A CLASSIC CASE OF CONFIRMATION BIAS
BILL SAUNDERS
The Origin of the Norfolk Broads - a classic case of Confirmation Bias
mallards
"An otherwise mysterious comment in a Ludham account roll of St. Benet's for 1383 becomes explicable in the light of an assumption that fen was being ferried across a broad which was already partially flooded. 'In the making of 10 lasts of turves at Hoveton 28s. 4d., per last 2s 10d.: in making 10 lasts there 26s. 6d., per last 2s. 8d., and no more because the lord's boat was used.'" Smith, 1960
Apart from the Norwich Cathedral Priory records (see under "The making of Ormesby Broad"), this is the only other document to survive which refers to a boat being used as on-site transport. We can be doubly sure that this was its function, because this same account roll contains a separate and highly detailed costing for the delivery of 25,000 of these turves by river to the manor house at Ludham in an obviously different boat.
Deriving from his interpretation of the Priory records, the basis for Smith's explanation is presumably as follows:
the broads are great pits dug for peat which were subsequently flooded;
since a boat is clearly floating in it, this formerly dry pit has now become flooded;
"dry working" (i.e.conventional turf-cutting) becomes impossible in a great pit which has started to flood;
these turves must therefore have been produced by the two-stage method in which peat or 'fen' is dredged up in bulk, and then ferried to the edge of the turbary where it is shaped into turves, hence the use of the lord's boat;
this different method of production is only viable if the standing water is not too deep, therefore the pit has become only 'partially' flooded.
Smith might have added, but did not, that the partial flooding of this great pit could only have been recent, because in 1380 a certain Henry Day was paid 28d. for seven days' "digging of peats" in this same turbary.
If this is indeed the explanation, does it solve all the mystery?
The record tell us clearly:
the lord's boat was used during the production of the second batch of turves;
its use resulted in a saving of 2d. per last;
it was this saving which required some explanation in the account, so the use of the lord's boat was the exception, and the initial, more expensive batch the expected norm.
the lord's boat was not used in the production of the first batch of turves.
How was this saving achieved? Although at first sight this may not seem clearly stated, the answer is simply a matter of emphasis: " . . . . and no more because the lord's boat was used" is the only possible reading in this context. The saving arose from the substitution of the lord's boat for a boat belonging to somebody else, which was used in the production of the first batch of turves.
Boats were used for both batches, which can present no mystery to Smith, since, from his perspective, all these turves must have been made from fen which had been dredged and ferried.
So if the need to use the lord's boat had not arisen, if the saving had not been made, then the entry in the account roll would presumably have read: "In the making of 20 lasts of turves at Hoveton 56s. 8d.". A boat would probably not have been mentioned, since its use was part of the expected norm; we only learn of the use of boats because of the exceptional circumstances which arose.
From any perspective, would such an abbreviated entry in this account roll be capable of being interpreted as an example of peat being dredged up in bulk, ferried across a flooded pit and unloaded onto the bank, before being subjected to a rigorous process to convert it into these turves?
The answer has to be, "Certainly not"; not because there is no mention of water, boats, ferrying or fen, but because of the level of costs.
It is a central plank of Smith's thesis that, when a great pit became partially flooded, costs rose, because a more laborious, more expensive, two-stage dredging method had to replace conventional digging (see under "The making of Ormesby Broad"). In addition, by the last quarter of the fourteenth century, there had been major wage inflation. To be consistent with Smith's theories, these turves should have cost about 18s. per last.
At 3.4/3.2d. per 1000, they are cheaper than the turves produced at Martham in the 1290's at 4d. per 1000, a figure which Smith had hailed as clear evidence of turves still being cut in a great pit which had yet to flood. There is no evading the issue; turves are the end product; the cost cannot be just for shaping them out of bulk 'fen', for that part of the two-stage process did not involve the use of a boat.
"Altogether the transport of 25,000 turves over approximately 8 miles cost 2s.7d. and added rather more than a third to the cost of production." ibid.
The converse of Smith's own calculations from information in this same 1383 account demonstrates that for him total production costs were indeed rather less than 3s. 0d. per last.
The solution to Smith's 'mystery' is not that St.Benet's Abbey was able to produce turves from dredged, bulk peat at a lower cost than turves cut ninety years earlier at Martham Hall; by 1380 a day's pay for a turbary worker had risen from 1d. to 4d.. The two costs are not directly comparable, because the accounting practices were different (see under "The price of peat"). The major element in all St.Benet's figures is simply the direct labour cost involved in production, whereas turf costs at Norwich Cathedral Priory estates also, and more accurately, include the value of the peat contained in the turves
Assuming the traditional standard of 1000 turves per man per day, the true comparison to be made is with the 28d. paid by St.Benet's in 1380 to one man for seven days' 'digging of peats', a rate of 4d. per day. A reduced rate of 3.4d per day for digging turves in 1383 is consistent with, say, three weeks' work guaranteed for ten men by this larger contract, with the men providing their own equipment. Of equal significance is the fact that 200,000 turves is a figure six times greater than any recorded annual total for turves produced by the probably more laborious two-stage, dredging method.
Turves were dug with turf-spades from the untapped reserves in this turbary, creating a separate, fairly small, deep pit, isolated from other, exhausted areas which were already flooded. The boats were used to ferry the turves across these flooded areas.
This 'otherwise mysterious comment' points in an uncompromising manner to the conclusion that the standard method of production at Hoveton in 1383 was to dig up turves, which were then carried by boat to the edge of the turbary, where they were transferred to another boat for delivery by river.
If this was the standard method at Hoveton in 1383, why would it have been any different there or anywhere else in 1333, 1283, 1233 or 1183? Earlier water levels may have been lower, but only by a few inches.
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
By 1383, many former estate tenants have left their traditional homes, seeking work and a new life in towns and villages. Land owners, for their part, often found it more convenient to hire workers as and when needed, rather than to rely on traditional estate labour.
When the Abbey needed a few thousand turves in 1380, the Steward estimated the job at seven days' work, and hired Henry Day to dig the turves from their Hoveton turbary for the sum of 28d.
In 1383, the Abbey needed 200,000 turves, so the Steward hired a gang of men to dig them from this same turbary; it was agreed that the gang would provide all their own equipment, and would be paid at the rate of 2s.10d. per last, a total of 56s. 8d. Half way through the job the gang's boat sank. They were compelled to borrow a boat from the Abbey in order to complete their contract and receive payment. The terms were renegotiated accordingly for the second half of the contract.
Copyright 2009 The Medieval Making of the Norfolk Broads. All rights reserved.
The Origin of the Norfolk Broads - a classic case of Confirmation Bias
mallards