DOI Artikel:
Editorial
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49001#0003
EDITORIAL
The clearing of stones is a subject that has
not been systematically studied and we wel-
come Szabo’s comparative approach. From
prehistoric times to the present day, people
have been clearing stones from fields, piling
them on top of earth-fast boulders, making
clearance heaps, and building them into field
and enclosure walls. For the greater part of
the period since human beings first began to
make use of land resources in a settled way,
clearance has been almost entirely by hand,
and usually in relation to the cultivation of
the soil. Whether the digging stick, spade,
ard or plough were used to till the soil, and
whether the sickle, scythe or later machines
were used to cut the crops, stones were an
inhibiting factor. They were therefore re-
moved, as far as was practicable and possib-
le, and their survival in lines and heaps can
be a means of diagnosing areas of former
cultivation. We commend this article to the
attention of other scholars, and we should
welcome comparative material from other
areas, for whatever periods.
In the last two decades, so much evidence
for cultivation marks has come to light,
under prehistoric mounds, under peat and
moorland, under buildings and built struc-
tures that it might almost be regarded as
surprising if no such marks appear in the
course of an excavation. Nevertheless we
include a note on cultivation marks from
Ribe, since they are less well known for the
medieval period, and they bring with them
the possibility of seeking means to distin-
guish between marks mack by ards and
ploughs, both of which were in use. As a
matter of fact, the problems of the formation
of such marks are far from having been
resolved, and besides the archaeological
study of such evidence, the results of
ploughing experiments at places such as the
Historical-Archaeological Research Centre
at Lejre in Denmark, and at the Butser An-
cient Farm Research Project in the south of
England will be of much value for interpre-
tation, and for establishing the conditions
under which marks are made.
Ploughing implements themselves are
studied in Jonathan Bell’s article, which has
a particular value because, though examining
in detail wooden ploughs from the Moun-
tains of Mourne in Northern Ireland, it also
throws light on how a type of plough from
Scotland could become acclimatised and
adapted to suit local circumstances else-
where. This is an aspect of diffusion that
deserves closer examination. How long does
it take for an innovation to become “tradi-
tional”?
We are privileged to be able to present,
through the pen of Gaetano Forni, a sum-
mary of the recent archaeological finds of
tilling implements and cultivation marks in
Italy. Assessment of the full results must
await the detailed publication of the evi-
dence, and to this we look forward very
much indeed.
Lerche adds to the Journal’s cumulative
index of radio-carbon datings, which shows
that the paddle spades about which she has
written earlier, have been used over a much
longer period of the time than had been
thought. The digging stick from Denmark
also gives a salutary reminder that this main-
stay of earlier views of “primitive” cultiva-
tion did, in fact, exist.
The clearing of stones is a subject that has
not been systematically studied and we wel-
come Szabo’s comparative approach. From
prehistoric times to the present day, people
have been clearing stones from fields, piling
them on top of earth-fast boulders, making
clearance heaps, and building them into field
and enclosure walls. For the greater part of
the period since human beings first began to
make use of land resources in a settled way,
clearance has been almost entirely by hand,
and usually in relation to the cultivation of
the soil. Whether the digging stick, spade,
ard or plough were used to till the soil, and
whether the sickle, scythe or later machines
were used to cut the crops, stones were an
inhibiting factor. They were therefore re-
moved, as far as was practicable and possib-
le, and their survival in lines and heaps can
be a means of diagnosing areas of former
cultivation. We commend this article to the
attention of other scholars, and we should
welcome comparative material from other
areas, for whatever periods.
In the last two decades, so much evidence
for cultivation marks has come to light,
under prehistoric mounds, under peat and
moorland, under buildings and built struc-
tures that it might almost be regarded as
surprising if no such marks appear in the
course of an excavation. Nevertheless we
include a note on cultivation marks from
Ribe, since they are less well known for the
medieval period, and they bring with them
the possibility of seeking means to distin-
guish between marks mack by ards and
ploughs, both of which were in use. As a
matter of fact, the problems of the formation
of such marks are far from having been
resolved, and besides the archaeological
study of such evidence, the results of
ploughing experiments at places such as the
Historical-Archaeological Research Centre
at Lejre in Denmark, and at the Butser An-
cient Farm Research Project in the south of
England will be of much value for interpre-
tation, and for establishing the conditions
under which marks are made.
Ploughing implements themselves are
studied in Jonathan Bell’s article, which has
a particular value because, though examining
in detail wooden ploughs from the Moun-
tains of Mourne in Northern Ireland, it also
throws light on how a type of plough from
Scotland could become acclimatised and
adapted to suit local circumstances else-
where. This is an aspect of diffusion that
deserves closer examination. How long does
it take for an innovation to become “tradi-
tional”?
We are privileged to be able to present,
through the pen of Gaetano Forni, a sum-
mary of the recent archaeological finds of
tilling implements and cultivation marks in
Italy. Assessment of the full results must
await the detailed publication of the evi-
dence, and to this we look forward very
much indeed.
Lerche adds to the Journal’s cumulative
index of radio-carbon datings, which shows
that the paddle spades about which she has
written earlier, have been used over a much
longer period of the time than had been
thought. The digging stick from Denmark
also gives a salutary reminder that this main-
stay of earlier views of “primitive” cultiva-
tion did, in fact, exist.