DOI article:
Lerche, Grith: Radiocarbon datings of agricultural implements in "Tools & Tillage" 1968-1995: revised calibrations and recent additions
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49004#0188
TOOLS & TILLAGE VII 4 1995
173
date when the organism dies, i.e. the time of
the felling of the tree.2 When its wood was
subsequently manufactured into an imple-
ment and for how long this implement func-
tioned are still important considerations in
order to date an implement and thereby its
function in society. This may thus add a dif-
ferent span of time to a radiocarbon date, if
we want it to guide us to find the period
when the item was manufactured and was
part of daily life.
Dating Complex Implements
It is, however, difficult to use an exact dating
of a composite implement of some complex-
ity as a date covering the entire implement
with its oldest and youngest parts since they
present periods of function in the lifetime of
the whole implement. The different elements
may be worn out after different spans of time
and therefore also need renewing at different
times. Our problem is at the interpretational
and analytical level since the preserved part
can be either an old part or an often ex-
changed part, the individual age of which and
period of use of which are shorter than the
whole implement.
The wooden beam of a composite plough-
ing implement may for example last for more
than the owner’s life-time, or even a hundred
years; other parts like the share, sole or
mould board or strokers are worn out more
quickly and need replacement. But when ren-
ovated the implement still functions in the in-
tended way as a useful implement. It fulfils its
working purpose in society (Lerche 1994, 23).
The youngest possible date of an implement
can, however, be just as interesting as the ol-
dest, since conclusions can be made that until
the youngest renewal happened a specific
way of executing a working process, of which
the kind of implement had been an essential
part, has been carried out in the particular
community.
Time of Function
Implements functionally almost unchanged
for long periods even if parts are replaced
show the dynamic in continuity. But unfortu-
nately such viewpoints have seldom been
used in identifying characteristic cultural
traits by the archeologists. Therefore the ac-
cumulation of radiocarbon datings in T&T
can document the surprisingly wide span of
time in which we now must reckon with the
existence of certain tool types. The youngest
dates are just as interesting as the oldest. With
the finds and when including the study of any
signs of wear and functionally related traits
on the preserved tool parts in the analyses we
should be able to conclude about the entire
working processes executed with the imple-
ments as necessary integrated parts and on
the stage of tillage.
Therefore it does not matter if radiocarbon
dates can only be calibrated to some intervals
of time or a specific year with a ± 100 years
uncertainty. The scientific datings will still as-
sist in the general conclusions on the stage of
agriculture in a society (Lerche 1994, 20-22).
A considerable number of new finds of cul-
tivation implements have appeared in Italy
and SNG (former Soviet Union) and espe-
cially in the Ukraine. We intend to publish
dates and the more relevant particulars of
these. We shall also announce the coming dat-
ings of the Sejbsek and Nysum ard.
The Tommerby Plough. An important re-
dating, although known since the 1960s, is
that of the wheel plough from Tommerby. It
has changed from the Celtic Iron Age to
within the interval 1445-1665 AD (Lerche
1994, 24).
It is curious why parts of medieval wheel
ploughs, except those of iron, have not been
found in countries other than Denmark. It
may be that odd looking, worn wooden ob-
jects of unknown use are still to be found in
173
date when the organism dies, i.e. the time of
the felling of the tree.2 When its wood was
subsequently manufactured into an imple-
ment and for how long this implement func-
tioned are still important considerations in
order to date an implement and thereby its
function in society. This may thus add a dif-
ferent span of time to a radiocarbon date, if
we want it to guide us to find the period
when the item was manufactured and was
part of daily life.
Dating Complex Implements
It is, however, difficult to use an exact dating
of a composite implement of some complex-
ity as a date covering the entire implement
with its oldest and youngest parts since they
present periods of function in the lifetime of
the whole implement. The different elements
may be worn out after different spans of time
and therefore also need renewing at different
times. Our problem is at the interpretational
and analytical level since the preserved part
can be either an old part or an often ex-
changed part, the individual age of which and
period of use of which are shorter than the
whole implement.
The wooden beam of a composite plough-
ing implement may for example last for more
than the owner’s life-time, or even a hundred
years; other parts like the share, sole or
mould board or strokers are worn out more
quickly and need replacement. But when ren-
ovated the implement still functions in the in-
tended way as a useful implement. It fulfils its
working purpose in society (Lerche 1994, 23).
The youngest possible date of an implement
can, however, be just as interesting as the ol-
dest, since conclusions can be made that until
the youngest renewal happened a specific
way of executing a working process, of which
the kind of implement had been an essential
part, has been carried out in the particular
community.
Time of Function
Implements functionally almost unchanged
for long periods even if parts are replaced
show the dynamic in continuity. But unfortu-
nately such viewpoints have seldom been
used in identifying characteristic cultural
traits by the archeologists. Therefore the ac-
cumulation of radiocarbon datings in T&T
can document the surprisingly wide span of
time in which we now must reckon with the
existence of certain tool types. The youngest
dates are just as interesting as the oldest. With
the finds and when including the study of any
signs of wear and functionally related traits
on the preserved tool parts in the analyses we
should be able to conclude about the entire
working processes executed with the imple-
ments as necessary integrated parts and on
the stage of tillage.
Therefore it does not matter if radiocarbon
dates can only be calibrated to some intervals
of time or a specific year with a ± 100 years
uncertainty. The scientific datings will still as-
sist in the general conclusions on the stage of
agriculture in a society (Lerche 1994, 20-22).
A considerable number of new finds of cul-
tivation implements have appeared in Italy
and SNG (former Soviet Union) and espe-
cially in the Ukraine. We intend to publish
dates and the more relevant particulars of
these. We shall also announce the coming dat-
ings of the Sejbsek and Nysum ard.
The Tommerby Plough. An important re-
dating, although known since the 1960s, is
that of the wheel plough from Tommerby. It
has changed from the Celtic Iron Age to
within the interval 1445-1665 AD (Lerche
1994, 24).
It is curious why parts of medieval wheel
ploughs, except those of iron, have not been
found in countries other than Denmark. It
may be that odd looking, worn wooden ob-
jects of unknown use are still to be found in