< Back October 31st 1940 – The Luftwaffe Comes to Stamford Chris Hunt 2021 Today St Leonard’s Street is a quiet part of the town, far enough away from the High Street and Wharf Road to get little or no traffic, other than motorists trying to find a parking space. However, on Thursday October 31st 1940 the War came to this area when a large bomb which was reported at the time to have weighed close to a ton fell on Cornstall Buildings. A low flying lone German plane, possible a Heinkel 111, dropped a bomb which took off the roofs and chimney stacks of No 2 and 3 Cornstall Buildings before passing through No 17 Cornstall Buildings and demolishing a coal shed at the rear of the property. One side of the house had gone and there was a hole above the front door where the bomb had hit the building. Luckily the bomb did not explode. The occupier of No 17, Mrs Elsie Griffiths and her daughter Doreen had a very lucky escape as although in the house at the time sitting on the sofa, it was however reported that if they had been standing they would not have been so lucky. Immediately the emergency services were on hand to clear the area., which stretched from Maiden Lane to Brazenose Lane, and from St Paul’s Street to Wharf Road. Stamford School could only be accessed from Elm Street. The plane had come from the general direction of Wothorpe, spraying bullets over the Town before dropping the bomb. It was suggested at the time that the pilot had been aiming for the gas works which was only a hundred yards away on Wharf Road. The Town Council erected market stalls on Ironmonger Street so that those shopkeepers who had had to close their shops could continue trading, allowing their ‘registered customers’ to buy their rations. People evacuated from their houses found refuge in relatives and friends house across the town and others were found accommodation, bedding and food was provided from reserve stores held at the Fane School. Payments were made to householders under the Government Evacuation Scheme and those who had left their ration cards in their homes were issued with emergency ones from the Town Hall, and supplies of second-hand clothing was made available to those in need. The local bomb disposal team at the time was based in Ketton and they began the job of making the bomb safe. It was found to have a ninety-six-hour fuse which could have resulted by the Monday of destroying a large area at the eastern end of the town. Luckily for everyone it was defused on the Sunday and people were then allowed to return to their homes. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Blackstone & Co Works Rules 1916 Chris Hunt 2018 WORKS RULES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF BLACKSTONE & Co., Ltd., RUTLAND ENGINEERING WORKS STAMFORD February 28th 1916 1. Working Hours. The Buzzer will sound ten minutes before and at the times for commencing work, namely 6 a.m., 8.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. It will also sound at the times for leaving off work, namely, 8 a.m., 1 p.m., and 5.30 p.m., and at 12 noon on Saturday. For night shifts the hours to be from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. 2. Meal Times. Day-time 8 to 8.30 a.m., and 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Night-time 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., with a break of 15 minutes at 2 p.m., during which period the machinery will not be stopped. 3. Overtime. Overtime is to be worked when, and to what extent required. All time lost during the week shall be made up before overtime is reckoned. 4. Orders. Orders and directions issued by the Managers and Foremen must be carried out promptly and efficiency. 5. Losing Time. Special attention must be paid to good time-keeping, in order that the output of the Establishment may be as effective as possible. Illness should be the sole justification for absence from work and such absence should be covered by a Doctor’ Certificate. 6. Piecework. Piece or contract work is to be worked as, when, and where required by the Management. In all cases of piecework the time rates will be guaranteed. 7. Time Recording. All men, when starting work, will be given a number and be provided with a card with the number upon it for use in the time-recording clocks. Upon this each man is expected to enter the time spent on the various jobs upon which he is employed. Great care is to be taken in booking the correct order numbers and quantities on his time card. All time cards must be given in each week to the Foreman on Wednesday night. Time Cards may be stamped in the morning any time from 5.50 to 6.30. Every minute made after6 will count, but after 6.30 no time can be booked until 8.30. Each man must stamp his card as follows: ----- On entering in the morning before breakfast. On commencing work after breakfast. On commencing work after dinner. On finishing for the day. The card must then be left in the proper partition provided in the box. Night hands must stamp on commencement at 6 p.m.: on leaving at 9 p.m.: on entering at 10 p.m.: and when leaving at 6 a.m. Cards must not be stamped more than ten minutes before working hours. Time will be made up and paid to the nearest quarter of an hour. Each man must see that his name, number, and the date are properly filled in. Under no circumstances can anyone stamp another’s card, by so doing he renders himself liable to instant dismissal, as also by defacing the stamping on his card. 8. Payment of Wages. Payment to be made at 12 noon on Saturday, with the exception of the night shift men, who will be paid at 6 p.m. on Fridays. 9. Care of Tools. Small tools are to be obtained from the tool room, and a check filled in by the man who receives such tools will be deposited in their place, which check will be given back when the tools are returned. Upon any man leaving or being discharged his tools must be given up to the Tool Room Foreman. Tools broken or not returned will be charged for at cost price. 10. Cleaning of Machines. No part of any machine or machinery is on any account to be cleaned or wiped down while any part of the machine is in motion. The cleaning or the wiping down of any machine or of any machinery is to be done only by those in charge of the machinery or machine tools, or by such other person as may be appointed by the Foreman or Works Manager. The last half-hour of Saturday morning is allowed for cleaning and is paid for at daywork rate. 11. Accidents. Any accident to persons or machinery is to be reported at once to the Foreman in charge. Workmen are strictly prohibited from putting on driving belts. This work, and the repairing of belts, is to be done only by the belt man or such person as may be appointed. Where belts have to be applied, or in cases where it is necessary to effect repairs to shafts, bearings, &c., the shafts must be at rest. Workmen are specially cautioned against wearing any loose jacket or sleeve or loose garment of any kind when working at, or in close proximity to, machines or machinery in motion, or which is liable to be put in motion. 12. Commencing and remaining at work. Every man will be provided with a copy of the Rules when starting work for the first time, and is expected to read and abide by them. When a man is engaged he must sign the works register and his signature will be his receipt for the book of rules. Every man must be in his place and at work immediately the buzzer has ceased to sound. All workman must enter and leave the works by the workmen’s entrance and make their way to and from their departments by the appointed roads and doors. 13. Absence from Work. Any man absenting himself without informing his foreman as to the cause, and who is absent for a period exceeding two consecutive days, must report himself to his Foreman before recommencing. 14. Fires. Workmen using portable fires are to exercise every precaution to eliminate any possibility of danger to the surroundings or building. No such fires may be lighted without orders. 15. Permit to leave the works during working hours. No one is allowed to pass out of the works during working hours, without a permit duly signed by the Foreman of the Department of the Works Manager. 16. Material. No material will be issued from the Stores without an order signed by the Foreman. 17. Offences. Any employee found guilty of any of the following offences shall be liable to a fine or to dismissal: --- Employing his time in carrying out work other than that for the Company. Loitering in the lavatories or using them for any purpose other than those for which they are intended. Talking, other than connected with the business, and loitering in the works or being away from his department or work without permission. Breaking open any fast lock place or opening or removing tools, &c., from any workman’s drawer or tool chest or from a bench or machine without authority. Smoking within the work gates during ordinary working hours. Bringing intoxicating liquor, or being intoxicated within the works. Bringing any person into the works without permission. Using waste, oil or any articles otherwise than as directed or for the purpose for which same is given out. Taking chips or any articles whatever out of the works without a permit signed by the Works Manager. Refusing to obey any lawful order of the Manager, Foreman or other Superintendent. Committing any act of dishonesty. Taking Time Cards off the rack other than their own. 18. Holidays. The following holidays shall be observed as works holidays. EASTER. The Works will close at 1 o’clock on the Thursday before Good Friday and be reopened on the following Tuesday morning at 8.30 o’clock. WHITSUNTIDE. The Works will close on the Saturday before Whitsun, and be re-opened on the following Tuesday morning at 8.30 o’clock. AUGUST. The Works will close on the Saturday before Bank Holiday at 12 o’clock, and be re-opened on the following Tuesday at 8.30 o’clock. The Annual Holiday will be fixed as nearly as possible for the last week in August. CHRISTMAS. The Works will close on Christmas Eve at 1 o’clock and there will be two days’ holiday in addition to Christmas Day, the Works re-opening on the third day after Christmas Day at 8.30 o’clock. These Holidays are liable to alteration as and when determined by the conditions existing at the period the holiday falls due, and notices regarding same will be posted in due time. Note The original rule book measures three inches by four and a half inches. The eighteen rules are printed in a small type face on nine pages of a twelve page pamphlet in red covers. The date February 28th 1916 is printed on the title page. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A novel match - World War One munition girls play football 1917 One of the interesting and amusing football matches ever seen in Stamford was played on the New Cross Road ground on Saturday afternoon, when eleven of Messrs. Blackstone & Co.’s munition girls played Blackstone’s F.C. The girls wore the regulation men’s soccer clothes, whilst as headgear they were wearing the familiar blue and red munition mob caps. A large crowd assembled and the members of the fair sex came in for plenty of applause and good-humoured chaffing. Of course, they were outclassed by their opponents, who, it should be said, had to play with their hands tied with tape behind their backs. There were many humorous interludes, especially when the girls handled the ball (without being penalised), if such an action would help them score or prevent the men from scoring. Munition Girls After a pleasantly contested game, the girls had to admit defeat by 10 goals to 7. In the first half Miss Sandall, who also officiated as “lineswoman”, kicked off, while after the interval Mrs T. W. Pinder set the ball rolling. A pleasing incident occurred when Miss Sandall was presented with a nice bouquet by the munition girls. Mr E. Dunn was referee and Mr J. Porter the other linesman. The teams were as follows:- Blackstone’s Works F.C. - S. E. Laxton; P. Hardwick, and J. Starsmore; J. Charity, A. A. Leonard (captain), and A. Nutt; A. Loweth, A. Farrow, A. Walker, J. Tomms, and D. Ringham. Blackstone’s Munition Girls:- Misses C. Holmes; E. Drage, and H. Birch; M. Brewin, M. Turner, and C. Piggot; A. Tomms, F. Barlow (captain), N. Cummins, E. Rudkin, and S. Lilly. The goals for the girls were scored by Miss Tomms (4), Miss Lilly (2), and Miss Rudkin (1); for the Works by Walker (2), Nutt (1), Charity (1), Farrow (1), Ringham (2), Tomms (2), and Loweth (1). The gate realised £5 16s 0d, and the match was a benefit for Mr. F. Palmer who sustained a severe sprain in a recent match. The secretary (Mr. H. W. Simpson) admirably made the arrangements. Source Stamford & Rutland News, and South Lincolnshire & North Northamptonshire Chronicle (Wednesday) October 31st 1917 p6/c1 Notes The game was played on Saturday October 27th 1917. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford and the Gough Map, The Earliest Known Image of the Town. Chris Hunt 2014 In 1809 Richard Gough donated a medieval map to the Bodleian Library which today bears his name. The age of the map is uncertain. The previous owner of the map to Gough believed that it dated from the reign of Edward III (1327-1377), whilst scholarship in the 19th century considered a date of c.1300. Historical evidence from the map itself suggested a date between 1355 and 1366. The reasons behind these dates is that the image of Coventry shows a city wall which was first constructed in 1355, and the latter date of 1366 as in that year the town of Sheppey in Kent was renamed Queenborough. More recent studies have however suggested a later date for the map based on handwriting and stylistic evidence towards then end of the 14th century and then revised as late as the 1430’s. Although of course the original map may date from the time of Edward I (1272-1307) and the Gough Map is a later revised and updated copy produced in the time of his grandson. The map has the east to the top of map with the west to the bottom of the page. Stamford is shown on the Gough Map as a walled town with two gates and a church with a spire on a river which is shown in green (on the image below). A road running from the south in this image (top right) which crosses another water course at Wansford, then passes through Stamford before going north to Grantham (bottom left). A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A Christmas Card from the 46th North Midland Division Submitted By Chris Hunt Note Below. The 46th (North Midland) Division was a Territorial Force formed in 1908 which saw service on the Western Front during the Great War. The above image has the Battle of Waterloo memorial to the right and what looks like Pit Heads. The Pit Heads are a reminder of the Battle of Loos in 1915 where the Division fought and where many Stamford lads died in the unsuccessful attempt to take and hold the Hohenzollern Redoubt . A Printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Weather in Stamford In April 1641, a very heavy rain, accompanied by a high west wind, caused a flood which covered the bridge. On Saturday November 1, 1736, a very high wind blew down a windmill on the west side of the town, and did much damage. On the 4th of May, 1800, a most dreadful storm passed over Stamford: the thunder and lightning were terrific, and the hailstones destroyed nearly all the windows facing the south-west. On Friday, the 31st August 1821, a shower, which did not last an hour, inundated the town. In Protection-place, Scotgate, the water was six feet high, and potatoes, apples, plums, onions, &c. were conveyed by the stream from the market, down Maiden-lane and the Hotel-yard: the electric fluid struck the house occupied by Mr. Samuel Watson, tanner, in Blackfriar’s-street, and partly uncovered the roof: this storm extended only a mile round Stamford. On the 10th of June, 1822, there was a severe tempest of thunder and lightning, which did much damage in the neighbourhood; and on the 28th of the following month a heavy storm of thunder, lightning, and hail took place. In 1823 on the 27th January, the streets were so covered with ice, that many persons skated from Scotgate to the top of High-Street. On the 14th January, 1827, Emlyn’s-close tree was split in two by a violent hurricane, and 50 feet of the main stem was brought to the ground. 1830. On account of the exceeding wetness of the summer months this year, there were greater and more frequent floods in the River Welland than had occurred for many years previous: and the meadows becoming inundated, caused a greater loss of sheep, by the rot, than had ever before been experienced. 1833. August 31st, there occurred a tremendously high wind from the N.W., which was supposed to have been the greatest wind since November 10th, 1810. The roofs of buildings were much damaged by the removal of many slates and tiles; but happily, further than this no material injury was done. SOURCE CHRONOLOGY OF STAMFORD BY GEORGE BURTON, 1846, PAGE 308, PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY ROBERT BAGLEY A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

From 1977 to 1982 the Stamford Survey Group published several editions of The Stamford Historian. Available for researchers at the Stamford Library. The contents of all issues of The Stamford Historian From 1977 to 1982 the Stamford Survey Group published six editions of The Stamford Historian . Below are the contents of each edition which are available for researchers at the Stamford Library. In addition a separate booklet in the Library gives a Name and Subject Index for volumes 1-4.

< Back Political Pressures - Eighteenth Century style John Hartley 2019 Many years ago, WG Hoskins pleaded for historians, and especially local historians, to leave their studies with their books and documents to get out and use their eyes and feet to learn about their area. A sunny Easter Day some years ago provided just such an opportunity. A “church crawl” fitted the afternoon, first to Barnack, so well-known for its Saxon tower and much more, and then to the apparently little regarded Bainton Church, a mile or so to the east. Bainton Church, beside a busy country road and across the way from a medieval cross base of considerable proportions is nevertheless, as the guidebooks would have, “a haven of peace and quiet” with various interesting architectural features. What caught my eye, and awoke my interest, was a (relatively) simple mid-eighteenth-century memorial on the wall of the north aisle to a member of the Henson family, a surname which occurs frequently in Stamford over a considerable period of time. In 1734 there had been a hotly contested election to choose the two Members of Parliament to which the town was then entitled. Great efforts were made to make sure the ‘right’ candidates won; Alan Rogers’s description (on p.75 of his Book of Stamford, Buckingham 1983) makes the situation abundantly clear: “The town was flooded with outsiders who were alleged to have the vote; bribes were paid and voters and officials were intimidated by both sides...” All this to ensure the successful election of “tory” candidates chosen by the Noels of Exton and the Cecils of Burghley rather than the Cust/Bertie “whig” axis representing the earls of Lindsey based at Grimsthorpe and Uffington. While there is plenty of evidence available about this election, including a fine printed Poll Book and significant correspondence, there has been no extended study; the fullest account so far may be found in Dr Till’s A Family Affair [Rugby 1990] pp.33-5. However, Till’s account makes no reference to this memorial to Robert Henson in Bainton Church which so neatly sums up the 1734 situation which confronted Henson as Mayor, and therefore the Returning Officer for the town. As so often in memorials to public figures of the period there is no religious sentiment whatsoever in the inscription, just an indication that he “did his duty” in an exemplary manner. Memorial to Robert Henson The inscription reads: In memory of ROBERT HENSON Gent./who dep. this life June 30th 1755 Aged 69/ In the year 1734 (when Parties ran high)/ He was Returning Officer/for the Burrough of Stamford./ His Conduct and Integrity was such / that he not only Obtain’d the Approbation / But Applause / Of all Wise and Honest Men: / Bribes not being able to corrupt / Promises Seduce / Nor Threats Deter him / From doing his Duty. No doubt, by the standards of the time, Henson deserved this encomium – modern readers and writers might feel very differently! Later an extra section was added to the inscription: Bridget his wife, daughter of William Cheselden gent of Manton Rutland, died 13 July 1757 aged 71 was also buried here. While there is no substitute for careful research, serendipity may help the historian significantly! John Hartley A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Men of Stamford in the Hundred Years War David Large 2021 Introduction to the paper “Men from Stamford, Lincolnshire, Commanded by Edmund of Langley Duke of York (1341-1402): Comparison of Names in the Poll Tax and the Soldiers’ Databases.” This paper is one of a series published in the ‘Soldier Profiles’ section of ‘The Soldier in Medieval England’ website. This major UK medieval history project was developed by Professor Anne Curry and Adrian Bell (Southampton and Reading Universities), supported by a grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. In summary, the team collated and digitised 250,000 records of soldier service records held in archives in England, France and elsewhere, naming the men who fought in the Hundred Years War, and made them available in a searchable Database. The aim has been to shed more light on the men who fought in the war, both the archers and the men at arms. https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/the-project/ https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/ MEN FROM STAMFORD, LINCOLNSHIRE, COMMANDED BY EDMUND OF LANGLEY, DUKE OF YORK (1341-1402): COMPARISON OF NAMES IN THE POLL TAX AND SOLDIERS’ DATABASES. Recent work on soldiers named ‘Large’ compared names found in both the Poll Tax and in the Medieval Soldier Databases, in combination with the network connections and landed interests of the captains and commanders of the campaigns in which they served. This provided innovative, new insights into the likely places of origin of the soldiers, which, until now, have been generally unknown. In some cases, other family members and occupations of men who fought in the Hundred Years War, have emerged (See ‘Using the Poll Tax to identify Medieval Archers?’ )[1] The following study examines the Medieval Soldier database from the perspective of an English town in the last quarter of the 14th century, Stamford in Lincolnshire (in the Part of Kesteven). Lincolnshire is in the east midlands of England. The Parts have long been an administrative subdivision of the county. ‘Kesteven’ is said to derive from the Celtic ced (a wood) and the OId Norse stefna (a meeting place). The name Ceostefne became Kestevene by 1194, well before the period of interest in this piece of work. [2] Stamford was selected for this preliminary study because the 1379 Poll Tax list for the town appears intact, and because the castle, manor and town of Stamford had been held for many years by Edmund of Langley.[3] If it were to be the case that men were recruited, or volunteered for military service from one of the estates held by a Lord of the Manor, then it might be possible to find evidence of this by comparing names entered in the Poll Tax for the place, with names on the Soldiers’ database. A study of this type may provide useful pointers towards men who fought in the Hundred Years War with France, from the point of view of a community rather than individual soldiers, researched previously.[4] Edmund of Langley Edmund of Langley (born at Kings Langley Palace, Hertfordshire), lived from 1341-1402, and was the fifth born, but fourth surviving, son of Edward III, King of England, Lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine (1312-1377) and his wife, Philippa of Hainault. The first son, William of Hatfield (Yorkshire) died in early infancy in March 1337. Edmund of Langley’s three surviving older brothers were Edward the Black Prince (1330-1376), who predeceased his father; Lionel of Antwerp, 1st duke of Clarence (1338-1368), and John of Gaunt, the first royal duke of Lancaster (1340-1399) who was the father of Henry (Bolingbroke), later King Henry IV (reigned 1399-1413). All of Edward’s surviving sons had military careers during the Hundred Years War. Edmund’s three younger brothers were Thomas of Windsor (1347-1348), William of Windsor (1348-1348), and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st duke of Gloucester (1355-1397).[5] Edmund of Langley was created earl of Cambridge in 1362 when he reached the age of 21, and on 6 August 1385, during the campaign of Richard II to Scotland, was also made the 1st duke of York.[6] He married (i) Isabella of Castile, with whom he had two sons and a daughter, and (ii) Joan Holland (a niece of Richard II), his second cousin once removed, who had no issue.[7] As the son of a king, Edmund was given a number of possessions by his father, including the manor of Stamford, details of which are as follows: “Edmund Langley, fifth son of Edward III, became lord of Stamford: although he was only six years old when his father granted him all of Earl Warenne’s castles, manors and lands beyond the Trent, with the castle and manor of Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. In 1363 Edmund was given by his father a grant in fee of the castle, manor, and town of Stamford, and of the manor of Grantham.”[8] John de Warenne (7th earl of Surrey) had been lord of Stamford before Edmund succeeded to the title, and in 1342 (16 Edward III) Warenne was “to provide 40 men at arms, and a hundred archers for his service in France; requesting him to be at London in person on the octaves of S. Hilary, there to treat & agree with his council touching the wages for those soldiers in that expedition.”[9] Edmund also acquired lands, estates and manors in Yorkshire, Tynedale (Northumberland), Wiltshire, Essex, Buckinghamshire and Norfolk.[10] In November 1374 he was appointed, together with John de Montfort, duke of Brittany, to be the king’s lieutenant in the duchy of Brittany.[11] His other responsibilities included Governor and Constable of Dover Castle between June 1376 and August 1381,[12] Warden of the Cinque Ports,[13] and Keeper of the Bailiwick of the Forests of Rutland and Leighfield in May 1388.[14] Edmund held two estates in Hertfordshire, the county of his birth: the manor of Hitchen,[15] and the manor and motte and bailey castle of Anstey, East Hertfordshire, of which very little remains.[16] Whereas Langley was commissioner of the Peace for Kent and Wiltshire between 1377 and 1380, it was John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster who held this role for Hertfordshire, for Lincolnshire Kesteven and elsewhere. These appointments were granted to Langley after the date of the 1369 campaign, which was his first.[17] Amongst his other appointments, Edmund held the office of Steward of England between March and August 1399.[18] When he died in 1402, the manor of Stamford passed to his oldest son, Edward of Langley, 2nd duke of York, who was killed at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, without issue.[19] Duke Edward was succeeded by his nephew, Richard, the three- year-old son of Richard, earl of Cambridge, who was Edmund of Langley’s second son, beheaded for treason against King Henry V just as the 1415 expedition was due to set sail. Young Richard (1411-60) was created 3rd duke of York the following year, and in 1459-60 challenged Henry VI’s right to the throne.[20] Langley’s military campaigns occurred during the period 1369 – 1399, only a few years before his death in 1402. He took part in expeditions to Spain with his brother, Edward, The Black Prince in 1367-1369, and later to France during the 1370s. In 1370, Edward the Black Prince laid siege to Limoges, together with Edmund of Langley and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, thereby meaning that three of the sons of Edward III were present together during this campaign. The town was sacked, allegedly with heavy loss of life of its citizens.[21] Langley’s leadership has been described as undistinguished in comparison to his eldest brother, particularly for apparently contributing to the failure of an expedition to Portugal in 1381.[22] Nevertheless, as the son of a medieval king, he clearly had an important role in military matters. Edmund of Langley’s soldiers and the Poll Taxes of 1377-1381 From the point of view of this study, the period of Langley’s military involvement spanned the time from ten years before to twenty years after the Poll Tax lists were compiled, 1377-1381. It follows that the names of some of the men who offered for service under his command might be found in the Poll Tax records for their towns and villages where he had major landed interests, both before the campaigns in which they fought, and afterwards if they survived. Amongst his other campaigns, Langley raised a retinue to fight under the command of his eldest brother, Edward, for one year in 1369 in Aquitaine, as described in the section on this site on Roger Large, soldier.[23] It has been acknowledged by professional historians that discovering the origins of the military personnel serving as archers “is no easy task as military sources of the period rarely, if ever, provide this information.”[24] The Poll Tax lists for Langley’s other Lincolnshire manor, Grantham, have not survived, and so no comparisons with the men from Stamford are possible. Comparing the names of men on Poll Tax lists from places within the estates of Edmund of Langley with those on the Medieval Soldier database, could become part of a further and much larger study, especially when comparing them with areas in which Langley had no interests.[25] According to the surviving records of the Poll Tax, in 1379-1381, the town of Stamford included 196 taxpayers, made up of 170 males, including 42 male servants, of whom all but 2 were without a surname, and 19 female servants, also recorded without a surname. Names of wives were not included, although widows were since they were taxed as individuals. Many occupations were also recorded. The population of Stamford in the Poll taxes illustrates a growing trend of using the trade of the individual as the surname, although we can never be certain whether it was the individual who followed the craft or whether the trade name had been inherited from an ancestor who had followed the craft. Thus, there are examples in the surnames of the tax lists of the medieval spelling of carpenter, skinner, cooper, mason, tailor, glover, tanner, chaloner ( maker or seller of blankets ), baker, fletcher, barber, goldsmith, litsterer ( dyer ), cooper ( maker of barrels ) and others.[26] The Poll Taxes were levied in 1377, 1379 and 1381, all using slightly different criteria. The tax of 1377 was collected during the last parliament of Edward III, when those of fourteen years of age and above were liable to pay one groat (4d., four old pence). According to Carolyn Fenwick, who transcribed the original poll tax records into 3 volumes, the second Poll Tax in 1379, which has been the source of information about Stamford, was probably granted between 27 April and 27 May that year. This tax was to be levied on all lay men, both single and married, and single women, who were aged 16 years and above and was on a sliding scale related to personal wealth. Married couples were taxed as one unit, a change from the arrangements in 1377. The tax was to be between 4d. to 10 marks (£6 13s. 4d.), payable in two instalments. Genuine paupers were excluded. Parliament decreed that individuals liable for taxation should be taxed only in one place. Accounts were to be kept by treasurers appointed for the purpose and county sheriffs were ordered to assist in the collections.[27] For the tax of 1379, the age was raised to sixteen years. In 1381, a third Poll Tax was levied in which the age of payment was fifteen years and over, with a tax of between one and sixty groats (twenty shillings) But the majority paid at the one shilling rate and the tax was on individuals as in 1377, with the special arrangements for taxing married couples as had been the case in 1379.[28] However, an additional challenge in the evaluation of the Poll Tax records concerning the male population of Stamford who might potentially be available for military service arises, namely the difficulty of taking into account men who were not liable to taxation, and whose names did not therefore appear in the records. This would apply equally in other towns and villages in England. As noted previously, the Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381 taxed men and women, dependents and servants, individually. Excluded were the clergy, the populations of the Palatinates of Chester & Durham, the Tin Miners of Devon & Cornwall (Stannary Men), men of the Royal Mint in London and Canterbury, distressed areas and the Cinque Ports. Mendicants (Orders of Friars) were also exempt.[29] Most of these groups were not relevant to Stamford, but members of the Clergy, including Friars, were. In addition to its six Parishes, the town of Stamford had Friaries of five orders, Augustinian, Dominicans Franciscans, Carmelite and ‘Friars of the Sack’ (also Augustinian), who were originally received in London with the Franciscan order.[30] Since none of these men were eligible for taxation, their names and numbers were not included in the tax records of the town, but we could assume they were not likely to be relevant to military service anyway. We also lack the names of the indigent poor, numbers of whom may have been significant in Stamford, given the work amongst the poor of all the Friaries. It is not possible to consider the entire population of Stamford, therefore, since no complete record of this exists for the late 14thcentury. So, for present purposes, 130 male tax payers were included in the study, for whom both a first name and surname were clearly recorded in the Poll Tax list. Each name was cross-referenced against the Medieval Soldier database, which in its first version as used in this paper, contained around 250,000 service records (some men of course served more than once, so this figure reflects fewer individuals). The database is made up of names found in muster rolls (both for expeditionary and garrison service, for which the majority of evidence comes from the English garrisons in Normandy in the fifteenth century) and names of those taking out letters of protection and appointing attorneys, methods by which those intending to serve sought to protect their interests whilst away from home. For a detailed description of the datasets used for the online database see ‘The Soldier in later Medieval England: The Datasets described.’[31] A connection with Edmund Langley was considered potentially significant in view of his undoubted links with Stamford, and the likelihood that some of the men under his command may have been drawn from the parts of the country where he held manors, and had significant landed interests. This, at least, is the hypothesis under consideration in this study. As for the soldiers themselves, males volunteered for paid service in the armies of the crown. Commissions of array were also used to raise defensive troops within the kingdom, all men between the ages of 16-60 years being eligible as long as they were physically fit and well,[32] BUT the Medieval Soldier database only includes the names of those with paid service, which was most commonly outside the realm. The men who made up the companies of soldiers were formed into ‘mixed retinues’ of men-at-arms and archers, mostly mounted, rather than being on foot. They had been recruited by captains who were in a contractual relationship with the Crown, and drawn from across the whole of England and Wales.[33] In the Medieval Soldier database, the names of soldiers were recorded as follows: surname, first name, rank, place of service, the captain and commander under whom they served, the year of service and source reference. It should be noted, however, that letters of protection and appointments of attorney generally concern only men of higher status who had something that needed these legal protections. Archers did take out letters of protection, although in smaller numbers.[34] Soldiers from Stamford A discussion about men from Stamford recorded on the Poll Tax lists who may have enlisted for military service now follows. (There is always some danger in assuming that the individuals in the two sources are the same individual but this study assumes that the name matches are close enough for some confidence in this case.) The men have been assigned into one of two Groups: Group 1 The first group of Stamford men includes 9 individuals from the tax-paying population of the town whose names were found both in the Poll Tax lists of 1379 and on one single occasion in the Medieval Soldier database. They are shown in the Table, where the men are listed in the chronological order in which they served. Group 1: Men of Stamford, Lincolnshire, from the 1379 Poll Tax, against the Medieval Soldier database. Listed in order of the year of action from 1371 – 1400. § a ‘ dyker ’ was a man who dug ditches §§ a ‘ chaloner ’ was a maker or seller of blankets. The word also appears as a surname (Robert Chaloner). The men paid tax as shown: two of them paid 4d, six paid 6d. and the last, paid 2s. This is a very small group of taxpayers from which to draw any useful conclusions about the tax paid and the rank assigned, but there is no obvious connection between the tax recorded and the subsequent military rank. Thus, the man at arms paid 6d. whereas the archers paid 4d or 6d and in one case, 2s. Single examples of names are considered highly significant in the search for men who offered for military service from the Stamford area of Lincolnshire, and they may serve as useful examples should a more extensive study ever be conducted around this theme. These cases are exactly comparable to that of the archer, Simon Large, who paid 4d tax in 1379 at the ‘villa de’ Groby, Leicestershire, and whose name was found only once in the entire Poll Tax records for England, and on one occasion in the Medieval Soldier database.[35] Large fought under the captaincy of Sir Michael de la Pole, later 1st earl of Suffolk, on the campaign commanded by Thomas Woodstock (1355-1397), earl of Buckingham and later 1st duke of Gloucester, who was Langley’s younger brother. As can be seen from the table, 6 of the Stamford men were archers, 1 was a man-at-arms, and in the remaining 2 cases, the rank was not recorded, although archers were enlisted in the greatest numbers so we could perhaps assume that is how they served. Particular attention is drawn to the case of Thomas de Walyngton , who served under Langley and John de Montfort, duke of Brittany, in a Naval Expedition in 1375. A comment about the surname appears below. This endeavour was in fulfilment of Edmund’s appointment, with de Montfort, as joint king’s lieutenants in Brittany. Their force embarked from Southampton in early 1375, with plans to attack the French fleet before St. Sauveur-le- Vicomte, in the Cotentin in Normandy. Unfavourable winds forced them to disembark near St. Mathieu, where they captured the town, before marching to St. Pol de Léon, which they successfully stormed. Further sieges took place before a truce was agreed at Bruges in June 1375. Edmund then returned home with the English fleet.[36] This brief summary of events supplements the evidence that Thomas de Walyngton served under Edmund of Langley on the expedition of 1375, and that he came from Stamford, where Edmund was lord of the manor. Robert Prat , merchant, served under the retinue captain, Sir Ralph de Ferrariis, Keeping the Sea in 1371-1372. William Cony paid 6d. tax, and one example of the name is recorded in the database, showing service as an archer under Sir John Darundell and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, in the Naval Expedition of 1378. This is the same campaign, captain, commander and year as that in which John Large, archer, fought.[37] John Bytham , tailor, enlisted as a man-at-arms under the command of Richard Fitzalan [4th earl of] Arundel (1346-97). As Admiral of England, Fitzalan, with Thomas de Mowbray, defeated a combined fleet of Spanish, French and Flemish ships off the coast near Margate in March 1387, the circumstances and date implying that Bytham took part in this naval battle.[38] William de Salteby, described in the Poll tax as a dyker ( ditcher ), served as an archer under Thomas de Mowbray, 1st duke of Norfolk and earl of Nottingham, in 1389-1390 in the Standing Force in Scotland (East March). He could have had more than one role during his period of military service. As a dyker or ditcher, he could have had an important additional role, because the English troops often dug ditches in the field of battle to unseat mounted enemy troops and cause foot soldiers to stumble and fall during their advance. This is exactly what would be expected of men with useful trades to offer their captains, as has been the case in battles and wars before and since. Mowbray had distanced himself from the court in 1387-1388, becoming one of the lords’ appellants by accusing a group of the king’s closest advisers of treason. In early 1389, Mowbray was reconciled with the king (Richard II), and became warden of the east march towards Scotland, a post which included the custody of the border castles of Berwick and Roxburgh. In addition, he was awarded £12,000 a year, agreeing to recruit 400 men-at-arms and 800 archers to serve with him for the months of June and July 1389.[39] It is virtually certain that William de Salteby was one of Mowbray’s archers during in this campaign. No definite connection has been found between Langley and Mowbray other than the evidence that Mowbray had fought alongside Admiral Fitzalan in the naval battle of 1387, and that he had royal apartments at Eltham and at Kings Langley Palaces, the latter having been the place where Edmund of Langley was born.[40] Two other men named Salteby, Robert and John, appear in the same campaign according to the muster roll.[41] These three men may have been related, but only William’s name appears in the Stamford tax lists. The others may have lived nearby, but in places where the Poll Tax lists have not survived. In terms of local geography, Saltby, the village from which the surname was derived, lies 20 miles north west of Stamford, and 9 miles south west of Grantham. Edmund of Langley held the manors of both Stamford and Grantham, although Poll Tax lists have survived only for Stamford. It could be argued that the Salteby men enlisted in one or other of the larger towns in their vicinity where they may have found employment. Richard Gardner served in a Naval Expedition sometime during the reign of Richard II 1377-99, but the muster roll does not identity when exactly. Robert Chaloner , maker or seller of blankets, archer, served under Henry IV (in Scotland in 1400), two years before Langley’s death. John Cupper , an archer fought under the captaincy of Thomas de Radcliffe, commanded by Henry IV, in Scotland in 1400. The names of the two archers, Chaloner and Cupper , both fought in actions led by the king, in the same year and in Scotland. Their names were found at the same TNA reference and on consecutive membranes, suggesting they may have enlisted in the same place, presumably Stamford, Lincolnshire, where Henry’s father, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, had been commissioner of the Peace for Lincolnshire Kesteven. This indicates another network connection of the commanders for other archers enlisting from Stamford. Roger Walker paid 6d. tax and enlisted as an archer under the captaincy of Sir Harry Ferrys for Henry IV’s expedition to Scotland in June 1400. The captain has not been researched in detail, but he may have been a member of the Ferrers family, Lords of Groby, Leicestershire, who used the first name Henry. Duplicate, identical entries were found for Walker in the Muster Roll, and for this reason, his name has been included in Group 1 rather than Group 2. His case also shows that men of Stamford offered for military service in more than one retinue and under more than one captain, which, although not particularly surprising, would be of interest in the general understanding of enlistment practices in the late 14th and early 15th century. These 9 individuals out of the 130 tax-payers of Stamford (6.9%) are men whose names appeared only once on both Poll Tax and Medieval Soldier lists, strongly suggesting they were the individuals, archers and men-at-arms who enlisted from this Lincolnshire town during the period 1371 to 1400. Only one of them served under Langley in person. Group 2 The names of the following 16 men recorded in the Poll Tax lists for Stamford were found on the Medieval Soldier database on more than one occasion. Twelve show a clear-cut connection with Edmund of Langley on one of these entries. They are included here partly because one of the entries in the Medieval Soldier database show service under Langley, and partly because they may have been Stamford residents. However, the complexity of this group of men warrants a description rather than including them in a table. Several attempts to tabulate the group were made, but none was satisfactory or easy to interpret. It is important to note the 12 examples which had a direct connection with Langley and served under his command, the 13th had a slightly more tenuous connection through Langley’s brother, and the last, does not appear to have served under Langley, although he probably came from Stamford. Special attention is drawn to John Wright , carpenter, who took out letters of protection for service in a garrison in Aquitaine in 1369.[42] There are, however, 16 entries of this name in the Medieval Soldier database, including one of a man who served in the Aquitaine Standing Force for a year from 28 February 1369 under Langley (the same garrison, year, date and membrane on which the name of Roger Large appears). In view of the striking similarities, these two entries are almost certain to refer to the same man. This is not to imply that Wright and Large were connected in any way, but to point out that the names of some men appear on the same membrane, apparently by coincidence. On the other hand, in the earlier work, a soldier named Roger Large also served under Edmund of Langley for one year in 1369, and the evidence suggested he could have originated in the Aswardhurn Wapentake of Lincolnshire.1 This district was very close to Kesteven, Lincolnshire, and their Poll Tax lists follow one after the other,[43] It is worth noting that another John Wright served under Michael de la Pole and Langley in the Standing Force in England, as an archer in 1399, for which the term Valettus (yeoman) was commonly used in this period.[44] This second individual served 30 years after his namesake, suggesting they might have been two different men and not one, although this is not inevitable, given that men enlisted up to the age of 60 years.[45] Had the younger man survived and paid tax, he could have re-enlisted by 1399, and this is a plausible explanation, given the connection with Langley in both cases. The alternative explanation is that they were father and son, with the same first name, enlisting 30 years apart. The fact that more than one example of the name of John Wright has been found in the databases, has meant that he has been included in Group 2. Walter Taillour, tailor, paid 6d. tax, and two examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. In the first case he served as archer under Sir William de Windsor (who married Alice de Ferrers, mistress of Edward III), in June 1380. This expedition to France was commanded by Thomas Woodstock, duke of Gloucester.[46] The second entry of a Walter Taillour registers service as an archer in the 1417 expedition to France led by Henry V under Sir John Tiptoft. The apparent rarity of the name suggests that the two entries probably refer to the same individual serving in two campaigns, several years apart, commanded by two sons of kings. However, in view of a measure of doubt, however slight, he has been included in Group 2 rather than Group 1. In any case, Walter Taillour did not serve under Langley. John Taillour , son of Walter Taillour , tailor, paid 4d. tax. A total of 61 examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database but 4 examples concern serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the 1375 Expedition to France mentioned above. These entries may all refer to the same individual from Stamford. [47] Adam Taillour , tailor, paid 6d. tax. 14 examples of the name appear, all in the Muster Roll, but none corresponds to Walter and John Taillour , who may possibly have been his brother and nephew. However, one man named Adam Taillour served as archer under Sir Percy Thomas and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, in the 1378 Naval Expedition.[48] This is the same roll as that on which William Cony , archer, was recorded, in the campaign commanded by Gaunt (see Table above). The coincidence may suggest that this Adam Taillour is the Stamford resident, one of a trio of family tailors living in the Parish of St John. He may also have fought as an archer under Hugh Curtays and Sir Stephen le Scrope in 1395-1397, in the Standing Force in Ireland,[49] and even later under John of Lancaster, later duke of Bedford, third surviving son of Henry IV, at Berwick garrison in 1403-1404.[50] Richard Taillour , tailor, paid 6d. tax. There are 27 examples of this name in the Medieval Soldier database. One man with the name served as an archer under Langley after he became duke of York, in 1399 in the Standing Force in England, the troops which Langley raised ostensibly for the defence of Richard II’s kingdom: but in the event, Langley accepted Henry IV’s coup.[51] This is the same company which included the names of J ohn Wright, John Forster and William Cony . The implication is that Stamford was a place where several men enlisted for service for this campaign under the command of Edmund of Langley, who was lord of the manor. John Brice paid 6d. tax. Five examples of the name appear in muster evidence, and six men of this name took out letters of protection. However, in five of the latter cases, the county of origin is recorded; 3 from Norfolk and 2 from Suffolk, thereby excluding them from further consideration, and illustrating another potential challenge in a study of this kind which handles incomplete records. Of the remaining examples of men named John Brice , one was a man-at- arms under Sir William de Neville in the 1374 Naval Expedition.[52] Another was an archer under Richard FitzAlan, earl of Arundel,[53] and another, an archer under Henry V in 1415 in the Agincourt campaign.[54] A final example sees John Brice as archer ( Valettus ) under the captaincy of Ralph Eyton of Ardenne and the command of Henry V, also in the Expedition of 1415.[55] These entries are unlikely all to refer to the same man, and although one of them paid his Poll Tax in Stamford, none served under Langley. John Fletcher , fletcher, paid 6d. tax. 16 examples of this name are recorded in the Muster Roll dataset, and he is another good example of a surname having been adopted from a trade. Two of the names show service as an archer under Langley and Despenser, recorded on consecutive membranes, suggesting duplicate entries.[56] There are 69 examples of the surname Fletcher in the Medieval Soldier database. Fletchers were recruited during the course of the war for obvious reasons, and it is likely that John Fletcher of Stamford was one of them. John Sherman , sherman ( a man who shears ), paid 6d. tax. One of 16 examples of the name served as archer ( Valettus ) under Michael de la Pole and Langley in the 1399 Standing Force in England.[57] This is the same campaign in which William Cony served (see the Table above). John Forster , butcher, paid 6d. tax. One of 53 examples in the Medieval Soldier database shows a man serving as archer under Langley as part of the Standing Force in England in 1399.[58] This is the same campaign, commander, year and roll as the case of John Wright above, suggesting that both men may have enlisted from Stamford. John Broun , described in the Poll Tax as ‘menuw merchant’, paid 3s.4d. tax; he was clearly a wealthy individual who paid more Poll Tax than all his fellow townsfolk, (except Johannes de la Panetre, Esquire, of the Parish of St Andrew, Stamford, who paid 20s.0d. tax). In view of the uncertainty about this trade, The National Archives was consulted. The original 1379 Poll Tax record for Stamford, Lincolnshire was examined (E179/135/76/1 c.1), and the transcription was exactly as suggested by Carolyn Fenwick. In Anglo-Norman French ‘menuw’ means ‘middling’ or ‘intermediate’. It can also mean “minor” or “small.” It follows that a menuw(e) Merchant is one who dealt in small things, such as a Haberdasher.[59] Furthermore, the 1379 Poll Tax list for Stamford included the names of a total of 6 “menuw merchants,including John Broun . This suggests a town which was active in the trade, possibly acting as a centre for outlying villages which were too small to maintain a group of tradesmen of this type. Ninety-three examples of the name John Broun occurred, and one of them served as a man-at-arms under Langley and John of Brittany with Edward Despenser as captain, in the 1375 Expedition to France.[60] A John Broun also served as an archer under Langley in 1375.[61] John Sharp , servant of John Broun , merchant, paid 4d. tax. Four examples of the name occurred in the Medieval Soldier database, serving as archer under Langley, John duke of Brittany and Lord Despenser, in the 1375 Expedition to France.[62] A second entry identical to the first, suggests a duplicate. Two further identical entries of John Sharp also appear under the same captain and commander, in the same Expedition and year.[63] These four entries are probably the same individual, despite the relative frequency of the name, since the entry of Sharp is in the same campaign and roll as his master as noted in the Poll Tax, John Broun . This may be more than coincidence, suggesting master and servant both enlisted, arguably at the same time, in which case, the servant continued his duties in the field, both of them under the command of Edmund of Langley. The presence in battle of a master with his servant probably means that Broun was the man-at-arms, clad in plate armour. He would have needed help to put on and take off the armour, hence the servant at his side, acting as his Squire. John Broun , the merchant, also had a female servant, called Johanna (surname not given). There is no record of her name anywhere in the entire database, confirming that she did not go to France with her master and his servant, John Sharp , but remained in Stamford. The 1375 Expedition to France was the same venture in which Thomas de Walyngton served, and he definitely came from Stamford. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Broun and his servant, Sharp , also came from Stamford. John Grene paid 4d tax. 101 examples of this name were recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. Despite the caution needed in dealing with such a common name, there was one example of a John Grene serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the Naval Expedition of 1375,[64] and a second example in a later reference.[65] None of the other examples of men with his name saw service under Langley, although a William Grene served under Langley in 1381 for one year on military duties overseas in Northern France.[66] However, in a letter of protection he is described as of Newcastle under Lyme, Staffordshire, about 90 miles north-west of Stamford. No evidence of a family link is likely to be discovered, although the possibility cannot be completely excluded. The 1375 Naval Expedition therefore also included John Grene , suggesting that he, too, came from Stamford, where Thomas de Walyngton also paid tax, and whose name has become a key piece of evidence in support of the hypothesis. John Baker , servant, paid 4d. tax. 122 examples of this name occurred in the Medieval Soldier database, so great care is inevitably required in the interpretation of his entries. However, a man with the name served in the Standing Force in England under de la Pole and Langley, as a Yeoman archer in 1399,[67] a similar entry to that of John Wright , above. John Barbour , barber, paid 6d. tax. A total of 147 examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. One man with the name served as man-at-arms under Langley and Despenser in the Expedition to France of 1375.[68] And so he, too, arguably came from Stamford, with his comrades, Thomas de Walyngton, John Broun, John Sharp and John Grene . John Barbour was the only barber in Stamford paying tax in 1379. Thomas Storme paid 6d. tax in 1379. One example of his name is recorded in the Muster Roll (TNA), in which he served under Sir Thomas Swinburne in 1405 in Bordeaux, although his rank was not given.[69] It is therefore virtually certain that he was the man from Stamford. However, since the original work for this project began, some additional entries have been added to the Garrisons’ database, and the name of Thomas Storme now appears in two Garrisons, both in Normandy, where he served as an archer. The first was at the Garrison of Bayeux under the captaincy of Sir William Breton in 1425.[70] And the second, at the Garrison of Avranches, under Thomas Burgh, in 1429.[71] These two entries are extremely close together, within the same roll, suggesting that the two entries of Thomas Storme referred to the same individual, 4 years apart. For the purposes of assessing the possibility of Stamford men serving in the army, however, these two years, 1425 and 1429, are significantly distant from the year of the 1379 Poll Tax. It follows that it is unlikely that they both refer to the Stamford man serving in 1405. In any case, Edmund of Langley died in 1402, and so Storme could not have served under his command. It is for this reason that Thomas Storme has been assigned to Group 2 rather than Group 1. The extreme rarity of the name suggests that these entries may refer to a father and his son, or another younger male relative with the name. John Chester paid 6d. tax in Stamford in 1379. He was a Chaloner ( a maker or seller of blankets ), and was, according to the Agincourt Roll (a late sixteenth century roll of those at the battle, deriving it seems from a lost roll of the period), a man-at-arms under the captaincy of Sir John Gray and the command of Henry V on the 1415 campaign. On this roll his name was entered as John de Chester, implying a place of origin, although perhaps several generations before.[72] His name also appears on two occasions as an Archer at the Garrison of Vernon, Normandy, both under the captaincy of John Burgh, in 1423,[73] and 1424.[74]These two names were both entered without the “de,” as was also the case in the Stamford Poll Tax list. As we saw in the case of Thomas Storme above, these two references are extremely close together on the same roll, suggesting that they, too, refer to the same individual named John Chester. And the comments made about Storme apply equally to John Chester. Perhaps an earlier member of the Chester family came from the town of Chester. Of the 16 men, 11 (68.8%) discussed here were directly under Langley’s command, and may all have come from his manor of Stamford, since their names were also included in the Poll Tax list for the town. In his detailed account of the history of Stamford, the eighteenth century antiquarian, Francis Peck (1692-1743), has provided valuable additional information on some of the residents of the town at about the time of the Poll Taxes. For example, in July 1377, the year in which Richard II held a council of war in Stamford, ‘Thomas de Wadingtoun of Staunford, gave to John Broun of Staunford, W. de Melton parson the church of S. Paul at Staunford, & to John Bonde of the same, one message situate in the parish of S. Mary at the bridge, with one curtilage adjacent (an area of land attached to a house and enclosed)…’ [75] The name John Broun, or Brown in its modern spelling, occurs only once in the entire 1379 Poll Tax list for Stamford, and a review of all the names of those who paid tax in Stamford that year, shows that only Thomas de Walyngton (as his name was transcribed in the published version), could possibly have been the man, de Wadingtoun. No other names are similar in any way, and so it is proposed that Thomas de Walyngton/ Wadingtoun and John Broun, merchant, are the men included in Peck’s account. In 1379, Thomas de Walyngton/Wadingtoun (Group 1), together with John Broun and his servant, John Sharp (Group 2), all lived in the parish of St. Paul, Stamford, and enjoyed a special social status within the community. Group 1 includes those men who enlisted, and Group 2, those who may well have enlisted by virtue of the connection of one of their names in the Medieval Soldier database with Edmund of Langley. The name of John Brown/Broun was also recorded as ‘Alderman of Stanford this 8. & 9. R[ichard] II (1385/6), noting that Edmund Langley E. of Cambridge [lord of Stanford] for his service in the Scotch wars, & many other great services, having highly merited, was advanced to the dignity & title of duke of York (the parliament then sitting) his charter bearing date 6. Aug. 9 R[ichard] II. Whereby he also had 100 l. per annum out of the customs of wools, skins, & pelts in Kingston super Hull, as also 500l. per annum out of the port of London, until a £1000 yearly, in lands & rents, could be settled upon him’.[76] This close association between Langley and the town and citizens of Stamford is worth emphasising, since it makes it all the more likely that he would have enlisted men from the town to serve in his retinues. It is also worth noting that William Styandeby, merchant, who paid 6s.8d. tax in 1379, was named with Edward Styandeby, as Aldermen of Stamford in 45 Edward III (1371/23). ‘They were perhaps brothers and successively aldermen in this town.’ [77] Neither of their names appears in the Medieval Soldier database. Were they perhaps too old to enlist or excluded from military service on the basis of their civic duties, or some other reason? Two further names are also included in this study: John Tidde of Stamford, paid 4d tax in 1379. No examples of the name are found anywhere in the Medieval Soldier database. However, a single example of the name Reginald Tidde occurs, serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the 1375 Naval Expedition.[78] This is the same roll on which the names of John Broun and his servant, John Sharp, were recorded, suggesting a possible connection and a common place of origin. In recent surname mapping projects, the equivalent modern name, Tidd, was most common in Norfolk, to the south east of Lincolnshire, and Tideswell occurred in Staffordshire and adjacent Nottinghamshire, a county which borders on Lincolnshire to the west.[79] In view of the extreme rarity of this medieval surname and the service connection, it may be that Reginald Tidde was killed in action, and hence did not appear in the Poll Tax lists, and that John was his father, son, brother or cousin, since the evidence suggests that Stamford was their home town. On the other hand, we cannot exclude the possibility that the older Tidde died of natural causes between 1375 and 1379. In addition, the Medieval Soldier database includes one man for whom Stamford is actually recorded as his place of origin, and so is of particular interest in the study: this was John Ady who was intending to serve under Michael de la Pole from June 1385 in Scotland.[80] This confirms that Stamford men undoubtedly did enlist for military service, and under other captains and commanders. De la Pole and Langley led a Standing Force in England in 1399 in which 4 other men included in this study, John Wright, John Sherman, John Forster and John Baker, all served, showing a close connection between these two military leaders. However, a note of caution needs to be added here, because Ady’s name does not appear in the Poll Tax lists for Stamford. Did he perhaps live in a village near Stamford during the period 1377-1381, rather than in the town itself, but went to Stamford to ‘enlist?’ The information known about him from the two sources at least bears this interpretation. He could not be included in Group 1, because Stamford was not given as the place in which he paid tax. The databases also include names of men from Lincolnshire who enlisted under other captains, and where their origins have been recorded: Lincoln, Louth, Gainsborough, Grantham, Spalding, Wrangle, Dunsby and Rippingale, adjacent villages in Lincolnshire, approximately 12 miles north east of Stamford. The number of men known to have enlisted from this part of Lincolnshire appears relatively small, but even for men-at-arms who secured letters of protection, only 12 were from Lincolnshire. On the other hand, of the 4493 names of men-at-arms entered on this database, only 455 (10.1%) include the county and/or place of origin, including London, the Isle of Wight and Wales. By far the majority of the places listed are in southern and midland counties of England, and so the apparent scarcity of volunteers from Lincolnshire is not completely unexpected. Conclusion Stamford, Lincolnshire was one of relatively few manors held by Edmund of Langley by the date of the Poll Taxes, particularly in comparison with his siblings. This study shows that of the 27 of its male inhabitants, 9 from Group 1 who definitely enlisted, 11 of the 16 from Group 2, and the 2 other examples, Tidde and Ady , may well have enlisted for military service from Stamford under Langley. Two of these men, Thomas de Walyngton (Group 1), and John Wright (Group 2), undoubtedly served under Langley in person, because the Muster Roll confirms this. Six men from Stamford served in the army under other captains, as shown in the Table, since single examples of their names were found in the Medieval Soldier database. Fourteen men with Stamford Poll Tax names have more than one entry in the Databases, including 11 which were linked directly with Langley. The final candidates, John and Reginald Tidde and John Ady , all have connections with either Langley or Stamford, or both. Estimating the numbers of the male population of Stamford who may have enlisted for military service in one campaign or another is difficult and fraught with challenges, since the Poll Tax lists only those who paid tax. The names of men in groups not eligible for taxation, noted above, do not appear in the records, and so cannot be incorporated into any estimate of numbers enlisting at a population level. However, most of them (including clergy and friars) would not have been eligible for military service, unless they volunteered. In addition, the surnames of only 2 of the 42 male servants in the town were recorded, and so the others could not be checked either. John Sharp , servant of John Broun , merchant, is one of the notable exceptions. Taking this into account, the 9 men who enlisted from Stamford out of the list of 130 taxpayers, represents 6.9% of the males who paid tax in 1379. This is a significant percentage especially if it were representative of other places in the country which had close connections with a royal commander or an aristocratic captain. In the unexpected event that all the 27 men (Group 1 = 9, + Group 2 = 16, +2 [Tidde & Ady])) noted above enlisted at the same time, this would represent 20.8 % of the male taxpayers of the town, and which could inevitably have had a huge impact on its trading and commercial activities. Many livelihoods and families would have been put at serious risk. However, all the Stamford men in Group 1 and most of those in Group 2 enlisted between 1371 and 1400, that is, over a time span of almost 30 years. It goes almost without saying that had all the men left home at the same time, the town would have been depleted of its male population and work force. As it was, the enlistments occurred over a period of three decades, and so the proportion of Stamford’s male population in military service at any one time, and the likely impact on the town, would have been reduced. It is not known how many of the men survived the war and returned to live in Stamford, but it is likely that some, or perhaps many of them, did. On the other hand, the losses of great numbers of men from ‘The Pals Battalions’ in The Great War, especially at the start of The Battle of the Somme in July 1916, is worth noting. The ‘Pals’ were formed by groups of men from the same community to provide mutual support, and their losses had exactly this impact on their towns. These men had lived and worked in the same towns, and they were killed in action together on the Western Front, as well. The numbers of visitors to the Somme Battlefields during the summer of 2016, a hundred years after the slaughter provided a grim reminder of the reality of wartime catastrophes of this sort, one consequence of which was that women from the worst affected towns were employed to carry-out the work their men-folk had undertaken before the outbreak of war in 1914. Much the same would probably have occurred in the late fourteenth century in rural towns such as Stamford: how could it have been otherwise? Furthermore, the devastation wreaked on Stamford by the Black Death of 1348/9, some 30 years earlier, must inevitably have led to a significant decline in population, because Lincolnshire and East Anglia were amongst the worst affected areas of England, with an estimated mortality rate of at least 30%.[81] The thirty years to the time of the Poll Taxes, an interval of one generation, was scarcely sufficient time to restore the town’s working population before the demands made upon it by the Wars with France. This was particularly the case for Stamford, Lincolnshir e, with its close connections with Edmund of Langley, who would have expected men living within his manors and lands, to enlist. This preliminary study is an example of the potential value of a novel and innovative method of comparing names recorded in the Poll Tax lists and the Medieval Soldier database in attempting to discover the identities of the men who enlisted from one rural English town. Stamford, Lincolnshire, was selected for the study because it was one of the landed estates of Edmund of Langley, later 1st duke of York, for which the Poll Tax records appear intact, making the comparison of names in the two lists, more likely to be useful. During the first study of archers named ‘Large’ it was clear that the presence of network connections of the captain of the retinue and/or his commander, and their landed interests, were crucial. Without these, it would have been difficult to decide which man in a Poll Tax list corresponded with a man with the same name in the Medieval Soldier database. There was no difficulty in the case of Simon Large, archer, where only one example of the name was found in both lists. But for cases where there was more than one example of a name in the Soldiers’ Databases, the network connections of the senior officers proved invaluable in helping to assign the likely origin of the soldier. That, at least, was the hypothesis being tested. There are certain similarities in this study of men from Stamford. Had it been the case that considerable numbers of Stamford men enlisted under Langley, the conclusions would have been much more obvious: the network connections of the captains and commanders are relevant and crucial to discovering the origins of the archers. One of the 5 men in Group 1 of the Stamford Poll Tax list whose commanders were identified, definitely served under Langley, namely Thomas de Walyngton . Although this amounts to 20% of the men in whom only one example of the name was found in both the Poll Tax list and the Medieval Soldier database, such a small number makes it difficult to draw conclusions about enlistment patterns at a population level. Or does it? If the hypothesis could be tested on a larger scale, it might be found that the percentage of men enlisting under Langley from his other manors, was significant, suggesting that the strategy of linking men whose names are found in the Poll Tax, with their captains and commanders in the Medieval Soldier database, is valid. And this would apply not solely to individuals, but to populations as well. Group 2 includes 16 men from the Poll Tax list selected for study. This Group is more complex because more than one entry was found for their names in the Medieval Soldier database, although the presence of duplicate entries complicates the analysis to some extent. They have been included because of convincing connections of one of the entries with Langley, or in 3 cases ( Adam Taillour, Robert Chaloner and John Cupper ), with Langley’s older brother, John of Gaunt. In Taillour’s case, it is worth noting that John of Gaunt held the role of Commissioner of the Peace for Hertfordshire, for Lincolnshire Kesteven and elsewhere, rather than his younger brother, Edmund of Langley. To emphasise and clarify the point further, Chaloner and Cupper, were both under the command of King Henry IV (Gaunt’s oldest son) in Expeditions to Scotland in 1400, no doubt another example of a network connection being applied to another royal prince, whose son later became king. In other words, Gaunt and his family used their own network connections to recruit men for their own retinues in the same way as did Edmund of Langley. Where the number of examples of a Poll Tax name which is also found in the Medieval Soldier database is small, as in the cases of John Sharp, John Fletcher and Richard Taillour , their origins in Stamford may be proposed with a fair degree of confidence. In other examples, where numbers of entries in the databases are high, this conclusion may be less secure, unless, they had convincing evidence of connections with Langley. Undertaking a more extensive study of the origins of men who served under Langley using the Poll Tax lists for other towns and villages, would be of interest, and might well demonstrate that the men who enlisted under his command, did indeed come preferentially from areas where he held manors and estates. This is what would be would be predicted if the hypothesis is correct. The results would need to be compared with Poll Tax names from areas of the country in which he had no interests. If the names and places in the Poll Tax records were to be digitised, then meaningful comparisons with names on the Medieval Soldier database would be feasible on a much bigger scale, and be potentially, of significant interest. In the years since the Soldiers’ Database was created and made available for general as well as specialist use, a great deal has been written by members of the original team and others, to advance our understanding of many aspects of the military affairs of the period.[82] However, there is still potential value in small-scale projects such as this, to test hypotheses about how best to identify individual soldiers, especially from the lower ranks (archers), and also to examine patterns of enlistment from discrete communities such as Stamford, Lincolnshire. In conclusion, it is proposed that the 9 men whose names appear on one single occasion in both the Poll Tax list for Stamford and the Soldiers’ Databases, are one and the same individual, and their origins from Stamford, Lincolnshire, can be confidently assigned. This is an important new finding which has implications for the places of origin of medieval soldiers throughout the length and breadth of England. If the hypothesis proposed in the first study “Using the Poll Tax to identify Medieval Archers?” that enlistment under a commander was likely to occur from places where he had landed interests is valid for populations as well as for individual soldiers, then at least some of the men in Group 2, especially those who took part in the 1375 Naval expedition to France, arguably came from Stamford as well. It follows that connecting men named in a Poll Tax list with a military endeavour under a named commander, may also be an invaluable route to discovering their origins. Populations are made up of many individuals, after all. If this were to be the case, then the conclusions would go some way to satisfying “Ockham’s Razor.” William of Ockham/Occam (1287-1347) was a English Franciscan Friar, philosopher and theologian, who is said to have employed the statement “ Pluralitas non-est ponenda sine necessitate ,”[83] which may be loosely paraphrased as “in a complex argument, the simplest solution is likely to be correct.” It is worth recalling that William died in 1347, the year after The Battle of Crécy, so he was a contemporary of the conflicts between the English and the French during the early stages of The Hundred Years War. It follows that making comparisons of names from the Poll Tax lists and the Soldiers’ database is a fruitful method of discovering not only the identities of individuals, together with their places of origin and their trades, but also of revealing clusters of men from the same town, which the evidence presented here suggests, served in the same retinues, and under the same leaders. This appears to be the case for the campaigns of 1375 and 1399. Finding groups of several men who volunteered together from the same town may be a valuable way of discovering more of the way in which captains and commanders recruited their men. “Ockham’s Razor” also applies to this finding. The two ‘outliers’ Tidde and Ady are a special case, and in future studies, similar examples would need to be dealt with in a slightly different way. Questions remain about the men of Stamford who offered for service in other retinues and under different commanders, although this was not unexpected given comparable patterns of enlistment in later conflicts. This aspect was beyond the scope of this study, although it would also be amenable to testing on a wider scale. Concerns continue about how best to deal with common surnames especially when such names have multiple entries in the Medieval Soldier database. It is hoped that future work based on the results of this study may reveal more of the origins, families and occupations of English archers from the towns and villages of England, who fought in The Hundred Years War. Acknowledgements: I am very grateful to Professors Adrian R. Bell and Anne Curry for their encouragement, helpful advice and support during the work for this study. David M Large. References and Sources [1] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [2] Kesteven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesteven [3] Bertrum Wolffe, The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509. Routledge Library Editions. First Edition, 30 September 1971, Appendix A, p. 243. Courtesy of Amanda Pickering, Assistant Operations Manager, Customer Services, Leeds University Library, Leeds, Yorkshire. [4] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [5] Edward III of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England [6] G. E. Cokayne, with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), Volume XII/2, page 897. [7] Edmund of Langley, 1st duke of York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_of_Langley,_1st_duke_of_York [8] John Drakard, The History of Stamford, in the County of Lincoln: Comprising its Ancient, Progressive, and Modern State, with an Account of St Martin’s, Stamford Baron and Great & Little Wothorp, Northamptonshire. Printed by and for John Drakard,1822. p. 58: Wolffe, ibid. Appendix A, p.243. [9] Francis Peck, Academia tertia Anglicana; or, the Antiquarian Annals of the Town of Stan/mford in Lincoln, Rutland, andNorthampton Shires. 1727, Book XI, p. 37. [10] Francis Blomefield, An Essay towards the Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. 1805. British History On-line. Castle Rising near King’s Lynn, the manor of Hadeston Bainard, Launditch and South Greenhoe hundred, and the manors of Beeston and Mileham, acquired from Richard, earl of Arundel, attained, Volume 2, pp. 406-409. South Greenhoe and Launditch hundreds, Volume 5, pp. 1-3. Volume 9, pp. 42-59. Volume 10, pp. 15-25; Tuck, Anthony, ‘Edmund, first duke of York (1341–1402)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edition, Jan 2008 [ http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16023 ]: Peck, ibid, Liber XIII, p. 5. [11] Charles L. Kingsford, Langley, Edmund de, fist duke of York. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Vol. 32, quoting Rymer’s Fœdera, vii. 49, original edition. [12] Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 895. [13] Edward Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. British History On line: Volume 9. pp. 475-548. On-line; CPR. Richard II, vol. 1, p. 7, 1377. [14] William Page, The Victoria History of the County of Rutland. A. Constable and Co. Ltd. 1869-1934. vol. 1, pp. 16, On-line edition: Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 897. [15] Peck, ibid, Liber XIII, p. 5. [16] Wolffe., ibid, p.243. Courtesy of Amanda Pickering, Assistant Operations Manager, Customer Services, Leeds University Library, Leeds, Yorkshire: Anstey motte and bailey castle, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1009453 quoting D. Renn, Medieval Castles in Hertfordshire, (1971), 13, and Andrews. R T, TEHAS Excavation Report, (1903). TL 43 SW22, Information from NAR (TL 43 SW22). [17] CPR, Edward III, vol. 16, p. 491 & 490 (1377); CPR Richard II, vol. 1, p. 512 (1380). [18] Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 898. [19] Rosemary Horrox, Edward [Edward of Langley, Edward of York], second duke of York. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Read on-line at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/22356 [20] Drakard, ibid, pp. 63-64. [21] Peck, Book XI, p. 65; Siege of Limoges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Limoges [22] Anthony Tuck, Edmund [Edmund of Langley], first duke of York (1341–1402), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004/2008. Read on-line. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/16023 [23] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [24] G. P. Baker, ‘To Agincourt and beyond! The martial affinity of Edward of Langley, second duke of York (c.1373–1415)’, Journal of Medieval History, 43 (201x), 40–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2016.1236500 , p. 47, quoting Anne Curry, The Battle of Agincourt. Sources and Interpretations. Boydell Press, 2000, p. 422. Barring troops raised in the earldom of Chester, duchy of Lancaster and principality of Wales in the for the Agincourt army. [25] Sam Gibbs has already done this to an extent in his thesis: S. Gibbs ((2016) ‘The service patterns and social- economic status of English archers, 1367-1417: the evidence of the muster rolls and poll tax returns’. PhD thesis, University of Reading, available here: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/65943/ [26] For further details on surname derivation, see Reaney, P., H., and Wilson, R., M., A Dictionary of English Surnames. First Published 1958. Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2006. https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-English- Surnames-P-Reaney/dp/041505737X : Sinclair, Alice, An Analysis of the Personal Names in an Extract from the Poll Tax Returns of 1377. The University of Nottingham School of English Studies, Volume 1: 2008-2009. ISSN: 2041- 6776. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/documents/innervate/08-09/0809sinclairnamesandidentities.pdf [27] Carolyn C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Introduction to volume 1. [28] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [29] C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Fenwick. [30] The friars of the Sack. British History Online. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/london/vol1/pp513-514 [31] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/help/datasets-described/ [32] CPR 16 March 1378, Richard II, vol. 1, p. 166. Membrane 31d. Calendar of the patent rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, 1377-1381. Richard II, volume 1. London, HMSO 1891. University of Michigan, USA. [33] Andrew Ayton, A., and Philip Preston, The Battle of Crécy, 1346. Warfare in History, ISSN 1358–779X. Edited by Matthew Bennett, Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, Kent. Boydell & Brewer Limited, PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2005. p. 68. Read on-line, https://web.archive.org/web/20190205171146/http://1.droppdf.com/files/dqXZZ/the-battle-of-crecy- 1346.pdf [34] Bell summarises this in his study of the campaigns of 1387 and 1388: Bell, A. R. War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century. Warfare in history. Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge (2004). [35] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [36] Kingsford, ibid. [37] TNA E101/36/39 m.7d. [38] Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fitzalan,_4th_Earl_of_Arundel#Admiral quoting E. Powell et al, The House of Lords, pp. 400-401. For summary of the campaigns of 1387 and 1388 see Bell, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century. [39] C. Given Wilson, Mowbray, Thomas, first duke of Norfolk, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004. Read on-line at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/19459 [40] Given Wilson, ibid. [41] Information on soldiers has been taken from the AHRC-funded ‘The Soldier in Later Medieval England Online Database’, www.medievalsoldier.org : TNA E101/41/7 m. 2 & 3. [42] TNA C61/82 m.7 [43] C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Volume 2, pp. 28, 29, Lincolnshire. [44] TNA E101/42/12 m.10. [46] TNA E101/39/7 No. 4 m.1. [47] TNA E101/34/3 m.2d & 3d (3 entries), [48] TNA E101/37/28 m.1 and TNA E101/36/39 m.11. [49] TNA E101/41/39 m.1i, 2, 3iii, 5, 6ii, 7 & 8ii. [50] TNA E101/43/26 m.2 & E101/43/26/m.3. [51] TNA E101/42/12 m.5d. [52] TNA E101/33/13 No. 2 m.2. [53] TNA E101/36/32 m.5. [54] TNA E101/45/1 m.9. [55] TNA E101/45/1 m.11. [56] TNA E101/34/3 m.2d & 3d. [57] TNA E101/42/12 m.10d. [58] TNA E101/42/12 m.5. [59] From the online Anglo-Norman Dictionary at http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/ the word “menuw” is derived from menu, meneu, menut, mesnu, fem. menuwe, plural. menuz, meneutz, mesnuz, mesnutz. Monu Rot Parl 1 iii 211.21, meaning small, thin, light. Perhaps derived from the Latin, minutus, ‘small’ or ‘petty.’ In other words, a merchant in small goods, or a Haberdasher. I would like to thank Dr Paul Dryburgh of The National Archives, and the project team of The People of 1381 ( www.1381.online ) for advice on this term. [60] TNA E101/34/3 m. 1d, 2d, & 3. [61] TNA E101/35/6 m.1d. [62] TNA E101/34/3 m.3d. [63] TNA E101/35/6 m.1d. [64] TNA E101/34/5 m.3. [65] TNA E101/34/5 m.1d. [66] TNA C76/65 m.10. [67] TNA E101/42/12 m.10d. [68] TNA E101/34/3m.1 & m.2 & TNA E101/34/5 m.3 (duplicate entries); and TNA E101/35/6 m.1d (duplicate entries). [69] TNA E101/44/8 m. 3. [70] BNF, MS. Fr. 25767 no. 118. [71] BNF, MS. Fr. 25767 no. 40. [72] BL Harley 782 f. 80 (Agincourt Roll). [73] Muster Roll (TNA), BNF, MS. Fr. 25767, no. 42. [74] Muster Roll (TNA), BNF, MS. Fr. 25767, no. 88. [75] Peck, Liber XI, p. 66. [76] Peck, Liber XII, pp. 10-11. [77] Peck, Liber XII, p. 66. [78] TNA E/101/34/5 m.3. [79] https://forebears.io › news › british-isles-surname-maps 2012-2019, Created by Luka Cvetinovic: https://named.publicprofiler.org/ Created by Oliver O’Brien, Department of Geography, University College, London, & the Kernel Density Estimation map generation code (KDE), using data from the edited Electoral Roll for the United Kingdom, 2016. [80] TNA C76/64 m.4. [81] Lincs to the Past, https://www.lincstothepast.com/exhibitions/lincs-through-the-ages/plagues-potions-and-pills/ : For additional details and comment on The Black Death, see S. Sharma, A History of Britain, 3000 BC-AD 1603, Published by BBC Worldwide Ltd, 80 Wood Lane, London, W12 0TT, 2001. ISBN 0 563 38497 2. Chapter 5, ‘King Death.’ pp 222-273. [82] For example see: Bell, A. R., Curry, A., King, A. and Simpkin, D. (2013) The soldier in later medieval England. Oxford University Press. [83] Occam’s razor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor : William of Ockham, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Find out about The Stamford Local History Society who meet once a month in Stamford to discuss and learn about the history of the town. ABOUT The Society was created in its current form in 2013 and follows a number of aims managed by it s committee. The history of our organisation Stamford Local History Society (SLHS) exists for anyone interested in the rich history of Stamford and its satellite settlements and communities. The society was formed in 2013 as the successor to the Stamford Survey Group (SSG) and is a member of the British Association for Local History. Founded in the 1960s, SSG began as a research group whose principal aim was to study and publicise Stamford’s past. It published a series of important works on the town’s ancient buildings and institutions (listed in the Publications section of this website) and numerous smaller scale articles of research and comment which were collected into six volumes of the journal The Stamford Historian between 1977 and 1982. In addition to the collective output of SSG and SLHS, individual members of the two organisations have independently published articles and books on a broad range of topics relating to the history of Stamford and the neighbouring areas. SLHS meets monthly between September and June, excluding January, usually on a Thursday evening in Barn Hill Methodist Church. As well as talks by local and visiting speakers, its programme includes a members' evening. It holds its AGM in June and excursions to places of historical interest are organised in the early summer. Members are encouraged to form sub-groups under their own leadership in order to research and discuss issues of specific interest to them. Our aims The Society aims to bring like-minded people together to engage in four main areas of activity: To hear lectures and presentations relating to people, places and issues of interest and relevance to its members. To visit places of interest in the local area and further afield. To foster research and publication in topics about the town and district and, where possible, to engage in and facilitate both group and personal research. To collect, record and publish by display or lecture, in print or on the web, information about the history of the area which might otherwise be lost or unknown. To support the formation of Stamford Museum alongside Stamford Town Council. The Committee Chair Chris Hunt Vice Chair Steve Dunne Secretary Richard Asher Treasurer Trish Auciello Website Co-ordinator Ronald Teasdale / Eugene Perrett Membership & Newsletter Secretary Eugene Perrett Functions Co-ordinator Diane Perrett Archaeology Consultant Katy McLauchlan Other responsibilities including publicity, talks and events are shared amongst the committee members. Volunteers to join the committee are always welcome.

< Back The Etton Causewayed Enclosure: its significance within the Welland Valley and broader landscape Michelle Feasey 2023 This paper focuses on the Etton causewayed enclosure and the Maxey Neolithic complex, and widens the review to include the other three causewayed enclosures in the Welland Valley. Predominantly, it examines how these contributed to the broader understanding of the local Neolithic landscape and its implications on the national landscape. Causewayed enclosures arise in the early Neolithic period 4000-3300BC (Oswald, ‘Causewayed Enclosures: Introduction to Heritage Assets’, Historic England p.2), and are contemporary with cursus monuments and long barrows. They are the earliest known examples of open land being enclosed. Causewayed enclosures did vary and appear to have had a number of different functions. However, the key features, which will be detailed in the upcoming discussions, are:· A series of interrupted ditches, with small banks, usually on the outside of the ditches; At least one circuit of ditches, sometimes more; Usually oval or roughly circular; Have one or more formal entrances; Tended to be located in topographically dominant locations, such as hill side or valley ends;Those currently identified tend to be in Southern England, south of the Trent, although there are examples both on the continent, northern England and even Northern Ireland; Appeared over a very short period of 200-300 years. The first widely excavated causewayed enclosure was that at Windmill Hill in Wiltshire, which was excavated in the 1920s/1930s, by Alexander Keiller. His excavations were not fully written up until the 1960s, when Isobel Smith was engaged to collate and analyse his notes, and when she also undertook a small excavation (Creation of Monuments, Oswald, Dyer and Barber, p.22) At that time it was common to assume sites had a singular function, and based on the archaeology Smith concluded it was a ceremonial site. Due to the pottery and animal bones found, Smith determined it was primarily a site for feasting, trading and general gatherings. Other sites were excavated during this period, predominantly in chalk u p lands, such as Knapp Hill and Hambleton Hill. Hambleton Hill in particular did much to expand the understanding of these sites, which were still quite rare. It was the expansion of aerial photography in the post-War period, coupled with developer lead excavation, that expanded the number of causewayed enclosures identified across a wider geographical spread, although still predominantly south of the Trent Aerial photography at certain times of year can highlight crop marks, which occur when crops are affected by the underlying archaeology. This archaeology can affect the rate of growth of crops planted into the soil above them. For example, ditches and pits provide a greater depth of soil than can be found in their immediate surroundings, leading to enhanced growth of the crop planted in this area. Alternatively, buried wall foundations or compacted surfaces can inhibit growth, due to reduced soil depth and fertility. These cause variations in the rate of crop growth, indicated in differing maturity of the crop, which can be observed from above. ( www.historicengland.org.uk , ‘Formation of Crop Marks’). Fig 1: Crop Marks at Maxey. A Matter of Time, 1960, frontispiece During the post-war period, the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments commissioned an aerial survey of the flat gravel flood plains of lowland England, producing A Matter of Time in 1960 (Pryor, The Fens, Chapter 4, p 61). A Matter of Time identified sites in broad terms as enclosures, circles, cursus, pit-alignments and ridges, focusing along the Ouse, Trent and Welland Valleys, resulting in the discovery of previously unidentified sites, including the Maxey complex (Fig 1). It was in the exceptionally dry summer of 1976 when Dr Stephen Upex discovered the Etton site through aerial photography (Pryor, Etton 1982-7, p.7) (Fig 2). Fig 2: Etton crop marks, photo by S J Upex, (Pryor, Etton 1982-7 p.7) The Etton and Maxey excavations were triggered by the widespread gravel extraction around Peterborough. Extensive deposits of gravel exist around Peterborough having been deposited by the many rivers including the Nene, Welland and Witham which flow into the Wash.These needed to be extracted to use for the building of the Peterborough ‘New Town’. The excavation at Etton was undertaken over a five-year period from 1982-87, enabling the whole site to be excavated, with the exception of a small section which runs under the Maxey Cut (a part of the Welland River which has been straightened). The enclosure is oval shaped and approx. 197m by 145m, forming a single ring of ditches (Fig. 9). The high-water table in the area, meant that the early excavations revealed considerable amounts of organic matter, which on other sites would have decayed. Therefore, as well as the pottery, stone tools and animal bones typically found in the ditch ends, string, birch bark (used as mats), and some 5,000 pieces of worked wood were found ( www.Peterborougharchaeology.org : ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic landscape’). In one pit a complete quern was found, with leaves and twigs packed round it, showing that it had been carefully and purposefully placed (Pryor: Etton, 1982-87, p.23). The extensive and well-preserved wood resulted in more accurate dating of deposits through radiocarbon dating. The site was within a meander of the River Welland, and would have regularly flooded, a factor which must have been known to those building it (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.21) The organic matter revealed a substantial timber gateway at the north entrance, together with evidence of a ‘fence’ or other dividing structure down the west side of an area to the south and east of gateway F of the causewayed enclosure (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.100). It is possible this dividing structure served as a divide between the seasonal camp and the ceremonial heart of the enclosure, or potentially between the commercial/market/feasting part and the area used for excarnation or other religious functions. As it was possible to dig the inside of the enclosure, it confirmed that enclosures more generally were not used for permanent habitation, although there may have been some seasonal occupation, with some possible structures as well as screens. One entrance seems to have a ‘guardhouse’ attached (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.102), although due to the ditch on the outside it would be difficult to defend, therefore, this may have been accommodation for a ‘caretaker’ or some form of religious guardian. Also revealed were many small pits, however, whilst some contained high status items, flint and animal bones, many were very small, with little to determine their purpose. Human bones were found in the outer ditches, which may have previously been excarnated, a method of disposing of bodies where they are left to be picked clean by birds and other animals, but the site does not appear to have been a primary burial site (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.353). It was soon evident from the excavation of the ditches that soon after they were first dug, and the first items placed in, they were then filled in, before subsequent excavation down to the level of the first deposits, new deposits were made, and then again filled in, on a cyclical basis (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.67). The Etton site appears to have been used intensively for a period of about 100-200 years in the second quarter of the fourth millennium BC, thereafter less frequently, with renewed activity in a limited area when the cursus monument was constructed (F Pryor: Etton 1982- 1987, p.353). As referenced above, the ditches were infilled and then reopened on a cyclical basis, with the deposits becoming smaller but more extensive with each level. One potential explanation for these ditches is that each one belongs to a particular family; as they aged, the families grew from the original ‘nuclear’ family to include cousins etc - hence, more offerings, and smaller, as there was less room (Pryor, The Fens, Chapter 4, p.98). Over a five-year dig of this extensive site, so much was found, as detailed in the 429-page report. However, the discussion above has focused on the finds and observations that are most appropriate and insightful in helping to expand our knowledge of these monuments and our understanding of the other sites in the Welland Valley. Fig 3: Maxey landscape, based on crop marks; Pryor, The London Magazine Etton is unique from the other three sites, in that it seems to be part of a much larger ceremonial site, which includes cursuses at both Etton and Maxey, together with the Maxey Henge (see Fig 3 above). The cursuses are of a similar date to the causewayed enclosures, being long narrow corridors bounded on two sides by a ditch and bank. Their usage is unclear, but would seem to be some form of ceremonial pathway. There are two on this site: one to the southeast of the Etton causewayed enclosure, and ending within the monument; the other to the west running parallel to this from the Maxey cut up to the current River Wellend. The henge was dug multiple times in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and cuts across the Maxey cursus. At 126 metres in diameter its size would indicate that this was larger than the more famous one at Stonehenge. It is unusual as it had a central round mount and an oval barrow in its entrance (Historic England research records, Monument No.1030942). Whilst the Henge would have been built some years after the causewayed enclosure, it would seem to indicate that this was a site of particular importance to the people in the area. Although very little has been dug outside the Maxey/Etton complex there is aerial photographic evidence of cursuses at both Barnack and Bainton, also within the Welland Valley, and so cannot be excluded as part of this ritual landscape. Maxey church, which is located in the North-West corner of the complex, sits on a small rise, which could be the remnants of a barrow, possibly a Neolithic long barrow. It is, though, how Maxey and Etton fit into and help explain the wider Welland Valley at this time that is of particular interest in this case. The Etton causewayed enclosure is one of five that are within a 5 km area: Uffington, Barholm, Northborough, Etton and Upton. Whilst Upton is within this radius, this paper’s specific focus is on the Welland Valley, and Upton, together with another enclosure at Southwick, would seem to be part of the Nene Valley area, hence they will not be included in this study. The Etton causewayed enclosure is of similar size and shape to the others in the Welland Valley, so it would seem reasonable to assume that there was communication between the different communities that built the enclosures, and if they were liaising with each other in regard to the size and shape, it would not be unreasonable to assume at least some similarities in their usage. As the others have not been dug (with exception of the small dig at Northborough), the Etton excavation provides invaluable help in understanding the other three. Fig 4: Map showing location of the four causewayed enclosures (blue ovals) As previously referenced above there are three other sites within the Welland Valley, as shown on the map above (Fig 4). Fig 5: View across the enclosure at Uffington towards the Welland Uffington is probably the most impressive in its location, sitting on a rise above the River Welland. With clear views across the valley, to what is now Burghley House, it would also have been visible from the other side of the valley. It is not situated at the very top of the hill, which suggests its location was chosen to be visible from the river and across the valley which would not be possible if it was at the peak of the hill. Identified through crop marks, though it must be noted the crop marks are incomplete, its dimensions are most likely around 130m by 150m with two ditches approximately 8m apart. ( www.Heritagegateway.org.uk : ‘Uffington Causewayed Enclosure’). Fig 6: Barholm, across the enclosure towards Uffington and the Welland The Barholm site sits on a slight rise above the River Welland, most likely just above the Neolithic flood plain. It is similar in size and shape to that at Uffington (Fig 9). Based on aerial photography the ditches have a ‘sausage-link’ shape, which may indicate larger ditches having been amalgamated over time ( www.heritagegateway.org.uk : Lincolnshire HER, Barholm and Stowe). Excavations of the area in the late 1960s to the southwest of the Causewayed enclosure revealed evidence of Late Neolithic settlement (EAA 61, The Fenland Project, No.7: Excavations in Peterborough and the Lower Welland Valley 1960-69). Fig 7: Northborough enclosure, looking West towards Village, and Maxey beyoind The Northborough site is the closest site to the Fen edge, with the Welland running to the north and east, on a flat site, only marginally elevated above the river. As with Uffington and Barholm, the Northborough site has two circuits of ditches and is approximately 170m by 130m (Fig 9) but with the addition of an outer enclosure of ditches measuring 230m by 180m (Fig 8) (Wessex Archaeology, Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure, p.1). This is the only one of the four sites discussed to have two rings of ditches and to have been partly excavated (completed as part of the Channel 4 Time Team series released 2004). Due to time constraints, the Northborough dig excavated only a small number of pits. However, these did reveal one very interesting item: a pot shard. Although it is not unusual to find pots in these pits, it was evident this pot had only been partially fired, so would have not been useable for cooking wear ( Time Team , 2004). Therefore, this pot seems to have been specifically made to be placed in the pit, which could reveal an element of pre-planning and a pragmatic approach to the items to be deposited, i.e. whilst respecting the ancestors or Gods to whom the offerings were made, there is little point wasting time finishing something to a high standard to put it in the pit. Phosphate analysis was higher in the eastern half of the enclosure, which could indicate stock-related activities (Wessex Archaeology, Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure , p.16). This could represent a number of different uses for the site; as seasonal cattle market, a place to bring in the livestock for some form of seasonal health check, or marking, or for some ceremonial purpose. Again, solidifying the argument that these enclosures had a multifunctional and significantly varied purpose. Fig 8: Artistic impression of Northborough, Channel 4, Time Team (Victor Ambrus) Three of the sites, at Northborough, Etton and Barholm, would have experienced seasonal flooding due to their low-lying locations. It would, therefore be unlikely there would have been any permanent settlement within the sites, and the lack of any evidence found at both Etton and Northborough would further reinforce the view that these sites were used seasonally and not for any permanent settlement. It is worth noting that two excavated causewayed enclosures at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey are within70m of each other, and of similar size, shape and timescale. However, one is oriented to look over Kent, the other over the sea. Finds within these sites seem to indicate differing methods of usage. Whilst there are still deposits within the ditches, they vary in type, and one site seems to have hosted grand ceremonial activity, with the other, having a quieter more private existence (Allen, Leivers, Ellis; Prehistoric Society, Causewayed enclosures and later Neolithic Farming). So, whilst there are numerous similarities between the four causewayed enclosures in the Welland Valley, it is entirely likely, that the different groups had some individuality in the way that they were used. Fig 9: Plans of the Causewayed enclosures; The Creation of Monuments p.110. What do these four monuments tell us, then, about settlement in the Neolithic landscape of the Welland Valley? The Early Neolithic period has left very little evidence of settlement, yet, settlements have been located at both Maxey and Barholm: two at Maxey, one about 500m north of the causewayed enclosure and the other, Etton Woodgate, about 80m west ( www.Peterborougharchaeology.org : ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic landscape’). At Barholm the settlement is about 1km to the east of the enclosure. Here, excavations took place in 1965, revealing five periods of occupation: late Neolithic, early Iron Age, Romano- British, Medieval and late Medieval/early Modern. The discovery of post-holes, pits and ‘working-hollows’, together with Grooved ware and Mortlake pottery, clearly showed occupation during the late Neolithic period, so probably during the later period of the causewayed enclosure. However, the site was not fully investigated due to the open drain to the east, the inhibiting presence of a large amount of topsoil dumped by the quarry to the north and significant time constraints. Thus, early occupation cannot be discounted (Simpson: The Excavation of a Late Neolithic Settlement at Barholm, Lincolnshire). Using Tim Darvill’s suggested settlement distribution model, the causewayed enclosures would be set within a community of farms spread along the Welland Valley providing a focal point for those dispersed farms, with Northborough being the last one before the sparsely populated Fens. These theories have grown from geographical theories such as the Thiessen Polygons (also known as Voronoi diagrams), the theories of primarily urban population distribution by Christaller, and latterly in the 1960s the advent of Quantitative Geography. These were then applied to prehistoric populations and expanded upon by both Cunliffe and Tim Darvill. Christaller claimed that cities, towns and villages developed within a hierarchical network where each location would fit a certain functional niche that defined its size and character (Ducke & Kroefges; Identifying Settlement patterns and territories , 2007, p.2). The Voronoi diagram uses classic point pattern analysis, however, this is quite a rigid method and has many limitations. The difficulty with many of these distribution models is the assumption that there is a hierarchy of settlements, which in the early period of the Neolithic seems unlikely, with settlements being very small and generally self-sufficient, with the exception of limited trading in pottery and other consumables. The existence of these monuments, though, does suggest some form of hierarchy within the population, which would organise, communicate and manage the sites. Even if the enclosures were built over a period of time, their size and the effort involved in construction with basic tools, would suggest there was a reasonable population available to carry out the work, and as mentioned previously some level of management and organisation. The sites at both Etton and Northborough seem to have provided evidence to support the theory that the enclosures were a multifunctional hub for a dispersed farming community, probably providing a central ‘home’ for the fledgling tribal system. However, these monuments were built in the early part of the Neolithic period as the population transitioned from the Mesolithic nomadic hunter gathers to the settled farmers of the Bronze Age. It is entirely possible, therefore, that there was still some nomadic activity, possibly after the harvest. This in some ways underlines the importance of these monuments to the communities that used them, providing a spiritual and ancestral base. If this is then extrapolated along the Welland Valley, it would indicate a relatively well populated area, with each causewayed enclosure supporting the community around it, with the river very much providing a link between these communities as a possible method of transport and a focal point. The Welland Valley is a fertile agricultural region now, and this is likely to have been the case in the Neolithic period, with the wooded ‘uplands’ (if one can call the small hills in the region uplands) and the fertile river valley, with the close proximity to the Fens with their fish and wildfowl for food, as well as reeds for thatch and fodder and peat for fuel. Unsurprisingly, then, the area was described as well populated in the Iron Age/Roman period, as evidenced by the sheer quantity of Roman archaeology found in the area, and the intervening Bronze and Iron Age period also shows plenty of occupation, with both settlements and barrows. Yet can these conclusions be expanded and extrapolated to the wider Midlands and Southern England region? Most probably. Previously, it was believed that in the prehistoric period the main areas of population were in the uplands, where the absence of ploughing has left hillforts, barrows and evidence of settlement. However, work done to produce A Matter of Time , and subsequent aerial photography has revealed considerable crop marks in the river valleys and the lowlands, which would suggest the reverse is indeed the case, and that these areas were the main areas of population. New crop marks are being revealed each year, which can only increase the number of sites identified or at least identifiable. The river valleys then, as now, were ideal sites for occupation, with fertile soils, availability of water for domestic use and fishing, together with the woodlands in the upper reaches of the valleys. Our Mesolithic ancestors will have travelled extensively throughout England, and these sites may already have been locations for summer camps, or sites to track the migrating herds. There is growing support for the idea that such enclosures were built at places which were already important features of the humanly perceived landscape, as long- term patterns of cyclical and routine behaviour produced landscapes which had become socially inscribed with meaning long before the construction of the first Neolithic monuments (P Topping (ed.) Landscapes, The Neolithic, and Kent 1997 ref: Bradley 1993, Tilley 1994). Therefore, with the advance of agriculture to a more settled existence, the valleys would have made an attractive place to settle, with sites close by already of importance to the population. In conclusion, the Etton causewayed enclosure is incredibly important to the understanding of this type of monument due to the extent of excavation possible, together with the high level of preservation of organic matter. This enabled analysis of the use of the majority of the site as a whole, together with more accurate dating of activity. Within its setting of the Welland Valley, with the three other causewayed enclosures at Uffington, Barholm and Northborough, it provides a complex that give us the opportunity to interpret these monuments in the wider context of the landscape, and how this can impact our understanding of the territorial settlement patterns of the time. The evidence of some settlement at both Maxey and Barholm lend support to the theories that these enclosures formed a central hub for the dispersed farming and semi-nomadic populations at the time. The number of these enclosures in such a small area, together with the physical effort required to build them and the level of organisation needed, suggests that the population in the region would have been relatively high and have some degree of organisation and a possible fledgling tribal system. With improved photographic techniques, together with Lidar and other ground penetrating radar analysis, more sites should be identified. In some areas of Southern England, such as large parts of Kent, virtually no causewayed enclosures have yet been found. As more sites, and hopefully clusters such as in the Welland Valley, are identified and excavated, our understanding of both these monuments, the people that used them, and the communities they supported can only increase. Bibliography Records and Archival Sources Historic England, ‘Research Records: Monument No: 1030942’ (2012), < https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1030942&resourceID=19191 >[accessed 2/12/2022]. Secondary Literature Allen, M., Leivers, M., Ellis, C., Stevens, S., Clelland, S., Bayliss, A., . . . Stevens, C., ‘Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures and Later Prehistoric Farming: Duality, Imposition and the Role of Predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK’, in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (74) (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 235-322. Oswald, A Ed. Flatman,J., Herring, P., McOrmish, D., ‘Causewayed Enclosures: Introduction to Heritage Assets’, Historic England (Swindon, 2018). Barber, M., ‘Landscape, the Neolithic and Kent’ in P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2 (Oxford, 1997), pp. 77-86. Darvill, T., Prehistoric Britain (London, 1987). Ducke, B., and Kroefges, P., ‘From Points to Areas: Constructing Territories from Archaeological Site Patterns Using an Enhanced Xtent Model’ in A. Posluschny, K. Lambers and I. Herzog (eds.), Layers of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (Berlin, 2009). Healy, F., ‘Causewayed enclosures and the Early Neolithic: the chronology and character of monument building and settlement in Kent, Surrey and Sussex in the early to mid-4th millennium cal BC’, in South East Research Framework resource assessment seminar (Cardiff, 2005), pp. 1-29. Oswald, A., Barber, M., and Dyer, C., The Creation of Monuments, Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles (London, 2001). Pryor, F., et. al., Etton: Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982-7 (Liverpool, 1998). Pryor, F., The Fens: Discovering England’s Ancient Depths (London, 2020). Pryor, F., ‘The Ritual Landscapes of Pre-Roman Britain’ in The London Magazine (London, 2022) < https://thelondonmagazine.org/article/the-ritual-landscapes-of-pre- roman- britain >[accessed 28/12/2022]. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, A Matter of Time; an Archaeological Survey(London, 1960). Simpson, W.G., Gurney, D., Neve, J., and Pryor, F., 'The Fenland Project No.7: Excavations in Peterborough and the Lower Welland Valley 1960–69' in East Anglian Archaeology 61 (1993). Wessex Archaeology, ‘Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results’ (Salisbury, 2005). Websites ‘Formation of Crop Marks’, Historic England (2020), < https://historicengland.org.uk/research/methods/airborne-remote-sensing/formation- of-cropmarks/ > [accessed 20/11/2022]. ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic Landscape’, Peterborough Archaeology (unknown), < https://peterborougharchaeology.org/maxey-etton-neolithic-landscape >[accessed 12/11/2022]. ‘Neolithic Causewayed Camp: Barholm and Stowe’, HeritageGateway (unknown), https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MLI30052&resourceID=1006 >[accessed 20/12/2022]. ‘Find a Site’, The Megalithic Portal < https://www.megalithic.co.uk >[accessed 2/12/2022]. ‘Uffington Causewayed Enclosure’, HeritageGateway (unknown), < https://www.heritagegateway. o rg.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=347828&reso urceID=19191 >[accessed 15/12/2022]. Media ‘A Neolithic Cathedral?’, Time Team (Channel 4, 2005), < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nt3-ue5IUA >[accessed 19/12/2022]. A print version can be downloaded HERE This research essay is published with the permission of the author. SDLHS is not responsible for its content. Previous Next

PRIVACY POLICY This privacy policy applies between you, the User of this Website, and Stamford Local History Society, the owner and provider of this Website. Stamford Local History Society takes the privacy of your information very seriously. This privacy policy applies to our use of any and all Data collected by us or provided by you in relation to your use of the Website. Please read this privacy policy carefully. Definitions and interpretation 1. In this privacy policy, the following definitions are used: Data: collectively all information that you submit to Stamford Local History Society via the Website. This definition incorporates, where applicable, the definitions provided in the Data Protection Laws; Cookies: a small text file placed on your computer by this Website when you visit certain parts of the Website and/or when you use certain features of the Website. Details of the cookies used by this Website are set out in the clause below (Cookies); Data Protection Laws: any applicable law relating to the processing of personal Data, including but not limited to the GDPR, and any national implementing and supplementary laws, regulations and secondary legislation; GDPR the UK General Data Protection Regulation; Stamford Local History Society, we or us: Stamford Local History Society, Linconshire, UK UK and EU Cookie Law: the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 as amended by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 & the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2018; User or you: any third party that accesses the Website and is not either (i) a committee member of Stamford Local History Society and acting in the course of their membership or (ii) engaged as a consultant or otherwise providing services to Stamford Local History Society and accessing the Website in connection with the provision of such services; and Website: the website that you are currently using, and any sub-domains of this site unless expressly excluded by their own terms and conditions. 2. In this privacy policy, unless the context requires a different interpretation: the singular includes the plural and vice versa; references to sub-clauses, clauses, schedules or appendices are to sub-clauses, clauses, schedules or appendices of this privacy policy; a reference to a person includes firms, companies, government entities, trusts and partnerships; "including" is understood to mean "including without limitation"; reference to any statutory provision includes any modification or amendment of it; the headings and sub-headings do not form part of this privacy policy. Scope of this privacy policy 3. This privacy policy applies only to the actions of Stamford Local History Society and Users with respect to this Website. It does not extend to any websites that can be accessed from this Website including, but not limited to, any links we may provide to social media websites. 4. For purposes of the applicable Data Protection Laws, Stamford Local History Society is the "data controller". This means that Stamford Local History Society determines the purposes for which, and the manner in which, your Data is processed. Data collected 5. We may collect the following Data, which includes personal Data, from you: name; contact information such as email addresses and telephone numbers; in each case, in accordance with this privacy policy. How we collect Data 6. We collect Data in the following ways: data is given to us by you; and data is collected automatically. Data that is given to us by you 7. Stamford Local History Society will collect your Data in a number of ways, for example: when you contact us through the Website, by telephone, post, e-mail or through any other means; when you make payments to us, through this Website or otherwise; when you use our services; in each case, in accordance with this privacy policy. Data that is collected automatically 8. To the extent that you access the Website, we will collect your Data automatically, for example: we automatically collect some information about your visit to the Website. This information helps us to make improvements to Website content and navigation, and includes your IP address, the date, times and frequency with which you access the Website and the way you use and interact with its content. we will collect your Data automatically via cookies, in line with the cookie settings on your browser. For more information about cookies, and how we use them on the Website, see the section below, headed "Cookies". Our use of Data 9. Any or all of the above Data may be required by us from time to time in order to provide you with the best possible service and experience when using our Website. Specifically, Data may be used by us for the following reasons: internal record keeping; improvement of our products / services; in each case, in accordance with this privacy policy. 10. We may use your Data for the above purposes if we deem it necessary to do so for our legitimate interests. If you are not satisfied with this, you have the right to object in certain circumstances (see the section headed "Your rights" below). Keeping Data secure 11. We will use technical and organisational measures to safeguard your Data. 12. This site has been built using Wix, Wix are certified to ISO 27001. This family of standards helps us manage your Data and keep it secure. 13. Technical and organisational measures include measures to deal with any suspected data breach. If you suspect any misuse or loss or unauthorised access to your Data, please let us know immediately by contacting us via email. 14. If you want detailed information from Get Safe Online on how to protect your information and your computers and devices against fraud, identity theft, viruses and many other online problems, please visit www.getsafeonline.org . Get Safe Online is supported by HM Government and leading businesses. Data retention 15. Unless a longer retention period is required or permitted by law, we will only hold your Data on our systems for the period necessary to fulfil the purposes outlined in this privacy policy or until you request that the Data be deleted. 16. Even if we delete your Data, it may persist on backup or archival media for legal, tax or regulatory purposes. Your rights 17. You have the following rights in relation to your Data: Right to access - the right to request (i) copies of the information we hold about you at any time, or (ii) that we modify, update or delete such information. If we provide you with access to the information we hold about you, we will not charge you for this, unless your request is "manifestly unfounded or excessive." Where we are legally permitted to do so, we may refuse your request. If we refuse your request, we will tell you the reasons why. Right to correct - the right to have your Data rectified if it is inaccurate or incomplete. Right to erase - the right to request that we delete or remove your Data from our systems. Right to restrict our use of your Data - the right to "block" us from using your Data or limit the way in which we can use it. Right to data portability - the right to request that we move, copy or transfer your Data. Right to object - the right to object to our use of your Data including where we use it for our legitimate interests. 18. To make enquiries, exercise any of your rights set out above, or withdraw your consent to the processing of your Data (where consent is our legal basis for processing your Data), please contact us using the Contact form on our website. 19. If you are not satisfied with the way a complaint you make in relation to your Data is handled by us, you may be able to refer your complaint to the relevant data protection authority. For the UK, this is the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The ICO's contact details can be found on their website at https://ico.org.uk/. 20. It is important that the Data we hold about you is accurate and current. Please keep us informed if your Data changes during the period for which we hold it. Links to other websites 21. This Website may, from time to time, provide links to other websites. We have no control over such websites and are not responsible for the content of these websites. This privacy policy does not extend to your use of such websites. You are advised to read the privacy policy or statement of other websites prior to using them. Changes of control 22. Stamford Local History Society may, from time to time, expand or reduce our operation and this may involve the transfer of control of all or part of Stamford Local History Society. Data provided by Users will, where it is relevant to any part of our operation so transferred, be transferred along with that part and the newly controlling party will, under the terms of this privacy policy, be permitted to use the Data for the purposes for which it was originally supplied to us. 23. We may also disclose Data to a prospective controlling party of our operation or any part of it. 24. In the above instances, we will take steps with the aim of ensuring your privacy is protected. Cookies 25. This Website may place and access certain Cookies on your computer. Stamford Local History Society uses Cookies to improve your experience of using the Website and to improve our range of services. Stamford Local History Society has carefully chosen these Cookies and has taken steps to ensure that your privacy is protected and respected at all times. 26. All Cookies used by this Website are used in accordance with current UK and EU Cookie Law. 27. Before the Website places Cookies on your computer, you will be presented with a message bar requesting your consent to set those Cookies. By giving your consent to the placing of Cookies, you are enabling Stamford Local History Society to provide a better experience and service to you. You may, if you wish, deny consent to the placing of Cookies; however certain features of the Website may not function fully or as intended. 28. This Website may place the following Cookies: Strictly necessary cookies: These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. Analytical/performance cookies: They allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works, for example, by ensuring that users are finding what they are looking for easily. Functionality cookies: These are used to recognise you when you return to our website. This enables us to personalise our content for you, greet you by name and remember your preferences (for example, your choice of language or region). By using the Website, you agree to our placement of functionality cookie. 29. You can choose to enable or disable Cookies in your internet browser. By default, most internet browsers accept Cookies but this can be changed. For further details, please see the help menu in your internet browser. You can switch off Cookies at any time, however, you may lose any information that enables you to access the Website more quickly and efficiently. 30. You can choose to delete Cookies at any time; however, you may lose any information that enables you to access the Website more quickly and efficiently including, but not limited to, personalisation settings. 31. It is recommended that you ensure that your internet browser is up-to-date and that you consult the help and guidance provided by the developer of your internet browser if you are unsure about adjusting your privacy settings. 32. For more information generally on cookies, including how to disable them, please refer to aboutcookies.org. You will also find details on how to delete cookies from your computer. General 33. You may not transfer any of your rights under this privacy policy to any other person. We may transfer our rights under this privacy policy where we reasonably believe your rights will not be affected. 34. If any court or competent authority finds that any provision of this privacy policy (or part of any provision) is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, that provision or part-provision will, to the extent required, be deemed to be deleted, and the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this privacy policy will not be affected. 35. Unless otherwise agreed, no delay, act or omission by a party in exercising any right or remedy will be deemed a waiver of that, or any other, right or remedy. 36. This Agreement will be governed by and interpreted according to the law of England and Wales. All disputes arising under the Agreement will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts. Changes to this privacy policy 37. Stamford Local History Society reserves the right to change this privacy policy as we may deem necessary from time to time or as may be required by law. Any changes will be immediately posted on the Website and you are deemed to have accepted the terms of the privacy policy on your first use of the Website following the alterations. Attribution 38. This privacy policy was created using a document from Rocket Lawyer https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en This privacy policy was created on 15 November 2023.