DOI article:
Rees, Sian E.: Stone ard points from Orkney and Shetland
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49000#0268
S. E. REES
254
of up to 1.5 cm into the sides of the tools often
at about 12-15 cm fr°m the tip suggest that
some may have been secured by tenons or
pegs as on the Donneruplund ard (Glob, 33).
A tentative reconstruction of the positioning
of the stone points is shown in fig. 2.
It is difficult to suggest alternative interpre-
tations of the function of the stone tools which
would result in the wear pattern and manufac-
turing features described above. The stone
points, if indeed they are parts of foreshares of
bow ards, are unique in my experience, al-
though there is the strong possibility that the
interpretation of ‘shoe-last celts’ as the shares
of crook ards is correct (Brentjes 1956). An
interesting difference in the distribution pat-
tern of the two stone share types is the fact that
the ‘shoe-last celts’ associated with elements
of the Bandkeramic culture become rarer to-
ward the northern part of the area influenced
by the culture, a fact that has been explained as
the inability of the shares to cope with the
stony soils of Denmark (Glob 1951, 124). In
the Northern Isles, the reverse is true, as the
stone ard points are commoner on the stony
soils of Shetland than on the finer soil of Ork-
ney. Possibly some disparity in the availabil-
ity of hard wood for share manufacture could
be the reason for this.
The sites at Sumburgh and Skaill, as well as
producing ard points, also produced ard
traces in the subsoil, and it is reasonable to
suppose that the one produced the other.
Theoretically it should have been possible to
reconstruct the degree of tilt of the ards
(Nielsen 1970, fig. 5) or of the ploughing pat-
tern used in cultivation. Cross sections of the
traces revealed a variation in angle of tilt be-
tween 6° and 180, but the fact is that so small a
percentage of stone tools showed definitely
asymmetric wear (30 %) and the excavation of
the traces produced such a variety of results,
that it was felt to be dangerous to conclude
anything very positive. It remains a fact, how-
ever, that the wear on a large minority of tools
does indicate that they were used consistently
tilted in one direction, as does the evidence of
wooden shares and ard-heads (Fenton 1968,
152; Fowler 1978, 86), and, however variable
the evidence, the cross sections of the ard
traces in general do support the hypothesis
that ards were often used tilted, presumably to
assist in the turning of the soil.
References
Brentjes, B.: Der Schulhleistenkeil - Pflugschar
oder Holzbearbeitungsgerat? in: Germania 34,
1956, 144-7.
Calder, C.S.T.: Report on the discovery of nu-
merous Stone Age house-sites in Shetland, in:
Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., LXXXIX, 1955-6,
340-97.
Calder, C.S.T.: Cairns, Neolithic houses and
burnt mounds in Shetland, in: Proc. Soc. Antiq.
Scot., XCVI 1962-3, 27-86.
Fenton,A.: Early and Traditional cultivating im-
plements in Scotland, in: Proc. Soc. Antic. Scot.,
XCVI 1962-3, 264-317.
Fenton, A.: Plough and spade in Dumfries and Gal-
loway, in: Trans. Dumfrieshire Galloway Na-
tur. Hist. Antiq. Soc., 45, 1968, 147-83.
Fowler, P. J.: The Abingdon ard-share, 83-88 in
Parrington, M.: The excavation of an Iron Age
settlement, Bronze Age ring-ditches and Roman
features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon
(Oxfordshire) 1974-76, C.B.A. Research Re-
port 28, Oxford 1978.
Glob,P. V.: Ard ogPlov i Nordens Oldtid. Aarhus
O51-
Hansen, H.-O.: Experimental ploughing with a
Dostrup ard replica, in: Tools and Tillage, 1:2,
1969, 67-92.
Henshall,A.: Pottery and stone implements from
Ness of Gruting, in: Calder 1955-6.
Nielsen, V.: Iron Age Ploughmarks in Store Vild-
mose, North Jutland, in: Tools and Tillage L3,
1970, 151-65.
254
of up to 1.5 cm into the sides of the tools often
at about 12-15 cm fr°m the tip suggest that
some may have been secured by tenons or
pegs as on the Donneruplund ard (Glob, 33).
A tentative reconstruction of the positioning
of the stone points is shown in fig. 2.
It is difficult to suggest alternative interpre-
tations of the function of the stone tools which
would result in the wear pattern and manufac-
turing features described above. The stone
points, if indeed they are parts of foreshares of
bow ards, are unique in my experience, al-
though there is the strong possibility that the
interpretation of ‘shoe-last celts’ as the shares
of crook ards is correct (Brentjes 1956). An
interesting difference in the distribution pat-
tern of the two stone share types is the fact that
the ‘shoe-last celts’ associated with elements
of the Bandkeramic culture become rarer to-
ward the northern part of the area influenced
by the culture, a fact that has been explained as
the inability of the shares to cope with the
stony soils of Denmark (Glob 1951, 124). In
the Northern Isles, the reverse is true, as the
stone ard points are commoner on the stony
soils of Shetland than on the finer soil of Ork-
ney. Possibly some disparity in the availabil-
ity of hard wood for share manufacture could
be the reason for this.
The sites at Sumburgh and Skaill, as well as
producing ard points, also produced ard
traces in the subsoil, and it is reasonable to
suppose that the one produced the other.
Theoretically it should have been possible to
reconstruct the degree of tilt of the ards
(Nielsen 1970, fig. 5) or of the ploughing pat-
tern used in cultivation. Cross sections of the
traces revealed a variation in angle of tilt be-
tween 6° and 180, but the fact is that so small a
percentage of stone tools showed definitely
asymmetric wear (30 %) and the excavation of
the traces produced such a variety of results,
that it was felt to be dangerous to conclude
anything very positive. It remains a fact, how-
ever, that the wear on a large minority of tools
does indicate that they were used consistently
tilted in one direction, as does the evidence of
wooden shares and ard-heads (Fenton 1968,
152; Fowler 1978, 86), and, however variable
the evidence, the cross sections of the ard
traces in general do support the hypothesis
that ards were often used tilted, presumably to
assist in the turning of the soil.
References
Brentjes, B.: Der Schulhleistenkeil - Pflugschar
oder Holzbearbeitungsgerat? in: Germania 34,
1956, 144-7.
Calder, C.S.T.: Report on the discovery of nu-
merous Stone Age house-sites in Shetland, in:
Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., LXXXIX, 1955-6,
340-97.
Calder, C.S.T.: Cairns, Neolithic houses and
burnt mounds in Shetland, in: Proc. Soc. Antiq.
Scot., XCVI 1962-3, 27-86.
Fenton,A.: Early and Traditional cultivating im-
plements in Scotland, in: Proc. Soc. Antic. Scot.,
XCVI 1962-3, 264-317.
Fenton, A.: Plough and spade in Dumfries and Gal-
loway, in: Trans. Dumfrieshire Galloway Na-
tur. Hist. Antiq. Soc., 45, 1968, 147-83.
Fowler, P. J.: The Abingdon ard-share, 83-88 in
Parrington, M.: The excavation of an Iron Age
settlement, Bronze Age ring-ditches and Roman
features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon
(Oxfordshire) 1974-76, C.B.A. Research Re-
port 28, Oxford 1978.
Glob,P. V.: Ard ogPlov i Nordens Oldtid. Aarhus
O51-
Hansen, H.-O.: Experimental ploughing with a
Dostrup ard replica, in: Tools and Tillage, 1:2,
1969, 67-92.
Henshall,A.: Pottery and stone implements from
Ness of Gruting, in: Calder 1955-6.
Nielsen, V.: Iron Age Ploughmarks in Store Vild-
mose, North Jutland, in: Tools and Tillage L3,
1970, 151-65.