Ze Ingwer FAQ - How to treat a kook
Michael Kuettner
posting of Ingwer.
Snip her newest bullhit and repost the list below.
Add to the list; there are more claims from little kooky
which aren't mentioned below.
If she doesn't answer at least one point, snip her gibberish
and set a follow-up to alt.usenet.kooks.
That's where she belongs anyway.
Let's clean the groups.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
<start list>
THE CLAIMS OF INGER E. JOHANSSON
which are mostly lies; the rest is her abysmal lack to
understand anything written down.
-the Habsburger were a sideline of the Babenberger
-the H. claimed to descend from Jesus Christ and Mohammed
-the privilegium minus was a forgery
-there were Babenberger alive in the 14th cenury
-the translations of R. Stonehouse were wrong (Ivar Bardsson)
- the translation was wrong (Greenland is not Grenland)
-the splitting of quartz causes the breakup of
molecules into C and O
-there's no North-American longhouse which
hasn't a forerunner in Sweden
-some linguists claimed that no guilds had a secret
language.
-the claims re: lake Agassiz
-bronze age ship-wrecks in the English channel
-files can't be snipped without loss of information
-the ISBN number of her OED
-The missing accounts of the Norse that built the Newport Tower.
-The natural history of the Baltic clam. The claim it was
introduced to the new world by Vikings.
-The presence of burial mounds in the new world as solely being
from NW europe despite a longer tradition of burial mounds in Asia.
- Horses were brought to North America between the Ice Ages
or after the last Ice Age.
- Inger is claiming that there was no bisons (Visents) in the Baltic
between the bronze age and 1750 :-)
<end list>
erilar
Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> I hereby propose a general stop of answers to _ANY_
> posting of Ingwer.
I've forgotten the details, but didn't she post something stupid
regarding the Manesse, which is such an obscure document SHE'd never
heard of it?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Uwe Müller
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c6jja2$cnuiq$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
Inger claimed, that the fully developed plough was invented in late bronze
age Scandinavia, a full 2 millenia before any traces could be found. She
never came around to supplying references for that, the old Scandinavians
must have ploughed air or water with it.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
> <end list>
>
>
>
>
Inger E Johansson
there isn't many times you are wrong in your special field, but here you
are.
The plough is carved on Rock, Vitlycke Tanum's parish.
There are plough - lines in some small land close to the Bronze Age Farm
excavated when the new road to pass by and not inside Tanumshede was built
northward.
Bronze and copper items including sword and other artifacts show that the
settlers had knowledge enough for the blacksmith to do tools for agriculture
as well as for cermonies.
Inger E
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:c6ks8l$15n$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
Uwe Müller
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3Tmjc.57327$mU6.2...@newsb.telia.net...
> Uwe,
> there isn't many times you are wrong in your special field, but here you
> are.
No I'm not, as usually You have mixed things up, because You do not
understand them.
As I have been explaining before, what these older pictures show is the ard,
a tool to scratch the surface, it could not turn over the earth, as the
fully developed plough does.
Scratch marks of the ard have been found beneath neolithic tombs, for
instance at Flintbek in Schleswig-Holstein, which precede the bronze age
examples from Scandinavia by far. There are even more or less complete ards
from bog finds from the neolithic.
> The plough is carved on Rock, Vitlycke Tanum's parish.
> There are plough - lines in some small land close to the Bronze Age Farm
> excavated when the new road to pass by and not inside Tanumshede was built
> northward.
> Bronze and copper items including sword and other artifacts show that the
> settlers had knowledge enough for the blacksmith to do tools for
agriculture
> as well as for cermonies.
The pictures clearly show that they did not use a fully developed plough,
that they did not have metal plough shares, or parts for turning over the
soil ('Streichbrett'), etc. Scratch marks by the ard are criss-crossing the
ground to break it up, ploughmarks are parallel. So field boundaries for the
ard-using peoples are showing roughly square fields (Blockfelder, compare
the so called celtic fields) while plough using peoples have long and narrow
strip fields.
We had all of this before, You still have not done Your homework.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Inger E Johansson
sorry in this case it's you who mixed it up. I understand more about
archaeology than you imagin. Especially since I was present during an
interview with one of the archaeologist at Vitlycke Museum and I have had
the pleasure to speak to two of the archaeologists who excavated the site
Prästesäm which we with rots in Tanum calls it. Prästesäm was owned by my
uncle in the years before the excavation and I know what was found then in
farmland there as well as in our own 'backyard'.
Sorry Uwe, but I have spoken to the archaeologists about this many times
over the years. Not to mention that I had same opportunity to speak with
archaeologists on daily bases the year I worked at the Museum in
Östergötland resp the year I supervised eight in the survey of Vreta, Kaga
and Ledberg's parish. We had two specialists in my team for agriculture
tools resp for carthographing the settlements up to 1600. Anyhow one in our
team wrote an essay regarding the agriculture tools from the first Bronze
Age plough, also noted in Irish tales at approximate same time or earlier
than the Rock Carving in Vitlycke.
Inger E
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:c6l1cr$220$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
JMB
news:cJojc.57335$mU6.2...@newsb.telia.net...
> Uwe,
> sorry in this case it's you who mixed it up. I understand more about
> archaeology than you imagin. Especially since I was present during an
> interview with one of the archaeologist at Vitlycke Museum and I have had
> the pleasure to speak to two of the archaeologists who excavated the site
> Prästesäm which we with rots in Tanum calls it. Prästesäm was owned by my
> uncle in the years before the excavation and I know what was found then in
> farmland there as well as in our own 'backyard'.
>
> Sorry Uwe, but I have spoken to the archaeologists about this many times
> over the years. Not to mention that I had same opportunity to speak with
> archaeologists on daily bases the year I worked at the Museum in
> Östergötland resp the year I supervised eight in the survey of Vreta, Kaga
> and Ledberg's parish. We had two specialists in my team for agriculture
> tools resp for carthographing the settlements up to 1600. Anyhow one in
our
> team wrote an essay regarding the agriculture tools from the first Bronze
> Age plough, also noted in Irish tales at approximate same time or earlier
> than the Rock Carving in Vitlycke.
>
> Inger E
Prove it with references, not claims. If it comes down to word v's word,
Uwe is a much more reliable source than you. These are some of the things
you will have to answer to be taken a little more seriously on this matter:
Where have these archaeologists published their findings regarding the
ploughs?
What are the reference details to this essay you mention?
What Irish tales from the Bronze Age mention ploughs?
What Irish tales are from the Bronze Age?
--SNIP--
--
John Byrne
www.iol.ie/~archaeology
To email me use the feedback form on the website.
The address attached to this post is just a spam trap.
Philip Deitiker
news:cJojc.57335$mU6.2...@newsb.telia.net:
> Uwe,
> sorry in this case it's you who mixed it up. I understand
> more about archaeology than you imagin. Especially since I
> was present during an interview with one of the
> archaeologist at Vitlycke Museum and I have had the
> pleasure to speak to two of the archaeologists who
> excavated the site Prästesäm which we with rots in Tanum
> calls it. Prästesäm was owned by my uncle in the years
> before the excavation and I know what was found then in
> farmland there as well as in our own 'backyard'.
What is the name of your uncle and the name of the farm where
the excavation occurred. What is the citation of the article
that describes the excavation?
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> sorry in this case it's you who mixed it up. I understand more about
> archaeology than you imagin. Especially since I was present during an
> interview with one of the archaeologist at Vitlycke Museum and I have had
> the pleasure to speak to two of the archaeologists who excavated the site
> Prästesäm which we with rots in Tanum calls it. Prästesäm was owned by my
> uncle in the years before the excavation and I know what was found then in
> farmland there as well as in our own 'backyard'.
Is this it?
http://www.europreart.net/cgi-bin/baserun.exe?_cfg=record.cfg&_fil=code%3D%22bohus009%22
There does seem to be quite a bit of confusion between ards and ploughs on
the net at least.
[SNI{P]
Doug
Inger E Johansson
there are no confusion. Actually we did have light-ploughs in Östergötland
as well especially around the place we today call 'Gamleby' and in
'Uknadalen' from late Bronze Age/early Pre-Roman Iron Age we also had a type
which was advanced in compare with others in the world. I had two
Archaeologists and a Culture Historian as supervisors for my C-essay
Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre tider.
Waterways towards Lake Roxen in Old Age. 1993.
What Uwe has missed is the fact that the type most archaeologist believes
wasn't in use before Late Medieval Age by then had been used in parts of
today's Sweden for agriculturing of heavy clay soil long before. 'We' did
export the technique to the Baltic area and today's Western Russia. That's
true that we didn't charge 'plough'-tax of the blacksmiths there before
900's but the technique was locally old here at that time.
Some rumor has it that the technique came over during Roman Iron Age from
Ireland and today's Scotland to old Ranariki. Might be true. It's definitely
noted in Irish sources that they had same or alike technique in use long
before the rest of Europe.
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:10cvuc9pz76fu.1...@40tude.net...
JMB
[top posting corrected]
> Doug,
> there are no confusion. Actually we did have light-ploughs in Östergötland
> as well especially around the place we today call 'Gamleby'
But it is not "light ploughs" or Ards that are being discussed. The fact
that they existed in the area at the time is well known.
> and in
> 'Uknadalen' from late Bronze Age/early Pre-Roman Iron Age we also had a
type
> which was advanced in compare with others in the world.
And your references are?
> I had two
> Archaeologists and a Culture Historian as supervisors for my C-essay
> Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre tider.
> Waterways towards Lake Roxen in Old Age. 1993.
Ah, the famous C-essay again, the content of which changes every time Inger
wants to use it as "proof" of something she has claimed. What has this to
do with Bronze Age ploughs?
>
> What Uwe has missed is the fact that the type most archaeologist believes
> wasn't in use before Late Medieval Age by then had been used in parts of
> today's Sweden for agriculturing of heavy clay soil long before.
References?
> 'We' did
> export the technique to the Baltic area and today's Western Russia. That's
> true that we didn't charge 'plough'-tax of the blacksmiths there before
> 900's but the technique was locally old here at that time.
Relevance?
>
> Some rumor has it that the technique came over during Roman Iron Age from
> Ireland
??? There was no Roman Iron Age Ireland. Besides, the claim was that there
were Bronze Age ploughs, not Iron Age.
> and today's Scotland to old Ranariki. Might be true. It's definitely
> noted in Irish sources that they had same or alike technique in use long
> before the rest of Europe.
What Irish sources is it noted in?
Doug Weller
> Doug,
> there are no confusion.
Inger, I said confusion on the net. I don't know enough about the example
you are putting forward to be able to say for myself much about it.
Actually we did have light-ploughs in Östergötland
> as well especially around the place we today call 'Gamleby' and in
> 'Uknadalen' from late Bronze Age/early Pre-Roman Iron Age we also had a type
> which was advanced in compare with others in the world. I had two
> Archaeologists and a Culture Historian as supervisors for my C-essay
> Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre tider.
> Waterways towards Lake Roxen in Old Age. 1993.
>
> What Uwe has missed is the fact that the type most archaeologist believes
> wasn't in use before Late Medieval Age by then had been used in parts of
> today's Sweden for agriculturing of heavy clay soil long before. 'We' did
> export the technique to the Baltic area and today's Western Russia. That's
> true that we didn't charge 'plough'-tax of the blacksmiths there before
> 900's but the technique was locally old here at that time.
>
> Some rumor has it that the technique came over during Roman Iron Age from
> Ireland and today's Scotland to old Ranariki. Might be true. It's definitely
> noted in Irish sources that they had same or alike technique in use long
> before the rest of Europe.
JMB asked about these Irish sources. What are they?
Doug
Inger E Johansson
Mainly Irish Annals which was 'confirmed' by archaeologic findings the other
year.
As for rest of Europe.
Plough-knives have been found in Novgorod dated to 900 AD.
source: Eugenie Nosov Elena Ribina and Valentin Janin; Novgorod, in
Vikingarnas Rusland edited 1993, page 30ff.
Inger E
Doug Weller
You need to be more specific. And of course you are talking about medieval
documents here, not Bronze Age.
Inger E Johansson
take the discussion dealing with the age of the Irish Annals up with an
Irelander. Not me. I back the Irish in this question.
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:mh65le9b9r1f$.158as0mjampww$.dlg@40tude.net...
Michael Kuettner
> Doug,
> take the discussion dealing with the age of the Irish Annals up with an
> Irelander. Not me. I back the Irish in this question.
>
> Inger E
>
> "Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:mh65le9b9r1f$.158as0mjampww$.dlg@40tude.net...
Summary of a "discussion" with the moronic Ingwer :
No cites, no sources and a "do my homework for me".
Doug, you've stated in another post that you'd like to
continue discussions with the bonehead.
Could you do this in alt.arch. where she belongs ?
Here in _sci_.arch. she's an utter waste of time.
(also in s.h.m.and s.h.a.)
If a poster is too stupid to understand the rules of
the game (providing references for wild claims) and
continues to do so year after year - fuck her.
If a poster lies for years and is even too fucking
stupid to spell "primary sources", fuck her.
If a poster repeats the same nonsense year after
year even after it has been falsified, kick her till
she bleeds.
If you still want to discuss things with her, please
do so in alt.arch.; that's where she and her (always
unnamed) "Prime sources" belong.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Philip Deitiker
news:c6mrra$e2420$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> schrieb
> im Newsbeitrag
> news:idBjc.91025$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
>> Doug,
>> take the discussion dealing with the age of the Irish
>> Annals up with an Irelander. Not me. I back the Irish in
>> this question.
>>
>> Inger E
>>
>> "Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i
>> meddelandet
>> news:mh65le9b9r1f$.158as0mjampww$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Summary of a "discussion" with the moronic Ingwer :
>
> No cites, no sources and a "do my homework for me".
>
> Doug, you've stated in another post that you'd like to
> continue discussions with the bonehead.
> Could you do this in alt.arch. where she belongs ?
> Here in _sci_.arch. she's an utter waste of time.
> (also in s.h.m.and s.h.a.)
That was my idea, to reply with followups outside of the group.
Like to alt.archaeology. Doug said, 'no, no, no, alt
archaeology is for some other thing'. Alt.archaeology seems to
me like and excellent place for non-sciency based discussions to
go.
> If a poster is too stupid to understand the rules of
> the game (providing references for wild claims) and
> continues to do so year after year - ____ her.
Micheal, you are better than that language.
Uwe Müller
>
> "Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:m1bocrbka7yy$.174qrqi5p8rp2$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:03:58 GMT, Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >
> > JMB asked about these Irish sources. What are they?
> >
> > Doug
>
> Mainly Irish Annals which was 'confirmed' by archaeologic findings the
other
> year.
Irish annals from the Bronze Age? In what language were they written and in
which script? Punic?
>
> As for rest of Europe.
> Plough-knives have been found in Novgorod dated to 900 AD.
> source: Eugenie Nosov Elena Ribina and Valentin Janin; Novgorod, in
> Vikingarnas Rusland edited 1993, page 30ff.
As I stated before plough marks from the ard and the ard itself have been
found starting from the neolithic, Bernd Zich has published those for the
Flintbek grave.
Plough shares from the ard are a common feature from slavic settlements in
Germany, but they did not have the fully developed ploughs. Both types are
easily distinguished, in the way they are constructed (ard scatches the
soil, plough cuts deep into the ground etc.).
Since you refrained from adressing even one of my points of criticism, and
you care to be seen as ignorant of the underlying facts, I see my points as
still valid. Elaborating on your beliefs and local myth doesn't change
facts.
Instead You brought a nice example of the way You "think".
have fun
Uwe Mueller
JMB
None of the Irish Annals that I've ever read (and I've read a lot) mention
anything about ploughs, nor would I expect them to. They record events, not
what tools were in use. Add to that the fact that the Annals are medieval,
and they become irrelevant to your claims. I already know what Irish
documents mention ploughs, from medieval times. You claimed there was proof
for Bronze Age ploughs, where is it?
>
> As for rest of Europe.
> Plough-knives have been found in Novgorod dated to 900 AD.
> source: Eugenie Nosov Elena Ribina and Valentin Janin; Novgorod, in
> Vikingarnas Rusland edited 1993, page 30ff.
What exactly do you mean by "plough-knives"?
>
> Inger E
JMB
[Top-posting corrected]
> "Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:mh65le9b9r1f$.158as0mjampww$.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:14:06 GMT, Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >
--SNIP--
> > >>>
> > >>> Some rumor has it that the technique came over during Roman Iron Age
> > > from
> > >>> Ireland and today's Scotland to old Ranariki. Might be true. It's
> > > definitely
> > >>> noted in Irish sources that they had same or alike technique in use
> long
> > >>> before the rest of Europe.
> > >>
> > >> JMB asked about these Irish sources. What are they?
> > >>
> > >> Doug
> > >
> > > Mainly Irish Annals which was 'confirmed' by archaeologic findings the
> other
> > > year.
> >
> > You need to be more specific. And of course you are talking about
medieval
> > documents here, not Bronze Age.
> Doug,
> take the discussion dealing with the age of the Irish Annals up with an
> Irelander. Not me. I back the Irish in this question.
>
> Inger E
>
Well, the Irish know fairly well when the Annals date to, and none of them
date to the Bronze Age. Some claim to refer to events that occurred much
earlier than the Annals were written down, but none of those particular
Annals refer to ploughs.
--SNIP--
JMB
news:c6mrra$e2420$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
the problem there is that alt.archaeology isn't a relevant place for her
either. That is a serious archaeology newsgroup, just run on the alt.
directory. It is not an "Alternative Archaeology" newsgroup. Admittedly,
it is full of spam, but then, so is sci.archaeology.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
>
>
>
>
>
>
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> Doug, you've stated in another post that you'd like to
> continue discussions with the bonehead.
> Could you do this in alt.arch. where she belongs ?
> Here in _sci_.arch. she's an utter waste of time.
> (also in s.h.m.and s.h.a.)
alt.arch was created by someone I knew because people objected to his sig,
which advertised a book he had written. The 'alt' refers to an alternative
way of creating newsgroups, not the content -- there are some excellent
alt. newsgroups, eg on newsreaders.
However, since Inger is now accusing me of being a criminal, I am
reassessing what I am going to do, which will probably include a very
serious complaint to her ISP.
Doug
Inger E Johansson
I suggest that you start by talking to your supplier. It was my supplier as
well as the Chief-Lawer at the Swedish Datainspektionen who told me to file
complains for those who abused and attacked by and also gave me information
re. EU-laws and International agreement.
I did say you crossed the line. I didn't call you criminal. I said as I have
told you and others many times: there are laws which don't allow the type of
attacks some here continues to do instead of discussing subject, there are
laws which forbid you and all others to slander me. And the same laws do
give me the right to defend myself.
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:1d7bl428wj4w6.159jb5y1kfuda$.dlg@40tude.net...
Philip Deitiker
news:1d7bl428wj4w6.159jb5y1kfuda$.d...@40tude.net:
> However, since Inger is now accusing me of being a
> criminal, I am reassessing what I am going to do, which
> will probably include a very serious complaint to her ISP.
I would be very happy to join you in that complaint.
Jonas Schmidt
> Doug,
> take the discussion dealing with the age of the Irish Annals up with an
> Irelander. Not me. I back the Irish in this question.
>
> Inger E
>
I have two questions pertaining this topic:
The first is: What annals are you referring to? The specific sources
defined as being based on events and sorted by years which only contain
short summaries of the exceptional events of the year or something more
akin to the medieval Chronicles and only called Irish Annals? An example
of the former would be this snippet of the annals of the monastery of
Lorsch http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lorsch1.html
The second is: What is this discussion of the different possible dates
of the Irish Annals? What do the Irish claim what others dispute? What
urges you to support the former? Is there literature concerning that
topic or articles discussing it?
Doug Weller
> Doug,
> I suggest that you start by talking to your supplier. It was my supplier as
> well as the Chief-Lawer at the Swedish Datainspektionen who told me to file
> complains for those who abused and attacked by and also gave me information
> re. EU-laws and International agreement.
> I did say you crossed the line. I didn't call you criminal. I said as I have
> told you and others many times: there are laws which don't allow the type of
> attacks some here continues to do instead of discussing subject, there are
> laws which forbid you and all others to slander me. And the same laws do
> give me the right to defend myself.
Inger, it can only be libel, not slander -- I presume you understand the
difference. And saying that in some cases I don't believe you can provide
references is clearly not libel. You have never for instance been able to
provide references for these claims about EU laws.
You wrote "you have crossed the border between being not polite and
criminal act stalking and wordattacking a named person on net.
Discussiongroups included.
And yes it's a criminal act inside EU as well as in most other countries no
matter if you like it or not."
If you are claiming I have crossed the line into 'criminal act stalking and
wordattacking a named person on net' then you are calling me a criminal.
If you wish to retract that you may, if you don't then you have called me a
criminal and THAT is definitely libel. Your call.
'wordattack' on the other hand is not illegal -- it can be libel depending
on the content.
Doug
Michael Kuettner
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.thisremove.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1d7bl428wj4w6.159jb5y1kfuda$.dlg@40tude.net...
I have to add a little remark to you and Tom McD :
It's extremely sad that two of the people who have tried to
keep sci.arch alive also add to the death of it.
Not by malevolence but by trying to be polite to a kook.
That in itself wouldn't be that bad - but you've tried to be polite
to an extremely foul-mouthed kook.
Take _any_ tn replies from IEJ.
You'll find :
->on-topic content : 0 %
->false claims : 100 %
->the usual cries "of stop harrassing me" : 40 %.
That wouldn't be a problem per se.
BUT - and that's a big "but" : You'll find her insulting and slandering
people in 6 out of ten posts ("do your homework", "you're no historian",
etc. and so on _ad nauseam_).
And both of you (Doug and Tom) have aided her by treating her as a
sane poster.
Before any of you answers, please re-read the thread about bronze-age
ship wrecks.
The usual suspects at work - snide remarks, obfuscation and Ingers
insults. I've found the thread rather nauseating.
It started - surprise,surprise ! - with a request for backing up a remark
Inger had made in another attempt to slander someone (PJG).
And Stevens and Deppo and Ingwer went into overdrive.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about that thread; it would have
been funny in alt.surrealism or talk.dada.
But it should have had no place in a ng which has _sci._ in its name.
Back to the point : By trying to be polite to the Inger kook, you
implicitly
state that her abuse heaped upon other users is OK.
And so you kill the group you're trying to protect.
I've seen many posters who _really_ contributed something worthwhile
to this group (sci.arch) leaving in disgust; others left quietly.
Ask yourselves : How many people with an interest in archaeology
would contribute here after reading the thread above ?
When the only sane posters around here treat someone who argues
like a demented automaton as an equal ?
What conclusion would the lurker reach ?
That "It's so because I say so" is a valid argument ?
Either both of you come to your senses (have you re-read the thread
by now) or you'll kill the ng hich is dear to your hearts.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Philip Deitiker
> Either both of you come to your senses (have you re-read
> the thread by now) or you'll kill the ng hich is dear to
> your hearts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
Micheal, I agree that followups to her malicious accusations
should be directed out of the group. But being impolite only
encourages more impolite people like Mr. FoulMouth to join in
and make a stink of the place. Replies out of the group in
alt.arch of course, is a different story.
Actually the ng has got more OT material lately than usual.
The fact of the matter is that Inger's claim get only about
2 steps were as they used to have gotten 10 or so. Her
supporters have backed away, these hideous displays have turned
them off also. But I think we should reframe from calling her
names except that for which her actions are obvious. And even so
replying out of the group to her other favorite homes and
alt.whatever is a good thing.
Searles O'Dubhain
According to Keating:
"IV. Of the people of Partholón here.
Here are the names of the ploughmen he had, namely, Tothacht, Treun,
Iomhas, Aicheachbhéal, Cúl, Dorcha, and Damh. The names of the four
oxen they had, namely, Liag, Leagmhagh, Iomaire, and Eitrighe. Beoir
(was) the name of the man who gave out free entertainment or
hospitality at first in Ireland. Breagha, son of Seanbhoth (it was)
who established single combat first in Ireland. Samaliliath first
introduced ale-drinking in it. Fios, Eolus and Fochmorc (were) his
three druids. Macha, Mearan, and Muicneachán, his three strong-men.
Biobhal and Beabhal his two merchants. Partholón had ten daughters and
ten sons-in-law."
This is dated in the Annals of the Four Masters:
"M2520.0
From the Deluge until Parthalon took possession of Ireland 278 years;
and the age of the world when he arrived in it, 2520."
"M2520.1
The age of the world when Parthalon came into Ireland, 2520 years.
These were the chieftains who were with him: Slainge, Laighlinne, and
Rudhraidhe, his three sons; Dealgnat, Nerbha, Ciochbha, and Cerbnad,
their four wives."
Now The Age of Christ is M5195 according to the Four Masters. This
makes the time of Parthalon to be 5195 - 2520 = 2675 years before the
Common Era. Of course, all of this is mythology and pseudo-history
until about the time of Padraig (5th century CE), but at least the
Irish thought in their traditions that ploughing was going on as early
as 2675 BCE. This is a time between the building of Brugh na Bóine and
the Bronze Age in Ireland which started around 2000 BCE and lasted
until about 500 BCE or so IIRC.
I also seem to recall mention of a time when the yoking of the plough
to the horns of oxen was replaced by yoking to the neck/shoulders.
This could actually have been in a British tradition however.
Searles
Michael Kuettner
"Philip Deitiker" <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:BhVjc.32269$_o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> says in
> news:c6p6td$erdgc$3...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>
> > Either both of you come to your senses (have you re-read
> > the thread by now) or you'll kill the ng hich is dear to
> > your hearts.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Michael Kuettner
>
> Micheal, I agree that followups to her malicious accusations
> should be directed out of the group. But being impolite only
> encourages more impolite people like Mr. FoulMouth to join in
> and make a stink of the place. Replies out of the group in
> alt.arch of course, is a different story.
>
is; being polite is the mistake.
> Actually the ng has got more OT material lately than usual.
LOL.
You've never seen Kookinsky in full flight ?
But back then there were more posters here who really
contributed something.
> The fact of the matter is that Inger's claim get only about
> 2 steps were as they used to have gotten 10 or so. Her
> supporters have backed away, these hideous displays have turned
> them off also. But I think we should reframe from calling her
> names except that for which her actions are obvious. And even so
> replying out of the group to her other favorite homes and
> alt.whatever is a good thing.
>
Philip,
how do you call a full-fledged idiot ?
Inger _IS_ a moron; she's incapable of learning even simple things;
look at her use of "Prime source" and the thread where the correct
term was explained.
I wouldn't even bother if she were an inoffensive kook
(like Franz G., eg).
But her utter lack of brains plus her believe that the sun
shines out of her ass plus her vicious attacks on other people
make her fair game.
Have you ever seen me treating a polite poster in an impolite way ?
I've seen the decline of sci.arch; and anybody looking at the
thread about the bronze-age wrecks knows the culprits.
Treating kooks as equals just makes it worse.
And if it's a malicous kook like Ingwer, it can destroy a group.
To add some on-topic content :
Have you ever heard of Lutz Roewer (Charité Berlin) ?
He analyzes patterns on the male y-chromosome and tries
to use that to explain the population distribution of Europe since the
last ice-age (12000 years ago) .
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Philip Deitiker
> Philip,
>
> how do you call a full-fledged idiot ?
> Inger _IS_ a moron; she's incapable of learning even simple
> things; look at her use of "Prime source" and the thread
> where the correct term was explained.
> I wouldn't even bother if she were an inoffensive kook
> (like Franz G., eg).
> But her utter lack of brains plus her believe that the sun
> shines out of her ass plus her vicious attacks on other
> people make her fair game.
>
> Have you ever seen me treating a polite poster in an
> impolite way ?
>
> I've seen the decline of sci.arch; and anybody looking at
> the thread about the bronze-age wrecks knows the culprits.
> Treating kooks as equals just makes it worse.
> And if it's a malicous kook like Ingwer, it can destroy a
> group.
Micheal,
I sympathize with the above, but the problem is that other
than diverting post out of the group, Inger does not seem to
learn, she does not learn when she is shown example, even making
examples of her bad behavior personal to her. She simply doesn't
learn. Therefore profanities will not make her learn either,
she just opens with the claims of abuse.
We cannot blame Inger for the loss of on-topicness in the
group, it is a collective problem. Inger is no worse than
J@8R10L of #d C0NR@d, after years of experiance we all manage to
ignore these 2, OK so how is she and the foul mouthed one
different. [Although I must admit in s.a.p. we had rather
reluctant help from talk.origins on dealing with the second
individual, and after last Junes shoot-out, C0NR@D has faded and
has not been a problem]
Inger plays to the emotions, the desire to correct and also to
revenge for bad behavior. It is a non productive strategy.
Divert her post, yes, create a bigger stink here no. Doug, I
think is wrong, her stuff belongs exactly in alt.arch, even if
it was created for one reason, it is behaving as another thing
now and it is the place. alt.kooks.usenet is not productive.
Both of these two play to deep emotions. Science isn't about
deep emotions, except those that are drawn toward the discovery
and communication of facts, in an objective manner. These 2
problem children in the group should not be argued with or
defamed with profanities. Simply they should be ignored or moved
to alt or simply, when they become to hostile, offensive,
contact their ISPs. Contact me by email if you want detail
information on what is going on with regard to ISPs.
DNApaleoAnth at att dot net
What separates trolls from non-trolls here will be the ability
to find and present on-topic material that is scientifically
worthy. Inger is a troll, I told these people this after first
observing her post and then looking at googles. She drags dead
horses and proceeds to try to revive them by beating them. How
do you treat trolls on the internet?
I have some experiance in dealing with these malcontents on
the UseNet. In 1997 I got C0NR@D knocked from his ISP after a
very bitter battle exploded between him PZ myers and A Macrae,
last year I got a better firewall between s.a.p. and
talk.origins. There are no cut and dried solutions except
disciplined responses and focusing on science. The fact of the
matter is that the trolls live off of responses, and even though
Inger does not like defamation, it increases the level of
activity here, but does not change her behavior. This is similar
to C0NR@D.
As for the question about Y-chromosomal evolution, it is
better asked in s.a.p. or in the Yahoo molecular anthropology
group. Most questions are answered with not only references but
with the actual papers.
Jim Webster
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message news:c6l1cr$220> The
pictures clearly show that they did not use a fully developed plough,
> that they did not have metal plough shares, or parts for turning over the
> soil ('Streichbrett'), etc. Scratch marks by the ard are criss-crossing
the
> ground to break it up, ploughmarks are parallel.
not necessarily
whilst you only plough in one direction each year, you may cross plough the
next year. In fact when breaking up ground you might plough twice in the
same year.
Also on sloping ground, while you may normally plough up and down, you might
plough cross ways to turn the soil back uphill to help counter natural
slippage and erosian
Jim Webster
Uwe Müller
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c6q2up$oka$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
I believe You are talking about modern ploughing taking place on modern
fields. The medieval closed field system actually generated long and narrow
strip fields, where ploughing was only done up and down. The traces of this
can be clearly seen in an archaeological excavation, as all the soil is
turned and thrown to one side. Ard marks, quite the contrary, appear in
smaller, more squarish fields, "celtic fields", are appearing as criss-cross
lines and move the soil in both directions from the furrow.
The fully developed plough has a number of features the ard doesn't have
(sorry for the lack of english expressions, there was often a second smaller
plough share in front, the 'Streichbrett' to turn over the soil, wheels at
the back etc.) so even on a picture it is no problem to tell the difference.
Having seen and excavated both forms (and gardening with the spade to give
another example), I can see no way that both tools could be mixed up, if one
was only slightly interested in the development of agricultural implements
in medieval times or earlier.
Now I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of strong parallels between
late bronze age and high/late medieval settlement patterns, and more, but
could a bronze plough share work as well as an iron one or would it be to
brittle? And how could the amount of metal for such bronze age plough shares
be accquired in regions without copper and tin sources?
So I still see no reason to believe in a bronze age fully developed plough,
and have heard of nothing that could proove an earlier date. Last time this
was discussed Inger promised some proof, had to back down for some
misadventure preventing her from sending references and 'forgot' all about
it.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
JMB
news:dcf478af.04042...@posting.google.com...
Hi Searles,
The two things to take account of here is that firstly the Four Masters
wrote in the High-Late Medieval period, and secondly, "ploughmen" could very
easily refer to the people who controlled the Ard (which is known to have
existed in the Bronze Age). Only the law tracts actually mention a plough
(as opposed to the people who tilled the land with it), and the law tracts
are medieval documents, which may or may not reflect things as they stood in
the Iron Age, but almost certainly have no relevance to the Bronze Age. I
would say the same thing about the Annals TBH. Especially those of the Four
Masters dating to pre-400AD, as they were simply attempting to write Ireland
into the biblical history of the world.
JMB
news:c6p5d0$jau$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
Most educated Irish will tell you that the Annals were written down
originally in the Medieval period, and that those that survive were copied
at a later date. Inger, on the other hand, wants to use them as proof of
her Bronze Age claims, so she makes stuff up about there being some sort of
disputed dating of the Annals in Ireland. There isn't.
Matthew Harley
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:03:58 GMT, Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >
> > Some rumor has it that the technique came over during Roman Iron Age from
> > Ireland and today's Scotland to old Ranariki. Might be true. It's definitely
> > noted in Irish sources that they had same or alike technique in use long
> > before the rest of Europe.
>
> JMB asked about these Irish sources. What are they?
I'd like to know these sources as well but am not holding my
breath.
Have you fed your dog yet today Inger?
Matt Harley
Jim Webster
Absolutely true, BUT the medieval closed field system is a comparatively
late development, and did not exist at all even in parts of England. Even
where you have strip agriculture then obviously you had to plough with the
strip, ploughing across it is obviously a total waste of time.
BUT
For many fields the strips could have been laid out in a different direction
if necessary, the fact that remaining systems have fossilised into one
particular pattern need not show that these fields ALWAYS had that pattern
>
> The fully developed plough has a number of features the ard doesn't have
> (sorry for the lack of english expressions, there was often a second
smaller
> plough share in front, the 'Streichbrett' to turn over the soil, wheels at
> the back etc.) so even on a picture it is no problem to tell the
difference.
> Having seen and excavated both forms (and gardening with the spade to give
> another example), I can see no way that both tools could be mixed up, if
one
> was only slightly interested in the development of agricultural implements
> in medieval times or earlier.
>
> Now I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of strong parallels
between
> late bronze age and high/late medieval settlement patterns, and more, but
> could a bronze plough share work as well as an iron one or would it be to
> brittle? And how could the amount of metal for such bronze age plough
shares
> be accquired in regions without copper and tin sources?
The big thing is the mold board or mole board which actually turns the soil
over. This is, as you say, the big difference between the ard and the fully
developed plough. (I have ploughed by never used an ard)
In light soils I would not be surprised to see some sort of mold board made
(like the rest of the ard) of wood shod with metal could work well enough.
>
> So I still see no reason to believe in a bronze age fully developed
plough,
> and have heard of nothing that could proove an earlier date
Here I honestly couldn't say. The points I would make are that cross
scratching need not be proof of the ard but can occur with ploughing. But
obviously they can be made with the ard.
I would speculate that the mold board probably developed/evolved and it
might well have been that the shape of the timber that made the ard may well
have had an effect, perhaps someone noticed that their ard did turn the soil
somewhat?
Certainly none of these is a proof of a bronze age plough
Jim Webster
Inger E Johansson
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:c6rqol$u3f$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
While that's true I think both you and Uwe missed the fact that the
knive-type for plough has been found in more than one place on earth from
later Bronze Age.
I sent ref the other day. As so many times before only a few take themselves
time to read more than the url itself and don't follow up with the sites the
url:s refer to.....
Inger E
>
> Jim Webster
>
>
John A Geck
news:c6rqol$u3f$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...<<snip>>
> > I believe You are talking about modern ploughing taking place on modern
> > fields. The medieval closed field system actually generated long and
> narrow
> > strip fields, where ploughing was only done up and down. The traces of
> this
> > can be clearly seen in an archaeological excavation, as all the soil is
> > turned and thrown to one side. Ard marks, quite the contrary, appear in
> > smaller, more squarish fields, "celtic fields", are appearing as
> criss-cross
> > lines and move the soil in both directions from the furrow.
>
> Absolutely true, BUT the medieval closed field system is a comparatively
> late development, and did not exist at all even in parts of England. Even
> where you have strip agriculture then obviously you had to plough with the
> strip, ploughing across it is obviously a total waste of time.
> BUT
> For many fields the strips could have been laid out in a different
direction
> if necessary, the fact that remaining systems have fossilised into one
> particular pattern need not show that these fields ALWAYS had that pattern
> Jim Webster
Hi Jim,
Not to intrude on a well-developed dialogue, but doesn't strip agriculture
evolve _because_ you're using a heavy plough? You want to have a field shape
which requires the least amount of turns for the most efficient ploughing.
Long strips are perfect for this, no? Of course, I imagine if geography
demanded it, you could of course have alternate shapes, but you would still
plough them in whatever way produces the longest straigh draws with the
fewest turns. My information may well be dated, and I'd love to hear more on
this.
Cheers,
John
Philip Deitiker
news:409165DE...@eircom.net:
> Have you fed your dog yet today Inger?
ROFL, I wonder how many times the dog has been to the vet for
eating all kinds of inedible objects. Inger should consider
feeding it more fiber.
Jim Webster
"John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:QPfkc.318847$2oI1....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
You are correct, BUT, agriculture consists of imposing theory upon a reality
which doesn't particularly care what you think.
Remember also that the 'fields' split into strips were of considerable size,
far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and down, then it is
going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so often to turn the soil
back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres then you are going to
have a long straight draw in either direction.
Jim Webster
Uwe Müller
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c6rqol$u3f$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Agreed, but I was rather thinking of northern Germany, Poland, Denmark, the
Netherlands and areas close by.
> BUT
> For many fields the strips could have been laid out in a different
direction
> if necessary, the fact that remaining systems have fossilised into one
> particular pattern need not show that these fields ALWAYS had that pattern
True again.
But if it was not the common picture (no 100% guarantee) than other
patterns should have been uncovered in the several big area excavations
conducted in the last ten years. So while there may remain remnants of other
field systems uncovered in the earth, excavation results show the rise of
enclosed fields in the late bronze age (block or celtic fields) and strip
fields in the high medieval.
Maps, descriptions and place names show them as well, and actual ploughs,
and pictures or parts of ploughs uncovered in excavations from the neolithic
onwards, show the ard, and nothing but the ard, up to the high medieval.
The ard has a number of features which work very well, it is lighter than
the real plough, can be pulled by humans, if need be, you don't need
specialised craftmen to produce or repair them and no imported raw
materials.
This is different with the fully developed plough. It needs specialised
craftmen and raw materials which are noz readyly available any place any
time, or, in short, a market economy.
> >
> > So I still see no reason to believe in a bronze age fully developed
> plough,
> > and have heard of nothing that could proove an earlier date
>
> Here I honestly couldn't say. The points I would make are that cross
> scratching need not be proof of the ard but can occur with ploughing. But
> obviously they can be made with the ard.
The scratching of the ard is rather superficial, it was not intended to
penetrate far into the ground. So, in my experience, plough marks or ard
marks can usually be recogniced as such quite easily.
> I would speculate that the mold board probably developed/evolved and it
> might well have been that the shape of the timber that made the ard may
well
> have had an effect, perhaps someone noticed that their ard did turn the
soil
> somewhat?
Since the plough share of the ard was made from wood, uneven wear may have
led to some sort of turn-over effect, which could have made people think.
I'm rather pessimistic as to what they could have done with this bright
idea.
> Certainly none of these is a proof of a bronze age plough
Which would be a very interesting fact, if it could be proven. But no
references were given as to what was supposedly found and how it was
supposedly identified as being traces of the developed plough.
Thanks for the info
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Renia
>
>
> You are correct, BUT, agriculture consists of imposing theory upon a reality
> which doesn't particularly care what you think.
>
> Remember also that the 'fields' split into strips were of considerable size,
> far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and down, then it is
> going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so often to turn the soil
> back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres then you are going to
> have a long straight draw in either direction.
>
> Jim Webster
What evidence do you have for individual medieval fields comprising "a
couple of hundred acres"?
Renia
John A Geck
<<snip>>
> You are correct, BUT, agriculture consists of imposing theory upon a
reality
> which doesn't particularly care what you think.
Hi Jim,
Righto, that's what I was saying when I said that geography dictates the
general size and shape of a field - I can imagine all sorts of cases where
you wouldn't have a long, even strip, geographically shaped, to farm.
However, I'd still maintain that whatever shape you have, it would make
sense to plough it in the longest draws possible, no?
> Remember also that the 'fields' split into strips were of considerable
size,
> far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and down, then it is
> going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so often to turn the
soil
> back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres then you are going
to
> have a long straight draw in either direction.
I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would be of that tremendous a
size. Weren't they subdivided at all, given technological limitations to
ploughing 200+ acres in any decent amount of time? And if they were
subdivded, wouldn't they still be designed to give the longest draws
available?
This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct knowledge
about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other research
interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to ploughing
technique and field sizes?
Cheers,
John
Inger E Johansson
"John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> skrev i meddelandet
news:moQkc.347646$2oI1....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Widgren, Mats, Settlement and farming systems in the early Iron Age : a
study of fossil agrarian landscapes in Östergötland, Sweden, Stockholm :
Almqvist & Wiksell international 1983 dissertation: Diss. Stockholm :
Univ.
ISBN: 91-22-00602-8
serie: Stockholm studies in human geography, , ISSN 0349-7003 ; 3
also abailable in new edition: [Ny tr.] 1994 (Stockholm : Gotab)
Inger eE
>
>
Tom McDonald
In this discussion, I've had a little tickle at the back of my
brain about the long fields, and it finally came to me what that
tickle was.
IIRC, one reason in some places for the long, narrow fields was
that the land was continually divided among the sons at the
passing of the father, and the land was sub-divided into long,
rather than square or other shapes, partly due to that being the
easier way to plough/loosen the soil. If so, ISTM that this
form of land tenure would likely have arisen after plowing
technology had reached the point where cross-plowing had been
superceeded almost entirely or entirely by one-shot,
longitudinal plowing.
My memory seems to place this in France; but since this is all
from my often-faulty memory, this too could be mistaken.
Tom McDonald
Jim Webster
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:a387cf87.0405...@posting.google.com...
Remember that the two or three field system was not universal in England
(which is the area I was basing my comment on) but in those areas where it
was, then all the villages arable land would be in two or three fields.
(These were just large areas fenced to keep grazing livestock OUT. Given
that the wealthier peasantry farmed between 30 and 60 acres, some on half
that, and some at the poorer end on half again, the if you assume a village
has a population of 20 families, at an average land holding of 30 acres per
family this is 600 acres, or two fields of 300 acres.
The hedgerow pattern that we are used to in much of England owes more to the
enclosures than it does to our medieval predecessors
Jim Webster
> Renia
John A Geck
<<snip>>
> Widgren, Mats, Settlement and farming systems in the early Iron Age : a
> study of fossil agrarian landscapes in Östergötland, Sweden, Stockholm :
> Almqvist & Wiksell international 1983 dissertation: Diss. Stockholm :
> Univ.
> ISBN: 91-22-00602-8
> serie: Stockholm studies in human geography, , ISSN 0349-7003 ; 3
> also abailable in new edition: [Ny tr.] 1994 (Stockholm : Gotab)
>
> Inger eE
Thanks, Inger.
John
Jim Webster
> "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> wrote in message
> news:c6sqjs$gpn$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> <<snip>>
> > You are correct, BUT, agriculture consists of imposing theory upon a
> reality
> > which doesn't particularly care what you think.
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Righto, that's what I was saying when I said that geography dictates the
> general size and shape of a field - I can imagine all sorts of cases where
> you wouldn't have a long, even strip, geographically shaped, to farm.
> However, I'd still maintain that whatever shape you have, it would make
> sense to plough it in the longest draws possible, no?
yes, in most years. BUT because of the slope or for other reasons (one part
is wet in a wet spring so the field shape changes) you will occassionally
plough it the other way for good agricultural reasons. So finding cross
marks when you excavate doesn't guarantee ard use.
>
> > Remember also that the 'fields' split into strips were of considerable
> size,
> > far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> > So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and down, then it is
> > going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so often to turn the
> soil
> > back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres then you are
going
> to
> > have a long straight draw in either direction.
>
> I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would be of that tremendous
a
> size. Weren't they subdivided at all, given technological limitations to
> ploughing 200+ acres in any decent amount of time?
remember you might have 20 ox teams working on a given day, also some strips
might be left grass for mowing or ploughed at a different time for a
different crop
And if they were
> subdivded, wouldn't they still be designed to give the longest draws
> available?
They were subdivided, often into half acre strips, but these weren't fenced,
and were marked out with pegs, stones or similar. Obviously it is easier to
stick with the pre-existing marks but they can be moved if necessary.
>
> This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct knowledge
> about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
research
> interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to ploughing
> technique and field sizes?
most of it comes from my own ploughing experience, (and three generations of
experience passed down :-))
Even with horse ploughs my father and grandfather occassionally had to cross
plough. Sometimes because you want to turn soil back uphill occassionally to
counteract the gradual drift down hill. Sometimes you do not plough part of
a field, (too wet that year perhaps) and this means that you change the line
to get the best long runs.
I must confess I'm struggling to remember where I came across the sizes of
these fields, probably because it seems to have been accepted knowledge. A
lot of the landscape histories and similar mention it
I'll have a poke around
Jim Webster
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
DE Wolf
> "John A Geck" skrev
[snip}
>
>> I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would
>> be of that tremendous a size. Weren't they subdivided
>> at all, given technological limitations to ploughing
>> 200+ acres in any decent amount of time? And if they
>> were subdivded, wouldn't they still be designed to
>> give the longest draws available?
>> This is rather interesting for me, though I have not
>> much direct knowledge about it. Do you know any
>> sources (not too big, please, I've other research
>> interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with
>> reference to ploughing technique and field sizes?
> Widgren, Mats, Settlement and farming systems in the
> early Iron Age : a study of fossil agrarian landscapes
> in Ostergotland, Sweden, Stockholm : Almqvist & Wiksell
> international 1983 dissertation: Diss. Stockholm :
> Univ. ISBN: 91-22-00602-8
> serie: Stockholm studies in human geography, ,
> ISSN 0349-7003 ; 3 also abailable in new edition:
> [Ny tr.] 1994 (Stockholm : Gotab)
Inger, the Bibliography page of the shm Q&A site thanks
you. <G>
Two quick questions, so we get the information entered
correctly.
1. Is this two references or one?
2. Is "ISSN" correct notation or should that read "ISBN"?
Once we have the information and have a chance to update
the site, you will be able to find it under the heading
of "Medieval Agriculture"
Oh, just thought of a third question.
Do you wish to have your name added to the list of
contributors, and if so, do you wish an email address
included? (If yes, what address do you wish used?)
Wolf,
Bard
--
**************************************
Though I may never make master,
Still, and always, a bard.
**************************************
The value of pi(3.141592654...) can
never really be changed, despite the
best efforts of the Indiana state
legislature (House Bill# 246, 1897).
**************************************
http://www.shm-qa.net
Inger E Johansson
It's one reference but it's edited in the serie as well, thus you have one
ISBN for the serie and one for the Dissertation. I had the dissertation as
one out of many work for my C-essay of waterways to Roxen from Stone Age to
1000 AD. What I did with it was studying known settlements and farms as well
as artifacts found in the triangle Linköping - Västervik(including Gamleby)
and along the coast up to Bråviken. All factors and information were put
into a database and added as marks on maps for waterline and waterway during
mid-Stone Age(between Early Stone Age and younger Stone Age),
Bronze Age Start Mid Bronze Age, 500 BC-0 0-400 AD, 400-700 AD resp year
1000 AD. In my essay I presented the maps from mid Stone Age, Bronze Age,
Pre Roman Iron Age(äldre järnåldern), Roman Iron Age and Migration Age(yngre
järnåldern) mapped on same map as Pre Roman Iron Age other markers, Viking
Age-1000 AD on map 1000 AD.
To be able to valuate my results I had to read a lot about early cultivation
methods as well as go through ALL excavation reports where settlements and
or single farms up to 1000 AD had been excavated. I had to learn a lot about
sediment-layers and their 'relation' to weather, waterlevels resp the
difference between sediment-layers where the water had 'stood still' for
long time(hundreds of years) resp type of clay or stone under soil and how
deep down........ on top of that I for my D-level(we start with A-level) had
to specialize in 4 deeper areas + Scientific Methodology (4 time) + a major
essay/thesis. One of my 'deep' areas where to learn all about cultivation
methods from 3000 BC to 1750 AD and changes due to new methods resp new
organisation of how the fields for a village were 'divided' due to
distribution-changes we call 'skifte'.....
I know Jim is right when he say that cross-ploughmarks doesn't need to be
due to arder-usage. On the contrary it depend on terrain resp type of soil.
There are 'light'-soils and 'heavy'-soils and since some of the 'heavy'
soils on slopes needed a plough to be turned around there definitely was a
change from arder to plough much earlier than those who insists that the
plough is a new invention knows...... There have been at least four stages
of ploughs between the arder and the 1700's plough. 4 between. More about
that later.
Inger E
"DE Wolf" <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:c7115h$6ai$1...@blue.rahul.net...
John A Geck
news:c7101j$9gl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
<<snip>>
> yes, in most years. BUT because of the slope or for other reasons (one
part
> is wet in a wet spring so the field shape changes) you will occassionally
> plough it the other way for good agricultural reasons. So finding cross
> marks when you excavate doesn't guarantee ard use.
All right; I didn't mean to imply that cross-marks = ards, only that
ploughing in long strips developed to faciliate use of the heavy plough.
<<snip>>
> > I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would be of that
tremendous
> a
> > size. Weren't they subdivided at all, given technological limitations to
> > ploughing 200+ acres in any decent amount of time?
>
> remember you might have 20 ox teams working on a given day, also some
strips
> might be left grass for mowing or ploughed at a different time for a
> different crop
Right; so then you would still have one direction which is likely longer--if
you were going to be leaving a particular section of a field fallow, it
seems common sense to make it such that the non-fallow section would still
facilitate (for typical use) long, easy draws?
> And if they were
> > subdivded, wouldn't they still be designed to give the longest draws
> > available?
>
> They were subdivided, often into half acre strips, but these weren't
fenced,
> and were marked out with pegs, stones or similar. Obviously it is easier
to
> stick with the pre-existing marks but they can be moved if necessary.
Ok.
> >
> > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
knowledge
> > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
> research
> > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to ploughing
> > technique and field sizes?
>
>
> most of it comes from my own ploughing experience, (and three generations
of
> experience passed down :-))
>
> Even with horse ploughs my father and grandfather occassionally had to
cross
> plough. Sometimes because you want to turn soil back uphill occassionally
to
> counteract the gradual drift down hill. Sometimes you do not plough part
of
> a field, (too wet that year perhaps) and this means that you change the
line
> to get the best long runs.
I can see the need to cross-plough in order to turn the soil back uphill,
but we are agreed that field-shape was still designed to get the best long
runs? I'll certainly trust first-hand advice when it comes to agriculture. A
former professor hailed from an Indiana farm and would go into dramatic
apoplectic fits when we missed certain allusions in medieval literature.
Cheers,
John
Renia
So how does that answer my quetion? Which was - what evidence do you
have for individual fields comrpising a couple of htundred acres?
It doesn't. Individual medieval fields, or strips, were much smaller
than this. A village might have fields of 200 or so acres between
them, but these were split up into much smaller strips. Enclosure, and
larger field acreage came later.
Renia
George
Wrong
and the example I give is:
http://www.applebymagna.org.uk/appleby_history/in_focus10_medieval_feilds2.htm
DE Wolf
> Wolf,
> It's one reference but it's edited in the serie as well,
Thanks, Inger. It should be listed on the site by Monday.
[snip]
Below is how it will appear. (Without the ">"s of course <G>>
>> > Widgren, Mats, Settlement and farming systems in the
>> > early Iron Age : a study of fossil agrarian landscapes
>> > in Ostergotland, Sweden, Stockholm : Almqvist & Wiksell
>> > international 1983 dissertation: Diss. Stockholm :
>> > Univ. ISBN: 91-22-00602-8
>>
>> > serie: Stockholm studies in human geography, ,
>> > ISSN 0349-7003 ; 3 also abailable in new edition:
>> > [Ny tr.] 1994 (Stockholm : Gotab)
Since you didn't say that you want your name included in
the contributors list, I shall leave it off. If you
decide you DO want your name on the list just drop a
note to admi...@shm-qa.net.
Thanks again.
Jim Webster
you are confusing strips and fields. The strips made up the field. The
strips were not separate fields, they were part of the field that were
marked out by the use of occassional wooden pegs or stones.
Manor courts regularly had to deal with claims that someone had been moving
the boundary stones to steal a bit of his neighbours strip. The strip could
be permanent but did not have to be.
Jim Webster
>
> Renia
Jim Webster
you are confusing strips and fields. The strips made up the field. The
Jim Webster
"George" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> Wrong
> and the example I give is:
>
http://www.applebymagna.org.uk/appleby_history/in_focus10_medieval_feilds2.h
tm
I suggest you re-read it, you may be confusing the modern fields with the
original fields. Do not confuse the 'lands' which are part of the field with
the fields
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote in message
> news:c7101j$9gl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> <<snip>>
> > yes, in most years. BUT because of the slope or for other reasons (one
> part
> > is wet in a wet spring so the field shape changes) you will
occassionally
> > plough it the other way for good agricultural reasons. So finding cross
> > marks when you excavate doesn't guarantee ard use.
>
> All right; I didn't mean to imply that cross-marks = ards, only that
> ploughing in long strips developed to faciliate use of the heavy plough.
yes, but.
On this farm the average field size is about 4.8 acres and prior to 1840 it
was normally a third ploughed. And the fields are square. While ploughing is
easier in longer fields, other reasons determine field shape.
>
> <<snip>>
> > > I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would be of that
> tremendous
> > a
> > > size. Weren't they subdivided at all, given technological limitations
to
> > > ploughing 200+ acres in any decent amount of time?
> >
> > remember you might have 20 ox teams working on a given day, also some
> strips
> > might be left grass for mowing or ploughed at a different time for a
> > different crop
>
> Right; so then you would still have one direction which is likely
longer--if
> you were going to be leaving a particular section of a field fallow, it
> seems common sense to make it such that the non-fallow section would still
> facilitate (for typical use) long, easy draws?
It would be but reality can impose its own rules. Remember that there is
inertia to keep ploughing the same strips in the same direction but
inheritence can lead to strips being broken up.
yes, one of the better books written on the interface between Greek warfare
and agriculture is an American who has experience with agriculture. It helps
Jim Webster
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
Inger E Johansson
this is the rules when it comes to me and my name usage:
When I refer to a quote or a ref inside an article where I directly written
copyrights on, then I ask for you to refer to me as a person and the article
I wrote in question. On the other hand if I send you a ref or a quote to a
source inside a discussion and I haven't marked it copyright but you quote
my validations to prove thesis, then I expect you to refer to me if you use
my arguments, premisses or such no matter if I have written copyrights or
not.
BUT if I only send direct ref or quotes without argumentation you copy one
way or an other, then it's entirely up to you to refer to me or not.
One other thing for all to know. From here on I give our discussion-mate
capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com the rights to copy my articles for
private use in cases listed below on conditions that with referenses to me
as the author of the work, article or discussion in question. This rights
include to be used in articles of his in media or oral as long as he meets
up to conditions refering to me as the scholar in question. This agreement
from me doesn't include anyone else but him.
Gotenburg 2nd May 2004 Inger E Johansson
Inger E
"DE Wolf" <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:c721m2$eud$1...@blue.rahul.net...
Uwe Müller
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c7101j$9gl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:moQkc.347646$2oI1....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> wrote in message
> > news:c6sqjs$gpn$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > <<snip>>
> > > You are correct, BUT, agriculture consists of imposing theory upon a
> > reality
> > > which doesn't particularly care what you think.
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > Righto, that's what I was saying when I said that geography dictates the
> > general size and shape of a field - I can imagine all sorts of cases
where
> > you wouldn't have a long, even strip, geographically shaped, to farm.
> > However, I'd still maintain that whatever shape you have, it would make
> > sense to plough it in the longest draws possible, no?
>
> yes, in most years. BUT because of the slope or for other reasons (one
part
> is wet in a wet spring so the field shape changes) you will occassionally
> plough it the other way for good agricultural reasons. So finding cross
> marks when you excavate doesn't guarantee ard use.
True. But...
Over here the villages had as a rule 3 fields (in reality there are between
2 and 5 fields), each one divided up in dozens of strips belonging to the
different farms. Cross ploughing would have needed the consent of everybody
concerned, that is every member of the family.
>
> >
> > > Remember also that the 'fields' split into strips were of considerable
> > size,
> > > far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> > > So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and down, then it
is
> > > going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so often to turn the
> > soil
> > > back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres then you are
> going
> > to
> > > have a long straight draw in either direction.
> >
> > I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would be of that
tremendous
> a
> > size. Weren't they subdivided at all, given technological limitations to
> > ploughing 200+ acres in any decent amount of time?
>
> remember you might have 20 ox teams working on a given day, also some
strips
> might be left grass for mowing or ploughed at a different time for a
> different crop
Not really, over here they had the Flurzwang, the need to plant the same
stuff in the field. So field 1 might have wheat, grown by 20 farmers, field
2 would have oats, grown by 20 farmers, and field 3 would be fallow, used
for grazing by 20 farmers.
The size of the Feldflur (the fields of a village) varies much, depending on
the quality of the soil. And in some instances a second Feldflur might have
been acquired by a village, taken over from some deserted settlement.
> snip >
>
> >
> > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
knowledge
> > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
> research
> > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to ploughing
> > technique and field sizes?
>
Can You read German? I'll look for english language archaeological
literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
> snip >
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@charter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1097ppi...@corp.supernews.com...
> John A Geck wrote:
> > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> wrote in message
> > news:c6sqjs$gpn$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > <<snip>>
> snip >
> In this discussion, I've had a little tickle at the back of my
> brain about the long fields, and it finally came to me what that
> tickle was.
>
> IIRC, one reason in some places for the long, narrow fields was
> that the land was continually divided among the sons at the
> passing of the father, and the land was sub-divided into long,
> rather than square or other shapes, partly due to that being the
> easier way to plough/loosen the soil. If so, ISTM that this
> form of land tenure would likely have arisen after plowing
> technology had reached the point where cross-plowing had been
> superceeded almost entirely or entirely by one-shot,
> longitudinal plowing.
In Germany there were two way of inhereting land. In the northern parts the
farm as a whole was passed on to one of the descendants, the others could
work at the farm as hired hands or seek employment elsewhere.
In the south the whole land was divided up amongst the kids leading to
smaller fields as time went.
Mind you, this is little more than a rule of thumb, deviations are
plentifull.
A comparable situation has been noted for plots in towns. Originally every
plot had a farm on it, with secondary buildings, stables, the lot and a lot
of free space for gardening, keeping animals, etc.. With the rise of a maket
economy most plots were used for non agricultural purposes, so you could fit
2 or 3 homes on the same plot. Since access to the street was one thing they
still needed, the original big plots got subdivided into smaller strips, the
parts near the street were completely overbuild and only the back yards were
kept free.
>
> My memory seems to place this in France; but since this is all
> from my often-faulty memory, this too could be mistaken.
>
have fun
Uwe Mueller
John A Geck
<<snip>>
Hi Uwe,
I said:
> > > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
> knowledge
> > > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
> > research
> > > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to
ploughing
> > > technique and field sizes?
> >
>
> Can You read German? I'll look for english language archaeological
> literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
>
>
> Uwe Mueller
I can make my way through German, provided it isn't too academic--I still
have trouble with your page-long sentences at times. :)
Cheers,
John
Jim Webster
> Over here the villages had as a rule 3 fields (in reality there are
between
> 2 and 5 fields), each one divided up in dozens of strips belonging to the
> different farms. Cross ploughing would have needed the consent of
everybody
> concerned, that is every member of the family.
It looks as if you have a situation where the 'ownership' was more 'communal
' as opposed to being a more landlord-tenant relationship. I can see how
this would certainly complicate things. Obviously as the system fossilised
in parts of England, a similar situation would arise.
While this might be the optimum, remember that some would miss their
planting window for one crop and end, say, planting oats instead of wheat.
The situation you portray does sound more communal, did they harvest the
entire field as one operation and the owners take a proportion of the crop
or was each strip harvested separately by the farmer of that strip on the
day he felt it was ready for harvest?
> The size of the Feldflur (the fields of a village) varies much, depending
on
> the quality of the soil. And in some instances a second Feldflur might
have
> been acquired by a village, taken over from some deserted settlement.
> > snip >
Asserts were cleared from the forest, but they were still controlled by the
lord of the Manor, who would collect rent etc. and may probably have had to
give permission. These would tend to become a separate community or hamlet.
> >
> > >
> > > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
> knowledge
> > > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
> > research
> > > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to
ploughing
> > > technique and field sizes?
> >
>
> Can You read German? I'll look for english language archaeological
> literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
>
No, I have no apparent facility for languages, so am limited to English.
What I do find intriguing is what appears to be differing social systems
within the same generalised agricultural system
Jim Webster
Uwe Müller
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c76dai$7eu$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:c74pbn$jrq$3...@news.eusc.inter.net...
>
> > Over here the villages had as a rule 3 fields (in reality there are
> between
> > 2 and 5 fields), each one divided up in dozens of strips belonging to
the
> > different farms. Cross ploughing would have needed the consent of
> everybody
> > concerned, that is every member of the family.
>
> It looks as if you have a situation where the 'ownership' was more
'communal
> ' as opposed to being a more landlord-tenant relationship. I can see how
> this would certainly complicate things. Obviously as the system fossilised
> in parts of England, a similar situation would arise.
It's even more complicated. The relationship was between families, not
persons, so any substantial change had to be agreed upon by all living
members of both families. You could hardly count on that.
So in the 12th and 13th c. personal ownership of land started in towns (the
land was needed as a security for loans) but little of that affected
agriculture and villages directly.
No, definitely not. That was Flurzwang, everybody had to work their fields
at the same time, grow the same crops etc. If you missed it, that was it.
You would have to borrow from neighbours or do without. So you had to make
sure your strips were worked, as the others were.
> The situation you portray does sound more communal,
Yes, pretty much communal in a way. Usually they owed duties as a village,
and if one farmer couldn't pay the village chief had to pay those duties as
well. And the village chief was held responsible for the dues and for any
lawbraking that would have been done from members of the village.
This worked fine as long as separate functions were located in separate
villages (agraric, traders, craftworking settlements).
> did they harvest the
> entire field as one operation and the owners take a proportion of the crop
> or was each strip harvested separately by the farmer of that strip on the
> day he felt it was ready for harvest?
AFAIK (archaeologist, not historian) everybody planted and harvested his own
land. So it was important to have a village leader (Bauernmeister, or
whatever) that knew his stuff, knew when to do what chores.
Now since these small strips were distributed
so that every one had strips near the river (for times of draught) and
strips on the hills (to have dry ground in wet years), harvesting would be
spread over
some time.
>
> > The size of the Feldflur (the fields of a village) varies much,
depending
> on
> > the quality of the soil. And in some instances a second Feldflur might
> have
> > been acquired by a village, taken over from some deserted settlement.
> > > snip >
>
>
> Asserts were cleared from the forest, but they were still controlled by
the
> lord of the Manor, who would collect rent etc. and may probably have had
to
> give permission. These would tend to become a separate community or
hamlet.
There were numerous conflicts on lands outside the Feldflur. And if the size
of the villages fields proved to be too small, it would become deserted. You
couldn't just take some land from a deserted farm in your village, because
dues and labour had to be provided for them, taxes paid etc..
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
> > knowledge
> > > > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
> > > research
> > > > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to
> ploughing
> > > > technique and field sizes?
> > >
> >
> > Can You read German? I'll look for english language archaeological
> > literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
> >
>
> No, I have no apparent facility for languages, so am limited to English.
With a little trouble You can understand IE languages than : -)
But You could try
John Hutchinson (Ed.), The Early History of Agriculture. A Joint Symposium
of the Royal Society and the British Society, organized by J. Hutchinson,
Oxford University Press 1997,
there's lots of references there
>
> What I do find intriguing is what appears to be differing social systems
> within the same generalised agricultural system
I wouldn't want to bet on it, but I'd guess, that every village had some
special notions, some differences in social organization and legal
framework, some local variations in customs and techniques, that served to
interconnect those villagers and made them something special. And helped to
differentiate them from those stupid hillbillies from 2 miles away.
Here in Brandenburg that is especially true, there were villages according
to slavic, flemish and saxon law. There were traders setllements, that would
be privileged directly by the King, and craftsmen villages, that were part
of the household of some noble.There were landlords with very different
legal statues, from christianized Slavs, to early conquerors (who did not
have to answer the Markgraf), from some cronie of the Markgraf to farmers or
townfolk that had grown rich.
There were taxes and dues owed to the landlord, and there were taxes and
dues, that had been passed on to some third party.
After the 30 years war absolutism, the formation of territories and the
bundling of rights in one hand led to a situation, were the legal status of
the villages was made uniform, usually to the worst of the villagers. The
landlord, some absolute ruler, was supreme judge in any matter, including
the religious.
The one thing medieval agriculture has in common, across space and time, is
diversity.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:xJtlc.4987$W%i1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Than try to lay Your hands on
Janine C. Fries-Knoblach, Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Agrartechnik auf den
Britischen Inseln und dem Kontinent. Eine vergleichende Studie. 1995
ISBN: 3-924734-44-5
That should give you a comprhensive view of agraric techniques and lots and
lots of references in all kinds of languages
Werner Rösener, Einführung in die Agrargeschichte, (Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft) Darmstadt 1997
J. Lüning, A. Jockenhövel, H. Bender, T. Capelle, (Hg.), Deutsche
Agrargeschichte. Vor- und Frühgeschichte, begründet von G. Franz, Stuttgart
1997.
John Hutchinson (Ed.), The Early History of Agriculture. A Joint Symposium
of the Royal Society and the British Society, organized by J. Hutchinson,
Oxford University Press 1997.
Karl-Rolf Schulz-Klinken , Haken, Pflug und Ackerbau (Ackerbausysteme des
Saatfurchen- und Saatbettbaues in urgeschichtlicher und geschichtlicher Zeit
sowie ihr Einfluß auf die Bodenentwicklung. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen
Landwirtschaftsmuseums, Bd. 1), Hildesheim 1981
Those should cover most topics.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Renia
I rather think you are.
> The strips made up the field. The
> strips were not separate fields, they were part of the field that were
> marked out by the use of occassional wooden pegs or stones.
> Manor courts regularly had to deal with claims that someone had been moving
> the boundary stones to steal a bit of his neighbours strip. The strip could
> be permanent but did not have to be.
The strips were farmed separately, hence the boundary battles (so to
speak) of the manorial courts you mention. You didn't farm the strip
next to yours, unless it was yours. Hence, no cross-ploughing.
Renia
Jim Webster
But you can cross plough when the landlord/lord of the manor decides it is
necessary. For reasons I have iterated before.You farm the strips, you don't
own them.You can pass them on to your heirs, on payment of a sum to the lord
of the manor
Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an archaeological
record
Jim Webster
>
> Renia
Renia
You owned your strip for the term of your lease (21 years, 33 years,
etc) and farmed it yourself, paying your lord a portion of your
income, either in goods (wax, corn) or in money. The rest was yours.
You might barter with your neighbours and friends, but it was your
land by the terms of your lease. You might be tripping about all over
the village to attend to your various strips.
The medieval strip, so to speak, still exists in England today, in the
form of allotments. Much smaller than the medieval strip, but still to
do with what you will.
> Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an archaeological
> record
What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval England
that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have never
come across it.
Renia
Inger E Johansson
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> skrev i meddelandet
I can't speak for England, but I do know that in Ukna-dalen, Smaaland,
Sweden such was and sometimes still is the case.
Inger E
>
> Renia
Jim Webster
>
> You owned your strip for the term of your lease (21 years, 33 years,
> etc) and farmed it yourself, paying your lord a portion of your
> income, either in goods (wax, corn) or in money. The rest was yours.
> You might barter with your neighbours and friends, but it was your
> land by the terms of your lease.
No, it was never your land, you were just the tenant, and could pass on the
tenancy only by the say so of the lord of the manor on payment of a 'fine'
You might be tripping about all over
> the village to attend to your various strips.
You would be, it was rare that strips were adjacent
>
> The medieval strip, so to speak, still exists in England today, in the
> form of allotments. Much smaller than the medieval strip, but still to
> do with what you will.
Be careful of the term allotments. It means one thing in an urban or
suburban context and yet another in an agricultural context. In an
agricultural context an allotment can be many tens of acres.
>
> > Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an
archaeological
> > record
>
> What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval England
> that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have never
> come across it.
I have never said farming in common, I merely pointed out that before the
strips fossilised in by the end of the period of their use it was possible
for agronomic reasons for the landlords bailiff to arrange for cross
ploughing. Remember you can actually cross plough the strips (because there
is no barrier between strips,) but still sow the strips along the strip,
which might be necessary occasionally where you have sloping ground.
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> Hi Jim,
>
> It's even more complicated. The relationship was between families, not
> persons, so any substantial change had to be agreed upon by all living
> members of both families. You could hardly count on that.
>
> So in the 12th and 13th c. personal ownership of land started in towns
(the
> land was needed as a security for loans) but little of that affected
> agriculture and villages directly.
This seems to be more village orientated than it was in much of England. In
England an individual was the tenant, and the tenancy could be inherited but
a sum of money had to be paid to the landlord. This actually continued into
the 20th century (by which time the sum had been inflated to nominal.) We
still have the receipt that my Grandfather was given when he bought out the
Lord of the Manor.
> > > for grazing by 20 farmers.
> > >
> > While this might be the optimum, remember that some would miss their
> > planting window for one crop and end, say, planting oats instead of
wheat.
>
> No, definitely not. That was Flurzwang, everybody had to work their fields
> at the same time, grow the same crops etc. If you missed it, that was it.
> You would have to borrow from neighbours or do without. So you had to make
> sure your strips were worked, as the others were.
Seems more regimented than the English system
>
> > The situation you portray does sound more communal,
>
> Yes, pretty much communal in a way. Usually they owed duties as a village,
> and if one farmer couldn't pay the village chief had to pay those duties
as
> well. And the village chief was held responsible for the dues and for any
> law braking that would have been done from members of the village.
While the law breakers kindred could be held responsible, unrelated
villagers were not normally drawn into the case.
>
> This worked fine as long as separate functions were located in separate
> villages (agraric, traders, craftworking settlements).
>
> > did they harvest the
> > entire field as one operation and the owners take a proportion of the
crop
> > or was each strip harvested separately by the farmer of that strip on
the
> > day he felt it was ready for harvest?
>
> AFAIK (archaeologist, not historian) everybody planted and harvested his
own
> land. So it was important to have a village leader (Bauernmeister, or
> whatever) that knew his stuff, knew when to do what chores.
In England it seems that people made their own decisions in this regard
>
> Now since these small strips were distributed
> so that every one had strips near the river (for times of draught) and
> strips on the hills (to have dry ground in wet years), harvesting would be
> spread over
> some time.
>
yes, this is one reason for splitting the strips up, it does mean that
everyone gets a bit of everything
>
> >
> > > The size of the Feldflur (the fields of a village) varies much,
> depending
> > on
> > > the quality of the soil. And in some instances a second Feldflur might
> > have
> > > been acquired by a village, taken over from some deserted settlement.
> > > > snip >
> >
> >
> > Asserts were cleared from the forest, but they were still controlled by
> the
> > lord of the Manor, who would collect rent etc. and may probably have had
> to
> > give permission. These would tend to become a separate community or
> hamlet.
>
> There were numerous conflicts on lands outside the Feldflur. And if the
size
> of the villages fields proved to be too small, it would become deserted.
You
> couldn't just take some land from a deserted farm in your village, because
> dues and labour had to be provided for them, taxes paid etc..
>
It seems that in England the dues, taxes etc would be paid by the person who
took on the assert. Obviously he had acquired a source of income from which
to pay the taxes, and if the lord of the manor wanted to encourage this sort
of expansion he could waive his charges for a period until the new assert
was established.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
> > > knowledge
> > > > > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
> > > > research
> > > > > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to
> > ploughing
> > > > > technique and field sizes?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can You read German? I'll look for english language archaeological
> > > literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
> > >
> >
> > No, I have no apparent facility for languages, so am limited to English.
>
> With a little trouble You can understand IE languages than : -)
> But You could try
> John Hutchinson (Ed.), The Early History of Agriculture. A Joint Symposium
> of the Royal Society and the British Society, organized by J. Hutchinson,
> Oxford University Press 1997,
> there's lots of references there
I'll dig it out
yes. While in England we normally discuss the classic three field system
with the lord of the manor in overall control, in parts of England this
never seems to have taken off, especially in the north and west where the
climate is less suited to wheat and arable crops.
In England itself there would be a mixture of Anglo Saxon, Norse/Danish and
Norman legal systems and rights/obligations to contend with (Welsh law being
different again)
When you get down to it they were practical people and cobbled together
something that sort of worked :-)))
Jim Webster
Julian Richards
<J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote:
> You might be tripping about all over
>> the village to attend to your various strips.
>
>You would be, it was rare that strips were adjacent
That was the point of strip farming, surely? It was so that all the
peasants got an equal share. If one field was better than another,
less likely to flood, better soil etc. then everyone got a share of it
rather than giving out land merely by area.
One of the problems of strip farming was that of the weeds that grew
in the dividing ditches.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Jim Webster
"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bp5g90tlatido4f1g...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:20:38 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote:
>
> > You might be tripping about all over
> >> the village to attend to your various strips.
> >
> >You would be, it was rare that strips were adjacent
>
> That was the point of strip farming, surely? It was so that all the
> peasants got an equal share. If one field was better than another,
> less likely to flood, better soil etc. then everyone got a share of it
> rather than giving out land merely by area.
>
> One of the problems of strip farming was that of the weeds that grew
> in the dividing ditches.
>
yes, that was one of the problems of the fossilised system
Constantly ploughing the same strip in the same direction is likely to lead
to the centre of the strip being higher than the edges.
First year you start in the middle of your strip and plough inwards from
both sides. Second year you ought to have two startings, so that the soil is
move out from the centre and to the edge
Another reason for cross ploughing :-)
Jim Webster
Julian Richards
<J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote:
>yes, that was one of the problems of the fossilised system
>Constantly ploughing the same strip in the same direction is likely to lead
>to the centre of the strip being higher than the edges.
>First year you start in the middle of your strip and plough inwards from
>both sides. Second year you ought to have two startings, so that the soil is
>move out from the centre and to the edge
>Another reason for cross ploughing :-)
>Jim Webster
I've seen what appears to be strip farming in the Tatra Mountains in
Poland. At the very least it was a field split so that each strip was
about 5 metres wide and had a different crop in it.
Renia
> "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
>
>
>
>>You owned your strip for the term of your lease (21 years, 33 years,
>>etc) and farmed it yourself, paying your lord a portion of your
>>income, either in goods (wax, corn) or in money. The rest was yours.
>>You might barter with your neighbours and friends, but it was your
>>land by the terms of your lease.
>
>
> No, it was never your land, you were just the tenant,
By ownership, in this context, I mean possession, just as leaseholders
today own their own flats on a 99-year lease. But within this context,
I mean that the land was yours to do with as you pleased, within the
terms of your lease. Just as it is today. You did not have to farm
according to the diktat of the lord (who was mostly absent leaving his
estate in the hands of his bailiff or steward) but you did have to
give him revenues from your land.
> and could pass on the
> tenancy only by the say so of the lord of the manor on payment of a 'fine'
Fines originated from suits of law for the recovery of possession of
lands. It developed into an amicable agreement in a suit (actual or
fictitious) where lands in question became acknowledged to be the
right of one of the parties. It was called a fine, because it put an
end to the suit and controversies concerning it. A fine on alienation
was a sum of money paid to the lord by a tenant whenver he had
occasion to convey his land to another person. This continued up to
1926.
> You might be tripping about all over
>
>>the village to attend to your various strips.
>
>
> You would be, it was rare that strips were adjacent
That's what I said. And if the strips weren't adjacent, this meant
that the strips were under the individual control of the individual
tenants making it cross-ploughing less of a possibility.
>>The medieval strip, so to speak, still exists in England today, in
the
>>form of allotments. Much smaller than the medieval strip, but still
to
>>do with what you will.
>
>
> Be careful of the term allotments. It means one thing in an urban or
> suburban context and yet another in an agricultural context. In an
> agricultural context an allotment can be many tens of acres.
Fair enough. I was referring to urban strips, or allotments, its
generally-understood meaning.
>>>Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an
>
> archaeological
>
>>>record
>>
>>What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval England
>>that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have never
>>come across it.
>
>
> I have never said farming in common, I merely pointed out that before the
> strips fossilised in by the end of the period of their use it was possible
> for agronomic reasons for the landlords bailiff to arrange for cross
> ploughing.
It may have been possible (though I doubt it), but I asked what
evidence you have that cross-ploughing ever happened.
> Remember you can actually cross plough the strips (because there
> is no barrier between strips,) but still sow the strips along the strip,
> which might be necessary occasionally where you have sloping ground.
A lot of English farmland, particularly in the early medieval period,
was waste and again after the Black Death. Not everywhere was farmed.
By around 1300, farming of marginal lands, including sloping lands,
was deemed a waste of time because of the poor cereal yields. Some of
what, today, is considered marginal lands, however, produced good
crops in earlier times, but, due to mismanagement or changes in the
weather, are not so fertile now.
Particularly in the north, the Cistercian monasteries revolutionised
farming with the development of the grange system which enabled the
development of high farming in areas which had predominantly been
waste. They rejected the manorial system and peasant agriculture
depending on the labour of lay brothers. It is possible (though I
don't know) that cross-ploughing could have taken place in these
areas.
Renia
Jim Webster
> On Wed, 5 May 2004 07:09:42 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote:
>
> >yes, that was one of the problems of the fossilised system
> >Constantly ploughing the same strip in the same direction is likely to
lead
> >to the centre of the strip being higher than the edges.
> >First year you start in the middle of your strip and plough inwards from
> >both sides. Second year you ought to have two startings, so that the soil
is
> >move out from the centre and to the edge
> >Another reason for cross ploughing :-)
> >Jim Webster
>
> I've seen what appears to be strip farming in the Tatra Mountains in
> Poland. At the very least it was a field split so that each strip was
> about 5 metres wide and had a different crop in it.
yes, the level of social or collective management of the fields is not
directly related to the use of strips. We have seen examples of German
situations where every strip was the same and the 'commune' dictated what
was grown, throught to situations where everyone can grow anything. The main
problem with mixed cropping would be that after harvest the village
livestock would often be brought in to graze on what was left etc. Obviously
this could be delayed if someone had a crop that was harvested much later
than the rest
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> Jim Webster wrote:
> > "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >>You owned your strip for the term of your lease (21 years, 33 years,
> >>etc) and farmed it yourself, paying your lord a portion of your
> >>income, either in goods (wax, corn) or in money. The rest was yours.
> >>You might barter with your neighbours and friends, but it was your
> >>land by the terms of your lease.
> >
> >
> > No, it was never your land, you were just the tenant,
>
> By ownership, in this context, I mean possession, just as leaseholders
> today own their own flats on a 99-year lease. But within this context,
> I mean that the land was yours to do with as you pleased, within the
> terms of your lease. Just as it is today.
Because you are restricted to the terms of the tenancy the land is not yours
to do with as you like, I know, I live with agricultural tenancy law.
Tenancy conditions can be rigorous, but are normally strictly enforced on
most estates.
You did not have to farm
> according to the diktat of the lord (who was mostly absent leaving his
> estate in the hands of his bailiff or steward) but you did have to
> give him revenues from your land.
Actually the Bailiff or steward was also responsible for allocating labour
days and boon days and similar, so he did get involved in the day to day
management of everyone's strips. After all if he wants you to work Monday
and Tuesday this week to harvest the lords grain, you cannot harvest your
own. So deals were done and arrangements made and everyone sort of worked in
with everyone else if possible.
>
>
> > and could pass on the
> > tenancy only by the say so of the lord of the manor on payment of a
'fine'
>
> Fines originated from suits of law for the recovery of possession of
> lands. It developed into an amicable agreement in a suit (actual or
> fictitious) where lands in question became acknowledged to be the
> right of one of the parties.
Actually they were standard feudal dues, along with the paying of a fine
when the lord had to be ransomed or his heir got married, or the peasant got
married
It was called a fine, because it put an
> end to the suit and controversies concerning it. A fine on alienation
> was a sum of money paid to the lord by a tenant whenver he had
> occasion to convey his land to another person. This continued up to
> 1926.
I know, we still have the receipt.
>
>
> > You might be tripping about all over
> >
> >>the village to attend to your various strips.
> >
> >
> > You would be, it was rare that strips were adjacent
>
>
> That's what I said. And if the strips weren't adjacent, this meant
> that the strips were under the individual control of the individual
> tenants making it cross-ploughing less of a possibility.
>
Ploughing and cropping are two entirely different things. You can plough in
one direction and sow in another.
>
> >>The medieval strip, so to speak, still exists in England today, in
> the
> >>form of allotments. Much smaller than the medieval strip, but still
> to
> >>do with what you will.
> >
> >
> > Be careful of the term allotments. It means one thing in an urban or
> > suburban context and yet another in an agricultural context. In an
> > agricultural context an allotment can be many tens of acres.
>
> Fair enough. I was referring to urban strips, or allotments, its
> generally-understood meaning.
Not in agricultural law, and in our neighbouring town allotments are not
strips but small square plots marked out on what was initially land not used
for housing
>
> >>>Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an
> >
> > archaeological
> >
> >>>record
> >>
> >>What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval England
> >>that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have never
> >>come across it.
> >
> >
> > I have never said farming in common, I merely pointed out that before
the
> > strips fossilised in by the end of the period of their use it was
possible
> > for agronomic reasons for the landlords bailiff to arrange for cross
> > ploughing.
>
> It may have been possible (though I doubt it), but I asked what
> evidence you have that cross-ploughing ever happened.
>
It is a common agricultural technique which has been used as long as we have
records. It is unthinkable that it was suddenly invented in the age of
enlightenment.
> > Remember you can actually cross plough the strips (because there
> > is no barrier between strips,) but still sow the strips along the strip,
> > which might be necessary occasionally where you have sloping ground.
>
> A lot of English farmland, particularly in the early medieval period,
> was waste and again after the Black Death. Not everywhere was farmed.
> By around 1300, farming of marginal lands, including sloping lands,
> was deemed a waste of time because of the poor cereal yields. Some of
> what, today, is considered marginal lands, however, produced good
> crops in earlier times, but, due to mismanagement or changes in the
> weather, are not so fertile now.
Actually a lot of land that is now arable was not ploughed then because it
was too heavy. Mens land and boys land are terms that come to mind. A lot of
our best arable land was wet heavy valley bottom in the middle ages.
>
> Particularly in the north, the Cistercian monasteries revolutionised
> farming with the development of the grange system which enabled the
> development of high farming in areas which had predominantly been
> waste.
Actually in the north they look over a lot of land that had been producing
grain for the garrisons on the Roman wall five centuries previously.
They rejected the manorial system and peasant agriculture
> depending on the labour of lay brothers.
Not as such, I actually live on the Manor of Plain Furness which was farmed
initially by the monks of Furness Abbey. They had tenants as well as lay
brothers and you can still see the old field patterns in places. I did point
out that the manorial three field system was not universal in England
It is possible (though I
> don't know) that cross-ploughing could have taken place in these
> areas.
Remember the cross ploughing can take place anywhere if it is necessary, you
can cross plough strips but still plant them as strips.
Jim Webster
Dick Wisan
>
>I've seen what appears to be strip farming in the Tatra Mountains in
>Poland. At the very least it was a field split so that each strip was
>about 5 metres wide and had a different crop in it.
Umm. Using the two or three field system, did a whole field have to
be left fallow or in whatever crop was due, or could it be --was it
ever-- done strip by strip?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
Posting in S.H.M. - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Jim Webster
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:c7b1i...@news4.newsguy.com...
> Julian Richards s...@sig.co.uk says...
> >
> >I've seen what appears to be strip farming in the Tatra Mountains in
> >Poland. At the very least it was a field split so that each strip was
> >about 5 metres wide and had a different crop in it.
>
> Umm. Using the two or three field system, did a whole field have to
> be left fallow or in whatever crop was due, or could it be --was it
> ever-- done strip by strip?
In England a strip could be left uncultivated but this would probably be due
to circumstances beyond the control of the tenant, and his neighbours might
well encroach rather than see land wasted.
Also fallow is more than just being left for a year. The grazing animals of
the village would graze on it. If they were grazed on the wastes during the
day and kept on the fallow over night, then there would be a net import of
dung onto the fallow thus helping to increase its fertility.Because strips
were not fenced, you couldn't graze one of the three fields unless ALL the
field was fallow.
Jim Webster
Renia
> On Wed, 5 May 2004 07:09:42 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote:
>
> >yes, that was one of the problems of the fossilised system
> >Constantly ploughing the same strip in the same direction is likely to lead
> >to the centre of the strip being higher than the edges.
> >First year you start in the middle of your strip and plough inwards from
> >both sides. Second year you ought to have two startings, so that the soil is
> >move out from the centre and to the edge
> >Another reason for cross ploughing :-)
> >Jim Webster
>
> I've seen what appears to be strip farming in the Tatra Mountains in
> Poland. At the very least it was a field split so that each strip was
> about 5 metres wide and had a different crop in it.
I noticed this slightly further north than the Tatry Mountains, in the
plains around Nowy Sacz and Wojnicz, where my father grew up. (It was
the day of the solar eclipse.) The area certainly struck me as a
modern version of what medieval farming may have looked like. A total
contrast to Albania, which I flew over once, years ago, on the way
back from Greece. Mile upon mile of collective farms.
Renia
Renia
> "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Jim Webster wrote:
>>
>>>"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You owned your strip for the term of your lease (21 years, 33
years,
>>>>etc) and farmed it yourself, paying your lord a portion of your
>>>>income, either in goods (wax, corn) or in money. The rest was
yours.
>>>>You might barter with your neighbours and friends, but it was your
>>>>land by the terms of your lease.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it was never your land, you were just the tenant,
>>
>>By ownership, in this context, I mean possession, just as
leaseholders
>>today own their own flats on a 99-year lease. But within this
context,
>>I mean that the land was yours to do with as you pleased, within the
>>terms of your lease. Just as it is today.
>
>
> Because you are restricted to the terms of the tenancy the land is not yours
> to do with as you like, I know, I live with agricultural tenancy law.
> Tenancy conditions can be rigorous, but are normally strictly enforced on
> most estates.
Please read my words: "within the terms of your lease".
> You did not have to farm
>
>>according to the diktat of the lord (who was mostly absent leaving
his
>>estate in the hands of his bailiff or steward) but you did have to
>>give him revenues from your land.
>
>
> Actually the Bailiff or steward was also responsible for allocating labour
> days and boon days and similar, so he did get involved in the day to day
> management of everyone's strips. After all if he wants you to work Monday
> and Tuesday this week to harvest the lords grain, you cannot harvest your
> own. So deals were done and arrangements made and everyone sort of worked in
> with everyone else if possible.
Sort of?
If possible?
Everyone had their own function and place within the manorial system
which was rigidly upheld by the law. The function of the bailiff was
to
look after the lord's interests part of which was to police the
estate.
Hence, we still have bailiffs today, but in a legal sense, not a
farming
sense. Tenants committed themselves to particular days of working in
the
lord's interest from which they might take a portion of the produce.
He
might, for example, be committed to working for the lord every Monday
and for three days a week during harvest time. It was not the
haphazard
bartering system of later ages, but a formal system which the bailiff
strove to uphold on the lord's behalf.
>>Fines originated from suits of law for the recovery of possession of
>>lands. It developed into an amicable agreement in a suit (actual or
>>fictitious) where lands in question became acknowledged to be the
>>right of one of the parties.
>
>
> Actually they were standard feudal dues, along with the paying of a fine
> when the lord had to be ransomed or his heir got married, or the peasant got
> married
What do you mean by "standard feudal dues"? The "F" word, as we call
it
on this newsgroup (soc.history.medieval) is a bone of contention.
There
are those who argue feudalism did not exist and we have discussed this
for years. Feudalism means different things to different people. What
does it mean to you?
> Ploughing and cropping are two entirely different things. You can plough in
> one direction and sow in another.
Maybe so, but what is your evidence for medieval cross-ploughing?
>> I was referring to urban strips, or allotments, its
>>generally-understood meaning.
>
>
> Not in agricultural law, and in our neighbouring town allotments are not
> strips but small square plots marked out on what was initially land not used
> for housing
I'm not talking about agricultural law but merely illustrating the
fact
that strips still exist today in urban England, and that we call them
allotments. In my city in the South of England they are not square,
but
long and thin.
>>>>>Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an
>>>
>>>archaeological
>>>
>>>
>>>>>record
I've just noticed this. Of course something has to happen before the
archaeologists find it. If it didn't happen, it won't be there for
archaeologists to find.
>>>>What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval
England
>>>>that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have
never
>>>>come across it.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have never said farming in common, I merely pointed out that
before
>
> the
>
>>>strips fossilised in by the end of the period of their use it was
>
> possible
>
>>>for agronomic reasons for the landlords bailiff to arrange for
cross
>>>ploughing.
>>It may have been possible (though I doubt it), but I asked what
>>evidence you have that cross-ploughing ever happened.
>>
>
>
> It is a common agricultural technique which has been used as long as we have
> records. It is unthinkable that it was suddenly invented in the age of
> enlightenment.
And for how far back in time do you have records? Which records state
that cross-ploughing has taken place? Your idea that its sudden
invention is "unthinkable" is not evidence. That is not to say it was
never used, anywhere, but medieval strip-farming was probably not the
place or time.
>>>Remember you can actually cross plough the strips (because there
>>>is no barrier between strips,) but still sow the strips along the
strip,
>>>which might be necessary occasionally where you have sloping
ground.
Actually, we are discussing cross-ploughing, not sowing. Aerial
photographs show the old furrows on medieval strips which suggests
against cross-ploughing. Also, the plough had a furrow wheel which ran
along the furrow. If cross-ploughing had taken place, the photographs
would not show the old strips so clearly but would reveal a more
cross-cross arrangement.
>>A lot of English farmland, particularly in the early medieval
period,
>>was waste and again after the Black Death. Not everywhere was
farmed.
>>By around 1300, farming of marginal lands, including sloping lands,
>>was deemed a waste of time because of the poor cereal yields. Some
of
>>what, today, is considered marginal lands, however, produced good
>>crops in earlier times, but, due to mismanagement or changes in the
>>weather, are not so fertile now.
>
>
> Actually a lot of land that is now arable was not ploughed then because it
> was too heavy. Mens land and boys land are terms that come to mind. A lot of
> our best arable land was wet heavy valley bottom in the middle ages.
Actually, I have not gone into detail, but that is what I was implying
-
that land usage and usefulness has changed over time.
>>Particularly in the north, the Cistercian monasteries revolutionised
>>farming with the development of the grange system which enabled the
>>development of high farming in areas which had predominantly been
>>waste.
>
>
> Actually in the north they look over a lot of land that had been producing
> grain for the garrisons on the Roman wall five centuries previously.
More than 60% of Cistercian land was previously waste.
>
> They rejected the manorial system and peasant agriculture
>
>>depending on the labour of lay brothers.
>
>
> Not as such, I actually live on the Manor of Plain Furness which was farmed
> initially by the monks of Furness Abbey. They had tenants as well as lay
> brothers and you can still see the old field patterns in places. I did point
> out that the manorial three field system was not universal in England
Furness Abbey was originally Benedictine, which had different
practices
from the Cistercians. It became Cistercian in 1145.
>
>
> It is possible (though I
>
>>don't know) that cross-ploughing could have taken place in these
>>areas.
>
>
> Remember the cross ploughing can take place anywhere if it is necessary, you
> can cross plough strips but still plant them as strips.
I am aware of this, but modern farming methods are not always the
methods of old. I have asked you several times for evidence that
cross-ploughing took place. Your apparent assumption that it must have
done is not enough.
Renia
Uwe Müller
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c794h0$bnr$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> news:c77nn9$gkm$2...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> > Hi Jim,
>
> >
> > It's even more complicated. The relationship was between families, not
> > persons, so any substantial change had to be agreed upon by all living
> > members of both families. You could hardly count on that.
> >
> > So in the 12th and 13th c. personal ownership of land started in towns
> (the
> > land was needed as a security for loans) but little of that affected
> > agriculture and villages directly.
>
> This seems to be more village orientated than it was in much of England.
In
> England an individual was the tenant, and the tenancy could be inherited
but
> a sum of money had to be paid to the landlord. This actually continued
into
> the 20th century (by which time the sum had been inflated to nominal.) We
> still have the receipt that my Grandfather was given when he bought out
the
> Lord of the Manor.
Over here most of the farmers originally owned the land but had to pay
different dues and do work for a landlord. Many of those sold the dues and
the work off to someone else. Some farmers bought off these payments with a
single sum, as their landlord (or whoever owned it at the time) needed
money.
That was the theory.
In practice economy declined in many areas, so that farmers only had to pay
reduced rates, than there were fires, or rain storms, ... An example shows
12 farmers in a village did not pay as much together as the local guesthouse
did on its own.
>
>
>
> > > > for grazing by 20 farmers.
> > > >
> > > While this might be the optimum, remember that some would miss their
> > > planting window for one crop and end, say, planting oats instead of
> wheat.
> >
> > No, definitely not. That was Flurzwang, everybody had to work their
fields
> > at the same time, grow the same crops etc. If you missed it, that was
it.
> > You would have to borrow from neighbours or do without. So you had to
make
> > sure your strips were worked, as the others were.
>
> Seems more regimented than the English system
Yes, one of the main objectives seems to have been, to have an equal income
for everybody
>
> >
> > > The situation you portray does sound more communal,
> >
> > Yes, pretty much communal in a way. Usually they owed duties as a
village,
> > and if one farmer couldn't pay the village chief had to pay those duties
> as
> > well. And the village chief was held responsible for the dues and for
any
> > law braking that would have been done from members of the village.
>
> While the law breakers kindred could be held responsible, unrelated
> villagers were not normally drawn into the case.
Over here they tended to do justice communal, it was not farmer A, that was
cutting trees in B's wood, but a member of the village A that infringed upon
the rights of Village B. But judical rights (petty and higher justice) could
lay with the village, the landlord or some urban investor. A bigger case
ment higher fees ment more income....
>
> >
> > This worked fine as long as separate functions were located in separate
> > villages (agraric, traders, craftworking settlements).
> >
> > > did they harvest the
> > > entire field as one operation and the owners take a proportion of the
> crop
> > > or was each strip harvested separately by the farmer of that strip on
> the
> > > day he felt it was ready for harvest?
> >
> > AFAIK (archaeologist, not historian) everybody planted and harvested his
> own
> > land. So it was important to have a village leader (Bauernmeister, or
> > whatever) that knew his stuff, knew when to do what chores.
>
> In England it seems that people made their own decisions in this regard
Problem here was at the offset there were plenty of people from the outside,
that would not know local farming. Some would have come from the North Sea,
or the Rhineland or Saxony, and had to be told of local peculiarities, like
when to sow and harvest. The foundation of villages seems to have bee quite
a business at times, with specialized locatores and advertising.
> snip >
> In England itself there would be a mixture of Anglo Saxon, Norse/Danish
and
> Norman legal systems and rights/obligations to contend with (Welsh law
being
> different again)
>
> When you get down to it they were practical people and cobbled together
> something that sort of worked :-)))
>
There were not enough clerks to keep them from doing it.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Julian Richards
>I noticed this slightly further north than the Tatry Mountains, in the
>plains around Nowy Sacz and Wojnicz, where my father grew up. (It was
>the day of the solar eclipse.) The area certainly struck me as a
>modern version of what medieval farming may have looked like. A total
>contrast to Albania, which I flew over once, years ago, on the way
>back from Greece. Mile upon mile of collective farms.
The French were unsure about letting the Polish into the EC. These
quaint old Polish farms are very labour intensive but can undercut
French farmers' costs.
Jim Webster
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message > > This seems to be
more village orientated than it was in much of England.
> In
> > England an individual was the tenant, and the tenancy could be inherited
> but
> > a sum of money had to be paid to the landlord. This actually continued
> into
> > the 20th century (by which time the sum had been inflated to nominal.)
We
> > still have the receipt that my Grandfather was given when he bought out
> the
> > Lord of the Manor.
>
> Over here most of the farmers originally owned the land but had to pay
> different dues and do work for a landlord. Many of those sold the dues and
> the work off to someone else. Some farmers bought off these payments with
a
> single sum, as their landlord (or whoever owned it at the time) needed
> money.
>
> That was the theory.
>
> In practice economy declined in many areas, so that farmers only had to
pay
> reduced rates, than there were fires, or rain storms, ... An example shows
> 12 farmers in a village did not pay as much together as the local
guesthouse
> did on its own.
The level of fine never increased since at least 1600 (from our records),
the annual manorial rent was 28 shillings in 1600 and was still 28 shillings
when my Grandfather bought it out before the second world war.
Also land ownership is less absolute in England, in that William the
Conqueror claimed he owned it all by right of conquest but granted people
rights to it. Hence the mineral rights are normally owned by a different
person who has the right to farm. Similarly the right of access is different
to any of the others.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > for grazing by 20 farmers.
> > > > >
> > > > While this might be the optimum, remember that some would miss their
> > > > planting window for one crop and end, say, planting oats instead of
> > wheat.
> > >
> > > No, definitely not. That was Flurzwang, everybody had to work their
> fields
> > > at the same time, grow the same crops etc. If you missed it, that was
> it.
> > > You would have to borrow from neighbours or do without. So you had to
> make
> > > sure your strips were worked, as the others were.
> >
> > Seems more regimented than the English system
>
> Yes, one of the main objectives seems to have been, to have an equal
income
> for everybody
In England different people would have different sized holdings and
differing numbers of strips so there doesn't seem to have been any interest
in equality. Whether the initial allocation was more equal isn't really
known but it seems unlikely
> >
> > >
> > > > The situation you portray does sound more communal,
> > >
> > > Yes, pretty much communal in a way. Usually they owed duties as a
> village,
> > > and if one farmer couldn't pay the village chief had to pay those
duties
> > as
> > > well. And the village chief was held responsible for the dues and for
> any
> > > law braking that would have been done from members of the village.
> >
> > While the law breakers kindred could be held responsible, unrelated
> > villagers were not normally drawn into the case.
>
> Over here they tended to do justice communal, it was not farmer A, that
was
> cutting trees in B's wood, but a member of the village A that infringed
upon
> the rights of Village B. But judical rights (petty and higher justice)
could
> lay with the village, the landlord or some urban investor. A bigger case
> ment higher fees ment more income....
The lord of the manor had rights to justice up to a certain level, then it
went to the crown or to whoever the crown had delegated it to. Because
England centralised comparatively early (before the Norman conquest really)
the crown started monopolising Justice as a way of controlling the nobility
Just how much mobility there was in England prior to the black death is
moot, certainly many of the peasantry were unfree and couldn't move.
> > snip >
>
>
> > In England itself there would be a mixture of Anglo Saxon, Norse/Danish
> and
> > Norman legal systems and rights/obligations to contend with (Welsh law
> being
> > different again)
> >
> > When you get down to it they were practical people and cobbled together
> > something that sort of worked :-)))
> >
>
> There were not enough clerks to keep them from doing it.
alas that is no longer a problem
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
Unfree peasantry do not have the luxury of a lease
you have obviously never taken part in practical agriculture. Yes the lord
was entitled to x days per year. The night before the bailiff could go round
and tell people to turn up tomorrow. They could put in a couple of hours,
then the heavens open. That is just tough on the lord, he has had his days.
So if he wants his harvest in his bailiff has to come to some sort of
accommodation with the people who he wants to do the work because he no
longer has any compulsory days left.
A wise bailiff would work a bit of give and take to cover for such problems,
provide a good meal for the families, with meat, or even pay cash.
> >>Fines originated from suits of law for the recovery of possession of
> >>lands. It developed into an amicable agreement in a suit (actual or
> >>fictitious) where lands in question became acknowledged to be the
> >>right of one of the parties.
> >
> >
> > Actually they were standard feudal dues, along with the paying of a fine
> > when the lord had to be ransomed or his heir got married, or the peasant
got
> > married
>
> What do you mean by "standard feudal dues"? The "F" word, as we call
> it
> on this newsgroup (soc.history.medieval) is a bone of contention.
> There
> are those who argue feudalism did not exist and we have discussed this
> for years. Feudalism means different things to different people. What
> does it mean to you?
I tend to use it as a way of funding military service. You pay your cavalry
(or whatever) by granting them the rights to collect certain dues. It can
also include land, or even a money fief
>
> > Ploughing and cropping are two entirely different things. You can plough
in
> > one direction and sow in another.
>
> Maybe so, but what is your evidence for medieval cross-ploughing?
you must remember where this thread started. It was claimed that cross marks
when excavating was evidence that the ard was used. I merely pointed out
that actually no, people did cross plough
>
> >> I was referring to urban strips, or allotments, its
> >>generally-understood meaning.
> >
> >
> > Not in agricultural law, and in our neighbouring town allotments are not
> > strips but small square plots marked out on what was initially land not
used
> > for housing
>
>
> I'm not talking about agricultural law
you should have made it clear as we are discussing it pretty intensively in
parts of this thread
but merely illustrating the
> fact
> that strips still exist today in urban England, and that we call them
> allotments. In my city in the South of England they are not square,
> but
> long and thin.
That I suspect is a co-incidence. When were they last ploughed?
>
>
> >>>>>Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an
> >>>
> >>>archaeological
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>record
>
> I've just noticed this. Of course something has to happen before the
> archaeologists find it. If it didn't happen, it won't be there for
> archaeologists to find.
What does the word often in the above sentence you noticed mean?
>
>
> >>>>What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval
> England
> >>>>that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have
> never
> >>>>come across it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have never said farming in common, I merely pointed out that
> before
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>strips fossilised in by the end of the period of their use it was
> >
> > possible
> >
> >>>for agronomic reasons for the landlords bailiff to arrange for
> cross
> >>>ploughing.
>
> >>It may have been possible (though I doubt it), but I asked what
> >>evidence you have that cross-ploughing ever happened.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It is a common agricultural technique which has been used as long as we
have
> > records. It is unthinkable that it was suddenly invented in the age of
> > enlightenment.
>
>
> And for how far back in time do you have records? Which records state
> that cross-ploughing has taken place? Your idea that its sudden
> invention is "unthinkable" is not evidence. That is not to say it was
> never used, anywhere, but medieval strip-farming was probably not the
> place or time.
You are taking the remark out of context. Note where I stated that the
thread started
>
>
> >>>Remember you can actually cross plough the strips (because there
> >>>is no barrier between strips,) but still sow the strips along the
> strip,
> >>>which might be necessary occasionally where you have sloping
> ground.
>
> Actually, we are discussing cross-ploughing, not sowing. Aerial
> photographs show the old furrows on medieval strips which suggests
> against cross-ploughing.
No they do not show furrows.
That I can guarantee. Unless the person ploughed it and walked away for the
land never to be touched, the plough furrows will not have survived. Rigg
and Furrow is something totally different
Also, the plough had a furrow wheel which ran
> along the furrow.
Some did, some didn't
If cross-ploughing had taken place, the photographs
> would not show the old strips so clearly but would reveal a more
> cross-cross arrangement.
>
>
> >>A lot of English farmland, particularly in the early medieval
> period,
> >>was waste and again after the Black Death. Not everywhere was
> farmed.
> >>By around 1300, farming of marginal lands, including sloping lands,
> >>was deemed a waste of time because of the poor cereal yields. Some
> of
> >>what, today, is considered marginal lands, however, produced good
> >>crops in earlier times, but, due to mismanagement or changes in the
> >>weather, are not so fertile now.
> >
> >
> > Actually a lot of land that is now arable was not ploughed then because
it
> > was too heavy. Mens land and boys land are terms that come to mind. A
lot of
> > our best arable land was wet heavy valley bottom in the middle ages.
>
> Actually, I have not gone into detail, but that is what I was implying
> -
> that land usage and usefulness has changed over time.
Always has, always will
>
> >>Particularly in the north, the Cistercian monasteries revolutionised
> >>farming with the development of the grange system which enabled the
> >>development of high farming in areas which had predominantly been
> >>waste.
> >
> >
> > Actually in the north they look over a lot of land that had been
producing
> > grain for the garrisons on the Roman wall five centuries previously.
>
>
> More than 60% of Cistercian land was previously waste.
Some land in the UK has been ploughed, reverted to waste and been ploughed
again several times. Look at where they do find evidence of ploughing
>
> >
> > They rejected the manorial system and peasant agriculture
> >
> >>depending on the labour of lay brothers.
> >
> >
> > Not as such, I actually live on the Manor of Plain Furness which was
farmed
> > initially by the monks of Furness Abbey. They had tenants as well as lay
> > brothers and you can still see the old field patterns in places. I did
point
> > out that the manorial three field system was not universal in England
>
> Furness Abbey was originally Benedictine, which had different
> practices
> from the Cistercians. It became Cistercian in 1145.
Yes, and was then Cistercian until Henry VIII pulled the plug which is
probably long enough for them to have got the hang of it
> >
> >
> > It is possible (though I
> >
> >>don't know) that cross-ploughing could have taken place in these
> >>areas.
> >
> >
> > Remember the cross ploughing can take place anywhere if it is necessary,
you
> > can cross plough strips but still plant them as strips.
>
>
> I am aware of this, but modern farming methods are not always the
> methods of old. I have asked you several times for evidence that
> cross-ploughing took place. Your apparent assumption that it must have
> done is not enough.
Fair enough, I cannot be bothered wasting time proving the obvious
Jim Webster
Uwe Müller
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c7bokg$ppn$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > Jim Webster wrote:
> > > "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >>Jim Webster wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> snip >
> >
> > > Ploughing and cropping are two entirely different things. You can
plough
> in
> > > one direction and sow in another.
> >
> > Maybe so, but what is your evidence for medieval cross-ploughing?
>
> you must remember where this thread started. It was claimed that cross
marks
> when excavating was evidence that the ard was used. I merely pointed out
> that actually no, people did cross plough
>
Sorry, but I only pointed out, that regular cross ploughing was one of the
features of the use of the ard. I never stated, that there was no cross
ploughing with the fully developed plough. Should have stated that more
plainly.
> >
> snip >
> > >
> > > Remember the cross ploughing can take place anywhere if it is
necessary,
> you
> > > can cross plough strips but still plant them as strips.
> >
> >
> > I am aware of this, but modern farming methods are not always the
> > methods of old. I have asked you several times for evidence that
> > cross-ploughing took place. Your apparent assumption that it must have
> > done is not enough.
>
> Fair enough, I cannot be bothered wasting time proving the obvious
Medieval farm land, at least what I have excavated, consists of low banks,
about a foot or two in height, the strips, divided by ditches. Cross
ploughing would ruin the ditches, which were needed for drainage. I have
never come across, in reality or book form, cross ploughed fields , that had
been worked with a fully developed plough.
Maybe we could rest the case with bringing in 'as a rule'. As a rule
ploughing with the ard would leave symmetrical furrows in a criss cross
pattern while ploughing with the fully developed plough leads to
asymmetrical and parallel furrows.
Of course you can plough parallel furrows with the ard, and even though I
know of no example, I would not rule it out. The same goes for the fully
developed plough, of course you could cross plough, but as a rule this was
not done.
When breaking up the ground for the first time after having cleared some
wood, I could imagine cross ploughing came in handy. But I know of no
example.
As to the development of the plough and different agricultural systems I
finally found what I was looking for:
Karl-Ernst Behre, Frühe Ackersysteme, Düngemethoden und die Entstehung der
nordwestdeutschen Heide. in: Archaeologisches Korrespondenzblatt 30, 2000,
135 ff.
He discusses the development of the plough from the neolithic onwards,
fertilizing (dung and mineral rich earth was used), size and shape of
fields, the celtic fields, strip lynchets, etc. There are references to
European examples from Norway to France, and some non-european ones. And he
talks about what effects this had on the soil.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c7boke$ppn$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
> snip >
> > >
> > > When you get down to it they were practical people and cobbled
together
> > > something that sort of worked :-)))
> > >
> >
> > There were not enough clerks to keep them from doing it.
>
> alas that is no longer a problem
>
We were excavating in a village were pipes for sewage and water were laid.
They dug ditches up to 3,5 m deep on both sides of a row of Linden trees in
bad weather in November.
In April, sunny and warm, a cable was put in the ground in one of the
refilled ditches. A civil services person was out and bothering everybody
about not hurting any tree roots while laying the cable, to save the
environment. He did not note that they were working in a freshly filled
ditch, but he noted, that roots were absent, which puzzled him. He had a
nice week in the sun, even though there were no roots anymore, that could
have been hurt.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
geezerguy
of the last century. He simply notice that when winds got high enough
they blew away his wheat field except for a strip at the start of a
field. He used this as a model and planted his wheat in strips. He
took considerable ribbing from other farmers until the next wind storm
when his wheat survived and theirs did not.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Jim Webster) wrote:
> Unfree peasantry do not have the luxury of a lease
In England at least there was "customary labour" the terms of which
could vary from estate to estate. This was later compounded for a
money rent, all without the peasant being free. The peasants also had
various rights regarding common land. It is very hard to generalise
anything about the medieval period especially the rights of serfs.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Jim Webster
glad to know it isn't just in the UK this happens
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
>
> You owned your strip for the term of your lease (21 years, 33 years,
> etc) and farmed it yourself, paying your lord a portion of your
> income, either in goods (wax, corn) or in money. The rest was yours.
> You might barter with your neighbours and friends, but it was your
> land by the terms of your lease.
No, it was never your land, you were just the tenant, and could pass on
the
tenancy only by the say so of the lord of the manor on payment of a
'fine'
You might be tripping about all over
> the village to attend to your various strips.
You would be, it was rare that strips were adjacent
>
> The medieval strip, so to speak, still exists in England today, in
the
> form of allotments. Much smaller than the medieval strip, but still
to
> do with what you will.
Be careful of the term allotments. It means one thing in an urban or
suburban context and yet another in an agricultural context. In an
agricultural context an allotment can be many tens of acres.
>
> > Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an
archaeological
> > record
>
> What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval England
> that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have never
> come across it.
I have never said farming in common, I merely pointed out that before
the
strips fossilised in by the end of the period of their use it was
possible
for agronomic reasons for the landlords bailiff to arrange for cross
ploughing. Remember you can actually cross plough the strips (because
there
is no barrier between strips,) but still sow the strips along the
strip,
which might be necessary occasionally where you have sloping ground.
Jim Webster
--
Jim Webster - Unregistered User
------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.explorate.de/Forum/showthread.php?threadid=5863
Jim Webster
> Over here the villages had as a rule 3 fields (in reality there are
between
> 2 and 5 fields), each one divided up in dozens of strips belonging to
the
> different farms. Cross ploughing would have needed the consent of
everybody
> concerned, that is every member of the family.
It looks as if you have a situation where the 'ownership' was more
'communal
' as opposed to being a more landlord-tenant relationship. I can see
how
this would certainly complicate things. Obviously as the system
fossilised
in parts of England, a similar situation would arise.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Remember also that the 'fields' split into strips were of
considerable
> > > size,
> > > > far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> > > > So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and down,
then
it
> is
> > > > going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so often to
turn
the
> > > soil
> > > > back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres then you
are
> > going
> > > to
> > > > have a long straight draw in either direction.
> > >
> > > I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would be of that
> tremendous
> > a
> > > size. Weren't they subdivided at all, given technological
limitations
to
> > > ploughing 200+ acres in any decent amount of time?
> >
> > remember you might have 20 ox teams working on a given day, also
some
> strips
> > might be left grass for mowing or ploughed at a different time for
a
> > different crop
>
> Not really, over here they had the Flurzwang, the need to plant the
same
> stuff in the field. So field 1 might have wheat, grown by 20 farmers,
field
> 2 would have oats, grown by 20 farmers, and field 3 would be fallow,
used
> for grazing by 20 farmers.
>
While this might be the optimum, remember that some would miss their
planting window for one crop and end, say, planting oats instead of
wheat.
The situation you portray does sound more communal, did they harvest
the
entire field as one operation and the owners take a proportion of the
crop
or was each strip harvested separately by the farmer of that strip on
the
day he felt it was ready for harvest?
> The size of the Feldflur (the fields of a village) varies much,
depending
on
> the quality of the soil. And in some instances a second Feldflur
might
have
> been acquired by a village, taken over from some deserted settlement.
> > snip >
Asserts were cleared from the forest, but they were still controlled by
the
lord of the Manor, who would collect rent etc. and may probably have
had to
give permission. These would tend to become a separate community or
hamlet.
> >
> > >
> > > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
> knowledge
> > > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've
other
> > research
> > > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to
ploughing
> > > technique and field sizes?
> >
>
> Can You read German? I'll look for english language archaeological
> literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
>
No, I have no apparent facility for languages, so am limited to
English.
What I do find intriguing is what appears to be differing social
systems
within the same generalised agricultural system
Jim Webster
Jim Webster
> Hi Jim,
>
> It's even more complicated. The relationship was between families,
not
> persons, so any substantial change had to be agreed upon by all
living
> members of both families. You could hardly count on that.
>
> So in the 12th and 13th c. personal ownership of land started in
towns
(the
> land was needed as a security for loans) but little of that affected
> agriculture and villages directly.
This seems to be more village orientated than it was in much of
England. In
England an individual was the tenant, and the tenancy could be
inherited but
a sum of money had to be paid to the landlord. This actually continued
into
the 20th century (by which time the sum had been inflated to nominal.)
We
still have the receipt that my Grandfather was given when he bought out
the
Lord of the Manor.
> > > for grazing by 20 farmers.
> > >
> > While this might be the optimum, remember that some would miss
their
> > planting window for one crop and end, say, planting oats instead of
wheat.
>
> No, definitely not. That was Flurzwang, everybody had to work their
fields
> at the same time, grow the same crops etc. If you missed it, that was
it.
> You would have to borrow from neighbours or do without. So you had to
make
> sure your strips were worked, as the others were.
Seems more regimented than the English system
>
> > The situation you portray does sound more communal,
>
> Yes, pretty much communal in a way. Usually they owed duties as a
village,
> and if one farmer couldn't pay the village chief had to pay those
duties
as
> well. And the village chief was held responsible for the dues and for
any
> law braking that would have been done from members of the village.
While the law breakers kindred could be held responsible, unrelated
villagers were not normally drawn into the case.
>
> This worked fine as long as separate functions were located in
separate
> villages (agraric, traders, craftworking settlements).
>
> > did they harvest the
> > entire field as one operation and the owners take a proportion of
the
crop
> > or was each strip harvested separately by the farmer of that strip
on
the
> > day he felt it was ready for harvest?
>
> AFAIK (archaeologist, not historian) everybody planted and harvested
his
own
> land. So it was important to have a village leader (Bauernmeister, or
> whatever) that knew his stuff, knew when to do what chores.
In England it seems that people made their own decisions in this regard
>
> Now since these small strips were distributed
> so that every one had strips near the river (for times of draught)
and
> strips on the hills (to have dry ground in wet years), harvesting
would be
> spread over
> some time.
>
yes, this is one reason for splitting the strips up, it does mean that
everyone gets a bit of everything
>
> >
> > > The size of the Feldflur (the fields of a village) varies much,
> depending
> > on
> > > the quality of the soil. And in some instances a second Feldflur
might
> > have
> > > been acquired by a village, taken over from some deserted
settlement.
> > > > snip >
> >
> >
> > Asserts were cleared from the forest, but they were still
controlled by
> the
> > lord of the Manor, who would collect rent etc. and may probably
have had
> to
> > give permission. These would tend to become a separate community or
> hamlet.
>
> There were numerous conflicts on lands outside the Feldflur. And if
the
size
> of the villages fields proved to be too small, it would become
deserted.
You
> couldn't just take some land from a deserted farm in your village,
because
> dues and labour had to be provided for them, taxes paid etc..
>
It seems that in England the dues, taxes etc would be paid by the
person who
took on the assert. Obviously he had acquired a source of income from
which
to pay the taxes, and if the lord of the manor wanted to encourage this
sort
of expansion he could waive his charges for a period until the new
assert
was established.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much
direct
> > > knowledge
> > > > > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've
other
> > > > research
> > > > > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference
to
> > ploughing
> > > > > technique and field sizes?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can You read German? I'll look for english language
archaeological
> > > literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
> > >
> >
> > No, I have no apparent facility for languages, so am limited to
English.
>
> With a little trouble You can understand IE languages than : -)
> But You could try
> John Hutchinson (Ed.), The Early History of Agriculture. A Joint
Symposium
> of the Royal Society and the British Society, organized by J.
Hutchinson,
> Oxford University Press 1997,
> there's lots of references there
I'll dig it out
> >
> > What I do find intriguing is what appears to be differing social
systems
> > within the same generalised agricultural system
>
In England itself there would be a mixture of Anglo Saxon, Norse/Danish
and
Norman legal systems and rights/obligations to contend with (Welsh law
being
different again)
When you get down to it they were practical people and cobbled together
something that sort of worked :-)))
Jim Webster
Renia
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote in message
news:<c7892i$kb2$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote in message
> news:<c722m3$c72$3...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> news:<c70qhl$l0f$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> wrote in message
> news:<c6sqjs$gpn$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are correct, BUT, agriculture consists of imposing
theory
> upon a
> reality
> > > > > > > which doesn't particularly care what you think.
> > > > > > >
> > > considerable
> > > size,
> > > > > > > far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> > > > > > > So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and
down,
> then
> it is
> > > > > > > going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so
often to
> turn
> > > the
> > > soil
> > > > > > > back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres
then you
> are
> going to
> > > > > > > have a long straight draw in either direction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What evidence do you have for individual medieval fields
> comprising "a
> > > > > > couple of hundred acres"?
> > > > >
in
> England
do you
> of the manor
You owned your strip for the term of your lease (21 years, 33 years,
etc) and farmed it yourself, paying your lord a portion of your
income, either in goods (wax, corn) or in money. The rest was yours.
You might barter with your neighbours and friends, but it was your
land by the terms of your lease. You might be tripping about all over
the village to attend to your various strips.
The medieval strip, so to speak, still exists in England today, in the
form of allotments. Much smaller than the medieval strip, but still to
do with what you will.
> Remember it doesn't have to happen often before it becomes an
archaeological
> record
What evidence do you have for farming in common in Medieval England
that might warrant such cross-ploughing as you suggest? I have never
come across it.
Renia
--
Renia - Unregistered User
Uwe Müller
Hi Jim,
"Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c7101j$9gl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "John A Geck" <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
>
news:moQkc.347646$2oI1....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> wrote in message
> > news:c6sqjs$gpn$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > <<snip>>
> > > You are correct, BUT, agriculture consists of imposing theory
upon a
> > reality
> > > which doesn't particularly care what you think.
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > Righto, that's what I was saying when I said that geography
dictates the
> > general size and shape of a field - I can imagine all sorts of
cases
where
> > you wouldn't have a long, even strip, geographically shaped, to
farm.
> > However, I'd still maintain that whatever shape you have, it would
make
> > sense to plough it in the longest draws possible, no?
>
> yes, in most years. BUT because of the slope or for other reasons
(one
part
> is wet in a wet spring so the field shape changes) you will
occassionally
> plough it the other way for good agricultural reasons. So finding
cross
> marks when you excavate doesn't guarantee ard use.
True. But...
Over here the villages had as a rule 3 fields (in reality there are
between
2 and 5 fields), each one divided up in dozens of strips belonging to
the
different farms. Cross ploughing would have needed the consent of
everybody
concerned, that is every member of the family.
>
> >
> > > Remember also that the 'fields' split into strips were of
considerable
> > size,
> > > far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> > > So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and down,
then it
is
> > > going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so often to
turn the
> > soil
> > > back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres then you
are
> going
> > to
> > > have a long straight draw in either direction.
> >
> > I see; I was unaware that the medieval fields would be of that
tremendous
> a
> > size. Weren't they subdivided at all, given technological
limitations to
> > ploughing 200+ acres in any decent amount of time?
>
> remember you might have 20 ox teams working on a given day, also some
strips
> might be left grass for mowing or ploughed at a different time for a
> different crop
Not really, over here they had the Flurzwang, the need to plant the
same
stuff in the field. So field 1 might have wheat, grown by 20 farmers,
field
2 would have oats, grown by 20 farmers, and field 3 would be fallow,
used
for grazing by 20 farmers.
The size of the Feldflur (the fields of a village) varies much,
depending on
the quality of the soil. And in some instances a second Feldflur might
have
been acquired by a village, taken over from some deserted settlement.
> snip >
>
> >
> > This is rather interesting for me, though I have not much direct
knowledge
> > about it. Do you know any sources (not too big, please, I've other
> research
> > interests, that discuss medieval agriculture with reference to
ploughing
> > technique and field sizes?
>
Can You read German? I'll look for english language archaeological
literature, there is lots on ploughing and land use.
> snip >
have fun
Uwe Mueller
--
Uwe Müller - Unregistered User
Uwe Müller
Hi Tom,
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@charter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1097ppi...@corp.supernews.com...
> John A Geck wrote:
> > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogeespam.oo.net> wrote in message
> > news:c6sqjs$gpn$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > <<snip>>
> snip >
> In this discussion, I've had a little tickle at the back of my
> brain about the long fields, and it finally came to me what that
> tickle was.
>
> IIRC, one reason in some places for the long, narrow fields was
> that the land was continually divided among the sons at the
> passing of the father, and the land was sub-divided into long,
> rather than square or other shapes, partly due to that being the
> easier way to plough/loosen the soil. If so, ISTM that this
> form of land tenure would likely have arisen after plowing
> technology had reached the point where cross-plowing had been
> superceeded almost entirely or entirely by one-shot,
> longitudinal plowing.
In Germany there were two way of inhereting land. In the northern parts
the
farm as a whole was passed on to one of the descendants, the others
could
work at the farm as hired hands or seek employment elsewhere.
In the south the whole land was divided up amongst the kids leading to
smaller fields as time went.
Mind you, this is little more than a rule of thumb, deviations are
plentifull.
A comparable situation has been noted for plots in towns. Originally
every
plot had a farm on it, with secondary buildings, stables, the lot and a
lot
of free space for gardening, keeping animals, etc.. With the rise of a
maket
economy most plots were used for non agricultural purposes, so you
could fit
2 or 3 homes on the same plot. Since access to the street was one thing
they
still needed, the original big plots got subdivided into smaller
strips, the
parts near the street were completely overbuild and only the back yards
were
kept free.
>
> My memory seems to place this in France; but since this is all
> from my often-faulty memory, this too could be mistaken.
Inger E Johansson
"Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote in message
news:<c7892i$kb2$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:a387cf87.0405...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote in message
> > news:<c722m3$c72$3...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:a387cf87.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Jim Webster" <J...@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote in message
> > news:<c70qhl$l0f$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > > "Renia" <ren...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:a387cf87.0405...@posting.google.com...
> > news:<c6sqjs$gpn$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >
theory
> > upon a
> > reality
> > > > > > > > which doesn't particularly care what you think.
> > > > > > > >
of
> > > > considerable
> > > > size,
> > > > > > > > far larger that fields we have in many areas now.
> > > > > > > > So if you have a field that is normally ploughed up and
down,
> > then
> > it is
> > > > > > > > going to make sense to plough it cross ways every so
often
to
> > turn
> > > > the
> > > > soil
> > > > > > > > back uphill. If the field is a couple of hundred acres
then
you
> > are
> > going to
> > > > > > > > have a long straight draw in either direction.
> > > > > > > >
I can't speak for England, but I do know that in Ukna-dalen, Smaaland,
Sweden such was and sometimes still is the case.
Inger E
>
> Renia
--
Inger E Johansson - Unregistered User
George
Renia
So how does that answer my quetion? Which was - what evidence do you
have for individual fields comrpising a couple of htundred acres?
It doesn't. Individual medieval fields, or strips, were much smaller
than this. A village might have fields of 200 or so acres between
them, but these were split up into much smaller strips. Enclosure, and
larger field acreage came later.
Renia
--
Renia - Unregistered User