STAFFORDSHIRE
(version 1a)

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY
Staffordshire is first mentioned by name in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1016, at which date the county can scarcely have been more than a century old, for the lands which were to form the shire had long been an indistinguishable part of Mercia, not apparently corresponding to any tribal division, yet lying at its very centre. It was part of the thaer monarest myrcna haet ('the first land of the Mercians') as the Tribal Hidage puts it, or the Myrcenes Lands ('Mercian lands') as the same document elsewhere describes them and they are there distinguished from the Pecsaetna ('the Peak Dwellers') who lay to the north, the Lindes Farona ('the people of Lindsey', later in Lincolnshire) on their eastern side, and the Wocensaetna (better Wreocensaetna, 'the Wrekin-dwellers') who lay to the south. Another tribe, the Magonsaete, also lay south of 'Mercia proper' but is not mentioned by the Tribal Hidage; see Hill, Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 76; Brooks, 'Formation of the Mercian Kingdom', pp. 159-64; Gelling, ‘Early History of Western Mercia’; VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 217. 
	Tamworth had been the capital of Mercia since the time of King Penda (?626-654). Here had been King Offa's palace; kings were buried there and important councils held; see 1,9 Tamworth note. Close by was Lichfield, ecclesiastical centre of the see of Mercia, established in 669 by Ceadda (St Chad); not far away was Repton (later in Derbyshire), site of its most important early abbey. Yet, that Staffordshire was a late and artificial creation is shown by the fact that it spanned the River Trent, which had divided North from South Mercia in the time of Bede (see Bede, Ecclesiastical History, iii. 24: Colgrave and Mynors,  pp. 294-95) and that its boundary with Warwickshire ran clean through the middle of Tamworth.
 	The origins of the shire lay in arrangements made by King Alfred's son, Edward the Elder, and his sister Aethelflaed, 'Lady of the Mercians' who was married to Aethelred, ealdorman of the Mercians, to expel the Danes who had marauded freely throughout Mercia in the latter half of the ninth century. In 874 they had seized Repton and in 877 had partitioned Mercia, taking half into their Danelaw and leaving half in the hands of a puppet, Ceolwulf II, whom they had installed on the Mercian throne. The line of division is uncertain. There was an agreement made between King Alfred of Wessex and Guthrum, a Danish king, at Wedmore (Somerset) in 878 and this was codified in 886 by a treaty made between Guthrum and Alfred of Wessex. The treaty reads: 'First, concerning our boundaries: up the Thames, and then up the Lea and along the Lea to its source, then, in a straight line, to Bedford, then up the Ouse to the Watling Street'; see English Historical Documents, i. pp. 416-17 no. 34. It has generally been assumed that the demarcation then continued along Watling Street, but the treaty does not say this and it is possible that the junction between the River Ouse and Watling Street was the northern limit of Guthrum's sphere of influence. There is the possibility, that, from that point, the boundary was with the territory of another king, concerning which no document (if there was one) survives, and that it turned northwards from what became the northern tip of Warwickshire and followed a line that later marked the shires of Staffordshire, Cheshire and Lancashire from those of Derbyshire and Yorkshire; see Davis, 'Alfred and Guthrum's Frontier'; Gelling, West Midlands, pp. 127-28. At all events, Watling Street lay through southern Staffordshire, but it is difficult to point to any lasting traces of Danish influence in that larger portion that might have lain briefly in the Danelaw; see VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 219, iv. p. 6.
	Edward the Elder defeated the Danes at Tettenhall in 910, but his campaign and that of his sister to drive them out relied not simply on success in battle but on the construction or refortification of more than twenty-five burhs, built throughout the country no doubt to serve both as defensible places of retreat and also as bases from which to mount attacks. Among these burhs were ones at Tamworth and at Stafford, both constructed by Aethelflaed in 913, and ones at Eddisbury (in Cheshire) and at Warwick, built by her in 914. She died at Tamworth in 918.
 	In order to provide the manpower to maintain the defences of these burhs, the hides around each were grouped together, as is shown by the Burghal Hidage which probably dates from between 914 and 919; see Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 503-504; Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 265; Hill, 'Burghal Hidage'; Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, pp. 193-4, 339-41; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 4. Stafford is not mentioned in this document nor is Tamworth, although two Mercian boroughs are; a note added at the end, and not included in the document's total, allocates 2,404 hides (probably a slip for 2,400) to the burh of Warwick and 1200 to that of Worcester, figures borne out by the County Hidage (see Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 456), a document perhaps dating from early in the eleventh century.
	Staffordshire does not fit neatly into this pattern. The shire can only have grown around the burh of Stafford at the expense of Tamworth, some of whose surrounding hides were probably also allotted to Warwickshire. The County Hidage gives 500 hides to Staffordshire, a figure that is surprisingly low in view of the fact that the slightly smaller Warwickshire and the slightly larger Gloucestershire are allotted 1200 hides and 2,400 hides respectively; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. pp. 2-3. Nor is the figure duodecimal like the others; see {Introduction: Hidation}.
	The defeat and settlement of the Danes brought a period of peace. In 924 (according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) King Athelstan met Sihtric Caoch, the Scandinavian ruler of York, and gave to him his sister in marriage, thus theoretically securing the northern border of Mercia. Sihtric died in the next year and King Athelstan became king of the Northumbrians after expelling Gunfrith, Sihtric's brother. Following King Athelstan's death in 939, the Northumbrians chose Anlaf (Olaf) Guthfrithson from Ireland as their king and soon afterwards, in 940, Anlaf came south with an army and stormed Tamworth, taking much booty. Among his captives was Wulfrun, mother of Wulfric Spot; see 1,9 Tamworth note. King Edmund besieged King Anlaf in Leicester, but a treaty between them was arranged by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and King Edmund was forced to cede to King Anlaf lands north of Watling Street, as far as the border with Northumbria, that is the territory of the Five Boroughs, which was settled by a largely Danish population. Anlaf Gunfrithson died in 941. His successor was his cousin Anlaf Sihtricson, a son of Sihtric Caoch, from whom King Edmund recovered the Five Boroughs in 942.
	It seems probable that during this century, Staffordshire and the other Mercian shires began to take shape. They probably evolved from the defensive arrangements made in the 910s to counter the Danes, possibly as the networks of other obligations - taxation, justice, customary dues - were gradually transferred from important manors to the burhs. On the other hand, Mercia continued to be treated as a unit presided over by ealdormen, later by earls. Moreover, a Mercian Council (Myrcna witan) was in existence in 957 (Robertson, Anglo-Saxon-Charters, no. 44 pp. 90-93, 336-39), which suggests that Mercia was still a recognisable unit and the tribes seem to have had some continuing importance in the tenth century for the Magonsaete appear in a Herefordshire charter of 958 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 677), the Wreocensaete are mentioned in a Shropshire grant of 963 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 723) and the Pecsaete in a charter of the same year relating to Ballidon in Derbyshire (Brooks, Gelling and Johnson, ‘New Charter of King Edgar’); see Gelling, West Midlands, p.145. It is difficult to be certain when these land-units grouped around the burhs became shires, in the sense of having a court and an administration centred on the shire town. In the present state of knowledge it is hard to prove that, with the solitary exception of Cheshire, mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 980, the west Mercian shires were in existence before the eleventh century, although the hundreds probably were. Taylor, 'Origin of the Mercian Shires' in Finberg, Gloucestershire Studies, pp. 23-24, argued for an early eleventh-century date, assuming that the first mention of the shires by name is only shortly after their formation. Whybra, Lost English County, p. 106, concludes that they were in existence in the tenth century. 'Shire' is derived from Old English scir ('a cutting', 'a division') and essentially the problem of date is one of the exact definition of 'shire'. On the hundreds, see {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	In 1013 Staffordshire was no doubt ravaged by the Danish king, Swein, for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, after recording the submission to him of the men of the Five Boroughs in 942 and 'all the Danish settlers north of Watling Street', says that he turned southwards (or, as John of Worcester says, 'against the south Mercians') and then 'when he had crossed Watling Street, they did the greatest damage that any army could do. He then turned to Oxford, and the citizens at once submitted and gave hostages' (the translation is from Whitelock and others, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 92). Warwickshire (and therefore probably part or all of Staffordshire) was ravaged by Swein's son Cnut in 1016 and in the same year Edmund the atheling and Earl Uhtred of Northumbria on their side and Cnut on his ravaged Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire. This annal contains the first mention of Staffordshire.
	Edwin, Earl of Mercia. submitted to the Conqueror but in 1068, he and his brother Morcar turned against the king. Edwin allied with the Welsh king Bleddyn of Gwynedd, but his behaviour may have been more pique (that William had not given him a promised daughter in marriage) than rebellion. Edwin swiftly submitted. An insurrection at Stafford was put down by King William in 1069: according to Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, ii. pp. 228-29) Rex interim apud Estafort quam plurimos factiosarum partium facili proventu delevit ('Meanwhile at Stafford the king with an easy advance destroyed the largest possible number of rebellious groups'). In 1070, when King William was returning from the north and before his coronation at Winchester at Easter, he went to Chester where he built a castle and then to Stafford where he built another one; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, ii. pp. 236-37); Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 219-20. This castle is mentioned in Domeday (10,9) by which time it had been destroyed; see 10,9 castle note.
	Little by little, the Conqueror ate into Earl Edwin's earldom. He first gave judicial authority throughout Mercia, except in Cheshire, to Aethelwig, Abbot of Evesham; see Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 623. Then (the dates are uncertain) he gave Cheshire to Gherbod, the greater part of Shropshire to Earl Roger and Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, part of Worcestershire and probably the southern part of Shropshire to Earl William son of Osbern. Earl Edwin fled with his brother Morcar in the spring of 1071. Morcar was arrested, Edwin subsequently killed by his own men; see Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 24-26, 51-54. Shropshire and Staffordshire were involved in this revolt. 
	No doubt in part because of its previous history, Staffordshire in 1086 was poor, underdeveloped and backward, characterized by a small population, low values and a large number of derelict estates; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 18-23; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 1; Desborough, 'Introduction', Staffordshire Domesday, p. 1; Pinnock, 'Staffordshire Medieval Population and Prosperity'. On the history of Staffordshire as a whole, see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', pp. 138-50; VCH Staffordshire, ii. pp. 217-222.

HIDATION 
Staffordshire and four of its contiguous counties (Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, Cheshire) were assessed in hides. The fifth county, Derbyshire, was assessed in carucates and bovates, like other Danelaw counties. The measurement in hides suggests a continuity from much earlier times that was not interrupted by Danish invasion and settlement. The Tribal Hidage which might be dated at any time between the mid-seventh to late ninth century, but is probably earlier rather than later, allots 30,000 hides to the 'Mercian Lands', and, for example, 7,000 hides to the Wocensaetna; see {Introduction: History}. It is not clear what purpose these figures served, nor how far they are an estimate nor how they relate to the smaller figures found in the Burghal Hidage, the County Hidage and those given for individual estates when they were granted by charter. There are not many early charters for Staffordshire, but grants are made in manentes or cassati or mansiunculae or mansae and it is assumed that these are the equivalent of hides. An impressive block of 40 hyde, containing nine named places, was given by King Edmund to Wulfsige Maur' in 942; see 1,11 Alrewas note. Already, probably between 910 and 920 in the whole of southern England and in parts of the Midlands, large blocks of hides had been attributed for the upkeep of fortified burhs (see {Introduction: History}), and it is possible that this was done on the basis of a hidation that had been allotted to provinces and within them subdivided between vills at an earlier period, though probably derived from a 'new' hidation, rather than deduced from the gigantic figures of the Tribal Hidage. It is possible, but unlikely, that a drastic reduction in hidage had taken place in the tenth century. Arguing from charter evidence, C.F. Slade in VCH Staffordshire, iv. pp. 5-6, suggests some redistribution of tax liabilities, but not major reductions. However, the charter evidence is in short supply and what little there is is difficult to interpret on this point. The alternative is to think that before lands were grouped to support fortified burhs, estates were only given a detailed hidation when they were granted out (usually by a king) from a (usually royal) vill. If that was the case, wholesale hidation would have to take account of the assessments contained in existing grants, rather than to reassess them, for there is often a demonstrable relationship (though not, for paucity of evidence, in Staffordshire), between the size of an estate given in a charter and its size in Domesday Book.
	When counties were formed in the West Midlands, they seem to have been based on units of 600 hides (see {Introduction: History}) which were subdivided between hundreds, some of which prove to be approximately 100 hides. It is not certain whether hundreds and shires were formed at the same time. However, the boundaries of both types of division will have had to encompass the appropriate number of hides which were already in existence and accommodate matters of tenure, so that, where possible, the lands of particular holders (especially churches) could be in the same hundred or county. This led to some detached parts of each, most evident in the complex interlacing of Gloucestershire and Worcestershire.
	These 'hundreds of hides' were further subdivided between vills or estates. In Staffordshire, as elsewhere, there are strong signs that a unit of 5 hides was laid on a particular locality. Some estates are assessed as such, but there are many examples where adjacent estates, though perhaps assessed in virgates, or a hide or two, combine to form 5 hides. There are many other instances where these blocks of five hides join with others to form 10 hides, 15 hides or 20 hides, occupying a continuous tract of land within a hundred. It is unlikely that these hidages arose by assessing individual estates and reaching a grand total. It is more probable that they were applied from above, probably originally to royal eststes that were assessed at 50 or more hides, and that the odd hides and virgates that occur in Domesday Book are the result of subdivision, when the multiple estates broke up into increasingly smaller units.
	The phenomenon of the 5-hide unit was first systematically discussed by Round (Feudal England, pp. 47-66). For Staffordshire, Eyton (Domesday Studies: Staffordshire) produced tables listing, among other things, the assessment of each hundred and in the case of the hundreds of Cuttlestone, Offlow and Seisdon, these were revised by Bridgeman and Mander (‘Staffordshire Hidation’). The number of five-hide units in these hundreds is striking. For example, in Cuttlestone Hundred, the 2 ½ hides at Norbury (8,10), combined with the ½ hide at Loynton (11,53) and the 2 hides of the estate unnamed in Domesday, but which can be shown from other evidence to be Weston Jones (11,51), make a five-hide unit. In the same hundred, the 2 hides at High Onn (8,8), the ½ hide at Little Onn (17,16), the 1 hide at Marston (wrongly entered at NTH 16,2), the ½ hide at Shushions (17,20) and the 1 hide at Longnor (11,6) make such a unit. In Seisdon Hundred, the 1 hide at Shipley (WAR 12,11), the 5 hides at Seisdon (12,17), the ½ hide and 1 ½ hides on the two estates at 'Crockington' (1,1. 12,16) together with the 2 hides at Trysull (12,15) make a unit of 10 hides. Similarly, in the same hundred, 10 hides are made up from one at Alveley (8,3), one at Romsley (WAR 12,9), 2 hides and ½ hide on the two lands at Arley (7,2) and 5 ½ hides at Kinver (1,27). In Offlow Hundred, although the reconstruction is not quite so compelling, there is a 15-hide unit formed from 4 hides at Harlaston (1,32), 8 hides at Clifton Campville (1,29) and 3 hides at Thorpe Constantine (16,1). A five-hide unit is composed of  the 3 hides of Barton-under-Needwood (1,20), and the two at Wychnor (11,49); a further such unit is made up of 2 hides at Oakley (11,47) and 3 hides at Elford (1,26). This last unit can be shown, with a couple of assumptions, to be part of a 20-hide unit occupying the north-western part of Offlow Hundred; see Bridgeman and Mander, ‘Staffordshire Hidation’, p. 177.
	Bridgeman and Mander did not attempt to reconstruct the assessment of Pirehill and Totmonslow Hundreds, because of the large number of estates which were waste in 1086 (principally 1,33-64) and for which hidages were rarely recorded. None of their hundreds reaches an exact total, probably because of Domesday's notorious errors with small numbers, but their detailed examination of the shire led them to think that Cuttlestone Hundred and Offlow Hundred had once been 'long' hundreds of 120 hides each, Seisdon Hundred had been a 'long' hundred-and-a-half of 180 hides, Totmonslow Hundred had been 30 hides and Pirehill Hundred 90 hides: Bridgeman and Mander, ‘Staffordshire Hidation’, p. 181. These last two might once have been combined into a single 'long' hundred. This makes a county total of 540 hides. The total in the County Hidage is 500 hides, but that might have been arrived at from the knowledge that there were 5 hundreds in Staffordshire. The actual Domesday figure seems to be 513 hides 13 acres plus 25 carucates. This figure, from Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', is accepted by Slade in VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 2. The exact figures for the hundreds, adjusting those of Eyton, (Domesday Studies: Staffordshire), are: Cuttlestone 117 hides 114 acres; Offlow 117 hides 90 acres; Pirehill 86 hides 54 acres; Seisdon 172 hides 90 acres; and Totmonslow 18 hides 25 acres. These figures do not include the 25 carucates. The difference between the 513 hides 13 acres and the expected 540 hides can be bridged by assuming that the carucates more or less represent hides and allowing for some wrong figures or omissions. However, whether the figure is 500 hides or 540, it is some way short of  600 and it  seems that Staffordshire may have been what was left after the rest of Mercia, apart from the Danelaw proper, had been laid out into shires in multiples of 600 hides; see {Introduction: History}.
	Concerning the hundreds, it is noteworthy that the taxable capacity and the value of the land are in inverse proportion to the actual size of the hundreds. Thus Seisdon (about 173 hides) and Cuttlestone (about 117 hides) are the smallest hundreds in terms of area, while Totmonslow (about 18 hides) and Pirehill (about 86 hides) are the largest, yet they contain much unproductive land. 
	A number of estates in Staffordshire, especially in Pirehill and Totmonslow Hundreds, are assessed in carucates, or, occasionally, as 'land for n ploughs' which presumably amounts to the same; see Round, 'Danegeld', pp. 106-107. There is no reason to think that these are remnants of a Danish assessment, or that these carucates are the same as those found in the Danelaw shires in 1066 and 1086. Nor are they exactly the same as the carucates found occasionally in more southerly or westerly shires, where they seem to indicate the size (and probably the potential taxability) of lands that have not been hidated and did not then pay tax. The Staffordshire carucates are usually applied to waste estates and appear to be a measure of land whose hidation has been lost or forgotten. In cases where the land measured in carucates is occupied, it is possible that it was formerly waste but now under the plough; see 1,5 carucate note. Carucation can also be applied to new land, formed, for example, by draining or assarting, but there are no certain examples of this in Staffordshire.
	After1086, the county continued to be assessed in a mixture of hides and carucates, as recorded passim in the Book of Fees and the Rotuli Hundredorum. 

COUNTY BOUNDARY
The 1086 boundary
The creation of a shire dependent on Stafford will have been a product of the shiring of Mercia and have involved the delineation of the adjacent shires of Warwickshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire. Depending on the date of its creation, it will also have had to take account of the existence of a unit centred on Derby, which was one of the confederation of the Five Boroughs; see DBY {Introduction: History}. What became Derbyshire had earlier probably been the limits of the authority of an individual Danish army. The boundaries of Staffordshire are a mixture of natural and tenurial limits, although at the time of the shire's inception, some natural boundaries were no doubt also those of estates. The border with Derbyshire is primarily formed by the Rivers Dove, Trent and Mease, and that with Worcestershire by the Rivers Stour and Severn. In the extreme north, the boundary with Cheshire followed the hill spine that connects Congleton Edge to the Old Man of Mow (SJ8860 to SJ8557).The southern part of the boundary between Staffordshire and Shropshire was formed by the River Severn, although a small strip of Eardington manor (4,1,32), held by Earl Roger, including Quatford lay on its eastern bank and intruded into Staffordshire.
	On the other hand the rest of the boundaries with Cheshire and with Shropshire and the whole length of the boundary with Warwickshire seem artificial. Staffordshire and Warwickshire were both carved out of the heartland of Mercia, at first in order to support the upkeep of the two burhs established there in 913 as part of the moves to expel the Danes. The boundary between them cut right through Tamworth, where the Mercian kings had had their palace.
 	In some other cases, the boundaries both of the hundreds and of the county seem to have been laid through existing land-units. The county boundary left Old Swinford in Worcestershire, but Kingswinford in Staffordshire. This last separation may have been quite recent and to some extent still evolving in 1086, for the Worcestershire manors of Tardebigge and Clent were by then fiscally in Staffordshire since their revenues were paid to Kingswinford (WOR 1,5-6). 
	The county boundary also seems to have cut across existing tenurial relationships. Wyaston and Edlaston (both DBY 6,59) lay in Derbyshire, but paid their revenues to the Staffordshire royal manor of Rocester (1,17). Similarly, Chilcote (DBY 1,25), then in Derbyshire, but now in Leicestershire, depended on the Staffordshire royal vill of Clifton Campville (1,29) but was also said to be a berewick of the important Derbyshire manor of Repton (DBY 1,20). Such relationships are difficult to date, but it is quite probable that they existed before the shire boundaries were laid down. 

Later Changes
Staffordshire-Derbyshire 
The few changes here took place in the nineteenth century and involved the elimination of cases where an Ancient Parish had been split between counties. This applies to Catton (DBY 6,17), Croxall (DBY 6,14) and Edingale (DBY 6,15. 17,12). There were further alterations as a result of the growth of Burton-upon-Trent to swallow land that had historically lain over the River Trent in Derbyshire, that is Stapenhill (DBY 3,5. 14,2) and Winshill (DBY 3,3). 

Staffordshire-Warwickshire
The division of the borough of Tamworth between Staffordshire and Warwickshire, which put the castle in one county and the church in the other, was only rationalized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; see 1,9 Tamworth note. Elsewhere on this border, the growth of Birmingham drew Handsworth (12,29), Harborne (2,22), Perry Barr (12,27) and Smethwick (2,22) into it and so, in a sense into Warwickshire.

Staffordshire-Worcestershire
Already in 1086 Clent (including Broom and Rowley Regis) and Tardebigge in Worcestershire were attached fiscally to Kingswinford in Staffordshire. They were transferred entirely to Staffordshire soon afterwards and only returned to Worcestershire in the nineteenth century. A later change involved the transfer of Upper Arley from Staffordshire to Worcestershire.
	In their attempt to reconstruct the hidation of Staffordshire, Bridgeman and Mander, ‘Staffordshire Hidation’, pp. 168-69, 172, suggested that the south of the county consisted of a unit of 30 hides, subdivided into one unit of 10 hides and four of 5 hides. This arrangement is very neat, but it depends on assuming that one of the five-hide units consisted of Amblecote (12,14), Old Swinford and Cradley. These last two places were in Worcestershire in 1086 (WOR 23,11;13) and the implication of this suggestion, which neatly accounts for the excess four hides in Clent Hundred, Worcestershire, in 1086, is that these two places were originally in Staffordshire. However, the same process appears to confirm that Dudley (WOR 23,10), though a detached part of Worcestershire surrounded by Staffordshire, did not form part of the Staffordshire hidation. Dudley is, however, a single hide, and it would be unwise to base an important conclusion on so small a figure, especially as its one hide could have formed a 5-hide unit with Old Swinford and Cradley, instead of Amblecote's 1 hide. Moreover, there may have been other adjustments, since, although Clent Hundred in Worcestershire contained 104 hides, the total of hides for that county was a neat 1200; see WOR {Introduction: Hidation}.

Staffordshire-Shropshire
On the eastern edge of the county most of the changes were early, the result of powerful tenants-in-chief regrouping their manors for their own purposes. Thus Tyrley (SHR 4,14,5) was withdrawn to the Hundred of Pirehill in Staffordshire by William Pandolf, probably under King Henry I, to join his manor of Almington. Almington was in Staffordshire in 1086 (STS 8,22) whereas Tyrley (represented now by Tyrley Castle, SJ6733) was in Shropshire. The modern Civil Parish of Tyrley incorporates both Tyrley and Almington so it is difficult to determine the 1086 county boundary at this point; it seems probable that it was provided by the Coal Brook.
	As a result of a change in a contrary direction, the manor of Cheswardine, with Chipnall (11,13), acquired by King Henry I from Robert of Stafford, went into Shropshire from Pirehill Hundred, Staffordshire, probably in the reign of King Henry II.
	The major agents of change on this side of the county, however, were Earl Roger and his sons, who between 1086 and the forfeiture of the earldom in 1102 drew several estates into Shropshire, perhaps attempting to consolidate for themselves a semi-kingdom dependent on the Shropshire manors of Morville and Eardington (SHR 4,1,5;32) with the boroughs and castles of Quatford and Bridgnorth. These estates were Claverley, Kingsnordley, Alveley, and Sheriffhales (8,1-3;5) and possibly the unidentified "Cobintone" (8,4) held by Earl Roger; Worfield (9,1) held by his son Hugh of Montgomery, and to these were added Quatt, Romsley, Rudge and Shipley, also held by Earl Roger and also in Staffordshire in 1086, though listed erroneously in the Warwickshire folios (WAR 12,8-11). In the case of Sheriffhales, only part of the Ancient Parish was transferred. The rest (including Brockton Grange, held in Staffordshire in 1086 by the Shropshire sheriff, Reginald of Bailleul:14,1) was only transferred to Shropshire in 1895, but a 1965 boundary change has returned Brockton Grange itself to Staffordshire, putting it in Blymhill Civil (formerly Ancient) Parish  there.
	Also on this edge of the county, it should be noted that Bobbington was in 1086 a part of Staffordshire (11,43) in Seisdon Hundred, held by Helgot under Robert of Stafford. A member, Whittimere, was later attached to Claverley (8,1) which Earl Roger had put into Shropshire, and so Whittimere itself came into Shropshire. Since 1895 however, Whittimere has been returned to Staffordshire.
	Rudge, though placed in Shropshire by 1102 was, in the Middle Ages, counted as a part of Pattingham Ancient Parish which remained in Staffordshire.
	In 1086, Woore (SHR 4,15,2) was in Shropshire and remained there, but, at an unknown date, it became part of Mucklestone Ancient Parish, the bulk of which was in Staffordshire.

Staffordshire-Cheshire
Minor alterations made to the county boundary after 1086 did not involve the transfer of any Domesday estate between the counties.
 
Summary of Later Changes to the County Boundary
PLACE	1086	LATER	
Staffordshire/ Derbyshire Border

CATTON (DBY 6,17)

CROXALL (DBY 6,14)

EDINGALE (DBY 6,15. 17,12)

STAPENHILL (DBY 3,5. 14,2)

WINSHILL (DBY 3,3)

Entirely in Derbyshire

Divided between Staffordshire and Derbyshire, but the Staffordshire part is not named in Domesday

Divided in 1086, but the Staffordshire part is not named in Domesday

Entirely in Derbyshire

Entirely in Derbyshire

	

Transferred to Staffordshire in 1895

The Derbyshire portion was transferred to Staffordshire in 1895

Transferred entirely to Staffordshire in 1934

Transferred into Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, in 1878

Transferred into Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, in 1878	
Staffordshire/ Shropshire Border

ALVELEY (STS 8,3)

BOBBINGTON (STS 11,43)

BROCKTON GRANGE (STS 14,1)

CHESWARDINE (STS 11,13)

CHIPNALL (STS 11,13)

CLAVERLEY (STS 8,1)

KINGSNORDLEY (STS 8,2)

QUATT+ (WAR 12,8)

ROMSLEY+ (WAR 12,9)

RUDGE+ (WAR 12,10)

SHERIFFHALES (STS B4. 8,5)

SHIPLEY+ (WAR 12,11)

TYRLEY (SHR 4,14,5)

WORFIELD (STS B5. 9,1)

Entirely in Staffordshire

Probably divided between Shropshire and Staffordshire in 1086, but the Shropshire portion was not named in Domesday

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102

The Shropshire portion was transferred to Staffordshire in 1895

Transferred to Shropshire in 1895; transferred back to Staffordshire in 1965

Transferred to Shropshire before 1166

Transferred to Shropshire before 1166

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102

Part was transferred to Shropshire in the twelfth century, part in 1895

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102

Transferred to Shropshire early in the twelfth century

Transferred to Shropshire before 1102
	
Staffordshire/ Warwickshire Border

HANDSWORTH (STS 12,29)

HARBORNE (STS 2,22)

PERRY BARR (STS 12,27)

SMETHWICK (STS 2,22)

TAMWORTH (STS 1,9;30. WAR 1,5)

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Divided between Staffordshire and Warwickshire

Absorbed by the borough of Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1911

Absorbed by the borough of Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1912

Divided in 1928 between the borough of West Bromwich (Staffordshire), Sutton Coldfield (Warwickshire) and Birmingham (Warwickshire)

Absorbed by the borough of Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1912

Placed entirely in Staffordshire by a series of boundary changes (1866, 1894, 1932, 1965)
	
Staffordshire/ Worcestershire Border

UPPER ARLEY (STS 7,2)

Another ARLEY (STS 7,2)

BROOM (part of Clent: WOR 1,4;6)

CLENT (WOR 1,4;6)

DUDLEY (WOR 23,10) 

ROWLEY REGIS (part of Clent: WOR 1,4;6) 

TARDEBIGGE (WOR 1,4-5)

Entirely in Staffordshire

Entirely in Staffordshire

Surveyed as an unnamed part of Clent in Worcestershire, but, like it, fiscally in Staffordshire

Surveyed in Worcestershire, but fiscally in Staffordshire

Entirely in Worcestershire, though forming a detached island within Staffordshire

Surveyed as an unnamed part of Clent in Worcestershire, but, like it, fiscally in Staffordshire

Surveyed in Worcestershire, but fiscally in Staffordshire	

Transferred to Worcestershire in 1895
If it was part of Upper Arley, it was presumably transferred with the latter to Worcestershire in 1895

In Staffordshire after 1086, but returned to Worcestershire in 1844 

In Staffordshire after 1086, but returned to Worcestershire in 1844

Created a County Borough in 1889 associated with Worcestershire until 1966 and with Staffordshire from 1966

In Staffordshire after 1086, but returned to Worcestershire in 1844 

In Staffordshire until 1266, then in Warwickshire until 1844 when it returned to Worcestershire
	
The dates of boundary changes are derived from Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. passim.
+  These four manors were wrongly included by Domesday in the Warwickshire folios; see {Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County}.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE SHIRE
In the tenth and early eleventh centuries, Staffordshire will have been subject to the ealdormen, later earls of Mercia. The ealdormen were the successors of Aethelred, the husband of Aethelflaed, who had been among the most important in resisting and then pacifying or expelling the Danes. On these ealdormen, see Williams, 'Princeps Merciorum Gentis'. The last three earls were Leofric, married to Godgifu (the Lady Godiva), their son Earl Algar, and his son, Earl Edwin. Earl Algar died at some time between 1062 and 1066 and Earl Edwin only held the earldom briefly, before forfeiting it for rebellion. Domesday gives both Algar and Edwin as the T.R.E. holders of the earldom. An earldom of Stafford was not created until 1351 when Ralph de Stafford was installed. Nonetheless, in 1086 Robert of Tosny, also known as Robert of Stafford, was playing a sufficiently important part in Stafford itself to receive part of the revenue of the borough, as it were in succession to the earl; see B12 parts note.
	As in other counties, identification of the early sheriffs is problematic. Hemming in his Cartulary (Hearne, Hemingi Chartularium, i. pp. 277, 278) refers to an Aevic who was either the sheriff of Worcestershire or Staffordshire in the reign of Cnut. A Thorkil is evidenced in the period 1066-1068 (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, p. 883 no. 292) and an R. between 1074 and 1085 (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, p. 796 no. 265). This R. might be Robert of Stafford. According to an entry for Thorpe Constantine (16,1), 'Nicholas claims this land for the king's revenue in Clifton [Campville]'. An obvious inference from this is that Nicholas is the sheriff, rather than, say, the king's reeve of Clifton Campville. If he were the latter, it is probable that Domesday would have said so. In the context, plain Nicholas is likely to be someone well-known, although no Nicholas held in 1086. He is probably the N. addressed in a royal writ between 1088 and 1100 (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 112 no. 456). Robert of Stafford had a son called Nicholas and it may be that he succeeded his father in the office of sheriff. It is however possible that Nicholas is Nicholas de Beauchamp; see Green, English Sheriffs, p. 7.

HUNDREDS
The Names of the Hundreds
Name used in this edition	Form(s) found in Domesday Book	
Cuttlestone

Offlow
Pirehill
Seisdon
Totmonslow	Codvvestan+, Coluestan++, Cudoluestan,
Cuduluestan++, Culuestan
Offelau
Pereholle, Pereoll, Pereolle, Pireholle
Saisdon, Saisdone, Seisedon
Tamenaslau, Tatemaneslau, Tateslau	
+  This form is found in NTH 16,1
++  These forms are also found in WAR 27,6. 28,19.

Identifying and Reconstructing the Hundreds
Identification of the composition of the 1086 hundreds starts from the rubrication supplied by Domesday. Within each fief this was intended by the main scribe to indicate where a new hundredal group began. In most counties the rubrication is manifestly deficient, though Domesday itself can supply many useful cross-references, in cases where parts of the same vill appear in different fiefs, one of them under a hundred heading. However, it is necessary to attempt to identify hundredal blocks in the text and to check each estate against other evidence to determine if any headings have been omitted or are mistaken.
 	There appear to have been five hundreds in Staffordshire in 1086: Cuttlestone, Offlow, Pirehill, Seisdon and Totmonslow. Apart from naming them Domesday Staffordshire says nothing significant about them. There are, for example, no indications in the text that any of the hundreds formed groups or were appurtenances of a manor and nothing is said about the work of the hundred juries. Moreover, of the two types of evidence that Domesday normally provides for the reconstruction of the hundreds - hundredal rubrication and a regular order of hundreds within each fief - one is both deficient and prone to error and the other hard to discern.
	There are evident deficiencies in the hundredal rubrication. Some chapters entirely lack hundred heads; for example, chapters 3-4, 6, 9, 16 many of which contain only one holding. Moreover, sometimes there is no heading over the first estate in a chapter, for example in chapters 7-8, at the one point in a fief where a hundred head is essential.  Although occasionally the main scribe omitted a head at this point when it was the same as at the end of the previous chapter, this is not so in these instances. Sometimes the same hundred-name is repeated without any other intervening. For example, a Pirehill hundred head occurs first above Brocton and Bednall (2,4) and then above Eccleshall (2,10). Although the first head should be above Haywood (2,5; see 2,4 Pirehill note), all the places between Haywood and Eccleshall are in that hundred. Similarly a Cuttlestone hundred head is found both above Hatherton (7,13) and above Featherstone (7,16), although the places in between (Kinvaston and Hilton) also lay in that hundred. 
	Examination of those cases where a vill is divided, different parts appearing in different fiefs, and a comparison with later evidence from feudal and hundredal lists of what Domesday Staffordshire says or appears to say about the composition of the hundreds, suggests that there are many more errors, displacements and omissions. Thus, different parts of Moreton appear at 2,18 and 16,3. In the first case Moreton is found after Coley (2,17), over which a Pirehill hundred heading seems to need restoration. Moreton was probably in this same hundred, so a Pirehill hundred heading is also required for it in chapter 16. The previous entry in this latter chapter is for Kingsley (16,2), which is not governed by any hundred head, there being none in the chapter. However, it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred, since another part of the vill is found at 15,2 following an entry for Bradley (15,1), itself governed by a Totmonslow hundred head.
	As to the errors, it seems certain that the first heading in the list of the king's waste manors (1,33) should be for Pirehill not Cuttlestone Hundred since other parts of several vills included in the list occur in groups of places in Pirehill Hundred elsewhere in the text, for example, Milwich (1,41. 11,30), Hilderstone (1,44. 11,27), Cotwalton (1,45. 8,21) and Aston-by Stone (1,47. 11,9;23). Moreover, the second heading (at 1,48) should be for Totmonslow not Pirehill Hundred as rubricated, as Cheadle (1,57), which is part of this sequence, appears in a group of placers in Totmonslow Hundred at 11,42. Further, the Pirehill hundred heading above Tutbury that begins the fief of Henry Ferrers (10,1) should actually be Offlow Hundred, which in fact is found two entries on, above Rolleston-on-Dove (10,3)
	Headings are sometimes misplaced: thus the Pirehill hundred heading found at 2,4 above Brocton and Bednall in fact belongs above the next entry, for Haywood (2,5), apparently because there was insufficient room to insert it in its proper place. Similarly, in chapter 11 (the land of Robert of Stafford) the Totmonslow hundred head really belongs above Weston Coyney (11,34), rather than appearing to govern the next entry, for Gratwich (11,35). In chapter 17 (the land of the king's thanes) the Pirehill hundred heading rightly belongs above Bishton (17,6), not above the next entry, Knighton (17,7). It is possible, however, that both hundred heads have been placed at the end of their respective entries, rather than at the end of the first line. Rather than being an error this may represent the scribe's alternative practice, as it occurs frequently in Northamptonshire.
	In the case of the Offlow hundred head above Alrewas (1,11) in the land of the king, one should really be placed above Wigginton (1,9), two entries previously. Here, however, rather than this being a displacement, the likelier explanation is that the scribe was amalgamating two independent schedules: one for manors formerly held by King Edward, another of those held by Earl Algar. The first manor on Earl Algar's list, Alrewas (1,11), was correctly given a hundred head by its compiler, while the last two entries on King Edward's list, Wigginton and Willenhall (1,9-10), lacked one. Willenhall is found in a group of places in Offlow Hundred places at 7,8.
	In addition to the hundred heads restored in the Phillimore printed edition, it seems necessary to place a Pirehill hundred heading above either Abbots Bromley (4,5) or Darlaston (4,6); see 4,5 Pirehill note. As mentioned above, a Totmonslow hundred head is needed above Kingsley (16,2), and a Pirehill hundred head above Moreton, the next entry (16,3). These last two heads had already been supplied by VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 57. An Offlow hundred head above the second entry for Lichfield (2,22) can be perhaps be taken as read, since it is essentially a continuation of the first at 2,16: iam retro descriptus est ('it has already been described before'). Sibford Gower and Drayton (12,30-31) lay in Oxfordshire and were erroneously entered in Staffordshire. The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to provide a hundred head ('In Bloxham Hundred'), even though he did so in the case of some other misplaced entries, for example for Lapley, a Staffordshire place that was said to be in the Staffordshire hundred of Cuttlestone, though entered in the folios for Northamptonshire (NTH 16,1). However, Lapley was not an added entry, whereas Sibford Gower and Drayton were added after rubrication of the county and virtually none of the unrubricated entries had hundred heads.
	On the other hand it is not certain that it is necessary to place hundred heads above boroughs. There are certainly cases in Domesday where boroughs contain hides which belong either to the city hundred (as in the case of Chester and Shrewsbury) or to some other hundred, or where, as in the case of Cambridge, it 'answers for a hundred'. Since Stafford (STS B1-12) is not assessed in hides, and there is no mention of 'hundred', it seems probable that it did not belong to a hundred. The Phillimore printed edition inserts a Pirehill hundred heading above the entry for Stafford at 6,1. On the basis of the information in that entry, it looks as if Stafford must have been in a hundred, for the 13 prebendary canons of Stafford have 3 hides from the king. Later evidence, however, suggests that these were neither in nor attached to the city, but lay at Whitgreave (SJ8928) and Butterton (SJ8242) in Pirehill and Totmonslow Hundreds respectively; see 6,1 hides note. On the other hand, the entry at 11,7 clearly refers to the borough. 
	It is also not quite certain whether Tutbury (10,1) should be treated as a castle, standing outside the hundredal administration, as in some Herefordshire examples, or as lying in Offlow Hundred. Either way, the 'In Pirehill Hundred' entered above it by the main scribe of Great Domesday is erroneous; see 10,1 Offlow note
	While Stafford itself probably did not belong to a hundred, it is likely that Burton-upon-Trent, wrongly called Stafford at the head of the lands of St Mary of Burton (4,1), did, for the abbey is said to hold 1 ½ hides in the village. 
	More significant than errors and displacements are the omissions: it seems probable that to the thirty-six hundred heads, correct or incorrect, that are present in the manuscript, should be added at least a further forty-three, thirteen of them in the Terra Regis. Omissions on this scale make restoring the composition of the 1086 hundreds a less than certain business, even though, in those cases that lie directly beneath a hundred head, there is virtually no difference in the hundreds to which Domesday Staffordshire and later evidence assign places. However, of the 124 places that probably lay in Pirehill Hundred, only ten are found directly beneath a hundred head and only four out of the forty-five in both Totmonslow and Seisdon Hundreds. The figure for Pirehill Hundred does not include the misplaced hundred head that really belongs above Haywood (2,5), nor the incorrect Pirehill hundred head above the waste manors in the Terra Regis (1,33).
	There are some particular problems. In the land of St Mary's of Burton, for example, it is evident that a Pirehill hundred heading should be restored above Darlaston (4,6), but the head may actually belong above the previous entry, for Abbots Bromley (4,5). This place could have been in either Pirehill Hundred or Offlow Hundred for the boundary might have run either side of it. The most obvious boundary would have followed the River Blithe through what is now the Blithfield reservoir, placing Abbots Bromley in Offlow Hundred.  However, it was certainly in Pirehill Hundred in later times, even though the hundred boundary describes a great loop to include it. It was, moreover, counted in Pirehill Hundred by Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 78-79, and by Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 174, and has been included in that hundred in this edition. Darlaston is too central to Pirehill Hundred to have been in Offlow Hundred in 1086. Both it and Abbots Bromley are in Pirehill Hundred in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 277-78. 
	In Chapter 7 (the land of the clergy of Wolverhampton) both VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 45, and the Phillimore printed edition include Wednesfield, Willenhall, Pelsall, Hilton and "Hocintune" (7,7-11) in Offlow Hundred, by restoring a heading above Wednesfield, and to accept the Cuttlestone head above Hatherton, Kinvaston and the other Hilton (7,13-15), despite its repetition above Penkridge and Gnosall (7,17-18). Nevertheless, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Pelsall are all found in Seisdon Hundred in later times, and Hatherton, Kinvaston, Hilton and Featherstone are likewise in Seisdon later: see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. Most of these places lay close to hundred boundaries, but if Kinvaston, Hatherton and Pelsall were really parts of Seisdon Hundred in 1086, they must have been detached from it. On balance, it seems more likely that the presence of all these lands in Seisdon Hundred later is the result of church lands being drawn out of the hundred in which they lay geographically and placed in that where their holder had his principal manor or manors, as happened in other counties. It is possible that the repetition of the Cuttlestone hundred heads is due to the fact that Samson, who held Hatherton, and the clerics, who held Penkridge (and presumably Gnosall), made separate returns, each with a hundred head which happened to be the same.
	There is also some doubt about the correct hundred to be assigned to a few places that lay on the border of hundreds. Thus Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 166, suggested that Bradley (12,23) was in Seisdon Hundred and formed a five-hide unit with Bilston (1,4) and Ettingshall (12,18). Though this may once have been so, Bradley is placed directly below an Offlow hundred head in Domesday. Some places are only mentioned incidentally and would not have been assigned to any hundred even if the county rubrication were complete. Thus Stoke-upon-Trent (11,36) is only mentioned in passing, although it certainly lay in Pirehill Hundred. Similarly it is uncertain whether all the named and unnamed members of the many Staffordshire multiple estates lay in the same hundreds as their capita. The largest multiple estates in Staffordshire were the king's holding at Penkridge (1,7), with five named members (regarding Cowley and Beffcote as a single member, since their hidage is combined, just as Gerrards Bromley and Podmore are treated in 2,20), Robert of Stafford's Bradley (11,6) with eleven including Rickerscote (11,67), and Eccleshall and Lichfield held by the Bishop of Chester. Eccleshall (2,10) apparently had two groups of dependencies, fifteen in 2,11-14 and a further fifteen, including Sugnall, in 2,20-21). Lichfield had 22 named estates attached to it (7 in 2,16 and 15 in 2,22) amounting probably to 18 members (5 in 2,16 and 13 in 2,22) if places whose assessment is combined are treated as a single member. 
	It seems likely that the 1 virgate of land at Bushbury that belonged to Essington (12,22) was in Seisdon Hundred with the rest of Bushbury, rather than in Cuttlestone Hundred with Essington itself. 
	Once all these difficulties have been addressed, it is possible to attempt to reconstruct the hundreds and even to map the administrative divisions of the1086 county, by drawing lines between settlements that Domesday Book places in different but adjacent hundreds. These lines can follow those of later parish boundaries when there is no reason to think that a hundred boundary divided the parish. Such a map was prepared by one of the present editors (FT) for the Alecto county edition of Domesday Book. However, these hundred boundaries have to enclose some whole parishes such as Keele and Stone, which are not named in Domesday Staffordshire, as well as numerous other settlements which, though probably in existence in 1086, are subsumed in the details of some other estate. However, in 1086 Keele was probably a member of Trentham (1,8), then later an appendage of Newcastle-under-Lyme (1,8 Trentham note) and a chapelry of Wolstanton Ancient Parish.  Stone Ancient Parish is represented in Domesday by Aston-by-Stone, Cotwalton, Darlaston, Fulford, Hilderstone, Stoke, Meaford, Moddershall, Normacot, Tittensor and Walton; see 1,40 Fulford note. Many settlements are not named in Domesday; for example in 1334 Totmonslow Hundred included Kingston, Field, Wetton, Throwley, Bradnop, Longnor, Elkstone, Ipstones, Butterton and Waterfall (Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 280-81), most of which were probably in existence in 1086. The county also contained a number of unnamed outliers: two of the dependencies of Barton-under-Needwood (1,20) were probably Tatenhill (SK2021) and Dunstall (SK1820); see 1,20 dependencies note. Among those of Wetmore (4,3) were probably Horninglow (SK 2425) and Anslow (SK2125); see 4,3 dependencies note.

Hundredal Boundaries
The hundred boundaries did not, in general, follow evident, natural or man-made features. The mighty River Trent was scarcely used as a boundary; thus the line between Cuttlestone Hundred and Pirehill Hundred appears to have followed the River Trent for only about 1 ½ miles near Rugeley (SK0418). Watling Street does not appear to have been used as a boundary, though in the north of the county the River Sow, the Tad Brook, the Pur Brook, the River Blithe and the Little Blithe are all used to some extent, as is the River Penk in the south. However, the great lack of 'primary' boundaries suggests that it is much more likely that the hundredal boundaries were designed to include a fixed number of hides in each hundred and in so doing took some account, as best they could of existing tenurial units, some of which would themselves have been bounded, in part, by natural fixtures. If the processes of forming the shire and the hundreds were driven by hidage figures, the laying down of boundaries could only partially take account or existing units. Thus the county boundary cut through estates (see {Introduction: County Boundary}) as did hundredal boundaries. So Little Wyrley lay in Offlow Hundred, Great Wyrley (SJ9907), not mentioned in Domesday Book, lay in Cuttlestone Hundred; see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281; and 1,25 dependencies note. Sometimes hidage or tenure led to islands of one hundred in another or to unnatural intrusions or projections. There seem to be no examples of the former in Staffordshire in 1086, but an example of a projection is Harborne (2,22) which, until a later change of county boundary, projected into Warwickshire. It was no doubt kept in Staffordshire and in Offlow Hundred because it was a possession of the Bishop of Chester and a part of his manor of Lichfield. The bishop held three estates in Warwickshire (WAR 2,1-3) but they were not close to the Staffordshire border.
	Some boundaries must remain uncertain, such as that between Cuttlestone and Offlow Hundreds which was perhaps purely notional where it ran across Cannock Chase to take the far-flung Rugeley into Cuttlestone Hundred, and those through the royal forests. 

Hundred Courts
There is no reference to the work or judgement of the men of the hundred or of their courts in the Staffordshire folios.

Moot-Sites 
All the hundreds, with the possible exception of Seisdon Hundred, are named from their moot-sites which were located at the sort of natural or man-made feature typical of English hundred names: Cuttlestone is named from a stone, Pirehill from a hill and Offlow and Totmonslow from mounds. Seisdon may mean either Sae(i)ga's dun or possibly Seaxa dun ('hill of the Saxons'), referring to the presence of Saxons among Anglians. The hundred and the village below it may be named from the hill that was the meeting-place rather than the hundred's being named from the village; see Anderson, English Hundred Names, p. 145; Gelling, West Midlands, pp. 143-44. These sites may well have been the meeting-places of whatever local assemblies preceded the hundred courts, but they are each reasonably central to their hundreds, apart from Totmonslow. 
	Cuttlestone was a place in Penkridge, now represented by Cuttlestone Bridge at SJ9113. The name means 'Cuthwulf's stone'; see Anderson, English Hundred Names, p. 146; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 61; Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. pp. 26, 94. Penkridge had been held by King Edward, so it is possible that Cuttlestone is a case where a hundred was appurtenant to a royal manor. 
	Offlow, lying close to Watling Street (at SK122059), just over the northern boundary of Shenstone Ancient Parish and just inside Swinfen and Packington Civil Parish, which was originally a part of Weeford Ancient Parish. It is not far from Lichfield, and may once have been a site of more than hundredal importance if this Offa's hlaw was named from King Offa. Shenstone (8,32) was held from Earl Roger in 1086 as was Swinfen (an unnamed part of Shenstone). Packington (2,16;22) was a member of Lichfield in 1086 as was Weeford (2,22); see Anderson, English Hundred Names, p. 146; Gelling, West Midlands, pp. 51-52, 144. The name appeared on nineteenth-century Ordnance Survey maps (for example on six-inch sheet 58NE of 1887) but the mound has now been nearly levelled by ploughing and the name no longer appears, although a tumulus was still marked on the site on the 1962 one-inch Ordnance Survey map (sheet 120).
	Pirehill Hundred was named from a hill (sometimes known as Pire Hill) south of Stone at SJ8931. The hill presumably lay in the bounds of Aston-by-Stone, or possibly in Walton, in 1086; see Anderson, English Hundred Names, p. 146; Gelling, West Midlands, p. 144.
	Totmonslow is now represented by a hamlet (SJ9939) in the former Ancient Parish of Draycott-in-the-Moors, but presumably the hundred and the hamlet were named independently from the hlaw, rather than one being derived from the other. It means Tatmonn's hlaw; see Anderson, English Hundred Names, p. 147; Gelling, West Midlands, p. 144.

Links to Royal Manors 
 The Staffordshire folios say nothing directly about the history and interrelationships of the hundreds and afford few clues. In the shires of Wessex and in several at least of those of Mercia it is possible to see the hundreds arising as divisions of lands formerly dependent on a series of important royal vills which continued in 1086 to dominate one or more hundreds, and to name them. Such vills are often recognizable in the pages of Domesday Book by particular details contained in their entry and by their having been held in 1066 by King Edward or by members of the house of Godwine or by an earl. In Staffordshire, King Edward had certainly held Kingswinford and Penkridge (1,1;7), probably also Tettenhall (1,2), Wightwick (1,3) which belonged to it, and Bilston, Bescot, Wednesbury, Trentham, Wigginton and Willenhall (1,4-6; 8-10), although no T.R.E. holder is given for these. King Edward had also held [Old] Perton which he had granted to Westminster Abbey; see 3,1 Perton note. Edwin, who had been Earl of Mercia, had held Bradley (11,6), while Earl Algar his father and predecessor had held a considerable number of manors (1,11;13-32). 'Earl' Harold had held Kings Bromley (1,12). The royal manors show clear signs of being related to the ancient sites of Tamworth and Lichfield (see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 8) but, except in the possible case of Cuttlestone (in Penkridge) the hundreds are not evidently related to important or royal vills, whereas that is the pattern in neighbouring Shropshire; see SHR {Introduction: Hundredal Manors and the Lordship of the Hundred}. Only Seisdon Hundred is possibly named from an estate mentioned in Domesday Book (or both the hundred and the vill are named from the same dun), but the estate (12,17), held by William son of Ansculf in 1086, appears to have been of little importance.
	It would seem that in Staffordshire the hundreds were drawn on the basis of a hidation and that local meeting-places were revived or created for them.

(On the fission of lands dependent on royal vills, see Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 299-302. The notion has been worked out in detail for Hampshire by Hase, Development of the Parish in Hampshire. On the attachment of hundreds to manors and on groupings of hundreds, see Cam, Liberties and Communities, pp. 64-106.)

Lordship of the Hundred 
The profits of justice in the hundred courts were sometimes reaped by individuals or the hundred farmed for a fixed sum. Sometimes a hundred was attached to a particular manor and the holder of the latter was lord of the hundred. Domesday provides only sporadic and incidental evidence of these arrangements, which are largely known from later periods and it furnishes none for Staffordshire. In 1316 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 11), the king was lord of all five hundreds and this may have been the case in 1086. In 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 142) Pirehill Hundred was held at farm by William Griffin from the king. Later, in 1236, Geoffrey Griffin held the hundred by serjeanty (Book of Fees, p. 594). In 1255 (Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 115) three hundreds (Seisdon, Offlow and Cuttlestone) were in the king's hands. Pirehill Hundred was at fee farm from the king and Robert Gaunsil held Gatemanloue [Totmonslow] Hundred for life (presumably from the king) by an annual payment of 13 marks.

Relation to Later Hundreds 
The five hundreds given in Domesday, if they have here been correctly reconstructed, lasted virtually unchanged until the nineteenth century. Apart from the attachment of the ecclesiastical estates at Wednesfield, Willenhall, Pelsall, Hilton, Hatherton, Kinvaston, Hilton and Featherstone (7,7-10;12-16) to Seisdon Hundred, the only significant change appears to have been the transfer of Loynton, which was in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086, to Pirehill Hundred. This possibly took place in 1333; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 61; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.

MANORIAL ORGANIZATION
Staffordshire is not one of those counties where the main scribe of Great Domesday systematically indicated the status of a holding by use of a marginal M[anerium], B[erewica], S[oca] or T[erra] standing respectively for a 'manor', 'outlier', 'Jurisdiction' or the indeterminate 'land'. By this stage in his writing-up, the scribe no longer even used the word 'manor' except incidentally as at B 8. 1,1;6-7;30;32. 2,2;9;11;16;20-22. 8,5;9;29;31. 10,9. 11,6;37;56. 12,1;22. 14,1. Nonetheless the distinction appears to have been important and it seems likely that, in the interests of conciseness, the scribe was expecting it to be assumed that estates were manors in the absence of indications to the contrary.
	The majority of estates in Staffordshire were small, only a few being of five hides or more:
Estates of five hides or larger in Staffordshire in 1086	
9,1 Worfield (30 hides)
2,16 Lichfield (25 ½  hides, 1 virgate)
8,1 Claverley (20 hides)
1,29 Clifton Campville (8 hides)
2,10 Eccleshall (7 hides)
12,8 Wombourne (7 hides)
12,1 Sedgley (6 hides)
1,27 Kinver (5 ½ hides)
1,1  Kingswinford (5 hides)
2,1 Brewood (5 hides)
7,6 "Haswic" (5 hides)
7,7 Wednesfield (5 hides)
10,9 Chebsey (5 hides)
11,43 Bobbington (5 hides)
11,45 Oaken (5 hides)
12,2 Morfe (5 hides)
12,6 Penn (5 hides)
12,17 Seisdon (5 hides)	
These figures do not include dependencies, members or lands attached to them that are separately named and assessed in hides, virgates or carucates. 
	Many estates in Staffordshire seem underrated and the list of large estates could be lengthened if those with large plough-estimates are included: for example, Haywood (2,5) is rated at ½ hide but had land for 10 ploughs; Wetmore (4,3) is assessed at 1 ½ hides but has land for 7 ploughs, Sheriffhales (8,5) has 2 hides but land for 15 ploughs, while Bradley (11,6) at 1 hide but with outliers amounting to 15 ½ hides had land for 44 ploughs.
	This group of large estates overlaps with those that are multiple in organization, that is they have a number of outliers or members answering to a central place. Estates that fall into this category are:

Staffordshire estates with outliers or members in 1086	
Wednesbury (1,6) with a single member (Bloxwich) and with Shelfield belonging to it

Penkridge (1,7) with six members

Eccleshall (2,10) with 11 members (2,11, excluding Bishops Offley) and a further 8 outliers (2,20, excluding Sugnall) including 9 named places. It also has places 'belonging to' it: Bishops Offley (2,11); Aspley (2,13), Croxton (2,14) and Seighford, Aston and Doxey, Bridgeford, Coton Clanford (2,21). It seems probable that Broughton (2,12) and Sugnall (2,20) also belonged to Eccleshall.

Lichfield (2,16;22) with 5 members, involving 7 named places (2,16) and a further 15 estates, called members, also 'lands or 'outliers' (2,22)

Bradley (11,6) with 10 members (also called dependencies) as well as Rickerscote (11,67) which was an adjunct of it.

Other estates have places 'belonging to' them:

Staffordshire estates having places 'belonging to' them in 1086, but no 'outliers' or 'members'	
Kingswinford (1,1) has 'Crockington' 
Tettenhall (1,2) has and Compton (1,2) and Wightwick (1,3)
Baswich (2,2) has Walton-on-the-Hill (2,2) and Brocton and Bednall (2,4) 
Haywood (2,5) has Hixon (2,6), Wolseley (2,7) and Fradswell (2,8)
Upper Arley (7,2) has another Arley
Colton (8,15) has "Colt" (8,16)
Moddershall (8,21) has Cotwalton
Alstonefield (8,28) has Warslow (8,29)
Cheddleton (8,30) has Basford (8,31)
Haughton (11,52) has Brough Hall (11,5) 
Blymhill (11,56) has "Ruscote" (11,56)
Essington (12,22) has Bushbury (12,22) 
	
There may be no real distinction between one place being a 'member' of another and belonging to it. There is certainly some overlap, since Wednesbury (1,6) has a member and a place belonging to it and Bradley (11,6) has10 members and an adjunct; Eccleshall has members and places belonging to it. These are all included in the table of estates with outliers or members (above). 

Another category consists of those estates that are said to have unnamed dependencies (cum appendiciis). These are: 
Staffordshire estates with unnamed 'dependencies' in 1086	
Wednesbury (1,6)+ 
Sandon (1,13)
Wolstanton (1,15)
Penkhull (1,16)
Rocester (1,17)
Crakemarsh (1,18)
Barton-under-Needwood (1,20)
Leek (1,21)
Mayfield (1,23)
Meretown (1,24)
Cannock (1,25)
Kinver (1,27)
Clifton Campville (1,29)
Drayton Bassett (1,30)
Biddulph (1,33)
Coton? (1,42)
Lichfield (2,16)† 
Wetmore (4,3)
Abbots Bromley (4,5)
Okeover (4,8)
Yarlet (8,12)
Almington (8,22)
Bradley (11,6)‡
Norton-in-the-Moors (11,19)
Aston-by-Stone (11,23)	
+  The dependencies may be Bloxwich and Shelfield
†  The dependencies may be the places then listed as 'members', and 'lands or outliers' (2,16;22), though if so the separate assessments for these 'members, lands, outliers' would be included in the 25 ½ hides and 1 virgate
‡  The dependencies are probably then listed as 'members'.

The main scribe of Great Domesday may have sometimes used the phrase 'with dependencies' either when he decided not to list them separately, or because there was no list in his source. However, many of these estates are themselves very small. In some cases the dependencies can be identified in later documents, but in others there is no sign of them and there is the suspicion that sometimes the scribe wrote cum appendiciis and its variants automatically.
	It is notable that the commonly recurring T.R.E. holders of all these large or multiple estates are King Edward, the Earls of Mercia (Algar and Edwin) and the Bishop of Lichfield/Chester. This reflects an important and primitive division of estates between the king, the diocesan bishop and the earl. The most important estates of the church of Lichfield had probably been granted at its foundation in the latter half of the seventh century by a king or kings of Mercia. Many or perhaps all the comital estates may have come to their holders by virtue of their office and had also once been held by kings.
	The plethora of small holdings surveyed by Domesday are probably fragments of a much smaller number of great estates. Some may have entirely broken up, while in the case of others, the chief place may well have survived, though with a great reduction in its dependent land. Some indication of the original extent of some estates may be obtained if it is assumed that Ancient Parishes represent the parochia of an estate church. A search for the primitive chief places in Staffordshire needs to take account of the centrality of Tamworth (1,9) to Mercia. Tamworth was, however, the site of a palace and perhaps not the centre of an estate, which may have been at Wigginton (1,9). Wigginton Ancient Parish contained Hopwas (1,31) and Syerscote (11,48).
	Places held by King Edward in 1066 may well have been among the most important. They were probably Kingswinford (1,1), Tettenhall (1,2), Wednesbury (1,6), Penkridge (1,7), Trentham (1,8), Wigginton (1,9) and Willenhall (1,10), although he is only named as the T.R.E. holder in 1,1;7. Of these the royal estate of Tettenhall was no doubt the source of the grant of 1 hide to the collegiate church there (7,5) and probably of the grant of Old Perton (3,1) to Westminster Abbey. It is conceivable that the estate of Wolverhampton (7,1) which was in the hands of Wulfrun and her family in the tenth century also had its origin here. The Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter contained Willenhall (1,10. 7,8), Bilston (1,4), Wednesfield (7,7), Pelsall (7,9), Hatherton (7,13), Kinvaston (7,14), Hilton (7,15), Featherstone (7,16) and Bradley (12,23), though some of the chapter 7 holdings formed detached parts and may only have joined the parish subsequently as a late consequence of being held by the collegiate church of Wolverhampton. 
	The site of the battle of Tettenhall in 910 was actually at Wednesfield and this may suggest that Wednesfield, a separate estate in Domesday (7,7), also originated as a grant out of Tettenhall. As Willenhall (1,10) was in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter, it is possible that this royal estate had once been a member of Tettenhall. Tettenhall Ancient Parish contained Compton (1,2), Wightwick (1,3), both members of the royal manor of Tettenhall (1,2) in 1086, together with Old Perton (3,1), Trescott (7,4), Bilbrook (7,5), Oaken (11,45), Wrottesley (11,46), Pendeford (12,20) and Codsall (17,1). 
	There are reasons for thinking that Penkridge, represented in Domesday only by a royal manor of 1 hide and 1 hide belonging to a collegiate church (1,7. 7,17), had once been much greater in extent, including, for example, Brewood, Cannock and Gnosall. Penkridge Ancient Parish comprised Cannock (1,25), Whiston (4,9), "Bedinton"/ Pillaton (4,10), Mitton (11,6), Stretton (11,57), Water Eaton (11,58), Gailey (11,59), Otherton (11,60), Great Saredon (11,61), Coppenhall (11,63), Shareshill (11,64), Levedale (11,66), Rodbaston (13,9), Little Saredon (17,2) and Bickford (17,3); see 1,7 Penkridge note.
	Similarly, Trentham (1,8) may once have been the centre of a much larger estate which comprised Penkhull (1,16) granted out to the earls of Mercia and the land on which Newcastle-under-Lyme was established and Stoke-upon-Trent grew up. It is possible that Wolstanton (1,15) had once been part of Trentham. Wolstanton Ancient Parish contained Thursfield (13,1), Dimsdale (13,7) and Knutton (13,8). The Ancient Parish of Trentham included only Hanford (13,4) and Hanchurch (13,5), but it is likely that the original greater Trentham had a number of churches each of which became the nucleus of a separate Ancient Parish, a process that will have continued after 1086 with the establishment of the castle, manor, borough and Ancient Parish of Newcastle-under-Lyme. For the contents of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, see 11,36 Stoke note.
	Wednesbury (1,6) was in the Ancient Parish of Walsall (St Matthew) together with Bloxwich (1,6, a member), Bescot (1,5) and Shelfield (1,6). 
	It may be that the really ancient royal estates besides Tamworth were only Kingswinford, Tettenhall, Penkridge and Trentham. To these might be added the manor of Leek (1,21), a very extensive multiple estate, although assessed at only 1 hide, but with land for 12 ploughs. The Ancient Parish of Leek (1,21), held in 1066 by Earl Algar, embraced Cheddleton (8,30), Endon (1,61), Rudyard (1,63) and Rushton (1,64); see 1,21 dependencies note. Among ecclesiastical estates, Eccleshall and Lichfield were perhaps the most ancient as were Bradley (11,6), Claverley (8,1) and Worfield (9,1) among comital estates. These last two may have been members of the same great estate. Of these estates Eccleshall was still a large multiple estate in 1086, but its Ancient Parish also contained Millmeece (1,37), Rudge (11,15) and part of Balterley (17,11) in addition to many holdings of the bishopric of Chester: Charnes, Chorlton, Cotes, Coldmeece, Baden Hall, Slindon and Brockton and Chatcull (2,11); Broughton (2,12); Aspley (2,13); Croxton (2,14); and Sugnall, Gerrards Bromley, Podmore, Swinchurch, Walton and Wootton (2,20). 
	There are signs that even smaller 1086 estates had once been larger. Thus Rocester (1,17) was head of an Ancient Parish that also contained Bradley-in-the-Moors (15,1)  and Waterfall (1,17 dependencies note). The Ancient Parish of Uttoxeter (1,19) also comprised Crakemarsh (1,18), Loxley (8,18) and Stramshall (17,17). The areas of some of these Ancient Parishes may once have been part of larger units.
	These are only indications of what might have been a simpler and earlier organization, in a series of large estates, of the area that became Staffordshire. The topic would benefit from further study.

ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION
Among the companions whom Peada, son of King Penda of Mercia, brought back with him after his conversion to Christianity in Northumbria, was Diuma who was appointed as the first bishop of the area that became Staffordshire and elsewhere. He was the itinerant bishop of the Lindisfari (that is the people of Lindsey in the later Lincolnshire), of the Mercians and of the Middle Angles, c. 656 - c. 658. Between 666 and 669 Wilfrith (who was appointed Archbishop of York in 669) fulfilled some episcopal functions in Mercia and is credited with founding a number of monasteries there. Diuma's fourth successor Ceadda (St Chad) 664-672, established his seat at Lichfield, which became the centre of the Mercian bishopric, separate bishops being appointed for Lindsey (in 678), for the Middle Angles (based at Leicester) in 679 as well as for Worcester and Hereford. The see of Lichfield will have encompassed the later counties of Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, parts of Warwickshire and Shropshire, the land between the Ribble and the Mersey (from c. 923) and probably most or all of Nottinghamshire.
	At the council of Chelsea in 787, King Offa of Mercia created an Archbishopric of Mercia based at Lichfield, whose see stretched from the Thames to the Humber. Lichfield reverted to being a bishopric in 802.
	The Danish invasions and settlements of the late ninth century will have disrupted the work of the bishopric. The adjacent see of Leicester ceased to function and that area was notionally cared for by the Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames. Lichfield itself may have lain just on the Danish side of Watling Street, if the Roman road was the boundary; see {Introduction: History}. The site may have been despoiled and it was no doubt difficult for its bishops to exercise jurisdiction and care of souls until the pacification or expulsion of the Danes in the first decades of the tenth century; see {Introduction: History}.
	The see recovered thereafter and was removed to Chester in 1075 by Bishop Peter and in 1102 to Coventry by his successor, Robert de Limesey. Its endowments may not have been gravely affected. Staffordshire continued to be measured in hides and virgates, and many of the estates in that county probably survived intact through the period of Danish occupation. Among the estates held by the church of Chester in 1086 were probably some that were given by King Wulfhere at the foundation of the see. See VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 1-6, xiv. pp. 1-7.
	Apart from Burton Abbey and the churches of Wolverhampton and Lichfield, little is known about the ecclesiastical organization of Staffordshire before 1066. It would be expected that before the growth of a network of manorial churches, the gospel would have been preached and souls cared for by a number of collegiate churches, often known as minsters, which consisted of a community of secular priests who would minister to the inhabitants of the surrounding countryside. In 1086, there were collegiate churches at Stafford (6,1), at Wolverhampton (7,1), at Tettenhall (7,5), at Penkridge (7,17) and possibly at Gnosall (7,18 clerics note). Of these, the church of Wolverhampton had an extensive endowment (7,1-4; 6-16).  
	In Sheriffhales (8,5) the abbey of Saint-Évroult had a plough with a priest who had two oxen in 1086. It is likely that the abbey also held the church at Sheriffhales and just possible that the church itself was superior. To these important churches had recently been added the church of Lichfield (2,16), no longer a cathedral after the see was transferred to Chester. All of these were probably Anglo-Saxon foundations. It is possible that the church of Stoke-upon-Trent (11,36 Stoke note), which held land, and Norbury (8,10) with two priests were also minster churches. There appears also to have been a secular college at Stone (11,8 priest note) and a minster at Trentham (1,8 priest note). There was almost certainly a college (perhaps formerly a nunnery) at Tamworth (1,9 Tamworth note); see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 42, 44-46; Blair, 'Secular Minster Churches', p. 108.
	After 1086, a considerable number of religious houses were established in Staffordshire, some of them by Domesday landholders or their successors. Tutbury Priory dependent on the Benedictine Abbey of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy was founded by Henry of Fererrs and his wife Bertha in their castle at Tutbury, probably early in the reign of Willam Rufus; see 10,1 Tutbury note. St Rémy of Rheims had been granted Lapley (NTH 16,1, misplaced in Domesday) before the conquest by Burchard, a gift confirmed by his father Earl Algar of Mercia. A priory had been established there by the middle of the twelfth century and may have been preceded by a cell at Marston; see STS 5 St Rémy's note; NTH 16,1 Lapley note and NTH 16,2 men note. 
	Canwell Priory for Benedictine monks was founded c. 1140 in the parish of Hints by Geva, the illegitimate daughter of Earl Hugh of Chester and wife of Geoffrey Ridel, a justiciar of King Henry I who had died in the white ship disaster of 1120; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 213-14; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 53, 61.
	Another priory for Benedictine monks (preceded by a hermitage) was founded at Sandwell in West Bromwich c. 1180 by William son of Guy de Offeni, an important tenant of the honour of Dudley, which derived from William son of Ansculf the 1086 holder of West Bromwich (NTH 36,3), misplaced in Domesday); see VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 216-17; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 56, 76. 
	A priory for Benedictine nuns was founded between 1129 and 1148 in Brewood probably by Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry. Brewood itself (2,1) was a manor that belonged to the bishopric; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 221; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 253, 256  Two other priories for Benedictine nuns began as establishments for hermits or monks: Blithbury Priory, founded between 1129 and 1148 in the Ancient Parish of Mavesyn Ridware by Hugh Malveysin, also known as Hugh de Rideware, and Farewell Priory also founded between 1129 and 1148 by Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 220, 222; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 253, 256, 258. There were also monks at Blithbury: Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 52, 60.
	The Cistercian Abbey of Radmore began as a hermitage in Cannock Forest (1,25) on land granted by King Stephen between 1135 and 1139. From some time in the next decade, the hermits followed the Cistercian rule. By an exchange of land, the monks migrated to Stoneleigh in Warwickshire in 1154; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 225; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 114, 124.
	The Cistercian Abbey of Croxden began in 1176 on land at Chotes, probably represented by Upper Cotton (SK0547) and Near Cotton (SK0646) Alton, granted by Bertram de Verdun, lord of Alton (1,54) to the Cistercians of Aunay-sur-Odon in Normandy. They removed to Croxden (17,18) in 1179. The abbey was given a considerable endowment, including, in Staffordshire: Croxden and a grove at Great Gate near Croxden; Alton and its church; Madeley Holme (in Checkley); Crakemarsh (in Uttoxeter) together with half of the wood there; Musden and Oaken (in Codshall); see VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 226-27; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 112, 118. 
	The Abbey of Dieulacres, also Cistercian, was founded in 1214 on the land of Leek (1,21) beside the River Churnet, one mile north of the village, possibly on the site of an earlier hermitage, by Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester. The name is Norman French Deu l'encres ('may God increase it'), said to have been uttered by Ranulph's wife. It was populated by Cistercians from Poulton (in Pulford) in Cheshire who already had considerable property in that county. To this was added in Staffordshire land in Rudyard in Leek (1,63) as the site of the abbey, the manor of Leek and a number of appurtenances, as well as a Wednesday market and an eight-day fair there, the church of Leek and dependent chapels, land at Wetwood (SJ9861), Cocsuche, mills at Leek and 'Hulme' (probably Upper Hulme, SK0160) and a salt-house at Middlewich (SJ7066), this last lying in Cheshire. See VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 230-31; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 112, 118.
	A further Cistercian abbey was founded at (Abbey) Hulton (11,21) by Henry de Audley c. 1219 (the foundation charter dates from 1223) as a daughter-house of Combermere Abbey in Cheshire. The endowment included (Abbey) Hulton itself, 'Rushton' (11,21), Bucknall (perhaps an unnamed part of Abbey Hulton, rather than the royal estate,1,34), Normacot (13,3), Mixon (SK0457), Bradnop (SK0155), Middle Cliff (SK0054), Apesford (SK0153), 'Ruhegh' (unlocated) and 'Mulnesley' (unlocated); see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 235; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 113, 120.
	Calwich Priory for Augustinians was founded between 1125 and 1130 in Dovedale as a cell of Kenilworth Priory (in Warwickshire). It had began as a hermitage and been given to Kenilworth Priory by Nicholas de Gresley, son of the Domesday holder Nigel of Stafford and his wife Margery who had been a ward of Geoffrey de Clinton, the founder of Kenilworth Priory. The founders of Calwich also held Longford in Derbyshire (SK2137) and gave its church. See VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 237; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 139, 151.
	The Augustinian priory of Stone was founded between 1138 and 1147 by Robert II of Stafford, holder of Walton (11,8) which lay in Stone Ancient Parish. The initial grants included, in Staffordshire, the church of St Mary in his castle (at Stafford) (SJ902223) and the church of Madeley  (11,20 or 11,37). The priory was established in an earlier church dedicated to St Wulfad and St Rufin, which was probably pre-Conquest, and perhaps even a minster church. It is possible that there was already a community there in 1066, perhaps of nuns which might explain the grant of 1 carucate in Walton by Aki the T.R.E. holder to his sister. The 1086 subtenant Arnold was succeeded by his son Enisan and he by another Arnald. One or other of these last two may have been responsible for killing two nuns and a priest there and the foundation of a priory may have been an act of expiation. See VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 240; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp.144, 175.
	Rocester Abbey for Augustinian canons was founded between 1141 and 1146 by Richard Bacon, the nephew of Ranulph le Meschin, Earl of Chester. Between them the two 'foundation charters' endowed the abbey with the church of Rocester and its dependent chapels in Bradley-in-the-Moors and Waterfall; 2 bovates in the vill of East Bridgeford in Nottinghamshire, and the vill of Rocester and Combridge, with the lordship land there and either at Wootton (in Ellastone) or Woottons (in Croxden), as well as appurtenances in Nothill (in Croxden), Denstone (in Alton), Quixhill (in Rocester), Roston (in Derbyshire), Waterfall, Bradley-in-the-Moors, and Calton, the grants amounting in all to eight carucates; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 247; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp.143, 172; and 1,17 dependencies note. For the first foundation charter, see Barraclough, 'Charters of the Earls of Chester', pp. 80-81 no. 68, and pp. 260-61 no. 262 (a spurious confirmation of Richard Bacon's foundation charter). The second 'foundation charter' (Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. (I). pp. 410-11) is not genuine, but appears to contain authentic information.
	The Augustinian priory of Ranton was founded in the mid-twelfth century by Robert Fitz Noel of Ellenhall on assarted land. Robert's father had been granted Ranton (11,25) by Nicholas of Stafford (son of the 1086 holder Robert of Stafford). The new priory was given 8 virgates in Cuccessone, probably to be identified with Cooksland in Sleighford, as well as Sleighford mill and 1 virgate of land in Coton Clanford (2,21) held by castle service. See Wrottesley, 'Ronton Cartulary', pp. 264-67; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 251; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 143, 171.
	The Augustinian priory of Trentham was established by Ranulph de Gernon, Earl of Chester, who died in 1153. Its foundation grant was of Trentham itself (1,8) and members. It is possible that there were earlier foundations here. However, the nunnery founded at Tricengeham by St Werburgh (Bradshaw, Life of St Werburge, pp. 86, 105-106, 111, 115-16, 118-19, 139) is now thought likely to be at Threckingham in Lincolnshire, but there was possibly a church founded at Trentham by Earl Hugh of Chester, a Domesday tenant-in-chief, or even a pre-Conquest minster. See Parker, 'Trentham Priory Cartulary', p. 303; VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 255-56; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 144, 177.
	A further Augustinian priory dedicated to St Thomas was established c. 1174 by Gerard Fitz Brian, a burgess of Stafford, on the northern bank of the River Sow across the river from Baswich, from which it was sometimes named, and 2 miles to the east of Stafford; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 260; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 138, 146. 

THE DOMESDAY FORMAT 
Circuit and Ruling Pattern
There is some disagreement among scholars about whether Staffordshire was in circuit IV with Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, or in circuit V with Cheshire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire. Ballard (Domesday Inquest, p. 12) placed Staffordshire in his circuit E (that is, circuit IV), but Stephenson ('Notes on the Composition and Interpretation of Domesday Book', pp. 6-7), Galbraith (Making of Domesday Book, pp. 7-8), and, more recently, Loyn ('A General Introduction to Domesday Book', Domesday Book Studies, pp. 3-4) and Desborough ('Introduction', Staffordshire Domesday, p. 7) included it in circuit V. Rumble ('Domesday Manuscripts', p. 36) mentioned the possibility that Staffordshire belonged in circuit IV, and this view was taken up by Lewis ('Introduction', Cheshire Domesday, p. 6 note 3) and mentioned in Desborough ('Introduction', Warwickshire Domesday, p. 4).  Roffe (The Inquest and the Book, Table 5.1, p. 124) puts Staffordshire in circuit IV.
	There are two compelling arguments for placing Staffordshire in circuit IV. Firstly, in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire in this circuit there are no less than nine entries relating to places that were in Staffordshire in 1086; see {Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County}. There are also two entries in Staffordshire, added after rubrication had taken place, one of which should have been included in the Oxfordshire folios (see 12,30 entry note) while the other was a duplicate of an entry there (see 12,31 entry note). Throughout circuit IV entries are misplaced to a far greater extent than in any other circuit, while no place in it can be found within the folios of another circuit; see {Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County}. Stephenson appeared unaware of this in giving his reasons for placing Staffordshire in circuit V. The cause of this scribal confusion may have been that in the putative circuit volume, used by the main scribe of Great Domesday as his primary source for this circuit, the arrangement was probably by fief-holder and then within the fief by county (as in the Liber Exoniensis, the circuit volume for circuit II), rather than by county and then fief as in Great Domesday. Thus, all the lands held by a tenant-in-chief in the counties in this circuit would have been detailed together, possibly with a county heading occasionally missing or unclear; see {Introduction: Writing and Correction}. In separating these holdings between the folios of the five counties, the main scribe obviously made or perpetuated mistakes. Moreover, although he rarely made corrections and additions at the same time across counties, preferring to work on one county at a time, and almost never across circuits, he added two entries to Staffordshire in the same campaign as one to Leicestershire and three to Warwickshire, suggesting that while checking a circuit volume containing these counties he amassed corrections for them; see 16,2 entry note. 
	The second chief argument for Staffordshire's being part of circuit IV concerns the arrangement of entries within the fiefs in it. In many counties in Great Domesday the primary subdivision of material in each fief was by hundred or wapentake: the majority of the holdings lying in one hundred were entered before those in another and often in a standard sequence of hundreds. Cheshire, Herefordshire and, to a lesser extent, Worcestershire in circuit V were arranged in this way, probably reflecting the layout of the putative circuit volume. In the counties of circuit IV, however, the primary division within most fiefs was between land held in lordship and subinfeudated land. Though this separation occurs in some fiefs in other circuits, such as that of Hugh of Beauchamp in Bedfordshire (circuit III) and that of Peterborough Abbey in circuit VI, it is only circuit IV that is arranged largely in this way. This separation may have been present in the fief-holder's own returns, perhaps implying a request to that effect from those responsible for gathering material for this circuit, but the material would have to have been reorganized by wapentake or hundred for the county court hearings and this rearrangement was probably retained in the circuit volumes for most circuits. Within these subsections, lands could still be arranged by hundred and even in a set sequence, as can be seen in Leicestershire, though in a few cases it was disrupted by the scribe's detailing together the lands of some subtenants; see LEC {Introduction: Standard Order of Wapentakes}. Of the fiefs in Staffordshire containing more than one or two holdings, several were arranged with lordship land listed first and then subinfeudated land (see STS 8 Roger note, STS 10 Henry note, STS 11 Robert note and STS 12 William note), whereas there is only one in which a hundredal arrangement takes precedence, lordship and subinfeudated land intermingling (see STS 13 Richard note) while in the Terra Regis arrangement was by T.R.E. holder (STS 1 king note) or, in the case of the land of the king's thanes (STS 17), by tenants. This makes it far more likely that this county was part of circuit IV than of circuit V.
	A study of the formulae used in the counties of Circuits IV and V also suggests that those in Staffordshire resemble more closely those in Circuit IV counties. Thus, in common with other counties in circuit IV, there is no mention in this county of the taxability of each holding, and the plough estimate ('Land for n ploughs') is one used regularly in that circuit but very rarely in three counties of circuit V and in the other two another formula appears as well. In only a few counties in Great Domesday is information given on the number of ploughs present before 1066, but Staffordshire joins Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in having most examples; see 7,1 ploughs note. Moreover, in common with other counties in circuit IV there are relatively few references to churches in Staffordshire, compared to in the counties of Circuit V. These differences probably go back to the Survey itself and suggest that each circuit had its own brief or interpretation of it on this matter, reflected in their respective circuit volumes. In Staffordshire the layout within each entry of standard items of information is also closer to the layout in entries in this circuit than in those in Circuit V; see {Introduction: Layout and Content of Entries}.
	Finally, if the list of leading men given by Hemming, writing c. 1100, as being in charge of surveying the holdings of people in circuit V, were the second set of investigators (mentioned by Robert Losinga, Bishop of Hereford 1079-95) chosen to review the Survey's findings in that circuit because they were 'unknown' there, then this is not true of one of them if Staffordshire was really part of that circuit: Henry de Ferrers held eleven estates in this county (STS 10), so was hardly a stranger there. The cumulative weight of this evidence justifies placing Staffordshire in circuit IV rather than circuit V. 
	Whereas most circuits were pricked and ruled using one ruling pattern, there are three different patterns in circuit IV and it also has several peculiarities. This suggests that by this stage in the writing up, the main scribe of Great Domesday was either told to use up, or decided to use up, as much of the prepared parchment as was to hand, including rejects from circuits written earlier. Staffordshire was largely frame-ruled with only four vertical lines and two horizontal lines to delimit the writing space of each column, using pattern 4b (used for most of circuit V), but the relative position of the pricked holes on its central sheet (folios 248-249) means that it cannot be associated with any other quire in the manuscript, suggesting that it was pricked by itself as a one-off. Moreover, folio 250 was ruled on the recto (the hair side, as normal) with fifty-six lines, though the first two were written very close together and extended to the outer edge of the folio, while the recto of folio 251 (the flesh side, unusually, in common with the recto of folios 247, 249) was partially ruled with horizontal lines, the outer column (folio 251b) with fifty-six lines (the first two also extending to the outer edge) which were only continued across to the lower half of the inner column (folio 251a), making only thirty-one lines across the folio; both folios had only been pricked for frame-ruling. Folios 246-247, the other half of the bifolia containing folios 250-251 were not ruled, which is unusual as ruling was normally done across the opened-out sheet. In the rest of circuit IV Oxfordshire alone was ruled for 50-57 lines by leaf (again not across the full sheet), using ruling pattern 3, while Warwickshire was frame-ruled like most of Staffordshire, and Northamptonshire and three of the four sheets of Leicestershire were pricked for frame-ruling but the half-sheet in the former (folio 229) was then ruled with 52 horizontal lines. On the various ruling patterns used in Great Domesday, see {Ruling Patterns}, and, on the further peculiarities in Leicestershire, see LEC {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Patterns}. 
	Although the order of writing up the first three circuits into Great Domesday is fairly certain (circuit VI, followed by circuits III and I) the order of the three remaining circuits is not so clear, although what little evidence there is suggests that circuit V was written fourth, then circuit IV and lastly circuit II. The appearance in Oxfordshire of ruling pattern 3, which is only otherwise found in Wiltshire and Dorset in circuit II, might point to circuit IV being written up after circuit II, although the other three counties in that circuit were largely frame-ruled like four in circuit IV. However, the gradual increase in the number of lines actually written and the size of the writing in each of the circuits may be more of a factor in deciding on the order. In each of the quires containing the counties in circuit VI there were 44 lines ruled and written, then in circuit III the same number of lines were ruled but an average of 50 lines a column were written, in circuit I the number of lines ruled was increased to 50 and these were mostly not exceeded, then in circuit V no horizontal lines were ruled, but over 55 lines a column on average were written, while in circuit II over 13,000 lines of text were written in the 224 or so columns. In Oxfordshire in circuit IV the scribe rarely kept to the 50-57 lines that had been ruled, regularly squeezing in more lines, as he did on the ruled half-sheet in Northamptonshire. while in Staffordshire he ignored the ruled lines on folio 250, writing fifty-six lines (rather than fifty-five) on folio 250a, sixty on folio 250c (with a space equivalent to three or four lines between chapters 13 and 14) and fifty-nine on folio 250d; folio 251, which was partially ruled, is blank. In the rest of Staffordshire and in the other counties of that circuit he was free to write as many lines as he wished between the top and bottom rulings; folio 249b in Staffordshire is exceptional, however, in having 70 lines of text. The scribe also generally left fewer and smaller spaces between the fiefs in circuit IV than he did in circuit V and the occasional use of a new column for the lands of a major tenant-in-chief may have been accidental rather than deliberate (this had been his policy in circuit VI and circuit I). The circuit as a whole has an air of compression and this is not entirely due to the number of large additions, though there were less in Staffordshire than in other counties in the circuit (see {Introduction: Writing and Correction}). For more on the order of inscription, see Thorn and Thorn, 'The Writing of Great Domesday Book', and Thorn, Thorn and Gullick, The Scribal History of Great Domesday Book (forthcoming).
	As to the order in which the main scribe wrote the counties in circuit IV, there is very little evidence; each county is contained within one quire and the current. The character of the writing in the Staffordshire folios resembles more closely that in the counties in circuit V, which might suggest that it was written first, immediately after them (or, if circuit IV preceded circuit V, written last). Other evidence might suggest that Warwickshire was written up before Staffordshire; see 12,22 entry note.

Layout and Content
Circuit IV is unlike other circuits in that the arrangement within its fiefs is very largely by land held in lordship and land subinfeudated, rather than by hundred or wapentake. More fiefs in Staffordshire are laid out in this alternative way than by hundred; see {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern}. However, the Terra Regis was arranged by T.R.E. holder and the land of the king's thanes by tenant, while in some other fiefs other principles were applied; the rationale behind the layout of each fief is discussed in the leading notes to each. 
	Staffordshire was written in one quire of three sheets or bifolia, rather than in the regular four-sheet quire, and even then the text did not fill them: the last folio (folio 251) is blank. Apart from after chapter 12 and to a lesser extent after chapter 2, only small spaces, if any, were left between fiefs. As in most counties in Great Domesday, the account of the principal city, the borough of Stafford, heads the county folios (folio 246a) with an account of the burgesses and messuages, including a list of the latter held by leading tenants-in-chief, and then, after a small space, the borough's dues in 1066 and in 1086 are detailed. The list of landholders was written towards the bottom of that first column with the land of the king starting at the top of folio 246b. The order of the fiefs and their contents follow those of the Landholders' List until chapter 6 which lacks a chapter heading and only deals with the land of the canons of Stafford, not with that of the canons of Wolverhampton as well (as given in the List); these latter are detailed in chapter 7, as well as the land of Samson (who in the List is the only person said to hold in that chapter). Apart from that, the main scribe of Great Domesday put the number VIII beside two successive chapters, making the numbering out by one for the next fief, before he omitted the number X and brought the numbering back into line for chapter 11. The land of the king's thanes ends the account of Staffordshire as it does many other counties.

A typical manorial entry in Staffordshire is laid out thus:
	A (the 1086 tenant-in-chief) holds B (the place-name) [and C (the subtenant) from him]. D (the 1066 holder) held it.† e hides/virgates/carucates.‡ Land for f ploughs. In lordship g ploughs; h slaves§. k villagers and l smallholders with/have m ploughs.* Resources include mills,+ meadow, woodland. Value before 1066, £n/ns; now £p/ps [Value was and is ... ].± 

†  In chapter 8 (the fief of Earl Roger) the 1066 holder (where provided) is entered at the end in all the entries from 8,13 on, often with the information that he was free/a free man. He is also entered at the end twice in chapter 10, twice in chapter 11, once in chapter 16, and in 12,22-29 (often with the information 'with full jurisdiction'). Whether the 1066 holder was free is also mentioned in some other entries, notably in chapters 11 and 13 and some of chapter 17.
‡  An alternative layout of the beginning of an entry, which occurs in chapter 5, most of chapters 7 and 12, three times in chapter 13, once in chapter 14, twice in chapter 16 and five times in chapter 17, is 'A holds e hides/virgates/carucates in B' or 'A holds in B e hides/virgates/carucates' or 'In B, A  has/have e hides/virgates/carucates.
§  Slaves are sometimes listed among the villagers, smallholders etc. and appear to share their ploughs; most of the occurrences are in the fief of Robert of Stafford (STS 11). Once they seem to be part of the resources (14,2 slave note).
*  Priests (generally one per entry) are recorded as sharing the ploughs with the villagers and smallholders in some twenty-three entries, though in 1,8 a priest and a free man have 2 ploughs, but the plough held by the villagers and smallholders is entered separately. Free men occur in nine entries, all but twice sharing the ploughs with the villagers and smallholders'. Also listed among the population are a reeve (1,7), 2 servants (12,17), burgesses (1,9;30. 8,9), canons (2,16), men-at-arms (7,13. 8,5;7. 11,6) and Englishmen (8,7, and perhaps 9,1, though, like in the other occurrences, they may be tenants there). 
+  Generally 1 mill per entry with a money render (an eel render too in 1,24), listed before the other resources; see 1,1 mill note. Two fisheries are recorded and a spinney, a copse (11,15 copse note) and an alder-grove once. On pasturable woodland, see 7,7 woodland note, and on the single occurrence of pasture, see 12,30 pasture note. Arable land is also mentioned once in 10,3.
±  In a surprisingly large number of entries only the 1086 value is given, even for important manors such as Eccleshall (2,10) and Bradley (11,6). Thus, no 1066 values are given in the fiefs of Saint-Remy's Church, the clergy of Wolverhampton, Henry of Ferrers, Robert of Stafford , Richard the forester, Reginald of Bailleul and the land of the king's thanes  (STS 5, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 17) and for most of Earl Roger's fief (STS 8) and for the two added entries in Nigel of Stafford's fief (16,2-3).  

Holdings that are described as waste in 1086, the largest number of which occur at the end of the Terra Regis (1,33-64), have only the briefest of details provided, generally just the assessment (either in the form of so many hides, virgates or carucates or as 'land for n ploughs'; see STS 1 king note) and often the 1066 holder. In only one instance was the land waste before as well as in 1086, and that entry is unusual in providing almost full manorial resources; see 8,18 waste note. Sometimes an estate was 'waste' because its land had been taken into the king's forest, as in 7,6 and 12,3.
	Apart from half of the church of Stoke-upon-Trent being mentioned in the entry for Caverswall (11,36 Stoke note), there are no references to churches other than as landholders, as also in Domesday Warwickshire. This lack of a record of churches is a feature of circuit IV, there being only one reference in Oxfordshire, two in Northamptonshire and six in Leicestershire. There were certainly churches in Staffordshire in 1086 (see 1,21 Leek note, for example), so it seems that here and in the rest of circuit IV references to 'a priest' stands for 'a church'.
	Very few additional details are recorded in Staffordshire, such as claims or information on land abstracted or added to the manor, which occur in some other Domesday counties. For the few claims, see 8,5. 12,1. 16,1.

The members of a manor, sometimes described as outliers, were generally recorded within the manorial entry after the value; sometimes (as in 1,7. 2,22. 11,6) combined details of the population and resources were given, though often the members were merely said to be waste (as in 2,11;16). Holdings said to 'belong to' a manor are usually recorded after that manor (as in 2,6-8), though occasionally they are separated from it by several other entries as in the case of Rickerscote (11,67) which was an adjunct of Bradley (11,6).

Writing and Correction
Staffordshire was written using one quire of three sheets or bifolia, that is six folios (folios 246-251 inclusive), rather than the regular four-sheet quire, and even then the text did not fill them: the last folio is blank. Only small spaces, if any, were left between fiefs, apart from after chapter 12 (see 12,29 after note) and to a lesser extent after chapter 2. This was in common with the rest of circuit IV. 
	The existence of a circuit volume for circuit IV, which would have been used by the main scribe of Great Domesday as his primary source, seems almost certain. There are very many signs that this circuit volume was arranged by fief and then by county within each fief (followed by hundred or wapentake), as was the Liber Exoniensis, the circuit volume and direct predecessor of circuit II which contains the five south-west counties in Great Domesday. The clearest proof of this is the inclusion in circuit IV of no less than 28 estates in the wrong county, far more than in any other circuit. Many of the tenants in this circuit held in several counties and the main scribe of Great Domesday may have failed to see some of the county heads within a fief, while occasionally a head may even have been missing; compare SOM 8 Glastonbury note. Where a tenant held only one or two estates in a county but had a number in other counties in the circuit, the possibility increases of such an omission or of the Great Domesday scribe's failing to take note of a heading; see, for example, WAR 3,6 Spelsbury note and NTH 46,7 Whichford note, and compare NTH 16,1 entry note. Sometimes fief-holders themselves may have been responsible by not making it clear in which county their estates lay or by including some in the wrong county; see NTH 36,3 entry note and WAR 27,6 entry note. Another indication of the existence of a circuit volume for circuit IV is that details of some individual estates only make sense if entries, now scattered within a county or fief in Great Domesday, were once together; see NTH 18,8 Heyford note and OXF 9,10 Arncott note.
	The Staffordshire folios contain two entries, both unrubricated later additions, neither of which should have been written there. The first is for Sibford Gower in Oxfordshire and the second is a duplicate of an entry for Drayton that had already been entered correctly in the Oxfordshire folios, as had other holdings in both places, though Sibford Gower is also among a group of Oxfordshire places entered erroneously in the Northamptonshire folios (NTH 23,19). See 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note. The nine Staffordshire estates that the main scribe included in the folios of Warwickshire and Northamptonshire are listed in {Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County}.
	Circuit IV as a whole was the object of a good deal of correction and addition by the main scribe of Great Domesday and by scribe B, although not as much as circuit VI or circuit V when the number of lines written and of words per line are taken into account. However, the additions in it include up to twenty-five chapters, far more than in any other circuit. This may be linked to the arrangement of the putative circuit volume by fief and then county, which would have made it easy to miss a tenant-in-chief's lands in one county if there were only a few or if the county heading was unclear or even omitted or if the holdings of some individuals (minor Frenchmen, for example) were in composite chapters and had to be separated out. Checking through the circuit volume would reveal these omissions, as it would have of the similar number of individual entries that had been omitted. In Staffordshire the main scribe added three fiefs (assuming that the single holdings of William son of Corbucion and of "Turstin" [Thorkil] were single-entry fiefs): two after the county had been rubricated (see 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note) and one before that and mostly over erasure (see STS 14 chapter note). He also added two entries, which were also unrubricated; see 16,2 entry note. Scribe B added a brief entry for the unidentified "Hocintune"; see 7,11 entry note. Apart from these, the main scribe's corrections covered all the regular categories of information in an entry, though he did not add or correct any hundred heads. Scribe B made eight contributions, mostly on the size of the holding; see 2,11 land note. However, neither scribe was able to fill any of the gaps left by the main scribe for missing hidages (2,3 hides note), plough estimates (1,7 land note), villagers' ploughs (4,6 villagers note), resources (7,15 [***] note) or hundred heads (1,7 hundred note); for spaces perhaps left for other resources, see 1,8 after note. These omissions were signalled by the main scribe with an r written in the margin on two occasions (once in red, so it was done when he was rubricating there) and with a longer phrase once; see 2,3 hides note. Apart from the additions and corrections made after the initial writing of the Staffordshire folios, the main scribe made numerous others immediately while writing an entry, caused no doubt by haste as well as probably by his source being either hard to read or confused.   

Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County
A number of places that must have lain in Staffordshire in 1086 were included by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the folios of other counties. Conversely, he included two places that lay in Oxfordshire in 1086 in the Staffordhire folios.
	Chillington, geographically a part of Staffordshire, was entered in the folios for Warwickshire (WAR 28,19) yet under the correct heading for its Staffordshire hundred, Cuttlestone, as was a duplicate entry for Essington (WAR 27,6), which mainly  differs from the Staffordshire entry (12,22) in excluding the detail that Countess Godiva held it T.R.E.. Lapley, Marston and West Bromwich are found in the Northamptonshire folios (NTH 16,1-2. 36,3), the first of them also under a Cuttlestone hundred head. On the boundary between Staffordshire and Shropshire, eight Staffordshire manors were taken into Shropshire by the beginning of the twelfth century. Of these, Claverley, Kingsnordley, Alveley and Worfield appear correctly in the Staffordshire folios (8,1-3. 9,1), but Quatt, Romsley, Rudge and Shipley are entered in those for Warwickshire (WAR 12,8-11). These latter four are not contiguous to Warwickshire and are geographically intermingled with the four manors mentioned in the Staffordshire Domesday. It seems probable that these four - Quatt, Romsley, Rudge and Shipley - like the other Staffordshire manors listed in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire - were wrongly included in these counties because the Domesday material was incorrectly sorted at a time when it was arranged by fief and, within each fief, by county, the reverse of what it was to become. This is the format of the Liber Exoniensis, the immediate predecessor of Great Domesday for the five south-western counties. It is possible that other 'circuit' volumes (whose existence is assumed but not proved) had a similar arrangement. It is also possible that in some of these circuit volumes county headings were sometimes omitted, as hundred heads were in Domesday. In the Liber Exoniensis, for example, the Somersetshire lands of Glastonbury Abbey at first followed its one holding in Devon without a proper heading, though there is a later marginal addition; see SOM 8 Glastonbury note. See {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern} and {Introduction: Writing and Correction}. Similar misdivisions of material or faulty editing by the main scribe of Great Domesday appear to have led to Oxfordshire manors being entered in the Northamptonshire folios, and Dorset manors in those for Wiltshire, and is probably the explanation for the presence of the Oxfordshire manors of Sibford Gower and Drayton (12,30-31) in the Staffordshire folios. The cases that affect Staffordshire are tabulated below.

Place	Hundred 	Holder	
Properly in Staffordshire in 1086

NTH 16,1 Lapley
NTH 16,2 Marston
NTH 36,3[West] Bromwich†

WAR 12,8 Quatt
WAR 12,9 Romsley
WAR 12,10 Rudge
WAR 12,11 Shipley
WAR 27,6 Essington‡ 
WAR 28,19 Chillington	

Cuttlestone Hundred
[Cuttlestone Hundred]
[Offlow Hundred]

[Seisdon Hundred]
[Seisdon Hundred]
[Seisdon Hundred]
[Seisdon Hundred]
Cuttlestone Hundred
Cuttlestone Hundred	

St Rémy's of Rheims
St Rémy's of Rheims
William son of Ansculf

Earl Roger [of Shrewsbury]
Earl Roger [of Shrewsbury]
Earl Roger [of Shrewsbury]
Earl Roger [of Shrewsbury]
William son of Ansculf
William son of Corbucion	
Properly in Oxfordshire in 1086

STS 12,30 Sibford [Gower]
STS 12,31 Drayton	

[Bloxham Hundred]
[Bloxham Hundred]	

William son of Corbucion
"Turstin" [Thorkil]	
† This is succeeded by an entry for Over, which was in Warwickshire in 1086 
‡ Duplicated in STS 12,22

In a number of instances of estates entered in the wrong county folios, it is significant that all the lands that a particular fief-holder held in one county are omitted from it but recorded in another. In the case of Staffordshire this only applies to Chillington,William son of Corbucion being a landholder in Warwickshire but not entered among the Staffordshire tenants-in-chief. On the other hand, the same William son of Corbucion, who held an Oxfordshire place - Sibford Gower - which is entered in the Staffordshire folios, but does not belong to this county, does not feature as a tenant-in-chief in the Oxfordshire folios.

Hundred Heads
The hundredal rubrication in Staffordshire as in many other counties is deficient: it seems probable that to the thirty-six hundred heads, correct or incorrect, that are present in the manuscript, should be added at least a further forty-three, thirteen of them in the Terra Regis; see {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Hundreds}.

Standard Order of Hundreds
In many counties in each fief the main scribe of Great Domesday grouped together all the estates that belonged to a particular hundred before passing on to any other hundred, and in many fiefs these hundreds occur in the same order. This phenomenon was first systematically studied by Sawyer, ' "Original Returns" and Domesday Book', pp. 177-97. In such cases, restoration of missing hundred heads is a comparatively easy matter. In Staffordshire, however, the same hundred name can occur more than once in a fief, especially when headings are restored, and there are few signs of any standard sequence in the succession of hundreds. Sawyer, ' "Original Returns" and Domesday Book', p. 181, sees signs of a regular sequence in Staffordshire but this is denied by VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 2.
	If, in what appears to be the best-matching sequence, the hundreds are allocated numbers - 1: Pirehill; 2: Totmonslow; 3: Seisdon; 4: Offlow; 5: Cuttlestone - then the sequence in each fief (including restored and corrected hundred heads) can be laid out as follows. The double slash indicates where land in lordship ends and subinfeudations begin, in those fiefs that are arranged in this way. A single slash indicates some other obvious break, as for example, from one holder to another. The detail is explored in the leading note to each fief.

	Chapter 1:  3. 4. 5. 1. 4. / 4. 1. 2. 4. 2. 5. 2. 5. 4. 3. 4. /1. 2.+
	Chapter 2:  5. 1. 2. 4. 1. 4.
	Chapter 3:  3.
	Chapter 4:  4. 1. 2. 5.†
	Chapter 5:  1. 4.
	Chapter 6:  1.
	Chapter 7:  3. 4. 5.†
	Chapter 8:  3. // (uncertain). 5. 1. / 5. 1. 4. 2. / 1. 4. / 1. 2. 4‡
	Chapter 9:  3. 
	Chapter 10:  4. 1. 4.
	Chapter 11:  1. 2. 5. // 1. 2. 3. 4. 5
	Chapter 12:  3. 5. 4.§ 
	Chapter 13:  1. 5.†
	Chapter 14:  5. 1.
	Chapter 15:  2.
	Chapter 16:  4. 2. 1.
	Chapter 17:  3. 5. 1. 5. 2. 5. 1.# 

+ The division in this fief is between lands held or assumed to have been held by King Edward, lands held by earls, mostly by Earl Algar and a group of waste lands that had been held by a variety of holders 
† In chapters 4, 7 and 13 land held in lordship and land subinfeudated is intermixed
‡ The bulk of the chapter consists of subinfeudations which are arranged in groups according to their tenant, with the hundreds subordinate to that division; see STS 8 Roger note
§ This ignores the added entries 12,30-31 which were wrongly numbered as part of chapter 12 in the Phillimore printed edition
# Lands in this chapter are entered mostly by holder and partly by hundred

It should be noted that in chapters 8, 10, 12, 14, the fief-holders' largest or most important manor is placed first. In chapters 8, 10, 14 this affects the sequence of hundreds.

Order of Vills
In shires where the order of hundreds or wapentakes appears to be standard in the majority of fiefs, and a number of vills contain more than one estate which appear in different chapters in Domesday, it would be expected that the names of vills would appear in a similar order. This is because both the hundreds or wapentakes and their constituent vills appeared in a territorially-arranged schedule before being converted to feudal form. A number of counties illustrate this clearly. 
	There are vestiges of a standard order of hundreds in Staffordshire (see {Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds}), but there is far more disorder than order, partly because different ways of arranging material take precedence. This being so, parts of vills being entered in the same order in different fiefs is unlikely to occur. In the case of Staffordshire, most vills are undivided and thus only appear once; moreover, where a vill is divided and its parts appear in different fiefs, these fiefs do not contain the parts of other divided vills that might otherwise be put in a sequence. Nonetheless, the parts of Tettenhall (1,2. 7,5) and of Willenhall (1,10. 7,8) appear in the same relative order, though Penkridge (1,7. 7,17 ) does not. Likewise, parts of Meaford (5,1. 8,24) and Hamstall Ridware (5,2. 8,26) share the same relative order, as do Colton (8,15. 11,29) and Tixall (8,23. 11,31) and also Cannock (1,25. 17,5) and Cheadle (1,57. 11,42. 17,19) if the estate in 17,19 is correctly identified. On the other hand, the other parts of Milwich (1,41), Hilderstone (1,44) Aston-by-Stone (1,47) and Cheadle (1,57) appear in the order 11,30;27;9;23;42. 

Duplicate Entries 
The following appear to be duplicates or partial duplicates of one another:
	Part of Milwich (1,41) might be duplicated in 11,30; see 1,41 Milwich note.
	Part of Hilderstone (1,44) might be duplicated in 11,27; see 1,44 Hilderstone note.
	Packington (2,16) may be duplicated in 2,22.
	Essington (12,22) is a duplicate of WAR 27,6.
	Drayton (12,31) which was in Oxfordshire in 1086 is a duplicate of OXF 57,1.

SPECIAL FEATURES
Boroughs
According to the usual indicators, there were three boroughs in Staffordshire in 1086: Stafford itself, Tamworth and Tutbury. Stafford (B1-12. 6,1) was the county town, which probably owed its existence to the construction there of a fortified burh in 913 by Aethelflaed; see {Introduction: History}. By 1086 it was an important place with 36 burgesses, 162 messuages (52 of them unoccupied) and also, like other Domesday boroughs, with an agricultural element represented by 4 villagers, 8 smallholders, and 4 slaves (6,1). (It is assumed that the mention of Stafford in 4,1 with 9 villagers is an error for Burton-upon-Trent.) A number of major landholders had interests there (B2-9), but the borough was in the king's hands, though he was sharing its revenue with Robert of Stafford. There was an important collegiate church there, not mentioned in Domesday, but implied by the presence of 13 canons; see B1 borough note.
	Tamworth was also a burh constructed by Aethelflaed in the same year as that at Stafford, but it had an important earlier history. It had been the centre of Mercia and the site of the palace of its kings, a number of whom were buried there, and where several royal councils were held; see 1,9 Tamworth note. By 1086, it was awkwardly bisected by the Staffordshire-Warwickshire boundary and was not the subject of a full survey; it is only mentioned incidentally in connection with Wigginton and Drayton Bassett (STS 1,9;30) and Coleshill (WAR 1,5) where it is said that a total of 22 burgesses in Tamworth belong to these estates.
	The earliest beginnings of the borough of Tutbury (10,1) are recorded in Domesday where it is said that 'in the borough around the castle are 42 men who live only by their trading'. Since the castle was apparently a Norman construction, this borough will have been established after 1066; see 10,1 Tutbury note and 10,1 borough note. This became known as the 'Old Borough' and it was seemingly eclipsed between 1100 and 1139 by a 'new borough'. This is referred to in a charter of 1141 in which Robert II of Ferrers grants the tithe of the burgage rents in the new borough 'which his father had caused to grow'; see Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, pp. 163-64.
	Other important Domesday estates developed boroughs: Burton-upon-Trent (4,1) by 1197 and Leek (1,21) by c. 1207; see 4,1 Burton note and1,21 Leek note; and Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, pp. 161-62. There were 'dwellings' at Lichfield (2,16;22) by 1159, a burgage is mentioned in 1176 and the place is called a borough between 1149 and 1159; see 2,16 Lichfield note; and Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, p. 162. Newcastle-under-Lyme probably grew up on the land of the royal manor of Trentham. It was subject to tallage in 1173, there was a borough jury in 1203, burgages are mentioned there in 1212 and it was the subject of a borough charter in 1235; see 1,8 Trentham note; and Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, p. 163.
	Between the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries, a considerable number of other estates showed signs of being boroughs or having boroughs as part of them, by the mention of the word borough itself or of burgesses or burgages. These were: Abbots Bromley (4,5), Alton (1,54), Betley (17,10), Brewood (2,1), Church Eaton (11,65), Colton (8,15. 11,29), Eccleshall (2,10), Kinver (1,27), Newborough in Agardsley (see 10,4 Agardsley note), Penkridge (1,7. 7,17), Stone (1,40 Fulford note), Uttoxeter (1,19), Walsall (1,5 Bescot note) and Wolverhampton (7,1). On these boroughs, see Palliser, 'Boroughs of Medieval Staffordshire'; Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, pp. 160-64, 193.

Castles
Domesday mentions two castles, one at Tutbury and one at Stafford. The Norman castle at Tutbury (10,1) appears to have been the work of Hugh of Avranches, but was held in 1086 by Henry of Ferrers. It appears to have been constructed on land called "Burtone", that name itelf referring to a fortified site; see 10,1 Tutbury note; VCH Staffordshire, i. pp. 356-58; King, Castellarium Anglicanum, ii. p. 451. 
	A castle at Stafford was erected by King William in 1070 on his return from the north of England: Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, ii. pp. 236-37). According to Domesday the castle was built on 'Stafford land' which belonged to Chebsey (10,9) and had by then been destroyed. Chebsey is some distance from Stafford and other Domesday estates intervene between them, but as the site is said to be 'Stafford land' it must be assumed that Chebsey had outlying land near the borough, or that it had once been larger. The location of this royal castle is uncertain. There was a castle in existence at Stafford in 1102 since it was held by William Pandolf for the king against Robert of Bellême in a revolt that led to the confiscation of the earldom of Shrewsbury; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, vi. pp. 24-25). There is no evidence that the site of these castles was in the borough; in fact, if the royal castle was built on land that belonged to Chebsey, it was probably outside it. The only known castle site at Stafford was Stafford Castle at SJ902223 on a naturally fortified site in the parish of Castle Church. This castle was held by the earls of Stafford in the twelfth century. It is possible that the destroyed royal castle had been rebuilt by 1102 on the same site and that the castle of the Stafford barony was one and the same; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 20-22; VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 355, v. pp. 84-86, vi. p. 200; King, Castellarium Anglicanum, ii. pp. 451, 453. For the idea that there was a castle in the borough, see Mazzinghi, 'Manor and Parish of Castre', pp. 3-11; Armitage, Early Norman Castles, pp. 211-216.
	The notion that there was a castle at Burton-upon-Trent is based on the assumption that "Burtone" (10,2;10) is that place: King, Castellarium Anglicanum, ii. p. 452. It can be rejected; see 10,1 Tutbury note and 10,2 "Burtone" note.
	Tamworth castle may have been in existence in 1086. The borough lacks a survey in Domesday but c. 1141 the Empress Matilda granted to William de Beauchamp the castle and honour of Tamworth 'to hold as freely as Robert the bursar held it': Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae, ii. p. xcix. Robert was a Domesday holder, though not of Tamworth. See VCH Staffordshire, i. pp. 355-56. The castle and honour of Tamworth were later held by the Marmiun family; see 1,9 Wigginton note; 1,9 Tamworth note. On the castle, see King, Castellarium Anglicanum, ii. p. 451.
	A new castle was built at Newcastle-under-Lyme beween 1142 and 1146 probably on the land of the royal manor of Trentham (1,8); see 1,8 Trentham note. At about the same period (1129-46), Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry, fortified the cathedral close at Lichfield; see VCH Staffordshire, xiv. p. 57.

Forest
Strictly speaking, forest (Medieval Latin foresta, from Classical Latin foris, 'outside') was land outside the manor, presumably in origin uncultivated land, not necessarily wooded, that lay between the bounds of manors. The Norman kings regarded foresta as their preserve for hunting and the very name 'forest' came to imply royal forest; similar land thus used by a subject was known as a 'chase'. Special laws evolved to govern conduct in a forest and these led to forest courts and the definition of the exact bounds of each forest. In line with these changes, the definition of the word foresta developed to mean additionally an area governed by forest law. Quite apart from the delights and profits of hunting, kings were able to exploit their forests by the grants of the right to assart, to hunt, to take timber for building or firewood or for pannage or pasture.
	Royal forest is mentioned under "Haswic" (7,6) which is said to be now waste 'because of the king's forest'; under Chasepool (12,3) which is waste and 'in the king's forest', and under Enville and "Cippemore" (12,10-11), the woodland of both of which are said to be held by the king 'in the forest'. The woodland of Coven (11,62) is 'in the king's lordship' which seems to imply that it is also in a forest. 
	These passing mentions suggest that several of the royal forests of Staffordshire, which are evidenced later, were in existence, at least in germ, in 1086: these were the forests of Brewood, Cannock and Kinver.
	Brewood forest, first attested in the twelfth century, was named from the manor of Brewood (2,1) held in 1086 by the Bishop of Chester. It was probably annexed to that manor during the reign of King Stephen and in 1139 and 1144 the appurtenances of the manor included the 'hay and forest of Brewood'. In 1086, it was probably royal, with the woodland of Coven (11,62) lying within it and perhaps annexed to a royal manor. Brewood itself had probably originated as part of the royal manor of Penkridge (1,7). The later forest extended into Shropshire. In the north it reached Weston-under-Lizard (SJ8010) and Bishops Wood (SJ8309, now a settlement, rather than a wood), on its eastern side it touched Brewood (2,1) and Chillington (WAR 28,19, wrongly included in that county's folios) and in the south and west it extended to the Shropshire manors of Albrighton (SHR 4,25,6, with woodland for fattening 100 pigs that was in the king's hands), Donington (SHR 4,1,25) and Tong (SHR 4,1,24) . See VCH Shropshire, i. p. 484; VCH Staffordshire, ii. p. 337.
	The forest of Cannock was probably in existence, though not so named in 1086. Richard the forester (STS 13) was probably in charge of it and the woods of Cannock (1,25) and Rugeley (1,22) were probably part of it. The forest is first named in the 1140s. When the manor of Cannock was given to the Bishop of Chester, the forest passed with it and became Cannock chase. See 1,25 Cannock note and STS 13 Richard note'; and VCH Staffordshire, ii. p. 338.
	The Forest of Kinver was so named by 1168, but it seems probable that it was the unnamed forest that impinged on the holdings of "Haswic" (7,6), Chasepool (12,3), Enville (12,10) and "Cippemore" (12,11). In Worcestershire, the woodland of Churchill (WOR 2,59) and probably that of Kidderminster (WOR 1,2) were no doubt in this forest. The forest was named from the royal manor of Kinver (1,27). The keepership of this forest was given by Henry II to Philip Fitz Helgot, also known as Philip of Kinver. Helgot was the 1086 holder of Barlaston (11,24) and Bobbington (11,43). See Book of Fees, pp. 142, 348, 594; Feudal Aids, v. p. p. 9; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. pp. 161-62; VCH Staffordshire, ii. p. 343. Kinver forest was part of a great tract of woodland that was continuous with the forests of Morfe and Wyre. Wyre Forest was in Worcestershire while Morfe Forest, though named from a place in Staffordshire (12,2), lay largely in Shropshire. It was, however, involved with those estates (8,1-3 .9,1 and possibly the unidentified 8,4)) that Earl Roger or his sons transferred into Shropshire after 1086; see STS 8 Roger note. In the north it was bounded by the River Worf and in the north-east by the manor of Morfe. It included the Staffordshire woods of Claverley (8,1) and Worfield (9,1). On Wyre Forest, see Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. pp. 212-19; VCH Worcestershire, ii. pp. 315-321; and on Morfe Forest, see VCH Shropshire, i. pp. 483-97.
	After 1086, other forests were created in the county. In the north, the New Forest was the work of Henry II, while on the eastern side, the Forest of Needwood (strictly a chase, held by the Ferrers family) was first evidenced in the 1120s. The only Domesday settlement that lay within the area of the Forest of Needwood was Agardsley, a dependency of Marchington, held in 1086 by Henry of Ferrers (10,4). It was confiscated in 1267 and granted to Edward, Earl of Lancaster, but passed to the king in 1399; see VCH Staffordshire, ii. pp. 348-349. 
	In later times there was a Forest of Alstonefield, also known as the Forest of Mauban, attached to the Malbank manor of Alstonefield (8,28; see 8,28 Alstonefield note).
	On the Staffordshire forests, see Wrottesley, 'Pleas of the Forest: Staffordshire'; Gould, 'Food, Foresters, Fines and Felons'; Cantor, 'Medieval Forests and Chases of Staffordshire'; VCH Staffordshire, ii. pp. 335-58; Domesday Geography of Midland England, p. 199.

RELATED OR 'SATELLITE' TEXTS
There are no texts related to Domesday Staffordshire that are directly connected with the Enquiry, but there are five abbreviations of the fief of Burton Abbey and also two surveys which date from the first quarter of the twelfth century. Two of the abbreviations and the surveys are to be found in British Library, Loan 30. This manuscript has been dated c. 1230 x 1241 and was deposited in the British Library by the Marquess of Anglesey in 1947. They are in the original compilation of this manuscript (folios 8-73 of the pencil foliation), written in double columns and with red, blue and sometimes green initials, but Davis, Medieval Cartularies, no. 91, states that the surveys (he has 'survey') were among the insertions and additions made mainly in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries between the sections of the cartulary itself; these surveys were inserted in the thirteenth century. 

Two Abbreviations within the Burton Cartulary
This general cartulary of Burton Abbey dates from the thirteenth century, but is almost certainly a copy of an earlier text or the compilation of material from different earlier texts. Embedded within it are two abbreviations of the lands of Burton Abbey in Staffordshire (STS 4), Derbyshire (DBY 3 and B4) and, for the first text only, in Warwickshire (WAR 8), on British Library, Loan 30, folio 10ra and folio 36vb (the pencil foliation). The first of these abbreviations was transcribed by Wrottesley, 'The Burton Chartulary', pp. 7-8, using the ink foliation (folio 3); he referred once to a discrepancy in the second abbreviation (on folio xiii of the ink foliation), but did not mention the other discrepancies. These two abbreviations are discussed in Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text'. Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. xxxvi-vii, does not mention that there are two abbreviations in Loan MS 30, giving only the variant readings between STS 4 and the first abbreviation. The transcriptions have been checked against the manuscript by CT and the few errors in them corrected in the extracts given in the Notes.
	These abbreviations provide the place-name, hidage, plough estimate and value of all the estates in STS 4 and in the same order as there. The only differences between them and the Great Domesday text are the location of the abbey's holding (in the 'village' of Stafford in 4,1 and in the 'village' of Burton-upon-Trent in the second abbreviation), the value of the abbey's holding in ipsa uilla [Burton-upon-Trent] in the first abbreviation (see 4,1 value note and 4,1 Burton note) and the values of Darlaston, Whiston and 'Bedintone' in both texts (see 4,6 value note, 4,9 value note and 4,10 value note). For the abbey's holdings in Derbyshire, see DBY {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}.
	The heading to the first abbreviation is Sic continetur super Domusday apud Wintoniam ('The following is what is contained in Domesday at Winchester') and this and the identical order of entries, suggest that, despite the discrepancies, both this abbreviation was taken from Great Domesday or from a text closely related to it. There is no heading to the second abbreviation, but its source was almost certainly the same. The substitution of Burton-upon-Trent for Stafford in the second abbreviation does, however, suggest correction, probably from local knowledge, if Great Domesday itself was the source.
	For three other abbreviations of the same holdings of Burton Abbey, see below.

The Burton Abbey Surveys
Included within the thirteenth-century Burton Cartulary, but not written by its scribe (though there are similarities in the hand) are copies of two surveys of Burton Abbey lands. These two surveys, called A and B by Round, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', date respectively from c. 1126 and c. 1114. Burton A is on folios 28ra-32ra and Burton B on folios 32ra-36va of British Library, Loan 30. The order of the entries in these surveys is not as in the relevant chapters in Great Domesday (STS 4, DBY 3, WAR 8) and places not in those chapters are included in them, probably because they were members of other manors there, rather than later acquisitions by the abbey. On the omission of the abbey's holding in Coton-in-the-Elms in Derbyshire, see DBY 3,4 Coton note. The hidage of the Staffordshire estates given in these surveys is the same as in STS 4 with the exception of that for Leigh in Burton B (see 4,7 details note). Other information in the surveys includes details of the villagers and rent-paying tenants (censarii), their names, holdings and obligations, though not in every entry in both surveys; the later survey, Burton B, is generally fuller than the earlier one. 
	There is a transcription of these surveys, printed side by side to aid comparison, in Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys'. The Staffordshire holdings appear there on the following pages: Burton-upon-Trent (4,1) on pp. 212-15, Branston (4,2) on pp. 215-17, Wetmore (4,3) on pp. 219-22, Stretton (4,4) on pp. 217-19, Abbots Bromley (4,5) on pp. 222-23, Darlaston (4,6) on pp. 227-28, Leigh (4,7) on pp. 225-27, Okeover (4,8) on pp. 224, 225, Whiston (4,9) on p. 228, 'Bedintone' (4,10) on pp. 228-29. Abstracts from both surveys, in the order of the manuscript, were transcribed in Wrottesley, 'The Burton Chartulary', pp. 18-30. Neither transcription is perfect.
	Part of Burton B also appears in another manuscript: Burton Muniment 1925 (D603/A/ADD/1925), a roll fragment. This dates from early in the twelfth century and was written by three main scribes; other scribes made corrections and additions (the latter perhaps in spaces deliberately left for them). This suggests that it was a very early version of Burton B, if not the working copy. It contains only the entries for Stretton-on-Dunsmore and Wolston (WAR 12,3-4;7), Caldwell (DBY 3,6), the second half of Stretton (STS 4,4), Wetmore (STS 4,3), Okeover (STS 4,8) and Ilam (not in Great Domesday, but granted to Burton Abbey in Wulfric Spot's will; see 4,8 Okeover note). There is a transcription and discussion in Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text'; he calls this manuscript 'Anglesey 1925'.
	Extracts from the surveys, as they related to the censarii, are also discussed and tabulated in Baring, 'Domesday and the Burton Cartulary', who gave them different names and initially dated Burton A to c. 1100, but later changed his mind. See also VCH Staffordshire, iv. pp. 21-22, 28, 43-44; Desborough, 'Introduction', Staffordshire Domesday. pp. 14, 17; Roffe, The Inquest and the Book, pp. 152, 215. On the censarii who appear in the surveys, see Walmsley, 'The "Censarii" of Burton Abbey'. The roll fragment, Burton Muniment 1925, is described in Jeayes, 'Catalogue of the Charter and Muniments Belonging to the Marquis of Anglesey', p. 192.

Other Abbreviations
There are three other abbreviations of Burton Abbey holdings, which are very similar to the two in the Burton Cartulary.
	Embedded in the roll fragment containing part of Burton B (Burton Muniment 1925; see above) and written by one of its three main scribes is an abbreviation of the abbey's holdings in Staffordshire (STS 4), Derbyshire (DBY 3 and B 4) and Warwickshire (WAR 8), which it states is from the 'king's book' (in libro regis). The order for the Staffordshire holdings is as in Great Domesday, as are the hidages, plough estimates and the values, except those for Darlaston, Whiston and 'Bedintone' (STS 4,6;9-10), a feature it shares with the other abbreviations. It places the abbey's holding in Burton-upon-Trent, not Stafford as in STS 4,1, but despite these differences, it is likely that its source was either Great Domesday or a text closely related to it. It is transcribed and discussed in Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text'; he believed that this abbreviation was an 'official assessment list' independent of Great Domesday, but his argument is not convincing. His argument is also not accepted by Roffe ('Introduction', Derbyshire Domesday, p. 1 note 9; The Inquest and the Book, p. 151 note 21, where he calls it 'Burton B'; but see his 'Descriptio Terrarum of Peterborough', p. 8).
	An abbreviation of the same holdings of Burton Abbey in Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Warwickshire appears as one of three endorsements on a single sheet of parchment on which is written King Ethelred's endowment charter to Burton Abbey and the earliest copy of Wulfric Spot's will: Burton Muniment 1 (D603/A/Add/1). This document is described in Jeayes, 'Catalogue of the Charter and Muniments Belonging to the Marquis of Anglesey', pp. 5-6. This endorsement is transcribed and discussed by Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. xxxv-vii. He dates it to the late eleventh century and provides the variant readings in the other abbreviations of the abbey's holdings (except for the second one in the Burton Cartulary) and in Great Domesday. It is also discussed by Walmsley ('Another Domesday Text', pp. 111-12) who calls the manuscript 'Anglesey 1', and by Bridgeman ('Wulfric Spot's Will', pp. 17, 18-19). The order for the Staffordshire holdings is as in Great Domesday, as are the hidages, plough estimates and the values, except those for Darlaston, Whiston and 'Bedintone' (STS 4,6;9-10), a feature it shares with the other abbreviations. It does not name the village in which Burton Abbey had 1 ½ hides (STS 4,1), but despite these differences, it is likely that its source was either Great Domesday or a text closely related to it.
	There is also an abbreviation of the same holdings of Burton Abbey in Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Warwickshire in the Peniarth Cartulary: Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, Peniarth 390, page 362. This manuscript dates from the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, though the main part of it (folios 1-184), including this abbreviation, was written between c. 1240 and 1264, largely by one scribe, who may also have written the Burton Annals (British Library, Cotton Vespasian E. iii, folios 4-100v); see Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, p. xiv. See also Davis, Medieval Cartularies, no. 93. The abbreviation describes its source as Domesday (sic scribitur in Domusday). The order for the Staffordshire holdings is as in Great Domesday, as are the hidages, plough estimates and the values, except those for Darlaston, Whiston and 'Bedintone' (STS 4,6;9-10), a feature it shares with the other abbreviations. It does not name the village in which Burton Abbey had 1 ½ hides (STS 4,1), but despite these differences, it is likely that its source was either Great Domesday or a text closely related to it. It has not been described, but is discussed in Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text'.
	There are more discrepancies between these three abbreviations and the two within the Burton Cartulary (though less for the Staffordshire portion) than there are between them and Great Domesday. This does not preclude a common source, however.

A Copy of STS 7 in Hemming's Cartulary
There is an almost exact copy of the holdings of the clergy of Wolverhampton and other collegiate churches (see STS 7 Wolverhampton note) in Hemming's cartulary, which occupies the second half of British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. xiii; the copy is on folios 192v-193r (pencil foliation). It is transcribed by Hearne, Hemingi Chartularium, pp. 430-33, using a copy of the manuscript made for Richard Graves (now Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B. 445) which is not entirely accurate. Because the foliation used by Hearne in the margin of his edition did not include three smaller pieces of parchment, his numbering is sometimes between one and three behind the pencil foliation (he has folios 189b-190r for this copy). The Cotton manuscript was damaged by fire in 1731 and when it was rebound in the nineteenth century the leaves were separately mounted to prevent further deterioration. Despite the damage most of the manuscript is legible, though most of the left half of the entry for Tettenhall (7,5) is now hard to read because of discoloration and tearing, as is part of the entry for Kinvaston (7,14) part of which has also been cut out, while holes have removed part of the entries for Trescott (7,4) and Wednesfield (7,7). According to Ker, 'Hemming's Cartulary', p. 61, this copy is in a hand of the eleventh to twelfth century. See also Davis, Medieval Cartularies, no. 1068.
	There are three figure discrepancies in the entries for Penkridge and Gnosall (see 7,17 villagers note, 7,18 virgates note and 7,18 smallholders note) and two words are omitted in the entry for Tettenhall (see 7,5 village note) and a few other minor changes. Apart from these differences, the extract is word for word as STS 7 and its source was either Great Domesday itself or a text very closely related to it.  

EDITORIAL
Identification of Places
The identification of Domesday places has a long history in Staffordshire. Sampson Erdeswick began work on his Survey of Staffordshire in 1593, although it remained incomplete at his death (in 1603) and was not published until 1717. Walter Chetwynd (1633-1693) commenced his Short Survey of Staffordshire in 1680, but, at his death he had barely managed to complete the north-western part of the shire. His unfinished work was finally published in the Collections for the History of Staffordshire in two parts in 1909 and 1914, edited by F. Parker ('Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred'). Stebbing Shaw (1762-1802) intended a full-scale history of the county but his History and Antquities of Staffordshire (published in two volumes between 1798 and 1801) only covered the hundreds of Offlow and Seisdon. In 1820 T. Harwood produced an edition of Erdeswick's Survey of Staffordshire which discussed the Domesday holdings and suggested identifications for them.
	A significant development at the end of the nineteenth century was the opening (in 1872) of the William Salt Library. Seven years later the foundation of the William Salt Archaeological Society gave birth to its publication, Collections for the History of Staffordshire, which, true to its title, transcribed and published an immense quantity of medieval and later material relating to the county. Anyone attempting to understand the history of Staffordshire is indebted to pioneering authors such as R. W. Eyton, General Wrottesley, the Bridgemans and J. C.Wedgwood. Eyton himself published his Domesday Studies: Staffordshire in 1881 in which he identified the Domesday estates, tabulated the hundreds and wrote extensive notes on the people and the places. His conclusions were the subject of considerable discussion among members of the William Salt Archaeological Society and produced some useful revisions and counter suggestions, notably in Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History'; Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters'; Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', and Bridgeman and Mander, ‘Staffordshire Hidation’. There was thus an unusually large quantity of published material available to the editors of the Victoria County History. Publication began in 1908, but the Domesday volume (iv) only appeared in 1958, edited by C. F. Slade. The original plan to complete the county in five VCH volumes has now been superseded by a 20-volume enterprise of which volumes i-ix, xiv, xvii, xx have so far been published. For the Domesday Geography of Midland England published in 1954 (a second edition appeared in 1971), places were identified and these were gathered together in Domesday Gazetteer (1975). A valuable article by Bate and Palliser ('Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire'), published in 1971 locates a number of lost Domesday places.
	The identifications of VCH Staffordshire, volume iv, and of the Domesday Gazetteer were used for the Phillimore edition of Staffordshire which appeared in 1976 from the hand of the general editor John Morris. As was his practice, he provided a minimal annotation. Subsequently, F. R. Thorn reviewed the identifications of every place for the Alecto edition (1991).
	Despite this long history of work on the place-names a number remain unidentified or their identification is not firmly based, either because it is difficult to connect the Domesday name-form with a place evidenced after 1086, or because there is doubt about the hundred or area of the county in which the place lay or because the later history of the estaste is obscure or apparently disconnected from the Domesday holding. Further research on some names is still required and will be greatly assisted by the completion of the VCH series for the county and of the Place-Names of Staffordshire, of which volume i (Cuttlestone Hundred) appeared in 1984. 

State of Revision
The Phillimore edition of Staffordshire appeared in 1976. It was produced by the general editor, John Morris, from a draft translation prepared by Alison Hawkins and Alex Rumble. The map was drawn by Jim Hardy. John Morris' policy was to produce a translation with minimal annotation, from a small range of sources and from the text itself. Thus for 48 pages of translation (45 for Staffordshire and 3 for Places Elsewhere) there were only four pages of notes.
	The preparation of an electronic edition has allowed a much fuller annotation to be provided. On the other hand, this is not a complete re-edition. In particular there is little reference in the notes to the later history of the Domesday estates, except where it is necessary to distinguish places of the same name in the same hundred or to support doubtful identifications.
	However, the opportunity has been taken to make a number of changes:
•	An Introduction has been provided. Within it the sections on History and Hundreds take account of F. R. Thorn's work for the Alecto edition (1991).
•	The probable names and contents of the 1086 hundreds have been deduced from the text and identified from later sources. A full series of hundred heads has been placed in the translation and the probable hundred in which each place lay is discussed in the notes.
•	References have been included to all known Anglo-Saxon charters
•	All Domesday estates have been systematically designated either as Ancient Parishes, townships, chapelries or hamlets
•	The translation has been reviewed and brought into line with counties published later in the Phillimore series. It has been compared with the translation published subsequently by Alecto (on which the present editors also worked); mistakes have been corrected and any important changes or differences have been commented upon. 
•	The bibliographical and other conventions have been changed to align them with the other counties that have been revised for the current project.
•	Certain changes have been necessary in the conversion of the notes to a searchable electronic version, such as to the lead words for the notes, to cross-references and to punctuation. 
•	The place-names have been re-scrutinized and checked against the identifications proposed or accepted by the Place-Names of Staffordshire (only volume i (1984) was available to the editors) and VCH Staffordshire of which volumes i-ix, xiv, xvii, xx have so far appeared.
•	The handling of the Domesday forms of personal names has been completely revised and notes written on each as part of an ongoing process to bring more consistency to the entire name stock of Domesday Book.
•	Some of the people have been further identified. When the identification comes from the person's occurrence in other documents or in other Domesday counties, this is shown in the translation between asterisks within square brackets. Where there is no documentary evidence for the identity of an individual, but it seems likely that a number of persons with the same first name are one and the same, this has been indicated in the translation by putting the name of one of the estates held by that person between < >.  In this county some of the notes to justify both these forms of identification were written by John Palmer and these have been attributed to him as (JP) put at the end of his paragraph. 
•	Internal cross-references have been expanded, as have references to the notes of, and introductions to, other counties 
•	The relevant portions of several related texts on the lands of Burton Abbey have been translated and discussed, and a copy of a fief in Hemming's cartulary has been discussed
•	Both in the Introduction (The Domesday Format) and in the Notes, additional information has been included concerning the order of writing, the circuit, the ruling pattern used in Staffordshire, the problems faced by the main scribe of Great Domesday and the corrections and additions made by him and by scribe B. This information comes largely from the researches of Caroline Thorn and Michael Gullick which will be published as Thorn, Thorn and Gullick, The Scribal History of Great Domesday Book. As the work of scribe B was not identified and other advances in the understanding of the writing of Domesday Book were not made until after the Phillimore printed edition went to press, the notes therein contain some information that has been superseded by further research.
•	Obvious typographical errors in the Phillimore printed notes have been corrected

Some of John Morris' original brief commentary has been retained and, what has been, is attributed to him with the bracketed initials (JRM). Any sentence within a paragraph that follows one attributed to JRM and any paragraph not attributed to him is by the present editors.

Acknowledgements
Access to the manuscript of Great Domesday on an unprecedented scale over a period of more than thirty years has always been freely granted by the staff of the Public Record Office; thanks are particularly due to Elizabeth Hallam Smith, Helen Forde, Mario Aleppo and John Abbott. Jim Foy's acuity and knowledge are always available to us.

Caroline Thorn
Frank Thorn
August, October 2006
June 2007