Statistics Notes for Nottinghamshire
(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 Terrett, 'Nottinghamshire', in Domesday Geography of Northern England, edited by H.C. Darby and I.S. Maxwell, pp. 233-78, analyses the data and its problems for the modern county; Hart, The Danelaw, pp. 387-427, gives breakdowns of geld, ploughland, and ploughteam data. 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.

Circuits: Nottinghamshire is considered to have been in circuit 6, along with Derbyshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Rutland and Yorkshire. 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), pp 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, often with differences of detail, are:
•	B19	entry duplicated in 1,63.
•	1,12	1 bovate possibly duplicated in 30,56.
•	1,14	2 carucates possibly duplicated in 1,30 (deleted by scribe).
•	1,24	geld possibly duplicated in 1,17-22;25-30.
•	1,25	entry duplicated in 30,53.
•	1,31	entry duplicated in 1,41.
•	1,46	entry possibly duplicated in 10,37.
•	1,65	entry probably duplicated in 30,44.
•	2,10	imperfectly divided estate, half duplicated in 9,130.
•	10,6	entry duplicated in 30,25; deleted by scribe.
•	10,12	6 bovates probably duplicated in 10,56.
•	10,23	entry (deleted by scribe) duplicated in 10,52 and 30,28.
•	10,26	entry possibly duplicated in 13,5.
•	10,38	entry possibly duplicated in 30,55.
•	20,6	entry possibly duplicated in 30,37.
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: Nottingham (novus burgus), described in a separate Boroughs section and containing burgesses and urban sites, and Newark (6,1), where only burgesses are recorded. Data for the boroughs is recorded in the Boroughs database but the standard statistical data is also included in the DomesdayStatistics database.

Ecclesiastical fiefs: The fief of the bishop of Lincoln was entirely in lay ownership in 1066 and so was presumably a new endowment by the Conqueror.

Geld: In Nottinghamshire, the geld units are given in carucates, bovates and occasionally acres. Our statistics are recorded as decimals and assume that 1 carucate = 8 bovates = 120 acres; these are fiscal units, of course, not measurements of area. There are no significant variations in formulae but a number of the ambiguous fractions (e.g., 9,102. 30,20;23).

Ploughlands: The formulae employed in Nottinghamshire is Terra x carucis (land for x ploughs); there are no significant variations in formulae. 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. The scribe has left a blank where ploughlands are expected in one entry and a further 34 entries have no recorded ploughlands; in another 45 cases the ploughlands are appear to be subsumed in other entries. In these circumstances 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 Nottinghamshire, as in other counties in circuit 6, 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 reasonably 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: Predominantly villagers and smallholders. Slaves occur on only 3 fiefs; but, as elsewhere in circuit 6, it is likely that they were more numerous but omitted from the final text, as the Ely Inquisition shows occurred in Huntingdonshire. Other groups which formed the manorial population were: 4 merchants, 2 moneyers, 120 urban 'men', 2 ancillae, 6 Frenchmen, 1 freeman and 2 tributaries.

Woodland: is normally recorded in terms of leagues and furlongs. 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 acres. Figures are treated as for woodland.

Pasture: none recorded.

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 Nottinghamshire, as throughout circuit 6, two dates for valuations - 1066 and 1086 - are the norm; no intermediate dates are recorded, and indeterminate dates are rare, constituting less than 1% of the total. Hence the few indeterminate dates (13) 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 very little consequence in Nottinghamshire. All valuations - including those in Value66/QR/86 - have been coded to allow significant variations in the formulae to be treated separately. The values of most dependencies are included in the total value of their manorial centre.

Waste: There are almost a hundred occurrences of waste or implied waste in Nottinghamshire, more than 15% of the entries for the county.

Miscellaneous: The Domesday county was identical with the modern (pre-1974) county.

Nottinghamshire statistics

Source	Geld	Ploughlands	Ploughs	Villagers	Priests	MiscPop	Mills	Churches	Value 1086	
Maitland/Ellis*	567	1255	1991	2603	64	-	-	-	-	
VCH	567	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Darby	563	1231	1978	2634	63	3	132	86	731	
Hart	553	1242	1963	-	-	-	-	-	-	
Hull	567	1190	1976	2635	67	136	129	83	733	
* Population figures from Ellis. All figures are rounded.

Geld	The geld total for Nottingham is ambiguous; two holdings give conflicting totals (1,12;24); and several others have ambiguously phrased fractions. Different views on these cases may account for the discrepancy.
Ploughlands	39 ploughs are recorded for entries without ploughland data which Darby may have added to his total; the remaining discrepancy may be due to entry 14,8 where Farley has 4 ploughlands but the scribe probably intended 3.
Ploughs	Perhaps a counting error.
Villagers	Perhaps a counting error.
Priests	Darby may have counted the 4 clerics (5,1;19) as landowners rather than as rural population.
MiscPop	120 men (B1) and 7 freemen are included by Darby among the urban population but not 2 moneyers and 4 merchants in Nottingham (B1;10;12).
Mills	Unmatched fractions might add 2 to the arithmetical total.
Churches	77 whole churches and 12 fractions in 10 vills, totalling 82.25 but probably representing 87 churches. Darby may have counted the halves in the neighbouring vills of Bole and Leverton as 1 church.
Value 1086	Including borough payments, £781.

Darby's totals for freemen (8), Freemen (1704), smallholders (1180), slaves (24) and burgesses (56) are the same ours; apart from burgesses, those of Ellis differ considerably: Freemen (1516), smallholders (1101), slaves (26).