DOI Heft:
Vol. VI : 3 1990
DOI Artikel:Editorial
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49003#0135
EDITORIAL
In the long term, the character of an institu-
tion is shaped by its sequence of directors,
each of whom communicates part of himself
or herself to the whole. It is the same with a
journal, but in this case, though the editors
can play a strong role, the main cumulative
value flows from the nature and quality of the
work of the contributors. Each of the 22 parts
of Tools and Tillage that have appeared since
1968 has had its own character.
In the last issue philology - Worter und
Sachen - was a major theme, and Far Eastern
and Central European scholars spoke of the
distant past. This time there is a different pro-
file. Each of the contributors is a scholar
looking about him in a country not his own.
An Irishman (Brady) trained in archaeol-
ogy surveys early finds of ard parts preserved
in Finnish Museums in a very thorough way.
Though all such surveys raise fresh questions,
it nevertheless appears that the Finnish evi-
dence parallels that from other parts of Eu-
rope at the same period, and shows that Fin-
land should not be thought of as a remote,
peripheral country. The tools, however, have
undergone adaptation to specific local condi-
tions, as is bound to happen when skilled
workers and craftsmen have a finger in the
pie. A French researcher (Mahias), working
in India, contributes an original study of a
tool, the khurpd, so common that it has
been overlooked by scholars. Her way of
looking at the same tool in its variant forms
and with its variety of names is in line with
techniques of study of tools, technology and
terminology evolved by French scholars like
Marcel Mauss and Andre Haudricourt. The
kernel is the functional purpose and the posi-
tion of the tool in the working process, and
not typological variations, decorative features
or names. With such an example, a fresh way
of interpreting apparently simple tools,
which could be applied to other examples,
lies before us. We should never forget that one
tool can have many purposes. An American
animal scientist (Goe), has carried out a de-
tailed and sympathetic study of local farming
in Ethiopia. Like a good ploughman he leaves
no stone unturned in researching all possible
aspects of the use of the traditional ard, the
maresha, and all possible relevant phenomena
including means of yoking and the power of
the draught animals.
In no case are we dealing with aesthetic ob-
jects that fine-art historians would spotlight
in displays. Instead, the contributors are con-
cerned with tools of primarily functional use,
whether hand-operated or animal-drawn.
They are indicators of the realities of every-
day life in the past - a life that cannot be
categorised in typological boxes, but which
we have to learn to understand through the
wear marks that reveal the techniques of
functioning of tools, as well as through their
shapes. Studies such as those presented here
can help all scholars to see the past through
the eyes of the past and not through the
deeply-encrusted spectacles of present-day
preconceptions. And is there not a special in-
ternal beauty in a good tool, however plain,
that serves its purpose as well and cleanly as
any craftsman would desire?
In the long term, the character of an institu-
tion is shaped by its sequence of directors,
each of whom communicates part of himself
or herself to the whole. It is the same with a
journal, but in this case, though the editors
can play a strong role, the main cumulative
value flows from the nature and quality of the
work of the contributors. Each of the 22 parts
of Tools and Tillage that have appeared since
1968 has had its own character.
In the last issue philology - Worter und
Sachen - was a major theme, and Far Eastern
and Central European scholars spoke of the
distant past. This time there is a different pro-
file. Each of the contributors is a scholar
looking about him in a country not his own.
An Irishman (Brady) trained in archaeol-
ogy surveys early finds of ard parts preserved
in Finnish Museums in a very thorough way.
Though all such surveys raise fresh questions,
it nevertheless appears that the Finnish evi-
dence parallels that from other parts of Eu-
rope at the same period, and shows that Fin-
land should not be thought of as a remote,
peripheral country. The tools, however, have
undergone adaptation to specific local condi-
tions, as is bound to happen when skilled
workers and craftsmen have a finger in the
pie. A French researcher (Mahias), working
in India, contributes an original study of a
tool, the khurpd, so common that it has
been overlooked by scholars. Her way of
looking at the same tool in its variant forms
and with its variety of names is in line with
techniques of study of tools, technology and
terminology evolved by French scholars like
Marcel Mauss and Andre Haudricourt. The
kernel is the functional purpose and the posi-
tion of the tool in the working process, and
not typological variations, decorative features
or names. With such an example, a fresh way
of interpreting apparently simple tools,
which could be applied to other examples,
lies before us. We should never forget that one
tool can have many purposes. An American
animal scientist (Goe), has carried out a de-
tailed and sympathetic study of local farming
in Ethiopia. Like a good ploughman he leaves
no stone unturned in researching all possible
aspects of the use of the traditional ard, the
maresha, and all possible relevant phenomena
including means of yoking and the power of
the draught animals.
In no case are we dealing with aesthetic ob-
jects that fine-art historians would spotlight
in displays. Instead, the contributors are con-
cerned with tools of primarily functional use,
whether hand-operated or animal-drawn.
They are indicators of the realities of every-
day life in the past - a life that cannot be
categorised in typological boxes, but which
we have to learn to understand through the
wear marks that reveal the techniques of
functioning of tools, as well as through their
shapes. Studies such as those presented here
can help all scholars to see the past through
the eyes of the past and not through the
deeply-encrusted spectacles of present-day
preconceptions. And is there not a special in-
ternal beauty in a good tool, however plain,
that serves its purpose as well and cleanly as
any craftsman would desire?