Page:VCH Derbyshire 1.djvu/414

 A HISTORY OF DERBYSHIRE shifting as this change would imply to have taken place. That a manor could in course of time come to take upon itself another name is shown in the case of the great manor of ' Bubedene,' which was for many years a crux to Derbyshire topographers. There is no doubt that it represents the modern village of Longford, though Bupton, the representative of the Domesday name, has now shrunk to cover a few cottages at the east end of the village. Another vanished Derbyshire place is the ' Herdebi,' which denoted part of the manor of Duffield and also an independent manor on the fief of Ralf de Burun. By analogy with the transformation of similar names in other counties l ' Herdebi ' ought at the present day to appear as Harby. Local research might perhaps discover a ' Harby ' in the neighbourhood of Coxbench and Kilbourne which would suit the conditions required. The first and last pages of the Derbyshire Survey present special difficulties to the topographical investigator. In addition to the imperfect Ravenes ... it has proved impossible to identify ' Padinc ' or ' Upetun,' while ' Greherst ' can only be recovered from the Wingerworth Estate map, and ' Cotes ' from the Darley parish map, neither name appearing in the 25~in. Ordnance Survey. The name 'Padinc' should be interesting as an instance of that mysterious 'ing' termination about which so much controversy has arisen, only one other example of this termination occur- ing (at Dinting) in the county survey. The last page of our record contains the entries of two manors, ' Uluritune ' and ' Mers,' the position of which is still insoluble. The special difficulty here is that the account of the land of the king's thegns is drawn up seemingly without much regard to geographical considerations. Thus Edingale and Lullington, in the extreme south of the county, are wedged in the Survey between Clowne and Ilkeston. Hence we have no clue as to the position of * Mers ' and ' Uluritune,' which names have no modern representatives. One last point may be mentioned here, only, however, to be referred to local investigation. It is usual in this series to give some account of the county hundreds as shown in Domesday and their connexion with those of later times. In Derbyshire this has proved impossible for a double reason. We have seen that in this county Domesday in its rub ri cation gives no guide to the number or position of the several wapentakes into which the shire was divided, so that any inquiry into this question would have to start at the other end from a consideration of the modern local divisions of the county. But the modern wapentakes of Derbyshire are extraordinarily discrete ; so much so that it would be quite hopeless to attempt to connect them with their Domesday representatives without a minute investigation of the mediaeval geography of the shire. In any case the gap between Domesday and the thirteenth century, when local records become numerous and full, would place serious difficulties in the way of this investigation, and the only prospect of tracing the history of the Derbyshire wapentakes lies in an inquiry proceeding 'from the known to the unknown.' 1 e.g. Notts and Leic. 326