Statistics Notes for Buckinghamshire
(version 1b)

Previous studies: Despite its age, the totals and annotation in Sir Henry Ellis, A General Introduction to Domesday Book, vol. 2, pp. 488-93, still have some value. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 400-403, and Darby, Domesday England, pp. 336-71, supply totals and an invaluable analysis of problems with the statistics for the Domesday county; and Campbell, 'Buckinghamshire', in Domesday Geography of South-East England, edited by H.C. Darby and Eila M.J. Campbell, pp. 138-185 analyses the data and its problems for the modern county. Baring, Domesday Tables, pp. 129-171 gives a detailed breakdown and commentary. Bailey, 'The hidation of Buckinghamshire', Records of Buckinghamshire vol. 32 (1990), pp. 24-34, gives breakdowns for hidage and ploughlands. A sophisticated analysis of the value and limitations of the Domesday statistics for the comparative study of the conditions of 1066 and 1086 is provided by R.W. Finn, The Norman Conquest and its effects on the economy, 1066-1086; but since his totals exclude certain figures they have not been included in the spreadsheet below. Finally, problems in interpreting the statistics for Domesday valuations, Domesday waste, and landed wealth are examined respectively in Palmer, 'The Conqueror's footprints in Domesday Book', in The medieval military revolution, edited by Andrew C. Ayton and J.L. Price (1995), pp. 23-44; 'War and Domesday waste', in Armies, chivalry and warfare in medieval Britain and France, edited by Matthew Strickland (1998), pp. 256-75; and 'The wealth of the secular aristocracy in 1086', Anglo-Norman Studies, vol. 22 (2000), pp. 279-91.

Circuit: Buckinghamshire is considered to have been in circuit 3, along with Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Middlesex. The characteristics of the text and formulae which define the circuit are analysed by Carl Stephenson, 'Notes on the composition and interpretation of Domesday Book', Speculum, vol. 22 (1947), pages 1-15.

County: the statistics are those contained in the folios for the Domesday county which may explain some discrepancies between our county totals and those of Darby whose figures are sometimes adjusted to take account of vills divided by the county boundary or entries misplaced by the Domesday scribe: see the relevant volume of the Domesday Geographies.

Duplicates: Duplicates, or possible duplicates, are:
•	14,18	duplicated in 35,3; deleted in the manuscript.
Duplicates which are not simply claims are included in our totals but coded to allow them to be treated separately.

Boroughs: Two boroughs are recorded: Buckingham (burgus) itself, described in a separate Boroughs section, and Newport Pagnell; both included burgesses and urban sites but also rural manors. Data for the boroughs is recorded in the Boroughs database but the standard statistical data is also included in the DomesdayStatistics database.

Geld: In Buckinghamshire the geld units are given in hides, virgates and fiscal acres. Our statistics are recorded as decimals and assume that 1 hide = 4 virgates = 120 acres; these are fiscal units, of course, not measurements of area. Three entries for Newport Pagnell (17,17), Tickford (17,27) and Turweston ( 31,1) - mention carucates in lordship, interpreted here as unassessed land. In Hanslope (46,1) the difference is clearly marked, with lordship land of five carucates in addition to five hides. There are several entries where the 1066 hidage does not match the 1086 hidage, possibly through scribal error. These and similar complexities are reflected in the fact that Baring's earlier attempt to estimate the hidage for Buckinghamshire in 1899 is significantly different from the figure in his 1909 study used for comparison here. Significant variations in formulae have been coded to allow them to be treated separately.

Ploughlands: The formulae normally employed in Buckinghamshire is Terra x carucis (land for x ploughs). The ploughland is theoretically the amount of arable land which could be worked by a ploughteam of eight oxen in the course of the agricultural year. In some counties, theory appears to match reality; but in others the ploughlands are clearly artificial figures whose meaning is unclear. Ploughlands regularly equal active plus 'possible' teams in Buckinghamshire and in circuit 3. The absence of data for teams has consequently been interpreted as a zero value except where the total of ploughs and possible ploughs exceeds or falls short of the ploughlands figure, where they are left blank. Problem entries are recorded in the notes. There is one blank in the manuscript where ploughlands are expected and 3 entries have no recorded ploughlands. In some of these cases it may be necessary to substitute ploughteams for the missing ploughlands for purposes of analysis. We have not done so; but the coding allows the relevant entries to be selected for separate treatment.

Ploughteams: In Buckinghamshire, as in other counties in circuit 3, ploughteams are normally recorded separately for the demesne and for the villagers. In many instances, however, the formulae is ambiguous, simply stating that the ploughteams are 'there', without specifying ownership. We have interpreted these cases conservatively, allocating them to the demesne or to the villagers only where the evidence is clear; the total ploughteams for an entry may therefore be greater than the sum of the lords' and men’s teams, enabling all such cases to be identified.

Population: The rural population of Buckinghamshire is largely confined to the three major population groups of villagers, smallholders and slaves. Miscellaneous population includes 10 cottagers, 1 salt-boiler, 1 Frenchman, 2 vavassors, 4 boors, and 1 smith.

Woodland: is normally recorded in terms of 'woodland for n pigs' although sometimes woodland for fences, payments or renders of iron for plough-shares are mentioned. Figures are recorded as text to accommodate non-numerical data but can easily converted to numerals where appropriate; the coding of the units employed allow them to be treated separately.

Meadow: is normally recorded in terms of ploughteams, or oxen, although in some entries the phrase 'meadow for the ploughs', without specifying a number, is employed. Where this occurs we have used the number of ploughlands, following the example of Darby, Domesday England (p. 137), and noted this accordingly. Figures are treated as for woodland.

Pasture: is seldom recorded, appearing in only four entries. Figures are treated as for woodland.

Values: Values are recorded in modern decimal currency. Until 1972, the English pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence, the units used for most Domesday values, represented by the abbreviations £.s.d for the Latin librae, solidi, and denarii. In Bedfordshire, as throughout circuit 3, three dates for valuations are the norm, constituting two-thirds of the total for the circuit. Where two precise dates are given, they are almost always for 1066 and 1086: this is the case in over 95% of such entries in the circuit. Hence, indeterminate dates - the 'was' in formulae of the 'is and was' variety - have been interpreted as referring to 1066 valuations. To facilitate comparisons between pre- and post-Conquest landholding, we have created in addition to the two or three valuations a composite field- Value66/QR/86 - which includes intermediate (or failing those 1086) valuations where there is no data for 1066, though this is of no consequence in Buckinghamshire. All valuations - including those in Value66/QR/86 - have been coded to allow significant variations in the formulae to be treated separately.

Waste: there is little recorded waste, all on holdings of very modest dimensions.

Buckinghamshire statistics

Source	Geld	Ploughlands	Ploughs	Freemen	Villagers	Smallholders	Slaves	Burgesses	Value 1066	Value 1086	
Maitland/Ellis*	2074	2244	1952	20	2893	1326	833	26		-	
Baring	2127	2293	2046	-	2900	1322	855	-	1881	1909	
VCH	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Darby	2210	2296	2056	20	2899	1321	845	52	-	1947	
Bailey	2123	2301	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Hull	2131	2296	2058	16	2903	1323	847	54	1887	1891	
* Population figures from Ellis. All figures are rounded.

Geld	In Oakley, (19,3) the text states 'these 5 hides and 3 virgates are 8 hides' - following Bailey's example we have interpreted the main geld figure as 5.75. Baring has interpreted this figure as 8. One hide has been subtracted for the duplicate in (35,3). The entry (12,19) refers to a claim where 6 hides were taken from Pitstone. These have been entered in our database, but Baring has interpreted the figure as 1.5. Bailey did not include them at all. The remaining discrepancies with Baring can be accounted for by rounding. There are errors in Bailey's Hundred totals for Desborough (+2) and Seckley (+10).
Ploughlands	One must be subtracted for the duplicate in 35,3. Baring has made a miscalculation in his Hundred total for Desborough, giving 207 instead of 208. Baring has treated 1 ploughland in the subholding of Haddenham (2,1) as included in the statistics for the main manor; and he has interpreted the missing ploughland of Beachendon 4,24 as the equivalent of 0.5, and gives 3 instead of 2 for 23,13. The remaining discrepancies can be accounted for through rounding. Bailey has totalled the ploughlands for Mursley Hundred incorrectly, giving an extra 10 ploughlands. He has interpreted the ploughlands of Woughton (12,31) as 5 instead of 4, although he still gives the correct total for Seckley Hundred (159.25); and he has interpreted the subholding ploughlands in Weston Turville (4,5) and in Haddenham (2,1) as included in the total for their respective manors. He has given 3 ploughlands for Aston Sandford (43,3) instead of 4.5.
Ploughs	One must be subtracted for the duplicate in (35,3). Baring has not included 0.5 plough in Boveny (51,2) in his total. Baring has treated 1 plough in the subholding of Haddenham, (2,1) as included in the statistics for the main manor. He has omitted the 4 ploughs in Bourton (B2). Baring has interpreted the 'ploughs there' in (22,2) and (23,28) as half ploughs instead of whole ones on account of slightly ambiguous formulae. Another ambiguous statement can be found in Calverton, (26,8), where the text describes villagers having 7 ploughs and 'a ninth possible' interpreted as an error for eight ploughs there. Baring has not included the 6.5 burgesses' ploughs in Newport Pagnell, (17,17).The remaining discrepancies can be accounted for through rounding.
Freemen	Darby and Ellis have probably included the 4 Freemen of 1,1-3, here classified as landowners.
Villagers	Darby has probably not included a figure for the unspecified number villagers of 21,7 and 45,1, which would account for the difference between our totals. Bradbury has interpreted the unspecified number of villagers in (21,7) as two. Baring has treated 1 villager in the subholding of Haddenham (2,1) as included in the statistics for the main manor, given Beachendon (4,24) 1 villager instead of 0, and entered the one villager of Cheddington (57,16) and the two of Drayton Beauchamp (12,15) as smallholders.
Smallholders	Two must be subtracted for the duplicate in (35,3). Baring has given 16 smallholders for 6 in Datchet, (51,1). He has not counted the 18 smallholders who pay 20s a year in Stoke Mandeville (3a,1). Baring has treated 3 smallholders in the subholding of Haddenham, (2,1) as included in the statistics for the main manor, included the 10 cottars of Bourton (B2) as smallholders, and entered the 3 smallholders of Dadford as slaves (57,7). He has entered 1 villager of Cheddington (57,16) and 2 of Drayton Beauchamp (12,15) as smallholders.
Slaves	1 must be subtracted for duplicate in 35,3. Baring has recorded the 3 smallholders of Dadford (57,7) as slaves and has given Hollingdon (17,11) 5 slaves and Chicheley (17,24) 1 slave where none are recorded.
Burgesses	Darby has interpreted the 26 burgesses of B1 as 25; the burgess of Oxford (1,3) is recorded in that county.
Value 1066	Baring has rounded down the value for Weston Turville (4,5) from 15.25 to 15 and has treated 60s in the subholding of Haddenham (2,1) as included in the statistics for the main manor. The remaining discrepancy may be due to rounding errors.
Value 1086	Including borough payments, £1913. Baring includes £22 from the boroughs and has treated 60s in the subholding of Haddenham (2,1) as included in the statistics for the main manor and has misinterpreted the QR and TRW values of Drayton Parslow (4,28) as 2.25 instead of 1.25. Darby may have included £10 from tolls (1,1).
	
Darby's totals for mills (135), churches (4), cottagers (10), and miscellaneous population (9) match ours.