| Summary : Possible pre 1433 ridge-and-furrow cultivation was identified in Greenwich Park during the RCHME Greenwich Park Survey between September 1993 and February 1994. The earthworks comprised six parallel linear hollows, situated about 50 metres south of the Bandstand. Each hollow was found to be about 0.8 metres wide and 0.1 metre deep. There were no traces of ridging between the hollows. The hollows extended north-south for 10-20 metres. At the northern end the features disappear; to the south, they end against a flat-bottomed ditch, 4 metres wide and 0.2 metres deep, running north-east to south-west for 40 metres. There were faint traces of two hollows continuing beyond the ditch, but the relationship between the two features was unclear.Aerial photographs suggest that the hollows are furrows, part of an area of ridge and furrow cultivation extending north-westwards between Bower Avenue and the Bandstand. At least eight furrows are visible as linear cropmarks, each describing a gentle arc reminiscent of the `reversed S' curve of ridge and furrow. From aerial photographs, it is obvious that the furrows do continue south of the ditch, which appears therefore to cut across the field system. |
More information : TQ 3923 7711: possible ridge-and-furrow cultivation, recorded during the RCHME Greenwich Park Survey, Sep-1993 to Feb-1994.
Six parallel linear hollows, situated about 50m south of the Bandstand. Each hollow is about 0.8m wide and 0.1m deep. There are no traces of ridging between the hollows. The hollows run north to south for 10m to 20m. At the northern end, they simply peter out; to the south, they end against a flat-bottomed ditch, 4.0m wide and 0.2m deep, running north-east to south-west for 40.0m. There are faint traces of two hollows continuing beyond the ditch, but the relationship between the two features is unclear.
Aerial photographs suggest that the hollows are furrows, part of an area of ridge and furrow cultivation extending north-westwards between Bower Avenue and the Bandstand. At least eight furrows are visible as linear cropmarks, each describing a gentle arc reminiscent of the `reversed S' curve of ridge and furrow. From the aerial photographs, it is obvious that the furrows do continue south of the ditch, which appears therefore to cut across the field system (1a).
Two other possible areas of ridge and furrow have been identified within the park; at TQ 3939 7728 a series of north to south ridges run parralel to a broad bank, perhaps a field boundary (see TQ 37 NE 105). Several small furrows on Ranger's Field, at TQ 3903 7689, may also be evidence for arable cultivation, but this is more doubtful.
The Park is unlikely to have been subject to arable cultivation after its enclosure in 1433, but may have been ploughed earlier in the Medieval period. The licence granted to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, bequeaths `200 acreas...of their land, pasture, wood, heath, virses, and gorse thereof to make a park at Greenwich' (1b) and, in this context, it seems probable that land is used in the sense of `unit of [arable] cultivation' (2).
See survey plan at 1:1000 scale archived with record TQ 37 NE 69 (UID 610590). (1-2)
In the south east quarter of the Park under short grass south of the Bandstand and in a deciduous plantation, this area of ridge and furrow is aligned north west – south east. It is cut at its south end by a ditch 0.2m deep. At least six parallel ridges 0.1m high and 0.8m apart could be seen, most ending at the ditch, but some extending for some 10m to 20m beyond.
The fragments of ridge and furrow lie in the hinterland of the Park and away from likely settlement areas on the River front. There may have been medieval settlement in the Park area on the medieval road lines, but no evidence has come to light despite surveys having been done. If settlement was associated with the fragments of ridge and furrow it appears to have been destroyed. The vestiges of the ridge and furrow which survive are so limited as not to be able to derive any indication of their full extent or associations. Because one cannot date such remains by form with any accuracy, and as no interventions have taken place which might provide dating evidence for either the ridges or the buried ground surface beneath, it is impossible to accurately date the areas of ridge and furrow. Because it is not possible to ascribe either date or settlement to the remaining fragments, scheduling is not recommended at this time. (3) |