Morphology in practice: identifying field patterns

Morphology can be seen as a way of imposing order on landscape forms by

classifying them in order to provide a framework for analysis. HLC projects attempt to

141 The nineteenth-century origins of morphology, particularly as expressed in geomorphology or the study of landforms, was discussed by Sauer in 1925 in a paper on the place of cultural morphology in the study of geography: C.O. Sauer, 'The morphology of landscape' in J. Leighly (ed.), Land and life: a selection from the writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer, (Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1963), pp.315-50. Originally published in University of California Publications in Geography 1925, 2(2), 19-54.

142 A.R.H. Baker, 'Historical geography and the study of the European rural landscape', Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 70B(1), (1988), pp.5-16 at p.9; M. Widgren, 'Can landscapes be read?' in H. Palang, H. Soovali, M. Antrop and G. Setten (eds.), European rural landscapes:

persistence and change in a globalising environment, (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, 2004), pp.455-65 at p.456; M. Widgren, 'Reading property in the landscape', Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 60(1), (2006), pp.57-64 at p.57.

143 R. Muir, The new reading the landscape: fieldwork in landscape history, (Exeter, University of Exeter Press, 2000), p.xv.

144 Austin, 'Doubts about morphogenesis'.

89

assign particular field patterns to particular chronological periods. Roberts and Wrathmell’s settlement study records the distribution pattern of different sizes of settlement. The identification of patterns can be illustrated by looking at some of the various ways in which field shapes have been classified. The concern here is the classification itself, the interpretation of that classification being considered later in this section.

A simple broad framework of field shapes was provided by Flatrès in a 1957 study on field systems in Brittany, Ireland, Cornwall and Wales by grouping enclosures into those with a regular form and those with an irregular form.¹⁴⁵ Those classified as regular fields were usually straight-sided and roughly quadrilateral while varying in shape and size whereas irregularly shaped fields were typically small in size and occurred less frequently.¹⁴⁶ While the difference between regular and irregular is readily understandable in principle, the difficulty is that there are many variants in field shape so that the degree of regularity is a continuum. The decision as to whether any individual example is regular or irregular therefore becomes an increasingly subjective assessment.

A more objective and detailed morphological typology of field systems is provided by Bowen’s Ancient Fields, published in 1961.¹⁴⁷ Reflecting the research of the period, Bowen considered three main types of fields. His first group were the so-called

‘Celtic’ fields which he defined as 'all those fields of regular shape which were laid

145 P. Flatrès, Géographie rurale de quatre contrées Celtiques: Irlande, Galles, Cornwall et Man, (Rennes, 1957).

146 R.H. Buchanan, 'Field systems of Ireland' in A.R.H. Baker and R.A. Butlin (eds.), Studies of field systems in the British Isles, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp.580-618 at p.588.

147 H.C. Bowen, Ancient fields: a tentative analysis of vanishing earthworks and landscapes, (London, British Association for the Advancement of Science, [1961]).

90

out before the Saxons established themselves in this country'.¹⁴⁸ Such fields were distinguished by their small size and roughly rectangular shape but varied from ¼ to 1½ acres with sides that could range from c.22 to 160 yards. He subdivided this field type based on the proportions, which could be either square and less than ½ acre, or rectangular with long sides that could reach a maximum proportion of about six to one together with an area of up to 1½ acres.¹⁴⁹ These types of fields were also classified by their pattern, i.e. the way in which they were arranged in groups. This could either be based on a series of roughly parallel lines or could be irregular. An in-between form was ‘arranged so that the field angles on the downhill side overlap’ which Bowen called ‘staggered angles’ but which today would be called a dogleg form.¹⁵⁰

Bowen’s second group were strip lynchets, by which he meant fields bounded by lynchets or banks so as to form long narrow terraces on slopes.¹⁵¹ Although their introduction appears to be post-Roman, they have been used as late as the nineteenth century.¹⁵² Although their narrow widths were very varied, they were typically longer than Celtic fields, often circa 200 yards or more, and Bowen states that a proportion of fifty to one was not uncommon. He subdivided them by orientation: following the contour; across the contour or up-and-down; and a form that ran diagonally across the slope.¹⁵³

The third class of field Bowen simply called ridge and furrow, thus reflecting the nature of the field surface as formed by ploughing action rather than the shape of the

148 Bowen, Ancient fields, p.2.

149 Ibid., pp.20, 22-4.

150 Ibid., p.24.

151 Ibid., pp.3, 40.

152 Ibid., p.44.

153 Ibid., p.40.

91

field itself.¹⁵⁴ His basic classification of this type of field is based simply on width of the ridge and degree of linearity. Spade dug ridges in the form of lazy beds are first distinguished from ridge and furrow as being 'usually 2 feet to 8 feet wide divided by furrows 1 foot to 3 feet wide'.¹⁵⁵ Narrow rig is straight and forms a low ridge that is 5 yards or less in width. Broad rig on the other hand is wider than 5 yards and may be either quite straight or it may be sinuous. If sinuous it will usually take the form of a reversed ‘S’ thought to be created by the use of long plough teams.¹⁵⁶ Broad rig may be a variety of heights and will run up and down hill on any slope of more than a few degrees as it would be difficult for the plough to turn the slice against a gradient.¹⁵⁷

Bowen’s field morphology thus uses a variety of factors to divide the fields with which he is concerned into types or groups. Size, shape, area, measurements,

proportions, orientation and degree of linearity are all used to create subdivisions. This represents a quantitative approach that, although used in conjunction with the

qualitative and subjective assessment of regularity/irregularity for ‘Celtic’ fields, reflects a more objective methodology than that of Flatrès.

Bowen subtitled his work as ‘a tentative analysis’ and it is interesting to note that nobody has since followed in his footsteps and been brave or foolhardy enough to offer quantitative objective assessments when discussing field morphology.¹⁵⁸ Indeed attempts to present broad classifications of fields have been limited, not least because

154 Bowen, Ancient fields, pp.3-4.

155 Ibid., p.47.

156 See S.R. Eyre, 'The curving plough-strip and its historical implications', Agricultural History Review, 3(2), (1955), pp.80-94.

157 Bowen, Ancient fields, pp.47-8.

158 However there have been various attempts to create typologies of cultivation ridges. See for example S. Upex, 'A classification of ridge and furrow by an analysis of cross-profiles', Landscape History, 26, (2004), pp.59-75; M.D. Myers, 'Which way to till this field? The cultural selection of surface form in the rise and fall of cultivation ridges in Northwestern Europe', Journal of Cultural Geography, 19(2), (2002), pp.65-94; M.L. Parry, 'A typology of cultivation ridges in southern Scotland', Tools and Tillage, 3(1), (1976), pp.3-19.

92

of the large number of studies of local field systems demonstrating the degree of variation, and the consequent realisation of the difficulties inherent in attempting generalisations.¹⁵⁹ Further explanation lies in the relative lack of objectivity. There are only a few field characteristics which have meaningful quantifiable elements. These include the size of the field and the length of the boundaries. The key characteristic is shape, where only subjective assessments can be made about the degree of regularity in the pattern of field groups and the extent to which boundaries are rectilinear. None of these criteria are clear cut and definitive because in order to group these

characteristics it is necessary to employ a variable range within which an individual field may fall.

A good example of such variability is provided in the work done by Peter Herring on Cornish strip fields published in 2006.¹⁶⁰ Herring’s exposition of the changing assumptions and readings of the Cornish fieldscape illustrates how cultural and geographic determinism obscured the existence of strip fields and hamlets for many years, a reminder of how theory can blind interpretation. He describes the

characteristics of strip fields ‘as patterns of long parallel-sided fields or roughly square or rectangular fields whose slightly sinuous sides are also fossilisations of medieval field boundaries'.¹⁶¹ Typically strips run downslope, are between 450 and 650 feet long, and 'have distinctive curving shapes, almost always reversed-J curves when viewed from the bottom of the slope … only a handful of systems have the reversed-S or aratral curve of ox-team ploughing'.¹⁶² There are two interesting points to note. One

159 A.R.H. Baker and R.A. Butlin, 'Conclusion: problems and perspectives' in A.R.H. Baker and R.A.

Butlin (eds.), Studies of field systems in the British Isles, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp.619-56 at p.619.

160 P. Herring, 'Cornish strip fields' in S. Turner (ed.), Medieval Devon and Cornwall: shaping an ancient countryside, (Macclesfield, Windgather Press, 2006), pp.44-77.

161 Ibid., p.67.

162 Ibid., p.69.

93

is that there is no ubiquity of form – phrases such as ‘almost always’ or ‘only a

handful’ demonstrate that there are always exceptions. The second is that the variety is quite marked. Strips can be long parallel-sided or square or rectangular. Their sides can vary from reversed-J to reversed-S to perfectly straight.¹⁶³