DOMESDAY SURVEY 



hides or over.33 Most of them belonged to ecclesiastical tenants, but Loders (nos. 13 and 

 ix), assessed at 20 hides, had belonged to Earl Harold and was held by the king in 1086, 

 Canford Magna (no. 243), assessed at 25 hides, belonged to Edward of Salisbury, and 

 Broadwindsor (no. 505), assessed at 20 hides, belonged to Hunger fitz Odin. 



After the assessment in hides is recorded the number of ploughs which could be 

 employed on the manor. Occasionally it happens that the number of hides and the 

 number of ploughs which could be employed are identical. At Frampton (no. 121) 

 there were 25^ hides and there was land for the same number of ploughs {terra est 

 totidem cariicanim). In a few cases the number of teamlands exceeds the number of 

 hides, usually as a result of beneficial hidation. At Puddletown (nos. 8 and ii) there 

 was land for 15 ploughs, but the manor was assessed at \ hide. Beneficial hidation is 

 more usual in the case of ecclesiastical than lay land but two manors of the Count of 

 Mortain, Stanton St. Gabriel (no. 210), and Wootton Fitzpaine (no. 211), were 

 beneficially hidated. In the majority of cases, however, the number of hides exceeds 

 the number of teamlands. This sometimes appears to affect the value of the manor. Stal- 

 bridge (no. 42) was assessed at 20 hides, but had land for only 16 ploughs. It was worth 

 ^iT,. Similarly Tolpuddle (nos. no and Ixvi), assessed at 18 hides, had land for 12 

 ploughs and was worth ^(^12 and Stour (no. 127), assessed at 17 hides, had land for 10 

 ploughs and was worth ^\o. On the other hand Piddletrenthide (no. 69), assessed at 30 

 hides, but with land for only 17 ploughs, was worth ^^30. 



There is no discernible relation between the hidage of a manor, representing the geld 

 assessment, and the number of teamlands, representing an estimate of agricultural 

 capacity. The relation between the teamlands and the number of ploughs actually at 

 work on the manor is likewise not constant. Sometimes their numbers coincide. At 

 Dorchester (nos. 4 and xii) there was land for 56 ploughs and 56 ploughs were actually 

 being used there. In some instances there were more ploughs than teamlands. At 

 Chardstock (no. 49) there was land for 20 ploughs, but 21 ploughs were actually there, 

 and the same figures apply in the case of Cerne Abbas (nos. 76 and xxxix). At Stockland 

 (nos. 106 and Ixxx) there was land for 16 ploughs, but 22 ploughs were actually there, 

 and at Abbotsbury (nos. 109 and Iviii) there was land for 16 ploughs, but 21 ploughs 

 were actually there. It is worth noting that Abbotsbury was assessed at 21 hides. In 

 most cases, however, the number of ploughs falls short of the number of teamlands. 

 Some 180 manors had fewer ploughs than teamlands, as compared with 150 manors 

 where there were equal numbers, and 24 with an excess of ploughs. A considerable 

 number of entries (no), referring to the smaller manors, record teamlands but no 

 ploughs. The values of these manors do not seem to be affected. Woolgarston (no. 297) 

 was assessed at 2 hides and had land for 2 ploughs, and was worth j^z, although no 

 ploughs are actually recorded. The teamlands are given for the manor as a whole, but 

 the ploughs are divided into those in demesne and those held by the peasants. The 

 question whether the villani alone held the men's ploughs or whether they were shared 

 by all the peasants is discussed elsewhere.^* 



In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is to be assumed that the ploughs in 

 question were drawn by teams of 8 oxen. There is no mention in the Dorset survey of 

 the number of oxen to a plough-team, although oxen are mentioned in the case of some 

 small manors. Eight small manors, each assessed at i virgate, are said to have land for 

 2 oxen,35 and Wintreburne (nos. 387 and cxix), assessed at i| virgate, had land for 3 



" Frampton (no. I2i); Canford Magna (no. 243); Broadwindsor (no. 505). 



Milton Abbas (nos. 94 and Ixxiv) ; Sturminster Newton " See pp. 16-17. 



(no. 63); Cerne Abbas (nos. 76 and xxxix); Abbotsbury " B^^'f (no. 348); Brigam (nos. 393 and cxxvi) ; Brige 



(nos. 109 and Iviii); Loders (nos. 13 and ix); Stalbridge (no. 465); Rushton (no. 449); Tyneham (no. 473); 



no. 42); Netherbury (no. 47); Handley (no. 125) and Woolcombe (no. 474); Wool (no. 487); Worgret (no. 497). 



II 



