DOI article:
Nielsen, Viggo: Iron Age plough-marks in Store Vildmose, North Jutland
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48998#0170
IRON AGE PLOUGH-MARKS
161
distance between furrows can be worked out by
extending the line of the V- and U-shaped cross-
section of the plough-mark in the subsoil up to a
height equivalent to a cultivation layer of 10-15
cm depth.
In the case of ploughing in of seed it may
have been of importance that the seed in a
furrow was not covered with filling from the
neighbouring track. A certain distance therefore
was necessary.
The basic element in the pattern of ploughing,
therefore, is the single furrow, surviving as a
plough-mark line, in a complex of parallel furrows.
The plough-marks can run straight for long
stretches, and it is characteristic that even when
they meet obstacles such as earth-fast stones they
do not turn aside. The mark often goes right up
to a stone, and it can be seen that a mark in the
same line starts again about 30 cm from the stone
at the further side. It cannot, of course, be taken
for certain that the plough-mark at the far side
is a continuation. Other plough-marks continue
straight along the side of a stone, showing that
the share passed within a few cm of it.
It is natural that the earth immediately sur-
rounding the stones was utilized because of its
special micro-climatic and nutritional conditions.
It was thus seen that at a field boundary a big
earth-fast stone was situated within the ploughing
area. Furthermore it must have been undesirable
to have an uncultivated part left in a cultivated
area because of the weeds. Some stones are so
big that a special effort must have been made to
get the team over them. This perhaps indicates
that the plough team has been led.
The lines of plough-marks are most convenient-
ly described in relation to the field boundaries
(table 2).
The boundaries uncovered generally had an
orientation similar to that of other prehistoric
field systems in Denmark: roughly north-south
and east-west, though the limit of a single un-
cultivated area had no special orientation. This
irregularity complicates the picture.
As systematic ploughing patterns can be men-
tioned plough-marks running at right angles to
the boundaries, forming a net of squares the sides
of which were aligned with the field boundaries,
or other ones running at a slant from the field
edges, and making a rhomboid net. There was
apparently a combined form with sides parallel
and at a slant to the field edges. Some plough-
marks ran irregularly, in curved or S-shaped
lines.
To judge whether parallel plough-marks belong
together will depend on the main impression. Ab-
solute proof can probably not be produced. The
facts that seemingly single plough-marks could be
multiple (and may result from ploughing in
opposite directions), that they can lie very closely
together, that they can occur sporadically or can
be partly interrupted because the plough has
moved at different levels, and partly because
older marks can be destroyed by later ploughings,
are some of the difficulties that have to be taken
into account.
It was frequently noted that parallel marks,
presumably from one ploughing, ran alternately
in opposite directions. Ploughing was therefore in
these cases done from one end of the field, and
then back beside the first track.
The work of identifying the various ploughing
patterns has not yet been successful. It is strange
that the alternating up and down plough-marks
have not been recorded as crossing other marks
quite systematically. This may be due to weaknes-
ses in the source material or in its interpretation,
but could also be due to ploughing being done in
other directions in conjunction with and in part
contemporaneously with the back and forward
ploughing. In this case it is feasible that the plough
in between had been set in another direction, or
that two or more ploughs had been used in the
same field.
At the field edges the plough-marks that run in
taper off or stop abruptly, showing that the
plough had been lifted up. This lifting must have
taken place when the plough was to be set in
161
distance between furrows can be worked out by
extending the line of the V- and U-shaped cross-
section of the plough-mark in the subsoil up to a
height equivalent to a cultivation layer of 10-15
cm depth.
In the case of ploughing in of seed it may
have been of importance that the seed in a
furrow was not covered with filling from the
neighbouring track. A certain distance therefore
was necessary.
The basic element in the pattern of ploughing,
therefore, is the single furrow, surviving as a
plough-mark line, in a complex of parallel furrows.
The plough-marks can run straight for long
stretches, and it is characteristic that even when
they meet obstacles such as earth-fast stones they
do not turn aside. The mark often goes right up
to a stone, and it can be seen that a mark in the
same line starts again about 30 cm from the stone
at the further side. It cannot, of course, be taken
for certain that the plough-mark at the far side
is a continuation. Other plough-marks continue
straight along the side of a stone, showing that
the share passed within a few cm of it.
It is natural that the earth immediately sur-
rounding the stones was utilized because of its
special micro-climatic and nutritional conditions.
It was thus seen that at a field boundary a big
earth-fast stone was situated within the ploughing
area. Furthermore it must have been undesirable
to have an uncultivated part left in a cultivated
area because of the weeds. Some stones are so
big that a special effort must have been made to
get the team over them. This perhaps indicates
that the plough team has been led.
The lines of plough-marks are most convenient-
ly described in relation to the field boundaries
(table 2).
The boundaries uncovered generally had an
orientation similar to that of other prehistoric
field systems in Denmark: roughly north-south
and east-west, though the limit of a single un-
cultivated area had no special orientation. This
irregularity complicates the picture.
As systematic ploughing patterns can be men-
tioned plough-marks running at right angles to
the boundaries, forming a net of squares the sides
of which were aligned with the field boundaries,
or other ones running at a slant from the field
edges, and making a rhomboid net. There was
apparently a combined form with sides parallel
and at a slant to the field edges. Some plough-
marks ran irregularly, in curved or S-shaped
lines.
To judge whether parallel plough-marks belong
together will depend on the main impression. Ab-
solute proof can probably not be produced. The
facts that seemingly single plough-marks could be
multiple (and may result from ploughing in
opposite directions), that they can lie very closely
together, that they can occur sporadically or can
be partly interrupted because the plough has
moved at different levels, and partly because
older marks can be destroyed by later ploughings,
are some of the difficulties that have to be taken
into account.
It was frequently noted that parallel marks,
presumably from one ploughing, ran alternately
in opposite directions. Ploughing was therefore in
these cases done from one end of the field, and
then back beside the first track.
The work of identifying the various ploughing
patterns has not yet been successful. It is strange
that the alternating up and down plough-marks
have not been recorded as crossing other marks
quite systematically. This may be due to weaknes-
ses in the source material or in its interpretation,
but could also be due to ploughing being done in
other directions in conjunction with and in part
contemporaneously with the back and forward
ploughing. In this case it is feasible that the plough
in between had been set in another direction, or
that two or more ploughs had been used in the
same field.
At the field edges the plough-marks that run in
taper off or stop abruptly, showing that the
plough had been lifted up. This lifting must have
taken place when the plough was to be set in