DOI article:
Nielsen, Viggo: Iron Age plough-marks in Store Vildmose, North Jutland
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48998#0166
IRON AGE PLOUGH-MARKS
157
The fact that the marks are interrupted is of
importance with regard to their value as archaeolo-
gical source material. As it cannot be proved that
the separate parts of a line form a continuous
sequence, it is theoretically possible that the dif-
ferent parts are separated in time (although they
will probably often be contemporary).
The depth of excavation is naturally of im-
portance. In this respect it is necessary for the
photographic recording that the excavation be
carried down to the level where the marks appear
most clearly. In this way parts of the plough-
marks might be removed. For every mm scraped
away a mark will become narrower or will dis-
appear or perhaps a new one will appear.
In some places where the sandy mould was
thin or lacking the subsoil surface seemed to have
been water logged. In these cases the contours of
the marks were effaced or the edges were amorph-
ous. In other parts too, the nature of the soil or
the earlier growth conditions appeared to have
had importance in making the plough-marks
merge in colour with the surrounding soil.
Even though the roots of reeds which occurred
all over in a humified state could run in straight
lines following the plough-marks, they did not,
because of their thinness, provide any source of
error in the interpretation.
Animal burrows were found everywhere, some
of them clearly contemporary with the cultiva-
tion, cutting across or being cut by plough-marks.
As they had the same breadth and colour as the
marks they might constitute a source of error.
However their curving and more irregular form
usually made them clearly distinguishable (fig. 3).
Supplementary information could be obtained
from sections, cross or lengthways, of the plough-
marks (fig. 4). They constitute within this source
material the only means of getting knowledge of
the form of the plough share used. Likewise they
may throw light on problems such as whether the
plough was held upright or tilted and to which
side, how evenly ploughing was carried out and
the composition of the marks.
The intermixture of subsoil in the plough-marks
can give rise to obscurities in the cross sections
in the way that the same track can show con-
siderable variations within small intervals. Here
however the zone where the plough had directly
displaced the subsoil appeared particularly clear
in the sections. Even when brushed and taken up
the marks might maintain their plastic form.
The impression of the, form of the plough-marks
will generally depend on the depth in the subsoil
of the mark. The marks here penetrated up to 6
cm into the subsoil, usually less. The propor-
tions could hardly be estimated if they were less
than 2 cm deep. The wooden plough-shares were
worn quickly in use and the marks must reflect
many stages of wear. Measurement of the angle
of the sides of the imprint in the section of the
plough-share can therefore be difficult. However
angles of about 40°, 60°, 70° and 95° were
recorded.
In the same way the breadth of the marks as
they appear when uncovered varies considerably.
With due caution may be mentioned as one type a
breadth of about 3 cm, roughly corresponding to
the breadth of the bar-share of the Dostrup ard,
and as a second type a bigger breadth up to 6,5
cm, which is approximately the breadth of several
of the arrow-shaped shares which were used also
on bow-ards.
The material from Store Vildmose thus roughly
indicates the use of two types of shares: one
broadly U- or V-shaped with a sectional angle of
60 or more and another pointed or somewhat
rounded, remarkably narrow in proportion to the
height, and with a correspondingly small angle.
The plough-marks may appear oblique in sec-
tion. This must generally indicate a tilted position
of the plough, which again could be fortuitous
or intentional for example in connection with
turning or in pushing the earth over to one side.
Theoretically the share may deliberately have
been made asymmetrical. However those so far
published are not asymmetrical.
The angle of tilt can be defined as the angle
157
The fact that the marks are interrupted is of
importance with regard to their value as archaeolo-
gical source material. As it cannot be proved that
the separate parts of a line form a continuous
sequence, it is theoretically possible that the dif-
ferent parts are separated in time (although they
will probably often be contemporary).
The depth of excavation is naturally of im-
portance. In this respect it is necessary for the
photographic recording that the excavation be
carried down to the level where the marks appear
most clearly. In this way parts of the plough-
marks might be removed. For every mm scraped
away a mark will become narrower or will dis-
appear or perhaps a new one will appear.
In some places where the sandy mould was
thin or lacking the subsoil surface seemed to have
been water logged. In these cases the contours of
the marks were effaced or the edges were amorph-
ous. In other parts too, the nature of the soil or
the earlier growth conditions appeared to have
had importance in making the plough-marks
merge in colour with the surrounding soil.
Even though the roots of reeds which occurred
all over in a humified state could run in straight
lines following the plough-marks, they did not,
because of their thinness, provide any source of
error in the interpretation.
Animal burrows were found everywhere, some
of them clearly contemporary with the cultiva-
tion, cutting across or being cut by plough-marks.
As they had the same breadth and colour as the
marks they might constitute a source of error.
However their curving and more irregular form
usually made them clearly distinguishable (fig. 3).
Supplementary information could be obtained
from sections, cross or lengthways, of the plough-
marks (fig. 4). They constitute within this source
material the only means of getting knowledge of
the form of the plough share used. Likewise they
may throw light on problems such as whether the
plough was held upright or tilted and to which
side, how evenly ploughing was carried out and
the composition of the marks.
The intermixture of subsoil in the plough-marks
can give rise to obscurities in the cross sections
in the way that the same track can show con-
siderable variations within small intervals. Here
however the zone where the plough had directly
displaced the subsoil appeared particularly clear
in the sections. Even when brushed and taken up
the marks might maintain their plastic form.
The impression of the, form of the plough-marks
will generally depend on the depth in the subsoil
of the mark. The marks here penetrated up to 6
cm into the subsoil, usually less. The propor-
tions could hardly be estimated if they were less
than 2 cm deep. The wooden plough-shares were
worn quickly in use and the marks must reflect
many stages of wear. Measurement of the angle
of the sides of the imprint in the section of the
plough-share can therefore be difficult. However
angles of about 40°, 60°, 70° and 95° were
recorded.
In the same way the breadth of the marks as
they appear when uncovered varies considerably.
With due caution may be mentioned as one type a
breadth of about 3 cm, roughly corresponding to
the breadth of the bar-share of the Dostrup ard,
and as a second type a bigger breadth up to 6,5
cm, which is approximately the breadth of several
of the arrow-shaped shares which were used also
on bow-ards.
The material from Store Vildmose thus roughly
indicates the use of two types of shares: one
broadly U- or V-shaped with a sectional angle of
60 or more and another pointed or somewhat
rounded, remarkably narrow in proportion to the
height, and with a correspondingly small angle.
The plough-marks may appear oblique in sec-
tion. This must generally indicate a tilted position
of the plough, which again could be fortuitous
or intentional for example in connection with
turning or in pushing the earth over to one side.
Theoretically the share may deliberately have
been made asymmetrical. However those so far
published are not asymmetrical.
The angle of tilt can be defined as the angle