quackers

Thank you, Timbo. After I have recovered from some eagerly anticipated excesses, I shall try to buckle down to it. The compliments of the season to you. Bill Saunders.

Thank you very much, Timbo, for your helpful advice and kind encouragement. I do appreciate it. I shall soldier on. The truth is out there. Bill Saunders

Thank you very much, Timbo, for your helpful advice and kind encouragement. I do appreciate it. I shall soldier on. The truth is out there. Bill Saunders

What I am suggesting, Vaughn and Grendel, because the evidence suggests it, is that most of the peat would have been dug from quite narrow strips, because this is how the turbaries appear to have been parcelled out to the tenants on the estates. However, most of these tenants had parcels of only half an acre, at the most an acre, which had to last them and their families in perpetuity; even the lowest of the lower orders could bequeath their land to their children, and in consequence these doles or parcels became smaller and smaller with division and sub-division. These tenants would therefore only have dug up enough peat (8000 -10000 turves) each year for their own domestic purposes; very few of them would have been so profligate with their resources as to sell large quantities of peat, even if they had time to dig it up. When they started the deep peat digging in the late eleventh century, earlier twelfth century, or whenever, the population was much smaller; some of the peat may have been exported to the towns, but most of it would have fed local hearths. I think the digging at most loactions would therefore have started at that part of the designated turbary nearest to people's homes on the high ground. Remember that most of the biggest turbaries were nowhere near rivers. As the annual diggings grew further and further away from the 'inland' edge of the turbary and the distance to transport the turves to homes became further and further, my theory is that they would have removed the walls between the small flooded annual pits to create channels for the small, flat bottomed punt style boats they would have used on the rivers and marshes; these would have been carted temporarily onto the turbary and used for transporting turves; they found a use for the bulk peat from the walls by shaping it into turves. All we know for a fact is that boats were used as on-site transport in the turbaries to carry both turves and bulk peat. By the second half of the thirteenth century and into the first half of the fourteenth, there had been a huge increase in population, much of it trying escape the increasing overcrowding in the rural estates by moving to Norwich, Yarmouth or other towns and seeking a new life there. Large quantities of peat were exported from manors' demesne areas of turbary, and sold on the markets or to large institutions. Only two pieces of evidence have survived about how this was done: 1) in 1337 the small manor in Ormesby held by Norwich Cathedral Priory dug up 105,000 turves from its demesne turbary in part of what is now Ormesby Broad. 20,000 turves were kept for use in the manor, 50,000 were sold locally, and the remainder were loaded on horse-drawn carts and taken to Yarmouth where they were stacked on the quay; here they remained for two or three days, a security guard being paid 6d. to keep an eye on them; they were then loaded onto (presumably) keels and taken to Norwich for use in the Priory kitchens. 2) in 1383 small (presumably) boats were used as on-site transport during the production of 200.000 turves by St. Benet's Abbey in their turbary which is now Hoveton Little Broad/Black Horse Broad. 25,000 of these turves, having presumably been stacked on the bank separating the turbary from the Bure, were then loaded onto (presumably) a much bigger boat at a cost of 3d., the cost of transport by river to Ludham for use at Ludham Manor was 22d. In addition three "baskets" were purchased for 6d. for carrying the turves. (My guess is that these would have been basket weave platforms supported on poles and carried in the manner of a stretcher by two people). Even in the fourteenth century most of the peat would have been dug up for local use. Only the manors kept any records, so what has survived doesn't really provide a truly representative picture of peat production and sale. Bill Saunders

With regard to your first post, Timbo,, the problem with the initial research into the origin of the broads is that, although all the people involved were all hugely clever and knowledgeable about their own specialist subjects, by accident they were not necessarily the right people in the right place at the right time. The initial work after WW2, when everybody thought the broads to be natural lakes, was carried out by Joe Jennings, who appropriately enough was a geomorphologist. He fell in with a botanist, Joyce Lambert, who was researching anomalies in the distribution of a particular form of grass on the broadland fens, but like Jennings was taking core samples by boring into the fen; they compared noted and helped each other with data; she became interested in his project and it was eventually she who put two and two together and realised that the broads were man-made, more or less at the same time as he was publishing a paper saying that were natural lakes. He accepted her conclusions and they carried on working together. At which point in time of course, the whole matter in principle fell out of the province of botanists and geomorphologists and into the province of archaeologists and historians. The organisation and financing of further research seems to have been influenced by Professor Sir Harry Godwin, himself a botanist, but a great proponent of interdisciplinary co-operation, who headed up the sub-department for Quaternary Research, then newly formed at Cambridge to promote just this sort of co-operation. He had a number of first class geologists, geomorphologists, botanist, archaeologists and historical geographers on his books, but no historians since they were not deemed necessary for research in the Quaternary period. For the reasons stated on my website we ended up with the archaeologist going off on his own at a tangent, and a botanist and a geomorphologist providing the engineering solution to the problem of flooding in the peat pits. The geographer found no evidence in old maps and had to rely on old historical records. No historian was involved, let alone a specialist medieval historian. Ever since then all the historians and everybody else have, rather lazily in my opinion, followed all the original work like unquestioning sheep. Charles Green's conclusions about the sea level have had to be corrected, but to the best of my knowledge the only aspect of C.T.Smith's work to have been queried is his opinion about the size of the medieval turf, You clearly find frustrations in your work. Imagine how frustrating it is for me when in every article or television programme about the broads we are blandly informed that the broads are medieval peat diggings which flooded in the 14th century when the sea level rose. How does one put a stop to it? Yes the broads are medieval flooded peat diggings, but anybody who is actually prepared to look at the evidence for themselves should be able to see that the rest of what we and the next generation are being fed is a load of squit. Excuse the rant. Thank you for your kind words. Bill Saunders

The incoming seems to be outpacing my outgoing. Forgive me, Timbo, Grendel, and Vaughan if I do my equivalent of walking the dog before returning to your interesting comments. Bill Saunders.

Vaughan, your understanding of how peat is formed is very much the same as my own. Yes, there have been radical changes in sea and therefore inland water levels since the time, about 8,500 years ago, when much more of the earth's water was contained in the polar ice caps. Timbo will know more about this than I, but in those days I think the arctic ice cap reached as far south as north Norfolk, and it was possible to walk through wooded land all the way from Norfolk to Germany (and, better still, all the way back again). Then things started to get warmer and water levels have been slowly rising ever since. When the ice started to melt, the sea level rose, the North Sea started to cover the wooded route to Germany, and Britannia rose from the azure main; quite deep valleys were scoured out by the melt water in the solid ground where the broadland rivers flow today. The coast lay much further to the east and for about the 1500 years, fresh water conditions prevailed in the newly formed river valleys with fen carr creating a layer of brushwood peat deposited on the gravelly floors of the valleys. Then something happened about 7000 years ago which caused conditions to change - I choose my words carefully here for fear of incurring Timbo's wrath - and over the next 2500 years or so a thick layer of clay was deposited on top of this lower peat. Then for some reason freshwater conditions returned, and peat started to form on top of this layer of clay, initially reed peat, then brushwood peat, then, rather curiously, more reed peat, before, about 2000 years ago, something else seems to have happened - again I am trying to choose my words carefully - and another layer of clay got deposited on top of this second layer of peat, stretching as far inland as Brundall/Surlingham up the Yare valley, Beccles up the Waveney valley, Hoveton/Wroxham up the Bure valley, Barton Turf up the Ant valley, and Horsey/part of Hickling up the Thurne valley. Back to freshwater conditions about 1600 years ago, since when reed peat has continued to form on top of this upper clay, the peat getting thicker with the continuing slow rise in water levels. Although latterly the situation has obviously been complicated by the management and drainage of the fens, one would suppose that brushwood peat will again be starting to form in the carrs. When the broads were created the sea level, inland water levels, and the surface of the peat were all about a metre lower than they are now (the bit about the sea level being 13 feet lower was Charles Green's erroneous conclusion). Such was the medieval demand for peat fuel, that in the deepest site, Fritton Lake, now seventeen feet deep, they must have dug down about fourteen feet to the gravel floor of the valley to get at the bottom layer of peat. A lot of the clay which they encountered may have been used in clay block buildings. The ownership of land in feudal England is a pretty complicated subject, but for our purposes it seems generally enough to know that the broadland peat fens were all parts of various manorial estates, usually headed up by a lord of the manor, who held his land at the behest of a larger landowner like the church or one of the big barons, who in turn held their land at the behest of the king who actually owned all the land. Most of the medieval documents about peat come from the accounts and property surveys at manors held by the church - principally Norwich Cathedral Priory; although St.Benet's Abbey probably held more broadland manors, not so many of their records have survived, probably because they got destroyed in the Peasant's Revolt. It would have been the lord of the manor who divided up the land on his estates, the first stage being between arable land, meadowland, grazing marsh, turbary, reed-beds, etc. Each of these different types of land would in turn have been divided up between the various people living on the estate. The lord of the manor would have kept some of each, including the turbary, for his own direct benefit, using or selling the production; it is from these "demesne" areas that the Home Farms of today gradually evolved. Some of the grazing would have been designated as common land, which anybody could use free of charge, but most of it, including the turbaries would have been parcelled out amongst the various grades of tenant on the estate. The "free" tenants would have paid rent in cash or kind to the lord; the "bound" tenants (so called because they were not allowed to leave, and could be arrested if they tried) paid rent with the sweat of their brow by performing specified "labour services" for the lord, which were unpaid (e.g. 14 days each year digging peat in the lord's demesne turbary). So you are quite right - you couldn't just wander about the place digging up peat wherever you felt like it. You could be fined if you tried doing that in areas of fen not designated as turbary for the very good reason that digging up the land wrecked it for any other purpose. Yes, some of the walls or baulks of uncut peat would have been wider for access purposes, but for reasons you may find if you get deeper into my website, I think horse and cart or indeed any form of wheeled transport within the turbaries highly unlikely. It's good that you are getting something out of the site. Thank you. Bill Saunders.

I hope so, Vaughan. This should always have been a subject principally for archaeologists and historians, yet only one, Charles Green, was involved in the initial work. Bill Saunders

After further research, I have revised my previous web-site and given it a new title: "The origin of the Norfolk Broads - a classic case of confirmation bias". Anybody interested in this subject will find something more substantial than turkey to get their teeth into over the holiday period at www.broadsmaker.com. Certainly the broads are great big flooded peat pits, but the idea that it was not until the fourteenth century that the pits became flooded is patently nonsense, and it really is high time that the so-called authorities stopped perpetuating this myth. Bill Saunders

This topic featured in an earlier discussion about the Lord Nelson, but is probably worthy of a separate title. It was announced at a recent meeting of the Reedham Parish Council, that agreement has been reached for the footpath, which used to connect the river bank near what used to be Corvette Marine to Station Road Reedham, to be reopened. It will thus again be possible to walk from Reedham Ferry to Reedham village without walking along Ferry Road and all the way down Station Road. The Broads Authority will reinstate the gates, steps and other facilities which were removed not so long ago. The only point not yet clear is quite when this will happen. As a resident of Reedham, I warmly welcome this news, as, I am sure, will everybody else.

I hope you will all be pleasantly surprised by the article about Mutford Lock in today's EDP. "To cover maintenance costs, the Broads Authority's Navigation Committee had considered raising the current £13 passage fee as much as sevenfold - but have now decided the cash should instead be reclaimed to encourage greater usage. Trudi Wakelin, director of operations, said the body was hoping to work with nearby groups including the Royal Norfolk and Suffolk Yacht Club (RNSYC), which is based near the lock, to better market the passage." No doubt somebody cleverer at such things than I can provide the link to the full article which contains many cheering words of wisdom from the splendid Mrs.Wakelin. Bill Saunders

Wouldn't Alan Royall be the best person to ask, Timbo? He helped his father build Royall Tudor. Bill Saunders

Broads National Pike seems to have got it right: "The real aim will be to pitch private boat owners against the hire boat industry and see what gives." The cunning plan seems to be working brilliantly. What are the Broads in general, and boaters in particular, whether private owners or hirers, getting in return for another inflation-topping increase in toll revenue? That is surely the real question.

I understand that the Huntsman has published a Crristmas Menu and is taking bookings for December.

Sadly.the riverbank path from Reedham Ferry to the village, which used to form part of the Wherryman's Way, is now closed. The Broads Authority were not willing to renew a lease with the landowner, who was in turn, I believe, not willing to take the necessary public liability insurance on his own shoulders. The matter is now the subject of discussion between Reedham Parish Council, the Broads Authority, and Norfolk County Council. I hope I do not sound too cynical when I say that we may therefore expect the alternative all tarmac route for the Wherryman's Way and for travellers between Reedham Ferry and the village to remain the only option for the foreseeable future. It adds about ten minutes of unremarkable walking to the previous twenty minutes, which included the delightful riverside stretch, but is still well within the compass of most of the dedicated.

Sorry to spoil this virtual beer festival, but I have been told that tomorrow's much anticipated re-opening of the Lord Nelson may well now not take place. This is second hand, but from probably the most dedicated local pub supporter in Reedham, who generally has the inside track on such matters I would suggest that anybody planning a trip from any distance should check before setting off. Bill Saunders

I believe Green King will be the main source of beer, but Humpty Dumpty will also feature. Don't forget that the Ship has had a major interior makeover, and always has a Humpty Dumpty and a guest beer to supplement the Adnams. There are those of us in Reedham who dedicate ourselves to supporting as many local pubs as we can, but it's really hard work, and we need all the help we can get.

That's interesting, Peter. Suffling describes this blast simply as a 'roger'. I have enquired elsewhere (although I wouldn't dream of doing so in these respectable portals) whether any modern sailies on the broads have ever experienced a roger. Bill Saunders

Thank you, Timbo, and everybody else, for the kind words of welcome. I clearly have a bit of catching up to do on my reading, Timbo, but I still have difficulty with what you are saying, carbon dating or no carbon dating. Peat accumulates at the rate of about 0.75mm a year (and only in freshwater conditions). The typical stratigraphy of the Broadland fen in the upper valleys (from the bottom up) is a layer of peat about three feet thick, a thick layer of clay, a layer of (mostly brushwood) peat about ten or twelve feet thick, another thick layer of clay, and then the surface layer of reed peat. I am most familiar with Lambert and Jennings' researches in to the origins of the Broads in the 1940s and 50s, but this basic picture cannot surely have been subject to radical change. How can all these layers have possibly been deposited all at the same time? If the clay isn't estuarine clay, what is it and how and why did it get there? I am all for radical rethinks, but not for chucking babies out with the bathwater. PS I am not sure that the Roman historian Vegetius would have agree that the Saxon raiders weren't much of a threat!

This is pretty difficult to reconcile with all the established research into the stratigraphy of Broadland as summarised, for example, by Dr. Martin George in Chapter 2 of his magnum opus "The Land Use, Ecology and Conservation of Broadland". Within the deep deposits of peat formed when fresh water conditions prevailed in the river valleys, there are two thick, horizontal layers of clay, the Lower Clay, thought to have been laid down when estuarine conditions prevailed for a period about 4500 BC, and the Upper Clay, thought to have been laid down during the so-called Romano-British Transgression, when similar conditions prevailed from about 200 BC to 500 AD, These clay layers reach up the Yare valley as far as Brundall/Surlingham, up the Bure to Wroxham/Hoveton, up the Ant to Barton, up the Thurne to most of the Hickling/Horsey area, and up the Waveney {if I remember correctly) as far as Beccles. Are you saying, Timbo, that this clay isn't actually estuarine in character? I would agree absolutely that the Victorian concept of the "great estuary" was wildly exaggerated; they seemed to think that a great arm of the sea, navigable at all states of the tide, stretched inland almost to Norwich, with entrances through the Horsey Gap, the Caistor/Gorleston gap and probably through what is now Lake Lothing; Acle had a beach and Fishley was a fishing village. My impression is that all the available evidence, subject of course to any new research of which I am ignorant, now points to something like a huge edition of Breydon Water, with the only navigable outfall where Yarmouth now stands. There were vast areas of sandbanks, mudflats and salt marsh, covered only at high tide, the actual rivers forming quite narrow tidal channels between them. This sort of scenario would account both for the location and function of the Roman town at Caistor-on-Sea, and also, curiously perhaps, for a cavalry regiment garrisoning Burgh Castle on what was effectively an island.. With the prevailing wind then as now from the west, and then as now pretty strong tidal flows in the river channels, it would have been impossible for Roman merchant ships to navigate inland. (They had only a single, crude square rigged sail, no oar propulsion, and no centre-post rudder, only a steering oar on a stern quarter; in consequence they could not sail close to the wind and were notoriously difficult to steer accurately). Imports and exports from the Caistor St' Edmund area would have been transshipped from sea-going merchantmen onto smaller oar-powered boats for staged, tide assisted trips inland - hence the facilities at Caistor-on-Sea. Saxon Shore forts like Burgh Castle were designed to provide a defence against raiders who relied on stealth and speed to nip up rivers to the wealthy Roman habitations inland, grab the loot and nip out again. Even in early versions of Viking long ships, with sail and oar power, nobody would be doing any nipping inland against the wind and tide, especially after a long sea trip to get here. They would have had to land on the coast, rest up and wait for the right conditions. Cavalry would have provided the mobile patrols along the sea coast of Lothingland, and, as Julius Caesar discovered when he first tried invading this country, a highly effective counter to infantry or anybody else struggling ashore. (The other Saxon Shore Fort with a cavalry garrison was Brancaster, where there was no river worth speaking of, but a long coast line). So there you go. You and TheQ aren't the only ones who can bang on a bit, Bill Saunders