider estate or authority. Having carried out landscape assessment of Thornton, Earby and Kelbrook (which I'll post later) there are clues as to how this operated within the formation of medieval settlement in West Craven. When the fields are logged in a simple 'wire pattern' over a wide area it is amazing how unknown linear boundaries and lost roads become clear.

There is a strong suggestion that one of these major boundaries has survived as the modern boundary of Gill Syke and Bedlam Dyke which follows to Stock Beck and to the Ribble. Work I've done in Gisburn and Newsholme shows a defined and important Bronze Age settlement pattern which respects Stock Beck and the Ribble. The forementioned boundary also follows south between Kelbrook and Salterforth to the Lancashire Dyke. From here a case can be made for the boundary to follow over White Moor, through Alainseat above Admergill, along a double ditch up the big end of Pendle and north to the Ribble which it follows back to the junction of Stock Beck. This has the hallmarks of a British kingdom and it is perhaps no coincidence that the boundary on the Gisburn side of the Ribble has a major Iron Age hillfort (details not yet published). It is very possible, then, that the western boundary of the kingdom of Craven was located between Barlick and Thornton - again, it is notable that there are at least two serious defensive features on this boundary at Thornton. Thornton, Earby and Kelbrook are pre-Norman settlements within a single estate that developed alongside this boundary - on what would become the 'Yorkshire' side. The upshot of this is Barnoldswick may not have been in the Cravenshire landholding that became Yorkshire - it may have been part of an independent estate (or minor kingdom) placed between Craven and the estates that evolved into Blackburnshire.

It is possible, then, that the settlement we now know as Barnoldswick was an important centre during the Romano Britsh and Dark Age periods. It may have had resource to the landholdings extending from Downham, through Middop and Coverdale to the Thornton border. Indeed Middop can be taken as meaning 'the middle valley' - a description of its location beween the forementioned boundaries of the Ribble and Alainseat. This area was not as sparsely populated as we might be given to think looking at it today - small settlements are showing themselves in LiDAR evidence, especially alongside the 'Roman' road from Downham to Barlick.

Is it possible, therefore, that Barnoldswick was consigned to Yorkshire when the late Saxon/early Norman overlords firmed up the shire system of independent estates? This would involve shifting the former Craven boundary from the Ribble at Gisburn to Admergill and from Thornton to the Lancashire Dyke - as we no know it.

Finally - Bernulf's Wick. Stanley has not come across any pre-Domesday reference to a Bernulf and suggests that the settlement name arose because a Bernulf was the man seen as the most important by the Commissioners because he had a connection further up the food chain. I like this - Bernulf was the chief egg in residence when the Commissioners arrived and so his name was assigned to the village. It might also be possible that another bloke gave his name to the site . . we do know that Gamal and Gamal Barn are listed in Domesday as tenants at Barlick and Gisburn - the 'barn' element means 'offspring' or 'the younger.' The suffix 'ulf' is generally taken as the name 'wolf' meaning 'renowned' or of high status. Could Barnulf simply be the modern equivalent of Mr. Barn where gentlemen were related to as Mister? In this case Gamal, the apparent chief tenant of Barlick, had a son who he named Gamal Barn (equivalent of Skandinavian Gamalson) - Gamal Barn would be known as Barn to distinguish him from his father and so we have Barn Ulf's Wick. Barn was 'lord of the manor' of Barnoldswick while his father Gamal would have been lord of another settlement (Westby, Newsholme, Thornton?) - all good fun this speculation!

User avatar
PanBiker
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 7412
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 13:07
Location: Barnoldswick - In the West Riding of Yorkshire, always was, always will be.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by PanBiker » 30 Jan 2016, 11:22

John, you have just missed the last stage for inserting images. When you have copied the link from the gallery. Place your cursor where you want to insert the image in the post, then click the "little mountain" icon in the top bar of the post editor. Paste your copied link into the box provided and then click insert. You don't need to resize, the site settings will do this for you.

Really enjoying this revelation of history, please keep it coming.
Ian

User avatar
Tripps
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 14:56

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Tripps » 30 Jan 2016, 13:23

Could barn and bern be forerunners of bairn meaning baby or child, which is still in common use in Scotland, and the far North of England? Then Bernulf would be the child of Ulf?
I do hope Calluna is seeing all this. :smile:
Born to be mild. . .

User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 43974
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Stanley » 31 Jan 2016, 04:20

Almost certainly David, as John says, the possibilities for speculation are endless.
John, I like the suggestion that Craven could have been a buffer estate between older kingdoms/tribal estates. If so it would be ancient and a perfect candidate for rationalisation after the Conquest. The line over 'Allainset' is the one followed by de Lacey in his perambulation when he delineated the Manor of Barlick before the gift to Fountains. For over 200 years this was the subject of court actions as he was seen to have annexed Admergill into the manor when it was part of the Forest of Blackburnshire. Could it be that his legal advisers and scribes were working off the wrong hymn sheet and using the pre-Conquest boundary instead of the version as revised for taxation purposes under the rationalisation that was at the root of Domesday? There has always been a big question mark over this 'mistake' in my mind and it's significant that it took the courts so long to resolve it. In fact they found eventually in favour of the de Lacey boundary but the Crown ignored the judgement and took Admergill anyway. Interesting also that the Perambulation started on the Black Brook and only covered the Western boundary. It's almost as though the Eastern boundary via Earby and Thornton was taken as read. A boundary at Gill might also have a bearing on the siting of the new church which I think was sited to serve both Barlick and Thornton. Makes sense to have it on a boundary and God knows it is difficult to find any concrete reasons for the siting. I dismiss of course the suggestion that it was spite.
I'm glad you like my speculation about the work of the Commissioners. They worked so fast that it has always seemed to me that some very pragmatic decisions were made before they actually made the personal inspection. They hadn't time for fine distinctions and local disputes. I've always liked the possibility we could have become Gillianswick if a different view of the local hierarchy had been used.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 31 Jan 2016, 16:54

EUREKA

I decided this morning to load the new (50cm) LiDAR data into my GIS programme (I've been working with 1m and 2m up to now) - I'm glad that I made the effort as the early settlement of Barnoldswick shows through loud and clear. The image shows the defended area of St. Mary's Mount and a series of linked defensive sites (shown hatched) connected by a rectlinear enclosure.

Image

This a most unusual association probable Bronze Age and Romano British features that I have not seen before. The linear enclosure between the two 'hillforts' contains a ditched playing-card shaped enclosure (marked by a portcullis in the image) bounded by Chapel Streetand Park Avenue. This got me thinking - Stanley told me of a ditch that ran across from Hey Farm and around to Blue Pot Lane and this would have formed two sides of a ditched enclosure. Was this a religious enclosure site? Well, the new LiDAR shows up the foundations of what was highly probably St. Mary's Monastery (this is another story for another day) and this is not it. The only enclosure of this size and type that makes sense to me is that of a Roman fort. The argument for this is bolstered by the fact that there is evidence for roads leading into the enclosure from the north and south - the enclosure is located on a terraced promontory and is served directly by very early roads. One of these runs from the site, along Rainhall Rd directly to a very similar site at Thornton and straight on to the Roman fort at Elslack (3.5 miles). Another road links from the site to the Brogden 'Roman'road (.75 miles) while the south road leads directly to the Castercliffe hillfort (5 miles).



If this is indeed a Roman site then my limited knowledge of the Roman fort system can only suggest that it was an auxiliary fort designed to serve the main fort at Elslack. Such a fort at Barlick makes a lot of sense as the Romans had a voracious appetite for available resources such as limestone and timber. Stanley has uncovered valuable records relating to the importance of Barlick as a timber producing centre during the Medieval period and it would not be surprising to learn that this was also the case during the Romano British period.

Image

The 'fort' extended enclosure around which the village grew

If I am correct then we have a nice example of the Romans adapting earlier defended sites into their own site. It is also no surprise that the village of Barlick grew around this site. So. . . the name we have been kicking around for the founder or erstwhile chief tenant in the village is Bernulf's Wick (Bernulf's Farmstead). A Roman settlement here would change all this - for a start the Wick would originate in the Latin 'viccus' which would have been the village surrounding the fort. How about Baroniswick which means 'The Village of the Roman Official' ??

I'm a bit excited by all this - please don't anybody tell me that this was site of a long-lost sewage works!
Last edited by John C Layton on 11 Feb 2016, 17:17, edited 1 time in total.

plaques
Donor
Posts: 2596
Joined: 23 May 2013, 22:09

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by plaques » 31 Jan 2016, 18:23

Exciting stuff indeed. I've never gone along with the idea that the majority of Roman forts were stuck up on the top of wind swept hills miles from civilisation. It makes perfect logic that to survive you need to be near a trading route preferably where there is some established community. What you are suggesting fits the bill perfectly.

User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 43974
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Stanley » 01 Feb 2016, 03:17

It's a lot to get my head round John but sat here this morning the first thing that came to mind was this image of your terrace fronting on to Manchester Road and faced by a row of houses on the left just out of shot which has always had the name Castle View and there has always been speculation as to how it got that name. Surely it can't be folk memory.......

Image
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!

User avatar
PanBiker
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 7412
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 13:07
Location: Barnoldswick - In the West Riding of Yorkshire, always was, always will be.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by PanBiker » 01 Feb 2016, 08:41

I have always wondered about Castle View, it would make perfect sense if there was some kind of enclosure on the Cobden, Wellington Street area. Strip all the houses away and it would be good vantage point for the surrounding area, every approach from what we now regard as the town is uphill.
Ian

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 01 Feb 2016, 17:11

Fascinating to hear that there is a Castle View on the edge of the enclosure. Castle is a reasonably common name describing a number of different enclosure types. The Castle-on-the-Nor site at Foulridge applies to a ditched sub-circular enclosure that may or may not have contained buildings. Castle Hill at Thornton shows evidence from the air suggesting a linear structure might have stood on the top - however, at the present time I favour the idea that the hill is named after a nearby structure that has just come to light through LiDAR but I haven't had time to investigate this yet. Castle contains the Latin caster (encampment/fort) element and can, therefore, refer to both Roman and Norman features.

Unfortunately the site we are interested in has been destroyed by development - there are not even any gardens to dig 1 metre test pits in to try to date the thing. It is still worth having a close look, however, as there may still be evidence of the ditches. It seems more likely to me that the enclosure is of Roman origin, given it's shape and size and the fact that the village carries the Wick name. We could expect a Norman castle to show up in the records? If we do have a Roman encampment then the fact that there is a village attached to it makes it a particularly interesting feature. Many fort sites (such as Elslack) do not have known attached viccus/wick settlements - Ilkeley, though, is interesting as it has a Roman fort within the town which is very similar in position, shape and sie to ours - and guess what is located next to the fort? - Castle Hill and Castle Road - this strongly suggests that Roman sites were referred to as 'Castles' in the later periods.

Image

Ilkeley fort

The image below shows a proposal for the extent of Romano British field works relating to the extended 'fort' site. These are based on field axis where the field bounds run parallel with the 'fort' enclosure. It can be seen that beyond this extent the field boundaries run at varying angles. Also, I've placed a suggested settlement pattern of medieval building in relation to the 'fort.' The blue squares are earlier medieval (around 11th c) and the red squares relate to later settlement up to around the 16th c. This core of blue squares probably illustrates the site of the original Romano British settlement of Barlick (the viccus?) - I have not marked it but there us a strong suggestion of an extant Iron Age field system at Spring Farm running down to Wapping - this would no doubt also have been used by the St. Mary's monastery.

Image

Proposed Romano British field system with medieval village houses overlaid

User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 43974
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Stanley » 02 Feb 2016, 04:47

I think we can discount a Norman defensive site in Barlick if one existed there would be a clue in the post Conquest written record. As far as I know Clitheroe was the first in the area. Barlick was at the western limit of the land controlled by de Lacey from Pontefract. I like your present line of thought. The area around Hey Farm has always been known as 'Hey' which suggests a detached enclosure. I think I've mentioned before that one of the features of Hey Farm is the absence of stone walls, it is a hedged enclosure which suggests stock rearing rather than arable because my impression has always been that the genesis of stone as a boundary material was the erratic scatter of rocks encountered in shallow cultivation. The land at Hey has a good soil cover and that resource would be thin on the ground. I never found any evidence of previous buildings at Hey apart from the suggestion that Hey Farmhouse was originally a timber hall because of the massive chimney pile in the middle of what was rebuilt in the late 17th or early 18th century. As such it would have been at the limit of your proposed house sites which makes sense if it was an earlier build and acted as a barrier to development further up the hill.
Above Hey Farm the land rises steeply to the elevated plateau of Letcliffe which bothers me slightly because if I had been looking for a defensive site with good all round views and a level platform for construction I would have gone for Letcliffe. It is as near as perfect a defensive position as you could wish. Too exposed?
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!

User avatar
Moh
Silver Surfer
Posts: 1945
Joined: 30 Jan 2012, 13:59
Location: Burnley, Lancashire

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Moh » 02 Feb 2016, 05:08

Tripps wrote:Could barn and bern be forerunners of bairn meaning baby or child, which is still in common use in Scotland, and the far North of England? Then Bernulf would be the child of Ulf?
I do hope Calluna is seeing all this. :smile:
I have told her about it on Facebook.
Say only a little but say it well.

User avatar
Wendyf
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5015
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:26
Location: Lower Burnt Hill, looking out over Barlick

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Wendyf » 02 Feb 2016, 09:29

Which area was known as Barnsey, and does that name have similar origins to Barnoldswick?

User avatar
PanBiker
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 7412
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 13:07
Location: Barnoldswick - In the West Riding of Yorkshire, always was, always will be.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by PanBiker » 02 Feb 2016, 09:48

Barnsey is the area bounded by what is now Salterforth Lane and as such is on what would have been one of the arterial routes into the site. I am assuming that route has been in use far longer than what we regard as it's modern usage, ie. that and Higher Lane around Whitemoor the SE approaches to the town. That would give two routes into or out of the enclosure and later the field system.

I have detected on the section of field from the Hey, that Stanley sold to Sid Demain. Only turned up modern artifacts, mostly domestic. I doubt that it has been ploughed for years though which would have possibly revealed more. Cold not scan the rest, the other side of the banked hedge up to Windy Harbour as that section is part of the Simpsons holding and under a countryside stewardship scheme so out of bounds from a detecting point of view.
Ian

User avatar
Tripps
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 14:56

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Tripps » 02 Feb 2016, 11:27

Thanks Moh - I don't do facebook. Still a Calluna fan though. Cheese and Onion Pie song :smile:
Born to be mild. . .

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 02 Feb 2016, 12:48

Good question Wendy. Ian is right - Barnsey is located alongside the ancient route running from Nappa to Kelbrook (along Heads Lane) and on to Ilkeley (it does not follow the Colne-Skipton old road). There are a number of equally fascinating possibilities for the name of Barnsey:

The two farms are located within the enclosed defended are marked in previous posts and this suggests that these may be the survivors of a once larger settlement here - in turn it also suggests that the 'Barn' name element has the same original prefix possessive as Barnoldswick and signifies that this enclosure was releated to Barn.

If we question the Barn element in Barnoldswick then, as we have seen, we enter an etymological minefield. The OE Baerns = burning Baern = barn (Tripps referred to this - here barn is a building/shelter protecting young stock) hence the Scottish/Northumbrian use of baern for 'child' - a bit odd as the Gaelic equivalent does not relate to this. Berian = to clear of (to cut down woodland) Barn = biernan = to burn.

The second element in Barn -sey can be OE Shaw = wood (some maps give Barnsey as Barnshaw) Erg = place Hey = enclosure, boundary (there is a Far Hey site nearby).

We have then:
1) Barnsey = Barn's Place suggesting a possible location for the high status buildings of chief tenant Barn/Barnulf - equivalent of the manor house.
2) = Berianerg = Burnt Place Berianshaw = Burnt Wood
3) = Baern Place where stock or grain was collected and stored from the cultivated Barnoldswick landholdings
4) = Berianshaw = A place cleared of woodland
5) = Barnshaw = BiernBarn in the woods
and so on . . . . .

If I were to make a choice I'd look at Stanley's work where he has shown that Barlick was an important heavy timber producer which it exported far and wide (at least in the late Medieval). This suggests that timber had been a managed resource here for a long time - probably well before the Norman invasion. Taking the suggested area of Domesday land holding in Barlick (see earlier post) it is interesting to note that wood-related names survive on the eastern periphery of this area - namely Barnsey (possibly), Bawmier (the wood or grove in the wetland or on the boundary) and Hurst Hill (Wood Hill). There are probably more wood names in this area. We see then the possibility of a concentrated woodland area that would be located on both the arterial routeway and just outside of the early Barnoldswick farmland.

User avatar
Wendyf
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5015
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:26
Location: Lower Burnt Hill, looking out over Barlick

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Wendyf » 02 Feb 2016, 13:16

On the old OS maps I noticed the name "Faugh" on the area of land south of Wapping, that seems a strange one.

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 02 Feb 2016, 14:51

Stanley - I'm sure you're right that a medieval castle would be recorded - the history of Barlick would have taken a different turn if such a high status centre were to have been located here.

If the enclosure holds up then Hey Farm would have been within the western outer enclosure and could have been the site of the camp/fortlet farm. I know what you mean about the Letcliffe area being defensive but the Roman forts were primarily designed to work as a 'pre-pack' across a variety of landscape situations. What we see as an ideal fort site might not fulfil the criteria of the Roman surveyors - in the case of Barlick it may have been important to be sited within the existing settlement, near to Gillians, within a predetermined enclosure, below a running springwater source for latrine drainage etc.

Ian - interesting that you've detected up there. To be honest, I've detected four hillfort sites and only one produced artefacts - this was the only one with an extant (unploughed) outer ditch system in which I discovered an iron sword. Nothing was found in any of the inner enclosures by detecting - test pits on these sites were the only way of producing evidence. There is the possibility that Gillians might contain dating artefacts - the beck below the hillfort at Catlow has turned up a mass of prehistoric and Roman material (see http://www.barrowford.org/page128.html). Fossicking the beck is a summer job if ever there was one.

plaques
Donor
Posts: 2596
Joined: 23 May 2013, 22:09

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by plaques » 02 Feb 2016, 20:37

One of the difficulties with stone artifacts is distinguishing old from new. Carved heads were very popular from 1850s onward. The one shown on page 2 of the link.
Artifact.jpg
is very similar in style to one that can be found in the building opposite the Fence Gate Hotel, Wheatley Lane. This would be considered 'new'.
PA160087AC.jpg
Fortunately, placing a date on these things is something I would not care to do.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 43974
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Stanley » 03 Feb 2016, 03:36

Wendy, 'Faugh' has always eluded me as well. It gets a mention in part VI of the Placenames of the West Riding but no explanation. None of my other texts mentions it. Can't find anything close to it in my Old English dictionary either....
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!

User avatar
Wendyf
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5015
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:26
Location: Lower Burnt Hill, looking out over Barlick

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by Wendyf » 03 Feb 2016, 08:54

I've had a message from Ken Ranson who wrote to the English Place Name Society a number of years ago about "Faugh". The reply suggests that it could be from Old English falh "land broken up for cultivation, ploughed land, later fallowland" and goes on to say "It survives as dialect faugh recorded in The English Dialect Dictionary sub verbum from Yorkshire in the sense of fallow land, ground not under crop."

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 03 Feb 2016, 11:29

Plaques - I agree that it can be difficult to distinguish some early carvings from relatively modern - such as the large head on Page 1 of the link which is classified as being of indeterminable date. However, the artefact you question (Page 1 of the link, not Page 2) cannot be confused with the example you offer - to the trained eye there is actually very little similarity in style between the Romano British head and your modern one other than they share a commonality of material, a face and hair.

John C Layton
Newbie
Posts: 54
Joined: 09 Dec 2015, 15:57

Re: EARLY SETTLEMENT IN WEST CRAVEN

Post by John C Layton » 03 Feb 2016, 11:56

Wendy -where the place-name cannot be assigned to an obvious root it is useful to look at the landscape it applies to. In this case Faugh is within a defined enclosure (see earlier post plans) and next to Gillians. It can be suggested, then, that we have either:

OE 'feoh' meaning cattle or herd (implying the enclosure has been used as a stock enclosure which would fit with Stanley's stock farm at Hey)

OE 'Foh' = 'Fon' = 'Fann' which means winnowing or drying grain as in a mill operation on Gillians. This would suggest an early mill on this site.

Stanley - I noticed in your BET copy that you mention Havre Park. Just wondering if this is an old name for the area or has it been used for the new estates?

Post Reply

Return to “Local History Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users