- MODERN BINGHAM
- HISTORY OF BINGHAM
- Project Details
- Field Walking
- Crow Close
- Test Pits
- STUDY OF OLD MAPS
- BUILT HERITAGE
- CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
- FARMING IN BINGHAM
- BINGHAM AT WAR
- BINGHAM'S RAILWAYS
- ORAL HISTORY
- NATURAL HISTORY
A MAP OF BINGHAM FOR 1586 (7)
Mapping the furlongs in East Field
The maps appear as a pdf. You will need Adobe reader to view them. The size of the map can be adjusted using tools available in your pdf viewer - the image can be magnified and the hand tool used to scroll around the enlarged map.
There were 34 furlongs, of which 19 had directional information. 21 were named. 22% was meadow or pasture. We have re-constructed some strips to show this:
The maps appear as a pdf. You will need Adobe reader to view them. The size of the map can be adjusted using tools available in your pdf viewer - the image can be magnified and the hand tool used to scroll around the enlarged map.
Furlong 1 – Sweete Hill.
Expected area : 57.88 acres GIS area: 56.3 acres
The furlong was 77% arable. The survey gives no location information for this furlong. We positioned it along the north side of Nottingham Road where we know three later fields were called Sweet Well Head. The calculated area fitted to within an acre or so across a number of 1776 enclosure boundaries. In the survey the furlong was walked west to east which suggests holdings were oriented north-south giving an average holding width of 8 yards, similar to east Bridgford. This is confirmed by the ridge and furrow map. To meet current boundaries the furlong is shown slightly smaller than it may have been and some eastern holdings are smaller than they should be. The sharp angle to the eastern boundary may be accurate – holdings at East Bridgford show a similarly angular perimeter in such situations. The large demesne area virtually coincides with a present day freehold (around the filling station); perhaps this is the lineal descendant of the demesne land. This may well have extended southwards across much of what is now Grantham Road which would better honour the present freehold boundaries and would leave more space for Furlong 6 and the closes immediately west.
The survey text indicates some holdings were north of others, confirming the alignment, and that parts or all of many of these were meadow or pasture. No southern half-holdings were down to grass, so we have placed the meadow/pasture portions at the north end of such holdings, adjacent to the East Meadow. By and large the boundaries we have derived for meadow/pasture coincide with the assumed lake margin. This division of holdings into meadow/pasture and arable seems to have been a half-way house between full arable strip farming and the division into doles of large swathes of meadow land. It is largely concentrated in East Field furlongs north of Grantham Road. The Orwins do not specifically mention holdings as being divided between arable and pasture (or meadow) as happens on a number of furlongs in East Field in Bingham, so we can make few assumptions about how this was organised. If it were loose grazing, there would have had to be some form of boundary to keep stock off the arable, or (if cows) the stock may have been tethered, or the grass may have been harvested and not grazed directly.
Although our positioning of this furlong seems to meet most criteria, inspection of the hedgerow map throws up some questions. There is a possibly Tudor hedge (pre-1776 with more than 4 species) along the west side of New Lane (Scarrington to the A52), which cuts through the furlong. If this was there in 1586 it would imply a boundary to the furlong east of where we have placed it. It would also imply New Lane existed, which we are pretty certain it did not, as New Lane has always been considered by local historians to be an enclosure road. Re-positioning would also prevent the delineation of Furlong 2 to within anything like its expected area. The western limit of our assumed furlong is bounded by an enclosure hedge; a similar hedge crosses this part of the furlong, possibly indicating a new line taken during enclosure. Other hedges delineate clearly the subsequent division of this furlong into small enclosures, some of which remain today. The hedge along Grantham Road at this point could be contemporary with the development of the turnpike in 1759 which may have replaced the eastern end of Husband Street as the major thoroughfare. There is an almost complete line of enclosure hedges along the northern boundary of the presumed furlong, itself a continuous old boundary line (shown on the tithe map) and bounded by an old footpath (on 1883 map)-(Husband Street as was).
Of the 143 holdings, 118 are a single strip, 21 are two strips, 2 are three strips, one 4 (demesne) and one 22 (demesne). Single strip holdings sizes vary between 0.14 and 0.6 acres. The area of strips for holdings with more than one strip tend to the same range and so Orwins’ point about ‘land’ (our strip) sizes varying with ground conditions is not made in this field. Demesne strips tended to be twice the area of the others.
Four cottagers had holdings, William Beane and John Allane having two each. There were seven pieces of demesne, 14 Freeholds, seven glebe and 130 tenancies. Almost ever person with land in the open field had at least one holding on this furlong (33 of 40 individuals).
Smaller holdings tended to be concentrated at either end of the furlong, but whether this was because of the available length or the state of the ground is not known.
Furlong 2 – butteth north upon Brocker Leaze (3) south upon Nottingham (Grantham?) Gate.
Expected area :13.14a GIS area: 12.7a
This furlong was 86% arable. Furlongs 2, 3 and 4 seem to relate to one another to produce the pattern shown on our map. ‘Brockay Close’ lay between East Ings (meadow) and ‘Brocker Leaz’, but furlong 3 ‘butteth south west upon Brocker Furlong’, which itself has no location information. We resolved the contradiction by reference to the southern boundary of furlong 2 being Nottingham Gate, and therefore east of Sweet Hill (Furlong 1).
Furlong 2 was walked west to east which implies north-south holdings. However the north/south distances (about 370 yards) would have produced many holdings (the 27 that were less than 1500 square yards) of less than 3 yards wide, which seems impractical. The dog leg shape, if real, would have been a problem too, which is why we have chosen to show this furlong divided into two blocks of holdings on average 5 or 6 yards wide. Similar furlong patterns exist in East Bridgford. We arbitrarily decided to number the holdings from the west, following the direction of walking, firstly on the north side, then on the south side. An alternative would be to ignore the walking direction and orient the holdings east-west, as we did for furlong 4. The join between the two blocks could even have been an extension of Husband Street and turning south at the sharp unexplained angle in the east, following the old parish boundary. New Lane, which otherwise would bisect the furlong is presumed to be a later enclosure road (hence the name) along which a new parish boundary was drawn.
There were 36 holdings, 2 cottagers, 1 demesne (six strips), 6 freehold and 27 tenants.
Furlong 3 – Brocka Leaze butteth north east upon the Lo’p (Lordship) of Aslockton and south west upon Brocka furlong.
Expected area :21.06a GIS area: 20.9a
Clearly the north east boundary has to be the parish boundary. In our arrangement furlong 4 is south or south west! The furlong was walked west to east and a north-south orientation of holdings seems logical and gives sensible dimensions (130 x 13) compared with East Bridgford. The whole of this furlong was given over to pasture, which raises its own questions. It is an extension of the East Meadow, which was itself divided into allotted areas (doles) to named tenants. Why was there a need especially to separate off this furlong of pasture? Was it in reality an early enclosure? Was it permanently down to pasture? Did it have arable episodes? Was this the first stage of converting an area of meadow into arable, or had it been arable before the agrarian decline and the move to sheep farming? Was it an attempt at improving the land and more intensively grazing the pasture?
The area is notable for the sparsity of field walking finds from lithics through to late medieval. Only the western third was part of the lake margin. Nothing seemed to have happened in this area, so one might conclude it was perhaps waste converted to pasture to extend the grasslands of East Meadow. The furlong was walked from east to west. The first holding on the survey list was ‘Half a parcel called a meare’; meare being a boundary would seem to place this alongside the (old) parish boundary (as shown on the tithe map).
An old hedge follows most of the parish boundary, and another neatly separates this furlong from Furlongs 3 and 4 as an enclosure hedge. The Tudor hedge along the western boundary of Brocker Close seems to extend northwards across Brocka Leaze, but this length is actually quite modern.
More puzzling is the Tudor hedge 250 yards west of the Brocker Close boundary and another parallel Tudor hedge 220 yards west. These might have been later enclosure boundaries perhaps for arable use. The distribution of field walking finds shows a high concentration of medieval sherds west of the Tudor hedge with almost none to the east. There is a relatively high density of post medieval finds on each side, so arable use may have developed differently over time. One explanation could be that it was part of a process of subdividing the meadow for more concentrated stock rearing. In the 1570s Thomas Stanhope had enclosed 200 acres of moorland at Shelford, dividing them into three pieces for sheep, and a further 200 acres for arable. The enclosure process was not completed until February 1761. After purchasing the Bingham estate in 1590, might he not have embarked on a similar process here?
Furlong 4 – Brocka Furlong
Expected area :11.4a GIS area: 11.4a
This was 88% pasture. Clearly Brocker Farm derives its present name from these surrounding furlongs. The logic of our treatment of the first three furlongs produces a square furlong with a northern intrusion into Furlong 1, produced by following available boundaries. The field was walked west to east, but this would produce some very narrow holdings (the average would be only 4 yards) so we chose to align these north-south. The area is relatively level so drainage may not have been a consideration. The parcel we have delineated as the furlong is neatly bounded on three sides by enclosure hedges.
Furlong 5 – Flashwonge
Expected area :1.66a GIS area: 2.6a
This furlong was entirely in pasture. Furlong 9 is called the “furlong above Flashwonge” (implying it is uphill from Flashwonge) and the location information has it joining south to it. The arrangement of most other furlongs to meet old or enclosure boundaries and/or locational constraints forces a few furlongs with little location information into a central Starnhill area. Given this, we have chosen to place Furlong 5 around Starnhill Farm. This is near the supposed course of an old stream and on a relatively flat area before the final slope to the River Smite. Thus it could be the location of a small pond), or flash, which would have given the name (the tithe map seems to show one adjacent to the farmhouse. Wong derives from the Anglo-Saxon word for enclosed meadow, suggesting it may have been enclosed well before 1586.It was devoid of sandy coarse earthenware finds, which is consistent with the other pasture furlongs.
The furlong was entirely demesne occupied and recorded as a single holding - perhaps another indicator that it was an early enclosure.
Furlong 6 – Parsons Leaze – joining north to Townsend Close
Expected area :1.9a GIS area: 1.9a
There is no reference in the survey to “Town End Close”. It seemed logical to place this small furlong next to the closes at the edge of the town holdings, the last of which was “Parsons Cloase”. The single holding here was glebe and entirely pasture.
Furlong 7 – Hill Furlong
Expected area :60.53a GIS area: 59.8a
This was 10% pasture; the first 23 holdings were entirely in pasture, the rest were arable. No location information was given for furlong 7. Its name could suggest it sits astride the ridge line which would fit well with the position on our map and allows it to meet the “old” boundary which runs SW to NE. Hawstickins (16) might have been entirely between Hill Furlong and the Grantham Road, but for reasons explained later we have chosen the irregular shape shown. If it were on the other side of the hill, fitting its 60 acres would compromise several location relationships for the other furlongs placed around there.
The furlong was walked from the west implying north-south holding alignment, which would allow them to drain down hill but giving holding lengths of up to 650 yards. However, some East Bridgford examples suggest such a large square area such as this would be divided into blocks of holdings, that length being too far to plough satisfactorily. Some holdings are recorded as being divided into north and south portions, confirming the n-s alignment. Our arrangement gives holding lengths of between 180 and 320 yards. The northern portion, arbitrarily given the same lengths as Hawstickins next door, could have been larger and allowed the furlong to have been divided more evenly or even into two rather than three portions. The angled west and east boundaries make for some strange shaped holdings at each end of the central portion. This would have been avoided by having two portions.
Furlong 8 – East and West Wong – Butting west upon Wett Pitt Furelonge
Expected area :2.2a GIS area: 2.4a
There is no Wett Pitt Furlong, so this is placed next to Wet Forroughes instead. Wong is derived from the Anglo-Saxon for enclosed meadow, so this may be an example of very early enclosure, especially as its single holding was demesne occupied and, contrary to the implication of the name, it was entirely arable in 1586.
Furlong 9 – called the furlong above Flashe Wong and joining south to the said wonge
Expected area :3.2a GIS area: 3.3a
We have placed this uphill from Flashe Wong – East 5. This was entirely arable and had five occupiers, of whom Glebe and Thomas Skynner held 80% between them. The furlong was walked from the south suggesting an east-west orientation of holdings. We have thus dimensioned a rectangle to accord with this, which produces a holding length of up to 230 yards, as opposed to north-south which would give only around 70 yards.
Furlong 10 – Butteth North upon Nottingham Gate, south upon Brownsow furlonge and joining east to Constable meares.
Expected area :16.57a GIS area: 16.3a
Being in East Field, Nottingham Gate must actually refer to the road to Grantham, thus we have placed furlong 10 south of this. Meares can mean boundary or road or both. Furlong 11 joins east to Constable Meares, which led us to believe the two furlongs were opposite each other and therefore that Constable Meares was Granby Lane. There was also a piece of demesne land called Constable Meares extending to just an acre which we think might have been a stretch of grazing rights along the lane. We have placed the southern extent of this furlong firmly on the line of a (presumably ancient) sinuous boundary.
The field was walked from the west, giving north-south holdings down a gentle slope. Only one or two holdings are less than 5 yards wide, but most are above 6. Holding lengths vary between 200 and 300 yards. It was entirely arable.
Furlong 11 - Butteth North upon Nottingham Gate, south upon Short Bryery Furlong, joining east to the Lordship of Aslockton and west to the Constable mere
Expected area :14.92a GIS area: 14.9a
The location information seems to place this at the north east corner of Granby Lane. The furlong was walked from the west giving holding lengths north-south mostly 190 or so yards, reducing to 112 at the eastern end. It was entirely arable.
Furlong 12 – Short Bryerye
Expected area : 8.12a GIS area: 9.2a
Furlong 11 is described as joining to the north of this furlong. It connects with a sinuous boundary on the south. It was walked from the east giving holding lengths north-south ranging from 116 to 174 yards. It was entirely arable.
Furlong 13 –Brownsow – butteth south onto Long Bryery
Expected area : 28.9a GIS area: 26.8a
Brownsow is south of Furlong 10. We have positioned it to meet the old sinuous boundary with Furlong 10. It also sets the location of Furlong 31, Long Bryery. Furlongs 33 and 34 were immediately west. There is a wealth of directional information so we are highly confident of this location. It was entirely arable. The furlong was walked from the East. The field as we have mapped it is almost square (350yds by 375yds) and thus would produce holdings that are at least 50% longer than the traditional 220 yards. There are 60 holdings, which would give an average width of around 6 or 7 yards. We show them oriented north-south, with lengths varying east to west between 260 and 360 yards. There are a couple of examples at East Bridgford of furlongs with holdings of 350 and even 460 yards). Either alignment would give average widths of 5 yards.
Furlong 14 – Short Parnell
Expected area : 5.42a GIS area: 5.4a
Following the East Bridgford examples one would expect the three furlongs named “Short, Broad (20) and Long (19) Parnell” to be adjacent. The disposition of this and Broad Parnell (20) enables them to make use of a north-south sinuous boundary, shown clearly on the tithe map, to separate them and retain the expected areas, which could not happen with them reversed. The shape we have determined is consistent with the name “Short”, but see furlong 20. It was walked from the east which with our geometry would produce north-south holdings of around 120 yards by 6 yards as opposed to the more efficient 170 x 9 which would cross the slope. It was entirely arable.
Furlong 15 – Wett Forroughes
Expected area : 31.9a GIS area: 33.3a
There is no location information except for furlong 8 which butted onto Wett Pitt furlong, which we might take to be Wett Forroughes, perhaps. The modern map shows a pond on the western boundary (the wet pit?) and one is also shown on the 1883 map but not on the tithe map. The name might indicate soil condition and be consistent with placing it on the hill side with holdings running downhill. As with Hill Furlong we have placed this along the sinuous boundary to its south and Grantham Road to the north. The furlong was walked from the east which implies north-south holdings at the western end of over 500 yards, 50 yards longer than any at East Bridgford. At these lengths more than half of the holdings would be less than 4 yards wide; it is more likely that they would have been arranged in two blocks. It might, of course, have been heavy soil which would be another explanation. The last holding is described in the survey as “A strip called a headland”, the only reference in the survey to a practice that occurred frequently, according to Orwin and Orwin (p35), of ploughing across the headland of all the other holdings to create one more. Whether this single mention at Bingham indicates the practice was not common here, or whether others were omitted, must remain unknown. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 16 - Hawstickins
Expected area : 8.19a GIS area: 8.2a
Furlong 17 has location information placing it east of Hawstickins. The name may have some relevance to Hawthorn bushes. Its position on our map results from the juxtaposition of other furlongs. It could have stretched along Grantham Road and have been entirely south of Hill Furlong, but this would have produced very short holdings. Given it was walked from the east; more practical dimensions (190 yards long) are achieved by having it inset into Hill furlong as shown. It could have been even narrower east-west and so with longer holdings. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 17 – joineth south to the north end of Long Parnell, butteth west upon the last furlong (16)
Expected area : 3.46a GIS area: 5.0a
Furlong 18 – butteth west on the last furlong
Expected area : 1.71a GIS area: 2.1a
Clearly Furlong 18 has to be east of 17.
The excessive GIS areas for each compared with expected is a result of other furlongs not achieving the expected area when placed against the old sinuous boundary. Although this forces longer north-south dimensions, the direction of walking from the south suggests the shorter east-west holdings as across the slope as shown. We may be wrong! Both were arable.
Furlong 19 – Long Parnell
Expected area : 15.2a GIS area: 15.0a
The location of this furlong depends upon furlongs 33 and 17. However stopping the furlong at the southern sinuous boundary destroys the adjacency of the link with furlong 33, which now joins west to Short (14) rather than Long Parnell. Walked east-west, north-south holdings would vary in length from 350 to 450 yards with widths of about 6 yards. There are examples at East Bridgford of ‘bent’ holdings as these would have to be to fit the (enclosure) boundaries west and east. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 20 – Broad Parnell
Expected area : 3.68a GIS area: 3.7a
Following the East Bridgford examples one would expect the three furlongs named “Short, Broad (20) and Long (19) Parnell” (14, 19, 20) to be adjacent. The disposition of this and Short Parnell enables them to make use of a sinuous boundary to separate them and retain the expected areas, which could not happen with them reversed. The resulting shape is longer than it is broad and gives average holding lengths of 260 yards but the first four holdings have widths of only 2 or 3 yards which seems impractical - East Bridgford had none under 5 yards - although 6-8 yards were the most common. If the shape is correct then it may have been that these holdings were only half length and joined each other north-south, although the text does not say this. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 21 – Coneygrey
Expected area : 14.69a GIS area: 13.1a
We have placed this to be next to where we located Coneygarth Close (a close called the Coneygarth in the West part of the East Field, formerly having many fruit trees but now fallen into decay) on the basis of the similarity of names. Although at least one boundary in this area is not dead straight and thus may not be an enclosure boundary, it was not possible to place this and furlongs 22, 23 and 24 in such a way as to accommodate the tithe boundaries, the location relationships and expected areas. The walking direction from the north gives a reasonably e-w ‘standard’ holding length of 200 yards (width 6 yards), as opposed to 310 yards if they were north-south. However, the holdings would run across the admittedly gentle slope of about 1:70 (1.5%), contrary to theoretical considerations of drainage, so we cannot be certain in this case The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 22 – butteth south upon Bowse Cloase Hedge, north upon the last furlong.
Expected area : 12.58a GIS area: 12.7a
If 21 is correct then the position for 22 is set. An online dictionary defines bowse thus: To pull or hoist with a tackle, but we are at a loss to see any connection! We might assume Bowse Close to be a furlong or close in the adjoining parish of Wyverton. The 1831 and Tithe maps show enclosure boundaries roughly parallel to those we have imposed on this and adjacent furlongs, but adhering to those would have severely compromised the expected areas so we did not use them. The walking direction from the west would produce north-south holdings, meeting drainage constraints, of around 200 yards (as opposed to 300 east-west). Widths would be16 yards and 11 yards respectively, the former being a little high compared to anything in East Bridgford. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 23 – butteth south upon Bowse Cloase, north upon Buske Furlong.
Expected area : 4.95a GIS area: 5.0a
The position of furlong 23 follows on from 22 if our assumption about Bowse close is correct. About 10% was meadow spread across all holdings, implying it would have been near a significant water supply, which is also consistent with its position on our map. North-south holdings with the slope would be consistent with the walking direction and be about 150 yards by 12 yards wide. Meadowland at the southern ends of these, as shown on our map, would be near the stream.
Furlong 24 – Buske Furlong
Expected area : 11.02a GIS area: 10.8a
Buske, which means bush(y) which may indicate the previous state of the land or that some bushes still existed around the furlong. The free online dictionary defines bosky as having an abundance of bushes, shrubs, or trees. There are similarly named furlongs in the other three fields. Furlong 23 is known to be to the south, which has guided our location for Buske. The walking direction implies east-west holdings of about 150 yards by 28 yards wide, a bit excessive. North-south holdings would be 360 yards by 12, probably a more practical scenario involving many less turns for the plough. The furlong was entirely arable.
Comparison of furlongs 22 v 21and 23 v 24 thus highlights a conundrum with respect to walking direction. Either orientation of holdings produces acceptable lengths (200 – 300 yards) and widths. Why would drainage be a consideration for the southern (lower) furlongs and not the northern ones? The walking directions are consistent with the numbering sequence for this group and could just as easily merely reflect the path the surveyor chose to note these fields in the most efficient order! The walking route, although not the numbering sequence, is continued in our disposition of the neighbouring furlongs 25, 32, 14 and 20. Could it represent a day’s work for the surveyor? We have no way of telling if this is significant! Given that aligning holdings along the longest dimension of a furlong would involve less turns for the plough and therefore be more efficient, might this characteristic over ride the walking direction in our choice of holding alignment? Alternatively, should we choose dimensions to be consistent with walking direction to produce the ‘right’ alignment? Where old boundaries conflict with this, which should prevail?
Furlong 25 – Long Peasholme
Expected area : 18.15a GIS area: 19.3a
About 28% was meadow, which implies a steady water supply. There was a pond in the SW corner in 1883. There are no directional clues at all for this furlong. We have placed it to fit in with other furlongs that do have some information. It is at least next numerically! Peas Holme may be an indication of a typical crop grown here and that it is on a hill(side). Alternatively, as Holme meant island it could have originated as such.
The last 11 holdings (about 14000 square yard) at the southern end were entirely meadow, which would be consistent with being near where we think the water supply would have been. Only the northern 15 holdings were entirely arable. The remaining 31 holdings were partially meadow (generally around a third of each). If all holdings were oriented in the same direction the meadow areas would have been either east side or west side. We have no particular reason for choosing the west! If to the west these meadow pieces would be adjacent to the westerly position we have chosen for the meadow strips in furlong 32, but it is all conjecture! Alternatively, it might be that the middle batch of holdings were oriented north-south, against the direction of walking, which would have made the meadow portions adjacent to the wholly meadow holdings. One furlong only at East Bridgford has groups of holdings with opposite orientations, so it is possible this was the case on Long Peasholm, although many of the resulting holdings would have been very narrow.
Furlong 26 – butteth south upon Smyte Meadow and north upon Sternhill Bothom.
Expected area : 25.33a GIS area: 25.2a
Smyte meadow is listed in the summary as part of the common gazing and is presumably alongside the River Smyte. The expected area of the furlong is achieved by taking the southern boundary to be the old course of the Smite and a tributary into it from the north east. Sternhill Bothom (bottom?) is presumably a track separating this and Furlong 28.
The furlong was walked from the west producing north-south holdings, consistent with drainage requirements, averaging about 5 yards in width. Almost half the furlong was described as meadow; every holding included a portion of meadow, presumably at its southern end. The western holdings tended to have about 30% meadow, a group in the middle portion of the furlong had about 60% meadow and five at the eastern end including a large block of demesne had 40%. If our geometry is correct this might imply a water supply running north south about the centre of the furlong.
NB strip 45 incorrectly transcribed being given 1 acre arable rather than 1 rood! Thus it shows much less meadow percentage than should have been. This is corrected on map but not altered anywhere else (too late in project and not critical!)
Furlong 27 – Sterrnhill Leaze – butting south upon Smyte Calfe
Expected area : 15.45a GIS area: 16.3a
Leaze means meadow and, as might be expected, the furlong was entirely in pasture; the directions clearly position it as we have shown. The furlong was walked from the west with north-south holdings approximately 180 yards by 7. Presumably the holdings were divided by some sort of fencing to separate each owners stock. Alternatively it may have been grazed as one by the several tenants. There was a glebe strip and a larage area of demesne to the east.
Furlong 28 – butteth south upon Sternhill Bothom, north upon Long Bryery Furlong and joineth east to Thoroughbridge Cloase
Expected area : 31.42a GIS area: 31.3a
Our disposition of the other furlongs produces a curiously shaped furlong here, as a sort of elongated ‘L’. Generally one third of each holding was meadow. The arrangement to the west end looks a bit unlikely!
Furlong 29 – butteth north upon Short Bryery Furlong, joining east to the L’ship of Aslocken, west to Cunstable Meare
Expected area : 7.5a GIS area: 7.5a
The three directional indicators for furlong 29 give a high level of confidence in its position on our map. It was entirely arable. The walking direction from the east was along what we have shown as its shorter side giving holdings of 160 yards. The slope towards the river Smite might alternatively suggest holdings aligned north to south, giving holdings 220 yards long. The north and south boundaries are sinuous, giving extra confidence in the disposition.
Furlong 30 – joineth south to Thorough Bridg Close, butting west upon Constable Meare and east onto the L’ship of Aslocken
Expected area : 3.48a GIS area: 4.2a
This is the reverse of furlong 29 in that it was walked from the north but the longer holdings would be achieved with an east west alignment although this would be against the dip towards the River Smite. This would be consistent with another observation of the Orwins about countering excessive run off down steeper slopes, but which is not particularly the case here. However, this is the site of one of the (just about) observable ridge and furrow patches we have measured; they ran north-south. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 31 – Long Briery
Expected area : 16.61a GIS area: 15.6a
Following the East Bridgford example one would expect Long Briery to be adjacent to Short Briery, but this arrangement is not possible in this case as the directional information associated with each imply other furlongs stand between them. 31 is known to be south of 13, east of 34 and north of 28. It was walked from the east which allows for n-s holdings about 180 yards by 8. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 32 – Short Peasholme
Expected area : 8.21a GIS area: 8.2a
About 30% was meadow, confined to occupying about half of each of the central band of holdings. No information on adjacent furlongs was associated with this furlong; we have placed it next to Long Peasholme, equally devoid of information, for the usual reason – it is constrained by the disposition of the others! Our map has it almost square; the walking direction suggests an east-west alignment of holdings.
Furlong 33 – butteth west upon Long Parnell, joining north Brownsaw Furlong
Expected area : 9.88a GIS area: 13.0a
Our disposition of other furlongs constrains furlong 33 to butt westward with short Parnell (14) rather than Long Parnell (19). The north join is just about tenable on the map, being perhaps more north east! The furlong was walked from the south; the dimensions we have drawn would allow practical holding dimensions in either direction – north-south would be 120 x 15 yards, east west would be perhaps very much less likely at 400 x 4 yards. The 3 acres excess of this furlong is almost balanced by the 2 acres shortfall of Furlong 25, but to alter either would remove any adherence to boundaries on any of the maps. The furlong was entirely arable.
Furlong 34 - butteth west upon the last, east upon Brownsaw and Long Bryery
Expected area : 6.4a GIS area: 7.8a
The directions are clear and our disposition of 34 depends on being right for the other furlongs! Our geometry would produce east-west holdings consistent with walking from the north of only 95 yards (13 yards wide) compared with 330 (3.6 wide) for north-south alignment. The latter widths might be impractical and certainly well below anything at East Bridgford. The furlong was entirely arable.