DOI Artikel:
Editorial
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49001#0205
EDITORIAL
It appears that two of the editors of Tools
and Tillage have been very active, for the
most substantial contribution is by them.
Their observations in the Kerman province
of Iran in 1965 have been synthesised into a
study in which all the kinds of ards known in
Iran receive mention. Observation was ac-
companied by collection, and examples of all
variant types are now preserved in the Na-
tional Museum of Denmark. From the point
of view of a museum curator, the presently
published material provides the kind of de-
tailed documentation that is all too often an
unattainable ideal. Students of the subject
should not, of course, rest content with
reading about these ards from Iran, but
should also make their own observations of
the implements themselves, now conven-
iently at hand in Denmark. They should
also, if at all possible, try to observe them
where they are used still, for even if their
immediate subject may be prehistory, there
is nevertheless much to be learned from pre-
sent-day or recent tools, and their construc-
tion and use, as an important basic means of
allowing us to interpret more precisely what
happened in the past, at periods and in places
where there is no historical documentation
to provide clues.
Material already in museum collections,
but not as well documented as it should be,
may also have to be interpreted or contex-
tualised afresh in order to make it more
meaningful. Smith’s study of plough irons
and digging implements in the National
Museum of Finland provides an example.
These come from Kazan, and date to before
the Russian capture of Kazan in 1552; they
point to a relatively high level of agricultural
technology. We look forward to an eventual
publication of finds in the USSR to facilitate
comparative study of groups as this.
In alliance with studies of recent material
that may serve to illuminate the past is the
question of experimental archaeology. Ex-
periment must be carefully controlled so that
the results can be as trustworthy as possible,
one means of control being the application
of evidence from recent times or from re-
mote places. We are, of course, concerned
with experiment that involves tilling imple-
ments, including means of draught, and the
basic means of processing crops. We should
like to hear from archaeologists conducting
new experiments, so that we can pass on the
results to our readers.
There are many other subjects to be cov-
ered. The present contribution on harrows is
the second to appear, and here - just as we
have a cumulative series of radio carbon
dates - we should like to continue to explore
this subject for other countries, until within
our pages there is as complete a picture for
the harrow, or of some other piece of equip-
ment, as is now available for, for example,
the winnowing machine in the excellent new
book, Die Kornfege in Europa, by Uwe
Meiners (Munster 1983).
It appears that two of the editors of Tools
and Tillage have been very active, for the
most substantial contribution is by them.
Their observations in the Kerman province
of Iran in 1965 have been synthesised into a
study in which all the kinds of ards known in
Iran receive mention. Observation was ac-
companied by collection, and examples of all
variant types are now preserved in the Na-
tional Museum of Denmark. From the point
of view of a museum curator, the presently
published material provides the kind of de-
tailed documentation that is all too often an
unattainable ideal. Students of the subject
should not, of course, rest content with
reading about these ards from Iran, but
should also make their own observations of
the implements themselves, now conven-
iently at hand in Denmark. They should
also, if at all possible, try to observe them
where they are used still, for even if their
immediate subject may be prehistory, there
is nevertheless much to be learned from pre-
sent-day or recent tools, and their construc-
tion and use, as an important basic means of
allowing us to interpret more precisely what
happened in the past, at periods and in places
where there is no historical documentation
to provide clues.
Material already in museum collections,
but not as well documented as it should be,
may also have to be interpreted or contex-
tualised afresh in order to make it more
meaningful. Smith’s study of plough irons
and digging implements in the National
Museum of Finland provides an example.
These come from Kazan, and date to before
the Russian capture of Kazan in 1552; they
point to a relatively high level of agricultural
technology. We look forward to an eventual
publication of finds in the USSR to facilitate
comparative study of groups as this.
In alliance with studies of recent material
that may serve to illuminate the past is the
question of experimental archaeology. Ex-
periment must be carefully controlled so that
the results can be as trustworthy as possible,
one means of control being the application
of evidence from recent times or from re-
mote places. We are, of course, concerned
with experiment that involves tilling imple-
ments, including means of draught, and the
basic means of processing crops. We should
like to hear from archaeologists conducting
new experiments, so that we can pass on the
results to our readers.
There are many other subjects to be cov-
ered. The present contribution on harrows is
the second to appear, and here - just as we
have a cumulative series of radio carbon
dates - we should like to continue to explore
this subject for other countries, until within
our pages there is as complete a picture for
the harrow, or of some other piece of equip-
ment, as is now available for, for example,
the winnowing machine in the excellent new
book, Die Kornfege in Europa, by Uwe
Meiners (Munster 1983).