EconomicHistory Review, 2nd ser., XLI, 3 (I988), pp.

368-39I

Wool yields in the medieval

economy
By M. J. STEPHENSON

For two centuries England and Wales supplied the cloth industries of
Flanders and the Low Countries with wool; at times over i0 million
fleeces were exported annually. This arterial trade kept a flow of silver
pumping into the economy. Much landlord and peasant farming centred on
wool production. The associated financial operations and political machi-
nations have stimulated a considerable amount of research.2 As a result we
have a detailed knowledge of marketing and taxation, but know relatively
little about the production of wool itself.
The supply of wool has tended to be analysed largely through inferences
drawn from price and export data.3 But variations in the production of wool
were of fundamental importance to the whole economy. They came about
either as a result of changes in the size of the sheep population or in the
average yield per animal. The weights and quality of fleeces are thus a
valuable aid to judging medieval agricultural productivity.
Arable productivity has been studied more than pastoral productivity
partly because of the nature of the debate about the medieval economy,
particularly in the years I200-I348. This has been conducted mainly in the
context of the relationship between population levels and the amount of land
available. The pastoral sector is perceived literally as being eaten up by the
arable.4 As human populations approached the limits of cultivation, the
arable acreage was increased by ploughing up pasture. This lowered the size
and productivity of animal populations and thus the supply of manure, and
meant that the arable and pastoral sectors became locked together in a
downward spiral. There is also a parallel assumption that the general standard
of livestock husbandry was quite low compared with later centuries.'
This neo-Malthusian model can be criticized for being too rigid and for
over-emphasizing the idea that the standard of living was determined by the
crude ratio of mouths to arable acreage. Extraneous factors such as the
impact of certain diseases on both human and animal populations, climatic
shifts, political conflict, and the changing distribution of scarce resources

I I would like to express my thanks to the Fellows of St Catharine's College, Cambridge for electing
me to a research fellowship for i980-3 as this article is one result of the research undertaken then. I am
also very grateful to the managers of the Ellen MacArthur fund who awarded to the work upon which
this article is based the Ellen MacArthur prize for economic history in i984.
2 Lloyd, Wool trade. Power, Wool trade.
I Lloyd, Wool prices, pp. 22-3. Pelham, 'Fourteenth-century England', pp. 242-6.
4 Postan, 'Medieval agrarian society', pp. 548-632.

''Medieval man knew something of livestock husbandry but evidently not much'; Gras and Gras,
English village, p. I93. See also Miller and Hatcher, Medieval England, pp. 2I7-8; Titow, thesis, pp. 50-
3; Finberg, Tavistock, p. I45.

368

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 369
between the classes were other powerful influences on the standard of living.
Real income per head, the throttle of economic progress, is determined by
the relationship between the rate of growth in the total output of an economy
and the rate of population growth or decline. Trends in the productivity of
domestic animal populations which contributed to total output are thus an
integral part of the process of economic change. Wool was the single most
valuable animal product, and variations in the yield of wool per sheep were
of major importance.
The workings of the pastoral economy cannot be viewed in isolation from
the arable sector, because they were joined together in a symbiotic
relationship. Neither, however, can the size and productivity of animal
populations be seen simply as reflexes of Malthusian pressures in the human
populations. The pastoral sector possessed its own independent dynamics.6
This study is an attempt to quantify the yield of wool per animal and to
detect any trends. Medieval fleece weights will be compared with those of
succeeding centuries and also with medieval arable yields. The possible
causes of any trends that emerge will be examined and their implications
for the profitability of sheep farming will be briefly discussed.

I
The most important source material, the account rolls, give the number
of fleeces produced each year and their total weight, allowing a straightforward
calculation of average fleece weight per sheep.7 Occasionally other details
are given: the destination of the fleeces, comments on the quality of the
wool, and reasons for unusual variations in fleece weights. The longer the
span of the accounts and the larger the flock the better, for any investigation
of trends in fleece weights is greatly aided by large numbers and consistent
recording. When there was doubt about the measure employed (the stone
or wey) such data have been excluded from the study.8
The account rolls used are drawn from six main estates: those of the
bishopric of Winchester, Ramsey Abbey, Crowland Abbey, Peterborough
Abbey, the Countess of Aumale, and Merton College. These are supplemented
by a few series from single manors such as that of Sevenhampton in
Wiltshire.9
Incomparably the finest series is that of the Winchester estates which
encompassed some 40-odd manors situated mainly in Hampshire, but with
large groupings in Wiltshire, stretching across to Taunton in the west, and
also including manors as far east as Esher in Surrey, and reaching north to

6 Campbell, 'Agricultural progress', p. 43 has emphasized the complementary rather than the
competitive nature of the relationship between the arable and pastoral sectors.
7The scale of the task made it impossible to check all figures against the originals but suspicious
results have been re-checked.
8 Lloyd, 'Medieval wool-sack', pp. 94-5 discusses the problems associated with the Winchester weights
and I have made assumptions for the early thirteenth century in line with this.
9 Cambridge University Library, Crowland Abbey accounts Q.C. I,2,8. Merton College Library,
Oxford, manorial accounts, 4633-4673, 4799-4850, 5260-5305, 5342-5403, 5690-5728, 5735-5762.
Northamptonshire Record Office, Fitzwilliam account rolls. B.L., Add. Ch. 39270. P.R.O. IOOI/I-I7.
HampshireRecordOffice,Eccl. Comm. I59270-I59444.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
370 M. J. STEPHENSON

Adderbury in north Oxfordshire.'0 The accounts span the years I209-I454

with over M20accounts surviving for many manors. The weights used are
very reliable, particularly from the late thirteenth century onwards, and the
flocks were often large, averaging over 20,000 sheep for the whole estate.
The next most useful series is that of Merton College, with manors scattered
between Oxford and London. Eight of these manors have been studied here,
their accounts usually spanning the years I275-I350, with accounts surviving
for about half of them. The three great Fenland abbeys of Crowland, Ramsey
and Peterborough are disappointing in their lack of relevant material.
Although they managed in all over 65 manors and about 35,000 sheep,
details of fleece weights occur only in the Ramsey and Peterborough records
and then only in a few accounts. The series for the Holderness estates is
superior although the time span-I264-92-is limited.
The overall sample is large, approximately 3.5 million fleeces in total with
up to about 35,000 in any one year. The great bulk of this wool came from
the Winchester estates, but these manors were scattered through seven
counties and contained a wide variety of local and regional environments.
Unfortunately there is nothing to tell us about the levels and trends of
the wool yields of the peasant flocks. Yet while it is likely that the demesnes
practised a higher standard of livestock husbandry and owned more
productive sheep, it is also possible that any secular trends would also be
found in peasant animals.
Starting with the Winchester evidence and ignoring trends for the moment,
the commonest range of fleece weights was between I.25 lbs and I.50 lbs
for the whole estate, with a mean of I.35 lbs per fleece for the years I209-
I454. The annual variation of this 'estate average' was relatively low when
comparedwith other aspects of animal productivity, with a standarddeviation
of 0.20 lbs and a coefficient of variation of I5 per cent (table i). The
maximum value for the whole estate was I.93 lbs per fleece in I3I7 and the
lowest o.88 lbs in I435.
Individual manors naturally ranged considerably above and below the
mean. Certain manors consistently recorded fleece weights above I.75 lbs:
Witney in Oxfordshire had a mean fleece weight of i.68 lbs with a high of
2.64 lbs in i3i8. The manor that produced the heaviest fleeces was
Adderbury, also in Oxfordshire, which averaged 4.55 lbs per fleece in I3I7
and 3.II lbs in I326, with an overall mean of i.67 lbs for the years 121O-
I454. From Hampshire, which was not generally a high-yield area, fleeces
at Bitterne averaged 3.60 lbs in I3I7, at Fareham 3.I9 lbs in I329, at North
Waltham 3.I3 lbs in I3i9, and at Ashmansworth 3.00 lbs in I348.
In contrast certain manors produced a much smaller, lighter fleece. On
the manor of Bishop's Stoke, although many nearby manors produced fleeces
of normal weight, fleeces rarely weighed more than i lb. Indeed they
regularly weighed less than 0.75 lb each, with a low of 0.47 lb per fleece in
1419 and an overall mean of only 0.87 lb for the entire period I2I0-I454.
The 40-odd Winchester manors can be divided into a number of more or
less clearly defined groups corresponding to the bailiwicks of the estate

10 See Titow, Winchesteryields, p. 38 for a map of the Winchester estates.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 37I

Table i. Fleece weights on the bishop of Winchester'sestates, I208-I454.

No. of Maximum Minimum

accounts ann. av. ann. av. Standard Coefficientof
recording fleece wt. fleece wt. Mean deviation variation
fleece wts (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (%)
Alresford I5I 2.03 0.5I I.3I 0.26 20.0
Sutton I55 2.i6 0.57 I .35 0.26 I9.2
Cheriton I59 2.3I 0.79 I.37 0.26 I8.8
Beauworth I34 2.48 0.75 I.47 0.30 20.7
Downton I34 2.32 o.89 I .39 0.27 I9.I
Bishopstone I45 2.22 o.66 I .37 0.27 I9.8
Farnham II9 I.90 0.35 I.I0 0.29 26.6
Bentley 39 I .49 0.77 o.98 O.I9 I9.4
Wield I25 2.0I o.63 I.29 0.29 22.3
Harwell 76 2.68 0.50 I.59 0.4I 25.6
Brightwell I00 2.3I 0.77 I.43 0.40 27.7
Ivinghoe I29 2.6I 0.59 I.50 0.33 2I.8
Knoyle I47 I.86 0.78 I.38 0.23 I6.9
Fonthill 99 2.87 o.83 i.68 0.35 20.8
Upton 74 2.5 I 0.27 I .70 0.34 I9.8
Meon I56 I.92 0.55 I.24 0.25 20.4
Hambledon i6o I. 8o 0.43 I.29 0.22 I7.2
Waltham I49 3.I3 o.62 I.22 0.26 2I.3
Droxford I07 I. 63 0.53 I.I3 0.27 24. I
Fareham I46 3. I9 0.76 I.42 0.26 i8.o
Overton I48 I .94 0.82 I.26 0.23 I 7.9
Woodhay III 2.36 o.84 I .4I 0.36 25.3
High Clere I5I 2.29 0.50 I .32 0.30 23. I
Burghclere I24 2.74 0.49 I.26 0.30 23.7
Ashmansworth I05 3.00 o.67 I.44 0.38 26.6
Ecchinswell I29 2.80 o.85 I .48 0.33 22. I
North Waltham I2I 2.79 0.74 I.40 0.30 2I.I
Taunton 92 I. 96 0.7I I.28 0.27 20.8
Rimpton 23 I.83 o.85 I.I9 O.I9 I5.6
Twyford I54 2.37 o.67 I.35 0.29 2I.5
Crawley I39 2.85 0.78 I.38 0.33 23.8
Mardon I49 2. I4 o.69 I .42 0.30 2I.I
Marwell 49 2.73 0.78 I.43 0.37 25.7
Wargrave I52 2.54 o.69 I.37 0.34 24.8
West Wycombe ii8 2.3I o.87 I.3I 0.26 I9.7
Culham I00 2. I I 0.77 I .38 0.30 2I.9
Waltham St. Laurence 77 2.I7 o.66 I.37 0.30 22.I
Witney I20 2.64 0-74 i.68 0.39 23.3
Adderbury W0I 4.55 0.79 I.67 0.30 I 7.7
Bishop's Stoke 56 2.00 0.47 o.87 0.34 38.5
Bitterne 67 3.60 o.6i I.29 0.25 I9.0

Source:Winchesteraccountrolls, HampshireRecordOffice,Eccl. Comm.I59,270-I59,444.

(table 2). As can be seen in the table the most noticeable feature is the
uniformity in both the weight and variation in weight of fleeces from many
groups in the same counties. For instance the Twyford, Alresford, and
Overton groups had respective means of I.40 lbs, I.38 lbs and I.37 lbs, all
within 2 per cent of each other. This is remarkable considering that these
three groups comprised I5 manors, which contained an average of nearly
ioooo sheep and that the fleece weights were measured over a 25o-year
span. The annual variation in fleece weights between these groups was also

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372 M. J. STEPHENSON

Table 2. Winchesterfleece weights by manorialgroups,

- 1208-1454.

High yielding manorialgroups

Mean fleece Mean flock size
weight 1209-I454
I209-I454
(ibs)
Witney i.68 I059
Knoyle I.59 i967
Harwell I.5I 264
Ivinghoe I .50 422

Middle yielding manorialgroups

Twyford I.40 3424
Alresford I .38 2664
Downton I .38 2I37
Overton I .37 3798
Wargrave I.36 I078

Low yielding manorialgroups

Meon I.26 3558
Taunton I.24 205
Farnham I.I2 652

Note:the groupscontainthe followingmanors.The firstmanorlistedin eachgroupis

the manorused as a namefor the wholegroup.
Alresford,Sutton,Cheriton,Beauworth.
Downton,Bishopstone.
Farnham,Bentley,Wield.
Harwell,Brightwell.
Ivinghoe.
Knoyle,Fonthill,Upton.
Meon,Hambledon,Waltham,Droxford,Fareham.
Overton,Woodhay,High Clere,Burghclere,Ashmansworth, Ecchinswell,North
Waltham.
Taunton,Rimpton.
Twyford,Crawley,Mardon,Marwell.
Wargrave, West Wycombe,Culham,WalthamSt. Laurence.
Witney,Adderbury.
Figuresfor the Bishop'sStokegroupare not available.

Source:as table i.

similar with a coefficient of variation for the Twyford group of 23.0 per
cent, I9.6 per cent for the Alresford group, and 22.8 per cent for the
Overton group.
Sheep in other farming regions appear to have carried somewhat heavier
fleeces than in central southern England. On the Holderness estates of the
Countess of Aumale, the mean fleece weight for the years I264 to I292 was
2.42 lbs with a maximum of 3.I9 lbs per fleece in I280."1 These weights
may be somewhat lower than usual in that sheep scab hit these flocks hard

" Ugawa, Lay estates, p. 97. Denholm-Young, Seignorial administration,pp. 53-66.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 373
during these years. Other Yorkshire estates appear to have produced heavier
fleeces than those in the south.12
Some areas of eastern England may also have contained sheep with heavier
than average fleeces, though the evidence is limited. The Peterborough
Abbey estates had a mean fleece weight of 2.I8 lbs at the turn of the
thirteenth century.13 On the manors of Ramsey Abbey in the east midlands
and East Anglia in I36i, admittedly from a small sample, fleeces seem to
have been lighter than at Peterborough with an overall mean of i.6i lbs per
fleece.14
The manors belonging to Merton College mostly lay close to the Winchester
manors and their overall mean was similar at I.42 lbs for the period from
the late I270s to the early I350s.
The remaining data on fleece weights are scattered and in very small time
series and in the main confirm the broad order of magnitude established
above in that the vast majority of fleeces from most of the counties studied
were in the range I.25 lbs to I.75 lbs.15
The composition of a flock must be remembered when discussing fleece
weights as the figures relate to all adult sheep; they do not show the
difference in wool yield between the different age and sex categories-
wethers, ewes, and hoggs. A fleece from a wether (castrated adult) is much
heavier than that from a ewe which in turn produces a heavier fleece than
a hogg (two-year-old). In I328 at Twyford in Hampshire, for example, the
mean fleece weight of the i,700 adult animals was 2.37 lbs. These comprised
the fleeces of 6oo wethers, 803 ewes, and 296 hoggs. Following the ratio
given by Robert Carpenter, a bailiff on the estates of William de Lisle in
I260, the likely fleece weights were 3.00 lbs for wethers, 2.25 lbs for ewes,
and I .50 lbs for hoggs. 16

II
Having established the range of medieval fleece weights, what was their
significance in relation to their modern equivalents, to the development of
fleece weights in the intervening centuries, and to arable productivity?
Modern lowland shortwool fleeces weigh in the range 4-5.5 lbs each,
longwools 7-I2 lbs, and mountain and hill breeds 2-3.5 lbs.'7 Occasionally
historians have compared medieval fleece weights with those of modern
longwools to emphasize the gulf in productivity.'8 But this is to ignore the
fundamental division of fleece types into short- and longwool. The former

12
Bischoff, 'Fleece weights', p. I56.
13 This is a small sample as few accounts survive for the Peterborough Abbey estates and even fewer
for which fleece weights can be calculated, but they range from 2.75 lbs per fleece at Scotter and
Warmington down to I.45 lbs per fleece at Oundle. King, PeterboroughAbbey, pp. I54-60.
14 This is calculated from the wool livery of I36i. Raftis, Ramsey Abbey, p. I4i and pp. I44-52.
15 See also Trow-Smith, British livestock husbandryto I700, pp.i66-7; Thorold Rogers, History of
agricultureand prices, I, pp. 386-8; Postles, 'Fleece weights', pp. I00-2.
16
Oschinsky, Walter of Henley, pp. 39, 237, 462.
17
Owen, Sheep production,p. ii0.
18 Page, 'Bidentes Hoylandie', p. 6ii, n. 3 compares a I-2 lb medieval fleece with a 22 lb modern
longwool fleece.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 M. J. STEPHENSON

is short in staple of 2 to 6 inches, fine in fibre and often curly, and the
latter is much longer in staple of 8.5 to I4 inches and coarse in fibre.
Longwools were developed for the mutton market, producing a large carcass.
Consequently wool was only of secondary consideration to the production
of a fat lamb. Longwool was and is used for the coarser cloths, such as
worsteds, the unit value of which is far lower than that of a shortwool. In
the nineteenth century, for instance, the small Ryeland sheep brought in
more money for its I-2 lbs fleece than did a New Lincoln with a large coarse
fleece of I2-4 lbs. 19
In order to place these medieval fleece weights in perspective they need
to be set against the fleece weights of comparable modern breeds of sheep.
Obviously if the sample upon which this study is based includes longwools
then by comparison with modern weights the medieval fleece was very light.
On the other hand modern shortwools produce fleeces only two to three
times heavier than that of their medieval ancestors.
Power's idea that both longwoolled and shortwoolled sheep existed in
medieval England has been opposed by Bowden who argued that the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century enclosures, through improved nutrition,
lengthened and coarsened the English fleece.20 While improved nutrition
alone cannot directly transform fleeces from one type to another as this
argument implies, there is far more documentary evidence at present to
support Bowden's thesis that 'Before the Tudor period the production of
long staple wool in England was negligible'.2'
Microscopic examination by Ryder of fibres attached to parchment has
added considerably to this debate and to the investigation of breed
development in general.22 His conclusions generally support the historical
evidence that medieval English wool was justifiably renowned for its fineness
and that later centuries saw an increasing proportion of coarse and long-
stapled wool being produced. Medium diameter wools, however, which may
have been nascent longwools, first make an appearance in the fourteenth
century. But the samples remain small and more research is necessary before
definite conclusions can be reached.23
In fact the bulk of the evidence upon which this paper is based is drawn
from what appear always to have been traditional shortwool areas. Until
more work is done it is reasonable to suppose that medieval wool types were
short, fine, high-quality fleeces, with some having elements of a medium
length staple which were to form the basis of longwools of later centuries.

19 Trow-Smith, Livestock husbandry,I700-I900, p. 209.

20
Power, Wool trade, p. 2I. Bowden, 'Wool supply', pp. 45-9.
21 Bowden, Wool trade, p. 26.
22
Ryder, Sheep and man, p. 459.
23
There have been several important articles on the longwool-shortwool debate recently: Armitage,
'English longwool sheep'; Bischoff, 'Fleece weights'; Ryder, Sheep and man.
Neither Ryder nor Armitage has found anything in the archaeological wool fibre, documentary or
pictorial evidence before the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century to indicate the existence of a
true longwool. Nevertheless there are hints that in areas that were later to harbour the longwools such
as Yorkshire and Oxfordshire average fleece weights were somewhat higher and could be classed as
middlewools; see Bischoff, 'Fleece weights', p. I56.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 375
Medieval fleeces must therefore be considered primarily as shortwools; to
compare them with Bakewell's New Leicesters or with modern longwools is
pointless, making as much sense as comparing 'a passenger train with a
goods train.'24
It is commonly assumed that agricultural productivity follows a steep
unbroken curve upwards from the plateau of the middle ages. Yet as far as
wool yields are concerned there is no evidence for this. In Hampshire,
Wiltshire, Sussex, and Norfolk in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
there was little if any improvement in average shortwool fleece weights,
which were often less than 2 lbs.25 The classic producer of short, fine wool
in England from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries was the Ryeland
which originated in Herefordshire. Pre-eminent amongst English wools,
'Leimster Ore' came from small, durable sheep whose fleeces weighed in at
about I lb in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and rarely exceeded
2 lbs even in the nineteenth century.26
A few direct comparisons are possible between the wool yields of some
flocks in this study and of their counterparts several centuries later. The
most interesting is that of the manor of Harwell in Berkshire which was
cultivated by the bishops of Winchester in the middle ages and for which
there survives an account book for the years i6i0-20 drawn up by the farmer
Robert Loder.27 While it is of most interest for the study of arable farming
there are a few references to his sheep flock.
Loder's sheep appear to have carried fleeces that weighed 2.0-2.5 lbs each
on average.28The Bishop of Winchester's Harwell flocks often had fleeces
of this weight too; from I360 to I369, for instance, their fleeces averaged
2.3 lbs each. By contrast wheat yields appear to have doubled on these lands
by Loder's time. The negligible improvement in wool yields contrasts with
the increase in arable productivity on this manor.29
Grain yields fluctuated far more than wool yields both between manors
and from year to year.30 The reason for these differences probably lies in
the greater range of variables affecting cereal yields. In addition to the
common factors such as soil, climate and geography, manuring levels, the
wide range of arable techniques, and the amount of labour employed made
the productivity of the arable sector more volatile than that of the pastoral
sector.

24
Kerridge, Agriculturalrevolution,p. 324.
25
Ibid., pp. 3I2-6. Bowden, Wool trade, pp. 27-37.
26
Kerridge, Agriculturalrevolution,p. 3I2.
27
Fussell, Robert Loder.
28 Ibid., p. xxii.
29 The average yield to seed ratio for wheat in the years I211 to I454 was 3.75 with a maximum of
8.39 in I385, whereas Loder's yield to seed ratios averaged io with a maximum of I5. Medieval yields
calculated from figures supplied by D.L. Farmer and from Titow, Winchesteryields, appendix C, and
Fussell, Robert Loder, p. xvii.
30 One of the striking features of the arable yields revealed by the work of Farmer and Titow is the
great disparity in grain yields between manors that lay in apparently similar farming regions. The two
east Wiltshire manors of Bishopstone and Downton had a difference of 2I per cent in their wheat yields
in I2II-I454 yet one of only i per cent in wool yields for the same period.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 M. J. STEPHENSON

Comparison of modern and medieval yields reveals a great increase in

cereal productivity. The modern average for the counties of Hampshire,
Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, and Somerset
is over 8o bushels per acre for wheat.3' But the average medieval yield for
these counties was only 9.6 bushels per acre, one-ninth of the modern level.32
In contrast the modern shortwool fleece weighs an average of 4.5 lbs,
approximately three times the weight of the medieval fleece. It may be that
the greater variety of inputs involved in arable farming allowed greater scope
for innovations. A key element has been the direction of market demand
which has induced selection for the sheep's meat-producing capabilities
largely at the expense of its fine wool. In addition arable science has advanced
more rapidly, though the genetic revolution that we are now approaching
may well see a quantum leap in animal productivity.

III
Any secular trends in fleece weights would have had wide-ranging
implications for an economy that relied heavily on this product. The trends
have been analysed within three broad chronological divisions: I209 to
c.I3I0, I3II to c.I370, and I37I to I454. The data from the first period
are less reliable than the others because fewer accounts survive and the
inclusion of lambs' fleeces with the adults' wool introduces a small margin
of error.33In the period 1209-I3I0 there is information from 63 per cent of
the years, compared with 92 per cent for the period I3i0-64, and 76 per
cent for the period I370-I454.
The first 50 years of the period covered by the accounts are not very
reliable, and a satisfactory series only really emerges after I265. Despite this
the main features of the thirteenth century are clear (figure i and table 3).
Until the final quarter-century fleece weights appear to have exhibited no
definite trend and averaged roughly 5 per cent above the long-term mean.
The salient thirteenth-century feature is the crash in fleece weights in the
I280S. Although there was a hesitant recovery in the mid-I29os fleece weights
fell again and did not recover their previous levels until the second decade
of the fourteenth century, and were then about I5 per cent below the long-
term mean. There was a dramatic reversal of this trend after I3i0, as fleece
weights soared throughout the manors to their highest levels of the middle
ages. There was a fall in the early I340s but generally fleeces were between

3' Calculated from Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, AgriculturalstatisticsEngland, I978-
9, p. 41. The latest figures imply that this has risen to over 90 bushels per acre. Agriculturalstatistics
U.K., i985, p. 8.
32 Calculatedfrom Titow, Winchesteryields,appendix C, and from Farmer, 'Winchester yields', p. 559.
3 The failure of the accounts to distinguish between the weight of sheep and lamb fleeces affected
some manors more than others and became very rare after the I250s. Sheep fleece weights in the early
thirteenth century have been estimated by deducting the weight of lambs' fleeces based on their long-
term average for the years I209-I454. These calculations can introduce only a small margin of error as
lambs' wool represented only about 5 per cent of the total weight of wool produced. In terms of looking
at trends in fleece weights, sheep and lamb fleeces followed the same long-term variations. Consequently
even if the estimates of lambs' fleece weights are seriously wrong they can affect the estimates of sheep
fleece weights by only a fraction of i per cent.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 377

_ b-ObTI

} _ ~~~~~~~~~~6b-Sbbl
K _ ~~~~~~~~~~~61-SIbl

6I-olII
6Z-SbOI
to oovi
66-SllI
6-Ol6b
I
68-SMbl o
_8-O8bl
- 6L-S~LI
- VL-OLEI
- 69-S9 I
_ t 9-09E I
z _ ~~~~~~~ 1
~~~~~~~~~6S-SSEI
CS-OSTI
6t-SoE I

K _ 6~~~~~~ 1.2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f-SMS
5 _ ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~6Z-SZETl
6I-OUII
_61-SIEI
_I-OIMI
_60-SOf T
\ b~~~~~~~~~~~~O-~O~fT
_ to-oof I
66-S6ZT Co
_6-06ZI
68-S8ZI
t_8-08ZT Co)
6L-SLZI
\ _ b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L-OLZTI
::
> _~~~~~~~~
69-S9ZT ~~~~~~~
_ t 9-09ZT
g 6S-SSZTI ~ ~~~~~~~
_~~~~~~~
_ bS5-OSZT
6t--StZ

_E-OHT
/ ~~~~~~
~
~~~~~~~~6Z-SZZTI
_ tz-ozzi

\ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6T-STZTI
b
tog-oli oo

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 M. J. STEPHENSON

Table 3. Index of Winchesterfleece weights, 1210-1454

(5-year means: ioo = mean 1210-1454 (I.35 ibs))

I2I0-4 I05 (3)a I290-4 90 (4) I370-4 I05 (3)

I2I5-9 I07 (3) I295-9 87 (3) I375-9 94 (5)
I220-4 10 (3) I300-4 89 (4) I380-4 95 (4)
I225-9 I06 (3) I305-9 90 (5) I385-9 9I (5)
I230-4 I04 (2) I3I0-4 III (5) I390-4 98 (4)
I235-9 I08 (2) I3I5-9 I23 (5) I395-9 87 (4)
I240-4 I-320-4 I3I (I) I400-4 I05 (4)
I245-9 I00 (4) I325-9 II3 (4) I405-9 92 (3)
I250-4 I22 (2) I330-4 I20 (4) I4I0-4 86 (5)
I255-9 I06 (4) I335-9 II7 (5) I4I5-9 93 (4)
I260-4 I04 (I) I340-4 I07 (5) I420-4 93 (5)
I265-9 97 (4) I345-9 III (5) I425-9 98 (2)
I270-4 I03 (5) I350-4 I26 (5) I430-4 84 (5)
I275-9 I09 (3) I355-9 IIO (5) I435-9 84 (2)
I280-4 90 (2) I360-4 III (5) I440-4 79 (2)
I285-9 80 (5) I365-9 II4 (5) I445-9 76 (3)
I450-4 78 (4)

Note:a Figuresin bracketsare the numbersof extantpipe rolls (whichcoveredall Winchestermanors)per five-year
period.
Source:as table i.

IO and 20 per cent above their long-term mean, and 30-40 per cent above
those prevailing in the years I280-I3io.
Finally, there was an unequivocal downward trend for the period I370 to
I454. A sharp fall was registered in the I370s, with fleece weights dropping
below the overall mean value and remaining consistently below it. The only
time the overall mean was reached was in the years I400-4, but it fell again,
and despite stabilizing in the years I4I5 to I429 plummeted thereafter. By
the mid-I45os fleece weights were a full 50 per cent lower than at their peak
in the mid-fourteenth century. In practical terms this means that for a given
number of sheep the farm managers of these manors in the 25 years I430-
54 received only two-thirds of the weight of wool that they received during
the years I330-54, from the same number of sheep.
Some clear conclusions emerge on the movements of wool yields during
these centuries. Whatever the soil type, breed of sheep, or local management,
the yield of wool throughout these 40-odd manors moved in remarkable
harmony during two-and-a-halfcenturies. The histogram illustrates this more
clearly than the line graphs (figure 2). This plots the number of manorial
groups that either exceed or fall below their long-term means by I5 per cent
or more. It emphasizes the key trends: a relatively high yielding period
I2Io-79, a sharp fall I280-I309, rapid recovery and record yields I3Io-79,
and finally an accelerating and protracted slump in fleece weights that
continues until the end of the series in I454.
It is remarkable that virtually all the individual manors and all the groups
conformed to this general pattern, and that the short-term fluctuations,
whetherfive-yearaveragesor year-on-yearvariations,also synchronizedclosely.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 379

-6b-SbbTI

< -~~~61-SIbl

_6Z-SObl
ri-olvT -

tlo-ootlI
66-S6EI
_ b6-O6bI
_ 68-SlI

- 6L-SLbI
_L-OLb
I
69-S 1I
t6-06E I
.............

............ ..>i..
......._b-S
............................

m _ ~~~~~68-S8U
S
:: .-- -. :. .......O _ 8-08U
fT ,
................... ..... '.- .- _ ~~~~~~~~6L-SLEI
O
m- - _-- __ ~~~~~~~~~6Z-STEl
b~~~~~~~L-OLU
I
; _ ~~~~~~~~69-S9U
1::.:.:.::.:.:.
- E
...:,:-....
-- 5
.......... ~ ~ b~~~~~~9-09UT
_ b-OME
_60-soI

u ~~~~~6b-~
__66-S6ZT
_bT
_ _ b~~~~~~~6-06ZT
n _ ~~~~~~~68-S8ZT
ff4-.

m- - | __ bb-ObE T wo~~- ~
b~~~~~~~8-08ZT
1 -,* ' ,- _ ~~~~~~6L-SLZT
............ tlz~6
-OIUI
... ...... 1-1 1_
691S9ZT
_ b9 09ZT
.......;
.,..
Z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~6S-SSZTI
.E
.....6bSbZ.*.
- 6?-S?ZT
I
Co)

,,.i..i... .. _ _ .. ...

bZ-OZZTI
i ... ... 6T-STZTI

CD~
nNa Co ,- U' CD m -t U- oo N co a- CD
I I I *-~~~~~~U
I I I I I I <D

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38o M. J. STEPHENSON

60-0VI
to-oot I
66-WI
V6-06H Co)

6L-ffl
VL-OLEI
69-Wl
V9-09E I
6-M
V-OM Co)
6t-tfl
tlt-otlE I
6E-ffl
VE-offl

vz-OU I
61-Hl
VI-OM
- 60-0EI r.
- to-off I
- 66-WI
- V6-06ZI
68-Kl
V8-08zl
6L-LZI
VL-OLZI r.
69-MI
t,9-09zl

V-OM
6t-VZI
tlt-otlzi
6E-Hl
VE-ORI 4-J

C t

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 38i
Obviously the closer the manors geographically the more precise the
relationship, as may be seen in figure 3, yet even if a high-yield group of
manors is compared with a distant low-yield group we find that the short-
term movements echo each other.34

IV
The coincident nature of these fluctuations in both the short and long
term suggests causes exogenous to the agricultural economy. The two most
obvious candidates are epidemic disease and climatic change.
Historians have pointed to three periods in the middle ages when severe
disease reduced the national flock: the I270s, I3I5-20, and the I36os.35 The
last two periods experienced relatively high wool yields and can be discounted
for present purposes, but the I270s are a different matter. It is quite clear
that from about I275 until the early fourteenth century the sheep population
was subject to recurrent and very severe attacks of what appears to be sheep
scab. This is a condition caused by mites drawing their nourishment through
the sheep's skin, causing scabs to form. The fleece becomes ragged and
torn, the animal is debilitated, so much so that without modern remedies
death can easily be the result of a bad outbreak.36 Such an attack means
especially heavy losses where sheep are kept primarily for their wool, as
both fleece quality and weight fall sharply.
It is likely that English sheep flocks had been scab free for a considerable
time and were consequently less resistant, or that a new ferocious strain had
arisen.37The chronicler William Rishanger blamed the outbreak on imported
Spanish sheep.38 Table 3 and figure 2 above illustrate the severity of the
epidemic. In desperation some manors such as East Meon sheared their
sheep twice a year to get usable wool. Falling fleece weights were accompanied
by a great increase in sheep mortality.39Wool producers in the late thirteenth
century were hit from three directions: their animals died in large numbers,
their wool yields fell heavily, and they had to pay out on expensive remedies.
Perhaps the most striking development of the whole period was the serious
decline in fleece weights from 1370 onwards. In this connection secular
climatic change deserves attention. Even modern technology cannot prevent
large variations in agricultural production. A largely rural society with a
much lower level of productivity dependent on a narrow range of produce

34 The large Meon group, for instance, containing on average over 5,000 sheep, had fleeces that were

on average 20 per cent lighter than those of the Knoyle group which was about i00 miles distant and
carried about 2,500 sheep; yet the trends in their fleece weights mirrored each other. For the period
I209-I454 changes in fleece weights between these two groups had a correlation coefficient of r = 0.7I,
which is significant at the o.oi per cent level.
35 Lloyd, 'Wool prices', pp. I5-6, i9. Kershaw, 'Agrarian crisis', pp. 27-8.
36 Animal health, p. i65. Robinson, Henry Best, p. 29. Best commented on the effects of scab on his
seventeenth-century flock that 'oftentimes after a long declininge and goinge backe (they) turne up theire
heeles.
37 Stephenson, thesis, pp. 80-4.

38 Riley, Willelmi Rishanger, p. 84. See also Denholm-Young, Seignorial administration,p. 6i, n. 3,
for other chroniclers' comments on the scab epidemic.
39 Stephenson, thesis, ch. 3.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
382 M. J. STEPHENSON

would be much more sensitive to changes in climatic conditions, just as

underdeveloped countries are today.
Yet historians have tended to ignore or minimize the impact of secular
climatic changes on the medieval economy.40 Bad weather has sometimes
been seen as a trigger in a particular sequence of events but only in the
short term, such as the years I3I5-22 when bad harvests, caused by
exceptionally wet weather, caused widespread famine, livestock epidemics
and a retreat of cultivation in an over-populated economy.
Reluctance to consider climatic change may be associated with the belief
that climatic trends in the middle ages, given the often subjective nature of
the evidence, cannot be discovered. Any trends are thought to have happened
imperceptibly, with good and bad years occurring at random and balancing
each other. There is also a healthy suspicion of any interpretation that could
be used as a deus ex machine. Titow has further pointed out that reliance
on cereal-yield calculations or any other measure of productivity can create
a circular argument whereby climatic conditions are deduced from these
yields, and these supposed conditions then used to explain variations in the
yields.4'
Recent work by climatologists, however, has established the general
chronology of climatic change over the last 2,000 years. Their research
indicates that climates do not change gradually between quite stable periods
but rapidly in a step-like fashion.42 Similarly the relationship between
climatic and agriculturaloutput has been found to be exponential-relatively
small variations in the weather having large environmental effects.43
Studies have been undertaken of the relationship between climate and
some of the major diseases that afflict sheep such as liverfluke, swayback
and pregnancy toxaemia. Liverfluke for example is particularlyclosely related
to the amount of rainfallbetween May and October each year.44Temperatures
during the first three months of the year are closely related to mortality in
sheep flocks.45 Prolonged snow and frosts in particular can cause mortality
to soar and lambing success to fall away. If harsh winters persist and reduce
the general health of the flock then fleece weights will fall too.
A significant drop in average winter temperatures allied to an increased
frequency of very severe winters appears to be a possible explanation of the
slump in fleece weights on the Winchester estates in the late fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. Lamb's work indicates that I350-I400 saw the largest
5o-year fall in winter temperatures of any half-century from the beginning
of his index in 80o.46 In this period also the Winchester account rolls record
a hard winter every five years for which accounts survive compared to only

40
For a review of studies on the relationship between climatic change and past societies see Ingram,
Farmer and Wigley, 'Climates and their impact'. For more sceptical views on the existence and effects
of secular climatic trends see Ladurie, Feast and famine, pp. 7-22; Brandon, 'Late medieval weather',
p. 7.
I" Titow, Winchester yields, p. 24.
42 Parry, Climatic change.
43 Ibid., p. 20.
44 Ollerenshaw, 'Climatic factors', pp. I29-35.
45 Oliver, 'Agro-climatic relationships', p. I93.
46
Lamb, Changing climate, p. i86.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 383
a single instance in the previous 34 years. There are an increasing number
of references to cold, abundant snow, and prolonged storms.47
There is other evidence of the light weight and poor quality of fleeces in
the period that may be the result of weather damage to fleeces. From i369-
70 onwards lana de refus' appears in the accounts. This rejected wool was
not sent to the usual London merchants but was sold off on each manor. It
was usually somewhat lighter and was sold at approximately 6o per cent
discount. During the I380s the phrase lana de triato also began to be used,
emphasizing the pressure on fleece quality. In addition, calculations of
average fleece weights occur much more frequently in the accounts while
an oneratiobegan to be imposed regularly on reeves by which the auditors
required a target weight and value of wool. At Brightwell in I4i8 I33 fleeces
were sent to Witney weighing I5 cloves I lb in total, an average of o.8 lbs
each (the clove was 7 lbs weight). An oneratioof 4 cloves I lb was levied on
the reeve and showed that the auditors expected an average of I lb per
fleece. The importance of the oneratiois twofold; it demonstrates firstly that
auditors were not easing up on reeves and shepherds who were cheating on
the weight of wool, and secondly that by the I380s even their expected
targets were low compared with those achieved in the past.
For the first time in I70 years sheep are recorded in the I380s as being
sold for poor wool, specifically coarse wool. These sheep fetched good prices,
clearly showing that they were not diseased but were being culled simply
on account of their wool. For instance, at Twyford in I383 the sales section
of the account records '8 [sheep] extractispro gross' lana'. In the same year
at Meon 6o hoggasters were culled for this reason. In an effort to increase
wool yields, ewes which were infertile were spayed and transferred to the
wether flock.48 Similarly sheep were sold for the first time in the I380s
because their wool was covered with tar.49 Although tar was used in the
great scab outbreak of the late thirteenth century and in subsequent
outbreaks, not enough was used to affect the wool so badly, the active
ingredient being sulphur, mercury, coperose, or verdigris. It was common
practice in the mid-seventeenth century to use a mixture of tallow and tar
to weatherproof the fleeces.50 This badly tarred wool provoked constant
complaints from cloth manufacturers and wholesalers and had to be sold at
a discount; possibly this practice of weatherproofingfleeces arose in response
to the climatic conditions of the late fourteenth century.
Looking in detail at the effects of a severe winter makes it easy to see
what a prolonged sequence might do to flock productivity. The winter of
I434-5 was one of the most severe of the entire middle ages, affecting the
whole of Europe. According to Lamb's indices the I430S were the hardest
decade for England and Europe between ii00 and I970.5' Fleece weights
for the WinchesterestatesaveragedI.I3 lbs for the years I435-9, and I435

47 Titow, 'Climat de Winchester', pp. 332-43.

48
As at Meon in I325 when 50 ewes were spayed and added to the wether flock.
49 As at Downton in I388 when I24 fleeces out of a total of I545 were sold locally as they were

covered in tar.
50 Robinson, Henry Best, p. 29.
5' Lamb, Climate, iI, pp. 564-5.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384 M. J. STEPHENSON

itself saw an estate average of only o.88 lbs. The manors of Droxford and
Sutton which sold i,ii9 fleeces between them averaged a meagre 0.54 lbs
per fleece. Mortality rates soared. At Twyford 2I.1 per cent of ewes died
before shearing, as did 9.i per cent of wethers, i6 per cent of hoggasters
and 66.3 per cent of lambs. This compares with respective median values
for the years I209-I454 of 2.8 per cent, 3.7 per cent, 7.7 per cent, and i8.2
per cent. Reproductive rates were also badly hit, with only 83.I per cent of
ewes lambing at Knoyle and approximately 70 per cent at Meon and at
Twyford, whereas the respective long-term means were go per cent, 87 per
cent and 89 per cent, with very little annual variation.
The attempts of the farm managers to combat these conditions can be
seen in the great increase in supplementary feeding during the winter. Most
manors had to buy in hay, straw, and fodder, natural grazing being under
snow and ice. The purchases of the Twyford group illustrate the pressure
of this hard winter. At Twyford manor itself 2I cartloads of pulses and hay
were bought for ?6 7s. 8d. to sustain the sheep in winter. At Crawley I3
cartloads of hay, 20 cartloads of straw, and 3 cartloads of peas and beans
were bought for the sheep; total cost was ?4 I9s. 4d. The smaller flocks at
Marwell and Mardon required less: 5 cartloads of hay costing 2IS. for
Marwell, and 8s. worth of hay and straw for Mardon.
There is some debate as to the biological effect that lower temperatures
have on sheep. Youatt, for example, implies that it is a rise in temperature
which coarsens a fleece.52 There has been only limited research into the
effects of climatic stress on livestock productivity. The major effects of the
cold winter environment are indirect. Cold reduces or stops plant growth
causing stock to survive on the residues of summer growth, which may,
however, be covered up by snow. Direct effects of low temperatures and
storms can also be damaging but there are also indirect effects. Mortality of
hill ewes, for example, is greatest when wind and low temperatures follow
snow, making it impossible for the ewes to feed.53
Apart from short-term direct and indirect damage to the fleece, it is
possible there was a change in fleece type over the longer term through
natural and artificial selection to secure better insulation. One of the biggest
differences between the fleeces of hill breeds which endure a harsh climate,
and the lowland breeds, is the much hairier fleeces of the former. Studies
have shown that in lambs and adults the hairier short wool fleece has a much
higher insulation than a finer one.54 It is possible that the increasing
coarseness of wool in the Winchester sheep was the long-term response to
decreasing winter temperatures.
However good the Winchester data, it is useful that the same wool yield
trends are found in other manors. On the Canterburyestates in Kent, Essex,
and Sussex lana de refus' and falling fleece weights make their appearance
in the I370s.11 From Somerset the manor of Ashcott, which has a good run

52 Youatt, Sheep, p. 66.

53 Blaxter, 'Climatic factors', p. I57.
54
Ibid., pp. i6i, i64.
55 Personal communication from Mavis Mate, i984.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 385

of accountsfrom I340 to I495, correspondsvery closely to the Winchester

pattern.56
Contemporaries were well aware of the impact of a harsh winter on fleece
weights. In Norfolk on the Townshend estate the hard winter of I480-I
killed 2,000 sheep, reduced the lamb crop, and lowered fleece weights in
the subsequent summer to such an extent that the accountant complained
that it was 'an evell yere for WU11'.57 Fleece weights fell from an average of
I.40 lbs to only i.00 lb.
Another explanation of the trends in fleece weights could lie in the
relationship between the size of the flocks and the supply of pasture. It may
be that domesticated animal populations followed their own Malthusian
cycles in a similar way to human populations. Animal populations in the
wild display a sinusoidal pattern as numbers fluctuate in a regular 'boom or
bust' cycle. If such a cycle existed it would be characterized by a number
of feedback mechanisms coming into play when the sheep population began
to press upon the supply of pasture and meadow. Overstocking would lead
to losses both in numbers of animals and also in general productivity.
Epidemics would become more frequent and the background mortality would
rise, and parasitism would become an increasing problem. Lambing rates
and fleece weights would decline.
Looking first at the changing levels of the Winchester flocks in the
thirteenth century, the main difficulty in examining this hypothesis is the
incomplete data (figure 4). All that can be said for the first three-quarters
of the century is that both numbers and yields were high. The scab epidemic
of the last quarter of the century cut both the numbers of sheep and the
wool yields. From I300 onwards, however, there was, at times, a rough
correspondence in opposite directions between the sheep population and
average fleece weight. In the second quarter of the fourteenth century the
Winchester flock fluctuated around I4,000 animals, occasionally falling as
low as i0,000. These were the years of exceptionally heavy fleeces. But from
the late I340s onwards there was a steep rise in sheep numbers across the
estates. This appears to have been largely in response to the new economic
conditions brought about by the Black Death, as the demesnes concentrated
on less labour-intensive activities and benefited from the increased purchasing
power of the population.58 The highest annual total was reached in I369
when there were nearly 35,000 sheep. Numbers fell back somewhat from
this peak but the underlying trend continued upwards until the late I390s;
from I388 to I397 there was an averageof 33,000 sheep on the Winchester
demesnes. This period of rapid expansion coincided with declining wool
yields. With the precipitate fall in flock numbers by about 8,ooo sheep at
the turn of the century, yields showed a temporary resurgence. Although
the trend in flock size was downwards there was no general recovery in
fleece weights.
To test the hypothesis of a relationship between population size and
productivity more precisely, the flock size and the estate fleece weights were
56
Manor of Ashcott, Glastonbury Abbey accounts 5265-5266.
5 Allison, 'Flock management', p. I05.
58
Hatcher, Plague, population and economy,pp. 3I-3.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
386 M. J. STEPHENSON

00

1r)

v~~~~~~~0 0

00

00

oo

00

00

_
k~~~~~~~Cso Y

C>~~~ C> ~ ~ C

_> > C> .d d;Diqs oxi~qinu jmo

_ 0 0 Cj woi 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 387
correlated for the years I300-I454 giving an r value of -0.I3. While an
inverse relationship would be expected this score is not significant. And if
the series included the thirteenth century the correlations would become
even smaller. There are other reasons for not accepting a simple Malthusian
model as anything like a complete explanation of trends in flock productivity.
Although the sheep flocks were increasing in the second half of the fourteenth
century, so too was the area of pasture as the human population receded.
Vacant holdings began to accumulate in considerable numbers from the mid-
I360s, and some were re-let as pasture. A 'Malthusian' explanation also
assumes a considerable degree of ignorance on the part of the shepherds,
reeves, and auditors that they could keep pastures so overcharged for 30 to
40 years with such serious consequences for profitability. This becomes even
more difficult to accept when all the direct evidence of skilled husbandry
and the indirect testimony of high productivity of these flocks is considered.59
Furthermore, there does not appear to have been the expected 'boom and
bust' pattern for fleece weights and reproductive rates. From the level and
trend in sheep numbers in the fifteenth century, a Malthusian model would
have predicted a marked and progressive increase in fleece weights-when
in fact the opposite occurred. Nonetheless, it would be unwise to dismiss
completely the possibility of such cycles or influences.
The trends in wool yields outlined above can help to explain trends both
in the price of wool and also in the volume of wool exported.60Consideration
will be limited here to some aspects of the relationship between wool yields
and sheep farming on the Winchester estates. By combining wool prices
with the Winchester estate average fleece weight we can get an idea of the
trends in gross returns per fleece. While this cannot aspire to be a national
index, given that some areas probably consistently produced significantly
higher-quality and thus more expensive wool, it may well be a good guide
to the direction and scale of change in the wool revenue per sheep for
demesne agriculture. In simple cash terms the two periods of high returns
were I306 to I333, when the average Winchester fleece was worth 6-4d.,
and from I366 to i380 when the equivalent figure was 5-6d. per fleece. The
lowest returns per fleece were received in the early thirteenth century (2-4d.
per fleece- for the years I209-27), and the second quarter of the fifteenth
century (when each fleece fetched only 3-2d.). Indeed, the year I453 saw
the miserable level of I -4d. per fleece as wool prices collapsed and wool
yields were very low.
With such a lengthy period under review some provision needs to be made
for the effects of inflation. This has been done through deflating the cash
figures by the Phelps-Brown basket of consumables. This deflated index
provides a more useful picture of the real returns from wool production.
The thirteenth century through to the first quarter of the fourteenth century
emerges as the period of highest returns with an underlying upward trend
albeit with some sharp reversals.

59Stephenson, thesis, chs. 2-5. Trow-Smith, Livestock husbandryto I700, p. I70.

60
The relationship between trends in wool yields and trends in wool prices and in the volume of
wool exported will be explored in detail in a later study.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388 M. J. STEPHENSON

There was a steep and almost continuous decline in returns per fleece
from I325 until I365. Even the strong recoveryfrom I365 until I379 only
regained thirteenth-century levels of revenue per fleece. Thereafter the
underlying trend was very definitely downwards, sinking to a low of 37 on
the index by I440-4. In other words, the real gross income per fleece on
these estates in the mid-fifteenth century was only one-third of the figure
two hundred years earlier (table 4).

Table4. Deflatedindexof the unitvalueof Winchester

wool
(5-yearmeans:ioo = meanfor I2IO-I454)
I2I0-4 I00 I295-9 90 I375-9 I02
I2I5-9 64 I300-4 93 I380-4 8I
I220-4 89 I305-9 I09 I385-9 70
I225-9 54 I3I0-4 I04 I390-4 68
I230-4 I09 I3I5-9 89 I395-9 69
1235-9 III I320-4 I73 I400-4 76
I240-4 I325-9 ii8 I405-9 82
I245-9 I09 I330-4 98 I4I0-4 82
I250-4 110 I335-9 98 I4I5-9 65
I255-9 74 I340-4 94 I420-4 74
I260-4 III I345-9 88 I425-9 69
I265-9 99 I350-4 70 I430-4 66
I270-4 88 I355-9 63 I435-9 56
I275-9 I26 I360-4 58 I440-4 37
I280-4 75 I365-9 83 I445-9 59
I285-9 I07 I370-4 84 I450-4 45
I290-4 I03

Note:The indexwas calculatedby multiplyingthe averagefleecesize on the estateby currentwool pricesand then
deflatingby the PhelpsBrownand Hopkinsbasketof consumablesindex.
Sources:Fleece weightsfrom table 3; wool pricesfrom Lloyd, 'Woolprices',pp. 38-44;basketof consumablesdata
fromPhelpsBrownand Hopkins,'Sevencenturies',pp. 38-4I.

On the face of it these grim figures reinforce Lloyd's attack on the myth
of late medieval sheep farming as a highly profitable venture.6' However,
they ignore relative costs, and these moved heavily in favour of sheep
farming after I350 when the supply of pasture increased markedly and
labour became more expensive. While the first half of the fifteenth century
cannot be portrayed as an era when farmers eagerly exchanged their ploughs
for crooks, sheep farming still remained profitable, probably more so than
much arable farming.
That there was a massive switch in the relative importance of sheep and
arablefarming can be illustrated by the experience of the Winchester estates.
A simple measure is the ratio of sheep to each sown acre of arable. The
highest sustained average ratio that sheep attained in the years I209-I350
was about 2 sheep per arable acre. This grew steadily to nearly IO sheep
per arableacre by I435. By I453 the demesnearablehad in largepart been
leased out, yet the sheep flock was not far below early fourteenth-century
levels, although the trend was downward. By the mid-fifteenth century,

61 Lloyd, Wool prices, pp. 24-6. Dyer, Lords and peasants, pp. I40, I5I.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 389
however, the combination of falling prices and wool yields had cut deeply
into the profitability of wool production. The level of profitability was
sufficiently low to make large-scale demesne wool production marginal. The
difference between returns from leasing the flocks out and managing them
directly became too small to outweigh the inherent risks of sheep farming
on a grand scale.

VI
A study of wool yields, then, can reveal a great deal about the medieval
economy both on a micro- and on a macro-economic level. Calculating
average fleece weights is relatively straightforwardand their range, for central
southern England, at least, has been established. In contrast to cereal yields,
medieval wool yields appear to have been relatively high by comparison with
later centuries. Some pronounced trends have emerged, especially the slump
in wool yields in the latter part of the fourteenth century and the first half
of the fifteenth. Such secular trends in fleece weights have an obvious
importance in an economy that was so geared to wool production. A drop
in average fleece weights from say I.35 lbs per fleece to i.00 lb may seem
small, but repeated throughout a national flock of perhaps I5 million sheep
it represents a drastic fall in productivity and national income.62
It seems safe to suggest that climatic shifts made a significant contribution
to long-term changes in wool yields. Clearly too, the impact of disease (both
epidemic and endemic) on fleece weights, and thereby on the national
income, was considerable. It must be stressed, however, that the foregoing
conclusions are presented with several important qualifications. Although
this study rests on a large statistical base, it is mainly derived from one large
ecclesiastical estate in southern England. There is no comparable analysis of
the wool yields of the important highland zones. As geography undoubtedly
exerted a significant influence on fleece type and weight and as husbandry
practices probably varied from region to region, this study is by no means
complete.

Cambridge
62
Postan, 'Medieval wool trade', pp. 343-4 estimates that there were between I5 and i8 million sheep
in England at the beginning of the fourteenth century.

Footnote references
Official publications
Agriculturalstatistics:England, I978-9 (i980).
Agriculturalstatistics: United Kingdom i985 (i986).
Animal health: a centenary,i865-i965 (i965).

Secondary sources
Allison, K.J., 'Flock management in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd
ser., xi (I958), pp. 98-iI2.
Armitage, P.L., 'The early history of English longwool sheep', Ark, vol. x (i983), pp. 90-7.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390 M. J. STEPHENSON

Bischoff, J.P., 'Fleece weights and sheep breeds in late thirteenth and early fourteenth century England',
Agric. Hist., 57 (i983), pp. I42-60.
Blaxter, K.L., 'Climatic factors and the productivity of different breeds of livestock' in C.G. Johnson
and L.P. Smith, eds., The biological significanceof climatic changes in Britain (i965), pp. I5I-76.
Bowden, P.J., 'Wool supply and the woollen industry', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., IX (I957), pp. 44-
58.
Bowden, P.J., The wool trade in Tudor and Stuart England (1971).
Brandon, P.F., 'Late medieval weather in Sussex and its agricultural significance', Trans. Inst. Brit.
Geog., 54 (1971), pp. I-I7.
Campbell, B.M.S., 'Agricultural progress in medieval England: some evidence from eastern Norfolk',
Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., XXXVI (i983), pp. 26-46.
Denholm-Young, N., Seignorial administrationin England (Oxford, I937).
Dyer, C.C., Lords and peasants in a changingsociety (Cambridge, i980).
Farmer, D.L., 'Grain yields on the Winchester manors in the later middle ages', Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd
ser., xxx (1977), pp. 555-66.
Finberg, H.P.R., TavistockAbbey: a study in the social and economichistoryof Devon (Cambridge, I951).
Flohn, H. and Fantechi, R., eds., The climate of Europe:past, presentand future (Dordrecht, i984).
Fussell, G.E., ed., Robert Loder'sfarm accounts, i6i0-i620, Camden Society, 3rd ser., LIII (1936).
Gras, N.S.B. and Gras, E.C., The economicand social historyof an English village (Cambridge, Mass.,
1930).
Hatcher, J., Plague, population and the English economy,I348-I530 (i977).
Ingram, M.J., Farmer, G., and Wigley, T.M.L., 'Past climates and their impact on man: a review', in
T.M.L. Wigley, M.J. Ingram, and G. Farmer, eds., Climate and history:studies in past climatesand
their impact on man (Cambridge, i98i), pp. 3-50.
Kerridge, E., The agriculturalrevolution(New York, i968).
Kershaw, I., 'The great famine and the agrarian crisis in England, I3I5-22', P&P, 57 (i973), pp. 3-
50.
King, E., PeterboroughAbbey: a study in the land market, I086-I3I0 (Oxford, I973).
Le Roy Ladurie, E., Times of feast: times of famine (New York, I972).
Lamb, H.H., The changingclimate (I966).
Lamb, H.H., Climate: past, present and future, 2 vols. (1972, I977).
Lloyd, T.H., The movementof wool prices in medievalEngland. (Econ. Hist. Rev., Supplement, 6, I973).
Lloyd, T.H., The English wool trade in the middle ages (Cambridge, I977).
Lloyd, T.H., 'The medieval wool-sack', Text. Hist., 3 (1972), pp. 92-9.
Miller, E. and Hatcher, J., Medieval England: rural society and economicchange, I086-I348 (I978).
Oliver, J., 'Problems of agro-climatic relationships in Wales in the eighteenth century' in J.A. Taylor,
ed., Weatherand agriculture(I967), pp. I87-200.
Ollerenshaw, C.B., 'Climatic factors and liverfluke disease' in J.A. Taylor, ed., Weatherand agriculture
(i967), pp. I29-35.
Oschinsky, D., Walterof Henley and other treatiseson estate managementand accounting(Oxford, I971).
Owen, J.B., Sheep production(I976).
Page, F.M., 'Bidentes Hoylandie', Econ. J., I (I929), pp. 603-I3.
Parry, M.L., Climatic change, agricultureand settlement(Folkestone, I978).
Pelham, R.A., 'Fourteenth-century England', in H.C. Darby, ed., An historicalgeographyof England
before i8oo, 2 vols., I (Cambridge, I948), pp. 242-6.
Phelps Brown, E.H. and Hopkins, S.V., 'Seven centuries of the prices of consumables, compared with
builders' wage-rates', in P.H. Ramsey, ed., The price revolutionin sixteenth-centuryEngland (I971)
pp. I8-4I.
Postan, M. M., 'Medieval agrarian society in its prime' in Idem, ed., CambridgeEconomic History of
Europe I, (Cambridge, i965), pp. 548-632.
Postan, M.M., 'Village livestock in the thirteenth century' in idem, Essays on medieval agricultureand
general problems of the medieval economy (Cambridge, I973), pp. 2I4-48.
Postan, M.M., 'The medieval wool trade', in idem, Medieval trade and finance (Cambridge, I973),
pp. 342-52.
Postles, D., 'Fleece weights and the wool supply', Text. Hist., I2 (i98i), pp. 97-Io3.
Power, E., The wool trade in English medieval history(Oxford, I947).
Raftis, J.A., The estatesof Ramsey Abbey: a study of economicgrowth and organization(Toronto, I957).
Riley, H.T., ed., Chronica Willelmi Rishanger (i865).
Robinson, J., ed., The farming and memorandumbooks of Henry Best (i857).
Ryder, M.L., Sheep and man (i983).
Stephenson, M.J., 'The productivity of medieval sheep on the great estates, IIOO-I500' (unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, I987).
Stern, D.V., 'A Hertfordshire manor of Westminster Abbey: an examination of demesne profits, corn
yields and weather evidence' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, I978).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WOOL IN THE MEDIEVAL ECONOMY 39I

Thorold Rogers, J.E., A historyof agricultureand prices in England (Oxford, i866).

Titow, J.Z., 'Evidence of weather in the account rolls of the bishopric of Winchester, I209-I350', Econ.
Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., xii (i960), pp. 360-407.
Titow, J.Z., Winchesteryields: a study in agriculturalproductivity(Cambridge, I972).
Titow, J.Z., 'Le climat a travers les r6les de comptabilit6 de l'Fveche de Winchester, I350-I450', Annales
ESC, xxv (1970), pp. 3I2-50.
Titow, J.Z., 'Land and population on the bishop of Winchester's estates, I209-I350' (unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, i962).
Trow-Smith, R., A historyof British livestockhusbandryto I700 (1957).
Trow-Smith, R., A historyof British livestockhusbandry,I700-I900 (I959).
Ugawa, K., Lay estates in medieval England (Tokyo, i966).
Youatt, W., Sheep, their breeds, managementand diseases (i837).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:30:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions