DOMESDAY SURVEY The transformation of the Domesday hundreds is one, though only- one, of the causes that make the identification of the manors named in the Survey peculiarly and notoriously difficult. Another is the frequent occur- rence of changes in local nomenclature, making the places unrecognizable under their later names. A third is found in the identity of the name borne by places widely apart. There are, for instance, entered in Domesday the two Walfords, one in the north, the other in the south of the county, the two Kingstones, one in its eastern, the other in its western half ; three Marstons in different places — one of them a lost name — which are the subject of five entries, as are the Maunds of four, the Mansels of five, and the Fromes of six, in addition to ' Brismerfrum ' and ' Nerefrum.' To the various Hopes about the county are devoted nine, and to the Stokes five. We have further to allow for the eccentric forms employed by the Domesday scribe ; Munsley appears as 'Muneslai' and 'Moneslai,' but also twice as ' Muleslage,' and the forms of the hundredal names have shown what he could accomplish. Unfortunately, we have not for Herefordshire the assistance afforded for many counties by the works of bygone topographers. It may be that, when the parochial history has been worked out in the volumes to follow, light may be thrown on the identity of certain Domesday place-names which as yet continue obscure ; but some are likely to remain insoluble puzzles. The best of all proofs of identity is that which is afforded by feudal tenure and genealogical descent, and that is why I consider the returns for Hereford- shire hundreds in 1243, printed in the Testa de Nevill (62-7), to be the most valuable material that we have for Domesday identification. *°' One of the most interesting identifications that one has had to make in this county is that of the great nameless manor which Alvred of Marlborough held in Thornlaw Hundred, and which is assessed at no less than 15 hides. For we read that his daughter holds it of him. Happily, the invaluable return of 1 243 proves at once that it was Pencombe : — In Pencumbe xv hide, unde Johannes de Wyten medietatem de Roberto Tregoz de honore de Ewyas dc veteri feoff' per servicium militare. Et Thomas de Hemegrave alteram medietatem dc Roberto de Wyten. Et idem Robertus de eodem ut prius.^^' We turn next to the cartulary of St. Peter's Gloucester, and find that Eustace, miles, son of Turstin the Fleming {Flandrensis) gave to that house a hide of land at Sidnal (' Suthale ') in Pencombe,"" and then that this gift is confirmed by his mother Agnes, widow of Turstin Flandrensis, as that of her son Eustace ' dominus de Witteneye.'"^ Now we can amplify the Domesday entry, and identify not only the manor but its tenant : Alvred's daughter was that ' Agnes, wife of Turstin de Wigmore,' who was also holding of her father the 15-hide manor of Great Cowarne. We thus identify Turstin ' de Wigmore ' with Turstin ' the Fleming,' named in an entry on Ralf de Mortimer's fief. There has been no little speculation about this Turstin, to whom William Fitz Osbern appears to have given Cleobury"^ (afterwards Cleobury ' Mortimer ') in Shropshire as well as land in Hereford- ' shire, probably with Wigmore Castle, which afterwards passed into the hands ^^ They are a good deal nearer to the date of Domesday than are the 14th-century returns printed in Feud. Aids, and they are also much fuller. «' Testa de Nevill, 64. •"> Op. cit. 115. "' Ibid. 107. This was in Abbot Reginald's time. '" y.C.H. SArofis. i, 289. 303
