Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

Agrarian technology
in the medieval landscape
Agrartechnik in mittelalterlichen Landschaften

Technologie agraire dans le paysage médiéval

Ruralia X
9th–15th September 2013
Smolenice Castle
Slovakia

H
F
RURALIA X 1
Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

Ruralia series of peer review papers

Editor
Jan Klápště
www.ruralia.cz

RURALIA
The Jean-Marie Pesez conferences on medieval rural archaeology

© 2016, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of
the publisher.

D/2016/0095/84
ISBN (print) 978-2-503-55137-1
ISBN (electronic) 978-2-503-55194-4
DOI: 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110666

Printed on acid-free paper

2 RURALIA X
Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

The Ruralia Committee

President
Claudia Theune, Institute for Prehistory and Medieval Archaeology, University of Vienna,
Franz-Klein-Gasse 1, A-1190 Vienna, claudia.theune@univie.ac.at

Honorary Presidents
Alan Aberg, 5 Clos y Gof, St. Fagans, UK-Cardiff CF5 4QQ,Tel/Fax: 029 20 595 289
Haio Zimmermann, Lower Saxony Institute for Historical Coastal Research,
Viktoriastr. 26/28, D-26382 Wilhelmshaven, zimmermann@nikh.de

Vice-presidents
German-speaking countries and the Netherlands
Jan van Doesburg, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Smallepad 5,
3811 MG Amersfoort, j.van.doesburg@racm.nl

Great Britain and Ireland

Mark Gardiner, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology (GAP),
m.gardiner@qub.ac.uk

Scandinavia
Eva Svensson, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Karlstad University, S-651 88 Karlstad,
Eva.Svensson@kau.se

Central and Eastern Europe

Jan Klápště, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, náměstí Jana Palacha 2,
CZ-116 38 Praha 1, klapste@arup.cas.cz

Romanic speaking Europe, Belgium, Luxembourg

Jean-Michel Poisson, Centre Interuniversitaire d’Histoire et d’Archéologie Médiévales, 18 quai Claude-Bernard,
F-69365 Lyon cedex 07

Secretary
Rainer Schreg, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2, 55116 Mainz, schreg@rgzm.de
Miklós Takács, Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Úri utca 49.H-1250 Budapest, takacs.miklos@btk.mta.hu

National representatives
Austria – Claudia Theune, Institute for Prehistory and Medieval Archaeology, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1,
claudia.theune@univie.ac.at
Belgium – Philippe Mignot, Direction de l’Archéologie, Service Public de Wallonie, Rue des Brigades d’Irlande 1,
B-5100 Namur, philippe.mignot@spw.wallonie.be
Czech Republic – Tomáš Klír, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, náměstí
Jana Palacha 2, CZ-116 38 Praha 1, tomas.klir@ff.cuni.cz
Denmark – Mette Svart Kristiansen, Afdeling for middelalderarkæologi, University of Aarhus, Moesgard Allé 20,
DK-8270 Højberg, markmsk@hum.au.dk
Eastern-Mediterranean – Reem Alshqour, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History of Europe, Ghent University,
Blandijnberg 2, B 9000-Gent, reemss@hotmail.com

RURALIA X 3
Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

Finland – Jouni Taivainen, Metsähallitus, Visamäentie 35 A, FIN-13100 Hämeenlinna, jouni.taivainen@metsa.fi

France
Jean-Michel Poisson, Centre Interuniversitaire d’Histoire et d’Archéologie Médiévales, 18 quai Claude-Bernard,
F-69365 Lyon cedex 07
Anne Nissen Jaubert, Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne, UFR 03 Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie, Centre Michelet,
3, rue Michelet, 75006 Paris, Anne.Nissen@univ-paris1.fr
Germany
Stephan Krabath – Landesamt für Archäologie Sachsen mit Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Zur Wetterwarte 7,
01109 Dresden, Stefan.Krabath@archsax.smwk.sachsen.de
Rainer Schreg – Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2, 55116 Mainz, schreg@rgzm.de
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg – Christiane Bis-Worch – Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art, Marché-aux-Poissons,
L-2345 Luxembourg, christiane.bis@mnha.etat.lu
Great Britain
Mark Gardiner – Archaeology and Palaeoecology, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology (GAP), Queen’s
University Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK-Belfast, m.gardiner@qub.ac.uk
Piers Dixon – Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), John Sinclair House,
16 Bernard Terrace, Edinburgh EH8 9NX, Piers.Dixon@rcahms.gov.uk
Hungary – Csilla Zatykó – Archaeological Institute. Research Center for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, H-1014 Budapest, Úri u. 49, csillazatyko@gmail.com
Ireland – Niall Brady – The Archaeological Diving Company Ltd, Brehon House, Castlecomer, Co. Kilkenny,
niallbrady100@gmail.com>
Italy – Paolo de Vingo – SAAST Department, University of Torino, via Giolitti 21/e,
I-10123 Torino, Italy, pdevingo@gmail.com
Norway – Frode Iversen, Dept. of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 6762 St. Olavs
plass, NO-0130 Oslo, Norway, frode.iversen@khm.uio.no
Romania – Zoltán Soós, Mureş County Museum, Str. Marasti Nr. 8/a,Tîrgu Mureş, sooszo@yahoo.co.uk
Russia
Nikolaj Makarov – Bolshoj Kislovski 5, 28, R-103 009 Moscow, MakarovNA@iaran.ru, ma@g23.rekom.ru
Irina Zaytseva – Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. D. Ulianova 19, RAS-117036 Moscow,
izaitseva@yandex.ru
Slovakia – Matej Ruttkay, Institute of Archaeology, Slovak Academy of Science, Akademická 2, SK-94921 Nitra,
matej.ruttkay@savba.sk
South-Eastern Europe – Miklós Takács, , Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences. Úri utca 49.H-1250 Budapest, takacs.miklos@btk.mta.hu
Spain – Jorge A. Eiroa Rodríguez, Departamento de Prehistoria, Arqueología, Historia Antigua, Historia Medieval
y Ciencias y Técnicas Historiográficas, Universidad de Murcia, Facultad de Letras. Campus de La Merced, C/ Santo
Cristo, 1, E-30001 Murcia, jorgeir@um.es
Sweden – Eva Svensson, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Karlstad University, S-651 88 Karlstad,
Eva.Svensson@kau.se
Switzerland – Michael Schmaedecke, Archäologie Baselland, Amtshausgasse 7, CH-4410 Liestal,
michael.schmaedecke@bl.ch
The Netherlands – Jan van Doesburg, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten, Kerkstraat 1,
NL-3811 CV Amersfoort, j.van.doesburg@racm.nl
Western-Mediterranean (Portugal, Maghreb) – Jorge A. Eiroa Rodríguez

4 RURALIA X
Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

Gerusia – Council of elders

Terry Barry – Department of Medieval History, Trinity College, IRL-Dublin 2, tbarry@tcd.ie
André Bazzana – Les Croix-Vieilles, F-01380 Saint-Cyr sur Menthon, abazz@wanadoo.fr
Sabine Felgenhauer – Institute for Prehistory and Medieval Archaeology, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1,
A-1190 Vienna, sabine.felgenhauer@univie.ac.at
Jørgen Lund – Institute of Prehistory and Early History, University of Aarhus, Moesgard Allé 20, DK-8270 Højberg,
lundbrabrand@gmail.com
André Matthys – Inspecteur général honoraire du patrimoine du Ministère de la Région wallonne, Avenue
de la Réforme 68/2, 11080-Bruxelles
Ingvild Øye – Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies, and Religions,
University of Bergen, Joachim Frieles gate 1, N-5020 Bergen, ingvild.oye@ark.uib.no
András Pálóczi-Horváth – Magyar Mezógazdasági Múzeum, Városliget, Pf 129, H-1367 Budapest XIV,
paloczi@mmgm.hu
Zdeněk Smetánka – Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, náměstí Jana Palacha 2,
CZ-116 38 Praha 1, 235350187@iol.cz
Heiko Steuer – Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg,
Belfortstrasse 22, D-79085 Freiburg, heiko.steuer@ufg.uni-freiburg.de

Technical redaction
Martin Pokorný – REKOSA, Obětí 6. května 554/4, CZ-140 00 Praha 4, mpokmpok@seznam.cz
Matěj Kuruc, Nad rybníkem 163, CZ-278 01 Kralupy nad Vltavou

Homepage www.ruralia.cz
Tomáš Klír, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, náměstí Jana Palacha 2, CZ-116
38 Praha 1, tomas.klir@ff.cuni.cz

Contact with the Editor Brepols

Jan van Doesburg, Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten, Kerkstraat 1, NL-3811 CV
Amersfoort, j.van.doesburg@racm.nl

Cash auditors
Christiane Bis-Worch – Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art, Marché-aux-Poissons, L-2345 Luxembourg,
christiane.bis@mnha.etat.lu
Niall Brady – The Archaeological Diving Company Ltd, Brehon House, Castlecomer, Co. Kilkenny,
niallbrady100@gmail.com>
Ruralia 10 volume was prepared with the kind help of Niall Brady, Piers Dixon, Mark Gardiner, Philippe Mignot,
Rainer Schreg, Claudia Theune and others.

The redaction of this volume was supported by The Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences
of the Czech Republic in Prague.

Cover photograph of the water mill near Tomášikovo (Slovakia) by Peter Bednár, Institute of Archaeology, SAS, Nitra.

RURALIA X 5
Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

Broad rig, extending over 12ha, is highlighted by the rich green pasture at the abandoned township of Learable
in the strath of Kildonan, Highland (Great Britain). The settlement was cleared to make way for sheep in 1815.
Crown Copyright, RCAHMS DP 080129.

6 RURALIA X
Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

RURALIA 10
Contents – Inhalt – Sommaire

Claudia Theune
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

Alan Aberg
Ruralia – a retrospect: 1994–2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI–XII

Eva Svensson – Mark Gardiner

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape – an introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII–XVIII

Stephen Moorhouse – James Bond

An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe: the structure and anatomy
of township field systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–48

Stephen Moorhouse
Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49–88

James Bond
Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89–105

Piers Dixon
Mukked and folded land: the evidence of field data for medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland . . . . . . . . 107–123

Alice Forward – John Hines

Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–141

Niall Brady
What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology in the changing nature of early
medieval Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143–155

Ingvild Øye
Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157–172

Vibeke Vandrup Martens

North Norwegian farm mounds – economic resources and landscape conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173–183

Janicke Larsen
Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway – the fjord farm Indre Matre . . . . . 185–194

Catarina Karlsson
Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195–201

Janken Myrdal – Alexandra Sapoznik

Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300: written sources, archaeology and images . . . . 203–223

Lars Agersnap Larsen

The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225–236

Peter Steen Henriksen

Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237–245

Johan P. W. Verspay
Structuring landscape, shaping community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247–254

Hans Renes
Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255–265

RURALIA X 7
Marti, The early medieval potteries from Basle’s hinterland (Switzerland) 123–4567890

Philippe Mignot – Nicolas Schroeder

Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium) from the Early Middle Ages
to the Modern Period: Archaeology and History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267–278

Nicolas Poirier
Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring: Studying the time-space dynamics of agricultural areas
with surface-collected off-site material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279–290

Margarita Fernández Mier – Pablo Alonso González

Medieval north-west Spain: What can agrarian archaeology tell us about living rural landscapes? . . . . . . . . . . 291–308

Josep Torró
Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309–323

Paolo de Vingo
The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas:
a new study proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325–349

Rainer Schreg
Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften – Forschungsfragen, Methoden
und Herausforderungen für Archäologie und Geographie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351–370

Iris Nießen
Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement and environmental archaeology.
Methods and research practice at the Stubersheimer Alb (Swabian Alb, Southern Germany) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371–384

Miklós Takács
The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary – an overview
of some rarely quoted analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385–394

Szabina Merva
Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century settlements in the Carpathian Basin. A case study:
Two early medieval sites along the River Danube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395–406

Rozália Bajkai
On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary. Grinding stones and quern-stones
from Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407–427

Zdeňka Měchurová
Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte dem Kalender nach.
Archäologische Funde aus mittelalterlichen Ortswüstungen im Vergleich mit bildlichen Quellen
und ethnographischen Belegen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429–441

Jan Klápště
On the meaning of agrarian tools from a Czech perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443–448

8 RURALIA X
Aberg, Ruralia – a retrospect: 1994–2014
Foreword
Claudia Theune
President of the Ruralia Association
The Ruralia association – Jean-Marie Pesez Confer-
ences on Medieval Rural Archaeology organizes inter-
national conferences on current research topics of
rural living environments. The meeting in Smolenice
Castle, Slovakia, which took place in September 2013
put a debate in the foreground on a genuinely rural
issue - agrarian technology in medieval landscapes.
I like to warmly thank Matej Ruttkay, Peter Bednár,
Marek Voječek and Barbara Zajacová as organizers
for this initiative and for the realization of the confer-
ence. I am also most grateful to Jan Klápště for helping
with this important topic.
Colleagues from all over Europe gathered to provide
new results on aspects of agrarian technologies in
rural landscape studies as such key subject of rural
archaeology is often neglected. The comparative ap-
proach should consider the regional diversity of agri-
cultural landscape in different European regions and
the diversity consider the regional diversity of agricul-
tural landscapes in different European regions and
the diversity that occurs over time.
The main focus of the conference was concentrated
on agrarian technologies in the medieval landscape
as seen in different European countries. Landscape
analyses has become and it is an appropriate moment
to consider the underlying technologies that facilitated
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), P. IX.
FHG
IX
agrarian development in the medieval and modern pe-
riod but also in a longue durée perspective. It should
be stressed that it was a target of the conference that
beside archaeological records also iconographical,
written and cartographic sources should be consid-
ered to gain a multifaceted insight to different and
similar formations.
Changes and also continuous developments result
from bottom-up as well as top-down processes. And
while production technologies have generally been
interpreted as key determinants of change, this re-
mains a wide subject area for new insights and criti-
cal analysis. So it was asked to present new research
results concerning special research questions as
cultivation, livestock husbandry, gardening, viticul-
ture, woodland management, agents and agencies of
change.
Over 30 colleagues from almost 20 countries accept-
ed the invitation and presented their research. Many of
them could submit a manuscript and the publication
thereof was supervised by a peer reviewing process.
We now have the pleasure to present to the scientific
community a tenth volume of the Ruralia proceed-
ings with 27 substantial articles with a wide range of
interdisciplinary analyses on agrarian technologies in
medieval and modern landscapes.
Aberg, Ruralia – a retrospect: 1994–2014 IX

X RURALIA X
Aberg, Ruralia – a retrospect: 1994–2014
Ruralia – a retrospect: 1994–2014
Alan Aberg, Honorary President
With the meeting of Ruralia at Smolenice our confer-
ences have completed their tenth colloquium in a se-
ries that began in Prague in 1995. My library attests
to the achievements of the committee and editor in
arranging and publishing this sequence of meetings,
with our proceedings taking up a significant space
on its shelves, and this is perhaps a time to reflect on
where and when our history began.
The real origins of course lie beyond our first meet-
ing in the researches of Maurice Beresford, John
Hurst, Jean-Marie Pesez, Zdeněk Smetánka and others,
who demonstrated the importance of an archaeologi-
cal contribution to our understanding of medieval ru-
ral society. The time, however, at which it was decided
to inaugurate the Ruralia colloquiums is 1992, when
the York Archaeological Trust, the Society for Medi-
eval Archaeology and York University organised the
International Conference on Medieval Europe at York.
The meeting was planned on the basis of eight paral-
lel sessions on different subjects e.g. urbanism, mari-
time studies, etc, and rural settlement made up one of
these. Its programme included forty-two papers given
by delegates from sixteen countries, and every session
was marked by high attendance, and enthusiastic dis-
cussions that continued into the evenings. It was this
level of interest during the four days at York which led
to further discussion with Johnny De Meulemeester,
André Matthys and Zdeněk Smetánka on maintaining
this impetus and arranging regular meetings of a fo-
rum to hold together those who had met in York.
A first step was arranged at the Service des Sites at
Monuments national of Luxembourg, thanks to the
good offices of John Zimmer and on the 17th June
1994 an informal working party met, when André
Bazzana, Terry Barry, Haio Zimmermann, Jean-Marie
Pesez and Jean-Michel Poisson joined the group from
York, to formulate the way forward. It was agreed to
plan a conference at Prague in 1995, to invite papers
from across Europe, to ask that papers be presented
in English, French or German, and that a committee
be constituted to arrange the colloquium in Prague. To
obtain wider representation and devise the programme
for Prague André Ervynek, Petr Sommer and Zdeněk
Smetánka were invited to joint the committee and this
met on 4th November, 1994 at the Division du Patri-
moine, Région wallonne, Namur. Heiko Steuer was in-
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), Pp. XI–XII.
FHG
XI–XII
vited but could not attend due to other commitments.
It was this advisory group that agreed on the name
‚Ruralia‘. Petr Sommer and Zdeněk Smetánka offered
the assistance of the Institute of Archaeology, Prague,
as the publisher of our proceedings, and the pattern
was set for our colloquiums of choosing a theme for
each meeting within the terms of reference of Europe-
an rural settlement between the Early and High Middle
Ages. For the first meeting in 1995 it was accepted that
we try to obtain an overview of current research and
wider representation on the committee to cover all Eu-
ropean countries. Some eighty delegates attended the
inaugural colloquium that founded the series we have
now celebrated.
Since 1995 our proceedings, edited by Jan Klápště,
have appeared in a succession of volumes that docu-
ment our history. In that period some four hundred
delegates have attended our colloquiums and we have
heard over three hundred papers on aspects of medie-
val rural settlement. We must not however pretend that
our common objective has ended yet, and remember it
has instead opened up the complexities of the subject
and the benefits of interdisciplinary study. Archaeolo-
gists, building historians and environmental scientists
have all offered us an insight into their research and
knowledge that has opened new lines of enquiry.
Ruralia I carries a foreword by our then President,
Jean-Marie Pesez, which summarises our hopes in
1995 when we set out on this path. Following his pre-
mature death in 1998 it was decided to dedicate our
conferences to his memory, and his name was added
to our title. The wide representation of European col-
leagues on our international committee reflects how
far we have taken that ambition, and we have settled
into a pattern of meetings at varied European venues,
where we have benefited from the support of many in-
stitutions and government agencies. The chance to un-
derstand the varied regional landscapes and formats
of medieval rural settlement under expert leadership
is a key factor in research, while the constant support
of the Institute of Archaeology, Charles University, in
Prague has been equally important in disseminating
publication. We have been fortunate to have had Jan
Klápště as our editor, who has ensured that Ruralia
appears regularly and promptly after each meeting.
No review of the past of Ruralia can fail to pay tribute
Aberg, Ruralia – a retrospect: 1994–2014
to Johnny De Meulemeester, who as Secretary and
President served tirelessly to promote our subject and
who saw from the beginning the need for the wider
European horizons we have put at the core of our ob-
jectives. Christopher Gerrard in his review of Ruralia
XII
XI–XII
I for Medieval Archaeology wrote “…… if the chronologi-
cal and geographic spread of papers is balanced and
the themes well focused, then something really worth-
while can emerge“. That for Ruralia is an objective to
be cherished and retained for the future.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape – an introduction
Agrartechnik in mittelalterlichen Landschaften – eine Einführung
Technologie agraire dans le paysage médiéval – Avant-propos
Eva Svensson – Mark Gardiner
The theme of the tenth Ruralia conference held
9th–15th September 2013 in Smolenice, Slovakia, was
‘agrarian technology in the medieval landscape’. The
scope of the conference, according to the invitation
was to ‘focus attention on an aspect of rural landscape
studies that is too often neglected…the regional diver-
sity of agricultural activities in the European Middle
Ages’. The papers were to address agrarian technolo-
gies in the medieval landscape as seen in different Eu-
ropean countries, and those considering underlying
technologies that facilitated agrarian development and
landscape analyses were especially encouraged. The
subject areas included cultivation, livestock husband-
ry, gardening, viticulture and woodland management
– interpreting the concept of agrarian production in a
broad sense – studied mainly on the basis of archae-
ology, but also using iconography, documentary evi-
dence and archaeo-environmental approaches.
Agrarian technology and the grand
narrative
The intention of the organisers Matej Ruttkay, Bar-
bara Zajacová, Peter Bednar and Marek Vojteček was to
capture the importance of technology for the develop-
ment of medieval, agrarian society and economy. The
idea that agricultural technology was both the driver
and a constraint on social development was a theme
highlighted in the 1960s with the work of Lynn White,
especially Medieval Technology and Social Change
(1964), and the debate that followed. Although many
scholars found the technological determinism, which
they perceived to be advocated by Lynn White, hard to
accept, some of the technological innovations identi-
fied, such as the mouldboard plough, the horse collar,
the stirrup, manure, the three-field system, the horse-
shoe and the watermill, have been recurrent agents in
the grand narrative of growth in the agrarian economy
of the Middle Ages (eg. Duby 1977; Langdon 1986).
The trajectory of growth begun in the Early Middle
Ages came to an end in the High Middle Ages, and was
replaced by stagnation, and eventually the Late Medi-
eval Agrarian Crisis throwing Europe and other parts
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), Pp. XIII–XVIII.
FHG
XIII–XVIII
of the world into turmoil. Several causes have been
put forward to explain the stagnation and the crisis,
including overpopulation, expansion into areas un-
suitable to agriculture, climate change, plague and
insufficient technological innovation. Just as White
had given technological innovation a leading role in
the expansion of agriculture, so historians of the Late
Middle Ages also called upon vast impersonal forces
to explain the Late Medieval Crisis. Michael Postan
(1966) invoked the spectre of a Malthusian catastrophe
in which the population out-stripped the food it could
produce and was consequently reduced by famine and
disease. The innovations in agrarian technology thus
started a process of growth in rural societies that ex-
ceeded the capacities of medieval societies to sustain,
even if greatly improved by the further technological
developments. The recovery process after the Late Me-
dieval Agrarian Crisis is often pointed out to be more
about reorganisation, than about innovation, one ex-
ample being an increased emphasis on cattle breeding
(eg. Gissel et al. 1981).
However, the grand narrative of agrarian technol-
ogy and its importance to the historical development
in medieval Europe was to a great extent the product
of historians working with written sources with a dis-
tinct focus on the arable areas in western Europe. For
many parts of Europe, written documents from medi-
eval times are scarce – and those concerning farming
life and peasants are even scarcer. But there have also
been, as pointed out by Miklós Takács (this volume),
other barriers, such linguistic difficulties and different
research traditions, hampering the inclusion of other
parts of Europe in general presentations of rural de-
velopment during medieval times.
When parts of Europe outside document-rich areas
were investigated, and other source material, such as
pictorial evidence and archaeology entered research
on medieval agrarian technology, a more complex
picture started to emerge, as is demonstrated in this
volume. The complexity of rural strategies became
even clearer with studies on local and regional levels,
showing that medieval agrarian innovations were un-
evenly, or rather, selectively, implemented in agrarian
10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110455
Svensson – Gardiner, Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape – an introduction
practices. Many regions stuck with one- or two-crop
rotations preferred the ard, or even the spade, over the
plough and used oxen rather than horses for draught,
to name a few examples. But other regions lay ahead
of the depicted medieval development. In the article
by Lars Agersnap Larsen (this volume) archaeologi-
cal evidence is given for a considerably earlier dating
than previously suggested of the introduction of the
mouldboard plough in Denmark. Instead of belong-
ing to the early to high medieval techno-complex, the
mould-board plough was introduced in the Roman
Iron Age ca. 200–400 AD. There are also examples of
other kinds of innovations, not present in the ‘model’,
central farming districts, such as shielings showing
alternative paths to agrarian growth (eg. Ingvild Øye
this volume, Ruralia IX). Indeed, we need also to think
of types of food production which were not dependent
on agrarian techniques at all, fishing and hunting, for
example, which played a very important role in some
communities towards the peripheries of Europe, and
everywhere formed some part of the nutrition. Due to
different natural conditions and technological, social,
cultural preferences, a mosaic of different receptions
of innovations and different pathways to agrarian de-
velopment appear over Europe, as is discussed below.
Interdisciplinary landscape studies
and techno-complexes
It was not only the level of investigations, such as
studies of agrarian technology on local and regional
levels that have presented a challenge to the grand nar-
rative of innovations and growth of the Early to High
Medieval agrarian economy. Of greater importance
may have been improved investigation methods and
more sophisticated theoretical frameworks. Two major
advances in the research on medieval agrarian tech-
nology should be highlighted in particular. First, the
development of interdisciplinary landscape studies
opened up methods of gathering and processing multi-
source evidences. Second, theoretical advances in me-
dieval technology and innovation, such the implemen-
tation and adoption of the techno-complexes concept,
which contextualises agrarian technology and innova-
tions both in relation to one another and in relation to
other sectors of contemporary society.
Landscape perspectives became increasingly impor-
tant in the 1980s and 1990s (eg. Aston 1985; Gramsch
1996; Ucko – Layton 1999). The landscape, a palimp-
sest of long-time human activities acted out in differ-
ent natural settings, held many traces of agrarian prac-
tices in medieval times. There are traces still visible as
upstanding ancient monuments or through aerial pho-
tography (today also LIDAR scanning), whereas others
have to be unearthed by archaeological excavations,
XIV
XIII–XVIII
or are hidden as small macrofossils and pollen and
can be extracted by macrofossil and pollen analyses.
Such an approach is exemplified by the paper by Jo-
han Verspay which draws upon not only the evidence
of large-scale excavation, but also studies of soils and
historical maps to trace the transition from land which
was worked communally to that managed individually.
Other studies in this volume drawn upon information
from written documents, pictorial evidence, ethno-
graphic study and oral tradition which are used to add
to the testimony of the landscape.
Interdisciplinary research designs cover the mul-
titude of sources for landscape history, involving aca-
demic fields such as archaeologists, pollen botanists,
historians, historical geographers, art historians and
so on. They have become a commonly used approach
for high-profile and knowledge-intensive, but expen-
sive, time-consuming and organisationally demanding
projects on rural history. But there are also smaller pro-
jects successfully using inter- or multidisciplinary ap-
proaches to medieval landscapes and rural practices.
In this volume Ingvild Øye presents a new comprehen-
sive history of technology and land-use in Scandina-
vian landscapes incorporating the results from recent
research projects which have opened new perspectives,
not least by using multidisciplinary approaches.
There are many other good examples of new knowl-
edge that multidisciplinary landscape approaches can
bring in concerning rural practices in medieval times in
this volume. For instance, Stephen Moorhouse’s study
on the variety of landscape features to be found in one
area of England, Rainer Schreg’s overview of research
on fossilised fields in Germany, Peter Steen Henriksen’s
analysis of ecofacts in relation to the debated question
on the use of manure on Greenland, and Iris Nießen’s
study of toponyms in the framework of landscape and
environment. Three papers show how the detailed study
of specific settlements can suggest wider conclusions.
Jannicke Larsen considers the history of a single farm-
stead and its extensive land use, Margarita Fernández
Mier and Pablo Alonso González study the farming sys-
tems in one village and its territory in northern Spain,
and Philippe Mignot and Nicolas Schroeder take a long-
term approach to farming in the Wellin estate. These
examples clearly show that the limits of what archaeol-
ogy alone can achieve may be surpassed with the help
of other source materials and methods used by other
disciplines, but also that the tradition in rural archaeol-
ogy to reach out to other academic field is an important
strength of this research field.
Landscape studies often depart from a delimited
area, where in-depth research is being made. Whereas
the methodological framework and the methods used
are transferable, at least in a broad sense, to other
landscapes, the results are more situated in the local
RURALIA X
Svensson – Gardiner, Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape – an introduction
conditions. However, results from landscape studies
can sometimes, at least partly, be presumed to have
more general explanatory value, provided they are in-
serted in a theoretical framework. Perhaps the most
developed theoretical framework on agrarian technol-
ogy focuses on the concept techno-complex, convinc-
ingly elaborated by one of the authors in this volume,
Janken Myrdal (eg. Langdon et al. 1997).
From the onset of studies of medieval agrarian tech-
nology it has been pointed out that appearance and
dating of several of the agrarian innovations showed
that they belonged together, and were dependent on
one another such as the plough, the yoke and the
horseshoe. But further studies have shown that there
were also other bundles of innovations that appeared
together, and in conjunction with special social condi-
tions, in an interactive manner. Such an explanation
is invoked by Niall Brady for Ireland. Local conditions
favoured some innovations, whereas others fitted less
well, and there could be different bundles of innova-
tions, or techno-complexes, as there were different
conditions to adapt to. Several further examples of lo-
cal and regional conditions and preferences favouring
selective adoption or reception of technological innova-
tions are presented in this volume (see also below).
Two other important aspects of agrarian socio-tech-
nological components should be mentioned. First,
the technological implications of the often-overlooked
fact that rural societies were socially and economi-
cally heterogeneous entities. Janken Myrdal and Al-
exandra Sapoznik (this volume) point out that pov-
erty and social marginalisation could lie behind the
use of seemingly inefficient technology, such as the
spade, and be of major importance in such contexts.
Second, that agrarian technology was not only played
out in the field, meadows and the outland, but also in
and through the households. In the article by Nicolas
Poirier (this volume) the households as producer of
manure places the households and indoor activities
in the circle of agrarian practices. Similarly, Alice For-
ward and John Hinds describe a study of a manorial
farmstead in Wales with implications for the manage-
ment of agricultural activities.
Regionality and reception
A further consideration in our understanding of
the adoption of agrarian innovation is the impact of
commercialisation on European societies. This can
most obviously be applied to the productive arable dis-
tricts of western Europe, regions where a commercial-
ised economy developed at a comparatively early date,
a point touched upon in Hans Renes’ paper. This al-
lowed farmers to develop new methods and concentrate
production on those crops best suited to the land in the
RURALIA X
XIII–XVIII
knowledge that they could sell the surplus at the mar-
ket and in return buy other foodstuffs and necessities.
Viticulture can be seen as an extreme example of this.
No one can live on wine alone, but while fleets from
northern Europe continued to make their way to the
Bordeaux region with cargoes of cereals, it was entirely
sensible to grow predominantly grapes in that region
and to produce as much as possible in the knowledge
that food could be purchased in exchange (James 1971).
It was not only in the arable areas of Europe that
specialist production was possible. Particular goods
were produced for commercial sale even at the periph-
eries of Europe. In northern Norway dried fish was
prepared for sale in Bergen and for shipping beyond,
in Greenland walruses were hunted for the ivory of
their tusks (see also Peter Steen Henriksen in this vol-
ume) and in the Baltic sawn board and tar from the
forests were important exports. The chief difference
between such areas and the more temperate climates
of western Europe lay in the range of goods which
might be produced. The role of such areas within the
wider Europe economic trading system was to provide
niche products – goods which were otherwise unavail-
able, or only available in limited quantities. The in-
novation in these cases was to turn goods which had
been prepared in limited quantities and produce them
on a large scale for trade. The difficulty for northern
regions was that innovation rarely allowed a diversifi-
cation of produce, because there were a limited num-
ber of commodities which could be prepared.
An understanding of the regional receptions of
agrarian technology is clearly crucial to our interpreta-
tion. The uptake of agrarian technologies is a problem
which is rather more complex than was once thought.
It was not simply that ‘superior’ technologies inevita-
bly superseded less advanced forms of production.
Piers Dixon’s contribution on Scotland below shows
that spade cultivation with a heavy labour input was
more appropriate for the conditions in the Western
Isles and north-west of Scotland and the apparently
more sophisticated mould-board plough was not wide-
ly used in these areas. This is a point developed at
greater length in Myrdal and Sapoznik’s paper, while
Øye notes that light ard and mould-board plough ex-
isted side by side, and were used for different purpos-
es. The mould-board plough was not a tool which was
suitable for all regions and at all times, and we need
to be careful about viewing its adoption necessarily as
evidence of technological progress.
The reasons for the adoption of agrarian technolo-
gies are sometimes complex. James Bond below de-
scribes a milieu, the monastic garden, in which an
immense variety of plants were introduced and grown.
The monastic orders had international contacts which
both supplied the knowledge and the plants to their col-
XV
Svensson – Gardiner, Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape – an introduction
leagues in different countries. The monastic gardens
served practical, decorative and symbolic purposes,
and for all these reasons monks introduced and experi-
mented with different plants. This innovative approach
to the adoption of new plants can be contrasted with the
rather more cautious approach in the attitude of farm-
ers who might delay the incorporation of new crops
for decades, or even centuries. It has been also argued
that peasant cultivators were particularly innovative
when experimenting with new crops and with horses
instead of oxen for traction, and may have contrasted
with the more cautious approach of those running the
lords’ demesnes (Campbell 1988: 205). Equally, Josep
Torró suggests that it was the peasant communities
which had the necessary skills and interest to control
the water-levels in the Gulf of Valencia. The adoption of
crops or techniques was not also simply related to new
knowledge, but the social context in which innovations
appeared. Rozália Bajkai argues that the shift from
nomadic lifestyle to sedentism by the Avars allowed
them to develop arable agriculture and led to the adop-
tion of querns to grind up the grain so produced. New
technology could also be brought in to new contexts
by migrating people. According to Paolo de Vingo, the
Langobardic conquest of northern Italy not only meant
socio-political and territorial transformations, but also
profound changes in agrarian technology, such as the
introduction of a special plough.
The necessity of understanding of the social context
in which agrarian technology operated has long been
realised in particular by those who have studied field
systems. While archaeologists, especially those who
work in the prehistoric contexts, have often defined field
systems in terms of a pattern of boundaries, historians
have defined such systems as the manner in which the
agrarian regime was operated. A full understanding
requires a knowledge of both, because we need to con-
sider the agrarian systems and the way in communi-
ties managed them to ensure that the land was worked
effectively. The complexity of the problem is indicated
in the paper by Stephen Moorhouse and James Bond
which examines field systems, with special reference to
England. A rather different relationship between farm-
ing regime and social group is examined in the careful
analysis offered by Szabina Merva who considers how
far different pastoral regimes might be related to eth-
nic differences of the populations occupying an area in
Hungary beside the Danube.
Agrarian technology, new materialism
and the environmental challenge
During the last few years archaeology has become in-
creasingly inspired by perspectives offered by new ma-
terialism, or post-humanism, and environmental and
XVI
XIII–XVIII
resilience theories (eg. Barad 2007; Holling 2001; Latour
2005). The new materialism, emphasising the existence
of other actors or actants, besides human beings, has
opened new possibilities for studies of, and a greater
interest in, technology and innovations as features (eg.
Ingvild Øye in this volume offering new perspectives on
the concept of innovation). Besides a revitalisation of
techno-complexes, recently developed theoretical con-
cepts such as chaîne d’operatoire (Dobres 2000) and en-
tanglement (Hodder 2012) have entered the scene of ar-
chaeological research, not least concerning technology.
The methodology of experimental archaeology can
be developed with perspectives from new material-
ism. In the article by Catarina Karlsson (this volume)
we become acquainted with the Stockholm ard share
and the Varnhem share and how much iron is worn
away from replicas by ploughing. From the plough-
ing experiments carried out new insights are gained
about the networking of such actants as the tools, the
earth, the draught animals and the iron. Other aspects
of the practical qualities of the tools are investigated
by Zdeňka Měchurová who is able to compare archaeo-
logical finds with ethnographic examples and pictorial
representations.
The highlighting of climate change and other envi-
ronmental problems in today’s political debate has in-
spired the use of environmental and resilience theo-
ries, both in the archaeology of rural conditions and in
technology in medieval times. Rainer Schreg (this vol-
ume; Schreg 2014) has pointed out both the importance
of different environmental impacts for understanding
the cultural changes and agrarian technology in past
societies, and that interdisciplinary methods are cru-
cial for environmental approaches in archaeology.
Different environmental factors, more or less active,
are present in most inter- or multidisciplinary land-
scape approaches. Environmental and climatic condi-
tions stands out as especially important to address in
harsh environments such as Greenland (Peter Steen
Henriksen, this volume), demanding special strategies
for creating a successful economy and live. A common
strategy in areas with less good agrarian conditions
was versatility, sometimes expressed in the physi-
cal appearance of the farmstead. In northern Norway
the emphasis on husbandry with substantial input
from fishing lay behind the formation of great farm
mounds, standing out as distinct landscape features,
today threatened by climate change (Vibeke Vandrup
Martens, this volume).
Concluding remarks
The inevitable march of progress, an aspect of a
technological Darwinism, seemed to be an undeniable
RURALIA X
Svensson – Gardiner, Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape – an introduction
truth to archaeologists in the late 19th and the first two-
thirds of the 20th century. Bronze tools superseded
stone tools and iron replaced bronze. This unilinear
perspective placed a premium on the rapid and timely
adoption of new methods of cultivation and production.
It is not so much that this view is wrong, but that it is
too limited in its analysis. In recent decades we have
sought to understand why innovations were adopted
or rejected. The emphasis has moved from appreciat-
ing technical innovation for itself towards a social un-
derstanding of change. In the wake of the Late Medi-
eval Agrarian Crisis, the availability of labour declined
while capital became more readily accessible. The shift
from predominantly arable-based economies to pasto-
ral-based ones was not merely just a reflection of ris-
ing living standards which led to a greater demand for
meat, but also a response to the shortage of labour to
plough fields and reap crops. At the same time, capi-
tal was available for investment in raising livestock
which might take a number of years to reach maturity
for slaughter. Understanding the shifting contexts in
which agricultural change took place requires a broad
knowledge of the social and economic developments.
Archaeology of the historic period is perhaps better
equipped to meet this challenge than earlier periods
when the context is less well understood. Yet we can-
not avoid concluding that we are still at an early stage
in this process. Understanding why the spade, the light
ard and the heavy plough were in use simultaneously in
different parts of Europe requires that we identify first
where and when they were employed, and then seek to
interpret the various social and economic factors which
might have influenced those decisions. Technological
change in turn had an influence on societies which
made such innovations. The keeping of a greater num-
ber of traction animals, or the maintenance of drainage
channels in newly reclaimed marshes (Josep Torró),
for example, required groups to adapt to new demands
and types of labour. The study of technology can never
just be the study of invention, but the context in which
changes were adopted and the consequences it had.
Archaeology has an important contribution to make
in this broader understanding of past change and the
papers below mark a step on the way towards interpret-
ing innovation, as well as understanding the varieties
of agrarian activity from a Europe-wide perspective.
References
Aston, M. 1985:
Interpreting the landscape. Landscape archaeology in local
studies. London.
Barad, K. M. 2007:
Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the en-
tanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, N.C.
RURALIA X
XIII–XVIII
Campbell, B. M. S. 1988:
The diffusion of vetches in medieval England. Economic His-
tory Review 2nd series, 41, 193–202.
Dobres, M.-A. 2000:
Technology and social agency. Outlining a practice fra-
mework for archaeology. Oxford.
Duby, G. 1977:
Guerriers et paysans, VII–XIIe siècle. Premier essor de l’éco-
nomie européenne. Paris.
Gissel, S. – Jutikkala, E. – Österberg, E. – Sandnes, J. – Teits-
son, B.1981:
Desertion and land colonization in the Nordic countries c.
1300–1600: comparative report from the Scandinavian re-
search project on deserted farms and villages. Stockholm.
Gramsch, A. 1996:
Landscape archaeology: of making and seeing. Journal of
European Archaeology 4, 19–38.
Hilton, R. H. 1975:
The English peasantry in the later Middle Ages: the Ford lec-
tures for 1973 and related studies. Oxford.
Hodder, I. 2012:
Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between hu-
mans and things. Oxford.
Holling, C. S., 2001:
Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and
social systems. Ecosystems 4, 390–405.
James, M. K. 1971:
Studies in the medieval wine trade. Oxford.
Latour, B. 2005:
Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-
theory. Oxford.
Langdon, J. 1986:
Horses, oxen and technical innovation: the use of draught
animals in English farming from 1066–1500. Cambridge
Langdon, J. – Myrdal, J. – Widgren, M. – Astill, G. (eds.). 1997:
Medieval farming and technology: the impact of agricultural
change in Northwest Europe. Leiden.
Postan, M. M. 1966:
Medieval agrarian society in its prime. In: Postan, M. M. (ed.)
The Cambridge economic history of Europe I: agrarian life in
the Middle Ages (2nd edition), 548–659. Cambridge.
Ruralia VII. 2009:
Medieval rural settlement in marginal landscapes. Turnhout.
Schreg, R. 2014:
Ecological approaches in medieval rural archaeology, Euro-
pean Journal of Archaeology 17, 83–119.
Ucko, P. – Layton, R. (eds). 1999:
The archaeology and anthropology of landscape. Shaping
your landscape. London & New York.
White, L. 1964:
Medieval technology and social change. London.
XVII
Svensson – Gardiner, Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape – an introduction XIII–XVIII

Eva Svensson, Environmental Science, Institute of Environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, Sweden
Eva.Svensson@kau.se
Mark Gardiner, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN,
United Kingdom, m.gardiner@qub.ac.uk

XVIII RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 1–48

An approach to understanding medieval field

systems across Europe: the structure
and anatomy of township field systems
Ein Zugang zum Verständnis mittelalterlicher Feldsysteme in Europa:
Struktur und Gliederung von kommunalen Feldsysteme

Une approche pour la compréhension du système agraire médiéval

à travers l’Europe: structure et anatomie des champs en ville

Stephen Moorhouse and James Bond

Introduction
The concept of agricultural landscapes encompass-
es a complex range of overlapping and interdependent
parameters, including morphological, environmental,
functional, social and legal dimensions. Morphological
concerns are related to the visual reality of landscapes:
what the agricultural landscape looked like in the past;
how it differed from place to place and from region to
region; how its appearance changed through time; how
its principal components and resources (arable land,
meadow, pasture, woodland, water) were arranged and
distributed; and how agricultural boundaries were de-
fined (open fields, enclosed fields, field shapes, hedges,
banks, ditches, walls). Environmental concerns are
related to the opportunities and limitations of soils,
relief and climate and the natural distribution and hu-
man diffusion of cultivated plants and domesticated
livestock (for example, fluctuations in the northern
margin of vine and olive cultivation; or the extent of
diffusion of introduced crops such as buckwheat, rice
and sugar cane). Functional concerns are related to
practices of land management: clearance, drainage,
irrigation, marling, manuring, ploughing, sowing, har-
rowing, weeding, harvesting, crops and crop rotations,
grazing, mowing, movement of livestock, processes of
enclosure. Social concerns include alternative prac-
tices of landholding (communal or in severalty); inher-
itance customs (primogeniture, gavelkind); seignorial
policies (differences in organisation between royal, mo-
nastic, episcopal, baronial and small private estates);
the relation of demesne land to tenanted land and
peasant holdings; and the status of landless labourers.
Legal factors are expressed in privileges and restric-
tions: rights and responsibilities of land ownership,
types of tenancies and obligations of tenants, admin-
istration of common rights, landholding boundaries,
access rights and stinting
The development of farming technology and agricul-
tural landscapes has been of interest to several aca-
demic disciplines. Morphological and environmental
matters have been studied particularly by historical
geographers and landscape archaeologists. Functional
matters have interested both archaeologists and histo-
rians. Social and legal aspects have tended to be more
the concern of historians. However, while the special
interests of individual scholars may focus particular-
ly upon one or another of those parameters, none of
them can adequately be studied or understood without
reference to the others.
It is, perhaps, a failure to recognise the full implica-
tions of this need that has led to terminological confu-
sions in the past: for example ‘open fields’ are primar-
ily a morphological concept, while ‘common fields’ are
a legal concept, yet the two terms have often been used
to mean more or less the same thing.
Not too long ago medieval archaeology was dismissed
as ‘little more than a very expensive demonstration of
the obvious’ (Sawyer 1983, 44). It is understandable,
right and proper that practitioners of medieval archae-
ology, as the younger discipline, should have sought
to escape from the confining embrace of historical
studies by developing their own independent method-
ologies and techniques. Their success in doing so has
long since overturned the reactionary sentiment quot-
ed above. From the basic processes of field-work, aerial
photography, geophysics and excavation, and from its
engagement with a wider range of scientific techniques
(such as palynology, dendrochronology and LIDAR),
archaeology has been able to produce evidence for
many aspects of life in the middle ages which are un-
recorded in written sources, and to answer questions
which historians had generally not thought of asking.

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 1–48.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110456
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Yet tangible material culture and documentary evi-
dence are two sides of the same coin. Archaeology and
history are not alternatives, they are complementary
approaches, each having its strengths and limitations
and each providing its own portfolio of evidence which
often illuminates, but occasionally contradicts that
provided by the other.
In the context of medieval agrarian technology, the
archaeological portfolio spans a wide variety of land-
scape evidence, including clearance mounds, the
hedges, banks or walls of enclosed fields, ridge and
furrow, headland ridges, baulks, lynchets, irrigation
channels and merestones. It involves the investigation
of buildings connected with the storage and process-
ing of agricultural products, such as barns and mills.
It also includes the study of artefacts, such as ploughs,
harrows, spades, sickles, scythes, carts and waggons,
and the gathering of data from various forms of envi-
ronmental evidence such as palynology, palaeobotany
and osteology. However, while much of this evidence
can be collected and assessed on its own, it can nev-
er be fully understood without reference to historical
sources, which provide the essential context of social,
legal, administrative and tenurial history.
Differing academic circumstances, resources and
priorities across Europe have led to a wide range of
approaches and to differing levels of integration of ar-
chaeology, geography and history. While this is perfect-
ly understandable, it can place significant obstacles in
the way of the comprehension of broader patterns on
the continental scale, and the appreciation of local de-
tail in a wider context. Europe’s wide range of climate,
relief, soils and historically varied social, economic
and political conditions have produced a correspond-
ingly wide variety of agricultural landscape and work-
ing practices.
It is therefore, understandable that the majority of
studies of medieval agriculture has been based on lo-
cal or regional research. There has been relatively little
consideration on the continental scale of several fun-
damental issues. To what extent was clearance and col-
onisation of primary woodland still taking place in me-
dieval Europe, where was the effort concentrated and
how can it be recognised? How important was the colo-
nisation of marginal land, when did it take place and
how was it used? Within the former Roman empire, to
what extent did Roman systems of land organisation
and farming methods survive into the middle ages or
become disrupted by the disintegration of the Roman
political and social system, and how did the degree of
continuity or discontinuity vary across Europe? What
impact and long term effect did the Arab conquest of
north Africa, Spain, Sicily and southern Italy have on
the agriculture of those regions and neighbouring re-
gions? When and why do the open strip fields which
2 RURALIA X
1–48
are so widespread in many parts of medieval Europe
first appear, does their origin have a common cause
and how do they vary across the continent? How and
where did long-distance transhumance of livestock
emerge, and how long was it able to continue? Under
what conditions were specialised local farming econo-
mies created (e.g. the expansion of vineyards in medi-
eval Aquitaine), and to what extent were they sustain-
able in the long term? How were farming practices
affected by climatic and demographic change? To what
extent were agricultural technologies transferable
from one part of Europe to another?
The purpose of this paper is not to attempt to dictate
a research structure to be followed by all; rather it is to
explore where some of the greatest difficulties in mu-
tual comprehension lie, and to offer frameworks and
definitions which may help to resolve some of these. In
particular, it will consider how composite field systems
were created and developed within the framework of
townships, and the interdisciplinary ways in which
they can be identified and understood.
Approaches to medieval field systems
‘It is almost impossible to study medieval agriculture
without studying the whole of medieval life.’
These words form the final sentence to Rodney Hil-
ton’s classic paper on the documentary sources used
to understand English agrarian history before 1500
(Hilton 1953), a paper whose content is still essential
reading for all students of medieval agrarian history.
It appeared in the third volume of The Agricultural His-
tory Review, a journal whose pages have carried, and
continue to contain many important papers that have
charted the development in our understanding of me-
dieval field systems across Europe. Professor Hilton’s
words relate specifically to the documentary evidence
as it was understood over 60 years ago. Since then, the
subject of medieval field systems has developed from
the separate provinces of the historical geographer,
historian, archaeologist and environmental historian
to the interdisciplinary approach of the landscape his-
torian. Systematic analysis of particular written sourc-
es, particularly manorial account rolls, has revealed a
much more detailed and far more complex picture of a
landscape whose layout was set against the medieval
township structure and changed with time. The sheer
complexity of the geography and history of the me-
dieval landscape has been demonstrated by Stephen
Rippon in his assessment of landscape development
in southern England (Rippon 2008).
The success of research on any historic landscape
depends upon the range of sources available, and the
level of skills within each discipline. Traditional ap-
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
proaches may need to be adapted in order to combine
effectively. Ways of studying past landscapes have
been the subject of much discussion across northern
Europe. For example, in the 1980s a debate concern-
ing the balance of natural and cultural or man-made
landscapes was developing in Norway. Knut Fægri, an
internationally renowned botanist, argued that the en-
tire man-made landscape should be studied in its nat-
ural setting, rather than examining individual aspects
of it in isolation (a dichotomy that still persists today
across Europe). The ensuing debate in Norway and
surrounding countries between academics working
in different disciplines and the government’s attempts
to implement national plans for conservation have re-
cently been discussed (Jones 2008). Similar debates
have taken place elsewhere in Europe.
Until recently settled communities across Europe
and Russia practised various forms of agriculture,
the physical evidence of which varied widely, both geo-
graphically and through time. The remains of these
varied agricultural systems and their development
have left an indelible mark within the present-day land-
scape, but their survival is often fragmentary. Because
of this, it is often tempting to study those fragments,
whether they be partial earthworks, parts of medieval
RURALIA X
1–48
Fig. 1. Farming resources within the
township farming structure, which,
combined with the influences of
natural resources, dictates the lay-
out of the landscape. Settlement
could vary from nucleated villages,
as shown here, to dispersed farm-
steads. Some resources may lie
beyond the township boundary, and
held communally with the inhabit-
ants of other townships. Adapted
from Aston 1985, 104 fig. 59.
buildings or the results of excavations, out of context
of the complex as originally created. The dangers of
trying to understand parts of corporate field systems
in isolation are considerable. To recognise and un-
derstand their components requires an appreciation
of the forces which created the whole, which can only
come through a co-ordinated multi-disciplinary ap-
proach. We can only begin to understand medieval ag-
riculture through an analysis of the entire landscape
within the medieval administrative structure of town-
ship, manor, parish and estate.
The key influence was the township territory. Apart
from forming the basic unit (either in whole or in part)
of the manor, parish and secular or monastic estate,
the township was the core land unit within which
the community organised and undertook its farming
practices. The township would ideally contain the full
range of farming requirements (Fig. 1): arable, mead-
ow, pasture, closes, commons, woodland, and other
more specialised regional facilities. The availability
and extent of these components would vary, depending
upon adaptations to natural relief and drainage, geol-
ogy, soils and climate. In general communities most
heavily engaged in arable farming predominated in the
lowland areas, while those practising pastoral farm-
3
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
ing were found in the uplands. At local level, within
individual townships, the distribution of farming land
was largely determined by human recognition of the
potential of different soils, with arable on the most fer-
tile well-drained soils, meadows alongside watercours-
es and woodland and open grazing on poorer-quality
soils and steeper slopes. The varying size and shape
of township boundaries and the interwoven structure
of field system types may be intimately connected with
the localised distribution of soils, and this highlights
the problems of generalising field types across large
regions.
Although a vast body of published work exists on
the surviving medieval agricultural landscapes across
the European mainland, comparisons over the whole
continent are difficult because of variations in ap-
proach and terminology, and particularly because of
the wide variety of medieval documentation that was
created and the patchy nature of its survival. This pa-
per concentrates on English field systems primarily
because England has by far the largest body, widest
range and longest runs of many classes of medieval
documents. The importance of this documentation for
understanding medieval farming landscapes and field
systems was recognised by scholars from across Eu-
rope and Russia as far back as the late 12th century.
The sheer mass of material from across the country
has allowed systematic analysis based upon specific
sources, such as manorial accounts and inquisition
post mortem, exemplified by the work of Bruce Camp-
bell. The long runs and variety of records from royal,
lay, monastic and ecclesiastical estates is also unique.
Different classes of documents allow the medieval land-
scape and those who worked it to be understood: ma-
norial accounts for the demesne and the farming land-
scape; manorial court rolls for the mass of those who
worked the land; and private charters of both pre-Con-
quest (in the south and midlands) and post-Conquest
date, which are vital for understanding the boundaries
of the townships, the open field system layout and es-
pecially the enclosed and assarted landscape. Within
the discipline of archaeology, Britain also has a strong
tradition of landscape survey through fieldwork, in
particular recording the earthwork remains of histor-
ic landscapes, pioneered by Chris Taylor in the early
1960s and developed by others. The opportunity to
undertake such detailed, accurate and large-area sur-
veys, preferably within medieval township units, rarely
occurs on the continental mainland. The dichotomy
across Europe has been noted elsewhere from other
evidence (Hoffmann 2014, passim, esp 158–168). Many
of these themes will be explored further below.
Any piece of research is a contribution towards a
greater understanding, a record of the progress of
investigation upon which future research can build.
4 RURALIA X
1–48
Many different studies are referred to in this paper.
For each topic covered, the first references give the ma-
jor discussions of that theme, others discussing par-
ticular details. All references have been selected not
just because of the topic covered, but also because of
the wealth of source material presented in them; it is
hoped that they will allow readers to follow the subject
to greater depths. Occasionally references are given to
reviews of particular works, which provide further in-
formation or other interpretations of the same materi-
al. Typical is Bruce Campbell’s important and lengthy
review of John Langdon’s pioneering book on the use
of draught animals in English farming from 1066
to1500 (Langdon 1986a, reviewed by Campbell 1988),
and Christopher Dyer’s thought-provoking review of
John Thirsk’s Alternative Agriculture: from the Black
Death to the Present Day, a unique blend of high-class
academic research and a sound knowledge of practical
farming (Dyer 2000).
Perhaps the best example of the importance of re-
views, and of approaches to history in general, is Pro-
fessor George Homans’s pioneering book on 13th-cen-
tury villagers and their agricultural practices, which
reflects many matters relevant to medieval field sys-
tems (Homans 1941, preceded by Homans 1936; 1937).
He was not a historian but had a long and eminent
career as a world-renowned sociologist (Travino 2006).
His classic book, written at the start of his academic
life, was an expression of his training in sociology
(Quinn 2006). Any pioneering and outstanding work
of this type should not become fossilised dogma, but
should promote constructive comment and be seen as
a springboard for future research, and that has cer-
tainly been the case with this book (e.g. Faith 1966; Ro-
den 1967, to which Professor Homans has responded,
Homans 1969). Sociologists saw the book as an expres-
sion of social history, one reviewer commenting that
its content was in the best tradition of sociology, and
that it could be of much interest to historians! (Arens-
berg 1941). The volume was reviewed widely on both
sides of the Atlantic by scholars in a variety of disci-
plines, including religion, anthropology, sociology and
above all by many of the leading scholars in different
strands of medieval history (Stephenson 1941; Byrne
1942; Cate 1942; Neilson 1942; Powicke 1942; Lennard
1943; Wilkinson 1943; Postan 1945).
Reviews of major works, such as this one, are of
importance in that they reflect the specialised expe-
rience, interests and approaches of the reviewers in
related or different disciplines and as such are in-
valuable commentaries. Understanding the past is an
amalgam of work from scholars in different fields. We
have to understand the whole of a subject before any
part of it can be appreciated, a theme close to Profes-
sor Homans’s heart. It is for these and other reasons
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
that the most informative reviews have been added to
references throughout the paper.
Appendix 1 provides a guide to printed or on-line
bibliographies of some of the scholars who have made
major contributions towards the understanding of me-
dieval field systems. The authors come from a range of
disciplines, some of which are not normally associated
with this area of study, but are included to emphasize
the variety of approaches that have helped to enrich
the understanding of the medieval landscape in gen-
eral.
This paper was not given at the conference. Its ori-
gin and scope arose through a suggestion from one
of the authors (SM) made during conversations with
a number of those attending the conference, includ-
ing the President and Editor. The need for such an
approach was generally agreed. James Bond agreed
to co-author the paper. The intention was to produce
a draft which would then be circulated to a series of
specialists throughout Europe. However, continuing ill
health (SM) delayed the process and timing did not al-
low comment from European colleagues.
The vill and its management
An appreciation of the township or vill, and the com-
munal responsibilities of its inhabitants, is crucial for
understanding medieval field systems and their myri-
ad forms and types.
Communal responsibility
Historians are generally agreed that local communi-
ties across Europe and Russia organised themselves
into institutions (Blum 1971), which predated the main
formalised administrative units of the documented me-
dieval period, the vill, manor and parish. Their roles,
and the names given to them, varied considerably
across Europe. Many regional surveys have appeared,
such as that for northern France (Fossier 1982). While
discussing the origin of the communes in Tuscany in
the 12th century, Christopher Wickam surveys the
vast literature on the subject for England, France, Italy
and Spain (Wickam 1998, 185–242, 255–269). In Su-
san Reynolds’ magisterial survey of France, Germany,
Italy and England in the period 900–1300, she detects
a common thread whereby the inhabitants of the vill
acted collectively on a wide range of, albeit varying, is-
sues, including the management of the farming land-
scape (Reynolds 1997, xxxvii–xxxviii, 101–154).
On the continental mainland the inhabitants of vills
were essentially organised in communes. The vast lit-
erature on communes in medieval France is typical
of the wealth of evidence for them and the attention
RURALIA X
1–48
paid to them by scholars. The starting-point is Charles
Petit-Dutaillis’s magisterial survey, which pulls togeth-
er previous work and updates it (Petit-Dutaillis 1947, to
be read with Pickard 1949). More recent regional and
functional studies across France have shown the wide-
ranging variation in their roles (e.g. Lot 1973; Fossier
1982; Genicot 1990, 12–61; Sivéry 1990), as have simi-
lar works throughout Europe (e.g. Drendel 1995; Hop-
penbrouwers 1996; Myrdal 2011, 93–95; Palermo 2011;
Guarducci 2012; Schreg 2013, 101–104).
In England the collective organisation varied sub-
stantially from the continental communes. It was
known by a variety of names, but in this paper is re-
ferred to by the term ‘the community of the vill’. The in-
itial discussions by Frederic Maitland (1897, 179–198,
398–415) and by Pollock and Maitland (1898, 560–567,
605–635) still provide a valuable starting point, but the
modern pioneer of the subject was Warren Ault (1972,
incorporating material from many earlier articles; Ault
1982). The subject has since generated a vast literature
(summarized in Harvey 1989, 37–38; see also Becker-
man 1972, 12, 234–242; Britton 1977; Razi 1981; Hil-
ton 1983, 149–166; Dyer 1985, 1994; Wickham 1998,
205).
The community of the vill was separate to the man-
or court, and, unlike the latter, the communities never
produced their own records, so we have very little di-
rect evidence for their existence. What we know about
them comes mainly from manorial court proceedings:
where the community could not agree, disputes were
taken to the manor court and decisions were made
by the steward and entered on the rolls as part of the
court proceedings. Bylaws were the commonly agreed
customary laws of the community. Casual references
to them in some manor court proceedings show that
they existed from the earliest known court rolls, but
were not recorded as such. In other manorial proceed-
ings they were recorded as a matter of course. Some-
times they occur in separate list form as ‘pains’ in
the later middle ages. Bylaws can reveal in vivid detail
the working of the corporate field system throughout
the year, and occasionally the equipment used in that
process (Ault 1965, 5–54 [Latin]; Ault 1972, 15–78
[English]).
The community of the vill was a powerful autono-
mous body which elected its own officers and had
wide-ranging responsibilities. Its main task was man-
aging the many aspects of the field system. It would
be fair to say that the community managed the land-
scape, even down to changing the arrangement of
fields, while the landlord reaped the financial benefit.
It is from these responsibilities and the bylaws created
that we can learn a great deal about the working and
development of the corporate field system. Much of the
understanding of the community of the vill has taken
5
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
place in the south of England, over the rich fertile cere-
al-growing areas, but vill organisations have also been
found over much of the uplands, where they deal most-
ly with a predominantly pastoral rather than an arable
landscape (e.g. Winchester 2000, esp 146–180). The re-
markable court rolls for the extensive manor of Wake-
field in modern West Yorkshire span both the lowland
foothills and uplands of the eastern Pennines. They
provide detailed information on how the community of
the vill operated, its financial organisation, the roles of
its officers, how they were elected and, above all, their
wide-ranging responsibilities for managing and re-ar-
ranging the corporate field system (Moorhouse 1979,
55–57; 1986, 16–18; 2003b, 303–305; in preparation,
a). The impact of communal actions also extended well
beyond the farming landscape, ranging from religious
responsibilities connected with the church (Ault 1970;
Mason 1976) to a variety of social interests (e.g. Mar-
shall 2001).
Apart from the existence of townships defining the
areas within which the community operated (see be-
low), the only physical expression of the community
organisation in the landscape is their meeting places.
Every vill would have one, usually a mound (often re-
using an earlier monument), often found on the high-
est point of the township within or on the edge of the
field system. They are characterised by a system of
footpaths leading from different parts of the vill focus-
ing on the mound, and can be identified from a vari-
ety of distinctive name elements (Moorhouse 2003b,
303–305; in preparation, a). While traditional docu-
mentation such as manorial documents, charters and
historic maps can reveal the plan and arrangement of
the field system, the evidence from the responsibili-
ties of the community can reveal the detail of how they
worked and their development on a regional basis.
Finally it is important to point out that the rules
and bylaws created by township communities would
relate to that vill only, and not to neighbouring vills,
emphasising the different ways in which local com-
munities organised and managed their farming land-
scape. These differences would also vary through
time as farming regimes changed. It is worth quoting
from Professor Postan, writing in the mid-1960s (a
quote that immediately precedes that given on p. 24
below):
‘‘It is even more dangerous to generalize about the or-
ganisation of medieval agriculture than about its physi-
cal and demographic background. The rules and insti-
tutions which regulated agriculture and ordered rural
society differed in almost every particular from place to
place and generation to generation.’ (Postan 1971b, 571).
Those comments related specifically to England, but
it is clear from subsequent work that they would be
equally applicable throughout the European mainland.
6 RURALIA X
1–48
Townships
In the medieval period the territories within which
communities practised communal farming varied
dramatically across Europe in terms of size and func-
tion, in the contemporary names given to them, and
in the modern terms used to describe them. The word
‘township’ was used across many areas of the British
Isles, and its equivalent in other medieval vernacular
tongues appears across northern Europe (e.g. Húščava
1967; Unwin 1983; Brink 1995). It has been adopted
by modern scholars elsewhere in Europe, and is also
used today with different meanings (Kinda 2001).
The modern English vernacular term derives from
Old English tūn-scipe, originally meaning ‘the inhabit-
ants of a tūn’. The primary meaning of tūn itself seems
to have been ‘fence’ or ‘enclosure’, but from an early
date it came to denote a farmstead or larger agricul-
tural settlement. In both Mercian and Northumbrian
dialects, tūn came to be used to describe the territo-
ry farmed by the inhabitants (Michelmore 1981, 236).
Equivalent terms are recorded in medieval Latin docu-
ments: the word used to describe the territory is villa,
translated literally as ‘vill’, with villata used to describe
the inhabitants; or, as Pollock and Maitland put it, the
two terms distinguish ‘between the tract of land [vill]
and the organised body of inhabitants [villata]’ (Pollock
– Maitland 1898, 563).
While ‘township’ originally referred to the inhabit-
ants, it came to be used in the later medieval period
to describe the territory of the vill (Murray 1888–1933,
‘township’, sv 2b), a usage which has been adopted by
modern workers; and it is in this sense that the terms
‘township’ and ‘vill’ are used synonymously through-
out this paper. ‘Township’ remains in regular use in
the north of England; across much of the south the
equivalent term was commonly ‘tithing’, while in Kent
and Sussex the term borgh was used (Winchester 1990,
19–23).
The pioneers of social and economic history, such as
Frederic Seebohm, Sir Paul Vinogradoff and Frederic
Maitland, used the correct literal translation of villa as
‘vill’. Unfortunately some modern scholars have been
tempted to render this term as ‘village’. This is mislead-
ing, since ‘village’ concentrates the mind on where peo-
ple lived, and not on the entire package of settlement(s)
and corporate field system. The Latin term refers to
where people farmed and not where they lived, a subtle
but crucially important distinction. The use of the term
‘village’ as a synonym for vill or township is even less
appropriate when it is realised that common and open
fields can also be equated with semi-dispersed or dis-
persed settlement. Further confusion is introduced by
the fact that, in many areas the township, manor and
parish co-existed within the same boundaries. Howev-
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
er, it was in their capacity as members of the township
that the inhabitants worked and managed the corpo-
rate field system; so ‘township’ should be used when
referring to the agricultural landscape.
The township, or vill, has many facets. Apart from
being the core unit of landscape organisation which
contained the corporate field system, it also provided
the basis from which manors, parishes and larger es-
tates were created, and it was the basic unit of local
taxation (Dyer 1996), of the local judicial system, and
of manorial organisation and its administration.
Perhaps most importantly, medieval vills were the
land units within which communities carried out their
agricultural functions. Identification of their bounda-
ries is, therefore, crucial for the understanding of the
medieval landscape. Often their territories survived
intact into the recent past, but in some cases settle-
ments were abandoned and their farming landscapes
were then absorbed into adjacent townships There are
many reasons why townships were lost, but often this
was associated with the reorganisation of field systems
following the desertion of settlements. This could oc-
cur through monastic acquisition of the land in the
12th and 13th centuries (Donkin 1960; 1978, 37–51,
181–184, appendix 2) or through changes in the econ-
omy in the later medieval period (Dyer 1982). Former
medieval townships and their inclusive field systems
can often be identified from documentary work, field-
names and field survey (e.g. Hall 1989, 196–204; Moor-
house 2003b, 298–303).
Angus Winchester has discussed the significance
of the medieval and later administrative units and the
important differences between them (Winchester 1990;
1997). His work on medieval administrative units is es-
sential reading for anyone studying any aspect of the
medieval landscape across Europe.
Types of field system
Human perception of the natural elements of geog-
raphy, geology, soils and climate determined the type
of predominant farming regime in any region. Town-
ships almost entirely covered in arable, with livestock
being grazed on the stubble, tend to predominate in
the fertile lowlands. In contrast the uplands are gener-
ally characterised by pastoral farming in severalty, per-
haps with a small amount of arable. This is, of course,
an over-simplification, and there would be many vari-
ables in between.
The lowland arable regions are best understood be-
cause they are generally more fully documented, and
because physical evidence for medieval ploughing, in
the form of ridge and furrow, is clearly seen. Pioneer
studies of medieval field systems in England were
RURALIA X
1–48
strongly focussed upon what is known as the ‘Midland’
(e.g. Gray 1915; see Baker 1965) or ‘Central Zone’ (e.g.
Roberts – Wrathmell 2000), characterised by large are-
as of ridge and furrow. Here arable fields occupy much
of the township area and grazing takes place over stub-
ble after the crop has been harvested.
However, outside the lowland areas with their rich,
well-drained soils, the picture is very different: there are
a much wider range of field systems which integrate ar-
able, closes, assarts, meadow, woodland and commons
separately within the township boundaries, a develop-
ment dictated by culture and adaptations to the natu-
ral environment. These produce an infinite variety of
township farming plans, relating to many factors, but
primarily to the optimal use of soil types. Such compos-
ite systems are much more common than the systems
in which the entire township is dominated by arable;
but they are more difficult to identify from the air, and
rely on identifying township boundaries. Though it is
these varied field systems that cover much the greater
part of the landscape, we know least about them. The
various strands of pastoral farming produce a very dif-
ferent landscape that is far more likely to have been
changed through time than its lowland counterpart.
Angus Winchester’s pioneering work has demonstrated
the variety of communally-farmed upland landscapes
in medieval Cumbria (Winchester 1987, esp. ‘Appendix’
138–164), and for the later medieval period in northern
England and southern Scotland (Winchester 2000). The
results of important work carried out by Barry Harri-
son and others in the isolated valleys of the North York
Moors is typical of the kind of evidence being produced
elsewhere (e.g. Harrison 1990; 2000; Harrison – Roberts
1989). Though superficially similar in appearance, up-
land landscapes in the central and western Pennines
reveal subtle but important differences (e.g. Moorhouse
1981b, 656–680; 2003b, 311–319; Harrison 2003; Wood
2003; Hey 2014). Adjacent upland valleys can also pro-
duce very different field system patterns, each based
on dispersed settlement and different periods of crea-
tion and development (Moorhouse 2003b, 307–308).
Such detailed work, which reveals very different land-
scape patterns which develop in time within a con-
fined region and develops through time, is at odds with
wide ranging generalisations of the type discussed
below (pp. 13, 24–25).
Between these two extremes, lowland systems with
extensive communal fields associated with nucle-
ated settlement and upland systems associated with
dispersed settlement, there was a wide range of in-
termediate types. A few examples will illustrate the
point. June Sheppard’s study of Wheldrake, south-east
of York (Sheppard 1966; Roberts 2008, 139–144, 141
fig. 5.4) is an excellent example of combining studies
of documents, names, maps and the natural environ-
7
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
ment within the township structure. Similar studies
have taken place in the west Midlands (Roberts 1973,
esp. 204 fig. 5.5) and in East Anglia (p. 25). While dis-
tinct field patterns were determined by the predomi-
nant farming system practised by a community, many
other influences, including tenure, produced unique
local detail. Work in some regions, such as East An-
glia (p. 25), has shown that farming regimes changed
through time, producing different patterns. Echoing
Professor Postan’s words (p. 24), the wide variety of
field system types cannot be understood in isolation
from the landscape of which they so crucially formed
an integral part. Townships need to be studied in de-
tail on a regional basis, combining the work of docu-
ments and names with that of detailed accurate field
survey. Many of the studies carried out so far have
only considered the documentary, field-name and map
evidence against the natural environment.
The present-day study of medieval landscapes, and
field systems in particular, has evolved from research
in a number of disciplines, with contributions from
historians, historical geographers, archaeologists, en-
vironmentalists and place-name scholars. Each disci-
pline has its own philosophy and approach to historic
landscapes, and employs its own terminology. The
greatest impact on the understanding of field systems
has come from economic historians and historical ge-
ographers over the past four decades. These have pro-
vided the essential background for understanding the
form of the field systems, what influenced them and
their development.
There have been a number of stages in the develop-
ment of our understanding of medieval field systems
which have generated a stock-taking of knowledge.
The most momentous of these was the appearance of
Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles, published
in 1973 (Baker – Butlin 1973), which provides detailed
analysis by leading authorities of British field systems
on a regional basis, with an extensive bibliography.
After over 40 years the volume still remains an es-
sential starting point, not only as a record of the state
of understanding in the early 1970s, but also for the
history of the subject. Written from the perspective of
historians and historical geographers, at a time when
recognition of the importance of detailed field survey
was still in its infancy, this volume was a statement of
ideas in progress at that particular period, and it stim-
ulated much discussion (e.g. Dodgshon 1974; 1975;
1977; 1979). While many regional studies have been
developed by subsequent work, the first chapter, de-
scribing the materials and methods used in the study
of field systems, and the final Chapter 14 on problems
and perspectives, both written by the editors (Baker –
Butlin 1973, 1–40, 619–656), are still essential reading
on what field systems are and how to study them.
8 RURALIA X
1–48
The best way to understand medieval field systems
is to examine how they worked within the boundaries
of the township, and to appreciate the human response
to the natural environment, geography, geology, soils
and climate which produced the emergence of regional
types. This can be achieved most productively by ex-
haustive examination of the medieval documentation
and historic map evidence, looking at field systems
within the medieval township units within which they
were created, surveying them within township units,
and using field-names to assist in interpreting the re-
sults. The life-time’s work of David Hall is exemplary,
much of it spent working systematically through the
eastern Midlands, and Northamptonshire in particular
(e.g. Hall 1989). His work is a model of methodology,
process and procedure. A list of his township studies
up to 2002 can be found in his published bibliography
(Lane – Coles 2002, 147–150). He produced the Shire
Archaeology book on medieval fields (Hall 1982), which
has become a standard introduction to the subject.
A systematic and in-depth analysis of the documents
for the open fields of Northamptonshire and a detailed
documentary history for each township in the county
appeared in 1995. The first four chapters are headed:
‘Open fields and their records’, ‘Open field operation’,
‘Methods of reconstruction of Open Field plans’, and
‘Field types’ (Hall 1995, 1–65). These early chapters
contain one of the clearest descriptions of how to un-
derstand medieval field systems, and should be man-
datory reading for anyone attempting to undertake
such studies (see also Hall 2014). David Hall’s research
forms the backbone of two remarkable atlases of the
medieval and early modern landscape of the Forest
of Rockingham (Foard – Hall – Partida 2009) and of
the remaining area of the county of Northamptonshire
(Partida – Hall – Foard 2013). Both volumes plot out
the extensive and remarkable earthwork evidence for
medieval landscape, much of which is open fields,
from documents, field survey and aerial photography,
within the township structure throughout both areas.
They have been based upon systematic work on docu-
ments, field-names, enclosure awards, field survey and
aerial photography undertaken since the mid-1960s,
covering the entire landscape of the county within
the framework of the township structure. These same
skills have also been applied to an understanding of
the field systems on the Yorkshire Wolds (Hall 2012).
David Hall’s experiences of half a century in re-
cording and understanding open fields has now been
brought together in a major book that covers England,
with chapters headed: ‘Township and land use’; ‘Field
system types in the Central Region’; ‘Field systems in
the Eastern and Western Regions’; ‘Open field struc-
ture and management’; ‘Early evidence for settlement
and field’; and ‘Open field beginnings’; together with a
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
county gazetteer and an extensive bibliography (Hall
2014). This is as much a pioneering work as was How-
ard Gray’s in 1915, but some parts must be used with
caution. For example, references are made to the use of
aerial photography plots in county sections in the Gaz-
etteer for understanding medieval fields. In particular,
the RCHM(E) plot of the Yorkshire Dales (North York-
shire) is referred to (Hall 2014, 342) for the physical
aspects of lynchets and ridge and furrow. Yet detailed
field survey of township field systems across this area
over three decades has shown that much of the detail
of field systems, and particularly their chronology, can-
not be seen from the air (Moorhouse 2003, 311; 2009,
61–62; in preparation, b). Taken on their own, the plots
can provide only limited understanding of the region’s
medieval field systems. Even if they were an accurate
representation of what was on the ground, they were
not plotted against the medieval township structure,
which was known at the time of plotting. These prob-
lems are referred to more generally below (Moorhouse,
this volume). Nevetheless, despite these concerns, Da-
vid Hall has pulled together a mass of new information
for the first time, and the general approach adopted
will hopefully form a model for the future.
Features within field systems
Much work on field systems has been concerned
only with their basic layout, whether it be predomi-
nantly arable or pastoral farming. However recent
detailed and systematic field survey within township
units, along with documentary and field-name work,
has shown that fields of all types contained a wide va-
riety of associated features.
One of their more obvious components is the many
types of routes providing access between the furlongs
and to the parts of the composite field system. These
are clearly seen on the two brilliant atlases of the medi-
eval landscape prepared for Northamptonshire (Foard
– Hall – Partida 2009, 67–71, maps 74–129; Partida
– Hall – Foard 2013, 8, 70–78, maps 1–86) and from
work in Yorkshire (Moorhouse, in preparation, b).
In some upland regions, large numbers of ephem-
eral structures are evident, which have a wide range
of plans, uses and terms given to them (Moorhouse
2003b, 312–318; this volume, pp. 52–90). Experience
has shown that very few of these can be seen from the
air, using either aerial photography or LIDAR. Among
the most common features are stack garths used for
drying hay, some found incorporated within the earth-
work structure of the arable fields, showing that they
were contemporary with the use of the field system,
others overlying the earthworks of arable farming,
showing that they post-dated the ploughing and were
associated with the field’s use for grass crops (Moor-
RURALIA X
1–48
house 2003b, 312–313; Gardiner 2013; Moorhouse, this
volume).
Many other types of structure existed throughout
the field system, including lime kilns, which produced
fertilizer for the fields, sheepcotes and hay barns. Mills
for grinding corn often lay within the fields, their loca-
tion dictated by the natural elements:, exposed sites for
windmills and water-courses for water mills, the last of-
ten having complex systems of header tanks and leats.
Former arable fields could be taken over for other
uses, imposing new features unconnected with culti-
vation. Most common was the acquisition by landlords
encroaching on township fields, legally or otherwise, to
expand their private parks, thereby creating additional
features connected with parkland management (e.g.
Moorhouse 2007).
The commons
Of the many features of the integrated farming
township landscape, commons deserve special com-
ment because of their importance beyond the town-
ship (e.g. Rodgers et al 2010). Open ‘waste’ ground
is often found on the edges of medieval townships.
Seemingly unproductive, they were often considered
by outsiders, particularly propagandists for agricul-
tural ‘improvement’ in the 18th century, to have had
little use or value. However they were a vital part of the
farming economy and ecosystems of individual town-
ships with origins of considerable antiquity. Research
by numerous scholars in different fields has shown
their complex nature and the many uses and impor-
tant rights that the township inhabitants had on them.
Work by Angus Winchester has highlighted the value
of medieval commons across Europe, and drawn at-
tention to the wide range and wealth of evidence that
helps that understanding (Appendix 1; esp. Winches-
ter 2000; 2006a; 2006b; 2013). The most useful docu-
mentary sources are those that contain records of the
management of the commons, such as the by-laws
(e.g. Winchester 2000; 2006). It is essential to identify
the medieval townships to which they belong. Some
commons were reserved to the exclusive use of the
inhabitants of a single township, while others could
be shared communally by a number of surrounding
townships. Intercommoning between groups of ad-
jacent townships may indicate fragmented larger es-
tates that existed before written history. Detailed local
inter-disciplinary studies are essential to understand
medieval commons, their history and development
(e.g. Renes 1998; Fox 2010; Lindholm – Sandström – Ek-
man 2013; Schreg 2013). Clearly medieval commons lay
over earlier landscapes, and are likely to contain the
remains of earlier periods, which can help understand
their development (Bowden – Brown – Smith 2009).
9
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Managing and improving soils
There are many ways of managing and improving
soils, including marling, manuring, drainage, irriga-
tion, and crop rotation (particularly the introduction of
leguminous plants to maintain the nitrogen balance).
Crops were grown on a variety of soils and to increase
their productivity a variety of additives were devised.
Unlike today, when chemical fertilizers play a great
part in crop productivity, medieval farmers could only
rely on empirical experience, handed-down tradition
and the lore of the natural world (Jones 2013, 47–53).
The chemical reactions within soils are complex and
have been the subject of much debate (Midgley 1944;
Matthew 1993). The amount of rainfall is particularly
important and acid soils are general in regions with
more than 25 inches. Soils are influenced by rainfall
and temperature ‘to such an extent that they can be
regarded as a product of it’ (Midgley 1944, 329). There
is a wealth of evidence for the various types of manur-
ing from a range of disciplines: historical, place- and
field-names, archaeological, environmental and eth-
nographic (Jones 2012). Names can play an important
role in understanding manuring (Markey 1998; Cullen
– Jones 2012)
Of the many ways of increasing soil productivity,
marling is the best studied (e.g. Hewitt 1923; Adams
1976, 157; Redmonds 1981; Woodward 1990). Medieval
documentary evidence for marl-pits, for the carriage
of marl and for marling is found across most of the
British Isles (e.g. Miller 1991, 188, 232, 249, 263, 277,
311). In some regions marl-pits form part of holdings
within the field system (Moorhouse, in preparation; this
volume pp. 68–69).
Studies have shown the importance of linking sys-
tematic fieldwork over ploughsoil and the plotting of
pottery scatters to medieval field use. Changes in me-
dieval manuring strategies through time and between
differing farming practices, linked to the documentary
evidence for land use, has revealed a new tool for un-
derstanding medieval field systems and their develop-
ment (Jones 2004; 2009).
Terminology
The use of a common terminology that accurately
describes elements of a subject for those working with-
in it is normally seen as an essential requirement in
any discipline. The point has already been made that
the medieval ‘vill’ or ‘township’, terms used here to de-
scribe the land unit within which communities organ-
ised their farming regime, is crucial for understand-
ing the layout of historic landscapes (Winchester 1978;
1990; Moorhouse 1981a; 1981b, 581–699; 1986; 2003a;
2003b, 298–321). Archaeologists often employ the
10
1–48
‘parish’ as the standard unit for local studies, because
the boundaries of modern civil parishes are depicted
on modern Ordnance Survey maps, which form the
basis for plotting archaeological ‘sites’ in Historic En-
vironment Records; but its use is inappropriate (Win-
chester 1997). Civil parishes are administrative units
of 19th-century creation and have no relevance for
understanding the earlier historic landscape. In many
cases their bounds may coincide, partly or wholly, with
those of the more ancient ecclesiastical parishes, but
they have no bearing on the layout and development of
the core historic secular landscape either.
Much has been written about the origins and de-
velopment of the medieval ecclesiastical parish (e.g.
Morris 1989, 228–239). It is likely that the township
predated the parish structure across Europe, for ec-
clesiastical parishes are made up from townships or
parts of them. Many years ago Dorothy Sylvester drew
attention to the line across the centre of Britain divid-
ing a northern region characterised by large parishes
with multiple townships and a southern region domi-
nated by single-township parishes (Sylvester 1969,
167 fig.18, 167 fig.19, 204 fig.22). The dividing line is
roughly an east-west southerly-curving line from Flam-
borough Head on the east coast of Yorkshire, roughly
following the Trent valley, and extending into north-
ern Wales east of Anglesey. The interpretation of this
boundary is uncertain, for it bears no simple relation-
ship to any geological, ethnic or political division (Win-
chester 1990, 6–8; Roberts – Wrathmell 2002, 183–186,
184 fig. 7.3 inset). Such unexplained enigmas warn us
about creating models into which we place abstract in-
formation for interpretation, a topic to which we will
return below.
Perhaps the greatest dilemma in field system ter-
minology is defining what is meant by ‘common field’
and ‘open fields’. This has generated passionate and
lengthy debate (summarised in Bailey 2010, 156–157;
Renes 2010b, 38–41). The two terms have often been
used interchangeably, but mean very different things.
‘Open field’ describes the physical form and visual ap-
pearance of a type of field containing numerous indi-
vidual plots, normally in the form of strips, which were
not separated from one another by fences, hedges or
walls. ‘Common field’ is a legal definition, where ten-
ants are subject to sharing the field, and have common
rights and responsibilities of management through the
community of the vill. Hence the former is a morpho-
logical term, the latter a legal one. Both are correct but
should be used in their proper context.
The complexity of medieval field systems gave rise
to a large number of terms that described every ele-
ment of them. Those terms often have very precise
meanings, which can help us to understand the place
of each element within the structure and layout of the
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
system. Unfortunately, however, terms for the same
feature might not only vary within a small region,
sometimes within different manors within the same
vill, but even from valley to valley. Some terms were
derived from Latin, but more commonly they were cre-
ated within local dialects, often surviving into, or even
created during the early modern period. Many of these
purely local colloquial terms can be found in modern
dialect dictionary compilations. The development of
the form and use of field systems through time was
another major influence on and reason for changing
terms. Because so many terms could have a limited re-
gional distribution and could vary through time, it has
been difficult to agree a glossary of standard terms for
describing field systems.
Agricultural equipment, farm livestock and cultiva-
tion practices were equally subject to arcane terminol-
ogy based upon archaic and localised dialect words
which often fail to appear in standard dictionaries
(see p. 17–18). In England alone a survey taken during
the 1950s recorded ten different local terms for ‘cow
house’, ten local terms for stooking (the process of
putting sheaves together in the harvest field for dry-
ing), six different terms for the snead (shaft) of a scythe
and for the mouldboard of a plough, even five different
terms for the ails (bristles) of barley (Orton – Wright
1974, 38–41, 58–59, 75, 83–84, 176–177). The spe-
cialist terms invented by modern academic historians
and archaeologists can be a further barrier to under-
standing. Other terms, like ‘kinship’, are widely used
but with varying meanings across Europe (Bullough
1969).
Initiatives towards agreeing a common terminology
achieved major advances across Europe in the early
1960s, especially in England, France and Germany.
Much of this progress is documented in the journal
The Agricultural History Review (Butlin 1961; 1969;
Baker 1969; 1983, with important earlier references
in all four papers). However the first European-wide
initiative came from the setting up of the International
Working Group for the Terminology of the Agricultural
Landscape, held in London in 1964 under the initia-
tive and chair of the late Harald Uhlig, officially termi-
nating much of its work in 1974 (Leinau 1978). It was
at the London conference that the British part of the
scheme gathered momentum, under the guidance of
Harry Thorpe, Ronald Buchanan and Robin Butlin.
This group developed into the Agrarian Landscape Re-
search Group of the Institute of British Geographers,
and the glossary published in 1976 under the editor-
ship of Ian Adams is remarkable for the range of topics
covered, its exhaustive bibliography and its compre-
hensive index (Slater 1982, 11, 24 note 5; Adams 1976).
The European-based working group had itself emerged
from discussion at the Nancy meeting of the interna-
RURALIA X
1–48
tional conference on the European rural landscape in
1957. This conference in many ways focussed co-op-
eration across Europe on matters concerning historic
landscapes (see below). Following this an international
committee was set up in 1960, which established a se-
ries of working parties consisting mainly of historical
geographers drawn from a number of northern Euro-
pean countries (Uhlig 1961). Three reports were pub-
lished, in German, English and French, the third being
on forms and types of agriculture (Uhlig 1967).
The development of a European-wide glossary was
taken up again under the banner of the Eucaland
Project (EUropean Culture expressed in Agricultural
LANDscapes), as part of a number of European ini-
tiatives dealing with conservation and planning. This
project ran from 2007–2009 with six multi-disci-
plinary research teams, the first of which was called
‘Landscape description’ (Pungetti – Kruse 2010). Re-
search papers also appeared in the Hungarian Journal
of Landscape Ecology, special issue on the Eucaland
Project, 12–13 (2010). A Eucaland project presentation
formed part of the 24th PECSRL meeting (The Per-
manent European Conference for the Study of Rural
Landscapes) held in Latvia in August 2010. Five of the
ten papers were published in a special issue of Euro-
pean Countryside, 4:2 (January, 2012).
It is against this background that the glossary of
agricultural terms is being formulated. To date only
the initial glossary, containing 40 of the more gen-
eral terms, has been published. Each is described in
seven languages, with an English definition, and illus-
trated by a photograph (Kruse 2010a). Hans Renes has
summarized how the European farming landscape
changes in both geography and time, with specialised
crops being grown in certain regions especially along
the Mediterranean coast (Renes 2010a; 2010b; 2010c;
2010d). However, it is likely that changes occurred in
infinite detail at different times and in different places,
determined by many factors, both natural and eco-
nomic. Terminology for similar landscapes also varies
across Europe. It is probable that the deeper the analy-
sis goes the more formidable the challenge will become
to achieve common terminology, especially when the
detailed regional chronology of field system types is it-
self far from being understood.
One obvious, but often sub-conscious, obstacle is
the differing terminology applied to the chronological
periods across the continent. Chronological develop-
ment is defined mostly by cultural names which em-
brace different time-spans across Europe. The period
labelled ‘the Iron Age’ by archaeologists differs in Brit-
ain from various parts of continental Europe; the ‘Ro-
man period’ is meaningless for lands far beyond the
imperial frontiers, while the ‘Carolingian’ empire cre-
ated by Charlemagne in the late 8th and early 9th cen-
11
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
tury across much of modern France, Germany and
northern Italy (Costambeys – Innes – MacLean 2011,
53 map 3) did not affect the British Isles, or much
of southern, central and eastern continental Eu-
rope, which had their own separate cultural develop-
ments.
Ultimately, it is perhaps neither possible nor even
desirable to impose by consensus a narrow range of
terms upon scholars writing on historic agricultural
topics; but there is a need for an awareness of the dif-
ficulties and for clarity of definitions.
Finally, the terminology applied to those who study
historic landscapes is an equally vexed question.
Among the terms are used, one of the most popular
is ‘landscape archaeologist’, first coined in the 1970s
(Aston – Rowley, 1974). However, some have objected
to this on the grounds that it emphasizes a particular
method, or group of methods, as much as the field of
study itself. When the Society for Landscape Studies
was founded in 1979, a conscious decision was made
to be non-specific in the name of the society and the
title of its journal, Landscape History. Recently Chris-
topher Taylor, the pioneer of modern field survey and
landscape studies and its guiding father, has put it
succinctly: referring to the work of Mick Aston and
himself, he wrote that they were not landscape ar-
chaeologists, but landscape historians: ‘…history is a
discipline while archaeology is a technique. We are all
trying, or should be trying, to write history or prehis-
tory’ (Taylor 2007, 205). The term ‘landscape archae-
ologist’ has helped to keep archaeological methods in
the forefront of studying historic landscapes, instead
of including archaeology as part of a much wider ap-
proach. Archaeological techniques certainly have
much to offer, but for text-aided periods the primary
approach is still through documents, names and field
survey.
Perceptions
It is difficult from a modern perspective, at a time
when concerns and preoccupations are very differ-
ent, to understand the life of the middle ages. Yet it is
important to make the attempt to appreciate how me-
dieval people viewed their world, the many local me-
dieval institutions that governed their lives and the
contemporary variations in these (e.g. Homans 1953;
Smith 2009), all of which are very different from our
own. Medieval man did not have modern science and
technology at his disposal. Instead, he was reliant on
a knowledge of the land and customs and traditions
that had been handed down from his forebears, much
of it based on extensions to the writings of classical
authors. There were many forces surrounding the
lore of the medieval world and the influences behind
12
1–48
the knowledge and perceptions of medieval man, par-
ticularly those who worked the land (Price 1992; Jones
2013). These perceptions varied across Europe both
geographically and in time.
Perhaps the most important problem, if not the most
obvious, is the perception of territory. Medieval people
had a much more intimate connection with the land
area where they farmed, drew their livelihood, held
their scattered holdings, carried out their obligations
to their landlord, and perhaps more importantly, the
unit within which they exercised their wide-ranging
communal responsibilities. By contrast, over much of
Europe today only a minority of people draw their live-
lihood from working on the land, and the links with
that wider territory have become severed. Name-plates
are now positioned on principal routes on the edge of
each settlement, reflecting a much narrower view of
where we live.
Presenting information
The understanding of information is dependent on
how it is presented. A wide range of classes of medi-
eval documents are of use for understanding the medi-
eval landscape, and field systems in particular (Hilton
1955). However, although documents were created for
many different purposes, none were created with the
modern landscape historian in mind. Caution has to
be exercised about what documents mean and how to
use them (Dyer 1988; Harvey 2010).
For mapping purposes many investigators have
used dots or symbols on a blank map to record distri-
butions; but this is often inappropriate in landscape
studies. The ubiquitous dot, all too often, hides much
detail, spanning anything from a single small holding
to an entire township or more. The point has already
been made that identifying the territorial boundaries
to which settlements were related is crucial. The kinds
of problems to be encountered are illustrated by stud-
ies of the extensive manor of Wakefield in modern West
Yorkshire. Comparison of a traditional dot distribution
map (Moorhouse 1989, 33 fig.1, a) against the townships
represented at the same scale by the names together
with the territorial manorial organisation (Moorhouse
1989, 33 fig.1, b), presents a very different understand-
ing of the manor and its landscape. Similarly, the ter-
ritorial distribution of Earl Edwin’s Domesday manor
of Bolton (Abbey) in North Yorkshire, spanning the up-
per reaches of the Aire and Wharfe valleys (Moorhouse
2005, 49 fig.11), gives a very different impression to a
dot distribution of the same estate (Adams 1995, 152
fig.1). When presenting many aspects of the landscape
it is essential to depict the township boundary rather
than mere dots or symbols for individual sites or set-
tlements.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Sources of evidence
The present-day knowledge of medieval field sys-
tems has been drawn from many scholars working
in a number of disciplines from across Europe over
a century and a half. The remainder of this paper will
outline how this has developed.
Major developments took place in the 1950s and
1960s. The publication in 1955 of the first edition of
W.G. Hoskins’s The Making of the English Landscape
effectively laid the foundations of landscape history as
a distinctive branch of the subject, promoting the land-
scape not only as an object worthy of study, but also
as a source of evidence in its own right. Though this
initially had only limited impact upon the academic
world, its accessibility to the non-specialist, because
of its non-technical language, has made it enormous-
ly influential in the longer term. Inevitably aspects
of Hoskins’s approach have since come under criti-
cism and there has been much revisionary work, but
it remains an invaluable introduction to the subject.
A conference held in Leicester in 2005 to celebrate the
fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Hoskins’s pio-
neer work itself generated three volumes, one on Medi-
eval Landscapes (Gardiner – Rippon 2007).
Over the same period a number of essays success-
fully merging the study of medieval written sources
with geographical approaches appeared in various
academic journals. Many of those were pioneering in-
vestigations and forerunners of work to come, and a
collection of them were gathered into one volume in
1970 (Baker –Hamshere – Langton 1970). Some in-
cluded a supplementary note summarizing progress
between the paper’s original publication and 1970. An
introduction from the editors charts the integration of
the disciplines of geography and history into historical
geography.
In the modern era a large group of historical geog-
raphers including Alan Baker, Robin Butlin, Clifford
Darby, Robert Dodgshon, Mary Harvey, Brian Roberts,
June Sheppard and Christopher Taylor have each
added their unique contribution to the subject. In re-
cent decades the systematic and analytical approach
of historians, using nation-wide sets of documents,
such as inquisitions post-mortem, has provided a wider
dimension to the subject. Historical geographers were
the first to follow Hoskins’s early popularisation of the
subject of past landscapes by adopting a form of pres-
entation that the non-specialist could appreciate (Bak-
er – Harley 1973). From the 1960s a growing number
of European-based studies by historical geographers
appeared, often containing useful continental-scale
distribution maps (e.g. Pounds 1990). At the same time
the landscape historian and field archaeologist entered
the field, looking across a broader set of disciplines
RURALIA X
1–48
and adding the crucial element of detailed and accu-
rate earthwork survey. In recent decades, the environ-
ment has been seen as crucial to shaping the historic
landscape and to its understanding (summarised in
Hoffmann 2014).
Historians of the late 19th century, such as Frederic
Seebohm, saw the importance of township field sys-
tems and their plans, but it was left to later historical
geographers to develop the idea. Foremost amongst
these was Clifford Darby (see Appendix 1), who com-
bined the classic techniques of the historical geogra-
pher and historian towards an appreciation of the land-
scape. This development has been the subject of much
debate (e.g. Baker 1988; 2003a; 2003b; 2008; Darby
2002; Langton 2008). Without this progressive work
our understanding of medieval field systems would be
that much poorer, and the philosophy of the historical
geographer still underlies much of the research on the
medieval landscape. The contribution of the landscape
historian and field archaeologist, particularly through
detailed earthwork survey, has allowed a wider under-
standing of medieval landscapes, and field systems in
particular. In summary, initially historians drew atten-
tion to the documentary evidence for the medieval field
systems, subsequently historical geographers blended
geography, historical sources and maps, while the
modern landscape historian uses a wide range of dis-
ciplines to create a detailed and accurate record of the
historic landscape.
Documentary evidence
The written records of the medieval period provide
two important insights into medieval agriculture.
Firstly, though we hardly ever have first-hand accounts
of medieval man’s attitude to his lot in life, an excep-
tion is the two books compiled by Meo and Benedetto
del Massarizia, Tuscan peasants who kept miscellane-
ous records between 1450 and 1502, which included
their agricultural work (Balestracci 1999; an edition of
the first book appears on pp. 102–114). There is also a
wealth of indirect evidence from across Europe from
chroniclers to medieval prose, which provides a vivid,
if not a personal picture (e.g. Jones 2013, 48–61; Dozer-
Rabedeau 1995; Frank 1995).
Secondly, manorial records, particularly manorial
accounts, provide the core evidence for understand-
ing field systems. Europe has a wide variety and large
quantity of medieval documentary sources, but their
survival varies tremendously from country to country
and is dependent on many factors. Perhaps the great-
est influence was the changing political map of Europe
throughout the Middle Ages. By far the largest body of
evidence survives from medieval England, probably be-
cause it has retained its geographic integrity, protect-
13
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
ing the record-keeping of major landowners, both lay
and monastic, and particularly of the central govern-
ment. The body of medieval manorial accounts surviv-
ing in private and royal record collections is vast (Elton
1969; Riden 1987); much of it is recorded in the index
of manorial documents for England and Wales, the Ma-
norial Documents Register (apps.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/mdraboutapps/mdr/about.htm), and a bibliogra-
phy of most works published up to 1975 has appeared
(Graves 1975, 937–938 ‘accounts’).
The value of these sources for understanding me-
dieval society and landscapes has been extensively
discussed (Hilton 1955) and, more importantly, due
caution has been urged in using them (e.g. Dyer 1988;
Harvey 2010). One of the best-known medieval docu-
ments across Europe is the Domesday Book of 1086,
yet its use for understanding the contemporary land-
scape remains fraught with problems. The survey is
essentially a record of landholdings, what was held
and from whom. It was therefore, in part, a survey of
where people farmed, but not of where they lived. It
does not describe villages or hamlets or farms, but the
territory of townships or manors (and for our purpos-
es the units within which field systems were created
and developed); yet it has been misused to map the
distribution of late 11th-century settlement patterns
by dot distribution. The false equation of names of
townships recorded in 1086 with villages existing to-
day has led to the assumption that those villages were
already present in the late 11th century, for which
there is no evidence or justification. A second problem
is the assumption that the term ‘waste’ in Domesday
means that the property had been destroyed and of no
value. The extent of ‘waste’ and its assumed meaning
has been associated with the description in the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle of William’s ‘harrying of the north’
in the winter of 1069/1070 following Northumbrian
revolts. Many more plausible reasons have been put
forward to explain the term, that have nothing to do
with the destruction resulting from William’s military
campaign. Possible alternative explanations include
the idea that estates rendered little because they were
newly acquired, that they were in the hands of absen-
tee landlords or were untenanted or vacant, or that no
information was available (Pallister 1993; Dalton 1994,
79–144; Fletcher 2003, 138, 172–175, 180–184; Rob-
erts 2008, 142–144; Harrison 2011, 16–23). Yet Domes-
day Book has provided, and, to a lesser extent, con-
tinues to provide, a false basis for identifying ‘village’
settlement patterns in the late 11th century and, be-
cause of the assumed large-scale devastation implied
by the term ‘waste’, subsequent development into the
12th century. Such assumptions have had a profound
and misleading effect on the interpretation of the con-
temporary and later landscapes.
14
1–48
It is perhaps an obvious point to make, but one
that is worth repeating, and that is that no historic
document was written with the present-day historian,
historical geographer, archaeologist or landscape his-
torian in mind. The nature of documents has to be
understood before their value for understanding the
medieval landscape can be appreciated. Some are of
greater value than others. The large body and range of
manorial documents (Harvey 1984) are the most valua-
ble. Private charters are essential for providing details,
mainly through minor place- and field-names, of hold-
ings within common-field systems and assarts. While
some examples have been published from many coun-
ties, the largest number survive in lay and monastic
cartularies (Davies 2010).
The importance of these records was first recog-
nised from the mid-19th century, and it is perhaps
surprising that many of the early workers on the medi-
eval agrarian history of England were not English but
came from northern Europe, particularly from Russia
(Kosminsky 1928; Hilton 1956; Graves 1975, 694–695).
Interest in the political, social and economic history of
England has had a long history from major landown-
ers and academics in Germany, France and Russia,
referred to by Kosminsky as ‘Anglomania’ (Kosminsky
1928, 208). Scholars such as Evgeny Kosminsky, Al-
exander Savine and particularly Sir Paul Vinogradoff
are well-known, but others were just as influential,
such as Maxime Kovalevsky, who, amongst numer-
ous major and pioneering works in English, German,
French, Swedish and Italian, began in 1898 a multi-
volume history of northern Europe in English (much
of it based on English medieval agrarian sources) (Ko-
valevsky 1938).
Historians pioneered the initial study of medieval
field systems. It is significant that the founder of the
modern study was a banker, Frederic Seebohm, whose
parents had migrated from Germany (Cudworth 1900;
Harvey 2011). In The English Village Community See-
bohm not only sets out the documentary evidence for
medieval field systems, but (in the second half of the
book) was the first to draw attention to the links with
central Europe (Seebohm 1883; Baker 1965), Sir Paul
Vinogradoff (a political refugee from Russia) made
many contributions, but his best-known and most in-
fluential works are Villainage in England (1893), The
Growth of the Manor (1904) and English Society in the
Eleventh Century (1908). Another Russian, Evgeny Ko-
sminsky, made notable contributions in his revised
version of Studies in the Agrarian History of England
(1956), edited by a youthful Rodney Hilton.
Professor Postan blended the work of economic his-
torians from across northern Europe in a classic pa-
per read in 1950 (Postan 1973). Cambridge University
Press had already then embarked upon the publica-
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
tion of the first of two major series of volumes which,
between them, have marked the progression in the
understanding of medieval agriculture across Europe.
Two editions of The Agrarian Life in the Middle Ages,
Volume 1 in The Cambridge Economic History of Eu-
rope series, have appeared, the first in 1941 (Clapham
– Power 1941) while the second, partly revised and
partly rewritten by new authors with an enlarged geo-
graphical coverage, was first issued in 1966 (Postan
1971). These two volumes reflect the state of knowledge
when the volumes were prepared, and show the very
different approaches to the subject in the early 1940s
and early 1970s. The 2nd edition has a remarkable Eu-
ropean-wide bibliography and shows the widespread
influence of historical geographers. In the other major
series, The Agrarian History of England and Wales, two
of the planned eight volumes were devoted to the cen-
tral middle ages, Volume 2 covering the period 1042–
1350 (Hallam 1988, critically reviewed by Campbell
1989) and Volume 3 1348–1500 (Miller 1991); the early
and late middle ages were included within two other
volumes in the series (Finberg 1972; Thirsk 1967).
On these solid pioneering foundations our under-
standing of medieval field systems was built. In terms
of documentary work, the greatest recent advances
have come from a more detailed understanding of what
the documentary evidence (and particularly manorial
court and account rolls, both lay and ecclesiastical)
can tell us. Systematic analysis of the national runs
of English manorial account rolls and inquisition post
mortem have not only revealed unique details but also
distribution patterns. The pioneering work of Bruce
Campbell has revealed much about field systems (Ap-
pendix 1; esp. Campbell 2000; 2007; 2008 (reviewed
in Moore 2009); Campbell – Bartley 2006); Harold Fox
has looked principally at the midlands and the south-
west (Appendix 1; esp. Fox 1978; 1981; 1989; 2000);
while Mark Bailey has focused on East Anglia (Appen-
dix 1; esp. Bailey 1990; 2009; 2010). Related subjects
have been examined from the same sources with a
geographically wide analytical approach, including.
draught animals (Langdon 1986) and corn mills (Holt
1987; 1988; Langdon 1991; Ambler – Langdon 1994;
Langdon – Watts 2005). This combined work, along
with that of others, has transformed our understand-
ing of the English medieval landscape, and of field sys-
tems in particular.
We should not forget that landscapes were created
by people. As noted above, while there is little direct ev-
idence from the people themselves, there is a vast body
of evidence for how they related to the land through
tenure. Unravelling and understanding the complex
nature of peasant tenure, its development and regional
forms has received much attention across Europe (e.g.
Rösener 1992; 1994; Scott 1998).
RURALIA X
1–48
Toponymic evidence
The title of this section has been preferred to either
Field-Names or Place-Names evidence, as it is non-spe-
cific and refers to the study of names in general; place-
names might imply the study of the names of only
where people lived. Minor place-names and names
given to fields, and to parts of them, are recorded in
historic documents and maps. Documents allow the
components and use of the field system to be identi-
fied, while historic maps reveal their physical appear-
ance at the time that the map was created. As indicated
above (pp. 12–14), interpreting such names requires
an understanding of historical agricultural terms,
and the comprehensive glossary of Ian Adams (Adams
1976) is especially invaluable.
Of special importance are the county volumes
of the English Place-Name Society, founded in 1923,
which have significance across north-western Europe.
Eighty volumes have been produced with 28 counties
completed, eight partly covered and the remaining six
under way. Volumes published from the 1950s include
the all-important minor field names, though their ar-
rangement by civil parishes rather than townships
does not make them easy for landscape historians to
use and can frequently lead to the mis-placing of lost
names (Moorhouse 2008a). A two-volume set of name
elements was produced in 1956 (Smith 1956). These
are gradually being replaced by a fascicule vocabulary,
of which three volumes (covering A-Box, Brace-Cæster
and Ceafor – Cock-pit) have so far been produced (Par-
sons – Styles – Hough 1997; Parsons – Styles 2000;
Parsons 2004), with others (on Co-D, M-O and P-R) in
preparation. A comprehensive bibliography of pub-
lished works on place-names and elements has ap-
peared (Spittal – Field 1990). Although its title suggests
that the volume covers only the United Kingdom, there
are many references to historic language dictionaries
for countries across northern Europe. Dialect diction-
aries, created mainly in the 19th century, record local
terms and their meaning, and Joseph Wright’s mas-
sive country-wide six-volume dialect dictionary is espe-
cially invaluable (Wright 1898–1905), incorporating the
contents of the eighty volumes of the English Dialect
Society issued between 1873 and 1896. The Middle
English Dictionary, published by Michigan University
contains 15,000 pages, with 3 million citations and of-
fers comprehensive analysis of lexicon and usage for
the period 1100–1500. Because of the wide range of
sources consulted, it contains many unusual terms
relating to field systems. Some word lists have been ex-
tracted from local records, reflecting local terms (e.g.
Fisher 1968). Lastly the monumental Oxford English
Dictionary published in 17 volumes with later supple-
ments is indispensable (Murray 1888–1933).
15
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
While traditional work on place- and field-names is
important, it focuses attention on the root meaning.
Examining the local context of names in their land-
scape setting often provides a different, enhanced per-
spective (e.g. Gelling – Cole 2000). The many factors
influencing name changes, what Mark Gardiner has
termed ‘the social life of place-names’, is also important
(Gardiner 2012, 16). Above all names have to be seen
in context and through the communities that created
them, who may not be the people who recorded them
(e.g. Redmonds 2004). The understanding of names
describing the farming landscape by relating them to
the setting of the name is well known in England (e.g.
Winchester 1986; Roberts 1999; Gelling – Cole 2000,
262–287). Similar approaches have been applied else-
where: Old English dál and the cognate Old Norse deill
have been related to furlongs of long narrow selions on
the marchlands of eastern England and in Germany
(Matzat 1988; Gardiner 2009). A wide range of terms
have been studied from across Europe (e.g. Elder 1979;
Oliver-Perez 1992; Lozano Cámara 1996; Szabadfalvi
1997; Devos 2000; Sayers 2013).
Treatises as a source of evidence
Medieval treatises describing aspects of agricul-
tural practice are not common, but are known across
Europe (some sources in Keiser 1998, 3689–3692,
3902–3905). The most famous examples are four trea-
tises of English origin but written in French: Walter of
Henley’s Husbandry (c.1276–1285), a set of rules on
land and household management compiled by Bish-
op Robert Grosseteste (1240–1242), the anonymous
Seneschaucy (1260–c.1276), and another anonymous
treatise on the audit and the offices of the steward and
reeve, also entitled Husbandry (1285–1300). A mod-
ern edition of these four treatises includes extensive
discussion and references to many more versions (Os-
chinsky 1971, to be read with Harvey 1972).
Those English treatises appear to be original works,
but others across Europe are derived from classical
sources. Pietro de’ Crescenzi’s Ruralia Commode, other-
wise known as the Liber Ruralium Commodorum, ‘book
of rural benefits’, completed about 1304–1309, was
loosely based on Columella’s 1st-century De Re Rustica.
It was the first horticultural work to be printed, at Augs-
burg in 1471. Its popularity is reflected in a conserva-
tive estimate of 132 known manuscript copies from
across Europe and 57 printed editions through the
16th century in Latin, Italian, French, German and Pol-
ish (Toubert 1984; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_
de_Cresentiis). Although based on a classic source,
the content reflected contemporary horticultural prac-
tices (Richter 1981; Albrosoli 1984; Calkins 1986; Bau-
man 2002), and 15th-century copies have detailed and
16
1–48
exquisite illustrations of current practices (Calkins
1986). Works such as Crescenzi’s were a continuing
tradition with their blend of classical or later sources
and contemporary practices (Harvey 1981, 17), provid-
ing valuable descriptions of methods current at the
time. Copies of Crescenzi’s treatise translated from
the original Latin into vernacular tongues, such as the
anonymous Middle French translation of 1373 enti-
tled Rustican du Labour des Champs, which uses local
French terms (Naïs 1997), contribute much to the un-
derstanding of local terminology.
Other classical sources were translated directly into
medieval languages. One of the most popular was Pal-
ladius’ De Re Rustica (Lodge 1873; Liddell 1896; Rodgers
1975; Howlett 1977; Gaulin 1994; Edwards 2003; Pet-
rina 2003), originally compiled in the later 4th century,
which was known in monastic libraries across Europe
(Opsomer-Halleux 1986, 102 and note 38). Transla-
tions into local tongues include 14th-century Catalan
versions (Giner – Trenchs-Odena 1988; Capuano 1994;
2006 ).
Individual treatises covering many aspects of agri-
culture, were translated into most of the medieval Eu-
ropean languages, for example a late medieval wine-
growing treatise translated from Middle German into
both Castilian and Catalan (Capuano 2012). The Ibe-
rian Peninsula is particularly rich in the variety of its
horticultural and agricultural treatises, many of Ara-
bic origin and translated into local tongues (e.g. Fahd
2002); many have been made accessible by the labours
of Expiración Garcia-Sanchez (Appendix 1).
Treatises were written to advise and inform con-
temporary readers, yet they are an invaluable source
for informing how and why all types of farming and
horticultural landscapes were created and used, and
what the remains of processes might mean. They also
advise on the wide range of crops and plants grown
across Europe. Yet they have to be treated with cau-
tion; they were not intended for modern landscape his-
torians, and many of the early modern editions were
published primarily for their linguistic interest.
Literary sources for evidence
From the 8th century a wide range of literary, so-
cial and educational texts from many parts of Europe,
though intermittent in occurrence and individually of-
fering limited information, collectively are of immense
value for understanding medieval agriculture. Medie-
val poetry uses scenes from everyday life to relate to its
audience, but is couched in allegory and symbolism.
Stripping this aside, much can be learnt about medi-
eval people, their lives and working practices, particu-
larly those who worked the fields. William Langland’s
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
poem Piers Plowman, perhaps the greatest medieval
alliterative poem of social protest, is no exception (e.g.
Hussey 1969). The symbolism has been extensively
studied (e.g. Sheppard 1983; Frank 1995; Burrow 2012),
as has the audience (Burrow 1957), while the reality of
the fictional ploughman has been related to contem-
porary administrative, legal and fiscal written sources
(Dyer 1984).
Perhaps the most valuable material derives from vo-
cabularies and nominales (English sources in Keiser
1998, 3713–3726, 3943–3952). Simple vocabularies
include English-Latin word lists such as the Catholicon
Anglicum, created by Thomas Swyft, vicar of Ecclesfield
(north of Sheffield), before his death in 1478 (Herrtage
1881; Addy 1924), and the Promptorium Parvulorum,
written by Geoffrey, a Dominican friar of King’s Lynn
(Norfolk), in 1440 (Way 1865). The nominales were far
more instructive, in that they taught language through
association of the mother tongue with objects familiar
to the learner, being in effect a vocabulary of names of
things, listed under associated headings. Individually
these may have little to offer, but collectively they may
reveal significant results (e.g. Wright 1857, xxiv ‘Agri-
culture’).
Manuscripts which taught languages with paral-
lel texts or glosses in the language to be learnt were
common across medieval Europe. Teaching language
through familiarity, these are often very helpful to the
modern student of medieval cultural history because
of the descriptions which they give of common things
or processes, including various aspects of the farming
landscape. Perhaps the best-known is Walter of Bib-
besworth’s mid-13th century ‘Treatise’, written in An-
glo-French with Middle-English glosses. This uses over
1,100 homonyms to teach French to English landown-
ers to help them to manage their estates in the French
language (Rothwell 1982; 1994). A modern parallel Nor-
man-French text and English translation (Dalby 2012),
based on William Rothwell’s edited Norman-French
text (Rothwell 1990), has a detailed introduction and
extensive bibliography, and deals with the background
to the treatise. The content of the text has provided the
subject of many papers by William Sayers on particu-
lar words, phrases and activities, including the farm
cart and plough (Appendix 1; Sayers 2009; 2010).
Work on word lists, produced either in the medieval
period or modern ones created from medieval texts,
has gathered momentum across Europe over the past
three decades, exemplified by the proceedings of the
conference at Amsterdam in 1989 (Bremmer – van den
Berg 1993) and selected papers from the 1994 Interna-
tional Medieval Congress at Leeds in 1994 (Dalen-Os-
kam et al 1997). Projects are in hand to digitise extant
dictionaries, such as those in Middle High German
(Fournier 2001). Some projects are producing annotat-
RURALIA X
1–48
ed bibliographies of word lists appended to published
editions, such as that on medieval Spanish texts (Bil-
lick – Dworkin 1984a; 1984b; 1985). It has been sug-
gested that some dual-language word-lists were for
travel rather than educating the young (Ciggaar 2002).
Systematic analysis of medieval word lists could
provide valuable information about medieval field sys-
tems, their form and use. The language and dialect of
the compiler could provide local terms for the region
where the works were compiled.
Manuscript illustrations as evidence
Medieval manuscript illustrations from across Eu-
rope provide visual images of many aspects of medi-
eval life. A large number of these have been published
in facsimile, commented on and their contents and
artistic styles analysed. Chief amongst them are mar-
ginalia – the scenes depicted on the borders and mar-
gins of sacred medieval manuscripts (e.g. Mosher 1911;
Randall 1957; 1966; Camille 1992; Farber 1993; Sandler
1997; Nishimura 2009). They emerged in the early
13th century and quickly reached popularity through
the mendicant orders of the Fransicans and Domin-
cans preaching in the vernacular directly to the public
wherever they could attract an audience, in the street
or market place as well as in the church. The sermons
were sometimes embellished with illustrated anec-
dotes, termed exempla, which drew on a wide range of
literary sources, popular tradition and contemporary
events, thus relating directly to their listeners (Randall
1957, 97–98). The repetition of basic scenes from ex-
empla across Europe and throughout the medieval pe-
riod are seen as a dissemination of legends, ideas and
information (Randall 1957), yet varying detail amongst
the same scenes suggests that contemporary reality
was included, and as such they can be used to repre-
sent contemporary life in the area where the manu-
script was illustrated.
Perhaps the best-known and most-studied manu-
script showing rural scenes is the Luttrell Psalter,
made for Sir Geoffrey Luttrell of Irnham in southern
Lincolnshire between 1330 and 1345, in the East An-
glian decorative style (e.g. Camille 1987; Sandler 1996;
Backhouse 2000; Brown 2006a; 2006b). The principal
illuminator of the Luttrell Psalter was responsible for
many of the rural scenes and was clearly very obser-
vant and accurate in what he illustrated. Successive
scenes show the progress of the agricultural process:
ploughing, harrowing, clod-breaking, weeding, cutting
the crop into sheaves, stacking the sheaves and carting
them away to storage (Brown 2006a, fos 170r–173v).
The detail of the farming scenes reflect rural life as it
existed, and contain remarkable detail, particularly of
the plough.
17
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Unlike the illustrators of the Luttrell Psalter, some
manuscript illuminators were clearly unfamiliar with
their subjects. Mechanical devices such as the linkage
for the working of forge bellows were depicted in such a
way that they would not work. In some mowing scenes
large scythes were shown being held in a way that
would make it very difficult for the operator to swing
them! On balance, though, manuscript illustrations
provide a wealth of information about everyday life,
processes and the detail of how objects were made and
used. Little work has yet been carried out on marrying
the documentary and illustrative evidence. There are
some unusual anomalies. The most extensive and visi-
ble part of the medieval countryside, arable farming, is
not accurately reflected in medieval illustrations. Many
do not show medieval strip ploughing correctly, often
showing very flat ridges, not the undulating ridge and
furrow of reality. Even the remarkably accurate Lut-
trell Psalter is at fault here.
Labours of the Months illustrations as evidence
To those who worked the land, i.e. the vast major-
ity of the population, the natural cycle of the weather
governed their daily lives (Collins – Davis 1991). Life re-
volved around the seasons which dictated the succes-
sive farming operations. The ‘Labours of the Months’
sequence accurately depicts the most common agri-
cultural activities month by month in a series of twelve
representations. These are known from the classical
world and the Anglo-Saxon period (Webster 1938, criti-
cally reviewed by Schapiro 1941; Hill 1995; 1998; 2000;
2010; Karkov 2010; Shepherd 2010) and their produc-
tion continued through the middle ages (Willard 1932;
Homans 1936; Alexander 1990; Henisch 1995; 1999;
Hourihane 2006), mostly in manuscripts, but also in
sculptured stone (e.g. Butler 1982), wood and decorat-
ed window glass. There is a suggestion of a link be-
tween the labours of the months scenes with signs of
the zodiac (Nicklies 1995). Iconographic forms differ
between the classical, Anglo-Saxon and medieval pe-
riods (Shepherd 2010, 55–59, appendix). While follow-
ing standard themes, the monthly images were clearly
adapted to regional produce and weather conditions
across Europe. In predominantly wine-growing areas
most scenes depicted the various processes of wine
production. Differences in the growing season meant
that Italian scenes were often advanced by a month
from calendars produced in northern European coun-
tries. The detail of many of the manuscript illustra-
tions is remarkable and would certainly help us to un-
derstand the reality of processes and objects recorded
in documents. Of particular relevance to this paper are
the scenes representing the earlier part of the growing
year where the crop in the field and its lifting is shown.
18
1–48
Over 190 scenes from Labours of the Months calen-
dars from across Europe were exhibited at the Konin-
klijke Bibliotheek (The National Library), The Hague,
Netherlands from their collections (www.kb.nl/web-
exhibitions/highlights-from-medieval-manuscripts/
labours-of-the-month), while a larger number of im-
ages from manuscripts, sculpture, wood and glass
windows can be seen on a ‘flickr’ website (www.flickr.
com/groups/949209@N23/pool). The many forms of
plough and their various details illustrated in scenes
from across Europe possibly represent local versions
and are noted below (p. 22).
Environmental evidence
The importance of the environment, and how man’s
exploitation of it affected the landscape, has long been
recognised (e.g. Cooter 1978 (but see Loomis 1978;
Raftis 1978); 1984; Fox 1984), and appreciated across
Europe (Phalang et al. 2006; Szabó 2010). A series of
pioneering papers looking at the combination of medi-
eval documentary evidence and ecology across Europe
were given in the late 70s (Bilsky 1980). However it is
only in the last few decades that its full significance
has been appreciated (summarised in Hoffman 2014).
Many of Bruce Campbell’s works from documentary
sources (Appendix 1) have emphasised the importance
of the natural environment in relation to population,
crops and livestock, and hence its direct impact on the
physical landscape (esp. Campbell 2010 a, b). Many im-
portant regional studies, taking different approaches,
see the natural environment as the basis for studying
historic landscapes (e.g. Williamson 2003 (see Hooke
2004); 2013; Davis - Dixon 2007; Schreg 2009; 2014;
Williamson – Liddiard – Partida 2013). The important,
but neglected, work of the American scholar, Richard
Hoffman, has much to offer in supporting and com-
plementing the approach of Tom Williamson to under-
standing medieval farming systems (Appendix 1; esp.
2010; esp 2013). A number of recent books have placed
the environment centre stage in the wider discussion
of medieval Europe, and particularly in the under-
standing of its man-made landscape (e.g. Aberth 2010;
2012; Blockmans – Hoppenbrouwers 2014; and esp.
Hoffmann 2014).
The important role of ecology for understanding the
historic landscape has long been appreciated, and its
crucial role across Europe has recently been discussed
(Szabó 2010). The difficulties of some early techniques,
such as the ‘Hooper’ method of dating hedgerows, have
been recognised. The multi-disciplinary work of Oliver
Rackham (e.g. Rackham 1986) and others (e.g. Hooke
2010; Barnes – Williamson 2011) has now established
botanical evidence as an important tool for under-
standing the historic landscape.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Climatic evidence
As is the case today, the climate was a governing
factor in the way in which medieval man exploited
the farming landscape. There was a clear relation-
ship between climate, geography and the development
of agricultural techniques and technology (Sigaut
2004). Not only did climate vary geographically and
chronologically throughout the medieval period (Al-
exandre 1987; Kington 2010), there were also periods
of extreme weather, particularly in the early 14th cen-
tury (Kershaw 1973; Jordan 1996; Newfield 2009;
Campbell 2010a; 2010b). The contemporary impact of
weather is noted in some medieval poetry (e.g. Daley
1970). Much work has been carried out on medieval
weather from a range of disciplines (Adams 1976, 194;
Hoffmann 2014, 304–341, 388–389). Weather patterns
varied across Europe. The warm and fairly stable cli-
mate of the Mediterranean world contrasted with the
constant shifts of warm, wet, cold and dry weather
systems which produced wide seasonal variations in
north-western Europe (Jones 2013, 37–47), affecting
the types of crops and where and when they could be
grown. Regional weather influences have been identi-
fied from manorial account rolls (e.g. Titow 1960; 1970;
Hallam 1984; Brandon 1971), though caution has been
expressed about using information from crop yields
in manorial documents (Farmer 1988, 722–723; 1991,
439–40). Views of weather in the medieval mind were
expressed in literature and in scientific and religious
thought (Ducos – Thomasset 1998). Astrometeorology,
the art of predicting weather by means of astrological
calculations, was widespread in the medieval period.
An initial survey across Europe identified 381 manu-
scripts, clearly written for the educated and academ-
ics, but the difficulty of identifying them suggesting
that many more await identification (Jenks 1983).
More scientific ways of understanding weather are ex-
emplified by the Arab texts of al-Kindi (Bos – Burnett
2000).
Forecasting weather was important to the rank and
file of the population and was evidenced in a number
of ways. Weather had a series of patron saints (e.g.
Kessler 1998a; 1998b). There is a vast body of record-
ed weather prophecies (e.g. Keiser 1998, 3624–3625,
3781–3785). Weather vanes, particularly on church
towers, are known across northern Europe (Mook
1986; Guillaume 1991; Hulst 1991; Meindersma 1999a;
1999b; Tuddenham 2008). An appreciation of clouds
is reflected in a working mechanical device used in
medieval spectacles in Spain, a tradition that survives
today (Massip 1994) and a weather forecasting system
was available to sailors in the port at Sandwich (Kent)
in the 15th century (Brimdlecombe 1995). The impor-
tance of weather was well known to ordinary farmers.
RURALIA X
1–48
but evidence for it is found in many classes of docu-
ments beyond the traditional range of agricultural
sources.
Flooding evidence
One major impact of climate was flooding Natural
inundation had a permanent effect in Holland (e.g.
Curtis – Campopiano 2014). Elsewhere it was intermit-
tent throughout the medieval period, as on the north-
ern bank of the Humber estuary, which suffered major
inland flooding up to 3 miles from the present shore-
line during the 12th and 14th centuries (Sheppard
1956, 91–104, 92 fig.19; Moorhouse in preparation, c).
The fields and settlements of some vills were lost for-
ever (e.g. Hendriks 2004). Major flooding also affected
towns and their neighbourhoods (e.g. Berlioz 1998; Or-
lando 2000; Vlist 2008). However, the greatest impact
was created by seasonal flooding (e.g. Brandon 1971a;
Galloway 2009; 2013).
Flooding could also be permitted and controlled, for
a range of reasons. The deliberate creation, through
necessity, of the inland lakes in Holland is an extreme
example (Hoffmann 2014, 168). Other examples occur
around the coasts of northern Europe (Rippon 2000;
2001; Soens 2013). The flooding of water meadows is a
classic example of man harnessing water (Cook – Wil-
liamson 1999; 2007). A multi-disciplinary approach,
including field survey, has demonstrated that water
meadow management has a medieval ancestry (Cook
– Stearne – Williamson 2003; Brown 2005). Similar
approaches have helped to understand coastal salt
marshes (Gardiner 2005) and the dumball, dumble or
dunball of south-western England, which were pas-
tures subject to occasional tidal flooding (Coates 2007).
Land reclamation evidence
Land reclamation is the reverse of flooding. A con-
siderable amount of investigation has been carried out
across Europe on this process during the medieval
period, both on the coast and in broad inland valleys.
The breadth and depth of this research is seen in the
extended proceedings of the international multi-disci-
plinary conference held at Ghent in 2010, the papers
published there giving many further references (Thoen
et al. 2013; see also Curtis – Campopiano 2014). It is
clear that land was being reclaimed throughout the
medieval period. The regional nature, form and use of
the new land was governed by many factors, ranging
from land ownership to the type of land reclaimed. The
multi-period and multi-disciplinary work of Stephen
Rippon across the north-western Europe coastline em-
phasises the importance of an all-inclusive approach
(e.g. Rippon 2000; 2006).
19
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Agricultural implements as evidence
A range of agricultural equipment used in the farm-
ing of the composite medieval field system can be iden-
tified (Langdon 1988). The best-documented item is the
plough, which is mentioned in medieval literature (e.g.
Baker 1980; Iersel 2007; Cochran 2009; Burrow 2012),
shown in Anglo-Saxon illustrations (Hill 1998; 2000;
2010), described in medieval teaching aids (e.g. Sayers
2009), mentioned by late antique authors (e.g. Reigniez
2004) and shown in medieval frescos (e.g. Rusu 1976).
Ethnographic studies are also helpful, such as that on
the English plough since the 17th century (Passmore
1930) and the Welsh plough (Payne 1975). The most in-
formative source is annual manorial accounts, where
the different types of ploughs and their repairs are fre-
quently mentioned, along with other agricultural imple-
ments (Langdon 1986, 127–157; 1988, esp. 88–91 ). In
the late 13th and early 14th centuries (the peak of de-
mesne arable farming) the importance of ploughs is re-
flected in them sometimes having their own sub-head-
ings in the accounts. Such accounts reveal a wealth
of information on plough types and the wide range of
terms given to their parts, and the regional variation
of both (e.g. Langdon 1986, 134–139, figs 30–35). The
plough was used as a means of taxation (e.g. Ulsig – Sø-
renson 1981). Analysis of terminology (e.g. Rivers 1984;
Falileev 1996) and ethnography (e.g. Menefee 1980;
North 1985) have proved important. Ploughing is one
of the many farming scenes depicted in the Labours of
the Months cycles mentioned above (p. 20), showing a
range of forms and detail from across Europe. The re-
markable detail of the plough and plough team shown
in the Lutterell Psalter of c. 1330–1345 could well rep-
resent the form and detail of ploughs whose repairs are
recorded in East Anglian manorial accounts.
Bruce Campbell and others have demonstrated the
importance of systematically analysing demesne ma-
norial accounts for understanding medieval agricul-
ture (e.g. Campbell 2000), and these accounts also con-
tain important information on repairing a wide range
of farm equipment, particularly that used in the fields.
Examples of published accounts, such as those of the
period 1347–1353 for Petworth, West Sussex (Salz-
man 1955), those from 1272–1355 for Merton College,
Oxford (Harvey 1976), and those between 1275/6 and
1287/8 for the Wiltshire estates of Adam de Stratton
(Farr 1959) will illustrate the wealth of detail for farm-
ing equipment. The pattern of manorial accounts var-
ies little between those of other institutions, such as
monastic houses (e.g. Britnell 2014).
The frequency of mention of some tools and equip-
ment in manorial accounts reflects their importance on
the farm and in the fields. For example, the numbers
of weeding implements recorded underlines the impor-
20
1–48
tance of keeping the land clean of a range of weeds,
both from the sown fields and the rebinatio, cleaning of
the demesne fallow (Postles 1989). Weeding tools docu-
mented in manorial accounts are also represented in
the archaeological record (Goodall 2011, 79–80, 90–91).
As noted above, John Langdon has exploited the evi-
dence for ploughs in manorial accounts, but a wealth
of information also exists for wheeled vehicles such as
carts, wains and waggons. Repairs to larger equipment
are often given their own sub-heading, again empha-
sising their frequency and importance. Details of the
repairs and the terminology given to them can identify
the variety of vehicle types and their regional distribu-
tion. Two-wheeled carts were used for a range of duties
in the fields such as carting sheaves to the barns, car-
rying the hay crop and fertilizer for manuring. The use
of wheeled vehicles to go to and within the fields im-
plies access ways (p. 11) to the various elements of the
field system. The route from the village to the meadow
at Laxton (Nottinghamshire) is still in use, secured at
its mouth with a timber bar to prevent carts from enter-
ing before the cutting season starts; the income from
the crop used to pay for the refreshments of the court
baron, which is still held in the local pub! The variation
in the types of wheeled vehicles is seen in manuscript
illustrations, such as the Luttrell Psalter.
Spades, shovels, forks and rakes are the most com-
mon agricultural tools mentioned in manorial accounts
through their purchase or repair, though it is seldom
stated whether they were used in the fields, farmyard or
gardens. Spades and shovels frequently had iron shoes
to protect the wooden working face. Turf cutters, hoes,
harrows, weed-hooks, reaping hooks, sickles, scythes
and pitchforks are also mentioned. Occasionally they
are described by their use, such as the three-pronged
hay fork bought at Sevenhampton (Wiltshire) in 1277–
1278 (Farr 1959, 213). The most frequent repair details
noted are the iron shoeing of the spade blades and the
iron ferrules on the variously-numbered tines of forks
and rakes. Variation in the form of spades in particular
is seen in manuscript illustrations. The different types
of shoe and their fastenings are also known from illus-
trations, but are better represented from archaeological
survivals. Spades, forks and rakes form part of the vast
array of metal agricultural equipment included in Ian
Goodall’s monumental corpus of medieval ironwork
from excavations (Goodall 2011, 77–103). Iron shoes
for spades and shovels and the ferrules for rakes were
mainly to protect the working part of the otherwise
wooden tool, where the high cost and relative scarcity
of iron precluded the entire blade or tyne being metal.
Ethnographic studies can also add to the understand-
ing of farm tools. The study of the spade published by
the Ulster Folk Museum in 1970, although dated, still
remains exemplary (Gailey – Fenton 1970). More recent
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
approaches pioneered by Janken Myrdal are illustrat-
ed by his paper in this volume.
Manorial accounts cover the property of the land-
lord, the demesne, but they record very little about
the vast majority of the population, those who actually
worked the land directly. For them we have to look else-
where. Lists of their chattels, or moveable property,
are found in a variety of classes of documents, such
as the so-called ‘terciary’, reflecting the custom where-
by the landlord was entitled to the value of a third of
the deceased tenant’s moveable property (Mumford
1965). Of greatest value are the principalia, the move-
able goods that belonged to the lord and were part of
the peasant’s holding, recorded in the court rolls (Pol-
lock – Maitland 1898, 149–156, 363). They consisted
of the main household items and farming equipment,
but usually not crops and animals. The range of items
was customary and varied from manor to manor. They
are listed with the holding when a tenant took over a
tenement, and left behind when the holding was re-
leased. They are the best source for the farming equip-
ment of the peasantry. A pioneering study presented
and discussed principalia lists from across Worces-
tershire (Field 1965, 121–125, 137–145, appendix B,
column 4). Subsequent work has shown the right to
be more widespread (Hilton 1983, 99–110; Dyer 1989,
169–175; Briggs forthcoming).
Studies of metal tools used in the fields have used
archaeological finds from across Europe ((e.g. Raep-
saet 1997; Lodowski – Wróbel 1999; Legros 2001; Mě-
churová 2008; Mazimann 2012). Tools are also depicted
on Anglo-Saxon sculpture (Hawkes 2010). The diverse
range of evidence for ploughs and other agricultural
equipment in the medieval period emphasises the im-
portance of looking across a range of source materi-
als. The range of tools and equipment can also help to
understand the developing role of agricultural technol-
ogy across Europe (e.g. Myrdal 1985; 2011, esp 82–86;
Astill – Langdon 1997).
A difficulty with artifactual evidence found in the
fields is that farming equipment was very conservative
in its development, and dating it is problematical un-
less a form is period-specific. The wide range of equip-
ment and fitments associated with horses and oxen
used as draught animals pose particular problems in
this respect (Clark 2004; Goodall 2011, 363–381).
Recording field systems
The surveying of total landscapes preserved in
earthwork form within historic township boundaries
was developed in the 1960s by Christopher Taylor
(Taylor 1974). He produced many articles and a series
of thematic books, including a classic work on field
RURALIA X
1–48
systems (Taylor 1975). What became clear was that the
chronology of historic landscapes can only be under-
stood following detailed survey; ‘medieval’ landscapes
cannot successfully be extracted from un-surveyed
palimpsest earthworks.
Through the work of Christopher Taylor and his
successive students, a remarkable skill and ability to
record and understand earthworks was developed,
initially with the Royal Commission on Historic Monu-
ments (England) and then English Heritage. This ex-
perience was brought together in book form (Bowden
1999), and in 2013 a national group was set up to pro-
mote best practice in surveying earthwork landscapes,
how to present them as hachured drawings, how to in-
terpret the results and how surveyed earthwork land-
scapes fit into the work of the landscape historian.
Detailed, accurate recording of township field sys-
tems provide a blueprint that will allow their structure,
form and chronology to be understood. Until recently,
however, field systems have generally been recorded
from aerial photographs and sketch survey and, more
recently, from LIDAR. Aerial photography and LIDAR
may be useful for general outlines in support of earth-
work survey, but both fail to provide the subtle detail
so necessary for understanding the complexity and
chronology of earthwork landscapes. Sketch survey
has similar problems and lacks the spatial accuracy
so necessary in large area surveys.
David Hall has shown that such approaches may
be applicable to the relatively straightforward plans
of midland field systems (see p. 10), but they are not
suitable for much more complex upland systems else-
where. Detailed field survey of entire township field
systems across northern Yorkshire over the past three
decades has shown that the traditional plotting from
aerial photographs produces incomplete and very mis-
leading results (this volume pp. 55–61); evidence on
the ground shows that the systems are much more
complex in their layout and development, and in the
detail of their many features, than can be recorded
on aerial photography transcripts. Here aerial pho-
tographs have been used to supplement earthwork
survey, not the other way round (Moorhouse 2003b,
309–319; in preparation, b).
Documents, field names (medieval or later) and his-
toric maps can help the understanding of the layout
and use of field systems, but detailed survey records
their setting within the landscape, and reveals their
form and development.
Once a landscape has been surveyed it is generally
assumed that the work has been completed. However,
the more a surveyed earthwork landscape is re-visited,
the more detail emerges. Time of year, different grass
growth, sun, time of day and general weather condi-
21
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
tions all affect the recognition and understanding of
earthworks. A completed survey is thus just the start
of the understanding and not the end.
Managing and conserving historic field
systems
The simplistic model of field systems envisaged by
Frederic Seebohm and Sir Paul Vinogradoff was modi-
fied by Howard Gray, when he defined half a dozen
types of medieval arable fields and related them to re-
gions of ethnic influence (Gray 1915). Subsequent re-
search has shown that field systems are infinitely more
complicated, particularly in areas where open-field ar-
able did not predominate. In the mid-1960s, Professor
Postan, perhaps the greatest economic historian of his
generation, was able to write the following, from purely
documentary evidence:
‘So great were the [local] variations [of field systems]
that no student of medieval agriculture would nowa-
days dare to assemble all the medieval agrarian institu-
tions into a portmanteau model capable of accommodat-
ing the whole of England during the whole of the Middle
Ages’ (Postan 1971b, 571)
Further investigation over the following half-century
by historians, historical geographers and landscape
historians has substantially refined this statement.
Not only do medieval field system types vary within
micro-regions, they also change through time. As re-
search continues it is likely that the picture will be-
come even more complex. In effect what survives with-
in the present-day landscape, or what is revealed by
19th-century maps, will, in many cases, be the latest of
a succession of field system plans, that may not and in
many cases probably does not reflect everything that
has gone before.
More recently, in 1980, the economic historian Carl
Dahlman has put the problem more bluntly. Referring
to the complexity of medieval arable fields he says:
‘To many, it therefore appears that local variations
constitute the norm rather than the exception. Viewed in
this light, the open field system is nothing more than a
shimmering mirage, a self- delusion of scientific minds
bent on classifying all phenomena into neatly labelled
boxes’ (Dahlman 1980, 17)
This developing understanding of a complex real-
ity is not reflected in the current attempts to manage
historic landscapes, which are far more simplistic and
theoretical in their approach. English Heritage engaged
in a programme of national surveys, starting with the
Monument Protection Programme during the period
1986–1996, which assessed the landscape evidence
for particular monument types (English Heritage 1996).
This was followed by a series of initiatives (Stocker
22
1–48
2000), culminating in a radical approach in which an
examination of the settlement pattern across England
was undertaken, based on study of mid-19th century
Ordnance Survey 6 inch maps (Roberts – Wrathmell
2000). This was followed by a sister volume which ex-
plored detailed case studies suggested by patterns in
the previous volume (Roberts – Wrathmell 2002). These
volumes were developed in tandem with a complemen-
tary, approach to managing landscapes, Historic Land-
scape Characterization, devised in 1993 and since ap-
plied in many parts of England (Fairclough et al 2000).
HLC is a theoretical model that has very little to do
with the reality of historic landscapes. Three of the
counties covered so far, Warwickshire, Northampton-
shire and North Yorkshire, were carried out completely
independently from the mass of conventional work by
a host of people in each of those areas. The models
which have emerged as a result have little relevance to
the historic landscape, and to the medieval landscape
in particular. Township field systems are unrecognis-
able. In many cases the complex medieval landscape,
now well-understood within the three counties, cannot
be recognised from the cartographically brilliant maps
produced in the HLC surveys. An appreciation of the
medieval townships, their boundaries and how they
functioned is essential for an understanding of the me-
dieval landscape, yet they are not considered in HLC
studies, nor in some of their derivatives. It is a matter
of growing concern that HLC is being used uncritically
as an essential planning and conservation tool, as a
source for creating archaeological-based research pro-
jects and as a basis for understanding, classifying and
conserving historic landscapes across most of Europe
(Moorhouse 2003a, 211; 2008b, 43; Williamson 2007;
2009; Bailey 2009, 36; 2010, 155). In one of David Aus-
tin’s perceptive comments on medieval landscapes he
remarked, when talking about medieval settlement,
‘one of the most important [concerns] is the confusion
caused by offering explanations of process at the same
time as presenting basic patterns’ (Austin 1990, 144).
In other words we should amass meaningful informa-
tion against a real historical framework, rather than
creating abstract models from 19th-century maps into
which we insert facts and information from earlier pe-
riods for explanation.
Another approach by Tom Williamson, taking great-
er consideration of the natural environment, physical
geography, topography and climate (Williamson 2003;
2010; 2013; Williamson – Liddiard – Partida 2013 (re-
viewed in Oosthuizen 2014)), has received little atten-
tion. This defines three main ‘provinces’, bounded by
the main watersheds of rivers draining into the North
Sea, the Thames and English Channel and the Atlantic
and Irish Sea, which have been related to a wide range
of archaeological evidence in the Anglo-Saxon period
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
(Williamson 2010; 2013). This approach is similar to
those adopted by a number of historians, particularly
that by Harold Fox (Appendix 1; esp. Fox 1984). Such a
model is capable of infinite development and has the
advantage of being based on the reality of the natural
environment, which provided the setting for man’s ex-
ploitation of the landscape through time.
Work by other historians, particularly by Bruce
Campbell, has, over the past few decades, produced
a range of maps covering England reflecting a varie-
ty of medieval historical and environmental evidence
(e.g. Campbell 2000; 2004; Campbell – Bartley 2006).
Tom Williamson has recently updated his previously
published maps and expanded his discussion of them
(Williamson 2013, esp 36–60). This growing mass of
national data in map form needs assessing both in re-
lation to the physical landscape and within the frame-
work of medieval townships and their development.
A development of HLC, involving a systematic and
multi-disciplinary approach, is Historic Landscape
Assessment (HLA). Unless the wealth of evidence for
the medieval administrative units within which land-
scapes were created is used, in practical terms this
represents little improvement. However, some remark-
able examples that have used medieval township and
parish boundaries, such as Stephen Rippon’s work
in Somerset, do allow a real understanding of the his-
toric landscape to emerge (Rippon 2004, 115–131).
HLA can represent a worthwhile advance beyond HLC
in the hands of a skilled and experienced practition-
er who can apply the full range of multi-disciplinary
techniques and present the results within the proper
framework of medieval administrative units.
The classification of landscapes for planning and
conservation purposes inevitably demands simpli-
fication, thereby producing lines on maps, a process
fraught with problems. Of necessity it means putting
landscapes which are often complex in both space
and time into boxes where they do not happily fit. For
example, a basic distinction between a ‘highland’ and
lowland’ zone in Britain, divided by a line running
from the Tees estuary in the north-east to the Exe estu-
ary in the south-west, was made over eighty years ago
by Sir Cyril Fox in an analysis of environmental influ-
ences on early settlement (Fox 1932). Though this was
an important pioneer work, its approach now seems
uncomfortably close to geographical determinism.
However, the same basic division between two types
of landscape appears on the map of rural settlement
originally produced by René Lebeau in 1969, which
has been reproduced a number of times (e.g. Renes
2010a, 74 fig. II1). Fox’s ‘highland’ zone to the north
is here described as ‘enclosed lands, dispersed settle-
ment, much permanent grass’, the area to the south as
‘former open fields, grouped settlement, subsequent
RURALIA X
1–48
enclosures and some settlement dispersion’. Neither
description is completely accurate, and both conceal
a multitude of variations. Consideration of one small
area, East Anglia, will illustrate the point. Work over
the past five decades by many scholars from the dis-
ciplines of history, historical geography and landscape
history, recently summarized by Mark Bailey (Bailey
2010, drawing together earlier references), has dem-
onstrated the geographical and historical complexity
of this region, and the important influences of lord-
ship and changing economies. A similar Europe-wide
agricultural map (Meeus et al. 1990, 298, fig.6) inad-
equately describes the area south of the Tees/Exe line
as ‘former open fields’ (reproduced in Renes 2010a, 75
fig II.2, where it is captioned ‘European cultural land-
scapes’). A more realistic map of agricultural systems
in north-western Europe c.1300 has recently appeared
(Hoffmann 2014, 143, map 4.5), although the small
scale cannot show the wide local variations.
There are many other examples where models have
been created for understanding landscapes. Theissen
polygons have been used to try to understand the ar-
tificial boundaries of territories. They can be positive-
ly misleading, an inadequate choice of method when
used in text-aided periods, where documents, names
and maps can help to create realistic territories, within
which landscapes can be identified and understood.
Other extensively-used models include the concept
of the ‘multiple estate’, an idea pioneered and devel-
oped by Glanville Jones through a number of impor-
tant articles over a thirty-year period (summarised in
Jones 1984; 1985). Essentially the multiple estate, also
referred to as the ‘composite’, ‘federal’, ‘complex’ or
‘discrete estate’, was a pre-Conquest lordly landhold-
ing unit covering a large area of different but comple-
mentary geographies, settlements and associated field
systems. Their unity is seen through common ties,
such as rents and customary duties to the lord (sum-
marised in Faith 1997, 11–14; Roberts – Wrathmell
2002, 14–15, both with copious references). However,
both the concept and the widespread applicability of
the ‘multiple estate’ have been questioned (e.g. Hadley
1996; 2000, 1–215; Gregson 1985). A recent wide-rang-
ing evaluation of Professor Jones’ work sees it as an
important contribution to our understanding of post
Roman landscapes and their development into the
early medieval period (Barnwell – Roberts 2011). ‘Glan’
Jones was a pioneer in his subject. His approach has
still much to offer both now and into the future.
If we are to manage and conserve medieval field sys-
tems effectively, then we have to identify the best from
the rest. This requires a proper understanding of the
various types that existed, and the changes that took
place throughout the medieval period.
23
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Working across Europe
It has recently been suggested that there has been lit-
tle co-operation between scholars of the medieval land-
scape in the British Isles and those on the continental
mainland (Hoffmann 2014, 161). This impression is
an over-simplification and is probably due to the vast
differences in the quantities and variety of surviving
documentation, and in the survival of remains of the
medieval landscape between the two areas. These have
led to different traditions in the way that landscapes
are studied. At numerous points in the above text it
has been shown that there were many ways in which
academic scholarship moved around the European
mainland and across the Channel, particularly from
the use of medieval documents in the 19th century.
The influence of a number of early British histori-
cal geographers extended across Europe. Typical was
Harry Thorpe, whose main research was in the west
midlands of England, but whose interests and aca-
demic work spanned northern Europe (Slater 1982b).
In 1964, along with Glanville Jones, he co-ordinated
the 20th International Geographical Union Congress
held in London. Professor Thorpe was one of the first
people to integrate a wide range of disciplines in his
work, including archaeology, place-names, documen-
tary sources and the use of computers, a range of ap-
proaches reflected in his Festschrift (Slater 1982a).
For many decades there has been growing contact
across Europe between scholars working on field
systems, and related subjects. That contact comes in
three forms: standing conferences that meet regularly
and publish their proceedings; occasional conference
proceedings (in book form and journal volumes); and
individual books. The cross-borders work is so exten-
sive that only a sample can be given from each cate-
gory. The longest-running standing conference is The
Permanent European Conference for the Study of the
Rural Landscape (PECSRL), established at the Nancy
conference in 1957. Regular conferences (mostly bi-
annually) are held at different centres around Europe,
with published proceedings from each conference.
That held in Birmingham, England, in 1964, only pro-
duced an eight page summary (Jones – Thorpe 1967;
Baker 1988b; Helmfrid 2004; Wikipedia; www.pecsrl.
org). Papers from the 1975 Warsaw conference were
published in the journal of the Institute of Geography
and Spatial Organisation of the Polish Acadamy of Sci-
ences, Geographia Polonica, 38 (1978) while the papers
from the 1987 meeting appeared as a volume of the
journal of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and
Geography, Geografisca Annaler,series B, Human Ge-
ography, vol. 70B:1 (1988). The Jean-Marie Pesez Con-
ferences on Medieval Rural Archaeology (named from
the late first president), known as Ruralia, founded in
24
1–48
1995 at Prague, are held bi-annually at centres around
Europe, with their proceedings published two years
later in the journal Ruralia (www.ruralia.cz).
The journal of the Swedish Society for Anthropol-
ogy and Geography, Geografisca Annaler, already
mentioned above, contains many important papers of
European significance, including the texts of confer-
ence proceedings. For example, papers from the 19th
International Geographical Congress held at Vadstena,
Sweden, in 1960, were published in vol. 43:1/2 (1961).
As the work on historic landscapes has developed
and become more inter-disciplinary, so has the range
of journals across Europe in which it is published
(Baker 1988b, 7). One of the latest is The Medieval Low
Countries, published by Brepols, the first volume ap-
pearing in 2014. Over 1700 European academic jour-
nals, including many of those referred to in this paper,
can be accessed through the JSTOR website (www.
jstor.org), the article texts printed off via pdf files.
A further useful website is Questria (www.landing.
questria.com). Both of these websites are accessed
through participating organisations or by private an-
nual subscription.
There are many other conference proceedings whose
international content has a tangential but important
impact on field system studies. Examples of topics dis-
cussed include the evolution and changing uses of the
north-west European coast line (Thoen et al 2013, re-
viewed in Curtis 2014); water management and utilisa-
tion (Squatriti 2000); agriculture in the medieval period
as reflected through technology, practice and contem-
porary illustrations (Sweeney 1995); the understand-
ing of weather and its application in the middle ages
(Ducos – Thomasset 1998); patterns of consumption
and standards of living in the medieval rural world
(Furio – Garcia-Oliver 2010), and a multi-disciplinary
approach to understanding manuring (Jones 2013). An
early and important wide-ranging multi-disciplinary
approach across Europe appeared as the proceedings
of the conference held in 1981 at Michigan State Uni-
versity (Biddick 1984). A growing number of volumes
take a multi-disciplinary look at work across Europe
(e.g. Astill – Langdon 1997).
Europe: a continent of contrasts
Historic landscapes are often studied within mod-
ern administrative units, ranging from civil parishes
to current countries. While this may be convenient for
defining project boundaries and sources of funding,
it can often be very misleading. While the boundaries
of England and Scotland remained relatively stable
throughout the middle ages, and Wales and Ireland
retained their identitity despite the superimposition
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
of English rule, the European mainland has gone
through many changes with the emergence, expan-
sion and disappearance of countries, and is still go-
ing through that process. Many years ago Martyn Jope
demonstrated that, even in medieval Britain, the mate-
rial culture of individual regions, ranging from the dis-
tinctive characteristics of craftsmen to architectural
styles, all overlap each other and none relate to political
or administrative boundaries of the period (Jope 1963).
Many historical studies have shown the same feature
on the European mainland (e.g. Hoffmann 1989; Scott
1998; Berend – Urbańczyk – Wiszewski 2013).
The historic landscapes of Europe reveal extreme
contrasts, exemplified by the nature of composite field
systems. Two distant areas will illustrate the point, one
from the low-lying coastal plain of the Low Countries,
the other in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula
colonised by the Muslims in the 8th century. Both il-
lustrate in very different ways how the natural envi-
ronment and man’s manipulation and exploitation of
it produces visually very different landscapes, which
demand very different approaches to understand their
remains and meaning.
Southern Spain was one of the regions of Europe in
which water played an important part. Irrigation of the
stepped fields employing sophisticated water channels
and water-lifting devices was introduced by the Arabs.
These systems have been studied from the documents
(Glick 1970; 1979, 51–109; 1995b, 64–91), while a com-
bination of documents and field survey has identified
them on the ground (e.g. Butzer et al 1985; Kirchner
2009). The same sources reveal the extensive use of
hydraulics within field systems (e.g. Glick 1992; Kirch-
ner and Navarro 1993; Trillo San Jose 2007).
In contrast water played a very different role in
north-west Europe (e.g. Squatriti 1998). Coastal wet-
lands subject to inundations from flooding along the
northern European coast were drained between the
9th and 14th centuries, creating extensive inland pol-
ders for arable farming (summarised in Hoffmann
2014, 136–139, 167–168; see also Damm 2002; Cur-
tis – Campopiano 2014 ). The water was controlled by
sophisticated sluice systems (e.g. Carmiggelt – Guiran
2002; Damm 2002; TeBrake 2000; 2002), while the
maintenance of the polders, dykes, watercourses and
sluices was administered by a well-developed system
of committees at both local or commune level and at re-
gional level (Kaijser 2002). Regional multi-disciplinary
studies have contributed to the complexity of reclaim-
ing land and controlling water, yet have allowed gener-
al trends to be understood (e.g. Bakker 2001; Leenders
2004; Cleveringa 2004; Ettema 2005). Initial clearance
and drainage had produced land ideal for cereal pro-
duction, but as the land gradually dried out and sank
it again became vulnerable to flooding and suitable
RURALIA X
1–48
only for cattle farming (Beenakker 1989). Settlement
and arable farming moved inland. The fluctuating in-
undations along the coast of north-west Europe has
recently been discussed in the setting of the environ-
ment of the North Sea coastal area (Thoen et al 2013).
Medieval irrigation and drainage systems can be en-
countered in various forms across many other parts
of Europe. Detailed survey of entire township field
systems in the Yorkshire Dales, England, has revealed
extensive irrigation channels within terraced field sys-
tems (Moorhouse in preparation, b), while drainage of
coastal wetlands was also important along the north-
ern coast of the Mediterranean.
Afterword
‘By studying any state of affairs as a whole, as the
sum of its parts and something more, we are often able
to understand it in a way we could not have other-
wise done. This is a commonplace but like many com-
monplaces is important and often forgotten.’ (Homans
1941, 3)
This quote appears as the first sentence of George
Homans’ classic book on the documentary evidence
for medieval villagers in the 13th century. This was the
first attempt to approach that subject holistically and
emphasises the importance of appreciating the whole
before any part of it can be understood. It reflects the
aims of this paper in attempting to take an overview of
the many approaches that can be used to understand
medieval field systems, Key points of this paper can be
summarized as follows:
• Composite field systems include the full range of
farming requirements within the township, some-
times supplemented by intercommoning rights be-
yond its boundaries
• There is a correlation between the natural environ-
ment (geography, geology and climate), the types of
farming practised and the form of the farming land-
scape which was created. However this cannot be
viewed in crude deterministic terms; it is a product
of human decisions, based upon perceptions of op-
portunities, available technologies and a wide range
of cultural factors.
• The best-understood field systems are the large open
fields which cover most of the township. There is a
wealth of documentation for open fields, including
detailed estate maps, and, where they are preserved
in physical form as ridge and furrow, their visual
impact seen from the air can be stunning. However
there are many other areas which concentrate on
pastoral, rather than arable farming. In between
these two extremes the range of field system types is
infinite.
25
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
• Townships often formed the building blocks of the
estates of other institutions. As such they could con-
tain special features imposed on their landscape,
such as the bread oven and corn mill. This empha-
sises the importance of total landscape survey, so
that everything is recorded, its details assessed and
the chronology revealed.
• Medieval field systems have to be studied as part of
the complex contemporary landscape which they
formed part. They cannot and should not be seen in
isolation.
• Field systems often went through many changes,
sometimes dramatic ones, so the surviving pattern
of fields can often hide a complex development.
• Accurate recording of the earthwork remains of field
systems is essential to provide detailed plans from
which interpretations of their functions and chrono-
logical evolution and changes can be deduced. Work-
ing from sketch survey, aerial photographs or LIDAR
cannot provide this.
• Historic landscapes were created by people. An un-
derstanding of those who worked the land and those
who managed it will help understand what they cre-
ated.
The choice of ‘Afterword’ to head this last section, in
preference to ‘Conclusion’ or ‘Epilogue’, indicates that
it represents a stage in the process of understanding,
rather than a final word. This paper could not attempt
to examine the development of medieval field systems
across Europe in all their enormous variety. Instead it
has looked at the study of a range of field systems from
an overview of the variety of disciplines that have been
employed, and others that could be useful in the future
– in effect what has been called ‘processes and proce-
dures’ (Moorhouse 2008b), the necessary disciplines
to be used and the sequence in which they take place.
The evidence from a number of fringe disciplines not
normally associated with studies of medieval field sys-
tems has been explored. The vitally important role of
the influences on the physical form of field systems,
and why, how and by whom they were created and
managed has also been considered.
As has been discussed throughout this paper, the
written records are the best single source of infor-
mation, without which it would be impossible to un-
derstand medieval field systems and the medieval
landscape at large. Medieval documents provide the
framework for understanding the structure of the
townships and the field systems which they contain.
As well as outlining the overall plan and development
of the medieval landscape, they also illuminate the de-
tail of its discrete elements, such as the arrangement
of medieval manorial and industrial complexes. Later
maps and field-names allow the physical form of town-
ships and their composite field systems to be identified.
26
1–48
Having understood the composition of medieval
landscapes from the various strands of the documen-
tary evidence, that information can be extended using
a variety of archaeological techniques, particularly aer-
ial photography, LIDAR and detailed field survey, Aerial
photography and LIDAR can assist the appreciation of
the layout of field systems, though they have severe
limitations for revealing detail or chronology. Field-
work can identify their physical form on the ground
but only accurate measured survey at the appropriate
scale can identify the anatomy of medieval earthwork
landscapes, their detail and chronology. Geophysical
survey and excavation also have a part to play. Exca-
vation is the only destructive technique among these
and, as such, should be the last to be considered; yet,
all too often, it is the only approach used.
Not all of the sources discussed here are available,
or have been considered, across Europe. Neverthe-
less, the greater the variety of evidence considered, the
more reliable the understanding of medieval field sys-
tems and past landscapes in general becomes; and the
deeper the understanding, the more awareness is cre-
ated, not only of how much is known, but also of what
we still have to understand. More importantly, the level
of understanding affects the range of valid questions
that can legitimately be asked in areas where surviving
evidence is less prolific. The lessons learnt in England
over the past century or more have provided a launch
pad for future work, highlighting valid questions that
can be raised across Europe and identifying approach-
es that can be taken with the available evidence.
As stated in the introduction, this paper has not
attempted to cover every aspect of medieval farming.
Some topics of major importance, such as woodland
clearances, so common particularly in central Europe,
and the essential role of animal husbandry, have only
been touched on in passing. Considerable work has
been carried out on these and other topics, for exam-
ple, woodland management in medieval Champagne
(Keyser 2009) and the importance and effect of the
chestnut tree in the changing landscape of medieval
Italy (Squatriti 2013). Many other important sources
are given in the bibliography to Richard Hoffman’s im-
portant book on the environmental history of medieval
Europe (Hoffman 2014, 378–390).
Concentration has been placed on the philosophy of
how corporate field systems can be understood, thus
enabling the full range of topics to emerge and be con-
sidered together as a concept, from which an under-
standing of medieval field systems, and the medieval
landscape at large, can be identified.
In a wide-ranging survey of historic field systems
across Europe, Hans Renes has recently discussed
the present state of knowledge (Renes 2010b); most
importantly, he has identified the differences in many
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
aspects of the subject: in the survival of historic fields,
the documentary evidence (written and maps), historic
names and modern terminology, and the approach of
different scholars across Europe based on traditional
regional views.
The medieval landscape forms one horizon within a
multi-layered landscape sandwich that has developed
from earliest settled times. Various elements survive
within each successive phase, making the palimpsest
plan difficult to understand. Over much of Europe me-
dieval field systems form the core of the existing land-
scape, but they are impossible to understand on their
own. An appreciation of this medieval landscape is de-
pendent on the understanding of the major influences
that dictated its creation and development: the town-
ship, manor, parish, and larger estate. Each exacted
demands that created specific layouts. The key to un-
derstanding these is an appreciation of the vast body
of documentation that was created for many reasons,
but mainly to prove ownership, for accounting income
and expenditure and for management purposes.
While work in individual disciplines can contrib-
ute valuable information, it is their blending together
that provides the greatest stimulus for understanding
historic landscapes. Often work in specific disciplines
has to be adapted for this purpose. Studies of names
provide a good example. Name elements often acquire
a different local meaning from the original root sense
recognised by onomasts, which can only be under-
stood by seeing what they relate to in the landscape.
In other disciplines an appreciation of what sources
can offer is important: as noted earlier, medieval docu-
ments were created for a wide variety of purposes, but
never for the modern landscape historian, and their
limitations as well as their value for such work have to
be understood.
Despite the difficulties of the challenge, there are
many excellent examples of scholars who have suc-
cessfully merged information across academic fron-
tiers. The environmentalist Richard Hoffman (e.g.
Hoffmann 2014) and the historian Bruce Campbell
(e.g. Campbell 2000; 2010) have each looked at historic
landscapes in an interdisciplinary way, while at the
same time using their own skills to develop a new, re-
freshing and a more complete picture of their common
subject. Perhaps the best example is George Homans,
a world renowned sociologist, who wrote his pioneer-
ing book on the 13th century English peasant (Ho-
mans 1941), not as a pure historical exercise, but as an
expression of illustrating the importance of sociology
in the medieval period. The many reviews of the book
from scholars in different disciplines, each approach-
ing the review from their own disciplines, and thereby
adding much to the understanding of the volume, is
noted above (p. 6).
RURALIA X
1–48
Finally, the more conventional modern approaches
can usefully be supplemented by other sources which
have not normally been considered, such as medie-
val literary works, treatises and poetry. These uncon-
ventional sources have been treated at greater length
with more references here, to illustrate the wealth of in-
formation they can provide for understanding medieval
field systems. Some of the ideas noted above have been
discussed in important papers in previous volumes
of Ruralia (e.g. Klír 2009; 2011; Iverson 2013; Zatykó
2013, apart from many referred to throughout this
paper).
Appendix 1
This appendix lists sources for the published works,
either on line or in print, of some of the authors who
have made a significant contribution to the study of
medieval field systems. Some are not normally as-
sociated with a particular speciality in medieval field
systems, nevertheless their work contributes to our
understanding. Where no bibliography of published
works could be found reference is made to the most
complete list of works published elsewhere (e.g. Profes-
sor H C Darby).
Professor Mick Aston / Hall 2007
Dr Alan Baker / Black – Butlin 2001, 345–357
Professor Mark Bailey / academia.edu
Professor Bruce Campbell / www.gab.ac.uk/schools/
gap/Staff/academic-staff/rad,206977,en.pdf
Professor H C Darby / Baker 2003, 238–239
‘Darby, H C’
Professor Petra J E M van Dam / www.let.vu.nl/
organisatie-van-de-faculteit/wetenschappeliijk-
personeel/
Professor Robert A Dodghson www.aber.ac.uk/en/
iges/staff/academic-staff/rad
Professor C C Dyer / Goddard 2010, 287–294
Dr Harold Fox / Jones 2012
Dr E. García-Sánchez / dialnet.unirioga.es/servlet/
autor?codigo212639
Dr Mark Gardiner / academia.edu
Dr J-L Gaulin / http://ciham.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/
membres/jean-louis-gaulin
Professor F Glick / thomafglick.com.articles.html
Dr David Hall / Lane – Coles 2002, 147–150
Dr Mary Harvey / Wrathmell 2012, 377, ‘Harvey, M’
Professor Rodney Hilton / Birrell 1983, 319–322
Professor Richard Hoffmann / www.yorku.ca/
gradhist/faculttypro/Hoffmann.html
Dr Della Hooke / Brepols online IMB
27
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Dr Richard Jones / academia.edu
Professor John Langdon / Brepols online IMB
Professor Edward Miller / Britnell – Hatcher 1996,
308–317
Professor Janken Myrdal / Myrdal – Morell 2011,
319–320, ‘Myrdal, J’; www.agrahistoria.se/en/
janken-myrdal/
Dr Susan Oosthuizen / academia.edu
Dr Arnelle Querrien / lamop.univ-paris1.fr/
telechargements/QUERRIEN.pdf
Dr Hans Renes / academia.edu
Professor Steven Rippon / humanities.exeter.ac.uk/
archaeology/staff/rippon/publications
Professor Brian Roberts / Brepols online IMB
Professor William Sayers / academicsweb.org/ws36
Dr Rainer Schreg / academia.edu
Dr June A Sheppard / Manby – Moorhouse – Ottaway
2003, 425, ‘Sheppard, J.A.’
Dr Chris Taylor / Everson – Williamson 1998,
183–189; Pattison – Field – Ainsworth 1999, xiii–xvi
Professor H Thorpe / Slater 1982, 26–28
Professor Tom Williamson / www.uea.ac.ak/history/
people/profile/t-williamson#publicationsTab
Professor Angus Winchester / www.research.lancs.
ac.uk/portal/angus-wichester(cd3458cd-6d83- 4914-
9cbd-deel17fflce3)/publications.html
Lists of published works by the members of aca-
demia.edu can be accessed by non-members by sim-
ply signing up free of charge. Many of the papers cited
can be read through the pdf file, particularly the more
recent ones which are often still the copyright of the
publishing organisation.
There are a number of European-based online bib-
liographies of published works on medieval subjects.
The most wide-ranging is the International Medieval
Bibliography produced by the Institute of Medieval
Studies in the School of History at the University of
Leeds. From 1968 up to 2005 this was produced as
printed texts, mostly two large volumes per year; it has
since been continued in digital format. The entire fully
cross-referenced bibliography from 1968 is available
on the Brepols website, with over 480,000 entries so
far. Unfortunately it can only be accessed from par-
ticipating institutions. Each of the volumes printed
up to 2005 contains lists of the journals searched for
that volume, along with a separate list of the volumes
of Festschriften, conference proceedings and collected
essays covered by that volume. Both lists provide a
unique source of academic publications on all medi-
eval topics across Europe. The quantity and variety
28
1–48
of material is phenomenal; for example volume 29,
part 1, for the first half of 1995, lists 179 Festschriften,
conference proceedings and volumes of collected es-
says . These lists do not occur in the online version.
Summary
The purpose of this paper is to take stock of what
has been happening in the study of medieval field sys-
tems across Europe and to set out an approach that
will hopefully carry a co-ordinated study into the fu-
ture. It explores the philosophy behind the various
disciplines and processes by which medieval field
systems can be understood. It examines the organi-
sations that influenced the creation of field systems,
particularly the township, the land unit within which
these operated. The contributions from a number of
disciplines, and how they have come together to form
the modern approach to the subject is explored. Sug-
gestions have been made from best practice as to how
the subject can develop. The variable creation and sur-
vival rate of medieval documentation across Europe
is considered. By far the largest quantity and widest
variety of useable material for understanding field
systems exists in England, and this has been used
for this purpose by scholars not only from England,
but from across northern Europe, from the 19th cen-
tury. Though consideration of English field systems
forms the core of this paper, it is linked into compa-
rable work on the continent. A number of peripheral
sources, not normally considered for understanding
field systems, is explored, such as manuscript illus-
trations, contemporary poetry and medieval language
teaching aids. The importance of accurately surveying
earthwork field systems within the territories within
which they were created and used is stressed. The pa-
per concludes with an appendix containing references
to published works by scholars who have made major
contributions to the subject. The paper hopefully pro-
vides the range of tools that, when used effectively to-
gether, will allow the complex nature of field systems to
be recognised and their regional forms to emerge, and
allow the changes through time that occurred in many
regions to be understood.
Zusammenfassung
Ziel dieser Arbeit ist eine Bilanzierung der bishe-
rigen Erforschung mittelalterlicher Feldsysteme in
Europa, um dadurch einen integrativen Ansatz für
zukünftige Studien zu erarbeiten. Es werden die me-
thodischen Grundlagen verschiedener Disziplinen
erörtert, welche mittelalterliche Feldsysteme analysie-
ren. Insbesondere die Zusammenarbeit unterschied-
licher Disziplinen hat dazu beigetragen einen moder-
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
nen Ansatz herauszuarbeiten, der sowohl Anregungen
in Richtung einer “best practice”-Arbeitsmethode als
auch weiterführende methodische Entwicklungen zu-
lässt. Berücksichtigt werden die aktuellen Beiträge
zum Thema von Nachbardisziplinen. Bedacht werden
ferner die unterschiedlichen Dokumentationsüberlie-
ferungen in Europa. Aufgrund der unterschiedlich gu-
ten Ausgangslage stehen England und seine mittelal-
terlichen Feldsysteme im Zentrum dieser Analyse, die
über einen vergleichenden Ansatz auch eine Verbin-
dung zu Kontinentaleuropa ermöglicht. Diverse weite-
re Quellen, die normalerweise für das Verständnis der
Feldsysteme nicht berücksichtigt werden, finden hier
Beachtung, wie z.B. literarische Abbildungen, zeitge-
nössische Poesie und mittelalterlichen Sprachlehrmit-
tel. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem umfangreichen bi-
bliographischen Anhang. Der Artikel stellt Hilfsmittel
bereit, die helfen die komplexen Strukturen von Feld-
systemen leichter zu erkennen sowie regionale Ausfor-
mung und zeitliche Veränderungen zu unterscheiden.
Resumé
Le but de l’article est d’analyser les études des sys-
tèmes agraires médiévaux à travers l’Europe et de
mettre en place une approche qui, espérons-le, portera
une étude coordonnée dans le futur.
L’article explore la philosophie derrière les diffé-
rentes disciplines et procédés par lesquels l’occupa-
tion du sol médiéval peut être comprise. Il examine
les organisations qui ont influencé la création des
systèmes agraires, particulièrement les communau-
tés villageoises, qui sont l’unité de territoire au sein
de laquelle ceux-ci fonctionnent. Les contributions de
différentes disciplines et comment elles interfèrent
pour former une approche du sujet sont également
explorées. Des suggestions basées sur les meilleures
pratiques sont faites pour analyser comment le sujet
évolue. Est pris en considération le pourcentage de
survivance des archives médiévales à travers l’Europe
et une variable a été créée. La plus grande et diverse
variété de documents utilisables pour comprendre
les systèmes agraires se trouve en Angleterre. Ils
sont utilisés à cet effet par les chercheurs, non seule-
ment anglais mais de toute l’Europe du Nord depuis
le 19e siècle. Alors que l’étude des systèmes agraires
anglais forme le cœur de cet article, il est lié avec des
recherches comparables sur le continent. Un certain
nombre de sources périphériques, qui ne sont pas
habituellement prises en considération pour com-
prendre les systèmes agraires sont explorées, comme
les enluminures, la poésie médiévale et les manuels di-
dactiques médiévaux. L’importance d’une surveillance
adéquate de la survivance des traces agraires dans le
paysage au sein des territoires où ils ont été crées et
RURALIA X
1–48
utilisés est soulignée. L’article se conclu par une an-
nexe contenant les références des ouvrages publiés
par les chercheurs qui ont apportés des contributions
majeures au sujet.
Acknowledgements
The introduction was written by JB and the remain-
der substantially by SM. As ever, the wives of both au-
thors have been heavily involved. One author (JB) has
been diligent in proof reading the final text, and saved
the other (SM) from many embarrassments in the bib-
liography. SM would like to thank his wife for reading
many versions, making numerous comments and sug-
gesting changes to the order and presentation of the
text, through a very difficult year health wise.
Bibliography
Aberth, J. 2010:
From the Brink of the Apocalypse: Confronting Famine, War,
Plague and Death in the Later Middle Ages. 2nd edition. Lon-
don. Routledge.
Aberth, J. 2012:
An Environmental History of the Middle Ages: The Crucible
of Nature. Abingdon. Taylor Francis.
Adams, I.H. (ed) 1976:
Agrarian Landscapes Terms: A Glossary for Historical Geog-
raphers. Institute of British Geographers, Special Publication
no. 9.
Adams, M. 1996:
Excavation of a pre-Conquest cemetery at Addingham, West
Yorkshire. Medieval Archaeology 40, 151–191.
Addy, S.O. 1924:
Thomas Swyft, author of the Catholican Anglicum, Transac-
tions of the Hunter Archaeological Society 2, 301–308.
Alexander, J. 1990:
Labeur and Paresse: ideological representations of medieval
peasant labour, The Art Bulletin 72:3, 436–452.
Alexandre, P. 1987:
Le Climate en Europe au Moyen Âge. Paris.
Ambler, J. – Langdon, J. 1994:
Lordship and peasant consumerism in the milling industry
of the early fourteenth-century England. Past and Present
145, 3–46.
Ambrosoli, M. 1984:
Lettoriu e chiosatori delle edizioni a stampa di Pier de’ Cre-
scenzi tra 1474 e 1561, Rivista storica italiana 96:2, 360–413.
Arensberg, C.M. 1941:
Review of Homans 1941, American Journal of Sociology 47:3,
491–493.
Astill, G. – Grant, A. (eds) 1988:
The Countryside of Medieval England. Oxford. Blackwell.
29
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Astill, G. – Langdon, J. (eds) 1997:
Medieval Farming and Technology: The Impact of Agricultur-
al Change in Northwest Europe. Technology and Change in
History 1. Leiden.
Aston, M. 1985:
Interpreting the Landscape: Landscape Archaeology in Local
Studies. London. Batsford.
Aston, M. – Austin, D. – Dyer, C. (eds) 1989:
The Rural Settlements of Medieval England: Studies Dedi-
cated to Maurice Beresford and John Hurst. Oxford. Basil
Blackwell.
Aston, M. – Rowley, T. (eds) 1974
Landscape Archaeology: an Introduction to Fieldwork Tech-
niques on Post-Roman Landscapes. Newton Abbot. David and
Charles.
Aston, T.H. – Coss, P.R. – Dyer, C. – Thirsk, J. (eds) 1983:
Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R.H. Hilton.
Cambridge University Press,
Ault, W.O. 1954:
Village by-laws by common consent, Speculum 29:2, 378–394.
Ault, W.O. 1960:
Village assemblies in medieval England, in: Album Helen
Maude Cam: Studies Presented to the International Commis-
sion for the History of Representative and Parliamentary In-
stitutions 23. Paris, 11–35.
Ault, W.O. 1965:
Open-field Husbandry and the Village Community: A Study
of Agrarian By-laws in Medieval England. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society new series 55 part 7, 1–102.
[Revised introduction and translated appendix into English
appearing as Ault 1972]
Ault, W.O. 1970:
The village church and the village community in mediaeval
England, Speculum 45:2, 197–215.
Ault, W.O. 1972:
Open Field Farming in Medieval England: A Study of Village
By-Laws. Historical Problems: Studies and Documents 16.
London. George Allen and Unwin. [revised version of Ault
1965 with amended introduction and an English translation
of the same Latin bylaws].
Ault, W.O. 1982:
The vill in medieval England, Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 126:3, 188–211.
Austin, D. 1990:
Medieval settlement in north-east England – retrospect, sum-
mary and prospect, in: Vyner, B. (ed) Medieval Settlement in
North-East England. Architectural and Archaeological So-
ciety for Durham and Northumberland Research Report 2,
141–150.
Backhouse, J. 2000:
Medieval Rural Life in the Luttrell Psalter. London. The Brit-
ish Library.
Bailey, M. 1990:
Sand into gold: the evolution of the foldcourse system in west
Suffolk, 1200–1600, Agricultural History Review 38, 40–57.
Bailey, M. 2009:
The form, function and evolution of irregular field systems
30
1–48
in Suffolk, c.1300– c.1500, Agricultural History Review 57,
15–36.
Bailey, M. 2010:
Beyond the Midland field system. The determinants of com-
mon rights over arable in medieval England, Agricultural His-
tory Review 58:2, 153–171.
Baker, A.R.H. 1965:
Howard Levi Gray and ‘English Field Systems’: an evaluation,
Agricultural History 39:2, 86–91.
Baker, A.R.H. 1969:
Some terminological problems in studies of British field sys-
tems, Agricultural History Review 17, 136–140.
Baker, A.R.H. 1979:
Observations on the open fields: the present position of stud-
ies in British field systems, Journal of Historical Geography
5:3, 297–314.
Baker, A.R.H. 1983:
Discourses on British field systems, Agricultural History Re-
view 31:2, 149–155.
Baker, A.R.H. 1988:
Historical geography and the study of the European rural
landscape. Geografisca Annaler. Series B, Human Geography,
70:1. Landscape History, 5–16.
Baker, A.R.H. 2003:
Geography and History: Bridging the Divide. Cambridge
Studies in Historical Geography. Cambridge University Press.
Baker, A.R.H. 2007:
Classifying geographical history, The Professional Geogra-
pher 59:3, 344–356.
Baker, A.R.H. – Butlin, R.A. (eds) 1973:
Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Baker, A.R.H. – Hamshere, J.D. – Langton, J. (eds) 1970:
Geographical Interpretations of Historical Sources: Readings
in Historical Geography. Newton Abbot. David and Charles.
Baker, A.R.H. – Harley, J.B. (eds) 1973:
Man Made the Land: Essays in English Historical Geography.
Newton Abbot. David and Charles.
Bakker, G. 2001:
Het ontstaan van het Sneekermeer in relatie tot de ontgin-
ning van een laagveegebied, 950–1300, Tijschrift voor Water-
staatsgeschiedenis 10:2, 54–66.
Balassa, I. 1994:
A magyar földmüvelès emlékei a 9–10. százabdól. in: Ko-
vács, L. (ed) Honfoglalás és régészet (A honfoglalásról sok
szemmel I. Budapest. Balassi Kiadó, 235–246.
Balestracci, D. (ed) 1999:
The Renaissance in the Fields: Family Memoirs of a Fifteenth-
Century Peasant. Translated by Squatriti, P. – Merideth, B.
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Barceló, M. – Siguat, F. (eds) 2004:
The Making of Feudal Agriculture? The Transformation of
the Roman World, 14. Leiden, Brill.
Barnes, G. – Williamson, T., 2006:
Hedgerow History: Ecology, History and Landscape Charac-
ter. Macclesfield. Windgather Press, Reviewed in Riley 2007.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Barnes, G. – Williamson, T., 2011:
Ancient Trees in the Landscape: Norfolk’s Arboreal Heritage.
Macclesfield. Windgather Press.
Barnwell, P.S. – Roberts, B.K. (eds) 2011:
Britons, Saxons and Scandinavians: The Historical Geogra-
phy of Glanville R.J. Jones. Turnhout. Brepols.
Bartlett, R. 1993:
The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural
Change 950–1350. London. Allan Lane.
Bauman, J. 2002:
Tradition and transformation: the pleasure garden in Pie-
tro de’ Crescenzi’s Liber ruralium Commodorum, Studies in
the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes (2002),
99–141.
Beckerman, J.S. 1972:
Customary law in English manorial courts in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries. Unpublished PhD, University of
London thesis.
Beckerman, J.S. 1992:
Procedural innovation and institutional change in medieval
English manorial courts, Law and History Review 10:2, 197–
252.
Beenakker, J.J.M. 1989:
De beheersing van het binnenwater. Gevolgen voor het
grondgebruik in westelijk West-Friesland, 1250–1650, Eco-
nomisch-en social-historisch jaarboek: Uitgegeven door de
vereniging ‘Het Nederlandsch Econimisch-Historisch Archief
52, 59–71
Berand, N. – Urbańczyk, P. – Wiszewski, P. 2013:
Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hunga-
ry and Poland, c.900–c.1300. Cambridge Medieval Studies.
Cambridge University Press.
Berlioz, J. 1998:
La catastrophe du lac d’Oisans (septembre 1219), in: Ber-
lioz, J. (ed) Catastrophes naturelles et calamités au Moyen
Âge. Florence. Edizioni del galluzzo, 141–157.
Besnier, R. 1972:
Structures rurales et regimes juridiques del’agriculture fran-
çaise d’hier et d’aujourd’hui, Mémoires de in Société pour
l’histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays bour-
guignons, comtois et romands 29, 79–102.
Biddick, K. (ed) 1984.
Archaeological Approaches to Medieval Europe. Studies in
Medieval Culture 16. Medieval Institute Publications, Western
Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Billick, D.J. – Dworkin, S.N. 1984a:
An annotated bibliography of glossaries, vocabularies, word
lists and concordances based on or appended to editions of
medieval Spanish texts, La Corónica: Spanish Medieval Lan-
guage and Literature Journal and Newsletter 13:1, 104–129.
Billick, D.J. – Dworkin, S.N. 1984b:
An annotated bibliography of glossaries, vocabularies, word
lists and concordances based on or appended to editions of
medieval Spanish texts, La Corónica: Spanish Medieval Lan-
guage and Literature Journal and Newsletter 13:2, 262–283.
Billick, D.J. – Dworkin, S.N. 1985:
An annotated bibliography of glossaries, vocabularies, word
RURALIA X
1–48
lists and concordances based on or appended to editions of
medieval Spanish texts, La Corónica: Spanish Medieval Lan-
guages and Literature Journal and Newsletter 14:1, 131–165.
Bilsky, L.J. (ed) 1980:
Historical Ecology: Essays on Environment and Social
Change. National University Publications. Kennikat Press.
Birrell, J. (compiled) 1983:
Bibliography of R.H. Hilton’s works to January 1982, in: As-
ton et al. 1983, 319–322.
Black, I.S. – Butlin, R.A. (eds) 2001:
Place, Culture and Identity: Essays in Historical Geography
in Honour of Alan R.H. Baker. Sainte-Foy, Québec. Presses de
l’Université Laval.
Blickle, P. 2009:
Communalism as a concept. in: Dahlerup, T. – Ingesman, P.
(eds) New Approaches to the History of Late Medieval and
Early Modern Europe: Selected Proceedings of Two Interna-
tional Conferences at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences
and Letters in Copenhagen in 1997 and 1999, Historisk-
filosofiske Meddelelser, 104, 60–75.
Blockmans, W – Hoppenbrouwers, P. 2014:
Introduction to Medieval Europe, 1300–1550. Translated by
Isola van den Hoven. London. Routledge 2nd ed.
Blum, J. 1971:
The interrnal structure and polity of the European village
community from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century, The
Journal of Modern History 43:4, 541–576.
Bonfield, L. 1989:
The nature of customary law in the manor courts of medieval
England, Comparative Studies in Society and History 31:3,
514–534.
Bos, G. – Burnett, C. 2000:
Scientific Weather Forcasting in the Middle Ages: The Writ-
ings of Al-Kindi. Studies, Editions and Translations of the
Arabic, Hebrew and Latin Texts. London. Kegan Paul Inter-
national.
Bowden, M. (ed) 1999:
Unravelling the Landscape: An Inquisitive Enquiry to Archae-
ology. Stroud. Tempus Publishing.
Bowden, M. – Brown, G. – Smith, N. 2009:
An Archaeology of Town Commons in England ‘A Very Fair
Field Indeed’. London. English Heritage.
Bradford-Smith, E. – Wolfe, M.(eds) 1997:
Technology and Resources Use in Medieval Europe: Cathe-
drals, Mills and Mines. Aldershot. Ashgate.
Brandon, P.F. 1971a:
Agriculture and the effects of floods and weather at Barn-
horne in Sussex during the later Middle Ages, Sussex Ar-
chaeological Collections 109, 69–93.
Brandon, P.F. 1971b:
Late-medieval weather in Sussex and its agricultural signifi-
cance, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
54, 1–17
Bremmer, R.H. jr 1993:
Dutch and/or Frisian: North Sea Germanic aspects in Dutch
etymological dictionaries in past and future. in: Bremner,
R.H. jr – Berg, J. van den (eds) Current Trends in West Ger-
31
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe 1–48

man Etymological Lexicography: Proceedings of the Sympo-
sium held in Amsterdam, 12–13 June 1989. Leiden, Brill,
17–36.
Briggs, C., forthcoming:
Manorial court roll inventories as evidence for English peas-
ant consumption and living standards, c.1270–c.1420. in:
Furio – Garcia-Oliver, forthcoming. Text available at www.
eprints.soton.ac.uk/79789/Chris_Briggs.
Brimblecombe, P., 1995:
Meteorological service in fifteenth-century Sandwich, Envi-
ronment and History 1:2, 241–149.
Brink, S. 1995:
Gamie land, bygder og district i midt-Norden, Spor: Fortid-
snytt fra Midt-Norge 20, 26–29.
Britnell, R. (ed) 2014:
Durham Priory Manorial Accounts 1277–1310, Publications
of the Surtees Society 218.
Britnell, R. – Hatcher, J. (eds) 1996:
Progress and Problems in Medieval England: Essays in Hon-
our of Edward Miller. Cambridge University Press.
Britton, E. 1977:
The Community of the Vill: A Study in the History of the Fam-
ily and Village Life in Fourteenth-Century England. Macmil-
lan of Canada.
Brown, G. 2005:
Irrigation of water meadows in England, in: Klápště 2005,
84–92.9
Brown, M. (commentary) 2006a:
The Luttrell Psalter: A Facsimile. London. The British Li-
brary.
Brown, M.P. 2006b:
The World of the Luttrell Psalter. London. The British Li-
brary.
Bullough, D.A. 1969:
Early medieval social groupings: the terminology of kinship,
Past and Present 45, 3–18.
Burrow, J.A. 1957:
The audience of Piers Plowman, Anglia 75, 373–384.
Burrow, J.A. 2007:
The two ploughs of Piers Plowman (B XIX 430), Notes and
Queries 252, 123–124.
Burrow, J.A. 2012:
The old and new ploughs in Piers Plowman. in: Burrow, J.A.
(ed.) English Poets in the later Middle Ages: Chaucer, Lang-
land and others. Farnham. Ashgate, 1–6.
Butler, L. 1982:
The Labours of the Months and ‘the Haunted Tanglewood’:
aspects of late twelfth century sculpture in Yorkshire, Pro-
ceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Lit-
erary and Historical Section 18:1, 79–95.
Butlin, R.A. 1961:
Some terms used in agrarian history, Agricultural History
Review 9, 98–104.
Butlin, R.A. 1969:
Recent developments in studies of the terminology of agrar-
ian landscapes, Agricultural History Review 17, 141–143.
Butzer, K.W. – Mateu, J.F. – Kraus, P. 1985;
Irrigation agrosystems in eastern Spain: Roman or Islamic
origins?, Annals of the Association of American Geographers
75, 479–509.
Byrne, E.H. 1942:
Review of Homans 1941, Catholic Historical Review 28:1,
108–109.
Calkins, R.G. 1986:
Piero de’ Crescenzi and the medieval garden. in Macdougall
1986, 155–173.
Camille, M. 1987:
Labouring for the lord: the ploughman and the social order in
the Luttrell Psalter, Art History 10:4, 423–454.
Camille, M. 1992:
Image on the Edge: the Margins of Medieval Art. Cambridge
Massachusetts.
Camille, M. 1995:
‘When Adam delved’: labouring on the land in English medi-
eval art, in: Sweeney 1995, 247–276.
Camille, M. 1998:
Mirror in Parchment: The Luttrell Psalter and the Making of Me-
dieval England. Chicago.
Campbell, B.M.S. 1988:
Towards an agricultural geography of medieval England, Ag-
ricultural History Review 36, 87–98.
Campbell, B.M.S. 1989:
Laying the foundations: the Agrarian History of England and
Wales 1042–1350, Agricultural History Review 37, 188–192.
Review of Hallam 1988.
Campbell, B.M.S. 1995:
Ecology versus economics in late thirteenth- and early four-
teenth century English agriculture, in: Sweeney 1995, 76–
110.
Campbell, B.M.S. 2000:
English Seigniorial Agriculture, 1250–1450. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Campbell, B.M.S. 2004:
North-south dichotomies, 1066–1500, in: Baker, A.R.H. –
Billinge, M. (eds), Geographies of England: the North-South
Divide, Material and Imagined. Cambridge University Press,
88–111.
Campbell, B.M.S. 2007:
The Medieval Antecedents of English Agricultural Progress.
Variorum Collected Studies Series. Farnham. Ashgate Vari-
orum.
Campbell, B.M.S. 2008:
Field Systems and Farming Systems in Late Medieval Eng-
land. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Farnham. Ashgate
Variorum.
Campbell, B.M.S. 2010a:
Nature as historical protagonist; environment and society
in pre-industrial England, Economic History Review 63:2,
281–314.
Campbell, B.M.S. 2010b:
Physical shocks, biological hazards and human impacts of
the fourteenth century revisited, in: Cavaciocchi S. (ed) Eco-

32 RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
nomic and Biological Interactions in Pre-industrial Europe
from the 13th to the 18th Century. Firenze University Press,
13–32.
Campbell, B.M.S. – Bartley, K. 2006:
England on the Eve of the Black Death: An Atlas of the Lay
Lordship, Land and Wealth, 1300–1349. Manchester Univer-
sity Press.
Capuano, T. M. 1994:
The agricultural texts appended to a fourteenth-century Ibe-
rian translation of Palladius, Manuscripta 38:3, 253–263
Capuano, T.M. 2006:
Una nueva version catana del opus agriculturae de Palladius,
Romance Philology 59:2, 231–239.
Capuano, T.M. 2012:
The Romance translation of Geoffrey of Franconia’s Pelz-
buch [late medieval treatise on viticulture], Mediaevistik 24,
175–217.
Carmiggelt, A. – Guiran, T. 2002:
Archeologie en historie van de sluizen in de Rotte-dam, Rot-
terdams Jaarboekje ser. 10, 10, 166–177.
Cate, J.L. 1942:
Review of Homans 1941, Speculum 17:3, 420–422.
Chapman, J. 2009:
Field systems and enclosure. in: Kitchin, R. – Thrift, N. (eds)
International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography, 12 vols,
Amsterdam. Elsevier , IV, 112–118.
Ciggaar, K.N. 2002:
Bilingual word lists and phrase lists: for teaching or for trav-
elling?, in: Macrides, R. (ed) Travel in the Byzantine World: Pa-
pers from the Thirty-Fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantium
Studies, Birmingham, April 2000. Society for the Promotion
of Byzantine Studies, 10. Aldershot. Ashgate, 165–178.
Ciriacono, S. 2007:
Transmissione techlogia e sistemi idraulici, in: Braunstein, P.
– Mola, L. (eds) Il Rinascimento italiano e l’Europe, 3: Produzi-
one e tecniche, 439–456.
Clapham, J.H. – Power, E. 1941:
Cambridge Economic History of Europe from the Decline of
the Roman Empire. Cambridge University Press.
Clark, J. (ed) 2004:
The Medieval Horse and its Equipment. 2nd ed. Medieval
Finds from Excavations in London. Woodbridge. Boydell
Press and the Museum of London.
Cleveringa, P. 2004:
‘So grot overvlot der watere …’. Ein bijdrage aan het modeme
multidiscipliinaire onderzoek naar de St. Elisabethsvloeden
en de periode die daaraan voorafgging. Holland 36:3, 162–
180.
Coates, R. 2007:
South-West English dumball, dumble, dunball, ‘pasture sub-
ject to (occasional) tidal flooding’, Journal of the English
Place-Name Society 39, 59–72.
Cochran, S.F. 2009:
The plough’s the thing: a new solution to Old English Riddle
4 of the Exeter Book, Journal of English and Germanic Phi-
lology 108:3, 301–309.
RURALIA X
1–48
Collins, M. – Davis, V. 1991:
A Medieval Book of Seasons. London. Sidgwick and Jack-
son,
Conedera, M. – Vassere, S. – Neff, C. – Meurer, M. – Krebs, P.
2007:
Using toponomy to reconstruct past land use: a case study of
‘brüsáda’ (burn) in southern Switzerland, Journal of Histori-
cal Geography 33, 729–748.
Cook, H. – Stearne, K. – Williamson, T. 2003:
The origin of water meadows in England, Agricultural His-
tory Review 51:2, 155–162.
Cook. H. – Williamson, T. (eds) 1999:
Water Management in the English Landscape: Field, Marsh
and Meadow. Keele University Press.
Cook, H. – Williamson, T. (eds) 2007:
Water Meadows, History, Ecology and Conservation. Maccles-
field, Windgather Press.
Cooter, W.S. 1978;
Ecological dimensions of medieval agrarian systems, Agricul-
tural History 52:4, 458–477. For responses see Loomis 1978;
Raftis 1978.
Cooter W.S. 1984:
Environmental, ecological and agricultural systems: ap-
proaches to stimulation modelling applications for medieval
temperate Europe, in: Biddick 1984, 159–170.
Costamboys, M. – Innes, M. – MacLean, S. 2011:
The Carolingian World. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Costen, M. (ed) 2007:
People and Places: Essays in Honour of Mick Aston. Oxford.
Oxbow Books,
Cudworth, W. 1900:
The Seebohm family, The Bradford Antiquity new series 1,
113–121.
Cullen, P. – Jones, R. 2012:
Manure and middens in English place–names, in: Jones
2012a, 97–108.
Curtis, D.2014:
Review of Thoen et al 2013, The Medieval Low Countries 1,
forthcoming.
Curtis, D.R. – Campopiano, M. 2014:
Medieval land reclamation and the creation of new societies:
comparing Holland and the Po Valley, c.800–c.1500, Journal
of Historical Geography 44, 93–108.
Dahlman, C. 1980:
The Open Field System and Beyond: A Property Rights
Analysis of an Economic Institution. Cambridge University
Press.
Dalby, A. (trans.) 2012:
The Treatise of Walter of Bibbesworth. Totnes. Prospect Books.
Dalen-Oskam, K.H. van – Depuydt, K.A.C. – Pijnenburg, W.J.J.
– Schoonberg, T.H. (eds) 1997:
Dictionaries of Medieval German Languages: A Survey of
Current Lexicographical Projects. International Medieval Re-
search, 2. Leeds. Institute for Medieval Studies, University of
Leeds.
33
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Daley, A.S. 1970:
Chaucer’s ‘Droughte of March’ in medieval farm lore, Chau-
cer Review 4:3, 171–179.
Dalton, P. 1994:
Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship: Yorkshire 1066–1154.
Cambridge University Press.
Dam, P.J.E.M. van 2001:
Sinking peat bogs: environmental change in Holland, 1350–
1550, Environmental History 6:1, 32–45.
Dam, P.J.E.M. van 2002:
Ecological challenges, technical innovations: the moderniza-
tion of sluice building in Holland, 1300–1600. Technology
and Culture 43:3, 500–520.
Darby, H.C. 2002:
The Relations of History and Geography: Studies in England,
France and the United States. Exeter.
Davies, A. – Dixon, P. 2007:
Reading the pastoral landscape: palynological and histori-
cal evidence for the impacts of long-term grazing on Weth-
er Hill, Ingram, Northumberland, Landscape History 29,
35–45.
Davis, G.R.C. (ed) 2010:
Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland. Revised by
C. Breay, J. Harrison and D.M. Smith. The British Library.
Devos, M. 2000:
Microtoponiemen en agrarische geschiedenis, Naamkunde:
Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Naamkunde te Leuven
en de Commissie voor Naamkunde en Nederzettingsgesage-
schiedenis te Amsterdam, 32:1–2, 69–87.
Dodgshon, R.A. 1974:
Infield-outfield and the territorial expansion of the English
township, Journal of Historical Geography 1:4, 327–345.
Dodgshon, R.A. 1975:
The landholding foundation of the open-field system, Past
and Present 67, 3–29.
Dodgshon, R.A. 1977:
Changes in Scottish township organisation during the medi-
eval and early modern periods, Geografisca Annaler, Human
Geography 59B, 51–65.
Dodgshon, R.A. 1979:
Observations on the open fields: a reply, Journal of Historical
Geography 5:4, 423–426.
Donkin, R.A. 1960:
Settlement and depopulation on Cistercian estates during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, especially in Yorkshire, Bul-
letin of the Institute of Historical Research 33, 142–165.
Donkin, R.A. 1978:
The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography of Medieval Eng-
land and Wales. Toronto. Texts and Studies Pontifical Insti-
tute of Medieval Studies, 38
Dozer-Rabedeau, J.B. 1995:
Rusticus: Folk-hero of thirteenth century Piccard drama, in:
Sweeney 1995, 205–226.
Drendel, J. 1995:
Villages and local institutions in the upper Arc valley of
Provence (1050–1350), in: Drendel, J. (ed) La Société rurale
34
1–48
et les institutions gouvemementales au Moyen Âge: Actes du
colloque de Montréal, 13–15 mai, 1993. Montréal. Editions
Ceres, 187–205.
Ducos, J. – Thomasset, C. (eds) 1998:
The Weather in the Middle Ages: Athmosphériques Phenom-
ena in Literature, Scientific and Religious Thought. Cultures
et Civilizations Médiévales 15. Paris. Presses de l’Université
de Paris-Sorbonne.
Dyer, C. 1982:
Deserted medieval villages in the west Midlands, Economic
History Review. new series 35:1, 19–34.
Dyer, C. 1984:
Piers Plowman: a historical perspective, Yearbook of Lang-
land Studies 8, 155–176.
Dyer, C. 1985:
Power and conflict in the medieval village, in: Hooke, D. (ed)
Medieval Villages: A Review of Recent Work. Oxford Univer-
sity Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 5.
Dyer, C. 1988:
Documentary evidence: problems and enquiries, in: Astill –
Grant 1988, 12–35.
Dyer, C. 1989:
Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change
in England c.1200–1520. Cambridge Medieval Texts. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dyer, C. 1994:
The English medieval village community and its decline,
Journal of British Studies 33:4, 407–429.
Dyer, C. 1995:
Taxation and communities in late medieval England, in: Brit-
nell, R. – Hatcher, J. (eds) Progress and Problems: Essays
in Honour of Edward Miller. Cambridge University Press,
168–190.
Dyer, C. 2000:
Alternative approaches to the history of agriculture, Past and
Present 168, 254–262. Review of Thirsk 1997.
Edwards, A.S.G. 2003:
Duke Humfrey’s Middle English Palladius manuscript, in:
Stratford, J. (ed) The Lancastrian Court: Proceedings of
the 2001 Harlaxton Symposium. Donington. Shaun Tyas,
68–77.
Elton, G.R. 1969:
England 1200–1650. The Sources of History: Studies in the
Use of Historical Evidence. London. Hodder and Stoughton.
English Heritage 1996:
The Monuments Protection Programme 1986–1996 in Retro-
spect. London. English Herirtage.
Epstein, S.R. 2001:
Town and Country in Europe, 1300–1800. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Ettema, W. 2005:
Boeren op het veen (1000–1500). Een ecologisch-historische
benadering, Holland 37:4, 239–258.
Everson, P. – Williamson, T. (eds), 1998:
The Archaeology of Landscape: Studies Presented to Christo-
pher Taylor. Manchester University Press.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Fahd, T. 2002:
The calendar of agricultural tasks according to al-Filāh,a al-
Nabat.iyya, in: Morony 2002, 183–204.
Fairclough, G. 2010:
Complexity and contingency; classifying the influence of ag-
riculture on European landscapes, in Pungetti – Kruse 2010,
115–148.
Fairclough, G. et al 2000:
Yesterday’s World, Tomorrow’s Landscape, English Heritage.
English Heritage.
Faith, R. 1966:
Peasant families and inheritance customs in medieval Eng-
land, Agricultural History Review 14, 77–95.
Faith, R. 1997:
The English Peasantry and the Growth of Lordship. Studies
in the Early History of Britain. Leicester University Press.
Falileev, A.I. 1996:
Dreneíshaya valliskaya khozyyaistvennaya terminologiya:
nazvaniya polevodches kikh instrumentov [Old Welsh agri-
cultural terminology: terms for certain field-crop cultivation
–
tools], Izvestiya Rossiliskoi Akademii Nauk, seriya Literatury
–
I Yazy ka 55:2, 48–54.
Farmer, D. 1988:
Prices and wages, in: Hallam 1988, 716–817.
Farmer, D. 1991:
Prices and wages, 1350–1500. in Miller 1991, 431–525.
Farr, M. (ed) 1959:
Accounts and Surveys of the Wiltshire Lands of Adam de
Stratton. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Soci-
ety Record Branch 14 for 1958.
Faull, M.L. – Moorhouse, S.A. (eds) 1981:
West Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey up to AD 1500. 4
vols Wakefield. West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council.
Field, J. 1972:
English Field Names: A Dictionary. Newton Abbot. David and
Charles.
Field, R.K. 1965:
Worcestershire peasant buildings, household goods and
farming equipment in the later middle ages, Medieval Archae-
ology 9, 105–145.
Finberg, H.P.R. (ed) 1972:
The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume I: II A.D.
43–1042. Cambridge University Press.
Finzi, R. 2012:
‘Normalità’ climatica e mondo rurale. in: Alfani, G. – di Tul-
lio, M. – Mocarelli, L. (eds) Storia Economica e Ambiente
Italiano (ca. 1400–1850). Storia. Studi e ricerche storiche,
117–128.
Fisher, J.L. (prepared by) 1968:
A Medieval Farming Glossary of Latin and English Words
Taken Mainly from Essex Records. The Standing Conference
for Local History. London. The National Council of Social Ser-
vices.
Fletcher, R. 2003:
Bloodfeud – Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England.
Oxford University Press.
RURALIA X
1–48
Foard, G. – Hall, D. – Partida, T. 2009.
Rockingham Forest: An Atlas of the Medieval and Early-Mod-
ern Landscape. Northamptonshire Record Society, XLIV.
Fossier, R. 1982:
Le communautés villageoises en France du nord au Moyen
Âge, Flaran 4, 29–53.
Fossier, R. 1992:
Les communes rurales au Moyen Âge, Journal des Savantes,
July–December 1992, 235–276.
Fournier, J. 2001:
New directions in Middle High German lexicography: diction-
aries interlinked electronically, Literary and Linguistic Com-
puting: Journal of the Association for Literary and Linguistic
Computing 16:1, 99–111.
Fox, C. 1932:
The Personality of Britain. Cardiff. National Museum of Wales
(4th revised edition, 1959)
Fox, H.S.A. 1978:
The origins of the two- and three-field system in England:
past, conjectures and future research, in: Kielczewska-Zales-
ka, M. (ed) Rural Landscape and Settlement Evolution in Eu-
rope. Warsaw. Polish Academy of Sciences, 109–118.
Fox, H.S.A. 1981:
Approaches to the adoption of the Midland system, in: Rowley
1981, 64–111.
Fox, H.S.A. 1984:
Some ecological dimensions of medieval field systems, in:
Biddick 1984, 119–158.
Fox, H.S.A. 2000:
The Wolds before about 1500, in: Thirsk, J. (ed) The English
Rural Landscape. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 50–61.
Fox, H.S.A. 2010:
Lords and wastes, in: Goddard – Langdon – Müller 2010,
29–48.
Frank, R.W. 1995:
The ‘Hungry gap’, crop failure and famine: the fourteenth-
century agricultural crisis and Piers Plowman, in: Sweeney
1995, 227–243.
Furio, A. – Garcia-Oliver, F. (eds) forthcoming:
Pautes de Consum I Nivells de Vida al Món Rural Medieval.
Publicacions de la Universitat de València.
Gailey, A. – Fenton, A. (eds) 1970:
The Spade in Northern and Atlantic Europe. Belfast. Ulster
Folk Museum , Institute of Irish Studies Queens University.
Galloway, J.A. 2009:
Storm flooding, coastal defence and land use around the
Thames estuary and tidal river c.1250–1450, Journal of Me-
dieval History 35, 171–188.
Galloway, J.A. 2013:
Coastal flooding and socioeconomic change in eastern Eng-
land in the later Middle Ages, Environment and History 19:2,
173–207.
García Sánchez, E. 1992:
Agriculture in Muslim Spain, in: Jayyusi 1992, 987–999.
García Sánchez, E. 1995:
Los cultivos en al-andalus, in: Malpico Cuello, A. (ed) El
35
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Aqua y la agricultura en al-Andalus: Exposicion Alcazaba de
Almeria, 1995. Barcelona. Lunwerg, 41–55.
García Sánchez, E. 2002:
Agriculture in Muslim Spain, in: Morony 2002, 205–217.
Gardiner, M. 2005:
Archaeological evidence for the exploitation, reclamation and
flooding of salt marshes, in Klápště 2005, 73–83.
Gardiner, M. 2009:
Dales, long lands and the medieval division of land in eastern
England, Agricultural History Review 57, 1–14.
Gardiner, M. 2012:
Oral tradition, landscape and the social life of place-names,
in: Jones, R.L.C. – Semple, S. (eds) Sense of Place in Anglo-
Saxon England. Donington, Shaun Tyas, 16–30.
Gardiner, M. 2013:
Stacks, barns and granaries in early and high medieval Eng-
land: crop storage and its implications, in: Vigil-Escalera, A.
– Bianchi, G. – Quirós Castillo, J.A. (eds) Horrea, Barns and
Silos: Storage and Incomes in Early Medieval Europe. Vitoria-
Gasteiz. University of the Basque Country, 23–38.
Gardiner, M. – Rippon, S. (eds) 2007
Medieval Landscapes. Macclesfield, Windgather Press
Gaulin, J.L. 1990:
Tradition and practical agronomic literature during the Mid-
dle Ages. L’ambiente vegetable nell’Alto Medioevo, Di studio
del Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 37, 103–135.
Gaulin, J.L. 1994:
Agronomie antique et élaboration médiévale: de Palladius aux
Préceptes cisterciens d’économie rurale. Médiévales: langue,
textes, histoiure 26, 59–84.
Gaulin, J.L. 2007:
Trattati di agronomia e innovacione Agricola, in: Braun-
stein, P. – Mola, L. (ed) Il Rinascimento italiano e l’Europe, 3:
Produzione e Tecniche, 145–163.
Gelling, M. – Cole, A. 2000:
The Landscape of Place-Names. Stamford. Shaun Tyas,
Genicot, L. 1990:
Rural Communities in the Medieval West. Baltimore. The
John Hopkins University Press.
Giner, A.J. – Trenchs Odena, J. 1988:
Ferrer Sayol i el manuscript Tractat d’agricultura de l’Arxiu
Municipal de València [Catalan translation of Palladius’ de re
rustica].
Girsch, J.M. 1997;
Identification of the veins and arteries in Middle English me-
dieval literature, in: Dalem-Oskam et al. 1997, 159–176.
Glick, T.F. 1970:
Irrigation and Society in Medieval Valencia. Cambridge.
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Glick, T.F. 1979:
Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages: Com-
parative Perspectives on Social and Cultural Formation.
Princeton University Press.
Glick, T.F. 1992:
Hydraulic technology in al-Andalus, in: Jayyusi 1992, 974–
986.
36
1–48
Glick, T.F. 1995a:
Berbers in Valencia: the case of irrigation, in: Chevedden,
P.E. – Kagay D.J. – Padilla, P.G. (eds), Iberia and the Mediter-
ranean World of the Middle Ages: Essays in Honor of Robert
I.Burns 2 vols. Leiden. Brill, II, 191–206.
Glick, T.F. 1995b:
From Muslin Fortress to Christian Castle: Social and Cultur-
al Change in Medieval Spain. Manchester University Press.
Glick, T. – Kirchner, H. 1998:
Hydraulic systems and technologies of Islamic Spain: history
and archaeology, in: Squatriti 1998, 267–329.
Goddard, R. 2010:
Bibliography of Christopher Dyer’s writings, 1968–2009:
the story so far, in: Goddard – Langdon – Müller 2010, 287–
294.
Goddard, R. – Langdon, J. – Müller, M. (eds) 2010:
Survival and Discord in Medieval Society: Essays in Honour
of Christopher Dyer. Brepols. Turnhout.
Goodall, I.H. 2011:
Ironwork in Medieval Britain: An Archaeological Study. The
Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 31.
Graves, E.B. (ed) 1975:
A Bibliography of English History to 1485. Oxford, at the
Clarendon Press.
Gray, H.L. 1915:
English Field Systems. Merlin Press reprint 1969.
Gregson, N. 1985:
The multiple estate model: some critical questions, Journal
of Historical Geography 11, 339–351.
Guarducci, P. 2012:
La tutela della nei territory della republica fiorentina seconda
gli statute gli secoli XIVeXV, in: Balestracci, D. – Barlucchi, A.
– Franceschi, F. – Nanni, P. – Piccinni, G. – Zorrzi, A. (eds)
Uomini paesaggi storie: Studi di storia medieval per Giovanni
Cherubini. Salvietti – Barabuffi. Siena, 412–423.
Guillaume, E. 1991:
A propos du coq de clocher, Guetteur Wallon 67, 28–34.
Hadley, D.M. 1996:
Multiple estates and the origins of the manorial structure in
the northern Danelaw, Journal of Historical Geography 22:1,
3–15.
Hadley, D.M. 2000:
The Northern Danelaw: Its Social Structure, c.800–1100.
Leicester University Press.
Hall, D. 1982:
Medieval Fields. Princes Risborough. Shire Archaeology 28.
Hall, D. 1984:
Fieldwork and documentary evidence for the layout and or-
ganisation of early medieval estates in the English Midlands,
in: Biddick 1984, 43–69.
Hall, D. 1989:
Field systems and township structure, in: Aston – Austin –
Dyer 1989, 191–207.
Hall, D. 1995:
The Open Fields of Northamptonshire. Publications of the
Northamptonshire Record Society, 38.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe 1–48

Hall, D. 2014: Harvey, P.D.A. 2010:

The Open Fields of England. Medieval History and Archaeol-
ogy. Oxford University Press.
Hall, T. (compiled) 2007:
Mick Aston – principal publications 1970–2004, in Costen
2007, xi–xiv.
Hallam, H.E. 1984:
The climate of eastern England 1250–1350. Agricultural His-
tory Review 32, 124–132.
Hallam, H.E. (ed) 1988:
The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume II, 1042–
1350. Cambridge University Press. Reviewed in Campbell
1989.
Harrison, B. 1990:
New settlements in the North Yorkshire Moors 1086–1340,
in: Vyner, B.E. (ed) Medieval Rural Settlement in North-
East England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of
Durham and Northumberland Research Report No. 2, 19–
31.
Harrison, B. 2000:
Staintondale, North Yorkshire: a moorland estate of the
Knights Hospitaller, in: Thirsk, J. (ed) The English Rural
Landscape. Oxford University Press, 307–322.
XVIII The documents of landscape history: snares and delu-
sion, in Harvey, P.D.A., Manors and Maps in Rural England,
from the Tenth to the Seventeenth Century. Farnham, Ash-
gate, [1–13]
Harvey, P.D.A. 2011:
Founders: Frederic Seebohm, Landscapes 11:2, 73–79.
Hawkes, J. 2010:
Gathering fruit at Ingleby. An early medieval sculptural frag-
ment from Ingleby, Derbyshire, Journal of the British Archae-
ological Association 163, 1–15.
Hendriks, J.P.C.A. 2004:
‘Dar vordrunken 16schone kerspele …’ introductie op het mo-
deme interdisciplinaire onderzoek naar de St. Elisabethsvioe-
den, 1421–1424 Lang ne, Westerheem: Tweemaandelijks or-
gan van de Archeologische Werkgemeenschap voor Nederland
53:3, 94–111.
Henisch, B.A. 1995:
In due season: farm work in the medieval calendar tradition,
in: Sweeney 1995, 309–336.
Henisch, B.A. 1999:
The Medieval Calendar Year. Pennsylvania State University
Press.

Harrison, B. 2003: Herrtage, S.J.H. (ed) 1881:

Irregular field systems and patterns of settlement in western Catholicon Anglicum: An English-Latin Wordbook, dated
Yorkshire, in: Unwin – Spek 2003, 166–177. 1483 … Early English Text Society 75. London.

Harrison, B. 2012: Hewitt, W. 1923:

Lords and peasants in medieval Cleveland, Cleveland His- Marl and marling in Cheshire, Proceedings of the Liverpool
tory: the Bulletin of the Cleveland and Teesside Local History Geological Society 13:1, 24–28.
Society 100, 13–54. Hey, D. 2014:
The medieval origins of south Pennine farms: the case of
Harrison, B. – Roberts, B. 1989:
Westmondhalgh Bierlow, Agricultural History Review 62,
The medieval landscape, in: Spratt, D.A. – Harrison, B.J.D.
23–39.
(eds) The North York Moors Landscape Heritage. Newton Ab-
bot. David and Charles, 72–112. Higham, N.J. – Ryan, M.J. (eds) 2010:
Landscape Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. The Man-
Harvey, D.C. 2003:
chester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies 9. Woodbridge. The
Territoriality, parochial development, and the place of ‘com-
Boydell Press.
munity, in late medieval Cornwall, Journal of Historical Ge-
ography 29:2, 151–165. Hill, D. 1995:
The crane and the gyrfalcon, Medieval Life. Royal Armouries,
Harvey, J. 1981:
Leeds, 3, 32.
Mediaeval Gardens. London. Batsford.
Hill, D. 1998:
Harvey, P.D.A. 1972:
Eleventh-century labours of the month in prose and pictures,
Agricultural treatises and manorial accounting in medieval
Landscape History 20, 29–39
England. Agricultural History Review 20:2, 170–182. Review
of Oschinsky 1971. Hill, D. 2000:
Sulh – the Anglo-Saxon plough c.1000 AD, Landscape His-
Harvey, P.D.A. (ed) 1976:
tory 22, 5–19.
Manorial Records of Cuxham, Oxfordshire circa 1200–1359.
Oxfordshire Record Society 50 and Her Majesty’s Stationery Hill, D. 2010:
Office for the Historical Manuscripts Commission 23. The Anglo-Saxon plough: a detail of the wheels, in: Higham
and Ryan 2010, 169–174.
Harvey, P.D.A. 1984:
Manorial Records. British Record Association. Archives and Hilton, R.H. 1955:
the User no. 5. The content and sources of English agrarian history before
1500, Agricultural History Review 3, 3–19.
Harvey, P.D.A. 1989:
Initiative and authority in settlement change, in: Aston, M. – Hilton, R.H. 1956:
Austin, D. – Dyer, C. (eds) The Rural Settlements of Medieval Editor’s introduction to Kosminsky 1956, xv–xxii.
England: Studies Dedicated to Maurice Beresford and John Hilton, R.H. 1958:
Hurst. Blackwell, 31–44. L’Angleterre économique et sociale des xive et xve siècles:

RURALIA X 37
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
theories et monographies, Annales: écomonies, sociétés, civi-
lisations 13, 541–563.
Hilton, R.H. 1983:
A Medieval Society: the West Midlands at the End of the Thir-
teenth Century. 2nd ed. Past and Present Publications. The
University of Cambridge.
Hoffmann, R.C. 1975:
Medieval origins of the common fields, in: Parker, W.N. –
Jones, E.J. (eds) European Peasants and their Markets: Es-
says in Agrarian Economic History. Princeton. Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 23–71.
Hoffmann, R.C. 1989:
Land, Liberties and Lordship in a Late Medieval Countryside:
Agrarian Structures and Change in the Duchy of Wroclaw.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hoffmann, R.C. 1996:
Economic development and aquatic ecosystems in medieval
Europe, The American Historical Review 101:3, 631–669.
Hoffmann, R.C. 2014:
An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge
Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann, R.C. – Winiwarter, V. 2010:
Making land and water meet: the cycling of nutrients between
fields and ponds in pre-modern Europe, Agricultural History
84:3, 352–380.
Holt, R. 1987:
Whose were the profits of corn milling? An aspect of the
changing relationship between the Abbots of Glastonbury
and their tenants: 1086–1350, Past and Present 116, 3–
23.
Holt, R. 1988:
The Mills of Medieval England. Oxford. Basil Blackwell.
Homans, G.C. 1936:
Man and land in the Middle Ages, Speculum 11, 338–351.
Homans, G.C. 1937:
Partible inheritance of villager’s holdings, Economic History
Review 8:1, 48–56.
Homans, G.C. 1941:
English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts. Harvard University Press.
Homans, G. 1953:
The rural sociology of medieval England, Past and Present
4, 32–43.
Homans, G.C. 1969:
The explanation of English regional differences, Past and Pre-
sent 42, 18–34.
Hooke, D. 2004:
Review of Williamson 2003, Journal of Historical Geography
130, 211–212.
Hooke, D. 2010a:
Trees in Anglo-Saxon England: Literature, Lore and Land-
scape. Anglo-Saxon Studies 13. Woodbridge. The Boydell
Press.
Hooke, D. 2010b:
The past in the present – remnant open field patterns in Eng-
land, Tájökologiai Lapok Special Issue, 43–51.
38
1–48
Hoppenbrouwers, P.C.M. 1996:
Op zoek naar de’kerels’. De dorpsggemeente in de dagon
van graaf Flores V, in: de Boer, D.E.H. – Cordfunke, E.H.P.
– Sarfatij, H. (eds) Wi florens … De Hollsndse graaf Floris V
in de smenleving van de dertiende eeuw. Utrecht. Martrijs,
224–242.
Hoskins, W.G. 1955:
The Making of the English Landscape. London. Hodder and
Stoughton. (Revised edition, 1988, with introduction by
C. Taylor)
Hourihane, C. 2006:
Time in the Medieval World: Occupations of the Month and
Signs of the Zodiac in the Index of Christian Art. Index of
Christian Art, Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton
University.
Howlett, D.R. 1977:
The date and authorship of the Middle English verse transla-
tion of Palladius’ de re rustica, Medium Aevum 46, 245–252.
Hulst, R.S. 1991:
Reinouds vaan to Hattern, Castellogica: Verkenningen van de
Nederlandse Kastelenstichting, 2:2, 251–257.
Húščava, A. 1969:
K bojom poddanských mestečiek proti feudálnemu útlaku,
(Jasovská vzbúra v prvej polovici 15. storočia), Historické
štúdie 12, 187–194.
Hussay, S.S. 1969:
Piers Plowman: Critical Approaches. London. Methuen and
Co.
Iersel, G. van 2007:
The twenty five ploughs of Sir John: ‘The tale of Gamelyn’ and
the implications of acreage, in: Summerfield , T. – Busby, K.
(eds) People and Texts: Relationships in Medieval Literature.
Costerius New Series, 166.
Iverson, F. 2013:
Big bang, lordship or inheritance? Changes in the settlement
structure on the threshold of the Merovingian period. south-
eastern Norway, in: Klápště 2013, 341–358.
Jayyusi, S.K. (ed) 1992:
The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Handbook of Oriental Studies
1: The Near and Middle East, 12. Leiden. Brill.
Jenks, S. 1983:
Astrometeorology in the Middle Ages, Isis 74:2, 185–210.
Jones, G. 2012:
H.S.A. Fox: published works, in: Turner, S. – Silvester, B (eds)
Life in Medieval Landscapes: People and Places in the Mid-
dle Ages: Papers in Memory of H.S.A. Fox. Macclesfield. Wind-
gather Press, 268–272.
Jones, G.R.J. 1961:
Early territorial organisation in England and Wales. Geografis-
ca Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 43: 1–2, 174–181.
Jones, G.R.J. 1984;
The multiple estate: a model for tracing the interrelationship
of society, economy and habitat, in: Kiddick 1984, 9–42.
Jones, G.R.J. 1985:
Multiple estates perceived, Journal of Historical Geography
11:4, 339–351.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Jones, M. 2008:
The elusive reality of landscape: concepts and approaches in
landscape research, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 45:4, 229–
244.
Jones, R. 2004:
Signatures in the soil: the use of pottery in manure scatters
in the identification of medieval arable farming regimes, Ar-
chaeological Journal 161, 159–188.
Jones, R. 2009:
Manure and the medieval social order, in: Allen, M. et al (eds)
Land and People: Essays in Honour of John Evans. Oxbow
Books, 217–225.
Jones, R. (ed) 2012a:
Manure Matters: Historical, Archaeological and Ethnographic
Perspectives. Farnham. Ashgate.
Jones, R. 2012b:
Why manure matters, in: Jones 2012a, 1–12.
Jones, R. 2012c:
Understanding medieval manure, in: Jones 2012a, 145–158.
Jones, R. 2013:
The Medieval Natural World. Seminar Studies. Pearsons.
Jope, E.M. 1963:
The regional cultures of medieval Britain, in: Foster, I.L.L. –
Alcock, L. (eds) Culture and Environment: Essays in Honour
of Sir Cyril Fox. London. Routledge and Keegan Paul, 327–50.
Jordan, W.C. 1996:
The Great Famine: Northern Europe in the Early Fourteenth
Century. Princeton University Press.
Kaijser, A. 2002:
System building from below: institutional change in Dutch
water control systems, Technology and Culture 43:3, 521–
548.
Karkov, C. 2010:
Calendar illustration in Anglo-Saxon England: realities and
fictions of the Anglo-Saxon Landscape, in: Higham – Ryan
2010, 157–167.
Keiser, G.R. (ed) 1998:
XXV. Works of science and information. Hartung, A.E. (gener-
al ed) A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050–1500
Volume X. The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.
New Haven.
Kershaw, I. 1973:
The Great Famine and agrarian crisis in England 1315–1322,
Past and Present 59, 3–50.
Kessler, F. 1998a:
Leben und Verehrung der Wetterherren Johannes und Pau-
lus. Teil II, Der Schlern 72:5, 277–308.
Kessler, F. 1998b:
Die Wetterherren Johannes und Paulus in der Volkskunde.
Teil III, Der Schlern 72:7–8, 433–465.
Keyser, R. 2009:
The transformation of traditional woodland management:
commercial sylviculture in medieval Champagne, French
Historical Studies 32, 353–384.
Kinda, A. 2001:
The concept of ‘townships’ in Britain and the British colonies
RURALIA X
1–48
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Journal of His-
torical Geography 27:2, 137–152.
Kington, J.A. 2010:
Climate and Weather. The New Naturalist Library: A Survey of
British Natural History. London. Collins.
Kirchner, H. 2009:
Original design, tribal management and modifications in
medieval hydraulic systems in the Balearic Islands (Spain),
World Archaeology 41:1, 151–168.
Kirchner, H. – Navarro, C. 1993:
Objetivos, metodos y pratica de la arqueololgía hidráulica, Ar-
chaeologia Medieval 20, 121–150.
Kiss, A. 2010:
Az 1340-esévek árvvizei, vizállás-problémái és kömyezetük.
Különös tekintettel az 1342 and 1343, in: Almási, T. – Ré-
vész, E. – Szabados (eds) Fons,skpsis, lex: Ünnepi a 70 esz-
tendös MakkFerenc tiszteletére. Szeged. Szeged Középkorász
Mühely, 181–193.
Klápště, J. (ed) 2005:
Water Management in Medieval Rural Economy. Ruralia V, 27
September – 2 October 2003. Prague. Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Klápště, J. (ed) 2013:
Hierachies in Rural Settlements, Ruralia IX. 26th September
– 2nd October 2011. Götzis, Austria. Turnhout. Brepols.
Klápště, J. – Sommer, P. (eds) 2009:
Medieval Rural Settlement in Marginal Landscapes, Ruralia
VII, 8th–14th September 2007. Cardiff, Wales. Turnhout.
Brepols .
Klír, T. 2009:
Neuzeit. Das Beispiel des Gebietes der Flugsande in Mittel-
böhmen, in: Klápště – Sommer 2009, 415–436.
Klír, T. 2013:
A socio-economic interpretation of the regular village layouts
in Bohemia and Moravia, in: Klápště 2013, 437–446.
Konrad, V.B. 2008:
Pier de’ Crescenzi ossia la corsa a ostacoli del traduttore,
Aevum 82:2, 351–355.
Kosminsky, E.A. 1928:
Russian work on English economic history, Economic His-
tory Review 1:2, 208–233.
Kosminsky, E.A. 1956:
Studies in the Agrarian History of England in the Thirteenth
Century. Translated by R. Kisch. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Kovalevsky, E. 1938:
Maxin Kovalevsky [an obituary and short biography], The Sla-
vonic and East European Review 16:48, 678–686
Kruse, A. 2010a:
Agricultural landscape classification as a tool for implement-
ing the European landscape conventions in research and
planning results from the EUCALAND project. Living Land-
scape: The European Landscape Convention in Research
Perspective. UNISCAPE. Firenze. 2 vols, 243–255.
Kruse, A. (ed) 2010b:
Glossary on agricultural landscapes, Tájökológiai Lapok Spe-
cial Issue, 99–127.
39
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Lane, T. – Coles, J. (eds) 2002:
Through Wet and Dry: Essays in Honour of David Hall. Lin-
colnshire Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series No. 5. Wet-
lands Archaeological Research Projects Occasional Paper 17.
Langdon, J. 1986:
Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation: The Use of
Draught Animals in English Farming from 1066 to 1500.
Past and Present. Cambridge University Press.
Langdon, J. 1988:
Agricultural equipment, in: Astill – Langdon 1988, 86–107.
Langdon, J. 1991:
Water-mills and windmills in the west midlands, 1086–1500,
Economic History Review 44:3, 424–444.
Langdon, J. – Watts, M. 2005:
Tower mills in medieval England: a case of arrested develop-
ment, Technology and Culture 46:4, 697–718.
Langton, J. 1988:
Two traditions of geography, historical geography and the
study of landscapes, Geografiska Annaler series B. Human
Geography 70:2, 17–25.
Leenders, K.A.H.W. 2004:
De interactive tussen mens en natuur in de strijd om land en
water in het zuiden van Holland, 1200–1600, Holland 36:4,
142–161.
Legros, V. 2001:
Etude du mobilier métallique des fermes médiévales du
‘Belle’ à Neuilly-en-Thelle (Oise), Revue archéologique de Pic-
ardie 1–2, 39–72.
Lennard, R. 1943:
Review of Homans 1941, The Economic Journal 53, 84–88.
Liddell, M. (ed) 1896:
The Middle English Translation of Palladius’ De Re Rustica.
Berlin.
Lienau, C. 1978:
Geographical terminology of the rural cultural landscape: re-
port on the progress of the International Working Group for
the Terminology of the Agricultural Landscape, Geographia
Polonica 38, 189–191.
Lilley, K.D. 2000:
‘Non urbe, non vico castris’: territorial control and the col-
onization and urbanisation of Wales and Ireland under
Anglo-Norman lordship, Journal of Historical Geography
26:4, 517–531.
Lindholm, K.J. – Sandtröm, E. – Ekman, A.K. 2013:
The archaeology of the commons, Journal of Archaeology
and Ancient History 10, 2–49.
Lodge, B. (ed) 1873:
Palladius on Husbondrie, Part I. Early English Text Society
52.
Lodowski, J – Wróbel, M. 1999:
Znaleziska średniowiecznych millitaríow i narzędzi w dolinie
Baryczy (z problematyki ‘klusownictwa’ archeologicznego)
[finds of medieval military accessories and agricultural tools
in the Barycz valley], Silesia Antiqua 40, 86–93.
Loomis. R.S. 1978:
Ecological dimensions of medieval agrarian systems: an ecol-
40
1–48
ogist response [to Cooter 1978], Agricultural History 52:4,
478–483.
Lot, F. 1973:
L’évoloution des communes françaises, à propos d’un livre
recent, Recueil des travaux historiques, de Ferdinand Lot,
3. centre de Recherches d’Histoire et de Philologie de la IVe
Section de l’École Pratique des Haules Études, V: Hautes
Études médiévales et moderns, 19, 261–270.
Lozano Cámara, I. 1996:
Terminologia científica árabe del cáñamo (ss. VII–XVIII), in:
Álvarez de Morales, C. (ed) Ciencias de la natureza en Al-
Andalus. Textos y estudios IV . Granada: Escuela de Estu-
dios Arabes, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,
147–164.
Lucus, A.T. 1969:
Sea, sand and manure, in: Jenkins, G. (ed) Studies in Folk
Life in Honour of Iowerth C. Peate. London. Routledge and
Keegan Paul, 183–204.
Macdougall, E.B. (ed) 1986:
Medieval Gardens. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the His-
tory of Landscape Architecture IX. Washington, D.C. trustees
for Harvard University.
Maitland, F.W. 1897:
Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early His-
tory of England. Cambridge University Press.
Manby, T.G. – Moorhouse, S. – Ottaway, P. (eds) 2003:
The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Begin-
ning of the 21st century. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Oc-
casional Paper no. 3.
Manley, G. 1981:
The use of archives and written records in meteorological re-
search, Archives: Journal of the British Records Association
15:65, 3–10.
Markey, T.L. 1998:
English dung ‘manure’: early husbandry and etymology,
NOWELE: North Western European Language Evoloution 34,
3–13.
Marshall, J. 2001:
‘Comyth in Robyn Hode’: paying and playing the outlaw at
Croscombe, Leeds Studies in English, new series 32, 345–
368.
Mason, E. 1976:
The role of the English parishioner, 1100–1500, Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 27, 17–29.
Massip, F. 1994:
The cloud: a medieval aerial device, its origins and its use in
Spain today, Early Drama, Art and Music Review 16:2, 65–77.
Mastrorosa, I. 2005:
Filippo Beroaldo il Vecchio e gli Scriptores rei rusticae:
dall’esegesi dotta all Descriptio della villa patrizia, Giornale
italiano di filologia 56:2, 245–260.
Mate, M. 1985:
Medieval agrarian practices: the determining factors?, Agri-
cultural History Review 33, 22–31.
Mathew, W.M. 1993:
Marling in British agriculture: a case of partial identity, Agri-
cultural History Review 41:2, 97–110.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Matzat, W. 1988:
Long strip fields layouts and their later subdivisions: a com-
parison of English and German cases, Geografisca Annaler,
Series B, Human Geography 70:1, 133–147.
Mazimann, J.-P. 2012:
Le dépôt gallo-romain d’objects métalliques de Souice-Cemay
(Doubs), Revue archéologique de l’Est 61, 205–222.
Měchurová, Z. 2008:
Jak se pracovalo na poli. Srovnáni zemědělského nářadí ze
zaniklých středověkých vsí s etnografickými sbírkami, Ar-
chaeologia historica 33, 129–144.
Meeus, J.H.A. – Wijermans, M.P. – Vroom, M.J. 1990:
Agricultural landscapes in Europe and their transformation.
Landscape and Urban Planning 18, 289–352.
Meindersma, K.T. 1999a:
Windwijzers op Groninger torens en kerken – deel I, Gronin-
ger Kerken 16:3, 7–23.
Meindersma, K.T. 1999b:
Windwijzers op Groninger torens en kerken – deel II, Gronin-
ger Kerken 16:4, 4–19.
Menefee, S.P. 1980:
A cake in the furrow, Folklore 91:2, 173–192.
Midgely, A.R. 1944:
Lime – its importance and efficient use in soils, Proceedings
of the Soil Science Society of America 8, 329–333.
Miller, E. 1991:
The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume III 1348–
1500. Cambridge University Press.
Miller, E. – Hatcher, J. 1995:
Medieval England: Towns, Commerce and Crafts 1086–1348.
A Social and Economic History of England. Longman. Lon-
don.
Michelmore, D.J.H. 1981:
Township and tenure, in: Faull – Moorhouse 1981, 231–264.
Mook, R. 1986:
Veerhaner og vindfleyer fra middelalderen, Middelalderfo-
rum: forum mediaevale 13:3–4, 3–25.
Moore, J.S. 2009:
Review of Campbell 2008, Economic History Review 62,
1007–1008.
Moorhouse, S. 1979:
Documentary evidence for the landscape of the manor of
Wakefield during the Middle Ages, Landscape History 1, 44–
58.
Moorhouse, S. 1981a:
[Medieval] boundaries, in: Faull – Moorhouse 1981, 265–289.
Moorhouse, S. 1981b:
The rural medieval landscape, in: Faull – Moorhouse 1981,
581–850.
Moorhouse, S. 1986:
Township boundaries in West Yorkshire, Sciant Presentes
[Journal of the Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Archaeologi-
cal Society] 15, 8–20.
Moorhouse, S. 1989;
Monastic estates: their composition and development, in: Gil-
christ, R. – Mytum, H. (eds) The Archaeology of Rural Mon-
RURALIA X
1–48
asteries. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 203,
29–81.
Moorhouse, S. 2003a:
Medieval Yorkshire: a rural landscape for the future, in: Man-
by – Moorhouse – Ottaway 2003, 181–214.
Moorhouse, S. 2003b:
The anatomy of the Yorkshire Dales: decoding the medieval
landscape, in: Manby – Moorhouse – Ottaway 2003, 293–
362.
Moorhouse, S. 2005:
The Great Barn and its setting within the precinct complex
of Bolton Priory, Medieval Yorkshire [Journal of the Medieval
Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society], 29–50.
Moorhouse, S. 2007:
The medieval parks of Yorkshire; function, contents and
chronology, in: Liddiard, R. (ed) The Medieval Park: New Per-
spectives. Macclesfield. Windgather Press.
Moorhouse, S. 2008a:
Names in the landscape: a review article, with a list of pub-
lished works by George Redmonds, Medieval Yorkshire [Jour-
nal of the Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological
Society] 37, 52–64.
Moorhouse, S. 2008b:
An interdisciplinary approach to understanding historic
landscapes, in: Atherden, M. – Milsom, T. (eds) Yorkshire
Landscapes Past and Present. PLACE, York, 27–46.
Moorhouse, S. in preparation, a:
The community of the vill in medieval Yorkshire: their func-
tion, organisation and meeting places.
Moorhouse, S. in preparation, b:
The form and function of field systems in the Yorkshire
Dales. The Physical and Social History of the Landscape of
the Yorkshire Dales, Volume 2.
Moorhouse, S. in preparation, c:
Travel by land and water in medieval Yorkshire: the anatomy
of a communication system. Medieval Yorkshire [Journal of
the Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society],
39–40 (2010–2011).
Morey, J.H. 1998:
Plows, laws and sanctuary in medieval England and in the
Wakefield Mactacio Abe, Studies in Philology 95:1, 41–55.
Morony, M.G. (ed) 2002:
Production and the Exploitation of Resources. The Forma-
tion of the Classical Islamic World, 11. Aldershot. Ashgate
Morris, R. 1989:
Churches in the Landscape. London. Dent.
Müller, R. 2000:
S középkor agrotechnikája [The agricultural technique of the
Middle Ages, discusses mainly tools used in the Carpathian
basin from the Magyar settlement to the Turkish occupation],
in: Bende, L. – Lőrinczy, G. (eds) A Középkori magyar agrá-
rium. Tudományos ülèsszak Ópusztaszeren. Ópusztaszeri
Nemzeti Töténeti Emlèkpark Közhasznú Társaság, 27–44.
Mumford, W.F. 1965:
Terciars on the estates of Wenlock Priory, Transactions of the
Shropshire Archaeological Society 58, 68–76.
41
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Murray, J.A.H. (ed) 1888–1933:
A New English Dictionary on Historic Principles: Founded
mainly on materials collected by the Philological Society.
17 vols, with later supplements. Oxford University Press.
Myrdal, J. 1985:
Medeltidens åkerbruk. Stockholm. Nordiska museet.
Myrdal, J. 2011:
Farming and feudalism, 1000–1700, in: Myrdal – Morrell
2011, 72–117.
Myrdal, J. – Morell, M. (eds) 2011:
The Agrarian History of Sweden from 4000 bc to ad 2000.
Lund. Nordic Academic Press.
Naïs, H. 1997:
Vocabulaire technique et traduction: le cas particulier de
l’agriculture, in: Combettes, B. – Monsonégo, S. (eds) Le Moy-
en français: Philologie et linguistique. Approches du texte
et du discours. Actes du VIIIe Colloque international sur le
moyen français, Nancy, 5–6–7 septembre 1994. Paris. Didier
Erudition, 307–318.
Neilson, N. 1942:
Review of Homans 1941, American Historical Review 47:3,
576–577.
Newfield, T.P. 2009:
A cattle panzootic in early fourteenth-century Europe, Agri-
cultural History Review 57:2, 155–190.
Nicklies, C.E. 1995:
Cosmology and the labors of the months at Piacenza: the
crypt mosaic at San Savino, Gesta 34:2, 108–125.7
Nishimura, M.M. 2009:
Images in the Margins. The Medieval Imagination. The Brit-
ish Library.
North, D. 1985:
The one-way plough in south eastern England, Folk Life:
A Journal of Ethnographic Studies 23, 49–64.
Oliver-Pérez, D. 1992:
Contribución el studio de la terminologia agrícola: apuntes
sobre la raíz HRK y los vocablos Qala’a, Hawd, Hafad, sa-
rir, Takbis y Marqud, Ansquel de estudios árabes 3, 189–
216.
Opsomer-Halleux, C. 1986:
The medieval garden and its role in medicine, in: Macdougall
1986, 93–113.
Oosthuizen, S., 2003:
The roots of the common fields: linking prehistoric and me-
dieval field systems in west Cambridgeshire, Landscapes 4:1,
40–64.
Oosthuizen, S. 2005:
New light on the origins of open-field farming?, Medieval Ar-
chaeology 49, 165–193.
Oosthuizen, S. 2007:
The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia and the origins and dis-
tribution of common fields, Agricultural History Review 55:2,
153–180.
Oosthuizen, S. 2008:
Field-names in reconstructing late Anglo-Saxon agricultural
land-use in the Bourn valley, west Cambridgeshire, in: Chad-
42
1–48
wick, A.M. (ed) Recent Approaches to the Archaeology of Land
Allotment. British Archaeological Reports International Se-
ries 1875, 323–340.
Oosthuizen, S. 2010:
Medieval field systems and settlement nucleation: common
or separate origins?, in Higham – Ryan 2010, 107–131.
Oosthuizen, S. 2011:
Chapter 21. Anglo-Saxon fields, in: Hamerow, H. – Hinton. D.
– Crawford S. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Anglo- Saxon Archae-
ology. Oxford University Press, 379–402.
Oosthuizen, S. 2014:
Review of Williamson – Liddiard – Partida 2013, Archaeologi-
cal Journal 171 forthcoming. For text see www.academia.edu.
Orlando, E. 2000:
‘Quando la Piave vien Fuora’: alluviona, contenimento delle
acque e diffesa del territorio nel Trevigiano del secondo ‘400,
Studi venezian1, new series 40, 41–65.
Ormrod, W.M. 1993:
St Maurus’ wind: the weather in medieval England, Medieval
History. The Royal Armouries, Leeds, 59–63.
Orton, H. – Wright, N. (eds) 1974:
A Word Geography of England. London. Seminar Press.
Oschinsky, D. (ed) 1971:
Walter of Henley and Other Treatises on Estate Management
and Accounting. Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Reviewed in
Harvey 1972.
Øye, I. 2009:
Settlement patterns and field systems in medieval Norway,
Landscape History 30:2, 37–54.
Packard, S.R. 1949:
Broad ranging review of Petit-Dutaillis 1947, Speculum 24:4,
609–614.
Palang, H. – Printsmann, A. – Gyuró, E.k. – Urbanc, M. –
Skowronek, E. – Woloszyn, W. 2006:
The forgotten rural landscapes of central and eastern Eu-
rope, Landscape Ecology 21, 347–357.
Palermo, B. 2011:
Un valio alpino nelle relazioni ‘transfrontaliene’ del terri-
torio. Il passo del Muratone tra XV e XVIII sècolo, Interne-
lion: Cultura e territorio. Quaderno annual di studi storici
dell’Academia di cultura internelia 17, 5–48.
Pallister, D.M. 1993:
Domesday Book and ‘Harrying of the North’, Northern His-
tory 29, 2–23.
Partida, T. – Hall, D. – Foard, G. 2013:
An Atlas of Northamptonshire: the Medieval and Early Mod-
ern Landscape. Oxbow Books.
Parsons, D.N. (ed) 2004:
The Vocabulary of English Place-Names (CEAFOR-COCK-
PIT). Nottingham. English Place-Name Society.
Parsons, D.N. – Styles, T. (eds) 2000:
The Vocabulary of English Place-Names (BRACE-C STER).
Nottingham. Centre for English Name-Studies.
Parsons, D.N. – Styles, T. – Hough C. (eds) 1997:
The Vocabulary of English Place-Names (Á-BOX). Nottingham.
Centre for English Name-Studies.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Passmore, J.B. 1930:
The English Plough. Reading University Studies. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Pattison, P. – Field, D. – Ainsworth, S. (eds) 1999:
Patterns of the Past: Essays in Landscape Archaeology for
Christopher Taylor. Oxford. Oxbow Books.
Payne, F. 1975:
Yr Aradr Gymraeg. Cardiff. Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.
Pearsall, D. – Salter. E. 1973:
Landscapes and Seasons of the Medieval World. London.
Paul Elek.
Peris Albentosa, T. 2004:
Calamitats climàtiques í economia agrària a la Ribera del
Xúquer entre els segles XV I XIX, in: Congost i Colomer, R. –
Ferrer i Alòs, l. (eds) Homenatge al Dr. Emili Giralt i Raventos.
Barcelona. Publicacions I Edicions Universitat de Barcelona.
Petit-Dutaillis, C. 1947:
Les Communes Françaises. Caractères et Évolution des
origins au xviiie siècle. L’évolution de l’humanité 46. Paris.
Reviewed in Pickard 1949 with much background and refe-
rences.
Petrina, A. 2003:
The Middle English translation of Palladius’ de agricultura,
in: Voaden, R. – Tixier, R. – Sanchex-Roura, T. – Rytting, J.R.
(eds) The Medieval Translator , 8 /Traduire au Moyen Âge, 8:
The Theory and Practise of Translation in the Middle Ages.
Turnhout. Brepols, 317–328.
Pickard, S.R. 1949:
Review of Petit-Dutaillis 1947, in Speculum 24:4, 609–614.
Pollock, F. – Maitland, F.W. (eds) 1898:
The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I. 2nd
ed. Reprint with a new introduction and select bibliography
by S.F.C. Milson, 1968.
Postan, M. 1945:
Review of Homans 1941, in Economic History Review 15:1/2,
88–92.
Postan, M.M. (ed) 1971a:
The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, volume 1 The
Agrarian Life in the Middle Ages 2nd ed.
Postan, M.M. 1971b:
Medieval agrarian society at its prime: England, in Postan
1971a, 549–659.
Postan, M.M. 1973:
The economic foundations of medieval society, in: Postan,
M.M, Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Prob-
lems of the Medieval Economy. Cambridge University Press,
3–27.
Postles, D. 1989:
Cleaning the medieval arable, Agricultural History Review
37:2, 130–143.
Pounds, N.J.G. 1990:
An Historical Geography of Europe. Cambridge University
Press.
Powicke, F.M. 1942:
Review of Homans 1941, English Historical Review 57, 496–
502.
RURALIA X
1–48
Price, B.B. 1992:
Medieval Thought: An Introduction. Oxford. Blackwell.
Printsmann, A. – Kruse, A. – Roth, M. 2012:
Introduction for living in agricultural landscapes: practise,
heritage and identity, European Countryside 4:2, 89–100.
Pungetti, G. – Kruse, A. (eds) 2010:
European Culture Expressed in Agriculture; Landscapes:
Perspectives from the Eucaland Project. Palombi Editori.
Querrien, A. 1994:
Parcellaires antiques et médiévaux du Berry, Journal des Sa-
vants 2:2, 235–366.
Quinn, C.T. 2006:
A medievalist for the twentieth century: George C Homans
and social history, in Trevino 2006, 63–84.
Rackham, O. 1986:
The History of the Countryside. London. Dent.
Raepsaet, G. 1997:
The development of farming implements between the Seine
and the Rhine from the second to the twelfth centuries, in:
Astill – Langdon 1997, 41–68.
Raftis, J.A. 1978:
Ecological dimensions of medieval agrarian systems: a medi-
evalist responds [to Cooter 1978], Agricultural History 52:4,
484–487.
Randall, L.M.C. 1957:
Exempla as a source of Gothic marginal illustration, The Art
Bulletin 39:2, 97–107.
Razi, Z. 1981:
Family, land and the village community in medieval England,
Past and Present 93, 3–36.
Redmonds, G. 1981:
Marling. Old West Riding: A Collection of Original Articles. Lo-
cal History Publications 1:2, 26–27.
Redmonds, G. 2004:
Names and History: People, Places and Things. London.
Hambledon and London.
Reigniez, P. 2004:
Histoire et techniques: l’outil agricole dans le période du haut
Moyen-Age (Ve–Xe), in: Barceló – Siguat 2004, 33–120.
Renes, H. 1988:
Some aspects of open fields in the southern part of the prov-
ince of Limburg (the Netherlands), Geografisca Annaler Se-
ries B, Human Geography 70:1, 161–167.
Renes, H. 2003:
The Fenland of England and the Netherlands: some thoughts
on their different histories, in: Unwin – Spek 2003, 101–107.
Renes, H. 1998:
Dutch commons: variety and change, in: Sereno, P. – Stu-
rani, M.L. (eds) Rural Landscape between State and Local
Communities: Past and Present. Proceedings of the 16th Ses-
sion of the Standing European Conference for the Study of
the Rural Landscape, Torino, 12th – 16th September 1994,
85–97.
Renes, H. (ed) 2010a:
European agricultural landscape history, in: Pungetti – Kruse
2010, 73–114.
43
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Renes, H. 2010b:
Grainlands: the landscape of open fields in a European per-
spective, Landscape History 31, 37–70.
Renes, H. 2010c:
Searching for system in the history of agricultural land-
scapes in Europe: the historic part of the EUCALAND project.
Tájökologiai Lapok Special Issue, 13–14.
Renes, H. 2010d:
Landscapes of agricultural specialisation: a forgotten theme
in historic landscape research and management, Tájökoló-
giai Lapok Special Issue, 25–42.
Reynolds, S. 1997:
Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe 900–1300.
2nd ed. with additional introduction and bibliography. Ox-
ford. Clarenden Press.
Richter, W. 1981:
Die Überlieferung der Ruralia commoda des Petrus de Cres-
centriis im 14. Jahrhundert. Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 16,
223–275.
Riden, P. 1987:
Record Sources for Local History. Batsford History Series.
London. B.T. Batsford
Riley, M. 2007:
Review of Barnes – Williamson 2006, Journal of Historical
Geography 33, 695–696.
Rippon, S. 2000:
The Transformation of Coastal Wetlands: Exploitation and
Management of Wetland Landscapes in North West Europe
during the Roman and Medieval Periods. British Academy
Postdoctoral Fellowship Monograph. Oxford University Press.
Rippon, S. 2001:
Adaptation to a changing environment: the response of
marshland communities in the late medieval ‘crisis’, Journal
of Wetland Archaeology 1, 15–39.
Rippon, S. 2004:
Historic Landscape Analysis: Deciphering the Countryside.
Practical Handbook 16. Council for British Archaeology.
Rippon, S. 2006:
Landscape, Community and Colonisation: the North Somer-
set Levels During the 1st and 2nd Millennia AD. CBA Research
Report 152. Council for British Archaeology.
Rippon, S. 2008:
Beyond the Medieval Village: The Diversification of Land-
scape Character in Southern Britain. Medieval History and
Archaeology. Oxford University Press.
Rippon, S. 2010:
Landscape change during the ‘Long Eighth Century’ in south-
ern England, in: Higham – Ryan 2010, 39–64.
Rivers, T.J. 1984:
The meaning of ‘carruca’ in the Leges barbarom, Traditio 40,
297–300.
Roberts, B.K. 1973:
Field systems of the wes tmidlands, in: Baker – Butlin 1973,
188–231.
Roberts, B.K. 1999:
Of aecertyning, Durham Archaeological Journal 14–15, 93–
100.
44
1–48
Roberts, B.K. 2008:
Landscapes, Documents and Maps: Villages in Northern Eng-
land and Beyond AD 900–1250. Oxbow Books.
Roberts, B.K. – Wrathmell, S. 2000:
An Atlas of Rural Settlement in England. London. English
Heritage.
Roberts, B.K. – Wrathmell, S. 2002:
Region and Place: A Study of English Rural Settlement. Lon-
don. English Heritage.
Roden, D. 1967:
Inheritance customs and succession to land in the Chiltern
hills in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Journal of
British Studies 7, 1–11.
Rodgers, C.P. – Straughton, E.A. – Winchester, A.J.L. – Pierac-
cini, M. (eds) 2011:
Contested Common Land; Environment Governance Past
and Present. London. Earthscan.
Rogers, R.H. 1975:
An Introduction to Palladius. London University Institute of
Classical Studies Supplement 35.
Rösener, W. 1992:
Peasants in the Middle Ages. Translated by A. Stützer. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts. Polity.
Rösener, W. 1994:
The Peasantry of Europe: The Making of Europe. Oxford,
Basil Blackwell.
Rothwell, W. 1982:
A mis-judged author and a mis-used text: Walter of Bibbes-
worth and his ‘Tretiz’, The Modern Language Review 77:2,
282–293.
Rothwell, W. 1994:
Of kings and queens or nets and frogs: Anglo-French homo-
nymics, French Studies 48:3, 257–273.
Rowley, T. (ed) 1981:
The Origins of Open-Field Agriculture. London. Croom Helm.
Rusu, A.A. 1976:
Reprezentări de plugari pe fresca monumentului medieval de
la Streisingiorglu (jud. Hunedoara), Revista de istorie, 29:7,
1059–1065.
Salzman, L.F. (ed) 1955:
Ministers Accounts of the Manor of Petworth 1347–1353,
Sussex Record Society 55.
Sandler, L.F. 1996:
The word of the text and the image: the case of the Luttrell
Psalter, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery: Essays in Honor
of Lilian M.C. Randall 54, 87–99.
Sandler, L.F. 1997:
The study of marginal imagery: past, present and future,
Studies in Iconography 18, 1–49.
Sawyer, P. 1983:
English archaeology before the Conquest: a historian’s view,
in: Hinton, D.A. (ed) 25 Years of Medieval Archaeology. Shef-
field, 44–47.
Sayers, W. 2009:
‘Now the French for the properties of the plow’ agrarian lexis
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
in French and English in late 13th c. Britain, AVISTA Forum
Journal: Studies in the History of Technology 19:1–2, 21–27.
Sayers, W. 2010:
The terminology of a late thirteenth-century farm cart in
French and English, Avista Forum Journal: Studies in the
History of Technology 20, 35–42
Sayers, W. 2013:
Survivals of Gaulish in French: buta ‘hut, dwelling place’,
French Studies Bulletin 34, 1–3.
Schreg, R. 2008:
Before colonization: early medieval land-use of mountainous
regions in southern and western Germany, in: Bartels, C. –
Küpper-Eichas, C. (eds) Cultural Heritage and Landscape in
Europe/ Landschaften: Kulturelles erbe in Europa: Proceed-
ings of the International Conference, Bochum, June 8–10,
2007, 293–312.
Schreg, R. 2009:
Development and abandonment of a cultural landscape: ar-
chaeology and environmental history of medieval settlements
in the northern Black Forest, in: Klápště, J. – Sommer, P. (eds)
Rural Medieval Settlement in Marginal Landscapes. Ruralia
VII 8th–14th September 2007, Cardiff, Wales, UK. Turnhout.
Brepols, 315–333.
Schreg, R. 2013:
Commons, cooperatives and village communes – geographi-
cal and archaeological perspectives on the role of lower class-
es in settlement restructuring on the Swabian Alb plateau, in:
Klápšte 2013, 101–121.
Schreg, R. 2014:
Ecological approaches in medieval rural archaeology, Euro-
pean Journal of Archaeology 17:1, 83–119.
Scott, T., 1998:
Regional Identity and Economic Change: the Upper Rhine
1450–1600. Oxford University Press.
Scott, T. (ed) 1998:
The Peasantries of Europe: From the fourteenth to the eight-
eenth centuries. London, Longman.
Seebohm, F. 1905:
The English Village Community. Examined in Relation to the
Manorial and Tribal Systems and to the Common or Open
Field System of Husbandry. An Essay in Economic History.
4th ed. originally published in 1883. London. Longman,
Green and Co.
Shapiro, M. 1941:
Review of Webster 1938, Speculum 16:1, 131–137.
Shepherd, G. 1983:
Poverty in Piers Plowman, in: Aston – Coss – Dyer – Thirsk
1983, 169–189
Shepherd, S.L. 2010:
Anglo-Saxon labours of the months: representing May – a
case study. Department of English, College of Arts and Law,
The University of Birmingham. Unpublished M.Phil.
Sheppard, J.A. 1956:
The draining of the marshlands of East Yorkshire. Geography
Department, University of London. Unpublished PhD.
Sheppard, J.A. 1966:
Pre-enclosure field and settlement patterns in an English
RURALIA X
1–48
township: Wheldrake, near York, Geografiska Annaler Series
B, Human Geography 48 B, 57–77.
Sheppard, J.A. 1979:
The Origins and Evolution of Field and Settlement Patterns
in the Herefordshire Manor of Marden. Department of Geog-
raphy, Queen Mary College, University of London Occasional
Papers No. 15.
Sigaut, F. 2004:
L’evolution des techniques, in: Barceló, M. – Sigaut 2004,
1–31.
Silvester, R.J. 2004:
The commons and the waste; use and mis-use in mid-Wales,
in: Whyte, I.D. – Winchester, A.J.L. (eds) Society, Landscape
and Environment in Upland Britain. Society for Landscape
Studies Supplementary Series 2, 53–66.
Sivéry, G. 1990:
Terroirs et Communautés Rurales dans L’Europe Occiden-
tale au Moyan Age. Presses Universitaires de Lille.
Slater, T.R. 1982:
Professor Harry Thorpe, 1913–1977: an appreciation and as-
sessment, in Slater – Jarvis 1982, 9–30.
Slater, T.R. – Jarvis, P.J. (eds) 1982:
Field and Forest: An Historical Geography of Warwickshire
and Worcestershire. Norwich. Geo Books.
Smith, A.H. (compiled) 1956:
English Place-Name Elements: Part One Á-ĪW. Part Two JAFN-
YTRI. English Place-Name Society Volumes 35 and 36. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Smith, S.V. 2009:
Towards a social archaeology of the late medieval English
peasantry: power and resistance at Wharram Percy, Journal
of Social Archaeology 9:3, 391–416.
Soens, T. 2013:
The social distribution of land and flood risk along the North
Sea coast: Flanders, Holland and Romney Marsh compared
(c. 1200–1750), in: Bavel, B. van – Thoen, E. (eds) Rural Soci-
eties and Environments at Risk: Ecology, Property Rights and
Social Organisation in Fragile Areas (Middle Ages to Twenti-
eth Century). Rural History in Europe, 9, 147–190.
Spittal, J. – Field, J. 1990:
A Reader’s Guide to the Place-Names of the United Kingdom:
A Bibliography of Publications (1920–89) on the Place-Names
of Great Britain and Northern Island, the Isle of Man, and the
Channel Islands. Paul Watkins Medieval Studies 4. Stamford.
Paul Watkins.
Squatriti, P. 1998:
Water and Society in Early Medieval Italy AD 400–1000.
Cambridge University Press.
Squatriti, P. (ed) 2000:
Working with Water in Medieval Europe: Technology and Re-
source Use. Technology and Change in History, 3. Leiden.
Brill.
Squatriti, P. 2013:
Landscape and Change in Early Medieval Italy: Chestnuts,
Economy and Culture. Cambridge University Press.
45
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Stephenson, C. 1941:
Review of Homans 1941, Journal of Economic History 1:2,
222–224.
Stocker, D. 2000:
Foreword, in: Roberts and Wrathmell 2000, viii–ix.
Stone, D. 2005:
Decision-Making in Medieval Agriculture. Oxford University
Press.
Sweeney, D. 1995:
Agriculture in the Middle Ages: Technology, Practise and
Presentation. Middle Ages Series. University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Sylvester, D. 1969:
The Rural Landscape of the Welsh Borderland: A Study in
Historical Geography. London. Macmillan.
Szabadfalvi, J. 1997:
A honfoglalás kori magyarság állattenyésztō technikája, in:
Kovács, L. – Paládi –Kovács, A. (eds) Honfoglalás és néprajz:
A honfoglalásról sok szemmel, IV, 69–83.
Szabó, P. 2010:
Why history matters in ecology: an interdisciplinary perspec-
tive, Environmental Conservation 37:4, 380–387.
Szolnoki, L. 2006:
A nagycserei vaseszközlelet. Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évköny-
ve, 217–237.
Taylor, C. 1974:
Fieldwork in Medieval Archaeology. London. Batsford.
Taylor, C. 1975:
Fields in the English Landscape. Archaeology in the Field Se-
ries. London. John Dent.
Taylor, C.C. 2007:
Reconstructing past landscapes: what do we see?, in: Costen
2007, 205–208.
TeBrake, W.H. 2000:
Hydraulic engineering in the Netherlands during the Middle
Ages, in: Squatriti 2000, 101–127.
TeBrake, W.H. 2002:
Taming the waterwolf: hydraulic engineering and water man-
agement in the Netherlands during the Middle Ages, Technol-
ogy and Culture 43:3, 475–499.
Thirsk, J. 1964:
The common fields, Past and Present 29, 3–25.
Thirsk, J. (ed) 1967:
The Agrarian History of England and Wales Volume IV,
1500–1640. Cambridge University Press.
Thirsk, J. 1997:
Alternative Agriculture: A History from the Black Death to the
Present Day. Oxford University Press.
Thoen, E. – Borger, G.J. – Kraker, A.M.J. – Soens, T. –Tys, D.
– Vervaet, L. – Weerts, H.J.T. (eds) 2013:
Landscapes or Seascapes? The History of the Coastal Envi-
ronment in the North Sea Area Reconsidered. CORN Publica-
tion Series, 13. Turnhout. Brepols.
Titow, J. 1960:
Evidence of weather in the account rolls of the bishopric of
46
1–48
Winchester 1209–1350, Economic History Review 2nd Se-
ries XI, 360–407.
Titow, J. 1970:
Le climat à travers les rôles de comptabilitè de l’évêché de
Winchester, 1350–1450, Annales ESC 25, 312–350.
Toch, M. 1997:
Agricultural processes and agricultural technology in Ger-
many: an alternative model, in: Bradford-Smith – Wolfe 1997,
158–169.
Toubert, P. 1984:
Crescenzi, Pietro de. Diziorario Biografico degli Italiani 30.
Treccani, [pp. 9]
Travino, A.J. (ed) 2006:
George C Homans: History, Theory and Method. Boulder (Col-
orado). Paradigm Publishers.
Trillo san José, C. 2007:
Organizació del espacio agricolo y del agua en la Grana-
da nazari (siglos XIII–XV), in: Cavaciocchi, S. (ed) Europe’s
Economic Relations with Islamic World. Atti delle Setti-
mane di Studi e altri Convengi, 38. Firenze. Le Moonnier,
121–134.
Tuddenham, D.B. 2008:
Gull I stamen, Spor: Forlidsnytt fra Midt-Norge, 23:1, 4–7.
Uhlig, H. 1961:
Committee for an international glossary of the geographical
terminology of the agricultural landscape, Geografisca An-
naler. Series B, Human Geography, 43:1–2, iii.
Uhlig, H. (ed) 1967:
Flur und Flurformen: Types of Field Patterns: Le Finage Agri-
cole et sa Structure Parcelellaire. Giessen. [Text published in
three languages, English, French and German].
Ulsig, E. –Sorenson, A.K. 1981:
Studier I kong Valdemar. jordebog – Plovtalsliste of mentskat,
Historik tidsskrift (København) 81:1, 1–26.
Unwin, T. 1983:
Townships and early fields in Nottinghamshire, Journal of
Historical Geography. 9:4, 341–346.
Unwin, T. – Spek, T. (eds) 2003:
European Landscapes: From Mountain to Sea. Proceedings
of the 19th Session of the Permanent European Conference
for the Study of the Rural Landscape (PECSRL) at London
and Aberystwyth (UK) 10–17 September 2000. Tallinn. Huma
Publishers.
Velarde, M.D. – Roth, M. – Buchecker, M. 2010:
Description methods for European agri-cultural landscapes:
definitions, cultural character and values, Tàjökológiai Lapok
Special Issue, 11–12.
Vigneron, F. 2012:
La terre comme lieu du décomposition et de génération: les
mutations de la organique dans les textes scientifiques et lit-
téraires du Moyen Âge, in: Vignernon, F. – Watanabe, K. (eds)
Voix des mythes, science des civilisations. Hommage à Phil-
lippe Walter. Berne. Peter Land, 275–287.
Vinogradoff, P. 1892:
Villainage in England: Essays in English Medieval History.
Oxford at the Clarendon Press.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe
Vinogradoff, P. 1904:
The Growth of the Manor. London. George Allen and Unwin.
Vinogradoff, P. 1908:
English Society in the Eleventh Century: Essays in English
Medieval History. Oxford at the Clarendon Press.
Vlist, E. van der 2008:
Mist over de stad. Leiden rond 1200, Leids Jaarboekje 100,
1–32.
Vollmann, B.K. 2008:
Pier de Crescenzi: Ossia la Corsa a ostacoli del traduttore, Ae-
vum 82:2, 351–355.
Way, A. (ed) 1851:
Promptorium Parvulorum sive clericorum, lexicon anglo-
latinum princeps, autore frater Galfrido Grammatico dicto
e predictoribus lenne episcopi, Northfolciensi, A.D. circa
m.CCC.XL … Camden Society Old Series 54.
Webster, J.C. 1938:
The Labors of the Months in Antique and Medieval Art to the
End of the Twelfth Century. North-Western Studies in Hu-
manity, no. 4. Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology,
21. Reviewed in Shapiro 1941.
Wickham, C. 1998:
Community and Clientele in Twelfth-Century Tuscany: The
Origins of the Rural Commune in the Plain of Lucca. Oxford.
Clarendon Press.
Wilkinson, B. 1943:
Review of Homans 1941, Journal of Political History 51:1,
85–86.
Willard, J.F. 1932:
Occupations of the months in medieval calendars, Bodleian
Quarterly Record 7, 33–39.
Williamson, T. 1986:
Parish boundaries and early fields: continuity or discontinu-
ity, Journal of Historical Geography 12, 241–248.
Williamson, T. 2003:
Shaping Medieval Landscapes: Settlement Society, Environ-
ment. Macclesfield. Windgather Press.
Williamson, T. 2007:
Historic Landscape Characterisation: some queries, Land-
scapes 8:2, 64–71
Williamson, T. 2009:
Review of Martin, E – Satchell, M. ‘Wheare most inclosures
be’ East Anglian fields: History, Morphology and Manage-
ment. East Anglian Archaeology. 2008, in Economic History
Review 62, 1011–1012.
Williamson, T. 2010:
The environmental contexts of Anglo-Saxon settlement, in:
Higham– Ryan 2010, 133–156.
Williamson, T. 2013:
Environment, Society and Landscape in Early Medieval Eng-
land: Time and Topography. Woodbridge. Boydell Press.
Williamson, T. – Liddiard, T. – Partida, T. 2012:
Champion. The Making and Unmaking of the English Mid-
land Landscape. Exeter University Press.
Winchester, A.J.L. 1978:
The medieval vill in the western Lake District: some problems
RURALIA X
1–48
of definition, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmor-
land Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 78, 55–69.
Winchester, A.J.L. 1986:
The distribution and significance of ‘bordland’ in medieval
Britain, Agricultural History Review 34, 129–139.
Winchester, A.J.L. 1987:
Landscape and Society in Medieval Cumbria. Edinburgh.
John Donald Publishers.
Winchester, A.J.L. 1990:
Discovering Parish Boundaries. Princess Risborough. Shire
Publications 282.
Winchester, A.J.L. 1997:
Parish, township and tithing: landscapes of local administra-
tion in England before the nineteenth century, Local Histo-
rian 27: 1, 2–17.
Winchester, A.J.L. 2000:
The Harvest of the Hills: Rural Life in Northern England
and the Scottish Borders, 1400–1700. Edinburgh University
Press.
Winchester, A.J.L. 2002:
Upland commons in northern England. in: De Moor, M. –
Warde, P. – Shaw-Taylor, L. (eds) The Management of Com-
mon Land in North West Europe, c. 1500–1850. CORN Publi-
cation Series no. 8. Turnhout, Brepols, 33–57.
Winchester, A.J.L. 2006:
Common Land in Upland Britain: Tragic Unsustainability or
Utopean Community Resource?. Umwelt und Geschichte in
Deutschland und Grossbritannien/ Environment and His-
tory in Britain and Germany. Prinz Albert studien Band 24.
K. G. Saur for Prince of Albert Society.
Winchester, A.J.L. 2013:
Property rights, ‘good neighbourhood’ and sustainability of
common land in England and Wales, 1235–1965, in: van
Bavel, B. – Thoen, E. (eds) Rural Societies and Environment
at Risk: Ecology, Property Rights and Social Organisation
in Fragile Areas. Rural History in Europe no. 9. Turnhout.
Brepols, 301–329.
Winchester, A.J.L. – Straughton, E.A. 2010:
Stints and sustainability: managing stock levels on common
land in England: c. 1600–2006, Agricultural History Review
58:1, 30–48.
Wood, G.A. 2003:
Field arrangements in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the
high Middle Ages. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Geogra-
phy and School of Continuing Education, University of Leeds.
Woodward, D. 1990:
‘An essay on manures’: changing attitudes to fertilization in
England, 1500–1800, in: Chartris, J. – Hey, D. (eds) English
Rural Society, 1500–1800: Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk.
Cambridge University Press, 251–278.
Wrathmell, S. (ed) 2012:
A History of Wharram Percy and Its Neighbours: Wharram,
A Study of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, XIII. York Uni-
versity Archaeological Publications 15.
Wright, J. (ed) 1898–1905:
The English Dialect Dictionary 6 vols. English Dialect Soci-
ety. London. Henry Frowde
47
Moorhouse – Bond, An approach to understanding medieval field systems across Europe 1–48

Wright, T. (ed) 1857: clusion of two case studies from Hungary, in Klápště 2013,
A Volume of Vocabularies Volume 1. London. Privately print- 437–446.
ed. Zimmermann, R. 2010:
Zayykó, C. 2013: Glossary of landscape terminology, Tájökologiai Lapok Spe-
Appearance of social hierarchy in village structures: the con- cial Issue, 129–133.

Stephen Moorhouse, Deighton House, 8 Deighton Lane, Healey, Batley, West Yorkshire, WF17 8BJ; celiamoorhouse05@
yahoo.co.uk
James Bond, The Anchorage, Coast Road, Walton-in-Gordano, Clevedon, North Somerset, BS21 7AR; jimserf@aol.com

48 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 49–88

Features within medieval township farming landscapes

in Yorkshire and their function
Landwirtschaftliche Strukturen und deren Funktion
in mittelalterlichen Gemarkungen in Yorkshire

Les caractéristiques des paysages agraires

dans la structure médiévale en Yorkshire et leur fonction

Stephen Moorhouse

Introduction
This paper summarises the results of one aspect
of work on the medieval landscape of the Yorkshire
Dales, for which interim reports have appeared (eg
Moorhouse 2003; 2009). The essential supporting me-
dieval documentation has been examined from across
the historic county. The full supporting evidence, such
as the documentary research and distribution maps,
will form part of a proposed volume on the documen-
tary and name evidence and earthwork survey of field
systems across the Yorkshire Dales and selected areas
of North Yorkshire.
The places mentioned in this paper are listed alpha-
betically in Fig. 1 and located on Fig. 2.
The subject of this paper has grown out of a long
term project which has run for over four decades look-
ing at the medieval landscape of Yorkshire. The work
started in West Yorkshire in the mid-1970s (eg Moor-
house 1979; 1981), developed into the Yorkshire Dales
(eg Moorhouse 2003; 2007; 2009) and now looks at
particular themes across the county (eg Moorhouse in
preparation). The approach has been an interdiscipli-
nary one using documents, maps, minor-names, field
survey and the full range of environmental evidence to
try to understand the layout of the medieval landscape
through the principle organisations that influenced its
creation and development: the township, manor, par-
ish and monastic estate. This is supported crucially by
large area, targeted detailed field survey within mean-
ingful units of the medieval township. The Yorkshire
Dales contains one of the best preserved earthwork
landscapes in northern Europe. Combined with the
understanding gained from the documentation, they
make the region one of the best understood medieval
landscapes in Europe.
Apart from understanding landscapes in their to-
tality, many separate themes have emerged from this
work. Well preserved landscapes have been identified
as they were created and used in contrast to taking
the well preserved fragments of these that have ran-
domly survived, and interpreting them in isolation
through archaeological morphology. This fragmentary
approach has led to large areas of particularly upland
landscapes being incorrectly identified, with much of
the medieval landscape being attributed to the prehis-
toric or Romano-British periods, while the important
detail has not been recognised. Many of these land-
scapes are unknown archaeologically, including those
represented by the theme of this paper. The problems
are particularly acute in the uplands but occur across
the county. Of the many integrated landscapes identi-
fied for the first time are horse-breeding complexes, the
extensive grazing pastures for sheep and cattle, and a
variety of craft activities such as stone quarrying and
iron working complexes. The subject of the present
paper has emerged from this work: the integrated and
interdisciplinary approach of the landscape historian.
This approach is in complete contrast to the tradi-
tional work on ‘sites’ where individual features, wheth-
er excavated features or standing structures, are con-
sidered out of context. This difference is illustrated
by the study of standing barns. A wide range of barns
were a common site in the medieval countryside. The
evidence for them is varied and substantial. Docu-
ments, names which describe them and maps have
revealed their many uses and location within the cor-
porate field system and elsewhere. They are referred to
directly, described in a wide range of name elements
and are found in profusion in the earthwork land-
scapes of farming systems from the prehistoric period
to the present day.
Previous work
A considerable body of work has been carried out
on standing barns, particularly in the Yorkshire Dales.

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 49–88.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110457
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

Place Place Place Place

1 Addingham 33 East Bolton 65 Long Drax 97 Stackhouse
2 Agglethorpe 34 Easthorpe 66 Long Preston 98 Starbotton
3 Aiskew 35 Elmswell 67 Malham 99 Storiths
4 Altofts 36 Elslack 68 Marley 100 Sutton Howgrave
5 Ampleforth 37 Ferry Fryston 69 Meaux Abbey 101 Thoralby
6 Appletreewick 38 Fixby 70 Metham 102 Thoresby
7 Arncliffe 39 Flockton 71 Methley 103 Thorpe Salvin
8 Askrigg 40 Gamsworth 72 Middleham 104 Thornton Steward
9 Aysgarth 41 Gowdall 73 Morton 105 Threshfield
10 Bainbridge 42 Grassington 74 Nappa Hall 106 Topcliffe
11 Barden 43 Halton 75 Nesfield 107 Treeton
12 Belmont 44 Hampsthwaite 76 Northallerton 108 Ulveshaw
13 Bishopdale 45 Harewood 77 Northowram 109 Wakefield
14 Blacktoft 46 Harmby 78 Noska 110 Walburn
15 Bolton Abbey 47 Hatfield 79 Otley 111 Wanlass Park
16 Bordley 48 Hawkswick 80 Otteringham 112 Weathercote
17 Bradford 49 Hazlewood 81 Parlington 113 Wensley
18 Bridlington Priory 50 Hillum Burchard 82 Preston under Scar 114 West Bolton
19 Calverley 51 Hipperholme 83 Pudsey 115 West Bretton
20 Carlton 52 Hipperslight 84 Rastrick 116 West Burton
21 Cattal 53 Hook 85 Rawcliffe 117 West Witton
22 Catton 54 Hoveton 86 Rimington 118 Wheldrake
23 Chevet 55 Jervaulx Abbey 87 Ripon 119 Wibberton
24 Clifford 56 Kettlewell 88 Rothwell 120 Wombwell
25 Cononley 57 Kildwick 89 Ryther 121 Woodale
26 Cowick 58 Kilnsey 90 Sandal Castle 122 Woodhall
27 Cotterdale 59 Kippax 91 Scosthorpe 123 Worton
28 Cracoe 60 Kirkstall Abbey 92 Sedbergh 124 Yapham
29 Crigglestone 61 Kirkheaton 93 Selside 125 Yeadon
30 Darfield 62 Langwith 94 Sewerby
31 Downholme 63 Laytham 95 Shippen
32 Dunnington 64 Linton 96 Spofforth

Fig. 1. Alphabetic list of places mentioned in the text, located on Fig. 2.

While documentary evidence shows that stone barns
begin to appear from the late 16th century (see below),
many of those which survive date only from the 18th
and 19th century (eg Hartley – Ingleby 1986, 36–70;
White 1988; White – Darlington 2004). Many barns
across the county have been surveyed by members
of the Yorkshire Vernacular Buildings Study Group.
Some reports have appeared in their journal Yorkshire
Buildings and all reports have been deposited with
the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Terminology for
barns and their internal arrangements has been exam-
ined (eg Ellis 1952; Mason 1989). This has shown that
while general terms can be widespread, there are many
terms which are strictly regional. The plan and func-
tion of the numerous field barns in upper Swaledale
have been interpreted as part of the land tenure in the
region (Reynolds 1998; 1999). A combination of field
work and documentary evidence has shown that some
barns had a specialised use, such as the specially built
hog houses for sheep (Manuge – Deadman 2004). All
of these studies have seen the standing barns as iso-
lated structures and not as part of the landscape in
which they lay. Detailed field survey across the Dales
has shown that many of the standing barns in old en-
closures lie over earthworks that suggest use on the
same site from the medieval period, and in some cases
continuity from the prehistoric period (eg Moorhouse
2006, 49 figs 4, 5).

50 RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Fig. 2. Location of places mentioned in the text, listed alphabetically in Fig. 1.
The structure of township field systems
There are a number of key influences which dictate
the form and nature of medieval field systems: the nat-
ural environment, the township structure and tenure.
The natural environment was crucial as this dictated
the emphasis of farming, whether mainly pastoral or
arable in an area. The range of essential requirements
of a farming regime, arable, closes, meadows, assarts,
woodland, pasture and wastes, dictated the shape of
the township, within which the farmers practised their
farming life through the community of the vill (see
pp. 7–9), while some elements, such as pasturing and
turf collection, could be practised outside the vill. Ar-
able and mainly nucleated settlement predominated
in the fertile lowland and mostly dispersed settlement
and enclosed fields in the uplands. The much larger
areas in between were covered mostly by the Coal
RURALIA X
49–88
Measures and display a multitude of combinations.
Documents, names and field survey have shown that
a range of structures existed in large numbers across
the composite farming landscape. To understand them
it is essential to appreciate why they are there and the
varying administrative structures and farming re-
gimes within which they were created. Tenure and the
way in which different lords develop their estates over
the same terrain can also have a hidden but profound
impact on the physical form of the landscape, as Barry
Harrison has recently shown in north-east Yorkshire
(Harrison 2012).
The varying influences on the creation and develop-
ment of township field systems have produced a var-
ied patchwork across the county, particularly away
from the fertile lowlands. A considerable body of work
has been carried out over the past four decades. June
51
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Sheppard’s pioneering study of the development of the
farming landscape of Wheldrake, south-east of York,
is of more than regional significance (Sheppard 1966).
This was followed by a series of important papers on
aspects of settlement and farming (brought together
in Manby–Moorhouse–Ottaway 2003, 425, ‘Sheppard,
J.A.’), including her still valuable statement of the
knowledge of historic field systems in Yorkshire in the
early 1970s (Sheppard 1973). Mary Harvey has contrib-
uted an important series of papers on medieval field
systems, their origins and development on the York-
shire Wolds, Holderness and the Vale of York (listed
in Wrathmell 2012, 377, ‘Harvey, M.’). David Hall has
applied his skills to the township field systems of the
Wolds (Hall 2012).
The uplands of the county provide a very different
picture, dominated by dispersed settlement (Fig. 2).
The length of the western Pennines within the county
has been studied (Moorhouse 1981, 656–680; 2003,
311–319; Harrison 2003; Wood 2003; Hey 2014), as
have the North York Moors (Harrison 1990; 2003; Har-
rison–Roberts 1989). Even adjacent upland valleys can
develop very different field systems, each based on
dispersed settlement with different dates for their crea-
tion and evoloution (eg Moorhouse 2003, 307–309).
Fig. 3. Medieval administrative divisions in the modern civil parish of Pudsey, West Yorkshire, within which the medieval farming landscape for each
was created and developed. From Moorhouse 1986, 12 fig. 2.
52
49–88
Uniqueness of township field systems
In the uplands and their foothills no township field
system can be taken as typical because of the many
influences behind their creation and development,
but there are generic types. One of these is the mod-
ern civil parish of Pudsey on the West Yorkshire Coal
Measures (Fig. 3). By the 13th century it contained a
minimum of six administrative units that were termed
vills, with a common woodland in the eastern part of
the township. Once the vill boundaries had been un-
derstood the basic resources of the farming landscape
within each could be identified, such as the reverse ‘s’
shaped fossilised field boundaries representing ridge
and furrow ploughing. The cleared medieval woodland
is identified by the successive assarts (many docu-
mented) and the sinuous roads which ran between
them. In the mid-18th century the medieval landscape,
with its dispersed settlements and surrounding fields
with open ground in between, was still in evidence.
The gaps in between had become filled with urban ex-
pansion of the centres of Bradford and Leeds by the
mid-19th century, as seen on Fig. 3. Along with many
other similar examples, the study of the civil parish of
Pudsey has shown the complex history of rural medi-
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
eval landscapes that now lie within modern urban set-
tings. As David Hey has recently reminded us ancient
landscapes are easy to read once the documentary and
name evidence has been thoroughly analysed and the
medieval administrative units understood (Hey 2014,
39).
This work has produced many detailed case stud-
ies from across the county (eg Sheppard 1966; 1973;
Moorhouse 1981, 603–606; 2003, 307–308; Harrison
1990; 2003; Wood 2003). These emphasise the extreme
local variations in the form and development of town-
ship field systems, and highlight the importance of un-
derstanding this phenomenon before the components
and contents of the composite field systems can be
understood. These extremely localised variations are a
result of the natural environment, the township struc-
ture, the types of composite field systems found within
them, and tenure.
Field survey
The field surveys have provided a unique and es-
sential tool for understanding the historic earthwork
landscape. The method of survey has been described
elsewhere (Moorhouse 2003, 297–298). In summary,
the tools used were ranging rods, 100 metre tapes and
hand-made cane flags with red plastic tops to mark out
RURALIA X
49–88
Fig. 4. Harewood, North Field. Multi-
phase helm/barn complex built over
ridge and furrow. From Moorhouse
1985, 13 fig. 3, located on 12 fig. 2.
the earthworks. Creating the drawing was by triangula-
tion. Early in the project it was found that off-set meas-
uring was not accurate enough for the detail required.
The Ordnance Survey grid base meant that it could be
used to identify parts of the drawn survey with up to
an eight-figure grid reference. From 1996 an Impulse
2000 lasar measuring device, accurate to 1cm over
200 metres with an inbuilt clinometer was used with
home-made reflectors. This cut surveying time by two-
thirds. Many of the major surveys had already been
completed by then (eg Figs 5, 6). As in other papers
(eg Moorhouse 2003; 2006) most of the earthwork sur-
veys here are reduced directly from the original pencil
field surveys, with the usual additions of names, keys,
scales and north points and in some cases the 50 me-
tre grid triangulation crosses have been whited out
for clarity; exceptions are Figs 4, 30. Details of each
survey, such as scale used and size of the drawing,
are given elsewhere (Moorhouse 2003, fig. captions;
361 table 13). The reason for publishing the original
pencil survey is that the author believes that a survey
should leave the site, complete with full hachure cover
and at least an outline interpretation, ready for publi-
cation. The surveys in this paper have been published
as surveyed rather than as inked copies to make that
point. Sadly, in the past, despite making this point (eg
Moorhouse 2003, 298), a reviewer has suggested that
53
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Fig. 5. West Bolton township field system reduced from a pencil drawing. The inset shows the location of Figs 5, 6 within the medieval township
structure. Adapted from Moorhouse 2003, 312 fig. 104.
pencil drawings were published because there was not
time to produce inked versions (Gerrard 2005, 296)!
The problem is that hachures inserted after the digi-
tal mapping at a later date have been drawn the wrong
way in some major surveys, showing slopes in the op-
posite direction. This can be seen when the survey is
checked in the field and it dramatically affects the un-
derstanding and interpretation of the survey. Another
problem is editors who are not familiar with earthwork
surveys who have them redrawn incorrectly because
they believe they would not re-produce. Such an ex-
ample appeared in a paper that was written to demon-
strate best practice in the work of the landscape his-
torian, and particularly field survey (Moorhouse 2008).
The originals had previously and were subsequently
published without any difficulty. The published sur-
veys were rendered inaccurate and very misleading.
Surveys of medieval field systems in West Yorkshire
in the early 1980s identified a range of slight struc-
tures and other features both integral with the field
system and built over them. Typical is a small stag-
garth enclosure developed over part of the North Field
of Harewood township (Fig. 4); the term ‘staggarth’ is
a dialect form of ‘stackgarth’ commonly found across
the county today. The complex clearly overlay the ar-
able strips as there is no headland present, and prob-
54
49–88
ably related to the subsequent use of the grassland
for a hay crop. When work started in the Dales in the
early 90s, the wide range of features found in medieval
documents were found in the area targeted surveys of
the earthwork remains of abandoned medieval town-
ship field systems. The traditional way of understand-
ing earthwork field systems is to plot them from aerial
photographs, an approach that still prevails. This is
now being superseded by the use of LIDAR. Neither
technique reveals the detail required to identify the
anatomy and particularly the often complex chronol-
ogy of field systems, and hence understand their de-
velopment through time. This can only come from
detailed field survey. Inappropriate and inadequate
outline transcripts from aerial photographs often form
the only evidence for historic field systems in regional
Historic Environment Records (HERs), and are relied
on as the basis for their understanding, preservation
and ultimately conservation. The township field sys-
tems of West Bolton and East Bolton (Figs 5, 6), in mid
Wensleydale, are two of the best preserved and most
complex multi-period field systems in Yorkshire, yet
they are described in the local HER simply as an area
of ridge and furrow and lynchets.
The difficulty of using aerial photographs to un-
derstand earthwork field systems is illustrated by the
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

adjacent township field systems of East Bolton and
West Bolton. Both have been extensively photographed
from the air over many years in different seasonal and
weather conditions, and are often used to illustrate
historic field systems. The earthwork surveys present
a very detailed picture that cannot be revealed through
aerial photography, LIDAR or sketch survey. The sur-
vey of West Bolton (Fig. 5) has an inset showing the long
since redundant medieval townships within the mod-
ern civil parishes, with the outline of the two field sur-
veys shown. That for East Bolton (Fig. 6) has a reduced
version of both surveys as the field systems relate to
each other on the ground. One of many excellent aerial
views (Fig. 7) of the West Bolton fields looks north of
West Bolton Farm (centre bottom). Compared with Figs
5, 6 it emphasizes the lack of detail seen from the air
and the failure to identify chronology. Both of these is-
sues are emphasized by the portion of the area of the
two surveys shown on the 1990s Dales aerial photog-
raphy plot (Fig. 8).
Perhaps one of the most valuable lessons learnt
from the field surveys is that most of the dale-side
township field systems have prehistoric origins whose
framework continues, in varying degrees, through the
successive archaeological and historic periods into the
middle ages. Some, such as those in mid-Wensleydale
(eg Figs 5, 6), constantly change their layout, form and
detail. Of relevance to the present paper is the large
numbers and wide variety of minor structures and
features found throughout all periods, but particularly

Fig. 6. East Bolton township field system reduced from a pencil drawing. The inset shows a reduction of the adjoining field systems of West Bolton
(Fig 5) and East Bolton (Fig. 6) as they relate on the ground. Adapted from Moorhouse 2003, 314 fig. 105.

RURALIA X 55
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

Fig. 7. Aerial photograph of part of the township field system of West Bolton looking north of West Bolton Farm, shown in the centre bottom. (Photo:
© R. White/YDNPA; YDP 019/07 17/1/1989).

Fig. 8. Extract from the RCHME Dales aerial photography plot (© Crown copyright.EH) of the area shown in Figs 5, 6 over the 1957 edition 6 inch
Ordnance Survey base. Compare the far greater detail revealed through field survey shown in Fig. 6, inset.

56 RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

Township Location Partial Full Source

Addingham Plumbtree Banks * Moorhouse 1996, 132–133 fig. 1
Arncliffe Thornsber Barn * Moorhouse 2003, 310 fig. 103
Askrigg High Field * Moorhouse 2003, 316 fig. 106
Askrigg Leas House * Moorhouse 2006, 55 fig. 11
Askrigg Town Head * Moorhouse 2003, 307 fig. 99
Aysgarth Town End * Moorhouse 2003, 306 fig. 98
Bainbridge Bain House * Moorhouse 2003, 305 fig. 97
Bishopdale * unpublished
Linton Laverack Barn * unpublished
Little and East Bolton * Fig. 6; Moorhouse 2003, 314 fig. 105
Middleham William’s Hill * Moorhouse 2003, 318 fig. 107
Middleham medieval hospital * unpublished
Middleham Straights Lane * unpublished
Nappa Nappa Hall * Moorhouse 2011, 234 fig. 13.9
Scosthorpe manor site * Moorhouse 2011, 230 fig. 13.6
Thorpe next to Burnasall north of village * unpublished
Threshfield Threshfield Common * Moorhouse 2007a
village, manor and field partially published in Moorhouse 2003,
Walburn *
system to east 309 fig. 101
West Bolton * Fig. 5, Moorhouse 2003, 312 fig. 104
West Witton Templar Preceptory * Moorhouse 2006, 63 fig. 20; unpublished
Wibberton Great Wibberton Barn * Moorhouse 2006, 66 fig. 21

Fig. 9. Surveyed township field systems in the Yorkshire Dales.

the medieval period, as that is the last to survive intact.
Most are ephemeral in nature.
One of many reasons behind starting working in
the Yorkshire Dales in the early 1990s was to try and
understand the multitude of different township field
systems which covered the area. To compare and con-
trast evidence, and to try and understand different
types of systems suggested by the documents, a num-
ber of township field systems were surveyed across
the Dales. A combination of fieldwork and documen-
tary work identified the initial group of townships, and
which parts of them were to be surveyed. Over seventy
mostly large area surveys were carried out up to 2000
which record specific landscape features. Twenty one
of these cover either whole township field systems or
parts of them (Fig. 9). The three Askrigg surveys re-
vealed major differences between the development of
the principal fields in the township. The Bishopdale
survey, which covers much of the head of the valley,
was carried out to record a massive complete and well
preserved earthwork iron-working complex that was
out of use by 1449. Remnants of a complex field sys-
tem underlay the industrial landscape.
A number of surveys, such as the Bishopdale sur-
vey, reveal terminal dates for the use of the fields in the
area of the survey, and this should provide important
palaeo-botanical evidence. The survey of William’s Hill
at Middleham showed that the ringwork, constructed in
the late 11th century, was built over a field system that
must pre-date the earthwork castle, the medieval man-
or and gardens at Nappa Hall were built over a co-axial
field system, while the earthworks at Thornsber Barn,
Arncliffe, represent a complex development from the
prehistoric through to the medieval period. Documen-
tary work and field survey has identified the complete
curia of the Templar preceptory at Penhill, West Witton.
Only the southern nucleus, centred on the chapel, has
been published (Moorhouse 2006, 63 fig. 20). The much
larger area to the north of Temple Farm has not. This
contains the remains if a substantial field system be-
neath the curia, which was founded about 1160. Docu-
mentary evidence suggested that most of the complex
landscape on Threshfield Common (Fig. 10; Moorhouse
2007a) was out of use before the Norman Conquest. In-
deed all surveys reveal a complex development which
could not be recognised or understood from sketch
survey, aerial photography or LIDAR.
The survey of the earthwork at Leas Farm, Askrigg
(Fig. 11) reveals a common problem in understanding
earthwork landscapes and field systems in particular.
The oval earthwork is a horse-stud that formed part
of a well-preserved and extensive curia of a grange of
Jervaulx Abbey created in the early 13th century. As
the earthwork overlay plough strips and there was no

RURALIA X 57
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
headland between the end of the strips and the earth-
work, the construction of the horse-stud provides a
terminal date for the use of the ridge and furrow. How-
ever the earthwork was identified in the Dales aerial
photography plot in the early 1990s as a character-
istic plan, with a suggested Iron Age date. The name
‘Askrigg type’ was given to twenty-three similar enclo-
sures across the Dales (Horne – MacLeod 1995, 49–52,
figs 4. 1.3.2a–c). The grange complex was not identi-
fied and the earthwork elements of it were not recog-
nised in the plot, nor can they be seen from the air.
Those that were picked up were identified as ‘prehis-
toric/ Romano-British’. This kind of problem is com-
mon-place, where morphology is used to identify and
date shapes in the landscape out of context. This has
created profound problems for understanding medi-
eval field systems.
It is usually assumed that ridge and furrow destroys
what it covers. There are many examples of where
complex landscapes have been identified from beneath
ridge and furrow. A succession of early landscape fea-
tures, including traditional square staggarths and cir-
cular staggarths or prehistoric/ Romano-British round
houses, lay beneath ridge and furrow at Ulveshaw in
the mouth of Wensleydale (Moorhouse 2008, 34 fig. 6),
and a series of features were identified beneath ridge
and furrow north of Reynard Ings Farm in Addingham
(Moorhouse 1996, 132–133 fig. 1). The survival of such
58
49–88
Fig. 10. Threshfield, Threshfield Pas-
ture east of Tarns Lane, showing typical
multi-phase multi-period complex Dales
landscape, with staggarths lying on de-
molished and spread stone walling (a–d).
From Moorhouse 2007a, [5] fig. 2.
features depends on the degree of former earthwork
survival and the intensity of medieval ploughing over
them. Such detail cannot be revealed through sketch
survey, aerial photography plotting or LIDAR work.
The survey of township field systems has revealed a
complex pattern of development. This is unique to each
township, emphasising the crucial importance of iden-
tifying township boundaries within which field sys-
tems were created and developed. From the 14th cen-
tury, progressively greater tracts of arable were given
over to grazing, gathering momentum in the 16th and
17th centuries. This is evident from the documents,
but its greatest impact is seen in the earthwork evi-
dence of fossilised earthwork field systems which sur-
vive as grassland. The complexity of many of the Dales
field systems shows not only many changes from the
prehistoric period, but major changes in more recent
times, almost certainly during the Middle Ages. Typi-
cal are the township systems of East Bolton and West
Bolton (Figs 5, 6), the extensive surveyed parts of the
township system of Aysgarth (Moorhouse 2003, 307
fig.99, 316 fig.106), and other unpublished examples in
the valleys of the rivers Aire and Wharfe. The complex
development in the landscape suggests that there were
many causes which could vary both in time and space.
Changes in the economy in a piecemeal fashion from
arable to pasture, the influential role of the community
of the vill (which worked differently in each township),
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
the proportion of free to tied tenants, the relationship
of them to their lords, the uneven and gradual reduc-
tion of arable within different fields throughout the
township and tenurial arrangements are probably ma-
jor players.
The many rectangular platforms that are scattered
throughout former arable fields, particularly those
on lynchets, probably belong to this phase of major
change. They clearly are not associated with the arable,
as the platforms overlie the plough lands and must be
later, and must relate to when the arable had changed
to pasture. The physical evidence for the structures
suggests that they were open-sided covers or shelters,
and are discussed below under helms. This would
suggest that many date from the late medieval period,
when the arable was well on the way to being replaced
by grassland.
Detailed survey of the earthwork evidence for field
systems reveals their complex form, development and
the numerous features found within all phases. How-
ever they cannot help understand what the many types
of features, and particularly structures were used for.
This has to come from the documentary evidence, and
particularly minor field-names recorded in the medi-
eval and later period. An understanding of the varied
features has also to come from an appreciation of the
complex nature of medieval field systems across the
county.
RURALIA X
49–88
Fig. 11. Leas Farm, Askrigg. Me-
dieval horse-stud, part of an ex-
tensive grange of Jervaulx Abbey,
founded in the early 13th century
and built over earlier ridge and
furrow. From Moorhouse 2003,
333 fig. 113.
Documentary evidence for features
in the township farming system
While buildings in field systems can be referred to
directly in documents, this is rare. Simplex and com-
pound minor names are the most important source of
information for the existence of features in field sys-
tems. They are used to describe pieces of property, or
as boundary points defining land, either within the
field system or as points on more extensive perambu-
lations. A further understanding of the names comes
from their association with land whose use is given,
such as arable or meadow, areas of field systems where
we would not normally expect structures. For example,
a wide range of elements describing different types of
structure are associated with meadows. A list of those
structural elements associated with field systems are
given in Fig. 21. Some of them are common across the
county, while others have a purely local distribution.
A comment on the translation or interpretation
of medieval technical terms in edited texts is neces-
sary. The published version of a 13th-century Cow-
ick charter records the granting of a butt of land with
‘a certain workshop’ on it; the original Latin was not
given (Fig. 12; Hedbitch 1948, 48 no.110). The trans-
lated word ‘workshop’ seemed dubious and inappro-
priate in that setting. The original document was ex-
amined (YAS MD153/1) and the Latin is domus. The
59
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Township Earliest date Name Tithe award
Cowick 1333 - -
Cracoe 1586 Laith Butts
Rimington 1276 Laith Butts
Yapham 1318 Lathebuttes
Fig. 12. Examples of medieval Laithbutt names, ‘barn on a butt’, from across the county, located by Figs 1, 2.
usual translation of the Latin word in edited texts is
‘house’, but the word ‘house’ has a functional mean-
ing not intended by the Latin nor by the contexts of
the document, and can lead to considerable misun-
derstanding. The translation of Latin domus as ‘build-
ing’ is given throughout this paper unless the context
suggests otherwise. A further problem is a misunder-
standing of vernacular minor names in printed edi-
tions. The lost name Lengelathe occurs in an early
13th century Ferry Fryston charter (Holmes 1902, 432
no. CCCXXXIII). In the English summary to the
document, the editor has interpreted the name as
‘Longlathe’, a development that is unlikely to occur
from the original. A much more likely interpretation is
‘le ing lathe’, the lathe or barn near the meadow, espe-
cially as the scattered holdings in the charter lay with-
in the meadow near the River Aire. Such problems are
rare in editions in the late 19th and into the 20th cen-
turies, as editors had a remarkable understanding of
the layout of the medieval landscape represented by
the documents and the minor names found within
them, as is evident by Richard Holmes’ edition of the
Pontefract cartulary. Sadly this problem is more preva-
lent today, where many editors are not familiar with the
understanding of names or of their presentation, of
the layout of the medieval landscape or of the medieval
township structure.
Elements of the township farming system
The remainder of the paper will be divided into two
parts. Firstly to look at the various components of the
township field system where buildings were used and
their function. Secondly, to look at a few of the wide
range of terms which are found in names recorded
in the medieval period, which were used to describe
buildings found there, what they may mean and their
distribution.
Buildings in the arable
Cereal production dominated the field systems of
the fertile low lands, but was still present in the pas-
toral dominated systems of the Coal Measure and the
60
49–88
Setting Source
building (domus) on butt of land in
Hebditch 1948, 48 no.110
arable field
* name of furlong YAS DD121/31/10
* name of furlong Littledale 1916, 141 no.71
- name of furlong Clay 1930, 168 no.550
Gritstone uplands. References to buildings directly as-
sociated with arable are not common. A rare example
occurs in a Halton charter to Bolton Priory, granting
six bovates lying in the culture in which the canons
barn (horreum) is situated (Legg 2009, 265 no.16).
Much more common are references to barns on
butts given in minor names. Butts are short groups
of parallel strips often in a small irregular part of the
arable furlongs. Four examples from across the coun-
ty can illustrate them (Fig.12). The 1848 tithe award
for Rimington in the extreme north-western part of
the county, records the field-name ‘Laith Butt’. The
earthwork evidence for ridge and furrow beneath the
later Enclosure fields shows that the two long nar-
row enclosed fields with the name lie between two
former arable furlongs to the east and west. No barn
is shown on the 1909 ed. 6-inch OS, nor in the 1848
tithe map. The name occurs in charters dated 1276
and 1300, with two others undated of a similar date
(Littledale 1916, 141 no.71, 144 no.78, 147 no.82, 174
no.123; YAS MD102). The 1839 Cracoe tithe award
contains a field called ‘Laith Butts’, a name that de-
scribes a furlong of the arable fields of the township
in 1586 (YAS DD121/31/10). In 1318 a grant of land
in Yapham, on the Yorkshire Wolds, gives half a rood
on a furlong called Lathebutts, and a Cowick charter
of 1333 grants a butt of land in the field system there
with a building (domus) upon it (Fig. 12). The Yapham
and Cowick examples are lost names and their sites
have not been located. The buildings are unlikely to
lie on the butt, but on the triangular area of land that
was too small to plough. The distribution of ‘Laith-
butt’ and related names shows that buildings on butts
in medieval arable field systems occured across the
county.
Buildings were also sited on gores within arable
field systems. These were often small triangular piec-
es of ground where groups of furlongs or butts meet,
the area being too small to plough, and therefore
waste and unused ground. Lying between furlong di-
visions, they had access along balks, and were ideal
for buildings associated with the arable field system.
Ridge and furrow usually ran down a slope for drain-
age. The undulating nature of arable fields, even on
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

relatively flat ground, meant that there would be many
unused gores. Two related elements were used to de-
scribe them, OE gāra, ‘gore, triangular plot’, and OE
gāra-brædu, ‘broad strip of irregular land in a corner of
the common arable field’. Despite the large number of
names with ‘gore’ in them, none have been found that
associate them with structural elements. Some gores
have recent barn structures on them, which may per-
petuate earlier buildings on the site. Earthwork build-
ings are known from field survey, as, for example, in
the earthwork field system at Dunnington, to the east
of York.
Barns associated with arable fields are also de-
scribed by their geographical position. The lost name
Heldeberne describes arable land in a 13th-century
Brampton Bierlow charter (Jackson 1881, 60). The
name comes from OE helde and OE ber-ærn, meaning
a barn on a slope. A similar name occurs in Harmby, in
the mouth of Wensleydale. The name Holdelyth/ Hold-
elith first occurs in 13th-century charters (eg Staple-
ton 1838, 14 no.9; 237 no.11; Brown 1914, 70 nos 172,
173; NYCRO ZBO/M/6/906; MS4/908; MS13/926) as
the name of an arable furlong or strips within that fur-
long. It occurs many times thereafter, confirming that
the structure was associated with the open field until
enclosure in the 18th century. The name Houdleths
occurs on an estate map of 1778 covering an area of
enclosed arable fields (NYCRO ZBO(M) 5/2), an area
now beneath modern housing. The name comes from
OE hald, ‘shelter’ and OE/ON hlið, ‘slope’, clearly de-
scribing some kind of shelter on a slope and, by the
context of the documents, associated with an arable
furlong.
As the survey of earthwork township field systems
has shown, medieval and earlier field systems were
constantly evolving from the prehistoric period. It is
therefore not surprising to find documentary refer-
ences to this development. A Gowdall deed of 1317
describes three selions (plough strips) of land lying
together within defined boundaries, with one grange
(grangia) built across them at the northern end (YAS
MD335/Millar/85). Sadly, despite fieldwork in the gen-
eral area described, the site has not been located, and
such explicit references are rare.
Assarts
Assarts were an enclosed clearing usually taken
from woodland for cultivation. They can form a sec-
ondary addition, physically or otherwise, to the es-
tablished field system, or form part of separate settle-
ments in the uplands. They are particularly common
over the Coal Measures and upland landscapes, but
can occur anywhere. They are described by a wide
range of elements.
While earthwork survey of township field systems
has noted structures in assarts, documentary refer-
ences to structures within them are not common. An
agreement of 1360 describes the felling of timber in
Rawcliffe on the southern Humber estuary. Amongst
other things, it specified the building of a chamber
(camera) in a named assart (assartum), to quote, ‘so
that the men of the said Thomas le Fa[rrier] of Hamb-
leton may work there overnight’ (WYAS/L/SA, fo.71,
no.229). An inquisition of 1314 granted to the hermit-
age of St Robert in Knaresborough the right to hold an
isolated enclosure within the king’s chase of Knares-
borough at Belmont, now an area between Knaresbor-
ough and Harrogate. Licence was granted to build a
barn within the enclosure for their corn growing there,
and a building (domus) for their cattle and sheep within
the boundary, along with free ingress and egress from
their field to their pasture in the chase (Baildon 1931,
23 no.3). Sadly, this well-documented early detached

Township Location Earliest date Type of document Setting Source

meadow rented with Kershaw – Smith 2000,
Barden Gamsworth 1304–5 account roll
a building (domus) 183
meadow and arable with Ashcroft – Jones 2009,
Catton bank of River Derwent 175 charter
granges (grangia) 343
3 helms repaired in TNA
Middleham West Park 1473–4 account roll
meadow of Thornland DL29/648/10485, 1r
site of barn (grangia) with
Otley Storthes e.14cent extent Cowling 1965, E5
meadow
hay stored in barn
Stell – Hampson 1999,
Ripon marshland 1481 will (grangia) in eastern
301
marshland
Topcliffe The Fitches 14cent account roll banks of the River Swale Fisher 1954, 70
Wombwell North Field 15cent terrier land lying at le Haldyng Purvis 1936, 206
2 parcels of meadow at Lan-
Yeadon Nether Yeadon 1370 extent Price 1984, 229
genge and Benethlath

Fig. 13. Selection of names describing buildings in meadows, illustrating the range of documents in which they occur, located by Figs 1, 2.

RURALIA X 61
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Township Name Smith vol. Earliest ref.
Cattal Aubert Ings 1961d, 17 13th c.
Ferry Fryston Lenglathe – 13th c.
Hatfield Hutholmes 1961a, 12 1190–1202
Hawkswick Kyrchouil 1961f, 125 1261
Long Drax Helmholm 1961c, 13 1130–9
Fig. 14. Selection of names describing meadows with elements that describe different types of structure from across the county, located by Figs
1, 2.
assart within the forest of Knaresborough cannot now
be located. However, hundreds of isolated present-day
upland farms across the historic county have their
origins as settled assarts created by the 13th century,
and many probably before the Norman Conquest. This
is discussed elsewhere (Moorhouse 1981, 585–613,
656–680).
Buildings in meadows
Meadows provided the essential lush hay crop for
township communities. They are found on the banks
of water courses, and divided nominally, though not
always physically, into strips. A range of terms were
used to describe them, but two predominate, describ-
ing the two principle types. Ings, from ON eng, de-
scribe the conventional meadow which could be ma-
nured by animals. Holmes, from ON holmr, describes
a water meadow, which were seasonally flooded with
an irrigation system. Though these may be long-since
abandoned, their earthwork sluices can survive. Silts
are deposited during the flooding.
The evidence for a variety of buildings associated
with meadows is overwhelming, and a few examples
from different situations across the historic county
are given in Fig. 13. A Ripon will of 1485 describes
the whereabouts and costs of part of the hay crop in
the barn in the eastern marshland; a barn existed on
the Fitches, from ON fit, ‘grassland on a river bank’,
on the bank of the River Swale at Topcliffe in the
14th century; in 1473–4 16d. was paid for repairing
three helms described as lying within the meadow at
Thornland, which lay within the West Park at Middle-
han in Wensleydale; at Otley in the early 14th century
a tenant held the site of a barn along with parcels of
meadow; in 1304–5 Bolton Priory rented a meadow
at Gamswath in Barden ‘with the building (domus)’;
a 15th century terrier of Healugh Priory’s land in
the North Field of Wombwell describes land at le Hal-
dyng (‘the shelter by/on the ing’ from OE hald) and
in 1175, the nuns of Wilberfoss Priory were granted
land at Catton on the banks of the River Derwent
within meadow and arable ‘where their granges are
situated’.
62
49–88
Meaning Meadow Ing Holme
old booth by the stile *
lathe by the ing *
hut by the holmes *
church hovil *
helm *
Structures associated with meadows are the most
frequently mentioned through minor names. The range
of source material is sampled in Figs 13, 14. The large
body of evidence for structures associated with mead-
ows also shows that elements with different structural
elements were used. The small sample given in Fig. 14
shows that ‘booth’, ‘lath’, ‘hut’, ‘hovil’ and ‘helm’ were
all used in names recorded before the mid 13th cen-
tury. These, and other terms used, all have different
meanings for the type of structure or their setting.
The reason for this variety is uncertain. The elements
could have a genuine significance describing differ-
ent types of structures, or it might be that the names,
by the time they were recorded, had lost their mean-
ing. Only further analysis of the material will reveal
which.
Barns can be described in the most unusual way.
A rental of 1370 describes meadow in Nether Yeadon,
a division of Yeadon township, described as lying in
two locations, in Langenge (‘long ing’) and Bynethlath,
‘beneath the laith’ (Price 1984, 229); while the barn is
clearly associated with the meadow, it may not have
been used to store its product.
The Bolton Priory accounts for 1286–1325 record
three certain structures associated with meadows
(Fig. 15). Typically the Latin term domus is used, but
also clavis, at Ryther in 1313/14. While the context
and high cost suggests a structure in the meadow, the
term has not been noted elsewhere, nor is the mean-
ing clear.
Other names describe enclosures associated with
meadows. A 13th-century Harmby charter describes
a meadow called Lockeholm (Stapleton 1838, 112 no.2,
113 no.5, 237 no.11). The name is lost and cannot be
located. It comes from OE loc, ‘temporary fold’, ON
holmr, ‘water meadow’. The same name occurs in a
Thornton Steward grant dated 1318 as Lokholme (Vale
1987, 207 no. 537). The name could refer to something
similar to the temporary folding of sheep over the ar-
able to fertilise the ground, but water meadows fertilise
themselves by the process of depositing silts. In keep-
ing with many other names, their meaning may seem
obvious but they have to be taken in the context of the
land which they are describing.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Buildings in woodland
Woodland produced a wide range of resources for
the community and the landlord. As such different
types of woodland were carefully managed within their
own enclosures. Barns are occasionally mentioned on
woodland boundaries. During the period c.1160–1183
a barn (horeum) lay on the boundary of land in the now
obsolete medieval township of Hoveton granted to Riev-
aulx Abbey (Clay 1952, 90 no. 10). Although the wood-
land is not mentioned other documentation makes it
clear that the boundary line ran through woodland.
This example emphasises the importance of seeing
single documents as part of the landscape to which
they refer, and not in isolation.
Many years ago the late Margaret Gelling suggested
that the common names Woodhouse, Woodhall and
Lofthouse referred to buildings in woodland with some
specialised woodland function (Gelling1984, 227). This
can be confirmed from detailed work in Yorkshire.
Many are recorded as peoples topynomic surnames,
taken from where they worked or particularly lived.
There are numerous references to the construction
or repair of buildings in woodland on Bolton Priory’s
estate, recorded in their accounts between 1286 and
1325 (Fig. 15). The entry for Noska may well be rep-
resented by the house at Noska in Hazlewood cum
Storiths on the eastern side of the Wharfe valley, oppo-
site Bolton Priory. Of particular note is the large sum
of 26s. 8d. spent on the new building(s) in the wood
and meadow, almost certainly the lost wood pasture
of le Blacker in Cononley township in the Aire valley.
The Bolton accounts suggest that other buildings in
woodland went undetected. In 1323–4 the consider-
able sum of 118s. 8d. was spent on dressed wood be-
ing taken into Cononley Wood for an unspecified pur-
pose, almost certainly for one or more buildings there.
The accounts are audited and often record large single
sums for a number of collective payments. It is likely
that the costs of other buildings were included in such
payments.
The term ‘lodge’ is occasionally used. Some are re-
ferred to directly, as in 1398, when York Minster spent
Setting Township Year Location
Meadow Hazlewood 1299–1300 Rucrofte
Barden 1304/05 Gamsworth
Ryther 1313/14 – 2 clovis
Wood Storiths 1299/1300 Noska
Cononley 1317/18 Le Blacker
Cononley 1323/24 – domorum
Pasture Appletreewick 1318/19 – domus
Fig. 15. Bolton Priory accounts 1286–1325; buildings in meadow, woodland and pasture. Page references are to Kershaw and Smith 2000. Note 1.
The entry describes a meadow with a building. Located by Figs 1, 2.
RURALIA X
49–88
2s. 6d. for roofing del loge in their wood of Langwith,
south-east of York (Raine 1859, 132). Less frequently
they are referred to by the name of the woodland en-
closure in which they lay. At Clifford in 1391 specified
wood and underwood could be cut in a hagg (an enclo-
sure within coppice woodland) called le loge hagg in
Wray Wood (WYAS/L/94/Box 135).
Structures on waste
Open common grazing on moorland, or waste, is
found in most townships, always on the poorer quality
soils on the township edges. As common land, open
to all tenants, it might be thought that moors would
be devoid of structures. However, there is evidence
that buildings did exist there legally. The 1309–10 ac-
counts for Bolton Priory show that Adam the carpenter
was paid the substantial sum of 30s for the construc-
tion of a new building (domus) on the moor of Kildwick
(Kershawe – Smith 2000, 272) . At a Bradford manor
court in 1362 a fuller came to court and took from the
lord’s waste a plot 40ft long by 30ft wide for a building
(domus) to be placed there, and for the enlargement of
his tenter frame (TNA DL 30/129/1957). The enlarge-
ment of the tenter ground suggests that there already
existed a cloth working complex on the waste. Occa-
sionally large areas were taken legally from the waste.
A large well-documented, enclosed iron smelting com-
plex existed on the moor south of Bradford by 1341
along with barns for the food and fodder for the trans-
port horses. It was abandoned by the 15th century and
now lies beneath 19th-century urban housing expan-
sion of Bradford (Moorhouse 1981, 776–777). Indeed it
was through encroachment from either the edges and
from within, both legal and otherwise that waste land
was reduced in area, until the widespread enclosures
of the post-medieval period.
The wastes were constantly under pressure from
illegal encroachment and enclosure. Medieval court
rolls from across the county, and particularly the up-
lands, shows the extent to which this occurred. Those
for the extensive manor of Wakefield, in modern West
Yorkshire, are particularly helpful, because of their
Term Reason Cost Page ref.
domus repair 2s 3½d 105
domus rent 24s1 183
new 9s 10d 370
domus repair 11s 6d 105
domus new 26s 8d 438
repair 118s 8d 531
repair 2s 4d 463
63
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
survival from 1274 until the ‘extinction’ of the manor
in 1925 (the longest run of manorial court rolls in the
country), and the geographical position of the exten-
sive manor on the eastern foothills of the Pennines
over the Coal Measures and upland Gritstones (Moor-
house 1979). The rolls often record fines on individuals
or groups for illegal enclosure, but a deliberate effort at
systematic audit, clearly over a number of years, is re-
corded in 1316, when 113 tenants were fined from the
graveships across the western uplands, with precise
details of the illegal creations (Lister 1930, 116–123).
64
49–88
Fig. 16. Askrigg, Lead Green. The
name means ‘Lathe Green’ and
probably describes the symmetrically
laid out shallow platform structures
(hatched) set within enclosures lying
in the access funnel before Enclo-
sure in 1819. Located on Moorhouse
2003, 316 fig. 106, top left.
Many of these appear to be additions to isolated as-
sarts with settlements that had already been created
many years earlier. While few structures are mentioned
it is likely that they were created in the new additions.
At a Wakefield court in 1340 a tenant was fined 12d.
for erecting a building (domus) on the lord’s waste in
Crigglestone (Moorhouse 1981, 816). Such common en-
tries are ambiguous as to whether the structure was to
stay or be removed but the large fine suggests that they
were allowed to stay, at a profit to the manor! Building
illegally on the commons is evident in other manorial
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
documents, particularly extents. The early 14th cen-
tury extent of Otley records the large value of 10d. for
a barn in Otley ‘from encroachment’ (Cowling 1965,
E21). Often the tenant is told to remove them, as at a
Methley court in 1389 (Darbyshire – Lumb 1937, 160).
There are many references to old, abandoned or ru-
ined structures referred to directly but mostly through
a variety of name elements, some of which were on the
waste (Moorhouse 1981, 816–817). Even groups of illegal
buildings were to be removed. A final concord in 1190
brought to a close a dispute between Kirkstall Abbey
and Robert de Mohaut about the erection of buildings
(domus) of the abbey’s grange of Aldfield on the com-
mon pasture of Morton township. The houses were to
be rebuilt to the east of Spinkeswellesyke, and the old
site to be ploughed by Robert if he wished (Clay 1947,
259 no.164). There are many references to buildings
on the waste that were allowed to remain, and many
more to those which had to be destroyed. While the re-
mains of some of these may survive either as earth-
works or archaeologically, the gradual enclosure of the
wastes and commons over the centuries could mean
that any structures that were on the wastes could now
lie within the enclosed fields.
Field survey has provided a unique contribution to
the numbers of illegal buildings on wastes, which ap-
pear not to be documented. Field survey across the for-
mer funnels on the junction of enclosed lands and the
open common moorland at Askrigg and Middleham,
both in Wensleydale North Yorkshire, has revealed
groups of low profile regularly laid-out platforms with-
in rectilinear enclosures in the funnel mouth. Those
at Askrigg are typical (Fig. 16, hatched). They clearly
pre-date the enclosure of the wastes in 1819, and rep-
resent ephemeral regularly-laid out timber structures,
possibly open-sided helms of the type discussed below.
At both Askrigg and Middleham the area of the funnel
is called ‘Lead Green’, a local dialect development of
‘laith’. The name ‘green’ is often given to enclosed cow
pastures across the southern Dales, as at Cracoe.
Township Source
Harmby NYCRO ZBO/MS/9
Preston under Scar NYCRO ZBO(M) 5/1
Sutton Howgrave Vale 1987, 146 no.313
Thornton Steward Vale 1987, 207 no.536
Vale 1987, 207 no.537
NYCRO ZBO MK/28
Wensley NYCRO ZBO ML/28a;
Brown 1914, 199 no.520
NYCRO ZBO ML/39
Fig. 17. Documented medieval marl pits in central Wensleydale, located by Figs 1, 2.
RURALIA X
49–88
Cow Pastures
Cow pastures are a major feature of upland land-
scapes and an important part of the communal pasto-
ral farming economy. They were created by lords and
communities to provide restricted grazing, governed
by shares called ‘stints’ or ‘gates’. They are usually at-
tached to existing enclosed holdings. They were also
created by developing vaccaries as they grew from sin-
gle farms to rented communities which required en-
closed protected grazing. Unlike meadows, where hold-
ings were physically organised into parallel undivided
strips with each tenant holding one or more strips,
cow pastures were managed by allowing tenants to free
range grazing within restricted times through stinting.
They were given a variety of terms, such as Cow Pas-
ture, Cow Side and Green. Often successive enclosed
pastures were added to those already there. To these
communal pastures can be added the enclosed pas-
tures of the many vaccaries that existed in the upland
valley’s.
While the main expansion of enclosed cow pas-
tures occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries, there
is considerable evidence for their creation in or by the
15th century. Many of the pasture boundaries were of
stone. The numerous enclosed cow pastures of Foun-
tains Abbey on their extensive Dales properties were
enclosed with stone walls by the mid-15th century and
contained structures. The short run of surviving Bur-
sar’s accounts for Fountains Abbey between 1456–7
and 1458–9 record repairs to the Cowside walls in
Malham (Fowler 1918, 20, 54, 83). In 1458–9 the sub-
stantial sum of 14s. 9d. was paid for the repair of a fur-
ther Malham cow pasture, called Nedercowsyd (Fowler
1918, 83). These pastures contained structures. The
substantial sum of 2s. 4d. was spent on the repair of
a building (domus) in the pasture of Appletreewick in
1318–19 (Fig. 15), implying a large building or complex.
Structures are also likely to occur on the open unen-
closed fells. A series of isolated small single-cell rectan-
Date Details
c.1292 ½ acre at le Marles
1778 ‘Pott’ and ‘Pott Gill’ field-names on map
1303 ½ rood at Pottes
13th c. access to marl pit on common
1318 hold 9 plots of land including marl pits. To have marl from
the marl pits for their land.
1334 ½ acre at Tosse Potes
1293 land, meadow and marl pit (marlarium) in 8 named places
1298 same places named, but only Ragarth has marl pit
65
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
gular structures are known across Malham Moor. The
Fountains Bursar’s accounts of the 1450s frequently
record the payment to shepherd’s for specified num-
bers of nights watching sheep on the Fell there (Fowler
1918, 15, 48, 91, 129, 203, 226, 230,245, 249).
Marl pits
The improvement of farming and particularly arable
land in the medieval period was achieved by a num-
ber of methods (see p. 12 above). The best documented
in Yorkshire is marling, a technique where physical
evidence should survive as marl pits, or the remains
of them. There is evidence from across Yorkshire but
there are concentrations of evidence in different plac-
es. One of these is in mid-Wensleydale (Fig. 17). The
concentration is not a result of the sporadic survival
66
49–88
of evidence, but a genuine distribution, as the same
range of evidence has been looked at across the re-
gion, namely documents, name evidence, estate maps
and tithe awards. This combined evidence provides a
more complete picture than is only found more piece-
meal elsewhere. It is clear that the name ‘potte’ and
‘marl pit’ are synonymous. Marl pits could be found
on individual holdings throughout the field system. It
seems likely that there was access to communal pits
on the common. A number of pits have been identified
on the ground. Typical is Ragarth in Wensley (Fig. 17).
The name means the ‘boundary enclosure’, a location
confirmed from the Wensley Tithe Award, as lying ad-
jacent to the Wensley/Middleham township boundary.
Field work has shown that the field does not contain
ridge and furrow, has probably always been used for
grazing and a disturbed area against the township
Fig. 18. West Bolton, township field
system. Location of principal spring
(detail in Fig. 19), in the eastern part
with concentration of earthwork plat-
forms around it. Located on Fig. 5.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
boundary probably represents the marl pits that had
been in use from before the late 13th century. The ten-
urial relationship of marl pits to individual and com-
munal holdings was clearly important. Similar work
elsewhere in the county suggests that much can be
learnt about the use, location and the tenurial relation-
ship of marl pits to the landscape.
Water
While water played an important role in any aspect
of farming, it was essential for pastoral farming to wa-
ter the animals. Some field systems show a concentra-
tion of platforms around major natural watering place.
Typical is the continually running spring in the east-
ern part of the West Bolton fields (Fig. 18, located on
Fig. 5). Many of the spring heads are stone revetted to
protect the water outlet from the countless trampling
feet of cattle. Some even have an inset stone basin, as
with the West Bolton example (Fig. 19).
What happened to medieval buildings
in the farming landscape?
Re-used timbers in later stone barns
While no contemporary buildings have been found
within medieval field systems, timbers from medieval
or early post-medieval timber-framed structures have
been found re-used in later buildings, either on the
same site or close by. One example is the open-sided
19th century stone built barn on a triangular plot at
the centre of the medieval Beanlands open field in
Calverley, West Yorkshire. The separate furlongs were
RURALIA X
49–88
Fig. 19. West Bolton, township field
system, view of principal spring
shown in Fig. 18.
enclosed in the mid-18th century, each still retaining
the earthwork remains of ridge and furrow. An earlier
timber structure is suggested by the re-use of a tim-
ber from a timber- framed structure within the present
barn. An earlier timber cruck blade was re-used as a
lintel in a stone barn called Great Wibberton Barn, in
Starbotton, upper Wharfedale (Moorhouse 2008, 36
fig. 10). Earthwork survey has shown that the barn
lies over a landscape that ceased to be occupied in the
post-Roman period, although it is possible that medi-
eval timber barns may have been built associated with
fields that are now represented by earthwork banks,
with staggarths along their collapsed remains. Barns
were still being built within township field systems
in the 16th century. A baliff’s account of 1540–1 for
East Bolton, in Wensleydale, records the repair of a
new barn (horium) for a tenant in the fields (campo) of
[East] Bolton (NYCRO ZDS/III/18/2). Stone barns did
not appear in field systems until the late 16th century
when wood was replaced by stone in field boundaries
and buildings of all types.
Timber to stone
What happened to these timber structures and why?
Why did the landscape of the field systems change and
when? A recent study of the surviving stone barns in
upper Swaledale has linked their numbers, function
and internal layout to the pattern of tenure within an
upland pastoral economy (Reynolds 1998, 1999). The
hundreds of surviving barns which are so characteris-
tic of the Dales landscape date only from the 18th and
19th centuries, some a little earlier. These were docu-
mented from the late 16th century and clearly relate
67
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

to the reorganisation of the field system in the early
post-medieval period. Documentary work has shown
that the area under arable was declining in varying de-
grees from the 14th century. The Dissoloution of the
monasteries in the late 1530s, when vast quantities
of land which had been tied up for centuries was re-
leased on to the open land market, marked the start of
the greatest changes and more easily facilitated farm-
ing changes of the later 16th century. The expansive
open fields of the medieval period on the valley sides
were replaced by large grazing pastures. The need for
the earlier structures, many of which seem to have
been dependant on individual holdings scattered
through the fields, was diminished, although we must
be caution of such a generalised simplification. Size-
able areas of arable still existed in the early 17th cen-
tury (Fieldhouse 1978; 1980; 1982). In Wensleydale this
had shrunk considerably by the time of the so-called
‘Domesday Survey’ of the extensive Bolton Hall estate
in 1712 (NYCRO CRONT 2).
It is towards the end of the 16th century that ref-
erences start to the kinds of stone barns that we are
familiar with. At Kilnsey in Wharfedale in 1598 part
of ‘one great barn or laithe’ was conveyed with ‘all
bowses, balks, doors, locks, keys and other imple-
ments’ (YAS MD247/21). More sophisticated barns are
implied in Kilnsey documents of 1616, 1618 and 1622
(YAS MD247/40, 43, 50). A series of early 17th cen-
tury surveys show that by then they were common
across the Yorkshire Dales. The survey of Grassing-
ton in Wharfedale, undated but probably of 1603, lists
25 of what are called ‘fieldhouses’ (Fig. 20). Most lie in
named enclosed fields which can still be located. All lay
in meadows, either in the Cove Closes or on the river

Holding Use of No. Named

Foliation Tenant Other locations
no. close of location
3 1 Francis Clifford M 1 Maynes Close
4v 2 George Lister M 1 Bickersburr
4v 4 Robert Clarke M 1 Parke Style close divided into two parts
6v 5 Stephen Peart M 1 – close adjoining River Wharfe
8v 7 Robert Deane M 1 Sower Lande
10v 8 Robert Stockdale M&A 1 Layde Bank
13v 10 Edmund Wreathall M 2 Tofte
M 1 Wrea Closes two meadow closes lying together
17 12 William West M 1 under Cove
M 1 Broad Doles
19 13 Jeffreye Tennaunte M&A 1 Mostheade
and James Peart Close
20v 14 Thomas Peart M 1 – field house called ? Rawlin House
22 15 John Younge M 1 Hellbeck
23v 16 Rowland Peart M 1 Cove Closes close divided into two parts among the Clove
Closes
25 17 George Ibbotson M 1 stackgarth or among the Cove Closes
garden
31v 23 William Leyland M 1 Broad Doales
34v 26 Richard Wreathall M 1 – small meadow close, a meadow parrock
M 1 – adjoining to a close held by Agnes Williamson

36 27 Agnes Williamson M 1 – close adjoining River Wharfe

37 28 Richard Frankland M 1 Blake Acres in close divided into three parts
38v 29 William Wreathall M 1 Mill Myres meadow close with a meadow parrock
adjoining
40 30 Thomas Hewitt M 1 – close adjoining River Wharfe
41v 31 William Toppan M 1 Cove Closes one meadow close
amongst the Cove Closes
44 38 Richard Ibbotson – 1 – parcel containing field house adjoining
tenement [within Barras (Barrowes) fields]

Fig. 20. Survey of Grassington about 1603. Details of the field barns and their locations described, scattered throughout the arable and the pastoral
field system. Key: A, arable; M, meadow. At least one other field house existed, for Roger Oglethorpe’s holding, which is listed in the contents, is
missing from the body of the survey. The first five holdings, which included Roger’s in the contents, had field houses on them in the meadow closes
(From YAS DD 121/31/11).

68 RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
side north of the bridge which crosses the River Whar-
fe. Many of the fields still contain barns, and some of
those in the Cove Closes display many phases in their
structures.
A survey of the lordship of Middleham and Rich-
mond in 1605 (Willan – Crossley 1941, 82–132), the
first of a series of early 17th-century surveys which
cover the lordship (in TNA), reveals that many of the
holdings had what are called ‘outhouses’ on them, a
term that is still used by some Dales farmers to de-
scribe field barns. It is clear from the explanatory text
and layout of the original (YAS MD509) that the word
‘house’ is used collectively to describe where the ten-
ant lived together with his attendant farm buildings
such as a barn and a turf house, and items in the
garden such as an orchard and even a hemp garth,
appendages which are often found in other near con-
temporary and similar documents. Two examples will
surfice. The small hamlet of Woodale in Coverdale had
eight tenants, eight ‘houses’ and 28 ‘outhouses’, while
the township of Kettlewell in Wharfedale had 53 ten-
ants, 41 ‘houses’ and 81 ‘outhouses’(Willan – Crossley
1941, 94, 130).
A third survey of 1614 of the so called ‘manor of
Wensleydale’, in essence the former Jervaulx Abbey
lands in upper Wensleydale, now the appropriately
named civil parishes of High and Low Bishopside (Wil-
lan – Crossley 1941, 1–81), was made by the Kentish
surveyor Samuel Pierse, the author of the Grassington
survey. It is clear that it had a contemporary very de-
tailed map, which is not known to have survived, which
even showed the location of the field barns mentioned
in the survey, all clearly marked within the enclosed
fields. Thirty-three ‘fieldhouses’ were mentioned, all
clearly lying within the enclosed field system. Such a
small number within such a large area, which covers
13 miles from Askrigg to the county boundary on the
west and from the river Yore to the watershed on the
north, might suggest that they were not common or
were not recorded consistently. However, the particular
detail recorded in the survey and the scrupulous atten-
tion paid to cross referencing the dispersed holdings,
might confirm that they were not common in upper
Wensleydale in the early 17th century. Three fields con-
tain two (Willan – Crossley 1941, 52, 58, 62), one field
had a ‘small fieldhouse’, showing that different sizes
existed (Willan – Crossley 1941, 58), and perhaps an-
other form is intended by the reference to a fieldhouse
‘with a barn adjoining’ (Willan – Crossley 1941, 51). On
only one occasion is there a reference to a precise lo-
cation – those fields lying together ‘with a fieldhouse
thereon’ called Abbots Close next to the house and
garden of the widow of John Wynne (Willan – Crossley
1941, 45). Sadly, the remainder lay in fields which have
not been given a name and without the contemporary
RURALIA X
49–88
map it is difficult to locate them. One proposal, to be
tested by future work, is to try and locate the holding
of each tenant through later sources such as the tithe
awards and Broderick’s survey of 1872 (NYCRO DC/
AYS), in the hope that some may have remained intact
through three and a half centuries, a not unusual phe-
nomenon in the uplands.
A detailed analysis of all known early 17th-centu-
ry surveys, and particularly those of Crown prop-
erty would prove very rewarding for the development
of stone field barns across the Dales in the early
17th century. The published Crown surveys (Willan –
Crossley1941; YAS MD509) are local copies and lack
the detail of field names found in the originals (TNA
LR2/195). Some townships in these surveys do not re-
fer to barns in the fields, such as those for townships
in Bishopdale (TNA LR2/195, fos.35–38). Only de-
tailed analysis of the original unpublished Crown and
other contemporary surveys may help to explain the
emergence of stone field barns across the Yorkshire
Dales.
Documents for Kilsney in mid Wharfedale show that
stone field barns existed by the 1590s and the early
17th century surveys of Swaledale, Wensleydale and
Wharfedale show that they were commonplace across
the Dales by the early 17th century. However a survey
and accompanying map for Nesfield in lower Wharf-
edale, dated 1585, shows that they were common in
that area by the 1580s (CH L/45/44). Although not
mentioned in the survey, the map clearly shows stone
field barns in a number of the fields, some of which
survive, while others have disappeared and only their
earthwork sites remain.
The names of buildings in the farming
landscape
A series of elements have been noted in names as-
sociated with structures within and right across the
farming landscape (Fig. 21). Only the more frequently
used, and hence better understood or unusual ones
appear here. The full range and their discussion is re-
served for the final volume on field systems. The inten-
tion here is to explore the wealth of evidence that can
be found in their names, distribution and their major
contribution to understanding how the farming land-
scape worked.
While the significance of the elements will be fully
discussed in the volume, it is worth making some gen-
eral points here. The wide range of elements used and
their frequency in the documents is remarkable. The
most obvious point is that the large numbers of names
with structural elements in them confirm the evidence
for the abundance of structures in the earthwork
69
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

Fig. 21. Elements found in

Smith 1962 Element Root Meaning in Smith 1962 Modern form
medieval minor names de-
1
184 airge MIr ‘sheiling, mountain pasture’ various scribing buildings in the me-
156 belde ME ‘shelter’ bield dieval countryside. Notes.
1. For a development of the
158 binn OE ‘manger, stall’ binn
discussion see Higham 1978;
160 bōs OE ‘cowstall’ bos Fellows-Jensen 1978; 1980.
160 bōth ODan ‘both, temporary shelter’ booth 2. Rowe 1921; Smith 1961b,
129. 3. see Smith 1961d,
161 bouverie OFr ‘cattle shed’ bovery
135–136; 1962, 92.
166 –re
by OE ‘byre, cowshed’ byre
173 cosh ModE dial ‘shed, hut’ cosh, cush
174 crib OE ‘crib, hovel’ crib
1
184 erg ON ‘sheiling, mountain pasture’ various
191 gannok ME ‘shelter’ gannock
198 ––li
hæ ON ‘shelter’ heal
199 hald OE ‘shelter’ hold
203 helm OE ‘cattle-shelter’ helm
204 here-beorg OE ‘shelter, lodging’ harbour
204 hlaða ON ‘barn’ laith
208 hovel e.ModE ‘hovel, shed’ hovel
209 hucche ME ‘hutch, hut’ hutch
209 hulc,huluc OE ‘shed’ hollock
209 hulu OE ‘shed, hovel’ hull
209 huluc OE ‘shed’ hullock
210 hut eModE ‘hut, shed’ hut
217 lair ModE dial ‘barn’ lath
221 løynd ON ‘refuge, shelter’ layn
225 mistel ModE dial ‘cow shed’ mistall
225 mistead ModE dial ‘cow shed’ mistead
2
239 salt-pie ModE dial ‘a lean-to shed’ salt-pie
241 *scēla OE ‘sheiling’ skel
241 sceoppa OE ‘shop shed’ shop
242 scypen OE ‘cow-shed’ shippen
242 sel ON ‘mountain hut, shed’ sell
242 (ge)set OE ‘dwelling, stable, fold’ set, seat
243–4 skáli OWScand ‘hut, shed, sheiling’ scale
244 *skāling ME ‘sheiling’ scaling
245 *skýrr ON ‘hut’ scar, skier
248 stable ME ‘stable, stall’ stable
249 stakkr ON ‘stack, rick’ stack
251 stigu OE ‘sty’ sty
- tofall3 ME ‘lean-to shelter’ tofall
268 worm-stall ModE dial ‘shelter for animals’ wormstall

farming landscape. The cultural origin of many of the
names, particularly those of Scandinavian origin, is
still reflected by their distribution in the medieval peri-
od. Relating many of the names to the landscape which
they describe reveals modified meanings to those un-
derstood by place-name scholars. The documentary
context of many of the names suggests that their origi-
nal meanings were still used in the post-Conquest pe-
riod. One of many examples is ModE dial. worm-stall,
‘a shelter for cattle to protect them from flies’, which
is found in the pastoral western uplands (Moorhouse
1981, 758–759). This is one of a number of terms
which records pastoral farming from the earliest ap-
pearance of local names in documents in the later
12th century. This suggests that animal husbandry
in the uplands and lowland marshes was established
by then and may well extend back beyond the Norman
Conquest.

70 RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Lathes and barns
Lathes and barns were an important part of the
farming landscape, and an essential part of the prop-
erty of all farmers. They frequently form the subject of
separate grants. Many of these are clearly within set-
tlements, and while they may have direct access from
the fields, they are not sited within them and therefore
they are beyond the scope of this paper. They are fre-
quently referred to in monastic grants during the crea-
tion and re-structuring of their estates in the later 12th
and 13th centuries. A 13th-century grant to Drax Pri-
ory gave a parcel of land in Marley on which to build a
barn (horreum) (Bodl. MS Top. Yorks. c.72, fo.46 [p.91]),
while a grant of about 1212 gave to Pontefract Priory
pasture for two hundred sheep in Shippen, with his
barn (grangia), which is located by the document. The
barn was given to shelter their sheep (Holmes 1902,
555 no. 452). The Shippen example illustrates another
term that is often used to describe barns from an early
date.
The terms lathe and barn are the two most common
used in the documents to refer to barns. Although they
are now used indiscriminately, they had separate mean-
ings at least until the 15th century. This is clear from
wills and their inventories. Typical is the will of William
Caype, parson, of Northallerton in 1497. The itemised
contents of rooms and buildings include (in successive
entries) the Lathe, which contained a variety of cereals,
and then the Barn, which contained agricultural equip-
ment and small animals (Stell – Hampson 1999, 334).
This distinction between grown produce and equip-
ment and/or animals is found elsewhere.
The name ‘barn’ is used widely today and its mean-
ing is generally understood. The term ‘lathe’ is more
regional with originally a more specific meaning. The
name comes from ON hlaða, ‘barn’ a North Country
dialect term that is found in northern England and
particularly the north-western parts of the country.
The element is found in both simplex and much more
commonly compound names (names with two or more
elements). A range of examples of both types of name
are given by Professor Smith (Smith 1962, 204). The
more frequently documented complex lathe names
contain primary elements which qualify the situation
of the lathe, such as ownership, location or use.
References to lathes in medieval field names are
common particularly from the 12th century. The
lost names Lathbergh and Lathbrig occur in a series
of 13th century Elslack charters, the context show-
ing that the barn lay within the field system (T. 1840,
128 T.6, 131 T.17, 133 T.22). Arable land in Chevet in
the 13th century lay near le Lathecliff (Clay 1932, 71
no.196, 74 no.196). An early 13th-century Manfield gift
includes half an acre at Lathegarthmire (Clay 1936, 69
RURALIA X
49–88
no.165; 1940, 28 no.71), ‘the lathe enclosure near the
swamp’. In 1372 an illegal fishing weir was described
in Hook on the southern banks of the Humber estuary
as lying near Howkelathes (Flower 1915, 253), a lost
name, but clearly on the Humber shore and in the field
system away from the settlement of Hooke.
Low lying Holderness, and particularly the southern
flood lands of the Humber basin, were drained for ar-
able farming and cattle ranching by the monasteries.
Many of the new farms contained a number of barns
scattered throughout their open arable and enclosed
pasture fields. For example, grants to Bridlington Pri-
ory and Meaux Abbey mention barns amongst their
holdings in Otteringham township. A 1267 grant of
a selion (a plough strip) in the West Field to Bridling-
ton was defined at one end by a barn (orreum) of the
Prior (Lancaster 1912, 339 no.3), and a late 13th-cen-
tury grant of arable land to Meaux in the township
lay in a furlong called Lathmarsk (BL Lansdowne 424,
fol.124v), ‘the lathe near the marsh’.
Groups of barns in fields are referred to in a num-
ber of ways. The earliest occurs in the Domesday
vill name of Laytham, in the East Yorkshire in 1086.
It comes from the OScand dative plural of the form
hlaðum, suggesting that the barns had existed before
the Norman Conquest. The same dative plural form
occurs as Lathum in a lost name in a 13th century
Kirkheaton charter (Crossley 1937, 72). The localised
area name Barms Hill, meaning ‘the barns’, occurs in
Northowram township from 1486 (Smith 1961b, 97).
Some barn complexes were taken as toponomic names
by people, reflecting either where they worked or more
probably lived. People termed ‘del Lathes’ occur across
the county. They are recorded in the townships of
West Bretton, Hipperholme, Clifton (West Yorkshire)
and Sewerby (East Riding) on the east coast. Groups
of barns are often found within the structure of aban-
doned earthwork field systems showing that they were
contemporary with the use of the fields, and not used
to store a grass crop. One of a number of examples oc-
curs within the fields of Walburn (Fig. 25, D)
The road that gave access to a barn complex is
sometimes mentioned. A 14th-century Darfield grant
locates arable land on Lathesgate (Walker 1924, 199),
‘the road to the barns’, almost certainly the access
road from Barnsley Road to the present day farm site
at Low Laithes.
Helms
There is a wealth of documentary evidence for me-
dieval helms across the historic county. Helms have
been the subject of a series of papers in the journal
Vernacular Architecture in the 1980s and 90s (Wood-
71
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
ward, 1982; Airs 1983; Taylor 1984; Dyer 1985; Need-
ham 1984; Zimmerman 1992). It has become clear
that the term in England had a nationwide distribu-
tion, was in use in some areas from the medieval pe-
riod, and was applied to structures of different forms
and functions. The Yorkshire evidence adds to that
variety.
Documentary evidence shows that helms were wide-
spread across the county from the medieval period on-
wards. The name was given to settlements that grew
up by the 13th century, with surviving farms with
the name in the townships of Meltham, Sowerby and
Kirkheaton, and a lost settlement in Fixby, all in mod-
ern West Yorkshire. A trawl through the tithe awards
apportionments listed in Professor Smith’s six vol-
umes for the West Riding of Yorkshire in the English
Place-Name Society reveals over 20 field names. Check-
ing has shown that many of these tithe lists are not
full extracts and should not form the basis for plotting
specific names without other evidence. Estate maps
have often provided another unique source. For exam-
ple, the 1732 map of Hazlewood and Storiths (Bolton
Abbey Estate Office), opposite Bolton Abbey in mid-
Wharfedale, records a field called ‘Helm’, which, then
as now, did not contain a structure. The combined dis-
72
49–88
tribution has a concentration in the Pennine uplands
of the rivers Wharfe, Aire and Calder, with outliers (Fig.
22). Many lost names recorded in the medieval period
from across the county record helms in a variety of
situations; a Parlington deed of 1352 describes land
in the township lying at Helmcrosse, ‘the helm near the
cross’ (Brown 1909a, 132 no.365).
Names help provide evidence for the existence and
location of helms, but other medieval documents help
us to understand the form and function of helms.
Paramount amongst these are manorial accounts,
which, along with all other manorial structures, record
their construction and particularly their repair. Some
of these are summarised here (Fig. 23). Most refer to
helms in medieval parks, and emphasize their impor-
tance to the predominantly pastoral economy of these
parklands. The entries fall into two groups: those asso-
ciated with the structure, the majority, and those asso-
ciated with the use of the helm. The overwhelming use
is to store hay for the winter feed for parkland animals,
reflected by the entries for Altofts and Kippax.
References to the repair of helms on the widely dis-
persed estate of Bolton Priory in mid-Wharfedale, show
that they were in common use in the early 14th cen-
tury. In 1309–10 a helm was repaired along with the
Fig. 22. Distribution of medieval ref-
erences to helms in the West Riding.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

No. of
Township Location Year Cost Comment Source
helms
9 waggonloads of hay from the meadow
Altofts Altofts Park 1420–1 1+ 4s 9d at Altofts and carrying it as far as Les YAS MS508, f.168
Helmes in the park there
Kippax Kippax Park 1420–1 1 – cutting and carting hay to le Helme YAS MS508
repairing fences (sepes) around
Methley Methley Park 1450–1 1 4d WYAS/L/MX/M6/3
le Helme
repairing fences (sepes) around
Methley Methley Park 1453 1 4d WYAS/L/MX/M6/3
le Helme
repairing le Railes of Thornlaund and
Middleham West Park 1465–6 1+ 4s 0d TNA SC6/1085/20, f.1v
the pailings of les Helmes for 12 days
TNA SC6/1085/20,
Middleham West Park 1465–6 1+ 12d repairing les Helms within the park
fo.1r
LCRO DDMa/manorial
Middleham West Park 1468–9 3 2d repairing three helms
box 28, f.1v
paid for repair of le Helme in Sunskew LCRO DDMa/manorial
Middleham Sunskew Park 1468–9 1 5d
[Park] box 28, f.1r
repairing helms in the meadow of TNA DL29/648/10485,
Middleham West Park 1473–4 3 16d
Thornland fo.1r
carriage of hay towards the hay barn TNA DL29/648/10485,
Middleham Sunskew Park 1473–4 1+ 5s 6d
and lez Helmes fo.1r
TNA DL29/648/10485,
Middleham Sunskew Park 1473–4 1 6d covering one helm
fo.1r
four flanges of oak for making one
Spofforth – 1475 1 – Fisher 1954, 153
helm
LCRO DDMa manorial
West Witton Wanlace Park 1468–9 1 6d covering and repairing one old helm
box 28, f.2v

Fig. 23. Table detailing a selection of medieval references to the construction or repair of helms, mostly in medieval parks.

tithe barn at Long Preston (Kershaw – Smith 2000,
272), suggesting that the helm formed part of the tithe
barn enclosure that housed the wide range of non-ce-
real tithes, a common feature of tithe barn complexes.
Four helms and other buildings were roofed at Halton
in 1317–18 (Kershaw – Smith 2000, 444). In the follow-
ing year, 1318–19, repairs were made to a helm and an-
other building at Halton (Kershaw – Smith 2000, 463).
The name Helm was an alternative for the important
tithe barn at Kildwick Bridge (Kershaw – Smith 2000,
72 note)
An analysis of helms referred to in the farming and
memorandum books of Henry Best of Elmswell on
the Yorkshire Wolds in 1642 (Woodward 1984, pas-
sim) could help understand their medieval predeces-
sors. Detailed instructions are given for storing farm
equipment away from the wet under helms during the
winter months. Four wains, the bodies and wheels of
two carts and ladders and wheelbarrows were stored
under the long helm in the stackyard over the winter.
The careful storing of five wains under another helm
is described, as is the process and sequence of clean-
ing cart wheels under the helm. Ladders were stored
on the back wall of the helm, on the inside braces of
the helm; it is clear from surviving helms that the back
wall was the only stone used in the structure. A fur-
ther helm in the foregarth shelters three wains and
three coups.
Evidence for the size and constructions of the helms
is given. The roof of the long or great helm in the stagg-
garth supported a stack and the sides were thatched.
The helm in the foregarth held 22 loads of peas. We
have seen that braces were used to support ladders
over winter. Some helms were pre–fabricated. Invento-
ries of 1571 lists the helm and helm wood with other
wood in the garth, of 1634 helm wood, props, cross
beams (overwhart liers) and ladders (styes) valued at
10s, of 1664 the helms and the wood on them, and that
for 1669 lists a framed helm.
It is clear from the Elmswell evidence that the helms
lay within the farm complex. They were of different
sizes, open sided, pre-fabricated framed and braced
structures, with flat roofs and earthen floors. They
sheltered a variety of farm equipment over the winter
months and their roofs formed the base for cereals
and vegetables.
The combined evidence shows that helms were both
geographically widespread and had varied uses in dif-
ferent places. Their main use was clearly for farming,
both throughout the farm and field system. They were
also used for the wide range of tithes and to shelter
the vehicles used to bring them to the tithe barn en-

RURALIA X 73
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
closure. They were used extensively in parks, particu-
larly for the storage of winter feed (Fig. 23). Fieldwork
has identified the earthworks of a number of helms in
medieval parks. Typical is a well preserved example in
Wanlass Park, West Witton (Fig.24). The low rectangu-
lar platform is edged with stone and the collapsed back
wall is seen to the right cut into the gentle slope. The
remains of this probable medieval helm is identical to
what may survive of traditional examples (eg Fig. 25).
They were used elsewhere in the medieval land-
scape, revealed from earthwork and documentary evi-
dence. Medieval industrial complexes is an example.
74
49–88
Fig. 24. West Witton, Wanlass Park.
View of earthwork remains of a helm,
probably one of those referred to in a
series of late 15th-century manorial
accounts (eg see Fig. 22).The shal-
low horizontal platform is edged with
stone and the collapsed stone wall
lies to the right (see text).
They have been found on the extensive earthwork iron
working complex at the head of Bishopdale, an indus-
trial landscape that was out of use by 1449 (Moorhouse
1995). The accounts for the iron smelting complex at
Treeton, east of Sheffield, for the period 25 December
1506 to 10 January 1507 reveal remarkable details
about every aspect of the working site (Bodl. MS Top.
Yorks. c.36, fo. 62r–63v). A payment of 8d. was record-
ed for hedging (hege) around the hay-house and the
helm, both clearly within the same enclosure and pre-
sumably linked in use. Details of the meadows, graz-
ing enclosures and horses used for moving the ore and
Fig. 25. Helm in Woodhall Park,
Wensleydale. Probably of 19th-cen-
tury date, this helm displays many
of the traditional elements of con-
struction, particularly the coursed
back wall identical to the walls of
stone buildings, in contrast to the
un-coursed almost rubble field walls
which abut them.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
charcoal to the smithy and the finished product away
from it are itemised in the accounts. Apparently anoth-
er helm existed, for 10d. was paid for erecting probably
a pre-fabricated structure, in the words of the English
document ‘drawing up of the helm and [the] founda-
tion (bassyng) of that’, the bassyng probably referring
to the coursed stone back wall, as described above.
The term helm continues in use into recent times.
In 1709 6d. rent was paid for a helm at Bridge End,
Rastrick in the Calder valley (Charlesworth 1939, 173),
and at Hampsthwaite in Nidderdale in 1739, 6s. 8d.
was spent on constructing a helm (Collins 1902, 243).
A trawl through 19th-century dialect dictionaries
across the county show that the term was still in use,
but had different meanings. In Nidderdale in the pe-
riod 1867 and 1872 it was used indiscriminately (Lu-
cus 1882, 55–59, 258), while on the Yorkshire Wolds it
meant a roughly constructed shed found in the fields
and elsewhere for cattle (Morris 1907, 228).
Based purely on form, the most common structures
represented by the earthworks are open-sided helms
and staggarths. Both types of structure survive to the
present day. The remains of helms are often seen with-
in surviving field walls. The only stone part of the helm
was the back wall. Even though the timber of the helm
has been dismantled, the back stone wall is different
from the field wall, because they were constructed as
coursed building walling, rather than the more ran-
dom looser field walling which abuts them. When built
on a slope the covered area is terraced. Occasionally,
the timber frame of helms lie where they have fallen,
showing that they were in use until recently. A few tra-
ditional helms survive in use, such as a 19th-century
example at Woodhall, in mid Wensleydale (Fig. 25).
They are still being constructed. An example at Wal-
burn Hall Farm, Swaledale, was built in the 1970s.
Staggarths
Staggarths and hayricks were used to dry the grass
crop before it was stored. They are found across the
abandoned earthwork field systems of all periods and
phases throughout the county. Staggarths are small
raised platforms on which the crass crop was stacked.
They are found both within earthwork arable systems,
showing that they were contemporary with their use,
and overlay them, showing that they were later than
the arable and associated with the pastoral use of the
fields. When found on a slope, they usually occur as
small often square terraced platforms, so that their flat
surface is horizontal. They are one of the most com-
mon features found within the landscapes. The term
stackgarth is perhaps the most widely used across the
county, and survives in numerous dialect forms, the
most common of which is ‘staggarth’, and it is this pro-
RURALIA X
49–88
nunciation and spelling that is used throughout this
paper. It is still in use today to describe the enclosure
where haystacks lie within farm complexes. Medieval
staggarths and hayricks have been discussed (Moor-
house 2003, 312–314; Gardiner 2013).
The following are a few examples which illustrate
their geographical spread and the circumstances un-
der which the term was used. Stackhouse in the upper
Ribble valley is a Domesday township name recorded
in 1086, and meaning ‘at the houses near or for the
hay ricks’ (Smith 1961b, 144–145). A messuage called
le stakgarth occurs within the territory of the desert-
ed medieval village of Easthorpe north-west of Filey
in 1338 (Price 1955, 55 no.154). The lost name Stak-
kdalhill occurs as a boundary point in Thorp Salvin
in 1341. The illegal construction of staggarths begins
to appear in late medieval court rolls. For example, at
the Abbot of Jervaulx’s court at Walburn, Swaledale,
in 1462–1468 six tenants were in mercy for making
five staggarths (two tenants fined for one) on the lord’s
ground (Ashcroft – Jones 2009, 488). In 1586 part of
the chantry lands at Aiskew, east of Bedale, included a
small curtilage called le Stacke Gathe at the back of a
barn called le Tythe Barne (Brown 1909b, 360). Tithe
barns often lay within enclosures which contained the
wide range of small tithes and the range of structures
to accommodate them. Fieldwork and field survey has
shown that both staggarths and helms were used with-
in tithe barn enclosures (see below).
The documentary evidence supports the field evi-
dence for structures on or around staggarths, and
that wood was used. At a manor court at Coverham
in Coverdale in 1443 two tenants were fined 1d. each
for making a stakgarth from the lord’s wood without
license (Pollard – Ashcroft 1984, 39–40). At the Ab-
bot of Jervaulx’s court for his extensive holdings on
the northern side of upper Wensleydale in 1510 and
1518, a number of tenants were presented for mak-
ing a stagarth from the lord’s wood, and each fined
1d. (BL Egerton Roll 8685, 8686). Slightly outside our
geographical area and time scale, a byelaw recorded at
a Mickleton (Teesdale) court in 1581 forbade tenants
from making staggarths of dry wood (Winchester 2000,
63). The small fine in these and other late medieval
court rolls suggests that the structure was not sub-
stantial.
Some post-medieval staggarths probably preserve
the sites of medieval examples. Christopher Staxton’s
map of Old Byland, dated 1598, shows ‘The wether
stak’ and ‘Old Byland cote stacke’ above Caydale either
side of the Lam Close Dike. The stacks mark the fod-
der stands for the farms of Weathercote (on land for-
merly belonging to Rievaulx Abbey) and Old Byland,
formerly of Byland Abbey (McDonnell 1974, 62 fig.2,
63). They may well mark the traditional sites for mo-
75
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

Fig. 26. Four examples of groups of staggarths in township field systems from across the Dales.

nastic stack sites belonging to each abbey, and thus
be medieval in date. Alexander Fothergill’s diary con-
tains considerable detail about the traditional farming
practises in Wensleydale in the 1750s when he was the
agent to the Metcalffe and Weddell families of Nappa
Hall. In particular, he describes the location of stag-
garths within the field system and often the number
of stacks which they contained (Hartley et al 1985, 75,
78, 86, 92). Some of these have been located through
fieldwork. Many of the stacks identified by name in
the inventory of Edmond Jeffrasonn of Downholme in
Swaledale in 1580 (Berry 1998, 243–244 no. 137) can
be located on the map of Downholme of about 1730
(Fleming 1998, 67 fig.5.2). As the names of many of
these enclosed fields are mentioned in the medieval
period, it seems likely that these stack sites may have
a similar ancestry.
Evidence for staggarths across the field systems
of Yorkshire is overwhelming. Systematic large-area
survey in the Yorkshire Dales has revealed their fre-
quency. They form part of the working structure of
the different components of the field system, and
overly them. Across the High Field at Askrigg concen-
trations of staggarths lie within the arable field with
others overlying it, typified by one area (Fig. 26, A). At
Walburn a group lies within an enclosure of probably
more than one phase within ridge and furrow and a
line of them lies between the fields and the modern

76 RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
road (Fig. 26, D). Post arable field-system staggarths
are common, and their groupings take on many forms.
One common arrangement is a sequence of staggarths
that appear around a stone barn, as at Town Head,
Askrigg (Fig. 26, B). It is possible, even probable in
some cases, that the staggarths are contemporary with
the stone barns, allowing the hay to dry before use in
the building. Other groups occur across other parts
of the medieval landscape, as over the abandoned
earthwork tenements of the West End of Aysgarth
RURALIA X
49–88
(Fig. 26, C), and as a line running diagonally across
the abandoned tenements of the west row of Walburn,
in Swaledale (Moorhouse 2003, 309 fig. 101).
Field survey shows that many of the staggarths are
simple platforms cut horizontally into demolished wall
lines. Detailed analysis of staggarth sites show that
they contained an array of structures both on and as-
sociated with the platforms. Some are revetted in stone
on the front of the platform, seen on one within the
secondary enclosure at Scosthorpe (Fig. 27, b). The
Fig. 27. Scosthorpe manor. Two successive
staggarth enclosures, both with rectangular
structures (possibly helms) within each. Both
were added to the original manor complex,
which was out of use by 1454 and used for
grazing. Spread demolished walls, particu-
larly those along the eastern boundary of
the manor complex, were used as the bases
for staggarths, a common feature of upland
landscapes. For an earthwork survey of the
full complex, and the setting of this figure,
see Moorhouse 2011, 230 fig. 13.6.
77
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Fig. 28. West Bolton, manor site. Four-post staggarth over manor
gardens, a site abandoned by 1421, and an eight-post staggarth cut
into the abandoned hollow way between the deserted villages of West
Bolton and Thoresby. Located on Fig. 5.
secondary staggarth enclosure at Scosthorpe illus-
trates features found elsewhere. Two short parallel
banks running from the front, suggests that it pos-
sessed some kind of cover. Sometimes they are over
the entire feature in front or over the entire feature
is common (Fig. 27, b). Some staggarths appear to lie
within a larger structure or shelter (Fig. 27, a). The
most common remains are stone pads on each corner.
One of the best preserved examples overlie the gardens
of the medieval manor site at West Bolton in Wensley-
dale, a complex that was in decline by 1421 (Fig. 28, A).
Such a structure would not have existed when the gar-
dens were in use. A further structure or structures
lie in the redundant hollow-way of the medieval route
between the deserted medieval villages of West Bolton
and Thoresby, immediately to the south and below the
medieval manor (Fig. 28, B). The regular, evenly-spaced
eight-post positions, set on a terraced area cut into the
northern slope of the hollow-way, could represent a
double staggarth. The platforms on which the struc-
ture lies suggest more than one phase over the aban-
doned route. The staggarth over the manor site, on an
elevated position with wind to dry the crop, typifies the
site of many.
Many groups have overlapping staggarths showing
often many phases of use on the same site, and access
ways to individual staggarths or groups of them within
78
49–88
the same complex can often reveal sequences of activ-
ity (eg Figs 4, 10, 26).
Lines of staggarths are often found along demol-
ished stone walls of all periods. These are ideal if al-
lowed to decay. As the wall base spreads it creates a
wider base, providing ideal drainage. These are fre-
quently seen across the Dales. A series lie along the
demolished eastern boundary of the manor complex,
on the edge of the steep Aire valley, at Scosthorpe in
upper Airedale (Fig. 27) and another along the demol-
ished down-hill running walls on Threshfield Common
(Fig. 10). They occur on the co-axial field boundaries at
Wibberton, in upper Wharfedale (Moorhouse 2006, 66
fig. 21). The landscape here terminates in the post-Ro-
man period, with long rectangular buildings along the
contours, lying across the earlier prehistoric/Romano-
British field boundaries.
The documentary evidence supports the earthwork
evidence for the frequency of staggarths across the
medieval field system. Much of it comes from scattered
late medieval court rolls and byelaws entered within
them. Some of this has been mentioned above. Some
of the best collective evidence comes from a series of
court rolls of the Neville family for the townships within
their extensive manor of Middleham throughout most
of Wensleydale, in late 1449 and early 1450 (Fig. 29).
They record amercements imposed on tenants for the
creation of staggarths. Amercements were monetary
punishments made in court, often tolerated as a regu-
lar source of income. However, manorial byelaws often
stipulated the role of tenants and regulated their man-
agement of the township farming landscape. This is
made particularly clear in the Carlton court for 3 May
1450, when one tenant was fined different amounts for
two staggarths. For one he was fined 1d. and for the
other 12d. because it was against the pain or byelaw.
This shows clearly that a regulation existed in Carlton
that each tenant was allowed one staggarth each. Such
byelaws would be made within the township structure,
even within the same extensive manor, such as Mid-
dleham. They cannot thus be more generally applied.
The byelaws were created or repeated by the annually
elected officers of the community of the vill. This hap-
pened at the Kettlewell court of 3 May 1450, when four
named tenants were elected for ‘better governance of
the inhabitants’ corn and grass’.
The changing economy of the medieval period, from
arable to pastoral farming, saw changes in farming
practises. This had a profound impact on the mano-
rial complex, with large barns in the barnyard, or bar-
ton, giving way, at least in part, to the emergence of
separate enclosures for hay ricks. These are seen in
the landscape with the addition of an enclosure to ma-
norial complexes. At Agglethorpe, in Coverdale, a stag-
garth was added on the northern side of the farmyard,
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
now partly beneath the re-located 17th-century manor
house (Moorhouse 2006, 46 fig. 2, C). Successive stag-
garths were added to the manor complex at Scosthor-
pe in northern Airedale (Fig. 27). The manor complex
here was abandoned by 1454. The undisturbed stag-
garth enclosures at Scosthorpe show that long nar-
row rectangular buildings existed along with the stag-
garths, possibly open-sided helm-type structures, as
documented at Elmswell in the mid-17th century (see
above). The staggarth enclosure at Agglethorpe is too
disturbed by the overlying 17th-century manor house
to reveal similar helm-like structures.
Apart from the field system, staggarths are found
in many other areas of the medieval landscape. Fod-
der and litter was important on the farms where the
breeding of most types of animals took place. Stag-
garths are often found in large numbers and in an
enclosure which is often attached to the area where
their contents would be used. Hence the staggarth en-
closure and where the animals are housed are often
adjacent. Typical arrangements can be been on the
medieval sheep house complex at West Bolton (Fig. 5,
top left), at Ulveshaw, east of Middleham (unpublished)
and at the horse-stud complex at Agglethorpe in Cover-
dale (Moorhouse 2011, 231 fig. 13.7, E). Many groups
often display successive phases of use, as at West Bol-
ton. Abandoned medieval sheephouse and horse-stud
complexes which survive as earthworks are the more
frequent, but this is probably because medieval cattle
farms have continued in use to the present day. Their
medieval plans have been obscured by later buildings
or an expansion in size to meet successive farming
needs.
Staddle stones
Staddle stones were mushroom-like supports used
on the corners of raised floor structures to store crops
away from rodents. They are known in many parts of
southern England, but are not known to have survived
in Yorkshire. However, the evidence from field survey
discussed above and a variety of other evidence from
the county suggests that they did exist. A number of
the tops of staddle stones survive in gardens at Wom-
ersley, east of Pontefract, and have been found in mod-
ern deposits during excavations at nearby Woodhall.
The location of some can be very misleading. A single
staddle stone in a garden on High Lane, Grassington,
mid-Wharfedale, and a group in the modern garden at
Walburn Hall, Swaledale, were brought in by their own-
ers as garden ornaments!
Documentary evidence shows that they existed
across the historic county in the post-medieval period.
Staddle Bridge across the River Wiske near its source
in North Yorkshire is recorded in 1508 (Brown 1894,
RURALIA X
49–88
No. of No. per
Township Court Fine
tenants tenant
Carlton 3 May 1450 16 1 1d.
1 1 12d.1
Kettlewell 28 Oct 1449 9 1 1d.
1 2 2d.
8 1 2d.
9 May 1450 9 1 2d.
Thoralby 3 May 1450 43 1 1d.2
Worton 4 Nov 1449 – 1 1d.
Fig. 29. Details of staggarths mentioned in the court rolls of the Neville
family’s vast estate in Wensleydale, Bishopdale and Wharfedale 1449–
1450 (from WYAS /L/DW 568). Notes: 1. A fine against the pain, or
byelaw. 2. This group of fines have the marginal heading ‘Stackgarth’.
292). The farm of Staddlethorpe in Blacktoft township
on the northern bank of the Humber estuary is re-
corded from 1550 (Smith 1937, 244–245). The various
uses of staddle bases are described in Henry Best’s
books of 1642, describing farming practises on his
farm at Elmswell, west of Great Driffield on the Wolds
of East Yorkshire (Woodward 1984, 37, 39, 48, 54, 77,
113, 145, 315). Over a century later, the surviving parts
of Ralph Ward’s diary for 1754–6 describes the use of
staddles in north-eastern Yorkshire. On 17 Oct. 1754
he ordered a staddle to be made in the Stackgarth ‘to
set beans upon’, and four days later beans were set
upon the new staddle ‘and covered in’, showing that
what lay on staddle platforms was protected from the
elements (Whiting 1952, 141).
They have also been found in medieval archaeologi-
cal deposits in the county. Excavations at Sandal Cas-
tle (West Yorkshire) revealed two rectangular structures
4m by 3m, with un-trodden interiors within them,
suggesting that some kind of raised floor was above
them. Large stylobates lay at each corner, with crude
shallow walling between some of them. It lay beneath
the Constable’s Lodging and dated to the late 13th
or early 14th century (Mayes – Butler 1983, 53 fig.21
PRT5 Phase 5b, not recognised at the time). A square
arrangement of four earth-fast posts, 2m apart was
found on the deserted medieval settlement at Hillum
Burchard (unpublished excavations by the West York-
shire Archaeology Service).
The only medieval documentary reference to staddle
stones, implying raised floor structures, that has been
found occurs in the manorial accounts for Rothwell
(West Yorkshire). In 1381 it was noted that the hay had
become rotten because of a low staddle. Unfortunately
the entry does not state where on the manor the stad-
dle lay (inf. from R.E.Yarwood and J.Marriot).
The combined evidence suggests that staggarths
were a common sight across the historic county dur-
ing the medieval period.
79
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Haystacks
The stacking of a crop to dry before storing was an
essential part of the farming cycle. While the meth-
ods used are often universal, the terminology used
for each stage of the process can be very regional (eg
Cowley 1955). There is ample documentary evidence
to show that haystacks were surrounded for protection
into recent times.
Attention has been drawn to ditched haystacks at
Frodsham, Cheshire, in the early 14th century (Green
1982). No evidence has been found in Yorkshire for
features that would leave either a physical or archaeo-
logical evidence. However, a variety of temporary sur-
rounds to protect the haystack while drying crops
are frequently documented. They are typified from a
series of intermittent late 15th century manorial ac-
counts for the extensive manor of Middleham, in
Wensleydale. They frequently record payment for fenc-
es (sepes) around haystacks (eg TNA SC6/1085/20;
DL29/648/10485; DL 29/648/10487; LRO DD/Ma/
manorial; box 28). The most frequent surround, and
most descriptive, occurs at Hipperslight in Coverdale,
in 1465–6 when receipts were entered for the raking,
drying and stacking of 9 acres of hay meadow, mak-
ing the hay into three haystacks (tasio), with 6d. paid
for making fences (sepes) around the haystacks (TNA
SC6/1085/20, fo.2r). Perhaps another form of protec-
tion was intended in the Spofforth manorial account
rolls for 1441–2, when a tenant was paid the substan-
tial sum of 5s. for the railing (raylynge) of two stackes
for hay (YAS MS880, p.86). While it might be assumed
that all haystacks would be round, this was not always
the case. The customary duties of the villeins at Am-
pleforth, south of Helmsley, in the late 13th century
included the stacking of the hay outside the lord’s
barn. If the rick was square they were to carry it for
one meal, if they were round then for nothing! (Bishop
1937, 23). The earthwork evidence across the county
shows that small square staggarths predominate, but
rectangular and circular ones occur.
Tithe barns
Tithe barns were a frequent site in the medieval
countryside. They were used for the collection of
tithes, essentially a tenth of annual produce for the up-
keep of the church and its administration. These were
not only cereals, but a wide range of small animals
and produce. These had to be stored in separate areas.
This gave rise to one or more barns and a variety of
other structures found within often substantial enclo-
sures, referred to as the ‘tithe garth’. Helms and stag-
garths are associated with them in the documents and
as earthworks in the landscape. Their distribution is
80
49–88
dictated not by the township or the manor, but by the
ecclesiastical parish, which in upland areas can be ex-
tensive. The advowsan of churches were often donated
to monasteries, especially those of the Augustinian or-
der who favoured such donations. The acquisition of
blocks of parishes gave rise to the re-organisation of
the tithe collection facilities and the creation of new
tithe barns. Tithe barns are often found either within
or on the edge of the corporate field system, with spe-
cially created access ways leading to them. Their nam-
ing and siting have been discussed elsewhere (Moor-
house – Redmonds 2008).
Hovel
The term hovel, from eModE hovel, occurs mainly
in the western uplands of the county. Its earliest refer-
ence found occurs in 1261 when the lost name Kyr-
chouil describes a meadow in Hawkswick in Littondale
(Clay 1926, 86 no.227). In 1420 a 12-acre close in
Northowram, in the mid Calder valley, was exchanged,
with a hovel (Ovil) within it (Horsfall Turner 1893, 115).
Occasionally enclosures containing a hovel are re-
corded on tithe awards. The 1841 Tithe Award for West
Burton in Bishopdale lists a field called ‘Coat Close
and hovel’ north of Cote Farm (NYCRO CRONT 2/Bur-
ton in Bishopdale/tithe apportionment, no. 490). Nei-
ther the accompanying tithe map nor the 1st ed 6inch
OS map show any structure in the field, and field work
has failed to find any evidence around the walls.
Sell
The term ‘sell’, ON sel, ‘a mountain hut, a shed’, has
a limited distribution in the extreme north-western
uplands of the historic county, and extends westwards
into Westmorland. It occurs in the Domesday vill name
of Selside in Ribblesdale. The lost came Selsat is re-
corded in Sedburgh in the period 1220–5 (Farrer 1905,
1017 no.2). The surviving name Sell Gill in Rimington
is first recorded in the late 12th century (Littledale
1916, passim; McNulty 1933, passim, 1934 passim).
The stream runs south from the farm of Dudland Hol-
lins but has been canalised before its junction with
the Thistleber Beck. Fieldwork has failed to locate the
site, and it is likely that the original eastern building of
Dudland Hollins may lie on the structure.
Hull
The name hull comes from OE hulu, ‘shed, hovel’. It
is frequently found in names across the western up-
lands from the 12th century. Plotting out the early mi-
nor names shows that they are nearly always found on
township boundaries. A number of examples on the
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
western side of Littondale illustrate their frequency.
Typical are the lost names Crakecastelhul, a point on
a late 12th century boundary perambulation dividing
Bordley and Arncliffe (Burton 1758, 151), le Hule lying
on the boundary between Threshfield and Bordley in
1305 (Lancaster 1915, 737 no.20; WYAS/L/VR 5383,
p.81) and in the same area a late 12th-century peram-
bulation dividing Kilnsey and Bordley contained lez
Hullez (BL Add MSS 18,276, fo. 118, no. 21; copy, with
notes, in YAS MS 869/Box 16–20/folder 17). These
examples have been chosen because they represent
three of many ‘hull’ boundary points on later 12th
and 13th-century perambulations. These and many
other contemporary perambulations define township
boundary lines that have come through as modern
civil parishes. Because the boundary lines are known,
the numerous boundary points along them, including
the ‘hull’ sites, can be identified. By locating the names
that have survived, it is possible to locate the places
referred to by names that have not.
A series of late 16th-century township perambula-
tions, of probable earlier origin, in mid Wensleydale
contain a number of hull sites along their bounda-
ries (NYCRO ZBO/IV/8). That for West Bolton lists a
‘Hull upon Hurewinge’. Two perambulations for the
township of Woodhall in mid Wensleydale contain a
number of hull names. That for 1673 lists Nettle Hull,
Blackside Hull and Askrigg Hull, and an earlier undat-
ed one has Nettle Hull (NYCRO ZQF).
An outlier to the main concentration occurs in
Flockton township, on the Coal Measures of West York-
shire. The name Huleggheecloyth occurs in a 13th-cen-
tury deed defining arable land (Clay 1926, 55 no.132)
and survives on the 1849 tithe award as Hullage. The
name means ‘shed or hovel on the edge of the clough
or valley’. The ‘edge’ is the northern township bounda-
ry. A related name in the township is Scullage, a name
first known from the 13th century as Scollegge (Clay
1930, 59 no.166). The name comes from OWScand
skáli, ‘shed, sheiling’ and OE ecg, ‘edge’, the edge be-
ing the southern township boundary. This and other
examples suggest that the meaning of skáli names is
in need of revision.
The element also occurs in compound names as-
sociated with boundaries. The farm name Tulliscote
in Wensley in mid Wensleydale has developed from
Hullhousecote in the 14th century (NYCRO ZBO/ML,
48, 76, 77; Moorhouse 2003, 328 fig.112, 329). The en-
closed grazing ground of the medieval cattle farm lies
on the northern boundary of Wensley township. The
form of the Wensley-Leyburn boundary at this point
shows that the sheepcote boundary predates the ad-
joining township boundary. The lost name Tranhouse
Hull on Malham Moor has developed into High Tran-
house, a farm on the edge of the medieval enclosed
RURALIA X
49–88
lands and the extensive unenclosed Knowles Fell to
the north. Both examples demonstrate that medieval
names can often change through local dialect into
their modern form, and emphasise the importance of
tracing the early forms of modern names.
Until enclosure gathered apace in the 18th and
19th centuries, upland townships were un-enclosed
on the moorland boundaries, with only marker points
defining their line back into antiquity. It is therefore
clear that the hull sites on the township boundaries
suggest that they had a specialised function by the
12th century. As documents in which they appear do
not occur before the 12th century it is likely that they
have an earlier ancestry. One possibility is that they
housed shepherd’s looking out for straying sheep.
Keeping to undefined grazing pastures was one of the
many features of heafod flocks. Sadly the traditional
flocks, developed over many centuries with genetically
inbuilt characteristics, were all-but wiped out by cull-
ing as a result of foot and mouth outbreaks in 2001
and 2007.
Stone buildings
Although the overwhelming numbers and range of
buildings within the wider field systems of the medie-
val township were of timber, and ephemeral in nature,
there were some stone structures. These are revealed
not through the documents, but from the detailed field
survey of entire township field systems. They tend to
be in groups of buildings, set within mixed arable and
pastoral field systems. A group, set within the East Bol-
ton system, which contains five buildings, was high-
lighted by the very dry summer of 1995. The narrow
stone banks suggest that the walls may be stone sills,
in contrast to the construction of helms. The purpose
of the stone groups is uncertain, but variation in their
size, combination of forms and arrangements sug-
gests different functions.
Occasionally, structures of timber and stone occur
in line. The most common represent small sheephouse
complexes. A typical example is that within the East
Bolton fields (Figs 30, 31). The sheephouse is of timber,
usually along the contour with the back wall set into
the slope. A square detached stone structure in line is
typical. These have been interpreted as a dairy, built
in stone to resist fire. Often these complexes are re-
mote, as in this case. It would be much easier to trans-
port solid produce such as cheese or butter rather
than liquid milk. Sheephouse/dairy buildings are al-
ways associated with an enclosure, as here, to fold the
sheep. They entered the building always by the gable
end, regardless of size. Sheephouses are often much
larger and found across steep slopes and the only ac-
cess would be through the gable end. This tradition of
81
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Fig. 30. East Bolton township field system. Sheephouse, dairy and sur-
rounding fold within the fields, out of use by 1316. Located on Fig. 6. A
view along the dairy and sheephouse is seen in Fig. 31.
82
49–88
building still survives, as illustrated by a 12th-century
complex on the steep valley slope at the mouth of Cot-
terdale (Moorhouse 2003, 317 pls 69, 70). The dating
of the East Bolton example is provided by horizontal
stratigraphy. The complex is cut by a small stream
running the full length of the field system. It appeared
as a new outlet in the late 13th century, thereby provid-
ing a terminal date for the sheephouse complex and
everything that it cuts along its entire route. The inter-
pretation presented here is only possible through an
understanding of the wider documentation, an appre-
ciation of minor names and emphases the importance
of accurately recording entire earthwork township
field systems.
Looking at landscapes rather than ‘sites’
The approach of the landscape historian is totally
different to that of the archaeologist, and this differ-
ence is still being misunderstood. Volume three of the
inappropriately titled West Yorkshire Archaeological
Survey (Moorhouse 1981) is one of the most detailed
discussions of a medieval landscape from documents,
through the administrative units which details the or-
ganisation of the landscape and the influences which
dictated the layout. This publication has however been
described as a discussion of monuments (Gerrard –
Rippon 2007, 452). The work in the Yorkshire Dales
starting in the early 1990s and developed the approach
adopted in West Yorkshire, with the crucial and impor-
tant addition of large area targeted earthwork survey.
The earthwork landscape in the Yorkshire Dales is one
Fig. 31. East Bolton
township field system.
View west along the
dairy in the foreground
and sheephouse be-
hind shown in Fig. 30.
The spread walls of
the stone-built square
dairy contrast with the
terraced platform of
the sheephouse be-
hind.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
of the best preserved historic landscapes in Europe
and the work on the medieval documents has made the
area one of the best understood in Europe. Yet, despite
a number of major interim reports appearing (eg Moor-
house 2003), a detailed survey of work in the region,
focusing mainly on archaeology, failed to mention the
detailed project work (White 2004). While interim re-
ports on work, particularly in Wensleydale has empha-
sized the total multi-disciplinary approach, a recent
summary has described the work as based on survey
work focusing on villages, hamlets, farmsteads, vac-
caries, bercaries, ‘even horse-studs’ (Wrathmell 2012,
259). The role of the landscape historian is to look at
landscapes in a total way to see what emerges, from
many related disciples, but particularly documents,
names and especially detailed field survey. Many com-
mon landscape features were unknown archaeology
and were recognised nationally for the first time in the
Dales work. These include horse-studs and the subject
of this paper. Archaeologists approach landscapes by
using mostly morphology, the shapes of things, and
concentrate on ‘sites’ often out of the setting of which
they formed a crucial part. This paper could not have
been written had traditional approaches been followed.
Conclusions
The combined evidence of documents, especially mi-
nor name evidence, and field survey show that various
types of buildings were common place in the field sys-
tems of Yorkshire, especially across the central Coal
Measures and upland Gritstones. These evidences
complement each other. The documents that record mi-
nor features of the landscape only begin to occur from
the mid-12th century. They become common-place by
the latter part of the century, suggesting that features
described by the names had been in existence before
the emergence of detailed charters. This may suggest
that what we see as recorded in the 12th century may
have a pre-Norman Conquest, if not earlier origin. The
documents provide evidence for a wide range of fea-
tures within field systems, and their many uses. Some
well documented structures are not mentioned in this
paper, such as medieval limekilns. Relating names to
the landscape has revised the understanding of some
terms of structures; scholes (OWScand skáli) names,
for example, are in need of major revision. Detailed
earthwork survey suggests that large numbers and a
wide variety of minor structures existed. But to recog-
nise them survey work has to be carried out:
• across the area of the whole appropriate landscape
as created historically
• with the necessary skill of recognising subtle earth-
works
RURALIA X
49–88
• knowing how best to record them
• and with an appropriate understanding of the use of
hachures to allow that to happen.
Subtle features of the earthwork landscape emerge
from expert survey. The use of aerial photography, the
developing use of LIDAR (both as a secondary support-
ing role and as the only tool used) are not sufficient,
and the use of sketch surveys is not appropriate. The
practise of drawing up detailed accurate surveys off
site can also cause serious problems. It is important
that the entire field system is recorded in detail and
the results interpreted. Often the bits that happen to
be recognised or are thought to be important through
the untutored eye by sketch survey are recorded in iso-
lation. An understanding of the often minutely varying
natural elements of geography, geology, and soil types,
the importance of the medieval township structure
on the communal integrated farming landscape, the
impact of the management resulting from the com-
munity of the vill which is unique to each township
and the equally complicated influence of tenure all
have a major impact. It is therefore not as simple as
identifying one of the features outlined above and try-
ing to understand them in isolation. What is certain
is that traditional approaches to recording, identifying
and understanding medieval and earlier field systems
are inappropriate. Medieval, and indeed earlier land-
scapes are best understood through an interdiscipli-
nary approach and using the appropriate skill levels
of the landscape historian. A more realistic approach
to understanding township field systems will help un-
derstand their complex nature, help to appreciate the
bits of them that survive, and the wide range and large
number of features found within them. This will lead
to a more complete and very different understanding
particularly of upland field systems than we possess
at the moment.
Abbreviations
Bodl Bodleian Library, Oxford
BL British Library, London
CH Chatsworth House archive, Derbyshire
eModE early Modern English
LRO Lancashire Record Office, Preston
ME Middle English
MIr Middle Irish
ModE dial. Modern English Dialect
YDNPA Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
NYCRO North Yorkshire County Office, Northallerton
OD Old Danish
OE Old English
83
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
ON Old Norse
OScand Old Scandinavian
OWScand Old West Scandinavian
TNA The National Archives (formerly the Public
Record Office), London
WYAS/L West Yorkshire Archives Service/Leeds,
Morley
YAS Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds. Archives
to be moved to the University of Leeds Library by
October 2015.
Summary
This paper examines a common the wide range of
minor structures which were scattered throughout
all elements of the composite farming landscape. Evi-
dence comes from names recorded during the medi-
eval period, and the ephemeral remains of the struc-
tures in the earthwork landscape. Identification of the
remains depends on an appreciation of the medieval
township structure, an appreciation of the different
types of field systems (based primarily on geology),
the identification of subtle earthworks and the record-
ing of entire township field systems. In keeping with
any earthwork landscape, their understanding cannot
come from the work of aerial photography, LIDAR or
sketch survey but from the multi-disciplinary detailed
work of the landscape historian.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Aufsatz untersucht kleinere Strukturen, die
über weite Regionen verbreitet sind und zu einer aus-
gebildeten mittelalterlichen Kulturlandschaft gehören.
Berücksichtigt werden mittelalterliche Namensrelikte
und kurzlebige Strukturen in der Kulturlandschaft.
Das Auffinden solcher Strukturen basiert auf einer Be-
urteilung der mittelalterlichen Siedlungsstruktur, ei-
nem Erkennen der Feldsysteme (u.a. auf der Grundlage
der Geologie), der Aufnahme kleinteiliger Erdstruktu-
ren sowie der Aufzeichnung aller Elemente der Sied-
lungslandschaft. Zu ihrem Verständnis können nicht
jeweils allein Luftbildaufnahmen, LIDAR-Daten oder
Surveys beitragen, sondern ein umfassender interdis-
ziplinärer Ansatz der Kulturlandschaftsgeschichte.
Resumé
Cet article analyse un large échantillonnage de
structures qui sont disséminées à travers un paysage
agraire composite. Les preuves sont apportées par les
dénominations utilisées durant le Moyen Âge et les
restes éphémères des structures imprimées dans le sol
84
49–88
du paysage agraire. L’identification des restes dépend
d’une interprétation de la structure de la communau-
té villageoise médiévale, d’une appréciation des diffé-
rents types de structures agraires (basée en premier
sur la géologie), l’identification des traces dans le sol
et l’enregistrement d’un paysage agraire local complet.
Comme pour toute trace dans un paysage quel qu’il
soit, sa compréhension ne peut pas venir d’un travail
sur photos aériennes, sur LIDAR ou d’une étude sur
papier mais d’un travail multidisciplinaire détaillé de
l’histoire du paysage.
Acknowledgements
A number of people and organisations have helped
in different ways over many years and a full list will
appear in the final publication. A small section of this
paper was written in the 1990s as part of a Festschrift
that never materialised. Mike Edwards typed the initial
text for this and laid out some of the tables used here.
Permission has been given to reproduce figures: Rob-
ert White and the YDNPA for Fig. 7 and English Herit-
age, facilitated by Javis Gurr, for Fig. 8. Funds were
provided for out of pocket expenses, during which
some of the figures have resulted: Tarmac for the work
on Threshfield Common (Fig. 10) and the YDNPA for
initial survey work across the Dales (Fig. 5, 6, 18, 28,
30). Barry Harrison first drew my attention to the un-
published Crown surveys in TNA. My wife has been a
strength in many ways, particularly during a year of
ill health.
Bibliography
Airs, M. 1983:
Hovels or helms: some further evidence from the seventeenth
century, Vernacular Architecture 14, 50–51.
Ashcroft, M.J. – Jones, E.A. (eds) 2009:
Monastic Charters and other Documents relating to the Medi-
eval Piety in the North Yorkshire County Record Office Vol.2.
Northallerton. North Yorkshire County Record Office.
Baildon, W.P. (ed) 1931:
Notes on the Religious and Secular Houses of Yorkshire: Vol II.
Yorkshire Archaeological Sovciety Record Series 131.
Berry, E. (ed) 1998:
Swaledale Wills and Inventories 1522–1600. Yorkshire Ar-
chaeological Society Record Series 152.
Bishop, T.A.M. (ed) 1937:
Miscellanea IV: Extents of the Prebends of York [c. 1295].
Yorkshire Archaeological Record Series 94, 1–38.
Brown, W. (ed) 1894:
Cartularium prioratus de Gyseburne, Ebor. dioeceseos, Ordi-
nis s. Augustini, fundati A.D. MCXIX. Vol. 2. Publications of
the Surtees Society 89.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function 49–88

Brown, W. (ed), 1909a: Dyer, C. 1984:

Yorkshire Deeds. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Se- Evidence for helms in Gloucestershire in the fourteenth cen-
ries 39. tury, Vernacular Architecture 15, 42–45.
Brown, W. 1909b: Ellis, S. 1952:
Grants of chantry and monastic lands in 1586, Journal of A note on the vocabulary of the lathe or barn in upper Wharf-
the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 20, 353–361. edale, Transactions of the Yorkshire Dialect Society Part 52,
Brown, W. (ed) 1914: Vol. IX, 44–49.
Yorkshire Deeds Vol.II, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Re- Farrer, W. (ed) 1905:
cord Series 50. The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey of the Premonstratensi-
an Order Vol. III. Part II. Publications of the Chetham Society,
Burton, J. (ed) 1758:
new series 57.
Monastican Eboracense: and the Ecclesiastical History of
Yorkshire … York. Privately published. Fellows-Jensen, G. 1978:
A Gaelic-Scandinavian loanword in English place-names,
Charlesworth, J. (ed) 1939:
Journal of the English Place-Name Society 10, 18–25.
Wakefield Manor Book, 1709, Yorkshire Archaeological Soci-
ety Record Series 101. Fellows-Jensen, G. 1980:
Common Gaelic airge, Old Scandinavian ærgi or erg?, Nomi-
Clay, C.T. (ed) 1926:
na 4, 67–74.
Yorkshire Deeds Vol. V. Yorkshire Archaeological Society re-
cord Series 69. Fieldhouse, R. (ed) 1978:
Farming and the landscape in seventeenth century Wensley-
Clay, C.T. (ed) 1930:
dale, North Yorkshire County Record Office Journal 6, 47–58
Yorkshire Deeds Vol. VI. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Re-
cord Series 76. Fieldhouse, R. 1980:
Agriculture in Wensleydale from 1690 to the present day,
Clay, C.T. (ed) 1932:
Northern History 16, 169–195.
Yorkshire Deeds Vol. VII. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Re-
cord Series 83. Fieldhouse, R. 1982:
Some evidence of surviving open fields in the seven-
Clay, C.T. (ed) 1936:
teenth-century Pennine Dales and the gradual elimination of
Early Yorkshire Charters V; The Honour of Richmond Part II.
communal agriculture, Journal of the Yorkshire Archaeologi-
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series Extra Se-
cal Society 54, 111–118.
ries 2.
Fisher, E.J. 1954:
Clay, C.T. (ed) 1940:
Some Yorkshire estates of the Percies 1450–1600 [Lecon-
Yorkshire Deeds Vol. VIII. Yorkshire Archaeological Society
field, Spofforth, Topcliffe and Wressle]. Unpublished D.Phil.
Record Series 102.
thesis, Department of History, University of Leeds. [copy de-
Clay, C.T. (ed) 1947: posited in the library of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society,
Early Yorkshire Charters Vol. VII The Honour of Skipton. The Leeds].
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, Extra Series
Fleming, A. 1998:
Vol. V.
Swaledale: Valley of the Wild River. Edinburgh University
Clay, C.T. (ed) 1952: Press.
Early Yorkshire Charters IX: the Stuteville Fee. Yorkshire Ar-
Flower, C.T. (ed) 1915:
chaeological Society Record Series Extra Series 7.
Public Works in Medieval Law, I. Publications of the Selden
Collins, F. (ed) 1902: Society 32.
The Registers of Hampsthwaite, Co. York. The Yorkshire Par-
Fowler, J.T. (ed) 1918:
ish Register Society.
Memorials of the Abbey of St. Mary of Fountains: Vol. III con-
Cowley, W. 1955: sisting of the Bursar’ Books, 1456–1459, and Memorandum
The technique and terminology of stacking and thatching in Book of Thomas Swynton, 1446–1458. Publications of the
Cleveland. Transactions of the Yorkshire Dialect Society, Part Surtees Society 130.
54, Vol. IX, 35–40. Gardiner, M. 2013:
Cowling, E.T. (ed) 1965: Stacks, barns and granaries in Early and High Medieval En-
The Extent of Otley, 1307. Typescript [Otley. Privately pub- gland, in: Vigil-Esccalera, A. – Bianchi, G. – Quirós Castillo,
lished. This undated extent cannot be dated any more pre- J.A. (eds), Horrea, Barns and Silos: Storage and Incomes
cisely that the early fourteenth century from internal evi- in Early Medieval Europe. Vitoria-Gastiez. University of the
dence]. Basque Country, 23–38.
Crossley, E.W. (ed) 1937: Gelling, M. 1984:
The Preceptories of the Knights Hospitallers, Yorkshire. York- Place–Names in the Landscape: The Geographical Roots of
shire Archaeological Society Record Series 94. Britain’s Place–Names. London. J.M. Dent.
Darbyshire, H.S. – Lumb, G.D. (eds) 1937: Gerrard, C.M. 2005:
The History of Methley. Publications of the Thoresby Society Review of Manby – Moorhouse – Ottaway 2003, in The York-
35. shire Archaeological Journal 77, 295–296.

RURALIA X 85
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Gerrard, C. – Rippon, S. 2007:
Artefacts, sites and landscapes: archaeology and medieval
studies, in Deyermond, A. (ed) A Century of Medieval Studies.
Oxford University Press for The British Academy, 525–557.
Green, J.P. 1982:
Moated hay stacks, Landscape History 4, 69.
Hall, D. 2012:
Field systems and landholdings, in: Wrathmell, S, (ed) A His-
tory of Wharram Percy and its Neighbours. Wharram: A Study
of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, XIII. York University Ar-
chaeological Publications 15, 278–288.
Harrison, B. 1990:
New settlements in the North Yorkshire Moors 1086–1340,
in: Vyner, B. (ed) Medieval Rural Settlement in North-East
England Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham
and Northumberland Research Report No.2, 19–31.
Harrison, B. 2003:
Irregular field systems and patterns of settlement in west-
ern Yorkshire, in: Unwin, T. – Spek, T. (eds) European Land-
scapes: From Mountain to Sea. Proceedings of the 19th Ses-
sion of the Permanent European Conference for the Study of
the Rural Landscape (PECSRL) at London and Aberystwyth
(UK) 10–17 September 2000. Tallinn. Huma Publishers,
166–177.
Harrison, B. 2012:
Lords and peasants in medieval Cleveland, Cleveland Histo-
ry: The Bulletin of the Cleveland and Teesside Local History
Society 100, 13–54.
Harrison, B. - Roberts, B. 1989:
The medieval landscape, in: Spratt, D.A. – Harrison, B.J.D.
(eds) The North York Moors Landscape Heritage. Newton Ab-
bot, David and Charles, 72–112.
Hartley, M. – Ingleby, J. 1986:
Dales Memories. Clapham. Dalesman.
Hartley, M. – Ingleby, J. – Hall. D.S. – Wenham, L. (eds) 1985:
Alexander Fothergill; and the Richmond to Lancaster Turn-
pike Trust: the diary and other documents transcribed, in-
dexed and introduced. North Yorkshire County Record Office
Publications 37.
Hebditch, M.J. (ed) 1948:
Yorkshire Deeds X. Yorkshire Archaeology Society Record Se-
ries 111.
Hey, D. 2014:
The medieval origins of south Pennine farms: the case of
Westmondhalgh Bierlow, Agricultural History Review 62:1,
23–39.
Higham, M.C. 1978:
The ‘erg’ place-names of northern England, Journal of the
English Place-Name Society 10, 7–15.
Holmes, R.M. (ed) 1902:
The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract Vol. II. The Yorkshire
Archaeological Society Record Series 30.
Horne, P. – MacLeod, D. 1995:
The Yorkshire Dales Mapping Project: A Report of the Na-
tional Mapping Programme, 2 Vols. Air Photographic Unit.
Royal Commission on the Historic Monuments of England.
Typescript.
86
49–88
Horsfall Turner, J. 1893:
The History of Brighouse, Rastrick and Hipperholme … Bing-
ley. Privately Printed.
Jackson, C. (ed) 1881:
Abstracts of old deeds, Journal of the Yorkshire Archaeologi-
cal Society 6, 58–72.
Kershaw. I. – Smith, D.M. (eds) 2000:
The Bolton Priory Compotus 1286–1325, Together with a
Priory Account Roll for 1377–78. Yorkshire Archaeological
Society Record Series 154.
Lancaster. W.T. (ed) 1912:
Abstracts of the Charters and other Documents contained in
the chartulary of the Priory of Bridlington. Leeds. Privately
published.
Lancaster, W.T. (ed) 1915:
Abstracts of the Charters and other Documents contained in
the Chartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of Fountains. 2 vols.
Leeds. Privately published.
Legg, K.J. (ed) 2009:
The Lost Cartulary of Bolton Priory: An Edition of the Couch-
er Book and Charters. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Re-
cord Series 160.
Lister, J. (ed) 1930:
The Court Rolls of the Manor of Wakefield; IV, 1315–1317.
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 78.
Littledale, R.P. (ed) 1916:
The Pudsay Deeds: The Pudsays of Bolton and Barforth, and
their Predecessors on those Manors. Yorkshire Archaeologi-
cal Society Record Series 56.
Lucas, J. [1882]:
Studies in Nidderdale: upon notes and observations other
than geological , made during the progress of the Govern-
ment Geological Survey of the district, 1867–1872. Pately
Bridge. Thomas Thorpe.
McDonnell, J. 1974:
Limestone and water: medieval settlement on the Hambleton
plateau, Ryedale Historian 7, 50–67.
McNulty, J. (ed) 1933:
The Chartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary of Sallay
in Craven Vol. I (Nos 1–388). Yorkshire Archaeological Soci-
ety Record Series 87.
McNulty, J. (ed) 1934:
The Chartularly of the Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary of Sal-
lay in Craven Vol. II. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record
Series 90.
Manuge, A. – Deadman, J. 2004:
The hogg houses of upper Swaledale, in: White-Wilson 2004,
157–172.
Mason, K. 1989:
Laithes: the barns of Craven. Folklife 27, 85–94.
Mayes, P. – Butler, L. 1983:
Sandal Castle Excavations 1964–1973: A Detailed Archaeo-
logical Report. Wakefield. Wakefield Historical Publications.
Moorhouse, S. 1979:
Documentary evidence for the landscape of the manor of
Wakefield during the Middle Ages, Landscape History 1,
44–58.
RURALIA X
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Moorhouse, S. 1981:
The rural medieval landscape, in Faull, M.L. – Moorhouse, S. A.
(eds) West Yorkshire: an Archaeological Survey to A.D.1500.
4 vols. Wakefield. West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Coun-
cil, 581–850.
Moorhouse, S. 1985:
The Harewood Landscape Project, CBA Forum 1985: the An-
nual Newsletter of CBA Group 4, 10–15.
Moorhouse, S. 1986:
Medieval township boundaries in West Yorkshire, Sciant Pre-
sentes [Journal of the Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Ar-
chaeological Society] 15, 8–20.
Moorhouse, S. 1995:
A late medieval water-powered ironworking complex at the
head of Bishopdale, North Yorkshire, in: Crew, P. – Crew, S.
(eds), Iron for Archaeologists: A Review of Recent Work on the
Archaeology of Early Ironworking Sites in Europe. Snodonia
National Park Occasional Paper no. 2. Plas Tan y Bwlch, Sno-
donia National Park, 28–31.
Moorhouse, S. 1996:
An archaeological survey at Plumbtree Banks, Addingham, in
Mason, K. Addingham from Brigantes to Bypass. Otley, Add-
ingham Civic Society, 131–139.
Moorhouse, S. 2003:
The anatomy of the Yorkshire Dales: decoding the medieval
landscape, in Manby, T. G. – Moorhouse , S. – Ottaway, P.
(eds) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Be-
ginning of the 21th Century. Yorkshire Archaeological Society
Occasional Paper No. 3, 293–362.
Moorhouse, S. 2006:
Buildings in the medieval landscape, Vernacular Buildings
[Journal of the Yorkshire Vernacular Buildings Study Group]
34, 42–70.
Moorhouse, S. 2007a:
The Threshfield Pasture Historic Landscape Project: An In-
terim Report. Typescript.
Moorhouse, S. 2007b:
The quarrying of building stone and stone artefacts in medi-
eval Yorkshire: a multi-disciplinary approach, in: Klápště, J.
– Sommer, P. (eds). Arts and Crafts in Medieval Rural Envi-
ronment. Ruralia VI, 295–319.
Moorhouse, S. 2008:
An interdisciplinary approach to understanding past land-
scapes: processes and procedures, in: Atherden, M. – Mil-
son, T. (eds) Yorkshire Landscapes Past and Present. York.
PLACE, 27–46. [most of the earthwork plans were redrawn
for the editors and do not reflect the landscapes repre-
sented].
Moorhouse, S. 2009:
The medieval landscape of the Yorkshire Dales, North York-
shire: space, process and procedure, in: Klápště – Sommer, P.
(eds) Medieval Rural Settlement in Marginal Landscapes. Ru-
ralia VII, 57–75.
Moorhouse, S. 2011:
Medieval manorial complexes in Yorkshire: a multi-discipli-
nary approach, in: Airs, M. – Barnwell, P.S. (eds) The Medieval
RURALIA X
49–88
Great House. Rewley House Studies in the Historic Environ-
ment 1. Donington. Shaun Tyas, 214–242.
Moorhouse, S. in preparation:
Travel by Land and Water in Medieval Yorkshire: The Anato-
my of a Communication System. Medieval Yorkshire [Journal
of the Medieval Section of the Yorkshire Archaeological Soci-
ety], 39–40 (2010–2011)
Moorhouse, S. – Redmonds, G. 2008:
Tithe barns: their names and landscape setting, Medieval
Yorkshire [Journal of the Medieval Section of the Yorkshire
Archaeological Society] 37, 32–51.
Morris, M.C.F. 1907:
Numburnholme: Its History and Antiquities. York. John
Sampson.
Needham, S. 1984:
Helms, hovels and belfrys: more evidence from probate in-
ventories, Vernacular Architecture 15, 45–46.
Pollard, A.J. – Ashcroft, M.Y. (eds) 1984:
Coverham: some fifteenth century manorial records, North
Yorkshire County Record Office Journal 10, 29–43.
Price, M.J.S. (ed) 1955:
Yorkshire Deeds X. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record
Series 120.
Price, G.R. (ed) 1984:
A Transcript of the Court Rolls of Yeadon 1361–1476.
Draughton. Privately published.
Purvis, J.S. (ed) 1936:
The Chartularly of the Augustinian Priory of St John the
Evangelist of the Park of Healaugh. Yorkshire Archaeological
Society Record Society Record Series 92.
Raine, J. (ed) 1859:
The Fabric Rolls of York Minster, with an appendix of illustra-
tive documents. Publications of the Surtees Society 35.
Reynolds, L. 1998:
Field barns in upper Swaledale: why are they there?, Vernac-
ular Buildings 26, 75–81.
Reynolds, L. 1999:
Field barns in upper Swaledale: what are they like?, Vernacu-
lar Buildings 27, 67–82.
Rowe, J.H. 1921:
Saltpie, The Bradford Antiquary, new series 4, 112.
Sheppard, J.A. 1966:
Pre-Enclosure field and settlement patterns in an English
township: Wheldrake, near York, Geografisca Annaler Se-
ries B, Human Geography 48B, 57–77.
Sheppard, J.A. 1973:
Field Systems in Yorkshire, in Baker, A.R.H. – Butlin, R.A.
(eds) Studies of Field Systems in the British Isles, Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, A.H. (ed) 1937:
Place-Names of the East Riding of Yorkshire and York. Eng-
lish Place-Name Society 14.
Smith, A.H. (ed) 1961a:
The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire; Part I The
Wapentakes of Lower and Upper Strafforth and Staincross.
English Place-Name Society 30.
87
Moorhouse, Features within medieval township farming landscapes in Yorkshire and their function
Smith, A.H. (ed) 1961b:
The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire; Part III Mor-
ley Wapentake. English Place-Name Society 32.
Smith, A.H. (ed) 1961c:
The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire; Part IV The
Wapentakes of Barkston Ash, Skyrack and Ainsty. The Eng-
lish Place-Name Society 33.
Smith, A.H. (ed) 1961d:
The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire; Part V Up-
per and Lower Claro Wapentakes. The Englisg Place-Name
Society 34.
Smith, A.H. (ed) 1961e:
The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire; Part VI East
and West Staincliffe and Ewcross Wapentakes. English Place-
Name Society 35.
Smith, A.H. (ed) 1962:
The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire; Part VII
Introduction, Bibliography, River-Names, Analyses. English
Place-Name Society 36.
Stapleton, T. 1838:
Ground plan and charters of St. Andrew’s Priory in the par-
ish of Marrigg, North Riding, co. Ebor, in Collectanea Topo-
graphical and Geneaology Vol. 5. London. Society of Anti-
quaries, 100–124, 221–259.
Stell, P.M. – Hampson. L. (eds) 1999:
Probate Inventories of the York Diocese 1350–1500. [York.
York Minster Library].
Taylor, R. 1984:
An eighteenth-century Cambridgeshire helm. Vernacular Ar-
chitecture 15, 40–41.
T., F.T. (ed) 1840:
Charters relating to the manors of Elslack and Glusburn, in
Craven. Co. York, … Collectanea Topographica and Genealo-
gia Vol. 6. London. Society of Antiquaries.
Vale, B. (ed) 1987:
The Scropes of Bolton and of Masham, c.1300–c.1450:
A Study of a Northern Noble Family with a Calander of the
Scrope of Bolton Cartularly, 2 vols. Unpublished DPhil, De-
partment of History, University of York.
Walker, J.W. (ed) 1924:
Abstracts of the Chartularies of the Priory of Monkbretton.
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 66.
Stephen Moorhouse, Deighton House, 8 Deighton Lane, Healey, Batley, West Yorkshire, WF17 8BJ;
celiamoorhouse05@yahoo.co.uk
88
49–88
White, R. 1988:
Field barns: a wasting asset. Unpublished DipTRP thesis,
Leeds Polytechnic.
White, R. 2004:
Introduction, in: White – Wilson 2004, 1–14.
White, R. – Darlington, G. 2004:
‘Houses built in most of the fields’: field barns in Swaledale
and Arkengarthdale, in: White – Wilson 2004, 145–156.
White, R.F. – Wilson, P.R. (eds) 2004:
Archaeology and Historic Landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales.
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper 2
Whiting, C.E. (ed) 1952:
Two Yorkshire Diaries: The Diary of Arthur Jessup and Ralph
Ward’s Journal. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Se-
ries 117.
Willan, T.S. – Crossley, E.W. (eds) 1941:
Three Seventeenth-Century Yorkshire Surveys. Yorkshire Ar-
chaeological Society Record Series 104.
Winchester, A.J.L. 2000:
The Harvest of the Hills: Rural Life in Northern England
and the Scottish Borders, 1400–1700. Edinburgh University
Press.
Wood, G.A. 2003:
Field arrangements in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the
High Middle Ages. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Ge-
ography and School of Continuing Education, University of
Leeds.
Woodward, D. 1982:
Identifying the helm: some East Yorkshire evidence. Vernacu-
lar Architecture 13, 26–27.
Woodward, D. (ed) 1984:
The Farming and Memorandum Books of Henry Best of Elm-
swell 1642. Records of Social and Economic History new se-
ries 8. London. The British Academy.
Wrathmell, S. 2012:
Northern England: exploring the character of rural settle-
ments, in: Christie, N. – Stamper, P. (eds), Medieval Rural
Settlement: Britain and Ireland, AD 800–1600. Macklesfield.
Windgather Press, 249–269.
Zimmerman, W.H. 1992:
The ‘helm’ in England, Wales, Scandinavia and North Ameri-
ca, Vernacular Architecture 23, 34–43.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 89–105

Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens

in Britain
Die Einführung kontinentaler Pflanzen
in mittelalterliche Klostergärten in Britannien
L’introduction de plantes d’origine continentale dans
les jardins monastiques médiévaux en Grande-Bretagne

James Bond

Introduction
Garden historians have often credited the religious
orders of medieval Europe with making important
contributions to the advancement of horticulture (Mey-
vaert 1986, 31; Landsberg 1995, 34–35). There seem
good reasons for such claims. Many early monastic
rules promoted an ideal of self-sufficiency. To enable
monks to distance themselves from the secular world,
they were urged to produce as much of their own food
as possible. Fruit and vegetable gardens feature prom-
inently in stories of the Desert Fathers and in the regu-
lations and descriptions of early coenobitic communi-
ties (McLean 1981, 13–15; Meyvaert 1986, 27–29). The
Benedictine Rule required gardens to be located within
the precinct (McCann 1976, Ch.66). In the pioneering
years programmes of self-denial and penance imposed
certain dietary restrictions, but extreme asceticism
was rarely maintained; as individual communities sta-
bilized and began to expand, they sought to improve
their diet through access to a wider range of crops.
Because monasteries were places of learning, with
a tradition of collecting and copying manuscripts, they
took an active role in transmitting classical horticultur-
al literature into the Middle Ages (Harvey 1981, 25–36;
Blunt–Raphael 1979; Collins 2000). Their networks of
contacts could also facilitate processes of improve-
ment. Centralised orders, such as the Cistercians,
had the organisational framework to disseminate in-
formation across Europe. Individual links between
mother-houses and dependent priories (particularly
between Normandy and England after 1066) were also
important. The patronage of royal and baronial fami-
lies, whose wealth rested on land and who themselves
had interests in improvement, provided further op-
portunities. Finally, through their promotion of trade,
monasteries had access to suppliers of seeds and
plants. The proposition that medieval monks could
be agents of horticultural innovation is, therefore,
entirely reasonable; but can it be supported by solid
evidence?
One aspect of the question is the extent to which
monastic communities were responsible for the trans-
mission of plants from one part of Europe to another.
Numerous cases are cited in the literature. The Cister-
cians’ revival of vine cultivation in Burgundy was fol-
lowed by their establishment of new vineyards else-
where, notably at Eberbach in the Rheingau, which is
said to have developed into the largest wine production
centre in Europe during the 12th century (Johnson
1989, 129–137). Burgundian varieties of apples were
planted in Cistercian colonies as far east as Silesia. In
the 1190s the Victorine abbot of Eskilsø in Denmark
was sending to Paris for seeds, roots and grafts (Harvey
1981, 58). There is occasional evidence in north-western
European monasteries for the presence of apricot (Pru-
nus armenaica), peach (Prunus persica) and cucumber
(Cucumis sativus), plants of warm temperate climates,
unsuited to long-distance transport, but demanding
considerable care in cultivation (Livarda 2011). Several
plants likely to be of English origin have been noted as
possible relict flora on Norwegian monastic sites (Åsen
2009). Among the exotics grown in Polish monasteries
before the 16th century, anise (Pimpinella anisum), hys-
sop (Hyssopus officinalis) and sage (Salvia officinalis)
have been claimed as specifically monastic introduc-
tions (Knab 1999, 34–35, 90, 122, 157).
Because marine barriers inhibit natural coloni-
sation, the presence of introduced plants in British
monasteries is of special interest. In order to pursue
this question further, two preliminary tasks must be
attempted: firstly, to establish the range of plants actu-
ally cultivated in monastic gardens in Britain; and sec-
ondly, to determine which of those plants derive from
native wild stock and which have been introduced from
continental Europe. Both present problems. Establish-
ing the extent to which monastic agencies themselves
took the initiative in introducing new crops, and the
mechanisms by which this was achieved, is even more
difficult.

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 89–105.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110458
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain 89–105

Limitations of the Evidence

Attempting to compile a comprehensive list of plants
grown in medieval monastic gardens in Britain is hin-
dered by lacunae in both documentary and archaeo-
logical evidence. On the documentary side, there are
problems with nomenclature: neither Latin nor ver-
nacular plant-names were used with absolute consist-
ency, so identifications from medieval records may be
insecure (Hunt 1989). Monastic knowledge of the na-
ture and uses of a plant is not proof of cultivation: lit-
erary texts describe many more theoretically-available
plants than can be authenticated by actual records of
planting or by archaeological evidence. The archaeo-
logical record is also affected by problems of survival
and identification. Although macrofossils and pollen
of medieval garden plants can be preserved in certain
conditions, closely-related species may be difficult to
distinguish in archaeobotanic samples, with particular
difficulties in distinguishing wild native strains from
introduced cultivated varieties. Edible wild species and
exotic fruits possibly imported in dried form are often
represented in monastic middens, drains and cess-
pits, so evidence of consumption does not necessarily
indicate local cultivation.
It is equally difficult to make a firm distinction be-
tween native and introduced species. Some native
plants, such as box (Buxus sempervirens), were so lo-
calised that they seem unlikely to be the main source
of the cultivated stock. Differences between edible na-
tive plants and more appetising varieties brought from Fig. 2. The St Gallen hortus (kitchen garden), c. AD 820.
overseas to supersede them may be undetectable in
documentary or archaeological records. Some early
introductions themselves became naturalised. Even took place in late prehistory. Four centuries of Roman
when introduction is certain, the date and circum- rule brought in many more new plants, the hardier of
stances can rarely be documented precisely. Some which survived in cultivation or became naturalised
during the post-Roman period. Subsequent opportu-
nities for plant introductions came through English
monasteries opening contacts with Benedictine com-
munities in France during the mid-10th century; the
Norman Conquest, which also provided links with Nor-
man Sicily and Apulia; the Crusades; and the expan-
sion of international trade. However, not all introduc-
tions were immediately adopted, and some plants may
have been lost and reintroduced on more than one oc-
casion before passing into general cultivation.

Fig. 1. The Carolingian blueprint for early medieval monastic gardens:
the St Gallen herbularius (infirmary garden), c. AD 820.
Documentary Sources
Many classes of monastic records provide incidental
information on gardens, but sources relating specifi-
cally to garden plants are limited. A cornerstone of our
understanding of the form and content of medieval
monastic gardens in Europe is the plan drawn up in
about AD 820 by Abbot Haito of Reichenau to assist in

90 RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain 89–105

the replanning of the monastery at St Gallen in Swit-

zerland. Though reflecting a theoretical ideal rather
than the actual reality, it depicts three cultivated plots
containing 48 species of vegetables, herbs and fruit
trees. A subsequent abbot of Reichenau, Walafrid Stra-
bo (838–849), named 35 plants in a poem on garden-
ing (Horn – Born 1979; Harvey 1981, 32–34; Willerding
1992, 255–258). Most of the plants named on the St
Gallen plan and by Walafrid Strabo can be identified
with reasonable confidence, and were equally suited to
gardens in Britain (Figs 1–4). Sites in Britain referred
to below are located on Fig.5.
The earliest English plant-list occurs in a Latin –
Old English vocabulary assembled around 995 by Æl-
fric, a monk at the Benedictine abbey of Cerne (Zupi-
tza 1880, 310–312; Wright – Wülcker 1884. i, 133–139;
Harvey 1981, 3–4). A colloquy by his pupil Ælfric Bata
lists 70 garden plants (Gwara – Porter 1997, 158–159).
At least two later English botanical texts were compiled
by men who had entered religious orders. Alexander
Neckam, born in 1157, was abbot of Cirencester from
1213 to 1216. His encyclopaedia De Naturis Rerum, in-
cludes a chapter on garden flowers, herbs and trees
(Wright 1863; Harvey 1981, 21, 66–67). Henry Daniel,
born around 1315–20, trained as a physician, joined
the Dominican order before 1377, and compiled his
herbal Aaron Danielis as an elderly man, claiming to
have grown 252 different herbs in his own garden at
Stepney (Harvey 1987). These texts show knowledge of
many non-indigenous species which could have been
grown in English monastic gardens, but provide no Fig. 3. Trees in the St Gallen orchard-cemetery, c. AD 820.
firm proof of cultivation.
Much of the abstract horticultural knowledge of the
Middle Ages had been relayed through Europe by the in Latin around AD 400 using earlier classical texts,
copying of early manuscripts in monastic scriptoria. was especially influential. An illustrated 11th-century
The herbal of Apuleius Platonicus, originally compiled translation into Old English (British Library, Cotton

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of the hortulus of Abbot

Walafrid Strabo (839–849) at Reichenau-Mittel-
zell, Germany.

RURALIA X 91
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
MS Vitellius C.iii) has variously been attributed to Win-
chester, Canterbury, or one of the East Anglian mon-
asteries (Collins 2000, 192–196), while an illustrated
Latin copy was probably made at St Augustine’s Abbey
in Canterbury shortly before 1100 (Bodleian Library,
Oxford, MS Ashmole 1431; Blunt – Raphael 1979, 31–
33; Collins 2000, 196). Both illustrate non-indigenous
plants such as alexanders and lily.
It might be expected that the best record of plants
actually grown would be in monastic gardeners’ own
accounts. In the hierarchy of obedientiars the garden-
er ranked relatively low, and care of the gardens was
often assigned to the cellarer or kitchener. Neverthe-
less, where accounts survive, they commonly include
92
89–105
Fig. 5. Monastic sites in Britain with
documentary or archaeological evi-
dence or possible relict species relat-
ing to cultivated garden plants.
purchases of seeds and sales of surplus produce.
The longest sequence of gardeners’ accounts comes
from Norwich Cathedral Priory, where rolls survive for
33 years between 1329–30 and 1529–30 (Noble 1997);
accounts from other houses have also been pub-
lished (Keil 1959–60; Kirk 1892, 16–22, 51–58, 73–77,
127–131).
While documentary sources confirm that introduced
species were grown, they provide little indication of the
practicalities of carrying plants over the English Chan-
nel. After the 12th century this rarely concerned mo-
nastic gardeners directly, since by then they were rou-
tinely able to purchase seeds, grafts and rooted plants
through the expanding nursery trade (Harvey 1981,
RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
17, 58, 80, 84, 110). Many introduced plants, includ-
ing borage, chervil, coriander, dill, fennel, sweet mar-
joram, parsley and summer savory, would normally
be raised from spring-sown seed. Although home-pro-
duced seed was occasionally kept back for the follow-
ing year, seed from elsewhere was generally believed
to do better. Records of seed purchases in gardeners’
accounts mostly identify common crops related to na-
tive or naturalised stock or early introductions; but
purchases for the Abbot of Westminster’s private gar-
den on his manor of Eye included a much wider range
of introduced herbs (Harvey 1992, 105). Other plants,
including chives, hyssop, lavender, sweet marjoram,
mint, rosemary, rue, sage, tansy and thyme, would be
propagated by cuttings or root division. The technique
of preserving and transporting grafts or cuttings from
fruit trees in sealed tin containers full of honey, de-
scribed by the Italian refugee Giacomo Castelvetro
who arrived in England in 1613 (Riley 2012, 72–73),
may reflect older practices, since grafts of apples and
pears are frequently recorded in English medieval
sources.
Archaeological Evidence
The contribution of archaeology to our knowledge
of cultivated plants remains less than the information
from written sources. A recent review has summarised
the potential and the limitations of the archaeobotani-
cal data (van der Veen – Hill – Livarda 2013). Although
many medieval monastic sites have been excavated,
scientific investigation of their gardens has rarely been
a priority. Even where gardens have been excavated,
conditions have often not favoured the preservation of
plant remains (Coppack 1990, 78–80). Nevertheless,
macrofossils of garden plants (seeds, pips, fruit-stones,
leaves, stems or roots) can be preserved by waterlog-
ging, mineralisation, desiccation or carbonisation,
while pollen may also be preserved in acid waterlogged
environments (Murphy – Scaife 1991, 85–87).
Waterlogged sediments from drains at the Oxford
Blackfriars contained remains of fruits, nuts, culinary
and medicinal herbs, including some non-indigenous
species, plum, sweet cherry, Alpine-type strawberry,
grape, fig, walnut, almond, marigold and opium poppy.
Most of the plants represented, even fig and almond,
could have been cultivated in the friars’ extensive gar-
dens immediately outside the city wall (Robinson 1985).
Introduced plants are represented in waterlogged de-
posits elsewhere, including St Mary Spital in London,
Merton Priory, Rushen Abbey, Denny Abbey and Ber-
mondsey Abbey (Davis 1997, 237–245; Giorgi 2007;
Tomlinson 1999, 72–74; Arthur 1980; Taylor 2008).
Carbonised plant remains from monastic sites tend
to be dominated by cereals and arable crop weeds,
RURALIA X
89–105
and introduced garden plants are rarely represented,
though carbonised grape has been reported from Mer-
ton Priory (Giorgi 2007, 237). Mineralised fig and grape
remains have been recovered from St Mary Spital and
from St John’s Priory, Clerkenwell in London (Davis
1997, 237–244; 2004, 370–371). Both carbonised and
mineralised brassica remains have come from late
medieval contexts in the outer precinct at Clerkenwell
(Davis 2004, 368–369, 370–371). Desiccated plant re-
mains are rarely found in Britain, but at Romsey Ab-
bey desiccated box clippings and a bulb of the allium
genus (possibly garlic from the kitchen garden) were
found in a cavity in a stone wall (Murphy – Scaife 1991,
87–88). Where pollen deposits survive they are usually
dominated by wind-blown tree pollen, while insect-pol-
linated garden plants are poorly represented; moreo-
ver, garden plants which were trimmed or cropped
before flowering produced no pollen (Murphy – Scaife
1991, 90–92). Exceptionally, pollen from Merton Priory
yielded evidence for a few introductions, including bor-
age, buckwheat, walnut and, probably, hemp (Scaife
2007, 245).
Relict Plants
Plants growing near former monastic sites which are
uncommon elsewhere, or unusually prolific in such lo-
cations, have often been claimed as former garden spe-
cies which became naturalised after the Dissolution.
Because of the possibilities of natural colonisation
or deliberate planting over the ensuing five centuries,
this is difficult to prove. Nevertheless, a few examples
involving non-indigenous species may be noted.
The yellow wallflower (Erysimum cheiri), a native of
the Aegean, may have been introduced to monastic
gardens for its scent; it still grows on the walls of St
Augustine’s at Canterbury, Waltham Abbey, Bury St
Edmunds Abbey and Lindisfarne Priory (Mabey 1996,
146). Despite its modern ubiquity in Britain, the snow-
drop (Galanthus nivalis) is not native, being unrecord-
ed in the wild before the 1770s. It acquired religious
associations through its flowering around Candlemas,
the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary
(2nd February) (Mabey 1996, 421–423). Birthwort
(Aristolochia clematitis), from the eastern Mediterra-
nean, was believed to assist childbirth, and may have
been cultivated in nunneries and hospitals where mid-
wifery was practised. It still grows among the ruins of
Godstow Nunnery near Oxford, and naturalised colo-
nies formerly existed at Carrow Nunnery near Norwich
and St Cross Hospital in Winchester. The rare related
species asarabacca (Asarum europaeum), is reported to
grow at the nunnery of Limebrook (Mabey 1996, 38).
However, firm evidence for cultivation of these plants
in the Middle Ages remains elusive.
93
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
The meadows of the River Trent around Nottingham
once supported large colonies of both spring crocus
(Crocus vernus) and autumn crocus (C.nudiflorus).
C.nudiflorus came from the Pyrenean regions, while
C.vernus had a wider range extending from the Pyr-
enees to the Caucasus. Both grow wild in Burgundy
around Cluny, and it has been suggested that the
Cluniac monks of Lenton Priory introduced them as a
substitute for the saffron crocus (C.sativus), being bet-
ter suited to the conditions of midland and northern
England. C.vernus flourished there so well that it be-
came known as ‘Nottingham crocus’. In Lancashire a
correspondence has been noted between ancient colo-
nies of C.nudiflorus and estates formerly held by the
Knights Hospitallers (Mabey 1996, 436–437).
Islands perhaps offer the best conditions for sur-
vival of relict garden plants. Rushen Abbey (I. of Man)
has both the yellow wallflower Erysimum cheiri and the
violet Manx wallflower E. linifolium from Iberia (Gar-
rad 2003, 19; Mabey 1996, 146). Even more distinc-
tive plants, including culinary species such as wild
leeks, alexanders and coriander, have been recorded
on Steep Holm in the Bristol Channel, which was set-
tled by a small colony of Augustinian canons in the
late 13th century. The most striking Steep Holm exot-
ic, the Mediterranean single pink peony, Paeonia mas-
cula (Fig.6), has become naturalised nowhere else in
Britain. Though the island is windswept, its climate is
otherwise equable, and this may have encouraged the
canons to experiment with Mediterranean species, the
lack of intensive competitive land use in later centu-
ries permitting some of them to survive. Although the
monastic origin of these plants is unproven, there are
no obvious circumstances in which they could delib-
erately have been introduced at a later date (Roe 1981,
57–58, 61; Rendell – Rendell 1993, 98–99).
94
89–105
Fig. 6. The Mediterranean single pink peony
(Paeonia mascula) on Steep Holm, Somerset:
a possible relict species from the garden of
the Augustinian canons of Studley who estab-
lished a short-lived colony on the island in the
later 13th century.
The Uses of Plants
Plants grown in monastic gardens served practi-
cal, decorative and symbolic purposes. Vegetables
and fruit provided subsistence. Some herbs added
flavour to bland dishes, others had medicinal proper-
ties. Plants producing dye or fibre had industrial uses.
Flowering plants and evergreens were grown for visual
ornament, to be enjoyed within the garden itself and
to decorate the church and other buildings. Religious
symbolisms attributed to many plants are reflected in
their vernacular names in many European languages.
Culinary, medicinal, industrial, aesthetic and symbolic
functions were not mutually exclusive, many plants
serving several purposes. In the discussion below they
are grouped according to their probable primary use,
but in some cases this may be debatable.
Vegetables
Legumes
Broad beans (Vicia faba) and peas (Pisum sativum)
both originate from wild stock native to south-west
Asia and the eastern Mediterranean. Beans grew well
in more temperate climates and had been cultivated in
Britain since late prehistory. Peas, not quite so toler-
ant of colder conditions, were probably a Roman in-
troduction. Both had long been grown as field crops,
normally being dried for use in pottage, a common mo-
nastic dish throughout the year. By the late 13th cen-
tury new varieties were being cultivated in gardens, to
be eaten fresh.
The Norwich gardener’s accounts record frequent
payments for planting, weeding, harvesting, threshing
and winnowing beans. Sales produced a regular in-
RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
come, but beans were also occasionally purchased for
consumption, as well as planting (Noble 1997, 31–73).
Beans were also grown in the gardens of Beaulieu
Abbey (1269–70), Glastonbury Abbey (1333–4), Eyn-
sham Abbey (ca. 1360), and St Augustine’s Abbey in
Bristol (1491–2 and 1511–12) (Hockey 1975, 192–193;
Keil 1959–60, 98–99; Salter ii 1908, 37; Beachcroft –
Sabin 1938, 220–221).
Peas were purchased at Norwich in 1339–40 and
at Selby in 1404–5 and 1416–17 for making pottage
(Noble 1997, 34; Tillotson 1988, 136, 145, 179), but
the accounts provide no evidence that they were cul-
tivated in the gardens. The Westminster Abbey kitch-
ener’s accounts between 1497 and 1522 record regu-
lar consumption of green peas through Lent, though
their source is not stated (Harvey 1995, 60, n.83). They
also appear in the Durham Priory accounts (Fowler i
1898, 70). Green peas of a winter-hardy, early-ripening
variety called ‘Hastings’ were certainly grown in the
garden of St Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol in 1491–2 and
in 1511–12 (Beachcroft – Sabin 1938, 220–221). Car-
bonised peas have been recovered from St Mary Spital
in London (Davis 1997, 236), from the outer precinct
of St John’s, Clerkenwell (Davis 2004, 368) and from
Eynsham Abbey (Hardy et al. 2003, 442–443, 513,
567). Generally, however, beans and peas are poorly
represented in the archaeological record.
Evidence for consumption of small quantities of len-
tils (Lens culinaris) has been recovered from St John’s
Clerkenwell, Hyde Abbey, Eynsham Abbey and Abing-
don Abbey’s estate farm at Dean Court (Davis 2004,
368; Hardy et al. 2003, 567; Moffett 1994, 404). Lentils
prefer a continental climate and are widely grown in
Europe. In Britain they have never been more than a
marginal crop, but warm dry summers of the medieval
climatic optimum may have permitted limited cultiva-
tion in gardens in southern England.
RURALIA X
89–105
Brassicas
Coleworts, kales and cabbages (Brassica oleracea)
were commonly grown in monastic gardens, but dif-
ferent varieties can rarely be distinguished in docu-
mentary records or archaeological remains. There is
a native wild cabbage, but medieval cultivated forms
probably derive from Roman introductions. Coleworts,
harvested by plucking the leaves as required, had to
be sown several times a year to ensure a constant sup-
ply (Fig.7). Brassicas were another regular constitu-
ent of pottage, and their importance as a crop is re-
flected in local names for monastic gardens, such as
the Kalgarth or Cole Garden at Marrick Nunnery and
the Kaleyard at St Werburgh’s Abbey, Chester (Tillotson
1989, 15–16; Burne 1962, 61). The infirmarer of Max-
stoke Priory was purchasing cabbage seed during the
1460s–70s (Watkins 1996, 13), while coleworts were
regularly sold by the gardener of Norwich Priory (No-
ble 1997, 33–45).
At least three varieties of mustard were known in
the Middle Ages. Black mustard (Brassica nigra), the
most widely cultivated, may be a Roman introduction
from the Middle East which had become naturalised
at an early date. Its early tender leaves were used as
spring greens, the seed-leaves as a salad ingredient,
while the seed was ground in small hand-mills as a
condiment. Mustard seed purchased by the gardener
of Norwich Priory in 1402–3 and 1405–6 was record-
ed as ‘wrapped’ (Noble 1997, 44, 46). Mustard was also
sown at Anglesey Abbey in 1326 (Darby 1977). However,
mustard seed purchased by the Selby Abbey kitchener
in 1416–17 and by the Battle Abbey cellarer in 1512–13
was evidently destined directly for the kitchen, as the
former was at the same time paying for repairs to the
grinding stones of the mustard mill, while the latter
purchased 1½ pipes of vinegar for making mustard
(Tillotson 1988, 167; Searle – Ross 1967, 160).
Fig. 7. A colewort crop with snails,
carved on a capital of St Mary’s
parish church, Wolborough, Devon.
The advowson of the church was
held by the Premonstratensian
canons of Torre Abbey.
95
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
Mustard seed from wild plants is common in ar-
chaeobotanical samples. Only rarely does the quantity
or context allow it to be identified as a product of cul-
tivation. At Merton Priory, unusually large amounts of
black mustard seed were recovered from 13th-century
contexts in areas near the infirmary and in the kitchen
(Giorgi 2007, 236–241). A couple of mineralised black
mustard seeds recovered from the Oxford Blackfri-
ars drain had probably entered the deposit in sewage
rather than from wild plants growing nearby (Robin-
son 1985, 199, 201). Limited quantities of both black
and white mustard seed have been reported from late
medieval latrine deposits in the outer precinct of St
John’s, Clerkenwell (Davis 2004, 372, 374) and from St
Mary Spital in London (Davis 1997, 237–245).
Alliaceous species
Leeks, onions and garlic, all early introductions to
Britain, were among the most widely-grown vegetables
in the Middle Ages. There is a native wild leek (Allium
ampeloprasum), but the cultivated leek (Allium porrum)
probably derives from eastern Mediterranean stock.
Garlic (Allium sativum) and onion (Allium cepa) are
plants of central Asian origin which became extensive-
ly cultivated in Europe during the Roman period, and
were probably first introduced into Britain then.
Purchases, planting and sales of leeks, onions and
garlic feature regularly in the Norwich Priory accounts
between 1329 and 1484. Onion seed is relatively
short-lived and fresh seed was usually bought every
year, the costs for unspecified quantities ranging from
1d (1329) to 5s (1427–8) (Noble 1997, 31–73). Pur-
chases of leek, garlic and onion seeds or plants also
occur at Battle, Glastonbury, Westminster, Peterbor-
ough, Selby and Maxstoke at various dates between the
1270s and 1470s (Searle – Ross 1967, 42, 53, 102, 111,
136; Keil 1959–60, 101; Harvey 1992, 105; Greatrex
1993, 24; Tillotson 1988, 167–168; Watkins 1996, 13).
In 1498–9 and 1500–01 the cellarer of Durham pur-
chased onion seed at the port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
(Fowler i 1898, 101).
Shallots (Allium ascalonicum), native to the eastern
Mediterranean, were known in the Middle Ages as ‘scal-
lions’ from the town of Ascalon, north of Gaza; they
began to appear in English gardens soon after 1200.
A purchase of skalons costing 1d appears in the Nor-
wich gardener’s account for 1339–40 (Noble 1997, 35).
Other Vegetables
Seed purchases for the abbot of Westminster’s
manor of Eye in 1327 included lettuce, orache and
‘spinach’ (Harvey 1992, 105). Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
96
89–105
is of eastern Mediterranean origin, first noted in Brit-
ain by Alexander Neckam. Orache (Atriplex hortensis),
a native of temperate continental Europe and Asia, is
also first noted by Neckam, and there is archaeological
evidence for this plant at St Mary Spital (Davis 1997,
237–245). True spinach (Spinacia oleracea), ultimately
from south-western Asia, seems to have come to Brit-
ain from Spain in the 16th century, and earlier uses
of this name probably refer to native members of the
goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae).
Turnips and beet were initially grown more for their
edible foliage than for their roots. The medieval culti-
vated beet (Beta vulgaris) was probably an introduced
strain of a species native to Britain. Beet seed was pur-
chased for the Abbot of Westminster’s garden at Eye in
1327. The skirret (Sium sisarum), a native of northern
continental Europe, seems undocumented in Britain
before 1275–6, when skirrets were sold from the Eye
Manor garden (Harvey 1992, 105). Roots and tubers
made limited contributions to the English diet before
the end of the Middle Ages.
Alexanders (Smyrnium olusatrum), a Mediterranean
species once used in pottage and as an alternative to
celery, is illustrated in several medieval English herb-
als. It became widely naturalised in coastal areas,
and grows prolifically on Steep Holm. Although rarely
found far inland, it has been noted near Elstow Ab-
bey, possibly an escape from the nuns’ garden (Mabey
1996, 286).
Buckwheat or brank (Fagopyrum esculentum), un-
related to the cereal wheat, evolved from a wild plant
of southern China, becoming domesticated across
wide areas of eastern and central Asia. Its appear-
ance in central Europe has often been linked with the
13th-century Tatar incursions, but in Poland it has
been identified in archaeological contexts dating be-
tween the 9th and 12th centuries (Zemanek et al. 2009,
186–189), and palynological evidence reveals its pres-
ence in Holland even earlier, though it did not become
widely cultivated there until after ca. 1390 (Leenders
1987; van Haaster 1997, 62–63). It needs sun and
warmth, but can grow on poor sandy soils. It had been
introduced into eastern England by about 1480, and
was grown as a green fodder for horses and for fatten-
ing pigs; the seed was fed to poultry, and could also be
mixed with cereals and ground into a flour for bread in
times of dearth. Small quantities were grown at Wrox-
ham, a Norfolk manor belonging to the nuns of Car-
row, by 1530. The unusual presence of buckwheat pol-
len at Merton Priory raises the possibility that it was
there cultivated as a garden crop (Scaife 2007, 245).
An introduced continental member of the dock and
sorrel family, Rumex pseudoalpinus, bears the popular
name of ‘monks’ rhubarb’; it grows mainly in the north
of England near buildings, and remains of it have been
RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
reported from a 15th-century drain at Paisley Abbey
(Dickson 1996). Its leaves were traditionally used to
wrap butter to keep it cool in summer (Mabey 1996,
111), and it also had medicinal properties.
Culinary Herbs
There was no clear distinction between culinary and
medicinal herbs, some plants being used for both pur-
poses. Ælfric of Cerne names mint, marjoram, clary
and thyme, which may represent either the native wild
species or introduced garden cultivars. He was also
familiar with herbs of southern European or Middle
Eastern origin which had probably been introduced
into Britain by the Romans. These include alecost or
costmary (Chrysanthemum balsamita), cress (Lepidium
sativum), dill (Anethum graveolens), fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), and opium poppy (Papaver somniferum). Æl-
fric Bata’s colloquy adds summer savory (Satureia
hortensis). Fennel was a Roman introduction which
had certainly become naturalised: the Ely chronicle re-
lates an incident in the 950s when a group of clerics
visited the ruins of the abbey destroyed by the Vikings,
picked fennel stalks growing within the church, and
poked them through an aperture in the sarcophagus
of St Etheldreda to discover whether her body still re-
mained there (Fairweather 2005, 81).
Other Mediterranean and middle eastern species
known to Aelfric, including bay (Laurus nobilis), cum-
in (Cuminum cyminum), lovage (Levisticum officinale),
parsley (Petroselimun crispum) and sage (Salvia offici-
nalis), cannot independently be authenticated in Brit-
ain before the Norman Conquest, but were certainly
cultivated later in the Middle Ages (Harvey 1981, 3–4,
168–180). Further introductions from the same re-
gions, first recorded by Neckam, include borage (Bora-
go officinalis), dittany (Origanum dictamnus), garden
thyme (Thymus vulgaris), hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis),
rocket (Eruca sativa) and sweet marjoram (Origanum
marjorana). Henry Daniel provides the first authentic
English notice of chives (Allium schoenoprasum), often
claimed as a Roman introduction, and also records
clary (Salvia sclarea) and sweet rocket (Hesperis ma-
tronalis), probably later medieval introductions. Horse-
radish (Armoracia rusticana) also probably entered
Britain later in the Middle Ages, and became natural-
ised.
Introduced herbs became widely used for flavour-
ing food and clarifying and preserving ale. Other uses
for mint, fennel, parsley and sage are noted in the
1295–6 observances of Barnwell Priory (Clark 1897).
The Muchelney Abbey dietary recommends flavour-
ing pottage with herbs including sage, borage, parsley,
marigold, rosemary, thyme, hyssop, summer savory
or Good King Henry, while sage and rosemary are rec-
RURALIA X
89–105
ommended for flavouring ale. Other non-indigenous
herbs, alecost, dittany and parsley, could be used in
a sauce to accompany fish, while lettuce and borage
were among ingredients for a herbal drink (Schofield
1927, 14–16).
Though most of these plants were probably grown in
monastic gardens, documentary records of their culti-
vation are uncommon. Seed purchases at Durham in-
cluded fennel and parsley (Fowler iii 1900, 494–495,
503, 511, 610). Parsley was also grown at Norwich in
the 15th century (Noble 1997, 39, 42, 44, 75). Purchas-
es of seed for the Abbot of Westminster’s garden at Eye
in 1327 identify a fuller range of herbs than any record
relating to precinct gardens, including borage, garden
chervil, coriander, cress, fennel, hyssop, parsley and
summer savory. Also listed is grano piperis, which can-
not be pepper, which came from south-east Asia, but
may be rocket or white mustard (Harvey 1992, 105).
New culinary plants were still being introduced into
English gardens in the 14th century. Saffron (Crocus
sativus), of eastern Mediterranean origin, seems to
have been grown in England for the first time in the
1320s, though its dried stigmas had long been im-
ported. Large quantities were grown at Norwich Priory,
where sales of corms even suggest nursery production
(Noble 1997, 8). Croci were also grown in the gardens
of St Augustine’s Abbey in Bristol (Beachcroft – Sabin
1938, 220–221) and St Giles’s Hospital in Norwich
(Rawcliffe 1999, 52). In 1519 William More, Prior of
Worcester, obtained 31/2 oz (99 gms) of saffron from
his garden at Worcester and 21/4 oz (64 gms) from his
manor at Grimley; but it was an unreliable crop in
the English climate, and in 1532 he had to buy saf-
fron in Hereford (Fegan 1913–14, 118, 181, 218, 357).
The occurrence of Crocus nudiflorus and C.vernus
around Lenton Priory, noted earlier, may reflect their
cultivation as substitutes for true saffron. Rosemary
(Rosmarinus officinalis), another Mediterranean plant,
first cultivated in England in the royal gardens in the
1340s, was described by Henry Daniel in 1375. Rose-
mary grafts and bay trees from the London Char-
terhouse were looted immediately after the Dissolu-
tion for Henry VIII’s gardens (L. & P. Henry VIII, 139,
ff.184–189). In 1539 the abbot’s garden at Glastonbury
contained an ‘erber of bay’ (Lyte 1892, 36).
Even when monastic gardeners attempted to trans-
plant herbs from warmer climates, the yields might
not meet the needs. Most of the saffron used in medi-
eval English kitchens continued to be imported from
Spain, France and Italy, despite the high cost. Cumin,
mentioned in the kitchen accounts of Selby Abbey
and the cellarer’s accounts of Battle and Durham, was
bought from merchants. So, too, was anise, mentioned
in the Peterborough and Durham accounts (Bond
2001, 70–72).
97
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
Although seeds of culinary herbs have been recov-
ered from archaeological contexts on a number of mo-
nastic sites, these rarely provide secure evidence that
the plants were cultivated there. Nevertheless, the find
of coriander and dill seeds in a 6th-century latrine pit
at Whithorn, dating from the earliest period of monas-
tic settlement, is of special interest (Hill et al. 1997,
124). Culinary herbs present in small quantities at St
Mary Spital included mallow, opium poppy, marigold
and fennel (Davis 1997, 237–245). Opium poppy has
also been noted at Clerkenwell, Merton, and the Bever-
ley Blackfriars (Davis 2004; Giorgi 2007; Allison et al.
1996, 209). Two fennel seeds were recovered from the
kitchen floor of Abingdon Abbey’s estate farm at Dean
Court (Moffett 1994, 404). A single achene of marigold
has come from the 15th-century drain at the Oxford
Blackfriars, along with opium poppy (Robinson 1985,
196–197). Waterlogged remains of mint were recovered
from several medieval contexts at Merton Priory (Giorgi
2007) and from a large refuse pit in the outer precinct
of St John’s, Clerkenwell (Davis 2004), but whether
cultivated or wild could not be ascertained. The single
grain of borage pollen from Merton Priory must come
from either a garden crop or a garden escape growing
nearby (Scaife 2007, 244–245).
Medicinal Herbs
The expansion of monasticism within the Carolingi-
an empire had fostered an interest in the cultivation of
herbs for healing purposes. In addition to a number of
native plants which could have been grown for medici-
nal uses, Ælfric lists several continental species. Rue
(Ruta graveolens) was probably a Roman introduction
from southern Europe. Elecampane (Inula helenium),
an early medieval introduction, was used for dressing
sores on both humans and horses; the roots treated
coughs and digestive disorders, and it was also used
as a dye plant. Ælfric’s pionia is probably the Mediter-
ranean Paeonia mascula, noted earlier as a possible rel-
ict plant on Steepholm; seeds of this plant have been
recorded at Winchcombe Abbey. Peony is mentioned in
one early leech book as a cure for sciatica, and the infir-
marer at Durham was purchasing peony seeds in 1299
(McLean 1981, 156–157, Fowler iii 1900; 494–495).
Whereas medieval herbals reflect accumulated lit-
erary traditions, recipes for cures jotted down locally
may provide more insight into which introduced plants
were actually cultivated. Maxstoke Priory’s documents
include a cure for gout and dropsy using sage, rue,
lovage and rosemary, along with the native hound’s
tongue, wormwood, smallage and henbane (Holliday
1874, 100).
Some infirmary gardens had lost their special pur-
pose by the later Middle Ages. Although the Westmin-
98
89–105
ster Abbey infirmarers’ accounts survive for about 150
years between 1297–8 and 1536–7, by then the garden
had largely been turned over to fruit and vegetables.
Apart from one purchase of hyssop for planting in
1339–40, there is no record of exotic medicinal herbs
being grown (Harvey 1992, 104–105). Similarly no dis-
tinctive medicinal plants are noted in the infirmary
garden of Maxstoke Priory in the later 15th century,
despite significant records of seed purchases and crop
sales (Holliday 1874, 89; Watkins 1996, 6, 13).
Archaeological evidence for the cultivation of me-
dicinal herbs remains limited and difficult to interpret.
Some native herbs and early naturalised introductions
believed to have medicinal virtues seed prolifically and
grow readily as weeds, so their appearance in the ar-
chaeobotanical record is not necessarily significant.
However, an association of seeds from both native
and introduced plants with potential medicinal uses,
including mustard, coriander and dill, raises the pos-
sibility of a very early physic garden at Whithorn; while
the 15th-century drains at Paisley Abbey have also
yielded evidence of potential medicinal plants, includ-
ing opium poppy, horseradish and monks’ rhubarb
(Hill et al. 1997, 124; Dickson 1996).
Fruit
Britain has indigenous varieties of apple, pear, cher-
ry and plum, but the fruits grown in monastic gardens
and orchards are likely to have been improved strains
introduced from continental Europe during the early
Middle Ages (Bond 2001, 67; 2010, 162–165). Apples
were by far the most widely-grown fruit, and there was
a thriving trade in rootstocks and grafts. Monastic
communities may have introduced new strains of cul-
tivated apple (Malus domestica) from France after the
Norman Conquest, when cider-making was taken up
by monasteries in southern England. By the 13th cen-
tury varieties such as pearmain, costard and blandurel
are recorded.
Pears (Pyrus communis) were more localised, but
again several introduced varieties are named. Alexan-
der Neckam was familiar with the rewel pear, named
after St Rule, Bishop of Arles, and widely grown around
La Rochelle. The warden pear, traditionally first grown
in England by the Cistercians of Warden Abbey, may
have been introduced there direct from Burgundy
(Fig.8). Warden pears, recorded in Latin texts as volemi
rather than pira, and baked in pies rather than eaten
fresh, were popular in England by the 13th century.
They were cultivated at Abingdon Abbey in 1388–9,
Maxstoke Priory in the 1460s–70s and St Augustine’s
in Bristol in 1491–2 (Kirk 1892, 53; Watkins 1996, 13;
Beachcroft – Sabin 1938, 202–203).
RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain 89–105

The Westminster Abbey custumary of ca. 1270 re-

cords which fruit the gardener was expected to supply
at particular seasons. In addition to apples and pears,
plums, cherries, medlars and nuts are mentioned
(Harvey 1992, 105). Some members of the prunus fam-
ily, including the sloe, bullace and gean or mazzard
(wild cherry) are native to Britain. The cultivated plum
(P.domestica subsp.domestica), damson (P.insititia var.
damascene) and sweet cherry (P.avium vars.) originate
in eastern Europe and western Asia, the damson tak-
ing its name from Damascus. Pliny records cherry
trees being imported to Britain as early as AD 79, and
plums and damsons had arrived in Britain by the ear-
ly Middle Ages. Norwich Priory had a separate cherry
orchard in the 15th century, and receipts from sales
of cherries are recorded in 1427–8 and 1435–6 (Noble
1997, 9, 52, 61, 75). Plums were grown in the gardens
of St Augustine’s in Bristol in 1491–2 (Beachcroft – Sa-
bin 1938, 202–203).
The medlar (Mespilus germanica), a native of the
Caucasus and Asia Minor, has long been cultivated
in southern Europe. A Roman introduction to Britain,
it was popular in medieval gardens. The common or
black mulberry (Morus nigra L.), originating from the
Fig. 8. The arms of Warden Abbey, Bedfordshire: the warden pear had
southern Caucasus and parts of western Asia, was a special significance for the abbey, and may have been brought by the
also a Roman introduction, and was known to Æl- Cistercians from Burgundy.
fric. Mulberry trees grew in the almonry yards of both
Christ Church Priory and St Augustine’s Abbey in Can-
terbury and, according to Giraldus Cambrensis, the
plum and sweet cherry have been distinguished from
monks made wine from the fruit (Tatton-Brown 1997,
the native bullace, gean and sloe on several monastic
124; Landsberg 1995, 41). The gardener of Norwich
sites (Davis 2004, 370–371, 373–374; 1997, 237–244;
Priory was selling mulberries in 1480–1 (Noble 1997,
Dickson 1996; Giorgi 2007, 237; Hardy et al. 2003, 567;
71). The quince tree (Cydonia oblanga), a native of the
Robinson 1985; Taylor 2008).
eastern Mediterranean, was known to Neckam, and
had appeared in English gardens before the late 13th Fig seeds and grape pips have also often been found
century, but remained scarce. There are occasional re- in monastic drains, cesspits and middens (Arthur
cords of purchases of quinces (Poster – Sherlock 1987, 1980; Davis 1997, 237–244; 2004, 370–371, 373–375,
82), but no certain evidence of monastic cultivation 377; Robinson 1985, 201; Taylor 2008; Tomlinson 1999,
has yet been found. 72–74). Dried figs from southern Spain and grapes
In 1510 the abbot of Westminster occasionally en- dried as raisins or currants were commonly imported,
joyed apples, warden pears, strawberries, quinces and so their archaeological presence does not necessarily
oranges at his own table (Harvey 1995, 61); apples and indicate local production, though both were certainly
pears were grown in the Westminster gardens, but the grown in England.
oranges were certainly imported. Although there is The fig (Ficus carica), a native of the Middle East,
archaeological evidence elsewhere for consumption was an early medieval introduction, known to Ælfric.
of strawberries, raspberries, blackberries and elder- Archaeological and documentary evidence reveal a
berries, these are all native species available from the long history of fig consumption in monasteries all over
wild. Little evidence has been found either for their de- Britain (Bond 2001, 70). The earliest archaeological
liberate cultivation in monastic gardens in Britain, or record is from Eynsham Abbey in the late 10th cen-
for the introduction of improved varieties. tury (Hardy et al. 2003, 562), and the most northerly
Pips of apples and pears have been recovered from at Paisley Abbey in Scotland (Dickson 1996). Fig trees
drains and refuse pits on numerous monastic sites, were planted in parts of southern England. In 1412–
but it is rarely possible to distinguish native types 13 Abingdon Abbey’s gardener had to buy figs in the
from introductions. Fruitstones of members of the town, since those on the tree in the garden had failed
prunus family present similar difficulties, although to ripen that year (Kirk 1892, 76).

RURALIA X 99
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
Grape vines (Vitis vinifera) were brought to Britain
from the Mediterranean by the Romans, and Bede,
writing around the beginning of the 8th century, as-
serts that they were commonly grown in England,
though it is questionable whether he had first-hand
knowledge of this from his home monastery at Jarrow.
Nevertheless, vineyards are recorded in at least three
places in southern England which were in monastic
hands before the Norman Conquest, including Glas-
tonbury Abbey’s land at Panborough (Fig.9).
Although Normandy is not today noted for wine pro-
duction, viticulture had been practised there in the
early Middle Ages. The monastic revival in Normandy
at the beginning of the 11th century had strong links
with Burgundy, through the influence of William of
Volpiano, former abbot of St Benignus at Dijon, who
became abbot of Fécamp in 1001. He may have en-
couraged the planting of vines. After 1066 Benedictine
100
89–105
abbots from Normandy, such as Walter, abbot of Eve-
sham (1077–1104), began planting new vineyards in
England. The abbey of Ste Trinité-du-Mont at Rouen
had established a dependent priory at Harmondsworth
with its own vineyard before 1086. More unexpectedly,
a vineyard was planted near Malmesbury Abbey by a
Greek monk, who had joined the community in about
1084. The Domesday Survey of 1086 records a dozen
monastic vineyards, the northernmost at Ely.
Although the Cistercians revived and improved vine
cultivation in Burgundy after 1110 and established
vineyards in their colonies elsewhere in Europe, Mar-
gam, Beaulieu and Warden are the only Cistercian
houses in Britain known to have cultivated vines.
Nevertheless, many monastic vineyards had appeared
across the south and midlands of England by 1220, ex-
tending as far north as York, and vines were commonly
also planted in gardens (Bond 2010, 165–170). English
Fig. 9. The site of the vineyard at
Panborough, Somerset, possession
of which was confirmed in 956 by a
charter of King Edwy to the Benedic-
tine monks of Glastonbury. The vine-
yard occupied 3 arpents (c.1.2 ha.) in
1086, and almost certainly occupied
the gently-sloping rectangular plot in
the centre of the photograph, below
the summit of the hill (photo, Mick
Aston).
RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain 89–105

vines could produce both wine and edible fruit in good

years, and records from Abingdon and Bristol show
that unripened grapes were used for making verjuice
(Kirk 1892, 53, 75; Beachcroft – Sabin 1938, 202–203).

Nuts
The most widely cultivated nut tree in England was
the native hazel or filbert (Corylus avellana). The wal-
nut (Juglans regia), a native of central Asia introduced
to Britain in Roman times, was also well established by
the Middle Ages. Evidence of walnut consumption has
been recovered from the drains of the Oxford Blackfri-
ars and Paisley Abbey (Robinson 1985, 200–201; Dick-
son 1996), and walnut pollen appears in samples from
Merton Priory (Scaife 2007, 245). Walnut trees were oc-
casionally sold from monastic gardens, at Norwich in
1387–8 and at Abingdon in 1412–13 (Noble 1997, 36;
Kirk 1892, 75; Harvey 1981, 123).
The almond tree (Prunus dulcis), a native of the east-
ern Mediterranean, was widely planted in southern
Europe. Culinary use of imported almonds is often
recorded in English monastic accounts. However, the
tree was certainly known to English horticultural writ-
ers before the end of the 14th century (Harvey 1981,
122, 166–180). Some varieties will fruit in southern
England, and may have grown in sunny sheltered cor-
ners of monastic gardens. One almond endocarp was
recovered from the Oxford Blackfriars culvert (Robin- Fig. 10. The Madonna Lily (Lilium candidum L.): an early medieval intro-
son 1985, 200–201). duction, already known to the Northumbrian monk Bede (c.673–735),
who described the white petals as symbolising the Virgin’s purity and
the yellow anthers as the light of her soul. In addition to its attrac-
tive flowers and scent, the plant was also believed to have medicinal
Flowering Plants value.

Flowers and evergreens decorated the monastic

church and its shrines on certain feast days (Lands-
berg 1995, 41). The evergreens reported from English
monastic contexts, box, yew and juniper, are all indige-
nous species, though relatively uncommon in the wild.
Native roses and irises were also available, but many of
the flowering plants were introductions. The Madonna
lily (Lilium candidum), white rose (Rosa alba), violet (Vi-
ola odorata) and marigold (Calendula sp.) had special
symbolic associations with the Virgin Mary (Harvey
1981, 27; Hobhouse 1994, 73, 78–79).
The Madonna lily (Fig.10) was familiar in Britain be-
fore the Norman Conquest, being mentioned by Bede
and Ælfric and illustrated in the illuminated benedic-
tional made for Bishop Æthelwold of Winchester in
ca. 975 (British Library, Additional MS 49598, f.90b).
It frequently appeared in later medieval art. Lily roots
were purchased at Westminster Abbey in 1320–1, ap-
parently for medicinal use (Harvey 1992, 105). Lilies
were sold by the Norwich gardener in 1403–4 (Noble
1997, 44).
The violet, a Roman introduction from the Mediter-
ranean, became naturalised in Britain. Violet seed was
bought in 1327 for the Abbot of Westminster’s garden
at Eye (Harvey 1992, 105). Environmental evidence of
viola sp. has been recorded from the Beverley Blackfri-
ars (Allison et al. 1996, 210).
Continental rose varieties, including Rosa gallica
and R.alba, were introduced in the early Middle Ages.
In 1092 King William II arrived unexpectedly at the
gates of Romsey Abbey, which housed the young heir-
ess of the Anglo-Saxon royal line. The abbess, suspi-
cious of his motives, hastily had her disguised as a nun
while diverting the king towards the gardens ‘to admire
the roses and other flowering herbs’. In the 1150s the
monks of Norwich transplanted a rose bush to adorn
the tomb of a local saint. Roses were bought for medici-
nal use at Westminster in 1339–40 (Harvey 1992, 105),
and sold by the Norwich gardener on a couple of oc-
casions in the early 16th century (Noble 1997, 79, 80).

RURALIA X 101
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
Irises bought for the infirmary garden at Norwich
in 1434–5 (Noble 1997, 8) may have been the native
yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus), but introduced medi-
eval cultivars are also recorded: Aelfric refers to the
purple iris (I. germanica) and Neckam to the white iris
(I. florentina).
Lavender (Lavandula spica), a medieval introduction
from southern Europe, is first recorded in England in
about 1265 (Harvey 1981, 131), and was grown in the
gardens of St Augustine’s Abbey in Bristol in 1491–2
(Beachcroft – Sabin 1938, 220–221). Lavender flow-
er-heads were laid within stored laundered clothing to
deter clothes-moths.
Industrial Crops
Monastic gardens often contained plants used in
industrial processes. Flax (Linum usitatissimum) and
hemp (Cannabis sativa) were both early introductions,
cultivated for their fibre. Though usually grown as field
crops, they occurred in the gardens at Glastonbury,
Eynsham, Bristol, Anglesey and Maxstoke (Keil 1959–
60, 97–98, 100–101; Salter ii 1908, 37; Beachcroft –
Sabin 1938, 220–221; Darby 1977; Watkins 1996, 13).
Hemp and hemp seed were bought and sold by the gar-
dener of Norwich Priory between 1329–30 and 1435–6
(Noble 1997, 31– 61). Hemp was also grown in the gar-
dens of St Giles’s Hospital in Norwich and in the infir-
marer’s garden at Westminster and the abbot’s garden
at Eye (Rawcliffe 1999, 52; Harvey 1992, 105). Plant re-
mains recovered from St Mary Spital and from the Bev-
erley Blackfriars included both flax and hemp (Davis
1997, 237–245; Allison et al. 1996, 197–198, 209–210).
Most of the plants used in dyeing cloth, including
weld or dyers rocket (Reseda luteola), dyers greenweed
(Genista tinctoria) and woad (Isatis tinctoria) were na-
tive to Britain, though woad was very localised as a
wild plant. The most important introduced dye plant
was madder (Rubia tinctorum), originally from Asia
and southern Europe. Norwich Priory’s gardener
was purchasing madder plants in 1329–30, and re-
ceipts from sales are twice recorded (Noble 1997, 32,
33, 36). It was also grown at Anglesey Priory in 1326
(Darby 1977). Sales of madder are also recorded from
St Giles’s Hospital in Norwich and from Glastonbury
Abbey (Rawcliffe 1999, 52; Keil 1959–60, 97). Environ-
mental evidence from pits at the Beverley Blackfriars
included madder, along with native dye plants (Allison
et al 1996, 199–201, 209–210).
The spiny heads of teasels were used in textile man-
ufacture, for carding the fibres of wool before spinning
and for raising the nap on finished cloth. The native
wild teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) could serve these pur-
poses, but the cultivated fuller’s teasel (D. sativus),
102
89–105
originating from Eurasia and north Africa, was more
suitable, and is probably the plant named in the gar-
dener’s accounts from Norwich Priory, Anglesey Priory
and St Augustine’s in Bristol (Noble 1997, 37– 44; Dar-
by 1977; Beachcroft – Sabin 1938, 220–221). Bracts of
fuller’s teasel were recovered from a pit at the Beverley
Blackfriars (Allison et al 1996, 200–201, 210).
Conclusions
Despite the limitations of the data, there is reason-
able evidence for at least a hundred different plant spe-
cies being grown in medieval monastic gardens in Brit-
ain. At a very rough estimate, some 35 per cent were
derived from the native flora. Another 25 per cent had
appeared in Britain before the end of the Roman pe-
riod, though some species failed to survive and were
subsequently reintroduced. Sixth-century Whithorn
has produced the earliest monastic evidence. Follow-
ing Augustine’s mission in 597 there was increasing
religious traffic between Rome and England, and a fur-
ther 20 per cent of the species probably first appeared
between then and the Norman Conquest. On grounds
of proximity alone, France was probably the immedi-
ate source of most early medieval plant introductions.
During the early 9th century both monasticism and
horticulture flourished within the Carolingian empire,
and the 10th-century English monastic reform had
contacts with French Benedictine monasteries such as
Fleury. English sources suggest that significant horti-
cultural advances occurred during the later 10th and
11th centuries, a time when the monks themselves
may have taken the initiative in introducing new spe-
cies.
The remaining 20 per cent of introduced plants in
English monastic gardens are first recorded between
1066 and 1540. Most had probably appeared within
a century of the Norman Conquest, as contacts with
the Mediterranean were strengthened. The royal court
became an important agency of plant introductions.
Seventeen of the 22 English queens between 1066 and
1485 came from abroad, and some were particularly
interested in gardens: Eleanor of Provence employed
a Provençal gardener, Eleanor of Castile brought in
Aragonese gardeners, while Philippa of Hainault is
credited with the introduction of rosemary to England
(Colvin 1986, 9–10; Harvey 1981, 78, 131).
Monastic initiatives in introducing new plants to
Britain seem most likely to have occurred before the
late 11th century, though the evidence is, at best,
circumstantial. Thereafter, the history of vineyards,
fishponds, windmills and other aspects of land man-
agement suggests that monastic proprietors rarely
pioneered innovations, but successfully adopted them
after they had been tried and tested (Bond 2010, 355).
RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
Summary
The medieval religious orders have often been cred-
ited with horticultural improvements, including the
transmission of crop species between different areas
of Europe. Documentary and archaeological evidence
confirms that many plants of continental origin were
grown in monastic gardens in Britain. Circumstantial
evidence suggests that monastic initiatives in plant
introductions occurred mainly before the late 11th
century. Thereafter secular agencies played a more
prominent role, though monastic gardens continued
to benefit.
Zusammenfassung
Den Klosterorden des Mittelalters werden gemeinhin
Weiterentwicklungen im Gartenbaus zugeschrieben,
darunter die Verbreitung von Kulturpflanzen über ver-
schiedene Regionen Europas. Schriftliche und archäo-
logische Quellen bestätigen, dass Pflanzen kontinen-
taler Herkunft in britischen Klostergärten angebaut
wurden. Dabei zeichnet sich ab, dass das monastische
Engagement bei der Einführung von Pflanzen vor dem
späten 12. Jahrhundert am stärksten war. Danach ge-
wannen weltliche Akteure an Bedeutung, von denen
Klostergärten jedoch weiterhin profitierten.
Résumé
Les ordres religieux du Moyen Âge se sont souvent
vu attribuer divers développements horticoles, et no-
tamment la transmission d’espèces de plantes entre
différentes régions européennes. Plusieurs preuves
écrites et archéologiques confirment que de nom-
breuses plantes d’origine continentale étaient cultivées
dans les jardins monastiques britanniques. Certains
éléments circonstanciels suggèrent que les tentatives
monastiques d’introduction de plantes se sont pour la
plupart déroulées avant la fin du XIe siècle. Les initia-
tives laïques ont par la suite joué un rôle plus impor-
tant, même si les jardins monastiques ont continué à
en bénéficier.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Otto Brinkkemper, Mark Gardiner,
Adrian Gray, Bert Groenewoudt, Hans Renes and Rus-
sell Weston for their kind assistance in providing sev-
eral references; and my wife, Tina, for help in prepar-
ing the illustrations.
RURALIA X
89–105
Bibliography
Allison, E. P. – Hall, A. R. – Kenward, H. K. – McKenna, W. J. B.
– Nicholson, C. M. – O’Connor, T. P. 1996:
Environmental evidence, in: Foreman, M., Further Excava-
tions at the Dominican Priory, Beverley, 1986–89. Sheffield
Excavation Reports 4, 195–212.
Arthur, J. R. B. 1980:
Seeds, in: Christie, P. M. – Coad, J. G., Excavations at Denny
Abbey. Archaeological Journal 137, 267.
Åsen, P. A. 2009:
Plants of possible monastic origin, growing in the past or pre-
sent, at medieval monastery grounds in Norway, in: Morel,
J.-P. – Mercuri, A.-M. (eds), Plants and Culture: Seeds of the
Cultural Heritage of Europe. Bari, 227–238.
Beachcroft, G. – Sabin, A. (eds) 1938:
Two Compotus Rolls of St Augustine’s Abbey, Bristol. Bristol
Record Society 9.
Blunt, W. – Raphael, S. 1979:
The Illustrated Herbal. London.
Bond, J. 2001:
Production and consumption of food and drink in the medi-
eval monastery, in: Keevill, G. – Aston, M. – Hall, T. (eds), Mo-
nastic Archaeology. Oxford, 54–87.
Bond, J. 2010:
Monastic Landscapes. Stroud.
Burne, R. V. H. 1962:
The Monks of Chester: the History of St Werburgh’s Abbey.
London.
Clark, J. W. (ed.) 1897:
The Observances in Use at the Augustinian Priory of St Giles
& St Andrew at Barnwell. Cambridge.
Collins, M. 2000:
Medieval Herbals: the Illustrative Traditions. London.
Colvin, H.M. 1986:
Royal gardens in medieval England, in: MacDougall, E. B.
(ed.), Medieval Gardens. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on
the History of Landscape Architecture 9. Washington D.C.,
7–22.
Coppack, G. 1990:
Abbeys and Priories. London.
Darby, H.C. 1977:
Medieval Cambridgeshire. Cambridge.
Davis, A. 1997:
The plant remains, in: Thomas, C. – Sloane, B. – Phillpotts, C.,
Excavations at the Priory and Hospital of St Mary Spital, Lon-
don. Museum of London Archaeology Service, Monograph 1,
234–245.
Davis, A. 2004:
Plant remains, in: Sloane, B. – Malcolm, G., Excavations at
the Priory of the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jeru-
salem, Clerkenwell, London. Museum of London Archaeology
Service, Monograph 20, 367–382.
Dickson, C. 1996:
Food, medicinal and other plants from the fifteenth-century
drains of Paisley Abbey, Scotland, Vegetation History and Ar-
chaeobotany 5, 25–31.
103
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain 89–105

Fairweather, J. (ed.) 2005: Kirk, R. E. G. (ed.) 1892:

Liber Eliensis: a History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Accounts of the Obedientiars of Abingdon Abbey. Camden
Century to the Twelfth. Woodbridge. Society, London.
Fegan, E.S. (ed.) 1913–14: Knab, S. H. 1999:
The Journal of Prior William More. Worcestershire Historical Polish Herbs, Flowers and Folk Medicine. New York.
Society. L.& P. Henry VIII:
Fowler, J. T. (ed.), 1898, 1898, 1901: Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of
Extracts from the Account Rolls of the Abbey of Durham. Henry VIII. London.
3 volumes, Surtees Society 99, 100, 103. Landsberg, S. 1995:
Garrad, L. S. 2003: The Medieval Garden. London.
The Manx Garden. Douglas, I. of Man. Leenders, K. A. H. W. 1987:
Giorgi, J. 2007: De boekweitkultuur in historisch perspektief. K.N.A.G. Geo-
Plant remains, in: Miller, P. – Saxby, D., The Augustinian Pri- grafisch Tijdschrift 21.iii, 213–227.
ory of St Mary Merton, Surrey. Museum of London Archaeol- Livarda, A. 2011:
ogy Service, Monograph 34, 235–243. Spicing up life in northwestern Europe: exotic food imports
Greatrex, J. (ed.) 1983: in the Roman and medieval world, Vegetation History and Ar-
Account Rolls of the Obedientiaries of Peterborough. North- chaeobotany 20, 143–164.
amptonshire Record Society 33. Lyte, H. C. M. 1892:
Gwara, S. (ed.) – Porter, T. W. (transl.) 1997: The Lytes of Lytescary, Proceedings of Somerset Archaeologi-
Anglo-Saxon Conversations: the Colloquies of Ælfric Bata. cal and Natural History Society 38.ii, 1–100.
Woodbridge.
Mabey, R. 1996:
Hardy, A. – Dodd, A. – Keevill, G. 2003: Flora Britannica. London.
Aelfric’s Abbey: Excavations at Eynsham Abbey, Oxfordshire,
McCann, J. (transl.) 1976:
1989–92. Thames Valley Landscapes 16, Oxford.
The Rule of St Benedict. London.
Harvey, B. 1995:
McLean, T. 1981:
Living and Dying in England, 1100–1540: The Monastic Ex-
Medieval English Gardens. London.
perience. Oxford.
Meyvaert, P. 1986:
Harvey, J. H. 1981:
The medieval monastic garden, in: MacDougall, E. B. (ed.), Me-
Mediaeval Gardens. London.
dieval Gardens. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History
Harvey, J. H. 1987: of Landscape Architecture 9. Washington D.C., 25–53.
Henry Daniel: a scientific gardener of the fourteenth century.
Moffett, L. 1994:
Garden History 15.ii, 81–93.
Charred plant remains, in: Allen, T, et al., A medieval grange
Harvey J. H. 1992: of Abingdon Abbey at Dean Court Farm, Cumnor, Oxon. Oxo-
Westminster Abbey: the infirmarer’s garden. Garden History niensia 54, 398–409.
10.i, 97–115.
Murphy, P. – Scaife, R. G. 1991:
Hill, P., et al. 1997: The environmental archaeology of gardens, in: Brown, A. E.
Whithorn and St Ninian: the Excavation of a Monastic Town, (ed.), Garden Archaeology. Council for British Archaeology,
1984–91. Stroud. Research Report 78. London, 83–99.
Hobhouse, P. 1994: Noble, C. (ed.) 1997:
Plants in Garden History. London. Norwich Cathedral Priory Gardeners’ Accounts, 1329–1530.
Hockey, S. F. (ed.) 1975: Norfolk Record Society 61, 1–93.
The Account-Book of Beaulieu Abbey. Royal Historical Soci- Poster, J. – Sherlock, D. 1987:
ety, Camden 4th Series 16. Denny Abbey: the nuns’ refectory. Proceedings of Cambridge
Holliday, J. R. 1874: Antiquarian Society 76, 67–72.
Maxstoke Priory. Transactions of Birmingham and Midland Rawcliffe, C. 1999:
Institute, Archaeological Section, 1874, 56–105. Medicine for the Soul: the Life, Death and Resurrection of an
Horn, W. – Born, E. 1979: English Medieval Hospital: St Giles’s, Norwich, c.1249–1550.
The Plan of St Gall. 3 volumes, Berkeley, California. Stroud.
Hunt, T. 1989: Rendell, S. – Rendell, J. 1993:
Plant Names of Medieval England. Cambridge. Steep Holm: the Story of a Small Island. Stroud.
Johnson, H. 1989: Riley, G. (ed.) 2012:
The Story of Wine. London. Giacomo Castelvetro, The Fruit, Herbs and Vegetables of It-
Keil, I. 1959–60: aly. Totnes.
The garden at Glastonbury Abbey. Proceedings of Somerset Robinson, M. R. 1985:
Archaeological and Natural History Society 104, 96–101. Plant and invertebrate remains from the priory drains, in:

104 RURALIA X
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain
Lambrick, G., Further excavations on the second site of the
Dominican priory, Oxford. Oxoniensia 50, 196–201.
Roe, R. G. B. 1981:
Vascular plants, in: Steep Holm: a Survey. Somerset Archaeo-
logical and Natural History Society, Taunton, 57–63.
Salter, H. E. (ed.) 1907, 1908:
Cartulary of the Abbey of Eynsham. 2 volumes, Oxford His-
torical Society 49, 51.
Scaife, R. 2007:
Pollen, in: Miller, P. – Saxby, D., The Augustinian Priory of St
Mary Merton, Surrey. Museum of London Archaeology Ser-
vice, Monograph 34, 243–245.
Schofield, B. (ed.) 1927:
Muchelney Memoranda. Somerset Record Society 42.
Searle, E. – Ross, B. (eds) 1967:
Accounts of the Cellarers of Battle Abbey, 1275–1513. Sydney.
Tatton-Brown, T. 1997:
The abbey precinct, liberty and estate, in: Gem, R. (ed.), St
Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury. London, 123–142.
Taylor J. 2008:
Medieval and post-medieval buildings along Bermondsey
Street, The London Archaeologist 12, 9–14.
Tillotson, J. H. (ed.) 1988:
Monastery and Society in the Late Middle Ages: Selected Ac-
count Rolls from Selby Abbey, Yorkshire, 1398–1537. Wood-
bridge.
Tillotson, J. H. (ed.) 1989:
Marrick Priory: a Nunnery in Late Medieval Yorkshire. Uni-
versity of York, Borthwick Paper 75.
Tomlinson, P. R. 1999:
Biological evidence from the 1998 excavations at Rushen
Abbey, in: Davey, P. J. (ed.), Rushen Abbey, Ballasalla, Isle of
Man: First Archaeological Report. Centre for Manx Studies,
University of Liverpool, Research Report 7, 72–74.
James Bond, The Anchorage, Coast Road, Walton-in-Gordano, Clevedon, North Somerset, BS21 7AR, jimserf@aol.com
RURALIA X
89–105
van der Veen, M. – Hill, A. – Livarda, A. 2013:
The archaeobotany of medieval Britain (c. AD 450–1500):
identifying research priorities for the 21st century. Medieval
Archaeology 57, 151–182.
van Haaster, H. 1997:
De introductie van cultuurgewassen in de Nederlanden tij-
dens de Middeleeuwen, in: Zeven, A.C. (ed.), De introductie
van onze cultuurplanten en hun begeleiders, van het Neoli-
thicum tot 1500 AD. Wageningen.
Watkins, A. 1996:
Maxstoke Priory in the fifteenth century: the development of
an estate economy in the Forest of Arden. Warwickshire His-
tory 10.i, 3–18.
Willerding, U. 1992:
Gärten und Pflanzen des Mittelalters, in: Carroll-Spillecke, M.
(ed.), Der Gärten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter. Mainz
am Rhein, 249–284.
Wright, T. (ed.) 1863:
Alexander Neckam, De Naturis Rerum. Rolls Series 34, Lon-
don.
Wright, T. – Wülker, R. P. 1884:
Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies. 2 volumes, Lon-
don.
Zemanek, A. – Zemanek, B – Harmata, K. – Madeja, J. –
Klepacki, P. 2009:
Selected foreign plants in old Polish botanical literature, cus-
toms and art’, in: Morel, J.-P. – Mercuri, A.-M. (eds), Plants
and Culture: Seeds of the Cultural Heritage of Europe. Bari,
179–193.
Zupitza, J. (ed.) 1880:
Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar. Berlin (reprinted 1966)
105
Bond, Continental plant introductions to medieval monastic gardens in Britain 89–105

106 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 107–123

Mukked and folded land: the evidence of field data

for medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
Gedüngt und aufgepflügt: Flurrelikte als Quelle mittelalterlicher
Landnutzungssysteme in Schottland

Terres fertilisées et labourées: les preuves des données de terrain

sur les techniques agricoles médiévales en Ecosse

Piers Dixon

According to documentary and cartographic sourc-
es, the well-established mode of tillage in Scotland
before the agricultural improvements of the 18th and
19th centuries was carried out with landholdings dis-
tributed in intermixed strips and managed in a sys-
tem known as runrig. This paper focuses on some of
the results of archaeological field survey in Scotland
over the last 25 years in which modern technology has
enabled field remains to be recorded. This data sug-
gest that the methods of tillage varied widely across
Scotland, and that this is particularly evident in the
variable form of the ridges or strips. Furthermore, en-
closures of one form or another, thought to be typical
aspects of the improvements, are shown to be familiar
features of the earlier agricultural landscape. In light
of this, the presumption that Scottish agriculture be-
fore the mid-18th century was conducted in open fields
of intermixed strips is questioned and whether the
infield-outfield system of cultivation recorded in the
post-medieval period is evident in the field remains. Fi-
nally, the evidence for the origins of these field-systems
is reviewed.
Introduction
The first time I reviewed the evidence for medieval
cultivation techniques in Scotland was in 1993 when
our knowledge was much more limited both in the
quantity and quality of what was recorded archaeologi-
cally. That paper (Dixon 1994) outlined the state of our
documentary knowledge of intermixed strip fields and
ridge and furrow (rig), as well as looking at the differ-
ent types of field remains for rig – broad rig, narrow
curving rig, narrow straight rig, lazy beds, and strip
fields, and enclosures – yards, stock enclosures, fields,
parks and head-dykes. More recently, Halliday refined
the archaeological analysis, highlighting prehistoric
‘cord’ rig, and in the light of that reviewed the evolu-
tion of ridge cultivation in Scotland. He also separated
what he called broad curvilinear grooved rig, which
I had noted in my discussion of broad rig, as well as
a Galloway variant of the narrow curving rig (Halliday
2003). In 2011, Dixon focused on the lowland evidence
for rig cultivation in a paper looking more widely at
the agricultural economy (Dixon 2011, 231–234). This
paper, however, returns to an overall review of pre-im-
provement cultivation remains in Scotland to bring
up-to-date the state of our knowledge and to touch on
some of the issues outlined in my abstract relating to
enclosures, infield-outfield and origins.
National Surveys
Since 1993 archaeological recording of landscape
features that include cultivation remains has grown
exponentially. Indeed, the recording of rural settlement
remains including those of its associated evidence of
agriculture has now almost achieved a national distri-
bution at a scale of 1:25000, based upon the data from
the Historic Land-use Assessment (HLA) project that
has been mapping the historical origins of the land-
scape (HLAmap). This desk-based study has mapped
the extent of the remains of medieval and post-medi-
eval settlement and agriculture across the whole of
Scotland, both lowland and upland, whatever the vari-
ations in its character. For the first time, fossilised
traces of medieval rig have been recognised in the pat-
tern of modern fields in lowland areas from Galloway
in the south-west to Aberdeenshire in the north-east
(Fig.1A). The boundaries of these fields reflect the re-
verse-S curve of rig built up by cultivation with a heavy
mould-board plough drawn by a large team of oxen,
known as broad rig. That this process happened at all
in Scotland has been a surprise, since most farms were
occupied by tenants at will, with no rights of inherit-
ance, and, at enclosure, the whole field-system of the
farm was enclosed without any need for reference to
the holdings of individual tenants. Some examples are
located on the fringe of urban centres or burghs such
as St Andrews, where land was held by burgage tenure,

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 107–123.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110459
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
a form of heritable tenure, but other examples may be
due to temporary enclosure of outfields that have be-
come fossilised through abandonment of the arable
land. This lowland distribution is, however, significant
in complementing the upland edge survival of reverse-S
rig that has been recognised as far north as the Moray
Firth (Halliday 2003), Sutherland (RCAHMS 1993a, 19)
and Caithness (e.g. near Broubster, Highland, Canmore
ID 7975). The fossilising of medieval and post-medieval
field patterns can also take the form of head-dykes that
have been reused as fence lines, described as Curvilin-
ear Fields in the typology of HLA (HLAmap). These are
found in upland edge localities such as Kincardinesh-
ire or Galloway, where the demands of agricultural im-
provement for squared fields have not been followed.
A second survey with a national scope that is rele-
vant here was the First Edition Survey Project (FESP).
It was carried out by the Royal Commission on the An-
108
107–123
Fig. 1. Distribution maps of cultiva-
tion remains: A) Reverse-S-shaped
Fields and reverse-S-shaped rig vis-
ible as cropmarks in modern fields
(HLAmap), B) curvilinear shaped
enclosed fields and field-systems
depicted on the first edition Ord-
nance Survey map (RCAHMS 2002,
37–40). Crown Copyright RCAHMS
GV005365.
cient and Historical Monuments (RCAHMS) between
1995 and 2001, and mapped the occurrence on the first
edition Ordnance Survey 6-inch maps (1843–1878)
of unroofed and disused structures (RCAHMS 2002).
This included small enclosures, variously yards in-
dicative of settlement or sheepfolds, but also field sys-
tems with curvilinear fences or boundaries, like those
mapped by HLA above, as well as unroofed buildings.
The abandoned fields were distributed mainly but not
exclusively in the west, with a large concentration in
upland Galloway (Fig.1B). The meaning of this distri-
bution was not appreciated at the time, since the idea
of enclosure has been conceived exclusively as a key
element of agricultural improvement (Devine 1994;
2006, 42–53). It was not until complementary survey
and documentary analysis was carried out in Menstrie
Glen, Stirlingshire, in 1997 that these enclosures were
interpreted as the result of tathing, the folding of cat-
RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
tle on arable to prepare for the cultivation of outfield
(RCAHMS 2001, 21–3).
In addition to these reviews and general assess-
ments, there have been in-depth field survey analyses
of the field remains of a number of localities that have
been published by RCAHMS between 1990 and 2007,
based on the work of the Archaeological Survey pro-
gramme. These ranged in quality from the mapping
of the individual rigs of broad rig in a field system, as
was done at Learable, Sutherland (Canmore, ID 72391;
RCAHMS 1993a), to more generalised assessments of
the extent and quality of rig, such as that in central
Scotland (Fig. 2; Dixon 1994, 42), which mapped broad
rig, and those at Menstrie Glen, Stirlingshire (RCAHMS
2001) and Kale Water (surveyed 1999–2000), which
tried to distinguish the different types of ridging (Fig. 3;
4). What the two latter surveys showed was that the rig
in these areas had undergone considerable modifica-
RURALIA X
107–123
tion. Those in Menstrie Glen were dominated by nar-
row curving, low profile rig, which was later than both
the high profile broad rig and the low profile broad rig
(ibid. 52–53). In Kale Water, on the other hand, low
profile rig, whether broad or narrow, was extensive and
showed few signs of the tathing enclosures that were
evident in Menstrie Glen.
On the west coast, extensive field systems of spade-
-dug ridges, feannagan, were mapped too, which also
highlighted the presence of enclosures that were inte-
gral parts of the field systems (e.g. Waternish, Isle of
Skye (RCAHMS 1993b, 10) and Mingulay, Western Isles
(RCAHMS 2010)). Differences of view emerged about
the role of the enclosures and their chronology, with
Dodgshon arguing that they were the abandoned trac-
es of the predecessors of runrig systems (Dodgshon
1994, 53–65), rather than being integral to the rig sys-
tems of which they were a part. This was in contradic-
109
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

Fig. 2. The extent of broad rig in central Scotland, North Lanarkshire and Falkirk, mapped from Royal Air Force aerial photographs
taken in the 1940s after World War II – note the dispersed pattern due to areas of blanket bog. Crown Copyright RCAHMS GV005376.

110 RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

Fig. 3. Map of rig in Menstrie Glen, Stirling, showing the different types. Low narrow curving rig – the most common – is indicative of the onset of
agricultural improvements and broad rig areas are survivals of earlier methods of cultivation. Crown Copyright RCAHMS GV005378.

tion to Dodgshon’s earlier work on tathing in eastern
Scotland, which would seem to be the most coherent
explanation of the enclosures (Dodgshon 1981, 229–
238). Dodgshon further argued that the spade-dug rig
systems of runrig townships found on the west coast
could be related to the feudalisation of society and ag-
riculture following the Treaty of Perth in 1266, which
ceded the Western Isles to the Scottish crown (Dodg-
shon 1994, 63). These questions of regional variation
in the methods of tillage and the role of enclosures in
pre-improvement methods of cultivation will be dis-
cussed further below.

RURALIA X 111
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

Fig. 4. Map of rig in the Kale Water area of Roxburghshire, Scottish Borders, showing the different types. In this upland edge area, core areas dis-
play broad rig and peripheral areas low profile rig. GV005364.

112 RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

Rig distribution and variations

in field systems
Ridge and furrow occurs in most parts of Scotland,
except Shetland, where it is exceptional to find any due
to the application of different techniques of ploughing
and cultivation. Strip fields are found on Shetland, but
not ridging. An example of this is the terraced plots at
Petester on Unst, where small rectilinear strips bound-
ed by earthen banks have developed into terraces be-
cause of the slope (Fig. 5). On Shetland the ploughs were
single-stilted and much lighter than the heavy-mould
board plough – sod busters rather than sod turners.
Various forms of single-stilted ploughs were also in use
in Orkney and on the Western Isles (Fenton 2011a, 645–
654). On Shetland, cultivation was successfully carried
out with the lighter single-stilted plough or with a spade
in strip fields called ‘riggs’ in communal management,
or runrig, but apparently without plough ridges. On
Orkney, modern ploughing has removed most traces of
pre-Improvement cultivation remains, but furlongs of
reverse-S ridges still survive on the small isle of Dam-
say (Canmore, ID 307335) and cropmarks suggest their
presence elsewhere. On Shetland, Fenton described
rigs as crooked and irregular in shape, and varying in
width from c.2–9m as well as in length, ranging up to
as much 165m on Fetlar (Fenton 1978, 44). However, Fig. 6. Aerial photograph of lazy bed rig at the Butt of Lewis, Isle of
Lewis, Western Isles, with its distinctive irregular form, discontinuities
no such rigs have been observed in RCAHMS fieldwork and deep cut furrows. Crown Copyright RCAHMS DP109585.
on Shetland. Sharply defined raised beds in wet areas,
separated by what are presumably spade dug drains,
were used as meadow, and appear at first sight like flat
cultivation rigs, but should not be confused with ar- often roughly rectilinear, or wedge shaped, such as
able rigs. Arable plots on the better drained ground are those at Sandwick Bay, Unst, the surface of which was
not ridged but flat, and delimited by the low earthen
banks that were mapped in recent RCAHMS field sur-
vey of this part of Shetland (Milburn 2010, 194).
Yet, in the north and west, where the foot plough or
cas-chrom (Gaelic) was used, this has produced a dis-
tinctive field-system of so-called lazy-bed rigs or feanna-
gan (Gaelic): narrow, irregular and steep edged. Many
examples of this may still be seen throughout the Outer
Hebrides, from Eorrapidh on the Isle of Lewis (Fig. 6)
to Mingulay, as well as up and down the north-west
coast of mainland Scotland. Two comments arise from
these sites. First, despite being spade dug, which is la-
bour intensive, the rigs are extensive and provide all
the arable of the township settlements, except in the
Uists where the shell-sand machair was also cultivated
in strips without the building of lazy-bed rigs. Second-
ly, they also preserve the remains of enclosures within
the rig, some of which are previous head-dykes, which
have been subsumed within the expanse of rig. These
features are also part of the agricultural landscape of
Fig. 5. Aerial photograph of the strip fields at Petester, Unst, Shetland. Skye, with estate plans giving confirmation of this in
Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC861245. the 1790s on Waternish (RCAHMS 1993b, 10). These

RURALIA X 113
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

cudbrightshire. In upland areas of Galloway, narrow

curving rig is common, which is also evident in Argyll
on the west coast. Within this distribution, there is
much subtle variety, most of which are to do with the
local history of its use and modification in the early
Improvement period.
Turning to field survey work carried out since 1992,
there are samples of rig systems at various levels of re-
cording; sometimes mapped as blocks of rig and on oc-
casion as individual furrows, which are easier to map
than the ridge crest. Ridge profiles have rarely been
attempted in Scotland. Parry in the 1970s attempted
this approach for the ridge and furrow surviving on
the Lammermuirs in south-east Scotland. He conclud-
ed that there were three main types of ridging: Type 1
broad high-backed rig over 4.5m in breadth – broad
rig; Type 2, a generally narrower rig of low profile – Im-
provement period straight low rig; and Type 3, which
was Type 2 over Type 1, modifying the existing ridges
Fig. 7. Aerial photograph of broad rig at Braemoor Knowe, Scottish Bor- (Parry 1976; e.g. Stewarton Cottage, Scottish Borders,
ders, with evidence of sub-division. Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC702965. Canmore, ID 78722, Halliday 2003; Fig. 8). Writing in
1994, I concurred in general with this but noted that
as well as sub-divided rig, possibly Parry Type 3, there
small enclosed patches of rig, it is surmised, might be
was undeveloped broad rig with little build-up of height.
outfields enclosed for cultivation. These are not perma-
In addition, there is narrow curving rig, generally less
nent enclosures or exclusive enclosures, but commu-
than 5m in breadth, usually C-shaped in plan and of-
nal enclosures for the purpose of focusing the manure
ten displaying an onion-shaped convergence of the rigs
of cattle and dressing the next piece of outfield to be
towards the end of the furlong, particularly in Gallo-
turned to arable. All tenants of a township grazed their
way (e.g. Laughenghie, Dumfries and Galloway, Can-
animals on the outfield enclosure, and had rigs to cul-
more, ID 68858; Fig. 9), and Argyll on the west (e.g. Lon
tivate proportionate to their portion of the tenancy of
Broach, Argyll and Bute, Canmore, ID 38148; Fig. 10).
the farm. The only distinction that may be seen in the
lazy beds of the infield as opposed to the outfield is in
the undivided quality of the infield ridges, with an ab-
sence of field banks sub-dividing them (e.g., Mealista,
Isle of Lewis; Canmore, ID 134087).
Let us now return to the mainland and turn our
attention chiefly to the ridge and furrow that typifies
medieval and post-medieval cultivation in Scotland, as
it does in England and parts of Wales. This is broad
rig, characterised by its high back due to continual use
and by its curvilinear form, often taking the plan-form
of a reverse-S. This is a form that owes its origin, it has
been argued (Eyre 1955), to the use of a right-handed
mould board plough to plough a strip where the sod
is continually turned inwards. The curve is due to the
need to turn the large team at the end of the ridge,
whilst continuing to plough up to the end of the ridge.
The resultant ridges are typically, as indicated earlier,
at 6–9m, but often broader and apparently as much
as 20m across in the arable lands of the east coast.
The type is evident from Orkney and Caithness in the
north to the Scottish Borders (e.g. Braemore Knowe,
Fig. 8. Aerial photograph of several types of rig at Stewarton Cottage,
Scottish Borders, Canmore, ID 58278; Fig. 7). Howev- Scottish Borders. Note the straight Improvement Period rig, which over-
er, it is infrequent in Galloway, except in coastal Kir- lies and cuts across the broad rig, which has been split.

114 RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

Whilst the extent of the surviving broad rig in a 200

square kilometre sample area of central Scotland was
mapped in outline in 1992, based on RAF vertical aer-
ial photographs from the 1940s, one small area was
mapped to the individual ridge. This was the farm of
Mid Bracco, Lanarkshire (Fig. 11; Dixon 1994, 37). The
plan showed that there had been seven or eight fur-
longs of broad rig prior to enclosure, and it was clear
from the later enclosure dykes that these had been con-
verted to pasture and had gone out of use. There was
some evidence for individual furlongs having being en-
closed by earthen banks, but the largest field did not
appear to have any enclosure at all, except that which

Fig. 10. Aerial photograph of a modified rig system at Lon Broach, Is-
lay, Argyll and Bute, showing both traces of sub-division and pinching
towards the end of the rigs. Crown Copyright RCAHMS DP021214.

land pasture close to the rich farmland along the

shores of the Forth, wherever peat growth had not
developed. The first issue to address relates to the
variations in rig. This was a post-medieval farming
landscape, which was largely used for pasture until
the 16th century, with transhumance and the con-
struction of shieling huts practised until perhaps as
late as the 17th century, when permanent settlement
became established. Analysis of the different form of

Fig. 9. Aerial photograph of the field system at Laughenghie, Dumfries

and Galloway, showing narrow rig, the pinching of the rigs at the ends
and outfield enclosures. Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC696448.

post-dated its use. This might suggest that those with

enclosures were temporary tathing intakes of land as
part of the outfield system, focusing the manure of the
cattle on the land to be cultivated in next year’s rota-
tion of crops. However, no distinction in rig type was
evident (Dixon 1994, 42). During the HLA work on the
area, some reverse-S-shaped fields in this area were
mapped that coincided with broad rig recorded in field
survey (HLAmap), confirming independently the origin
of the field boundaries.
It was the work in the upland terrain of the Ochils
in 1997 that led to a fuller expression of the tathing
enclosures and the documentary analysis to support
it that has changed our understanding of these ridged
Fig. 11. Plan of the broad rig at Mid Bracco, North Lanarkshire, show-
landscapes (RCAHMS 2001). The Ochils is a range of
ing the traces of outfield enclosures around the smaller furlongs and
hills that runs ENE from Stirling, rising very steeply later enclosures cutting across the rig, indicating the conversion of the
from the flood plain of the Forth. This provides up- land to pasture. Crown Copyright RCAHMS GV005377.

RURALIA X 115
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
Fig. 12. Aerial photograph of outfield enclosures partly leveled by low
profile rig at Ashentrool, Stirling. Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC611363.
ridges showed that broad rig was the earliest form of
ridging and only survived unchanged in a core area of
the valley bottom. Low profile broad rig was shown to
be stratigraphically early since it did not disrupt any
enclosure banks nor overlay any narrow, curving rigs.
This suggests that it is either an alternative technique
for broad rig cultivation – one that might be reserved
for outfield cultivation where the temporary nature of
the episode precluded the need for individual strips to
be retained – or it is an indication of the short phase
of use. Both high-backed and low broad rig were over-
lain by narrow curving rig – a key observation. Indeed,
Fig. 13. Aerial photograph of sub-divided broad rig enclosed by a
head-dyke at Upper Chatto, Scottish Borders, with traces of unenclosed
low profile rig outside. Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC1445664.
116
107–123
narrow curving rig is the most frequent type of rig
in the glen and is best explained as part of the early
Improvement phase of land-use in the 18th century.
The sub-division of rig became a widespread practice
by Improvers to reduce the height and thus the ten-
dency of high ridges to chill in the spring when the
crops were sown. A treatise on agriculture in 1762
described the process of ridge creation and also how
to plough a ridge in order to avoid the build-up of a
high-backed ridge, known as cleaving (Fenton 2011b,
663). However, since low broad rig appears to pre-date
the narrow curving rig, it remains possible it is part
of the pre-Improvement land use. The second impor-
tant lesson of Menstrie Glen is in the numerous field
enclosures that display the signs of being breached by
later episodes of rig cultivation (Fig. 12) and the docu-
mentary descriptions of tathing practice. The pattern
of enclosures suggests a process of accretion rather
than original design, while the management of arable,
as indicated in the documentary sources, suggests the
outfield was generally sown with oats, whereas the in-
field could be cropped rig by rig with different crops.
For example, the Nolt Fauld on Loss farm was sown
only once with barley in 1756, ‘being tathed with sheep
this year’. This was an enclosure for young cattle, as
indicated by the field name ‘Nolt’ , which was being
turned into outfield. The bias of some upland farms to
pasture may have led to the distinctive landscape that
may be seen here of folds for cattle production, that
were then incorporated into the farming cycle. This
may explain the high preponderance of enclosures in
Glen Devon further to the east in the Ochils. Here the
cattle rearing for market became established from the
late 17th century (Harrison, unpublished MS). It may
also explain the frequency of enclosures as part of the
field systems in Galloway (e.g. Stroan, Kirkcudbright-
shire, Canmore, ID 68833; Dixon 1994, 48), where cat-
tle rearing and droving developed in the 18th century.
The second area to have been analysed for its styles
of rig is the Kale Water area of the Cheviots. This is an
area of upland on the border with England. It is remark-
able for its plateau land along the ridges at c.350m
above sea level, which is too high for medieval settle-
ment, but not for prehistoric settlement. The general
distribution of rig here is not unlike that in Menstrie
Glen in that there are core areas of broad high-backed
rig, usually in the valley bottom, and often surviving
as fragments which have not been subsumed into the
modern fields. Beyond is a swathe of cultivation that
varies from sub-divided broad rig, to undeveloped low
broad rig which may also be sub-divided. In this area it
is the low broad rig that is most common (Fig. 4) rath-
er than narrow curving rig typical of Menstrie Glen. It
is evident that some form of infield-outfield prevailed
here too. Indeed, Hownam, a toun that had multiple
RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

Fig. 14. Aerial photograph of low profile broad rig around the Iron Age Fig. 15. Aerial photograph of broad rig near Dunrod church and moat-
settlement of Hownam Rings, Scottish Borders, showing traces of mul- ed manor, Dumfries and Galloway, showing evidence of modification by
tiple phases and sub-division. Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC597187. sub-division. Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC911944.

landowners, had a low percentage of land in infield at to exploit their land to the utmost. This does not pre-
28% of the total in the mid-18th century, the runrig of clude the possibility that there were pre-Improvement
which was divided in 1750 (Dodgshon 1975). As well episodes of outfield expansion, which may account for
as the extensive nature of the low rig, it is also notable some of the expanses of low profile broad rig, but the
that there are few signs of the tathing enclosures that vast majority of it is likely to be late 18th century in
are noted in Menstrie Glen and other parts of upland date. Finally the core areas of settlement can be quite
Scotland, such as highland Aberdeenshire (RCAHMS easily determined by the presence of broad rig, wheth-
2007). It is difficult to believe that there was no prepa- er split or not.
ration for outfield cultivation, so how was stock man-
aged here, and how was the ground prepared? It is
possible here that the fragmentary turf dykes that may
be seen are the remains of more complete enclosures.
For example, there would appear to be a head-dyke
around the rigged ground to the south of Upper Chat-
to (Scottish Borders, Canmore ID 57995; Fig. 13) and
there is high ground to the south-west on which there
is low rig. This includes some rectilinear turf banked
enclosures of less than a hectare each, which might
be temporary stock enclosures, but clearly post-date
the rig. However, there is also extensive low profile rig
outside the head-dyke to the south and east with no
enclosures. While it is possible that poor preservation
of turf-walled enclosures has led to many of them be-
ing overlooked, this seems unlikely as sheep farming
has been the predominant land use since the 18th cen-
tury and any examples of turf-built enclosures were
mapped by RCAHMS during the survey. The extent
of the low profile rig and the evidence for overlapping
episodes suggest that this is a late phase in the cul-
tivation of the hills of Hownam parish, Scottish Bor-
Fig. 16. Aerial photograph of broad rig visible as cropmarks at Leuchars,
ders (Canmore, ID 93666; Fig. 14), perhaps triggered Fife, showing traces of sub-division. These rigs are particularly broad at
by the enclosure process and attempts by the farmers about 20m. Crown Copyright RCAHMS SC 726718.

RURALIA X 117
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
Many of the areas with surviving rig are marginal
upland edge sites. Some survival of rig from lowland
locations or from cropmark archaeology provides com-
parators. In Kirkcudbrightshire the military ranges
on the coast have prevented wholesale removal of rig
by modern agriculture. At Dunrod, within the range,
there is an area of broad rig around a moated site near
Dunrod church that extends to about 68ha in extent.
The preservation is fortuitous, since the fields have
been maintained in pasture because of the limita-
tions of farming land in a military range. The rig here
is reverse-S shaped with at least one headland vis-
ible between two end-on furlongs, but this is not un-
changed broad rig and there are clear signs that the
rig has been sub-divided (Canmore, ID 63929; Fig. 15).
Sub-divided rig is evidently also a facet of lowland
landscapes. This has been observed in the cropmarks
of rig at Leuchars, Fife, where wide rigs up to 20m in
width have been reduced by half, showing that lowland
systems have similarities in their evolution with the
upland ones (Canmore, ID 33303; Fig. 16).
The Origins of Medieval Field Systems
and Ridge and Furrow
Ridging as a method of preparing the soil for tillage
has its origins in prehistory. Evidence for pre-medieval
cultivation in the form of narrow rig, generally between
1m and 1.5m in width has been encountered widely
in Scotland, but also in Ireland and northern England.
There is some evidence that these ridges were raised
by hand after the field had been ploughed using an
ard. Known as ‘cord rig’ because of its ‘corduroy’ ap-
pearance (Fig. 17), it has been found under Roman
sites in Northumberland on the Anglo-Scottish bor-
ders (RCHME 1995, 104–105), under broad medieval
ridges at Holl Burn in Fife (Yeoman 1992), and buried
beneath peat at Machrie North, Isle of Arran (Barber
1997, 107–109) and Achany Glen, Sutherland (Carter
1995; McCullagh – Tipping 1998). The latter was dated
as having gone out of use by the 14th century, based
on the dating of the peat growth over the rigs. While it
is generally considered to be prehistoric in date, it may
well have continued in use up until the medieval peri-
od, particularly in the Highlands. Indeed, the absence
of the recognisable broad rig in the west of Scotland
led Halliday to suggest that lower profile narrow rig
could perhaps be derived from cord rig on the north
and west coasts (Halliday 2003, 75–79). Coinciden-
tally, these were areas where the lighter single-stilted
ploughs were in common use in the post-medieval pe-
riod, which, although asymmetrical, sometimes with a
small mould board, differed in not having the double
stilt typical of a heavy mould-board plough (Fenton
2011b, 643–678).
118
107–123
There is documentary evidence for the presence of
intermixed rig systems and of ploughgates or caru-
cates in south-east Scotland in the 12th and 13th cen-
turies, while the davoch was the normal land-unit to
the north of the Grampian Mountains. In the area
between, both arable carucates and davochs were
recorded in charters of this period (Duncan 1975).
However, the ploughgate and its counterpart the vill,
which were spreading north from the later 12th cen-
tury, did not entirely displace the older davoch territo-
rial unit, and continued alongside. This may be seen
in the lordship of Garioch, Aberdeenshire, where Da-
vid, Earl of Huntingdon, was granting land to Flemish
and Anglo-French incomers that included ploughgates
in the same area as davochs, such as those in Durno
parish (RCAHMS 2007, 146). The clearest example of
intermixed strips is that of a landowner at Ballebotlie
(Babbet), Fife, on the north side of the Forth, in the late
12th century, who had possession of every fifth rig in
the fields of the settlement (Dixon 1994).
The names of the fields, or parts thereof, can be illu-
minating, revealing their origins. The grant of a small
landholding in the fields of the Berwickshire village of
Auldcambus in c.1200 included seven small pieces of
land that were from half to one and a half acres in size
in fields called variously; Langdales; Stele; Heseldale;
Mideop; Oggeslaudale; Langetoftes; and Brerilawe
(Raine 1852, App. No.CLXXIX). The language of these
field units or furlongs is Anglo-Scandinavian – dale,
toft, law – which suggests that the fields were in use
at the time when the area was part of the earldom of
Northumbria, before the feudalisation of the kingdom
of the Scots under David and his successors.
However, the documents do not give any idea of the
standard width of a rig or even the local width of a rig.
One route of inquiry is to establish the width of strips
Fig. 17. Prehistoric ‘cord’ rig at Hut Knowe, Scottish Borders. Note the
blocking of two different alignments of rig and the rampart of the Iron
Age settlement in the background. Crown Copyright RCAHMS154938.
RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
depicted on post-medieval estate maps and compare
them with rig on the ground. Ideally it should be pos-
sible to compare the two in one location. It is not until
the 18th century that there are any maps of suitable
quality that might allow this to be done, and it has to
be open to doubt that the 18th-century rigs are the
same as those of the 13th century. Unfortunately, none
of the detailed maps of runrig systems are in places
that match surviving areas of ridge and furrow on the
ground. It is the lowland townships that generally have
the detailed estate maps, since it is these that have
touns in multiple ownership that required detailed
maps of individual rigs. The upland ones that preserve
rig on the ground were often in the possession of a
single tenant by the 18th century. Another option is to
compare the size of the strips on an estate map with
surviving examples of rig. The Berwickshire village of
Auchencraw that was mapped in 1714 as part of the
process of the division of the runrig lands into discrete
holdings (NRS RHP 14788), shows the individual strips
of each landowner and their plan-form which display
the characteristic reverse-S shape on plan. The nar-
rowest strips are about a quarter of a chain of 66 feet
in size, which is as little as about 5.5m (16.5 feet) in
width, though most were larger (Fig. 18). In compari-
RURALIA X
107–123
Fig. 18. Part of the pre-enclosure
plan of Auchencraw, Scottish Bor-
ders, AD 1714, showing the vari-
able size of strips and the reverse-S
shape. Courtesy of the National Re-
cords of Scotland, RHP 14788.
son, at nearby West Reston in 1763 (NRS RHP 4088),
the strips were typically about half a chain in width
or c.10m. There is clearly some variation here, but
these strips are useful to compare with the widths of
ridges that are measurable on the ground. The largest
rigs that have been recorded are lowland rigs that ap-
pear on aerial photographs as cropmarks. These have
been measured at up to about 20m wide at Leuchars,
Fife, giving a strip of about four-fifths of a Scots acre
(1.3 English acres) on the presumption of a standard
furlong length of 220 yards (c.200m). The lengths of
furlongs in Lowland areas, taken from cropmark trac-
es, such as at Leuchars, display similar variations to
those on estate maps. Furlong lengths varied consid-
erably, with furlongs up to twice the standard length
at Auchencraw, for example, although they are quite
often less. In upland terrain it is more common to find
reverse-S-shaped rig in the range of 6–9m. However,
when the rigs are analysed it will be seen that these
may not have been their original widths, and they often
display the signs of having been split, as is evident at
Braemore Knowe, Roxburghshire, immediately north
of Hownam village (Fig. 7; Dixon 1994, 39). This pre-
liminary analysis at least establishes that the strips
depicted on estate plans and those that are seen in up-
119
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
land areas are likely to be the same thing and in terms
of the size of strip are of the same order of size.
That ridging was used in prehistory means that the
benefits of ridging in Scotland were well established
by the medieval period. Prehistoric ridges were prob-
ably built with a spade or hoe, following the sod being
broken with an ard. Iron technology in the later first
millennium AD was used to make a shoe for a plough,
which could turn the sod over with the help of a heavy
iron coulter and a mould board. Such a plough could
produce a plough ridge by pulling the plough up and
down on either side of the centre of a strip so that the
soil was consistently pushed to the middle, as Gryth
Lerche confirmed by experiment In Denmark (Lerche
1986). This new technology was capable of being used
to make broader rigs than the prehistoric ones, but the
driving force in developing intermixed strips that might
be cultivated with ridges has been seen in Scotland as
a development of feudal society (Dodgshon 1994) and
as something that was brought in by Anglo-Norman in-
comers (Halliday 2003). Since there is some evidence
that this may have occurred before the 12th century in
south-east Scotland, this may be questioned. In Eng-
land, where the origins of broad ridge and furrow are
interpreted in the absence of prior ridging, the adop-
tion of ridge and furrow fields is generally dated to the
late first millennium AD and associated with a re-plan-
ning of the landscape (e.g. Hall 1994 and Powlesland
2003). This model has been questioned by Oosthuizen,
who argues for an evolutionary process in central,
southern England based on the long-term continuity
of community assets (2013). No such re-planning has
been posited in Scotland, unless this was a trend that
was taking place in Northumbria before Lothian was
split from the rest in the 11th century. This is doubt-
ful, since so far only one excavation, that at Eldbotle
medieval village, has produced any pre-12th-century
settlement evidence that might provide a context for
this, but then only a handful of excavations of any size
and scope have been carried out in south-east Scot-
land (e.g. Springwood Park, Dixon 1999). Where broad
rig has been dated at all it has proved to be no earlier
than late medieval, which would fit with a high medi-
eval introduction relating to the development of feudal
society.
Ploughs are depicted on 17th-century tombstones
that have features that match late 18th- and early
19th-century survivals of the so-called Old Scotch
Plough with its heavy robust structure, mould board,
iron coulter and share (e.g. Chilcarroch, Wigton-
shire). The iron shares and coulter that are depicted
on 17th-century tombstones are also found on medi-
eval gravestones from Pennershaughs and Hoddom in
Dumfriesshire, and are listed in an inventory of Cold-
ingham Priory in 1374 as plough irons (Raine 1841).
120
107–123
This makes it highly likely that the kind of ploughs
being used in the 13th and 14th century were of simi-
lar type to post-medieval ones. Ploughs were also stud-
ded with pebbles to counter wear and to balance the
plough, as we know from the recovery of a plough sole
of post-medieval date in Denmark (Lerche 1986). Oc-
currences of individual plough pebbles of somewhat
earlier dates have been recovered from the backfill of a
13th- to 14th-century pottery kiln pit at Colstoun, East
Lothian (Clark 1972, 50–51), and from the excavations
of plough soils at Whithorn Priory, Wigtonshire, dat-
ing variously to the late 6th or 7th century and the 9th
to 10th centuries (Hill – Kucharski 1990), while scat-
tered examples have been found from the plough soil
in the south-eastern counties of Scotland. This might
suggest that the heavy mould board plough has origins
in the later first millennium AD, but as yet no actual
broad rigs have been dated that early in Scotland, al-
though evidence of inverted plough soil was observed
at Whithorn Priory, especially in the 9th-century con-
text referred to above, suggesting the use of a mould
board. Indeed, at present, all that can be said is that
broad rigs at North Straiton, Fife, overlie ditches con-
taining 12th- to 13th-century pottery, and near Red
Castle in the Lunan valley, Angus, broad rig overlay
some buried corn-drying kilns of medieval date. Else-
where, at Cadzow Park there are oak trees that have
been dated to the 15th century by dendrochronology
that are growing out of broad rigs (Dickson – Dickson
2000). Another facet of the Old Scotch plough and its
technology, besides the mould board and plough irons,
was the sheer weight of it that required a team of oxen
to pull it, or perhaps a team of horses and oxen. A par-
ticularly fine image of this comes from a table tomb
of ca. 1754 at Liberton churchyard, which shows a
plough team of four oxen, two by two, with two horses
at the front, pulling a heavy plough (Dixon 2008, 4).
Discussion
The development of broad reverse-S shaped ridges
is a combination of technology and landholding sys-
tems in which strips are intermixed and grazing is
communally organised across the intermixed hold-
ings. Yet this particular form of cultivation never devel-
oped in some parts of Scotland, or local circumstanc-
es led to different responses. Maintaining the heavy
mould-board plough in areas without the resources
to make the high quality wrought iron needed for the
plough irons might well have been a relevant factor in
the adoption of less demanding technology. The more
usual explanation of the differences in the methods of
tillage between east and west is that the spade was bet-
ter suited to the shallow and peaty soils of the west of
Scotland than the plough which held sway in the bet-
RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
ter drained soils of the east, despite being labour in-
tensive. Indeed, Dodgshon has argued that population
pressure lay behind the adoption of lazy bed cultiva-
tion (Dodgshon 1994, 56).
The heavy mould board plough may have been in
use from the late first millennium AD, as suggested
by the evidence from Whithorn, but as yet no one has
been able to date broad rig as early as this. Ironically,
the occurrence of inverted plough soil at Whithorn
is that Wigtonshire is in an area where broad rig has
not yet been found, and narrow curving plough rig or
spade dug rig is the norm in the upland hinterland,
where they survive in land turned to pasture. Curi-
ously it is also one of two localities that have produced
a surviving example of an Old Scotch plough. How-
ever, it would seem that the documentary sources in-
dicate inter-mixed ridges as early as the 12th century
in south-east Scotland, even if so far the archaeologi-
cally dated examples are late medieval. The scale of
the broad ridges on the east coast makes a strong case
for these being the kind of strips or rigs that are docu-
mented as the smallest units of land-holding.
The equation of the introduction of broad rig and
strip fields with the Anglo-Norman incomers and a
feudal social order that the Scots kings from David on-
wards adopted is difficult to argue against as a general
thesis. Yet it has also been used to explain the spread
of lazy-bed runrig to the Western Isles from the later
13th century, while Shetland, which did not come un-
der the Scots crown until the 15th century, had an
intermixed-system of rigs on which no actual ridges
have been found, and a different form of landholding
(Thompson 2011). The common factor is that these
were all organised as communal systems of farming in
which the management of pasture and arable was in-
extricably communal. The local environment, its soils
and climate dictated different responses, but they were
all runrig. It is also relevant to point out that broad
rig was employed at street villages in the borders that
would be recognisable in a northern English context
and at small touns with no such formal layout and
perhaps only two or three tenants. Furthermore, it
would appear that it was adopted in areas in which the
davoch was the basic territorial unit, such as Glener-
nan in Aberdeenshire (RCAHMS 2007), as well as those
with the ploughgate.
The sub-division of rig that was too broad is docu-
mented as an improvement of the 18th century and
has altered the appearance of much upland broad rig
out of all recognition. Its replacement by curving nar-
row rig may be explained as a change that went with
the engrossment of joint tenancy farms into a single
tenancy and the practical abandonment of runrig pri-
or to enclosure, as seen in Aberdeenshire (RCAHMS
2007, 193–199).
RURALIA X
107–123
Conclusions
It would seem that there were a variety of responses
to tillage in Scotland in the medieval and post-medieval
periods. All of them were open, communally managed
fields, or runrig, despite the presence of temporary en-
closures of land designated as the next outfield. Ridg-
ing is manifest in many parts of lowland Scotland and
its upland and highland fringe, with broad reverse-S
shaped plough rig prevalent from Caithness to Gallo-
way. In the north-west the spade and cas-chrom were
used to build narrow, irregular if sinuous ridges with
steep sides and broad deep furrows. Curving narrow
rig which is found in south-west Scotland, including
parts of Galloway and Argyll, may be produced with a
plough, but it seems impractical for it to have been a
heavy mould board plough of the sort found at Chilcar-
roch in Wigtonshire, now in Stranraer Museum. And,
sometimes in these areas, the rig displays discontinui-
ties that suggest finishing with a spade. Shetland alone
developed a runrig system without ridging. The split-
ting of rigs, which is common in the early Improvement
period, has modified much of the rig that survives,
obscuring its original form. Temporary enclosures
for outfield cultivation are a recurrent feature, leaving
clear if often fragmentary traces in upland areas, but
without the enclosures it would not be easy to separate
the one from the other.
Zusammenfassung
Schriftquellen und kartografisches Material bele-
gen, dass vor der Agrarrevolution im 18. und 19. Jahr-
hundert das sog. „Runrig“-System die bevorzugte Me-
thode der Bodenbearbeitung in Schottland gewesen
war. Dabei wurde das Land in Streifenfluren aufgeteilt,
die dann von verschiedenen Pächtern bearbeitet wur-
den bzw. sich im Besitz verschiedener Grundherren
befanden. Dieser Beitrag konzentriert sich auf einige
Ergebnisse der archäologischen Geländebeobachtun-
gen, die in Schottland in den letzten 25 Jahren durch-
geführt wurden, bei denen der Einsatz moderner
Technologien die Aufzeichnungen von Überresten der
Felder in der heutigen Landschaft ermöglichte. Dabei
lassen die Daten den Schluss zu, dass die Methoden
der Bodenbearbeitung in Schottland stark variierten,
und dass sich dieses besonders in den verschiedenen
Formen der Streifenfluren ausdrückt. Weiterhin zeigt
sich, dass die verschiedenen Formen der Einhegun-
gen, von denen vermutet wird, dass sie einen wesent-
lichen Aspekt der Verbesserungen darstellten, ein ty-
pisches Merkmal des früheren agrarwirtschaftlichen
Landschaftbildes waren. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird
die Annahme, dass das Agrarland in Schottland vor
der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts in offenen Streifenflu-
121
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
ren bewirtschaftet wurde in Frage gestellt. Weiterhin
wird untersucht, ob die Urbarmachung über Innen-
und Außenfelder während der nachmittelalterlichen
Periode in den Überresten der Felder nachweisbar ist.
Abschließend wendet sich der Beitrag den Nachweisen
der Ursprünge dieser Flurteilung zu.
Résumé
Selon les sources documentaires et cartographiques,
le mode bien établi de travail du sol en Ecosse avant les
améliorations agricoles du 18e et 19e siècles a été réa-
lisé avec des exploitations réparties en bandes entre-
mêlées et gérés dans un système connu sous le nom
‘runrig’. L’article met l’accent sur quelques-uns des
résultats de l’enquête archéologique sur le terrain en
Ecosse au cours de ces 25 dernières années au cours
desquelles la technologie moderne a permis l’enregis-
trement des traces de champs. Ces données suggèrent
que les méthodes de travail du sol varient considéra-
blement à travers l’Ecosse, et que cela est particulière-
ment évident dans la forme variable des crêtes ou des
bandes. En outre, les enceintes d’une forme ou d’une
autre, que l’on croyait aspects typiques des ameliora-
tions s’avèrent des éléments familiers du paysage agri-
cole plus précoce. Par conséquent, la présomption que
l’agriculture écossaise avant le milieu du 18e siècle a
été menée dans des champs ouverts de bandes entre-
mêlées est remise en question. Le système « infiels-out-
field » de la culture en usage dans la période post-mé-
diévale se retrouve aussi dans les traces de champs.
Enfin, l’origine de ces systèmes est examiné.
Bibliography
Barber, J. (ed.), 1997:
The archaeological Investigation of a Prehistoric landscape:
Excavations on Arran 1978–81. Edinburgh.
Canmore, http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/, the sites and mo-
numents website of the Royal Commission on the Ancient
and Historical Monuments of Scotland
Carter, S. P. 1995:
Radiocarbon dating evidence for the age of narrow cultivation
ridges in Scotland, Tools and Tillage, 7:2–3 (1993–4), 83–91.
Clark, D. V. 1972:
A plough pebble from Colstoun, Scotland, Tools and Tillage,
2:1, 50–51.
Devine, T. M. 1994:
The Transformation of Rural Scotland: Social Change and
the Agrarian Economy.1660–1815. Edinburgh.
122
107–123
Devine, T. M. 2006:
Clearance and Improvement. Edinburgh.
Dickson, C. – Dickson, J. 2000:
Plants and people in Ancient Scotland. Tempus.
Dixon, P. 1994:
Field Systems, Rig and other Cultivation Remains in Scot-
land: the Field Evidence, in: Foster, S. – Smout, T. C. (eds),
The History of Soils and Fields Systems, 26–52.
Dixon, P. 1999:
A rural medieval settlement in Roxburghshire: excavations at
Springwood park, Kelso, 1985–6, Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland 128 (1998), 671–751.
Dixon, P. (ed.) 2008:
Buildings of the Land, RCAHMS, Edinburgh.
Dixon, P. 2011:
Crops and Livestock in the Pre-Improvement Era, in: Fen-
ton, A. – Veitch, K., Scottish Life and Society, Farming and
the Land, Vol. 2, A Compendium of Scottish Ethnology, John
Donald, Edinburgh, 229–243.
Dodgshon, R. A. 1975:
Towards an Understanding and definition of Runrig: The evi-
dence for Roxburghshire and Berwickshire, Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 94, 15–33.
Dodgshon, R. A. 1981:
Land and Society in Early Scotland. Oxford.
Dodgshon, R. A. 1994:
Rethinking Highland Field Systems, in: Foster, S. – Smout,
T. C. (eds), The History of Soils and Fields Systems, 53–65.
Duncan, A. A. M.1975:
Scotland, The Making of the Kingdom, The Edinburgh His-
tory of Scotland, Vol. 2, Edinburgh.
Eyre, S. R.1955:
The curving plough-strip and its historical implications, Agri-
cultural History Review, 3:2, 80–94.
Fenton, A. 1978:
The Northern Isles: Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh.
Fenton, A. 2011a:
Cultivating Tools and Tillage: prehistoric and single-Stilted
Ploughs, in: Fenton, A. – Veitch, K., Scottish Life and Society,
Farming and the Land, Vol. 2, A Compendium of Scottish
Ethnology. John Donald, Edinburgh, 643–654.
Fenton, A. 2011b:
Cultivating Tools and Tillage: The Old Scotch Plough, the
Improved Plough and Spades, in: Fenton, A. – Veitch, K., Scot-
tish Life and Society, Farming and the Land, Vol. 2, A Com-
pendium of Scottish Ethnology, John Donald, Edinburgh.
Hall, D. 1994:
Ridge and Furrow in the English Midlands, in: Foster, S. –
Smout, T. C. (eds), The History of Soils and Fields Systems,
94–100.
Halliday, S. 2003:
Rig-and-furrow in Scotland, in: Govan, S., Medieval or Later
Rural Settlement in Scotland: 10 Years On, Historic Scotland,
Edinburgh, 69–82.
Harrison, J.:
unpublished MS, RCAHMS MS 1155/2, Glen Devon.
RURALIA X
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland
Hill, P. H. – Kucharski, K. 1990.
Early medieval ploughing at Whithorn and the chronology
of plough pebbles, Transitions of the Dumfries and Gal-
loway Natural History and Antiquarian Socety, ser 3, 65,
73–83.
HLAmap, http://hla.rcahms.gov.uk/, Historic Land-use As-
sessment website, Historic Scotland and, Royal Commission
on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.
Lerche, G. 1986:
Ridged fields and profiles of plough furrows, Tools and Til-
lage, 5.3, 131–156.
McCullagh, R. P. J. – Tipping, R. (eds) 1998:
The Lairg Project 1988–96: Evolution of an Archaeological
Landscape in Northern Scotland, Edinburgh.
Milburn, P. (ed.) 2010:
Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, New Series, Vol. 11,
Archaeology Scotland.
NRS RHP:
National Records of Scotland, Register House Plans.
Oosthuizen, S. 2013:
Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-Saxon England: Ar-
chaeology, Common Rights and Landscape. Bloomsbury Aca-
demic.
Parry, M. L. 1976:
A typology of cultivation ridges in southern Scotland, Tools
and Tillage, 3.1, 3–19.
Powlesland, D. 2003:
Twenty-five Years’ Research on the Sands and Gravels of the
Vale of Pickering. Yedingham.
Raine, Rev. J. (ed.) 1841:
The Correspondence, Inventories, Account Rolls and Law
Proceedings of the Priory of Coldingham. Durham.
Raine, Rev. J. (ed.), 1852:
The History and Antiquities of North Durham.
Piers Dixon, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, John Sinclair House, 16 Bernard
Terrace, Edinburg, piers.dixon@rcahms.gov.uk
RURALIA X
107–123
RCAHMS 1993a:
Strath of Kildonan, An Archaeological Survey, Royal Commis-
sion on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.
Edinburgh.
RCAHMS 1993b:
Waternish, Skye and Lochalsh District: An Archaeological
Survey, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Mo-
numents of Scotland. Edinburgh.
RCAHMS 2001:
‚Well Shelter’d & Watered’: Menstrie Glen, a farming land-
scape near Stirling, Royal Commission on the Ancient and
Historical Monuments of Scotland. Edinburgh.
RCAHMS 2002:
‘But the Walls Remained’: A survey of unroofed rural settle-
ment depicted on the first edition of the Ordnance Survey
6-inch map of Scotland, Royal Commission on the Ancient
and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Edinburgh.
RCAHMS 2007:
In the Shadow of Bennachie, A field archaeology of Donside,
Aberdeenshire, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Histo-
rical Monuments of Scotland. Edinburgh.
RCAHMS 2010:
Mingulay: archaeology and architecture, Royal Commission
on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Edin-
burgh.
RCHME 1995:
Roman Camps in England; the field archaeology. London.
Thomson, W. P. L. 2011:
Rural Settlement in the Northern Isles, in: Fenton, A. –
Veitch, K., Scottish Life and Society, Farming and the Land,
Vol. 2, A Compendium of Scottish Ethnology, John Donald,
Edinburgh, 153–171.
Yeoman, P. 1992:
Holl Burn (Leslie parish): cultivation remains, Discovery and
Excavation in Scotland, Edinburgh, 31.
123
Dixon, Mukked and folded land: medieval cultivation techniques in Scotland 107–123

124 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 125–141

Cosmeston, South Wales:

Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
Cosmeston, Süd-Wales:
Eroberung, Landesausbau und Veränderung der materiellen Kultur

Cosmeston, Galles du Sud:

conquête, colonisation et changement dans la culture matérielle

Alice Forward and John Hines

This paper introduces the part-excavated site of
Cosmeston in the Vale of Glamorgan (Fig. 1) and ex-
plores the functionally differentiated use of space at a
manorial site in South Wales in relation to the histori-
cal, social and economic consequences of the Norman
Conquest of this area, which began at the end of the
11th century. Wales is often treated as effectively a tab-
ula rasa before this point, into accessible and suitable
parts of which a dynamic and aggressive Anglo-Nor-
man system of settlement and agrarian practices was
introduced wholesale. Careful examination of the de-
tailed evidence from a well-preserved site and consid-
eration of other local evidence reveals significant, spe-
cifically local, conditions of such developments.
An Introduction to Wales
With a geological core of ancient rock, more than a
quarter of the area of Wales is more than 300 m over
sea-level, and the land is mostly hilly. From the moun-
tains of mid-Wales rise two major rivers, the Severn
and the Dee, which make their way southwards and
northwards respectively to the Bristol Channel and the
Irish Sea, through great vales that effectively mark the
border-zone between England and Wales. Wales is also
a nation, albeit one that only for brief periods of his-
tory has enjoyed any political unity; a Welsh Assembly
Government now exercises limited autonomy within
the United Kingdom. The process of Welsh political
subjection to Anglo-Saxon kings, Norman barons, and
ultimately the Tudor kings of England—a dynasty with
significant Welsh roots and ancestry—was an extend-
ed and gradual one, culminating in legislation of the
English Parliaments of 1536 and 1543 that is often
referred to as the Acts of Union (J. Davies 1990, 220–
228). Following the Norman conquests of England and
Wales in the second half of the 11th century, a deep
buffer zone between England and Wales had been es-
tablished, with considerable local political autonomy
as the Welsh March, and the enforcement of central
government control over this area was as important to
the Tudor monarchy as the annexation of Wales itself.
When Ruralia met in Wales in 2007, the confer-
ence theme was ‘settlement in marginal landscapes’
(Klápště – Sommer eds 2009). It is hard to escape a
perception of Wales as primarily a marginal zone, and
models of rural settlement history in Wales tend to be
highly schematized and even simplified as a result. For
a more comprehensive understanding of Welsh settle-
ment history, it is essential to appreciate also that the
combination of rich mineral resources—primarily met-
al ores and coal—made south-east Wales a powerhouse
of the Industrial Revolution from the second half of the
18th century through to the last century, with massive
consequences in terms of urbanization, population
growth and proletarianization, and extensive cultural
and linguistic changes. Although not central to the
present paper, these are profoundly relevant to the
whole story of the site it introduces. In their own way,
the agencies of the Industrial Revolution in south-east
Wales were perhaps little different from those that are
typically regarded as determinative of the long-term
economic, social and settlement history of the area: in-
termittent stages of dramatic change as a result of ex-
ternal contacts, and usually external interference and
invasion of some form, followed by the passing of that
phase and periods of economic decline accompanied
by reversion to more traditional practices.
In the 1st century AD, as the Romans sought to
bring Britannia within their empire, late Iron-age
Wales, and two peoples in particular, the Silures and
the Ordovices, provided stubborn and challenging re-
sistance—which means that the events are quite well
chronicled in Tacitus’ account of the career of his fa-
ther-in-law Agricola (Salway 1981, 100–142). Although
fully within the eventual frontier of the province and
the Empire along the line of Hadrian’s Wall across the
north of England, the area of Wales is commonly re-
garded as being part of a military rather than a civil
zone, with Romanisation being restricted to a few fa-

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 125–141.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110460
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
Fig. 1. Location maps showing the sites referred to in the text.
voured, lowland, areas—which include much of the
coastal zone of South Wales—where a number of villas
have been identified (although there are of course cas-
es where it is hard to judge whether classification as
a villa or a Romanised farmstead is more appropriate:
Frere 1987, 2–5; Jarrett – Wrathmell 1981, 250–253).
The archaeological evidence of Roman villas in South
Wales points to a diversified economic basis, with, for
instance, metalworking and ceramic-production (tiles
and pottery) clearly in evidence. In itself, that is not
significantly different from the rest of Britannia; what
we may, however, note in the present context is that
there is little if any evidence that being part of the Ro-
man Empire had any real impact on agrarian technol-
ogy and production in Wales.
For an area that could resist Roman military con-
quest, and which proved stony ground for cultural Ro-
manization, it is remarkable that Wales subsequently
proved to be a refuge of the sub-Roman, Romanized cul-
ture which survived the political collapse of the Roman
Empire in the West of the 5th century. The evidence of
coin- and pottery-sequences is that most Roman sites
in Wales ceased to see any Romanized cultural life by
or even before the last quarter of the 4th century, and
were probably abandoned; at the regional (civitas) capi-
tal of Caerwent in the far South-East of Wales, close
to the mouth of the River Severn, conversely, there is
fugitive archaeological evidence of continuity in the
5th century and beyond (Howell 2004). Otherwise, the
Early Middle Ages of the 5th to 11th centuries AD in
Wales are for the most part profoundly obscure, both
126
125–141
archaeologically and historically. Annalistic sources
are very sparse, and tell us of kings, deaths, battles
and the occasional plague; hagiographical sources are
few, fantastic and distorted (W. Davies 1982, 198–218).
From South-East Wales, the Book of Llandaff is a
12th-century manuscript which includes a collection
of charter documents that purport to be copies of orig-
inals, some of which derive from as early as the late
6th century. The authenticity and usability of this ma-
terial is, of course, intensely debated; retrospectively
from the 12th century at the very least it provides us
with a comprehensible and plausible, practical guide
to the landscape and its organisation; but in any event
the level of agrarian detail remains extremely small
(W. Davies 1978, 24–64; 1979).
The Early-medieval archaeological sites that we
know are dominated by high-status and ecclesiastical
centres—but even those are small and materially quite
humble in a comparative perspective. Not far from
the medieval settlement of Cosmeston in the Vale of
Glamorgan, and the Roman fort and modern city of
Cardiff, is the secular citadel of Dinas Powys: a small,
ramparted, promontory fort covering barely more than
1 hectare, where excavations have revealed evidence
for fine metalworking and the use of Mediterranean
red-slip tableware and Continental glass, and the con-
sumption of meat and fish, in the period of the 5th to
the 7th/8th centuries (Fig. 1; Alcock 1963; Campbell
2007, esp. 83–101; Seaman 2013). Close by is the site
of Llandough: the location of a Roman villa, and sub-
sequently recorded as an early medieval monastic cen-
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
tre, with the stump of a carved stone cross or pillar of
the 10th or 11th century, and an excavated cemetery of
the 6th–9th centuries containing more than 800 buri-
als, of adults of both sexes and of children (Owen-John
1988; Knight 2004; Holbrook – Thomas 2005; Redknap
– Lewis 2007, 329–337).
Apparently re-deposited as residual material in the
grave-fills at Llandough were amphora-sherds of the
same type as found at Dinas Powys. At the very least,
these sites represent a system of local central places
in this part of early medieval Wales: central places that
were connected to wider trading networks, undoubt-
edly via the nearby coast, and which have proved most
durable and detectable as ecclesiastical centres that
may be marked by stone sculpture or have simply re-
mained in use—as also at Llancarfan and Llantwit Ma-
jor in the Vale of Glamorgan (W. Davies 1982, 143–148).
Economically this was a system that could produce a
surplus and direct it to a centre of authority, where it
might be traded or invested in the local production of
valuable, fine artefacts: altogether, though, the mate-
rial culture which resulted seems to have been sparse
and vulnerable (Cross 2010). Very little survives. The
metalworking of this population was presumably high-
ly utilitarian, and objects were regularly recycled. No
local pottery was produced. The material culture was
highly organic, and land, animals and food constituted
wealth in local terms.
Between the 7th century and the 9th, however, there
was a major change in the external connections and
orientation of Wales, as the attenuated Late Antique
links down the Atlantic coast of the Continent and
into the Mediterranean disappear, influence from An-
glo-Saxon England increases, and in due course the
Vikings came to dominate the Irish and Celtic Seas.
In the second half of the 8th century, Offa’s Dyke ap-
pears to have defined a border between Wales and the
then-dominant Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia, and it
is likely that the unusually well-recorded Tidenham es-
tate, the south-western tip of Gloucestershire between
the Rivers Wye and Severn, was annexed from Welsh
control to Mercian royal possession at that time (Faith
1994; W. Davies 1978, 47; 1982, 34). Archaeological and
place-name evidence of Hiberno-Norse power and in-
fluence is particularly marked along the coastal zones
of North and South Wales—the seaways leading to the
ports of Chester in the north, and Gloucester, Bath and
Bristol in the south (Redknapp 2000). It is practically
inconceivable that this did not involve at least some
new Hiberno-Norse settlement within these areas, but
there is no evidence that that was on any substantial
scale, and discussion of the issues has unfortunately
been bedevilled by preoccupations with distinguishing
‘real Vikings’ from their part-Norse descendants long
domiciled in Britain and Ireland (Pierce 1984).
RURALIA X
125–141
The Norman Conquest of South-East Wales
and the Settlement of Cosmeston
We must admit, then, to a rather distressing level of
ignorance concerning the geography and organisation
of the agrarian landscape in South Wales down to the
11th century AD. A combination of dubiously reliable
historical sources, scattered archaeological insights,
and commonsensical expectations, allows us to form
a reasonable model of what sort of system and prac-
tices existed across the landscape—leaving practically
no detectable archaeological trace of their presence—
but this cannot be crystallised into reliable local detail.
What probably is inappropriate is to conceive of the
rural landscape as remaining in a simple, undevel-
oped, perhaps even underpopulated, state at the time
of what was a dramatic political change with the Nor-
man Conquest, which really took effect here from the
1090s. Nonetheless, the new political lords of the area
appear to have treated the land thus.
William the Conqueror, Duke William II of Normandy,
won the kingship of England by defeating his rival Har-
old Godwineson (King Harold II) in battle at Hastings
in 1066. William’s claim to this effectively elective king-
ship, however, was based on the promise of succession
allegedly made to him by Edward the Confessor (1042–
66) and confirmed by Harold himself; Edward had
grown up in exile in Normandy during the reigns of
Cnut, Harold I and Harthacnut (1016–42), and was first
cousin once removed to the younger, illegitimate, Wil-
liam. The kingship William won was the sole kingship
of England, itself the creation of the Kings of Wessex,
the only Anglo-Saxon dynasty to survive the Viking con-
quests of the 9th century, who extended their authority
over the whole of England in the 10th. During that peri-
od in the late 9th and 10th centuries the Kings of Wes-
sex and England generally enjoyed good if unequal rela-
tionships with Welsh rulers, many of whom, including
the distinguished Hywel Dda (ca. 910–50), recognised
their overlordship. William consequently presumed his
overlordship of the Welsh rulers. As early as 1067–71
his vice-regent, William fitz Osbern, Earl of Hereford,
raised the first castle at Chepstow on the Welsh side of
the River Wye (Bates 2006), and in 1081 William him-
self crossed South Wales to the see of St. David’s in a
display of power. Later chronicles credit William with
restoring the Roman fort at Cardiff as a castle at that
date, but that is generally believed to have happened in
earnest when, around ten years later, Robert fitz Hai-
mon, a major lord and landholder in Gloucestershire,
undertook a serious conquest and occupation of the
South Wales kingdom of Morgannwg (Glamorgan). The
exact, complex, story of baronial invasions of South
Wales from the Marches in the early years of the reign of
William II (William Rufus: 1087–1100) is irrecoverable,
127
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
but in 1093 the last powerful Welsh king in this region,
Rhys ap Tewdwr, fell in battle, and Robert fitz Haimon
was free to establish and organise the Lordship of Car-
diff and Glamorgan (R. R. Davies 1987, 24–36, 82–100;
Rees 1932; Beverley Smith 1958; Williams 1993; Crouch
2006).
This process certainly involved what John Bever-
ley Smith, in 1958, called the ‘manorialisation’ of the
most favourable agricultural land in the substantial
coastal zone of the Vale of Glamorgan (Beverley Smith
1958, 15). The land was parcelled into knights’ fees:
land-holdings that should support a seigneur, who in
turn was obliged to do military service for his lord, the
Lord of Cardiff and Glamorgan. Apart from the obvi-
ous need to conform to the geographical character
and topographical constraints of the area, what we are
unable to gauge at present is to what extent this new
system of boundaries and the local centres or manors
they were likely to give rise to preserved and continued
pre-Conquest arrangements. One such site, however,
is Cosmeston, at the eastern end of the Vale of Glam-
organ, and here archaeological work has the potential
to shed greater light on this question, and indeed on
the longer-term history of settlement and use of the
site, both before and after its period of distinction as a
high medieval manorial centre. Despite the distinct ge-
ography and history of Wales, some medieval archae-
ologists have viewed the region of South Glamorgan in
particular as essentially similar to English areas such
as Northamptonshire and Leicestershire (Rippon 1997,
162–165; 2008, 201–249). Consequently, the fertile
Vale of Glamorgan has been regarded as an outlier of
128
125–141
the ‘champion’ land of the East Midlands and research
on rural settlement in South Wales has, as a result,
been focused on the dispersed–nucleated dichotomy
and related debates: manorialisation was undoubtedly
more prominent in this area after the Norman Con-
quest than in the uplands or the south-western low-
lands of Wales (Thomas – Dowdell 1987; Kissock 1991).
While the parcelling up and granting of land to the
king’s or other barons’ supporters is comparable with
that seen in England, the expression of this process,
as identified by the material culture and emerging
settlement structures, and the indicators of this eco-
nomic, social and political hierarchical structure, are
regionally distinct. The scale of nucleation identified in
the east Midlands is not paralleled in South Glamor-
gan and, despite the founding of manorial sites with
associated settlements, there is still a high proportion
of dispersed farmsteads or homesteads, evidenced
even within the land of the manor of Cosmeston by
concentrated pottery scatters and rubble, surviving
within and clearly part of the manorial estates (Fig. 2).
Cosmeston is first recorded as a place-name in the
1260s. A document of 1262 known as the Extent of
Glamorgan recorded the knights’ fees of the lordship
on the death of the incumbent Richard de Clare (Clark
– Clark eds 1910, no. DCXV). This states that the heir
(heres) of Gilbertus de Costantin holds 1 fee in Cos-
tantinestun worth £10, together with one-third of a
fee at Llanmaes, also in the Vale of Glamorgan, worth
100 shillings (£5). Valuations of £10 or £15 for individ-
ual fees are quite regular in this document. That may be
the same Gilbertus de Costantino who gave pastureland
Fig. 2. The distribution of finds in the
Sully area according to Historic Envi-
ronment Record data.
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
in the salt marshes of Leckwith Moors between the Riv-
ers Ely and Taff—close by, but not contiguous by land
with Cosmeston—to Saint Augustine’s Abbey in Bris-
tol in exchange for a house and curtilage (messuage)
in that port (Clark – Clark eds 1910, no. CCXXXVI).
Nearly a century earlier, the Liber Niger of 1166 also
listed the knights’ fees held under William Marshal,
Earl of Gloucester and Lord of Glamorgan (1147–83),
and this too includes a Robert de Constantine who
held one knight’s fee (Paterson 1934, 22). Around 1151
an earlier Gilbertus de Constantino had witnessed a
charter in favour of Margam Abbey, Glamorgan (Clark
– Clark eds 1910, no. CXXXI). Later records of the
place-name show it to have taken various forms: one
reducing via forms like Costyneston, Costenton in the
13th and 14th centuries to Coston by the 16th, and
the other the form Cosmestone, first recorded in 1320,
which gives the modern form of the name. Possible
origins of the base form Costantine have been much
discussed (Pierce 1968, 43–47). An attractive theory is
that it asserts, or reflects, some connection with the
Cotentin area on the Normandy-Brittany border. The
principal castle and landholding of Robert fitz Haimon
in Normandy was at Torigny on the fringe of the Co-
tentin, and tantalisingly the nominal suffix de Con-
stantino also occurs in Norman documents of the 11th
and 12th centuries for the vicomtes of this region, be-
ginning with Nigel I and Nigel II in the 11th century.
Nigel II was closely associated with Hamo dentatus,
the grandfather of Robert fitz Haimon, as a leader of a
failed revolt against the young Duke William II in 1047
(Bates 1982, 73–76, 174–177). However, we have no ev-
idence to press the case for any specific individual’s or
family’s association with the initial granting of the fee
at Cosmeston further than this.
The late 13th and early 14th centuries saw intense
power struggles and changes, both in Wales and be-
tween the English kings and leading nobles. During the
reign of Henry III (1216–72), a Welsh prince, Llywelyn
ap Gruffudd of Gwynedd in the north-west, came very
close indeed to establishing Wales as an independent,
unified principality: a nation-state in waiting. At war
with Henry III’s successor, Edward I, he was killed in
December 1282. Edward remained in Wales for most
of the following two years and in 1284 issued the Stat-
ute of Rhuddlan, promulgating a new system of direct
governance of Wales by the King of England. The con-
struction of the famous Edwardian castles of Wales
was an element in this policy. The de Clare family was
the most powerful in South-East Wales, and provided
the Lords of Cardiff and Glamorgan from 1218 to 1314,
when Gilbert de Clare fell at the Battle of Bannock-
burn. Through his sister, the Lordship then passed to
the ruthless and unscrupulous Hugh le Despenser,
a powerful if sinister friend and ally of Edward II. At
RURALIA X
125–141
this time the control of the Cosmeston fee by the de
Constentin family comes to an end. In the inquisitiones
post mortem of Joan de Clare (1307) and Gilbert de
Clare (1314), Thomas Costyn was still holding the man-
or, as a ‘free tenant’ in the former case, and with the re-
version—i.e. the right to succeed—specifically noted to
belong to the Lord in the latter, suggesting that Thomas
had no heir with a right to inherit. By 1317, the writ de-
livering the estate to Hugh le Despenser described the
manor as held by William de Caversham for his life.
William de Caversham—presumably the same man—is
recorded in 1297 as holding the post of treasurer of
Cardiff and in 1320 as steward of the royal lands in
the Gower. There must be more information to collect
on William de Caversham and his background, but
the evidence suggests a well-connected individual who
undertook important services for the truly great and
powerful. Henceforward, the documentary trail shows
Cosmeston as the tenanted property of the successive
Lords of Cardiff: the Despensers, the Beauchamps, the
Tudors, and the Herberts (Paterson 1934).
The range of documents and maps from the 16th
century to the present showing what happened at Cos-
meston is unusually substantial, although of course
far from complete. The earliest Ordnance Survey maps
of the 19th-century show what we now know to be the
manor site as Cosmeston Castle: traces at least, if not
visible ruins, of a known and remembered set of build-
ings. Otherwise the site survived as a small group of
farms, including Upper and Lower Cosmeston, and a
handful of cottages. The parish church appears always
to have been at Lavernock Point, a coastal promontory
1 km south-east of the manor site: this church is now
redundant and the parish has been merged with Pe-
narth.
The Penarth Group is a geologically famous set
of mudstone, limestone and sandstone strata: the
lime is close to the surface and very easily quarried.
Lime-burning is evidenced in the area by the sites of
kilns, and the products were being traded across the
Bristol Channel to Somerset and North Devon in the
Early Modern Period. In the 19th century, with the mas-
sive expansion of Cardiff and Barry as ports, industri-
al cement production began at Cosmeston, where from
1918 to 1969 a major cement works was fed by deep
quarries. After these works closed, the flooded quar-
ries and the land around them were transferred into
Cosmeston Lakes and Country Park, reconstituted for
outdoor recreation and as a wildlife haven. After sev-
eral years of discussions and some exploratory exca-
vations, in the years 1983–88 the Glamorgan-Gwent
Archaeological Trust (GGAT), succeeded by Wessex
Archaeology, undertook excavations in what was per-
ceived as the ‘deserted medieval village’ of Cosmes-
ton, with the aim of uncovering buildings that could
129
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
be reconstructed, as a heritage tourist attraction and
perhaps an experimental archaeology centre. The par-
tially reconstructed Cosmeston Medieval Village was
fully opened to the public in 1992. In 2012, the Vale
of Glamorgan Council sought savings by substantially
reducing the staffing and removing the farm animals
from this site. It is, however, still open to visitors with
costumed guides available at certain times.
Interim reports of the GGAT excavations were pub-
lished (Parkhouse 1983; 1984; 1985; Coles et al. 1986;
Coles 1987; 1988). In 2006–07, the Department of Ar-
chaeology of Cardiff University was able to devise and
launch a programme combining community archae-
ology with research objectives, to try to develop local
interest and involvement in the site, and to retrieve,
study, understand and publish the results of the ear-
lier work. This led to four 4-week seasons of excava-
tion (2008–11) by university students along with local
volunteers, to gain a fuller understanding of the site,
not only enabling us to interpret the records of the ex-
cavations of up to thirty years ago, but also to focus on
the relationship between the cottages and tofts initially
excavated and the manor house, which we now regard
as key to understanding the site fully. Some of the re-
sults are discussed in more detail below.
At heart, our research objectives can be summa-
rised as to understand the dynamic interactions and
relationships between the components of the settle-
ment structure which Cosmeston represents, both
within and around the site itself, and across time in
a long-term perspective. Unusually for this area, the
name Cosmeston is an English place-name with no
Welsh form or counterpart. This name is also directly
associable with the Norman manorial settlement—does
that, then, encapsulate the essential origins of the set-
tlement? The etymology of nearby Lavernock (Welsh
Larnog) is thoroughly obscure (Pierce 1968, 39–43). Es-
pecially if the manorial settlement represents de novo
colonisation, why are it and the church unexpectedly
separated in this way? This is quite different to the
adjacent manor farms and parish churches at nearby
Sully and Old Cogan. Could the ecclesiastical founda-
tion at Lavernock Point be more ancient? Cosmeston
lies on the practical routeway between natural landing
places on the Bristol Channel, at St Mary’s Well Bay
and at Lavernock itself, and Llandough, the site of the
Roman villa and Early-medieval monastery. Residual
Roman pottery has been found at Cosmeston, and an
early 7th-century Byzantine bronze coin; there is a
record of a small hoard of Late-Roman and one Byz-
antine coins being found at Lavernock Church in the
19th century, regrettably now lost (Tilney 1988, 108–
109). Prima facie, then, it would appear that it might be
an existing, and wider, settled landscape that explains
why the ostensibly new manor and associated settle-
130
125–141
ment of Cosmeston was located where it is. Another
question is, then, how far the links between Cosmes-
ton and other sites – including the medieval borough
of Cardiff – and its coastal position affected the materi-
al character of the site, and how these factors affected
the development of an agrarian settlement whose sin-
gle raison d’etre was originally to generate sufficient
surplus to enable the knights who held the fee to ren-
der their feudal military service to their lord. Compara-
tively, we then wish to see what combination of factors
revealed both by archaeology and history explains the
contrastive fortunes of the different holdings created
in the Vale of Glamorgan: whether, for instance, the de
Sullys at neighbouring Sully enjoyed some essential
advantage from the start, or their greater success was
due entirely to contingency and good fortune.
Cosmeston: The Archaeological Evidence
Cosmeston is archaeologically one of the better un-
derstood manorial sites in South Glamorgan. This is
due to the scale of fieldwork (excavation, geophysical
survey and topographic survey) and the preservation
of the buildings and finds. Very little modern distur-
bance means that there is a good stratigraphic se-
quence, in which clear phases of building and aban-
donment from the 12th century to the modern day
have been identified.
The principal area of the site where the Cardiff
University Cosmeston (Community) Archaeology Pro-
ject has conducted excavations is that labelled on the
earliest Ordnance Survey maps as Cosmeston Castle.
While the term ‘castle’ may seem incongruous to us,
its use might convey something of the importance of
the site in the medieval period. ‘Castle’ has also been
applied to a similar manorial site, Wrinstone, also in
the eastern Vale, near Dinas Powys—the reference to a
castle here is from Leland’s 16th-century tour of Glam-
organ (Vyner – Wrathmell 1978, 23). These authors
consider the site as a fortified manor house rather
than a castle in the modern sense. Both at Cosmeston
and Wrinstone, the label ‘castle’ appears to indicate a
manorial estate with a knight or lord at the centre of
an administrative settlement controlling the land, pro-
duce and people from a central hall or manor house
(Paterson 1932). This local taxonomy has prompted
one of the research topics: the components of the set-
tlement structure. Identifying the precise nature of the
main manorial building is primary to this.
In order to identify and to begin to understand the
nature of the high-status manorial area of the site, it
is necessary to compare the archaeological evidence
with other contemporary sites. The Royal Commis-
sion for Historic Monuments in Wales has categorised
and gazetteered all the known medieval monuments in
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
South Glamorgan. There are two forms of medieval set-
tlement identified by the Royal Commission of particu-
lar interest here. The earlier of the two, the ‘ringwork’,
is a defended site, typically with housing surrounded
by a bank and ditch. The best excavated example, Llan-
trithyd, in the Vale of Glamorgan (Charlton et al. 1977),
produced a large assemblage of medieval pottery, some
of the earliest post-Conquest ceramic material found in
this area (Campbell – Papazian 1992). Although Llan-
trithyd had a short period of occupation, other sites
such as Rumney and Ogmore developed from ring-
works into more substantial stone-built sites in the late
12th or early 13th century (RCAHMW 1991, 217–218).
It is conceivable that Cosmeston, historically attested
by the mid-12th century (see above), was founded as a
ringwork, but no secure evidence supporting this hy-
pothesis has yet been found. The excavations of 2008
explored a feature which might plausibly have been
such a ditch, or moat, but could only identify the use
of the short section opened up as a cobbled holloway.
The other form of settlement that could be the type
for this site is the ‘early masonry castle’, examples of
which are known at Dinas Powys and Sully. These sites
generally comprise a number of structural elements:
a gatehouse, perimeter wall, and ‘keep’, and internal
RURALIA X
125–141
Fig. 3. Cosmeston: the Dovecot and
Events Fields, showing trenches
excavated by the Cardiff University
Cosmeston Archaeology Project,
2008–2011.
buildings such as a hall and domestic kitchens. In ad-
dition to the core manorial complex, there is an associ-
ated settlement beyond the external wall, the economic
engine of the manorial estate. Excavations at Cosmes-
ton have identified details suggesting that the manorial
complex fits quite well into this category. Analysis of
the site within this framework thus allows comparative
interpretation with sites such as Sully (Dowdell 1990;
RCAHMW 1991, 343–347) and Dinas Powys (RCAHMW
1991, 307–314) as well as Rumney (Lightfoot 1992), all
of which are notably similar to Cosmeston in certain
respects.
In order better to understand the founding of Cos-
meston and its subsequent economic and social role,
excavations targeted the ‘Castle’ area. Evaluation
trenches in 2009 provided a general idea of the poten-
tial of the archaeology to be found in the Events Field
(Fig. 3, TR1–2). This was followed by two open-area
excavations (2010–11) designed to explore and de-
velop understanding of the features first identified in
the evaluation trenches. As well as the 2009 evalua-
tion trenches, work conducted by GGAT in 1987 had
examined this area, and the excavation of 2011 (TR6)
included part of the GGAT Castle Evaluation trench.
The results of these excavations have improved under-
131
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
standing of Cosmeston as a manorial site but, as with
most archaeological work, there are still many unan-
swered questions.
Two particular areas of the site are selected for dis-
cussion here, providing comparative evidence for the
styles of living and working in both the manor and
the associated settlement in the 12th–14th centuries.
These areas are the central manorial building, and an
area which was excavated during the 1980s scheme of
work which includes a bakehouse, a barn and possible
dairy. These two areas of the site provide us with com-
plementary perspectives on production and consump-
tion in medieval South Glamorgan.
The Manor
The 2009 evaluation trenches revealed the large,
well-built foundation wall of a structure which the
2010 excavation was consequently designed to inves-
tigate further; this revealed the corner of a large build-
ing. The walls are 2m and 1.8m wide, large enough to
be load-bearing, far more substantial than any of the
other structures excavated at Cosmeston and more
similar in size to the medieval manorial ‘keeps’ at Rum-
ney, Dinas Powys and Sully (RCAHMW 1991, 296–303,
307–314, 343–347; cf. Lightfoot 1992, 109–111). De-
Fig 4. The outline of Trench 5 (2010) and the principal manorial building walls, a later additional wall, and internal pitched and flagged stone sur-
faces.
132
125–141
spite the size of the trench excavated in 2010, meas-
uring 10m square, neither the full extent of the struc-
ture nor the complete length of either of the walls was
uncovered; this was evidently a substantial building.
As well as these solid external walls, an internal medi-
eval clay floor surface and hearth, which have provided
key ceramic dating evidence for the building, were ex-
cavated. These features had been partially revealed in
2009 but due to the small size of the area excavated
then, what proved to be a pitched stone floor was then
thought only to be a deposit of rubble. This floor was
constructed of rough pitched limestone, filled in with
what appears to be beach sand and further overlain
by a clay layer, which is what remains of an earth floor
after leaching through the effects of rainwater. Internal
dividing walls were also identified but these had mostly
been removed, with only their ghosts remaining. Laid
on the clay floor surface was a series of flagstones in-
terpreted as a hearth. These were overlain by an ashy
charcoal layer, full of broken sherds of medieval pot-
tery. Samples taken from this layer have provided large
amounts of grain and fish bones.
The 2011 trench sought to investigate possible fur-
ther manorial buildings, as a later wall, abutting the
western wall of the main manorial building, had been
identified in 2010 (Fig. 4). The floor plan of a rectangu-
lar building quite likely related in some way to the later
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
Fig 5. Rectangular and circular buildings uncovered in a GGAT exploratory trench of 1986 excavation and Cosmeston Archaeology Project Trench
6 (2011).
additional wall abutting the manor house was then un-
covered: the walls of this later building are not as sub-
stantial or as well built as those of the manorial build-
ing, and they were clay-bonded rather than mortared.
As far as it has been excavated, the western wall of this
later building has been completely robbed of its stone;
in the northern and eastern walls, however, the foun-
dations and some of the first few courses remain. The
internal floor layers of the building are also represent-
ed by layers of clay, laid directly on top of the bedrock,
with a drain running across the width of the southern
end of the building, very different to the pitched stone
floor in the large manorial building. A later addition-
al wall was built at the northern end of the building,
either creating a narrow passageway or reducing the
building in size. This is comparable with the chronol-
ogy and development of the manorial complex at Sully
where the ‘keep’ was extended in the 13th century with
additional structures abutting the eastern part of the
building (Dowdell 1990, 317). Additional building and
the development of the manorial complex appears to
be a feature of both these excavated examples. Spatial
development of the manorial complex in the 13th and
early 14th centuries reflects the economic success of
RURALIA X
125–141
this period, with flourishing trade and the develop-
ment of the medieval proto-market economy.
A second structure, found in the north-east corner
of the 2011 trench, is very distinctive, with a circular
stone foundation and clay internal floor. This struc-
ture was initially identified in a GGAT 1987 evaluation
trench but the purpose of the work at that time was
purely exploratory, and features such as this were only
dug down to rather than into. Although we know the
diameter of the circular building, it is not entirely clear
what its function was. There are two possible interpre-
tations: either an oven or a dovecot. A later dovecot was
excavated in the adjacent field, 150 m from the mano-
rial complex (Fig. 5), and even with that for compari-
son, it is difficult to tell from the small area excavated
in 2011 whether this structure is a dovecot. No props
or niches within the walls of the structure were identi-
fied, but the height of the remaining masonry is not
sufficient for these features to appear. The robbed out
walls of the dovecot excavated at West Cotton, Raunds,
could be identified as such because of the quantity of
pigeon bones found surrounding and in the remain-
ing floor surface of the structure (Chapman 2010,
104–105). The only bird bones which were present in
133
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
Fig. 6. A corn dryer and bakehouse excavated at Cosmeston (Property
4).
the layer overlying this structure at Cosmeston were
domestic fowl (pers. comm., Dr Julia Best).
The alternative possibility is that the structure is
a bakehouse. In 1984, GGAT excavated a substantial
bakehouse with opposing malting and baking ovens,
situated in the main area of the associated settlement
(Fig. 6). This bakehouse was probably not only the
central bakehouse for the manorial centre but would
also have served other households living away from
the core of the settlement but on manorial land. There
are few known malting kilns in South Glamorgan: ex-
cavations at Barry uncovered a rectangular corn-dry-
ing kiln (Thomas – Dowdell 1987, 112-114) and work
at Highlight near Barry also uncovered the remains
of a stone corn-drying kiln (Thomas – Davies 1965).
The supply of grain was usually tightly controlled and
a central bakehouse, run from the manor, could have
served a large community. In his study of the Welsh
Laws, Butler (1987, 53–54) especially emphasises the
importance of a ‘kiln’ (Welsh odyn) as a necessary fea-
ture of all permanent settlements of all ranks of soci-
ety. In this light it is not surprising that a kiln at Cos-
meston should be such a large structure, nor would
134
125–141
it be surprising if an early ‘kiln’ had been positioned
near to the main manorial building. Structurally, the
malthouses at West Cotton, Raunds, are typically ei-
ther rounded or square while bakehouses generally
appear, like a later example at Cosmeston (below), to be
squared (Chapman 2010, 172–175) and may be incor-
porated within a larger rectangular structure whose
function is clearly associated with the preparation and
processing of grain. As yet, it remains unconfirmed
whether the round structure at Cosmeston is either a
dovecot or an oven and full excavation of this area is
the only way to answer this important question.
The manor excavations have produced a range of
finds. The ceramic assemblage totals approximately
6,500 sherds of which the vast majority are from me-
dieval vessels. There is also a particularly important
group of 16th- and 17th-century ceramics deposited in
rubbish pits dug into the levelled area where the ma-
norial buildings once stood, as well as a midden built
up on the sloping edge of the Sully Brook, explored at
the northern end of 2009 TR1. The refuse comes from
the post-medieval settlement which developed close to
the core of the medieval settlement area, as, by the late
15th century at the latest, the manor house had been
demolished and the land levelled.
The ceramic record is not surprisingly but informa-
tively comparable with assemblages from Sully and
Rumney with regards to the range of fabrics and forms
represented. The vessel which is of most interest is the
ram’s head aquamanile from Cosmeston which can
also be paralleled by vessels from Rumney (Vyner 1992,
153), and now Cardiff Castle. As well as this distinctive
vessel, which was made in the local Vale Fabric (Price
– Newman 1985; Forward 2013), the assemblages are
generally similar in having a high proportion of locally
made vessels and some imports from the Cotswolds,
Bristol, and the Saintonge region of France. The ce-
ramics from the manorial area of the site reflect the
nature of the high-status building, representing the
home of the seigneur. The similarities between the ce-
ramic assemblages of Rumney, Sully and Cosmeston
in particular can be seen to embody the shared char-
acter of these manorial households during the late
12th to 14th centuries in South Glamorgan.
The metal finds from Cosmeston are also indicative
of the character of household we have in this part of
the site. In 2011, a medieval iron arrowhead, typologi-
cally associated with hunting (Jessop 1996) was found,
as well as knives, snips, buckles, a copper needle and
a shale bead. A perforated Nuremberg jetton of Hans
Krauwinckel II, dated 1585–1635 was retrieved from
the base of a robber pit; this is particularly useful to
the chronological sequencing of stone-robbing in this
area. It is clear that by the 16th century the manorial
complex was no longer standing in this area but that
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
those living in the settlement knew where the building
had once stood. Bone and stone artefacts are also an
important part of the assemblage with a bone spatula,
a bone gaming counter and what have been identified
as pebble gaming pieces and a slate playing board
found over the three seasons of excavation. A particu-
larly fine copper-alloy strap-end with evidence of gilding
and enamelling (identified during conservation work)
along with a copper-alloy leg likely to be from a cooking
vessel, a pin and a thimble, a lead spindle-whorl and
iron buckles, were all found in the 2010 trench (TR5).
These finds are typically domestic, reflecting a range of
activities, including sewing and cooking, and the per-
sonal items represent those working and living at the
manor house from the late 12th to the 14th century.
The work over the last three years has produced evi-
dence for a clear division of space within the whole set-
tlement at Cosmeston. The manor stands a little away
from the main buildings to the east where the major-
ity of the residents of the manorial estate worked and
lived. The manorial sites of Sully, Rumney and Dinas
Powys are more distinctly separated from the associ-
ated settlement, not just by an outer wall but also by
distance. So far there is no archaeological evidence for
a similar wall at Cosmeston and it is unclear whether
there was any physical barrier such as a ditch sepa-
rating the two areas. The land between the two areas
does appear to have had a road dividing the two areas
of the settlement. While this separates the two settle-
ment zones, roads are also connecting features, very
different from physical boundaries which prevent ac-
cess and movement between areas. Despite the lack of
a formal boundary, spatial distinction is reflected in
the types of buildings and also the material found in
association with these structures. The material wealth
is distinctly of a higher status in the manorial build-
ings and the living quarters, unlike the evidence from
the main settlement, where the finds are associated
with farming and food-production and dominate the
domestic arrangements. The ceramic material in par-
ticular supports this division with high-status vessels
such as the aquamanile, imported Saintonge Ware and
vessels from Bristol all found in the area of the manor
house.
A Barn and Possible Dairy
It is clear that functionally and socially the manor
and the settlement had quite distinct roles within the
organisation of the estate. Whilst the manorial build-
ings were an administrative centre as well as the house
of the seigneur, the associated settlement was where
those who lived and worked to support the manorial
estate and its role within the regional economic system
were situated.
RURALIA X
125–141
This area of the settlement was initially excavated
over a period of four years from 1983 to 1987 by GGAT,
and the buildings have been reconstructed directly on
the floor plans revealed during this work (Fig. 7). The
excavated area has a principal road running east-west
through the settlement along which Properties 3 and 4
were built. The manorial bakehouse and malting house
is a dominant feature within this area of the site. On
the northern side of the road, the buildings are stepped
back, with long ditches, running north-south, defining
properties as well as acting as a drainage system in an
area susceptible to flooding, being low-lying and sus-
ceptible to run-off from the higher land to the South in
particular. A cluster of three buildings, Property 3, will
be focused on here (Fig. 8); these were interpreted and
have been reconstructed as a contemporary barn, byre
and cottage. It is clear from the archaeological record
that the interpretations of the function of this group of
buildings can be developed further as this is clearly a
distinct and specialised activity area.
Property 3 fronts on to the main east-west road run-
ning through the settlement, the Penarth to Sully lane.
The property is separated to the west by a bank and
ditch from the neighbouring plot, Property 4, the bake-
house and associated domestic buildings, and sur-
rounded by farmyard surfaces. The largest building
(C) within this cluster had been identified as a barn.
The building fronts directly on to the main street with
an enclosed yard area to the rear and cobbled surfac-
es at either end. Internally, the floor is made of clay
with a drain running a large proportion of the width
of the building in the western third. It has been sug-
gested that there would have been opposing doorways
in the northern and southern walls, although due
to heavy stone robbing in the southern wall it is not
entirely clear where that would have been. The inter-
nal drain would suggest that this building had been
a place to keep livestock. Despite the absence of any
features which could be interpreted as hearths within
the structure, and therefore direct evidence for domes-
tic activity, it is more than likely that the building was
not just a barn. In addition, the presence of a possible
dairy (see below) or kitchen directly adjoining the barn
could further support an interpretation as a domestic
structure rather than simply a barn. The clustering of
buildings at Cosmeston, and in particular the build-
ings in Property 3 strongly indicate that the buildings
formed distinct spaces and defined functional areas.
To the rear of the barn is a yard, one half of which
was paved and the other half left as a clay or earth sur-
face. The paved area of the barn has drains running
from Building B and across the width of the area: obvi-
ously a feature planned before the laying of the floor
(Fig. 8). The activities associated with this area must
have required water or other liquids to be channelled
135
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
Fig. 7. The area excavated and property-units identified by the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust in the 1980s for the planned reconstruction
of buildings.
away. This is unlikely to be associated with the level of
the water table and is probably the result of working
with livestock.
Building B has been reconstructed as a byre and
also directly relates to the yard area. As mentioned
above, one of the drains within the paved also appears
to be associated with this structure with a hole in the
eastern wall to drain out of the building. The byre is
particularly small and has distinct internal features.
A stone plinth is located in the north-east corner and
the edge of this appears to follow the line of the drain
in the paved yard. The plinth was interpreted as the
base of a staircase by the excavators in the 1980s, al-
though it does not have a lower step as seen at other
sites such as in medieval tenement A at West Cotton,
Raunds (Chapman 2010, 209–210). The plinth has
a small niche built into it next to the wall and here
a large amount of ash and burning was apparent. A
post-hole situated in the centre of the room also in-
dicates there to be other internal structural features:
possibly a dividing panel, or if the plinth was the foot-
136
125–141
ing for a staircase, the post could have been part of the
support for a loft. One possible interpretation of the
function of this building is as a dairy, evidenced by the
large area of burning within the building and the ce-
ramic assemblage associated with the building and the
enclosed yard. Warming milk was essential to make
cheese and there are particular vessels generally asso-
ciated with dairying (Moorhouse 1987, 172; Sell 1984):
incurved dishes and jugs with heavily sooted bases,
both of which are found in layers associated with this
smaller building, the yard and the barn. It has been
suggested that incurved dishes would have been used
for the production of cheese. Some dishes have holes
in the base where excess water could drain away dur-
ing the production of the cheese. The number of in-
curved dishes in higher in the ceramic assemblage
from this particular area is higher than from other ar-
eas of the site. A number of curfews were also found in
this area, ceramic objects associated with controlling
and keeping fires. This material is usually associated
with a specific activity, in this case dairying. It is an
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change 125–141

Fig 8. The buildings of Property 3 and their suggested interpretations.

RURALIA X 137
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
important functional indicator and one which is not
always recognised or identified. Spatially, the division
of space for a dairy in this property and a bakery for
the neighbouring plot supports the work of Jean le Pa-
tourel showing that manors were divided into separate
functional areas (e.g. le Patourel 1978).
Building A has the clearest evidence for domestic ac-
tivity within this complex. There are two main phases
associated with this structure. The earliest internal
arrangement for the building includes a clay floor, on
which there was evidence for a hearth. Very little mate-
rial was recovered from the floor layer other than a few
sherds of medieval pottery and the lack of finds sup-
ports the interpretation as a domestic structure. The
second phase of the building sees a change in function
and layout, with an internal wall added overlying the
medieval clay floor. The doorway and entrance were re-
paved and a new threshold overlying the earlier worn
stone added. It is of note that the earlier threshold was
particularly worn but that the later threshold did not
seem to have had the same level of use, possibly testi-
fying to a shorter period of use as a store before being
levelled in the late Middle Ages. This later phase is dis-
tinctly different, with a clear division of space, chang-
ing the functional emphasis of the building. There is
also a greater amount of rubbish, more pottery and,
unlike the earliest clay floor, also animal bone and a
couple of nails. It is quite possible that the building
was used as a store or even an animal shed during this
later phase.
The comparative analysis of the two buildings com-
plexes and their associated areas clearly illustrates a
spatial divide in terms of both social status and eco-
nomic function. This is hardly astonishing, but Cos-
meston has a particularly interesting delineation of
functional space with specific activity areas physically
divided from one another by banks and ditches. It is
only through excavation that the identification of these
activity areas and particular economic zones can be
identified. Sites such as Wrinstone, although well re-
searched through documentary sources and earth-
work survey (Vyner – Wrathmell 1978), have been ana-
lysed archaeologically on conjectural rather than firm
material or structural evidence. The lack of archaeo-
logical investigation leads to limitations with regards
to the scale of interpretation possible, particularly in
respect of the functional roles of buildings and the
intra-site spatial relationships. This is Butler’s main
problem when attempting to marry the Welsh Laws
with the archaeological evidence (Butler 1987, 56). The
research being carried out at Cosmeston has begun to
shed light on this issue and is unique as a result of
the large-scale excavation work. This wealth of poten-
tial information illustrates the importance of further
research and investigation for sites in this region.
138
125–141
Conclusions
The results of archaeological fieldwork at Cosmes-
ton to date, from which we have presented a carefully
selected sample, significantly illuminate the site and
enhance our understanding of it. In certain respects,
the results are a little unexpected: for instance, the
apparent architectural complexity and quality of the
manor buildings themselves in the period to the begin-
ning of the 14th century when the original seigneurial
family was continuing to occupy them, and the refined
lifestyle reflected by the locally produced aquamanile.
Not that this is in any sense unparalleled: it simply
moves Cosmeston to a different place within a famil-
iar hierarchy of sites and material well-being to that
which we could previously have suspected it belonged
in light of the eclipse of its seigneurial family. Equally
informative for on the site is the evidence of phases
of redevelopment and multi-functionality within both
the manorial area and the appurtenant ‘peasant’ set-
tlement adumbrated above, together with the network
of material connections represented above all by the
ceramic finds. Comparative analysis of pottery from
the nearby borough of Cardiff and contemporary ru-
ral and urban sites in South Glamorgan should shed
further light on the actual distributional patterns in-
volved, although such analysis appears at present to
be equally if not more directly interpretable in terms
of functional and social differences between the sites
(Forward 2013).
The question of what happened to the site in the
14th century and beyond is a pressing one, and one
which will be answered not only by careful analysis
of evidence of occupation and new building in some
areas of the site but in equal measure by no less me-
ticulous analysis of the process and rate of demoli-
tion, robbing and waste-disposal over and around the
manor complex of Cosmeston Castle. Again, in this
respect, the conventional, schematic narrative of the
deserted (or ‘shrunken’) medieval village produced by
the 14th-century crisis, and in particular the ravages
of the Black Death, appears to fit the evidence at Cos-
meston to some extent but to be inadequate in other
respects. At Cosmeston, the political context at the
highest level and its social consequences amongst the
elite appear at present much more directly relevant to
the fate of the manor than any detectable demographic
or economic crisis—a situation interestingly paralleled
at Rumney Castle, a similar distance from the town to
the east of Cardiff (Lightfoot 1992). The 15th-century
historical records do not point to any catastrophic fall
in the productive value of Cosmeston; a little 15th-cen-
tury pottery has been identified from the site, and the
ceramic material and coin-list of the 16th century are
really quite rich. One area where there is evidence of
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
activity, suggesting that there was occupation close by,
if not in that building, is the farmhouse opposite Prop-
erty 3, on the north side of the lane (like the manor),
but we do not yet know where other households were
resident at or around Cosmeston then. In our reflec-
tions on hierarchy in rural settlement, we should note
that here it is the tenant farmers and agricultural la-
bourers of the Early Modern Period that either are—or
have been allowed to become—archaeologically least
visible of all.
Summary
This paper introduces the part-excavated site of
Cosmeston in the Vale of Glamorgan and discusses
social and economic relations at a manorial site in
South Wales. It assesses the apparently transforma-
tive impact of the Norman Conquest of the region, and
how that has affected the expectations of both archae-
ologists and historians, particularly in relation to the
12th to 14th centuries. We examine the representation
of manorialism and lordship at this site in spatial and
economic terms.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag stellt die teilweise ausgegrabene Wüs-
tung von Cosmeston in Vale of Glamorgan vor, und
diskutiert die sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Bezie-
hungen innerhalb und um ein Herrenhaus im südli-
chen Wales. Er beurteilt die scheinbar transformative
Wirkung der normannischen Eroberung der Region,
und wie die Erwartungen von Archäologen und Histo-
rikern als Ergebnis infolgedessen beeinflußt werden,
vor allem in Bezug auf das 12. bis 14. Jahrhundert.
Wir untersuchen die Repräsentation der Grundherr-
schaft an diesem Platze in räumlicher und wirtschaft-
licher Hinsicht.
Résumé
Cette étude présente le site partiellement fouillé de
Cosmeston dans le Vale de Glamorgan et discute des
relations socio-économiques d’un site seigneurial
en Galles du Sud. Elle évalue l’impact apparemment
transformateur de la conquête normande de la région,
et comment cela a influencé le point de vue des archéo-
logues et aussi des historiens, notamment concernant
la période du 12e au 14e siècle. Nous examinons la
représentation de la seigneurie sur ce site en termes
spatiaux et économiques.
RURALIA X
125–141
Bibliography
Alcock, L. 1963:
Dinas Powys: An Iron Age, Dark Age and Early Medieval Set-
tlement in Glamorgan (University of Wales Press: Cardiff).
Bates, D. 1982:
Normany Before 1066 (Longman: Harlow).
Bates, D. 2006:
William the Conqueror, William fitz Osbern and Chepstow
Castle, in: R. Turner – A. Johnson (eds), Chepstow Castle: Its
History and Buildings (Logaston: Logaston Press), 15–22.
Beverley Smith, J. 1958:
The lordship of Glamorgan, Morgannwg 2, 9–37.
Butler, L. A. S. 1987:
Domestic building in Wales and the evidence of the Welsh
Laws, Medieval Archaeology 31, 47–58.
Campbell, E. 2007:
Continental and Mediterranean Imports to Atlantic Britain
and Ireland, AD 400–800. CBA Research Report 157 (Council
for British Archaeology: York).
Campbell, E. – Papazian, C. 1992:
The survey of medieval pottery and rooftile in Wales AD
1100–1600, Medieval and Later Pottery in Wales 13, 1–107.
Chapman, A. 2010:
West Cotton, Raunds: A Study of Medieval Settlement Dynam-
ics AD 450–1450 (Oxbow: Oxford).
Charlton, P. – Roberts, J. – Vale, V. 1977:
Llantrithyd: A Ringwork in South Glamorgan (Cardiff Archae-
ological Society: Cardiff).
Clark, G. T. – Clark, G. L. (eds) 1910:
Cartae et Alia Munimenta quae ad Dominium de Glamorgan-
cia pertinent: Vol. I CCCXLVII–MCCXVIII (Talygarn).
Coles, N. 1987:
Cosmeston (ST 177 689), Archaeology in Wales 1987, 58–9.
Coles, N. 1988:
Cosmeston (ST 177 689), Archaeology in Wales 1988, 72.
Coles, N. – Newman, R. – Price, C. 1986:
Cosmeston (ST 177 689), Archaeology in Wales 1986, 53–5.
Cross, H. E. 2011:
Early medieval ecclesiastical wealth of Wales AD 600–1080,
Archaeologia Cambrensis 159, 197–220.
Crouch, D. 2006:
Cardiff before 1300, in: J. R. Kenyon – D. M. Williams (eds),
Cardiff: Architecture and Archaeology of the Medieval Dio-
cese of Llandaff, British Archaeological Association Transac-
tions XXIX (Maney: Leeds), 34–41.
Davies, J. 1990:
Hanes Cymru (Allen Lane/Penguin: London).
Davies, R. R. 1987:
Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales 1064–1415 (Clar-
endon Press: Oxford).
Davies, W. 1978:
An Early Welsh Microcosm: Studies in the Llandaff Charters
(Royal Historical Society: London).
139
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change
Davies, W. 1979:
The Llandaff Charters (National Library of Wales: Aberyst-
wyth).
Davies, W. 1982:
Wales in the Early Middle Ages (Leicester University Press:
Leicester)
Dowdell, G. 1990:
Excavations at Sully Castle 1963–69, Bulletin of the Board of
Celtic Studies 37, 308–360.
Faith, R. 1994:
Tidenham, Gloucestershire, and the history of the manor in
England, Landscape History 16, 39–51.
Forward, A. 2013:
The ceramic evidence for economic life and networks from
12th- to 17th- century settlement sites in South Glamorgan.
Unpublished PhD, Cardiff University.
Frere, S. 1987:
Britannia: A History of Roman Britain, 3rd ed. (Routledge
and Kegan Paul: London).
Holbrook, N. and Thomas, A. 2005:
An early-medieval monastic cemetery at Llandough, Glamor-
gan: excavations in 1994, Medieval Archaeology 49, 1–92.
Howell, R. 2004:
From the fifth to the seventh century, in: M. Aldhouse-Green
and R. Howell (eds), The Gwent County History. Vol. I: Gwent
in Prehistory and Early History (University of Wales Press:
Cardiff), 244–268.
Jarrett, M. G. – Wrathmell, S. 1981:
Whitton: An Iron Age Farmstead in South Glamorgan (Univer-
sity of Wales Press: Cardiff).
Jessop, O. 1996:
A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads,
Medieval Archaeology 40, 192–205.
Kissock, J. A. 1991:
The origins of medieval nucleated settlement in Glamorgan: a
conjectural model, Morgannwg 35, 31–49.
Klápště, J. – Sommer, P. (eds) 2009:
Medieval Rural Settlement in Marginal Landscapes. Ruralia
7. Brepols.
Knight, J. 2004:
From villa to monastery: Llandough in context, Medieval Ar-
chaeology 49, 93–107.
Le Patourel, H. E. J. 1978:
Documentary evidence, in: F. A. Aberg (ed), Medieval Moated
Sites (CBA Research Report 17: York), 21–28.
Lightfoot, K. W. B. 1992:
Rumney Castle, a ringwork and manorial centre in South
Glamorgan, Medieval Archaeology 36, 96–163.
Moorhouse, S. 1987:
The site distribution of pottery as evidence of function, in:
B. E. Vyner (ed.), Studies in Medieval and Later Pottery in
Wales, presented to J. M. Lewis (University College, Cardiff:
Cardiff), 161–188.
Owen-John, H. 1988:
Llandough: the rescue excavation of of a multi-period site
near Cardiff, South Glamorgan, in: D. M. Robinson (ed),
140
125–141
Biglis, Caldicot and Llandough (BAR British Series 188: Ox-
ford), 123–177.
Parkhouse, J. 1983:
Cosmeston (ST 177 689), Archaeology in Wales 1983, 39.
Parkhouse, J. 1984:
Cosmeston (ST 177 689), Archaeology in Wales 1984, 67–69.
Parkhouse, J. 1985:
Cosmeston (ST 177 689), Archaeology in Wales 1985, 38–41.
Paterson, D. R. 1932:
The manors of Michaelstone-le-Pit and Wrinstone, Transac-
tions of the Cardiff Naturalists’ Society 65, 35–44.
Paterson, D. R. 1934:
The manors of Sully, Cosmeston, Penarth and Cogan, Trans-
actions of the Cardiff Naturalists’ Society 67, 17–30.
Pierce, G. O. 1968:
The Place Names of Dinas Powys Hundred (University of
Wales Press: Cardiff).
Pierce, G. O. 1984:
The evidence of place-names, in: G. Williams (ed.), Glamorgan
County History. Vol. III: The Middle Ages (W. Lewis: Cardiff),
456–492.
Price, C. – Newman, R. 1985:
Vale Ware: a revaluation, Medieval and Later Pottery in Wales
8, 10–19.
RCAHMW 1991:
The Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monu-
ments in Wales. Glamorgan Inventory: Early Castles.
Redknap, M. 2000:
The Vikings in Wales (National Museums and Art Galleries of
Wales: Cardiff).
Redknap, M. – Lewis, J. L. 2007:
A Corpus of Early Medieval Inscribed Stones and Stone
Sculpture in Wales. Vol. 1: Breconshire, Glamorgan, Mon-
mouthshire, Radnorshire and geographically contiguous
areas of Herefordshire and Shropshire (University of Wales
Press: Cardiff).
Rees, W. 1932:
The lordship of Cardiff, Transactions of the Cardiff Natural-
ists’ Society 63, 18–34.
Rippon, S. 1997:
The Severn Estuary: Landscape Evolution and Wetland Rec-
lamation (Leicester University Press: London).
Rippon, S. 2008:
Beyond the Medieval Village: The Diversification of Landscape
Character in Southern Britain (Oxford University Press: Ox-
ford).
Salway, P. 1981:
Roman Britain (Clarendon Press: Oxford).
Seaman, A. 2013:
Dinas Powys in context: settlement and society in post Ro-
man Wales, Studia Celtica 47, 1–23.
Sell, S. 1984:
The medieval ‘incurved dish’ – a topic for discussion, Medi-
eval and Later Pottery in Wales 7, 53–60.
Thomas, H. J. – Davies, G. 1965:
Highlight, Archaeology in Wales 1965, 27–28.
RURALIA X
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change 125–141

Thomas, H. J. – Dowdell, G. 1987:
A shrunken medieval village at Barry, South Glamorgan, Ar-
chaeologia Cambrensis 136, 94–137.
Tilney, C. 1988:
A History of the Parish of Penarth with Lavernock, rev. ed.
(privately published?).
Vyner, B. E. 1992:
The pottery, in: K. W. B. Lightfoot, Rumney Castle, a ringwork
and manorial centre in South Glamorgan, Medieval Archaeol-
ogy 36, 145–151.
Vyner, B. E., and Wrathmell, S. 1978:
The deserted village of Wrinstone, South Glamorgan, Trans-
actions of the Cardiff Naturalists’ Society, 98, 19–29.
Williams, A. G. 1993:
Norman lordship in South-East Wales during the reign of Wil-
liam I, Welsh Historical Review 16, 45–66.

Alice Forward, Historic England, Fort Cumberland Road, Portsmouth, PO4 9LD, alice.forward@HistoricEngland.org.uk
John Hines, School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff,
CF10 3EU, hines@cardiff.ac.uk

RURALIA X 141
Forward – Hines, Cosmeston, South Wales: Conquest, colonisation and material culture change 125–141

142 RURALIA X
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology 143–155

What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
in the changing nature of early medieval Ireland
Was der Pflug über die Rolle der Agrartechnologie in der sich verändernden Natur
des frühmittelalterlichen Irlands verraten kann

Ce que la charrue peut révéler sur le rôle des techniques agraires

dans la transformation de la nature de l’Irlande du Premier Moyen Âge

Niall Brady

Introduction
Archaeological research in Ireland has begun to ab-
sorb the data for the early Middle Ages that has been
recovered during the recent building boom, between
the 1990s and 2008. The research is giving voice to
the excavated material in the cultural narratives of the
period, which have been long dominated by documen-
tary and historical research. The building boom has
changed the balance in resources, and archaeologists
now have a confidence based on robust datasets. In re-
lation to agriculture and technology, animal-bone and
palaeo-environmental analysis is now more confident;
along with plentiful radiocarbon determinations, the
observations appear to be grounded on statistically
strong assemblages. There have been new discover-
ies of corn-drier and watermill sites as well, yet the
recent excavations have not added substantially to the
assemblage of tools. In outlining some of the current
insights to agrarian practices, this paper will focus on
ploughing where the archaeological observations re-
main essentially unchanged from those of two decades
ago. This leads to the useful conclusion that it is pos-
sible to understand the pattern of plough development
more clearly, as well as the role that ploughing played
in social and economic development within Ireland be-
fore the 12th century.
Background
Historians have long understood that the rural, fa-
milial and hierarchical society described in the early
Irish Law Tracts is a paradigm that no longer applies
throughout the early medieval period, yet archaeolo-
gists have until recently been heavily influenced by it.
The paradigm was based on an understanding of le-
gal codes that survive from the early 8th century, and
were copied and commented on subsequently. A tract
on the social status of freemen, Críth Gablach, dated
ca. 700 AD, for example, considered that a prosperous
landowner, or bóaire, should have ‘twice seven cumals
of land; a house of twenty-seven feet, with an outhouse
of fifteen feet; a share in a mill, so that he grinds for
his family and his companies of guests; a kiln, a barn,
a sheep-fold, a calf-fold, a pigsty…He has twelve cows, a
half-share in a plough, a horse for working and a steed
for riding… (MacNeill 1923, 290). A smaller landown-
er, or ócaire, who was also a freeman was considered
to have lesser assets, among which: [h]e has a fourth
(share of) a plough; an ox, a plough-share, a goad, a
halter; so that he is competent to be a partner; a share
in a kiln, in a mill, in a barn; a cooking pot’ (McNeill
1923, 287). Another tract on water rights, Coibnes
uisce thairdne, was concerned to set out the degrees of
liability a mill owner would have if their mill-race ran
across other peoples’ lands (Binchy 1955). The tracts
cover almost every conceivable aspect of human re-
lations, and serve as a rich source of information on
over-arching social structures as well as details relat-
ing to daily life (Kelly 1988; 1997).
The archaeological resource is equally impressive,
with the numbers of sites that survive being in their
tens of thousands, and with a material assemblage
that stands alongside the best metalwork and illumi-
nated manuscript traditions across medieval Europe.
In contrast, and until the 1990s, there had been rela-
tively little scientific excavation of this resource. While
archaeologists made many valuable insights to the pe-
riod, there remained the contention that such insights
were based on small assemblages, even when combin-
ing excavation results with field survey and older finds.
The situation changed when development projects oc-
curred throughout Ireland and included large infra-
structural programmes across the landscape. Excava-
tions became integrated multi-disciplinary projects,
with detailed pre- and post-excavation analysis sup-
ported by the myriad of attendant studies. As the inevi-
table economic crash began to loom large, there was

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 143–155.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110461
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
concern that the immense amount of new data might
remain forever as ‘grey literature’, reported but not di-
gested, and at a remove from academic discourse.
A series of initiatives were carried out to gather the
information. One of several projects focused on the
early Middle Ages is concerned with technology as
part of its more specific interest in the development
of settlement and economy during the period ca. 400–
1100 AD (O’Sullivan et al. 2013). The work of the Early
Medieval Archaeology Project (EMAP) has been to col-
late the various information gathered in scientific ex-
cavations. While the principal interest lies in modern
excavations, the project has absorbed the findings
from earlier work, which in Ireland commenced in the
1930s. There is a core assemblage of ca. 241 settle-
ment excavations that lie at the heart of EMAP’s obser-
vations (O’Sullivan et al. 2013, 6, 40). The excavations
are distributed throughout the island, with some clus-
tering around the Dublin city region and in the north-
east of Ulster, and with some noticeable gaps along
the southeast coast in counties Wicklow and Wexford,
and in the northwest in Co. Donegal. The excavations
have also covered a wide range of the principal monu-
ment types, including ringforts or raths (enclosed set-
tlements that are classically circular in plan), cashels,
crannogs, souterrains and unenclosed sites, ecclesias-
tical sites, Viking raiding bases and towns. Such com-
prehensive coverage suggests confidence in the data
sets that are now available to work with, giving archae-
ology an independent voice.
Livestock
There has been an important shift in thinking away
from the belief that livestock husbandry, and cattle
in particular, dominated food production and wealth
creation throughout the period. The older view was in-
formed by the constant presence of cattle within the
Law Tracts, where cattle assumed a principal currency
value. Other currency values included the cumal (liter-
ally a female slave), which was often equivalent to three
milch cows (Kelly 1997, 57–58). It is also the case that
excavations on settlement sites will inevitably produce
large quantities of animal bone, where cattle is the
most dominant animal represented. However, detailed
study of the faunal assemblages from excavations has
begun to observe patterns that change over time.
Initial indications were made on the animal bones
recovered from research excavations at Knowth, Co.
Meath (McCormick – Murray 2007). Knowth is one of
several important prehistoric burial mounds located
on a principal bend in the River Boyne, and repre-
sents a very significant place in the Neolithic period.
The main burial mound measures 85m in diameter
and is surrounded by a ring of satellite tombs. Excava-
144
143–155
tion has revealed extensive associated settlement and
activity areas that belong to later periods as well. In
the early Middle Ages, Knowth was a key centre and
a royal site for the influential kings of Brega, whose
authority extended across much of north Leinster, ar-
guably the most important kingdom in Ireland at the
time. The surface of the main burial mound was oc-
cupied and large deep ditches were excavated in the
7th century to enclose the settlement area. The ditches
were later filled in, and the settlement developed as an
unenclosed area in the 10th and 11th centuries with
houses and with souterrains dug into the former buri-
al mound. Good assemblages of animal bones were re-
covered from both principal phases of settlement, and
the research permitted comparison with other large as-
semblages from further afield.
The faunal assemblage amounted to over 8,000
countable animal bone fragments, which is consid-
ered significant in an Irish context; while only 14%
came from the 7th-century levels, 75% came from the
10th and 11th-century contexts (McCormick – Murray
2007, 37). The majority of the earlier contexts were
associated with ditch fills, while more than half of the
latter were directly associated with the houses and
souterrains. A similar spectrum of animals were rep-
resented in both phases, with the large domesticates
(cattle, sheep/goat and pig) being the most numerous.
However, there was a distinction between the phases
in terms of the dominance of these species. In the
earlier levels, cattle represented 51%, and sheep/goat
and pig represented 19% each. In the later levels, cattle
representation dropped to 39%, while sheep/goat rose
slightly to 22%, and pig rose more dramatically to 31%
(McCormick – Murray 2007, 41). The age-slaughter
data for cattle indicated that few calves were killed and
that animals were mostly killed in their second or third
years. This suggested the presence of a dairying econ-
omy, where it remained important that calves be kept
alive through their weaning to ensure their mother’s
milk production. The decline in cattle bones in the lat-
er levels and the relative increases in sheep/goat and
pig are seen to represent a shift away from dairying.
This pattern was also seen on other sites, where some-
times the variations were more distinct (McCormick –
Murray 2007, 106–108). The analysis of the new data
from the more recent excavations is supportive, add-
ing that the decline in cattle in the later period is more
pronounced in the northeast of Ireland, in Ulster, and
in the west (O’Sullivan et al. 2013, 210). The results of
such research have enabled faunal specialists to sug-
gest that the patterns observed in the animal bone as-
semblages might reflect a broader economic shift that
is associated with an increasing importance of arable
productivity, and that this in turn might reflect chang-
es in social organization.
RURALIA X
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
Arable Cultivation
Indications of change are also present in pollen
data. Palaeo-environmental analysis of some 60 sites
presents a baseline insight to the range of crops that
were grown across Ireland in the early Middle Ages
(see McClatchie in McCormick et al. 2011). The range of
crops include barley, oat, wheat, rye, flax and legumes.
Barley (mainly the hulled variety) has a very dominant
presence at over 45% of the cereals recorded, followed
by oats at over 35% and wheat at just over 5% (McCor-
mick et al. 2011, 53). It is difficult to draw too many
distinctions from the data as it is traced over time, but
there is some indication that oats, barley and rye expe-
rience greater relative increases than wheat, which re-
duces somewhat. Between the 4th century and the 7th,
barley is the most dominant cereal, representing more
than 60% of all cereals, followed by oats at almost 30%
and wheat at 10%. Between the 7th and the 10th cen-
turies, barley remains the most popular cereal but its
presence is reduced to just over 40%, while oats in-
creases to nearly 40%, and wheat reduces to less than
5%. In considering the implications of this data, ana-
lysts observe that there is a greater number of cereal
assemblages from the period between the 7th century
and the 10th century than before. They suggest that
this may reflect an increase in arable husbandry, or
that it may reflect a change in weather conditions,
when wetter weather may account for these changes.
Cultivating the soil
One area where the insights remain largely un-
changed despite recent excavations is our understand-
ing of cultivation practices. The absence of radically
new data supports the integrity of earlier observations,
but it also helps to sharpen our understanding of the
developments that do occur.
A small number of spades and shovels exist, which
were made principally of wood and may have had iron
Fig. 1. A plough beam from Drumlee, Co. Antrim (after Earwood – Beattie 2008), and a single-stilted plough from Tankerness, Orkney (nts, au-
thor’s image). The Drumlee piece (left) is the only plough frame found to date in Ireland and dates to the end of the early Middle Ages. The Orkney
plough (right) is the most comparable plough type identified.
RURALIA X
143–155
sheaths at their working end (O’Sullivan et al. 2013,
195). These tools were undoubtedly used in various
ways to cultivate soil, either directly to turn the sod
and prepare seed beds, or indirectly for ditching and
drainage purposes; they would also serve a wide range
of other uses similar to those that such tools are put
to today. The principal device used for cultivation until
the 10th century, however, was the ard (Brady 1994).
In this, both the archaeological and contemporary
written sources agree.
The Law Tracts indicate that land was ploughed in
the spring, using oxen as the principal draft animals,
which were yoked abreast. High-ranking freemen were
supposed to have their own plough and ploughteam,
along with two work-horses for harrowing (Kelly 1997,
230–231).
Cultivation marks are regularly identified on and
beside settlement sites but it is quite rare that they
can be dated securely (O’Sullivan et al. 2013, 195),
and it has not been possible to determine the plough-
ing device used to create them. In contrast to Danish
sites (see Larsen in this volume), the soils in Ireland
are not based on a sandy loam that can retain the
shape and profile of cultivation furrows, which in
turn can suggest the type of plough used in their crea-
tion. Most often, cultivated Irish soils will comprise
a fertile brown-earth clay A-horizon that lies above a
boulder-clay glacial till B-horizon. In less fertile areas,
the uppermost layer might be coarser clay lying over
a mineralized B-horizon. In both instances, the soils
do not facilitate the preservation of clearly-cut furrow
slices. It is the very bottom of the cultivation furrow
that will survive in Ireland, as v-shaped cuts into the
underlying B-horizon. The resulting patterns are less
informative than one could hope for, and it is entirely
possible that such plough-scar fragments represent
episodes of deep ploughing to cut into the underlying
subsoil, and do not represent the shallower ploughing
required for regular crop cultivation.
145
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
Plough frames are almost completely absent from
the material assemblages, and require water-logged an-
aerobic conditions to survive. One example however is
known, from Drumlee, Co. Antrim. It is an old find dis-
covered during peat cutting in a bog that was recently
dated by radiocarbon determination to cal AD 1050–
1230 (sigma not noted, UB-8943), which suggests that
it was in use at the end of the early Middle Ages (Fig. 1)
(Earwood – Beattie 2008). The frame is incomplete and
survives as two principal parts; the beam and the stilt.
The beam is made from a natural curved branch or
small tree trunk. The underside is only slightly shaped,
while the upper surface is flattened at one end where
it would have been connected to the traction team. It
measures 1.73m long and is 185mm wide and 152mm
thick at its base. A circular dowel hole is cut through
the thickness of the beam close to its base. It is likely
that this would have connected a sole plate to the beam.
A second dowel hole is cut vertically through the beam
close to its traction end. Two rectangular-shaped mor-
tices run vertically through the beam, and one of these
retains a wooden coulter that measures 492mm long.
It is unclear what the second mortice held, but it is
possible that it served as an alternative position for the
coulter. The stilt measures 1.28m long. Several options
were proposed to consider the reconstruction of the
original plough from these parts, and they share the
common observation that the plough’s closest compar-
146
143–155
ison lies in single-stilted or one-handled ploughs that
were in use on Orkney into the 19th century. The Ork-
ney plough is considered to be the nearest comparable
plough form to suit the type of plough irons recov-
ered from Ireland (Brady 1994). The occurrence of the
wooden coulter is singular in Ireland, where coulters
are otherwise made of iron. It is somewhat short but
its survival reminds us that not all the cutting parts of
ploughs were made of iron; it may also suggest that the
Drumlee plough was used for relatively light work.
The principal evidence for ploughing are the plough
irons that were fitted to timber ploughs to cut the soil.
The plough irons comprise iron shares and iron coul-
ters. The shares, which were fitted to the base of the
plough sole, were used to undercut the sod as the
plough advanced. The shares from Ireland are all sim-
ple symmetrically-shaped forms that have a rounded
triangular-shaped point or snout and a flanged body
to wrap over the plough sole (Fig. 2). Any asymmetry
identified on the shares today represents wear that has
occurred along a principal working side. Shares vary
in size. There are quite small examples which meas-
ure less than 200mm long and 100mm wide. Larger
shares are also common, measuring up to 290mm
long and 140mm wide, and one can imagine these to
be more effective cutting tools. Shares that are associ-
ated directly with coulters can be any size; there is no
Fig. 2. Plough shares from excavation contexts in Ire-
land. Rathtinaun, Co. Sligo, was a crannog site. The
share (left) was recovered as a cache of iron and leath-
er fragments found at the base of a timber revetment
that appears to represent the first early medieval stra-
tum on the site, dating ca. 500 AD (Raftery 1972, 6;
Lynn 1983, 53-54). Dundrum, Co. Down, was a castle
excavation. The share (right) was recovered from dump
material representing deliberate make-up of a bank
that was dated archaeologically and historically to the
12th century, providing a terminus ante quem for the
share (Waterman 1951, 25).
RURALIA X
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology 143–155

Fig. 3. Plough coulter from Whitefort, Co. Down (left) excavated from within a habitation deposit of the first phase of a house, which is dated broadly
by associated pottery to the latter part of the first millennium (Waterman 1956, 84). Plough coulter from Ballinderry, Co. Westmeath (right) exca-
vated on a crannog site from a securely dated context between the floor of a house feature and the palisade. The broad width of the blade contrasts
with the narrow s-shaped profile of other coulters which may result from long-term use (compare with Figs. 3 and 5). In addition, the light scratching
across the blade of the Ballinderry coulter reveals cuts into the blade by the soil as it was pulled through the soil. The survival of such marks is
unique, and together with the broad profile of the blade edge suggests that this coulter was not in use long. The photograph detail is copyright of
the National Museum of Ireland, with permission to reproduce.

hard-and-fast rule that shares used in ards should be
simpler or smaller than those used in ploughs.
The coulters were fitted to the plough beam and were
placed ideally in front and to one side of the share, so
that the coulter could slice the sod vertically when the
plough was advanced. In combination with the share,
the two irons would effectively cut the required sod,
while the forward movement of the plough would pull
the sod up from the ground and help to invert it. This
movement was later facilitated by the mouldboard,
which was a timber plank/s fitted to the plough frame
behind the sod and opposite the coulter. However there
is no indication of mouldboards being used in Ireland
before the later Middle Ages.
There are two types of iron coulter that can be dated
to the early Middle Ages (Fig. 3). One type has a longer
tang relative to the size of the blade. An example from
Whitefort, Co. Down, measures 560mm long, where
the tang length is 320mm and the blade length is
240mm. The other type is the more common form. It
has a short tang relative to the size of the blade. The
most intact coulter from Ireland is of the second vari-
ety, and was excavated from a water-logged anaerobic
state at Ballinderry Crannog, Co. Westmeath (Hencken
1936, 139–140). The coulter measures 486mm long;
the tang measures 175mm in length and the blade is
311mm long. It is perfectly preserved and is in pris-
tine condition, with light scratches cut across its blade
which are the wear striae cut by the soil as the plough
was pulled through the soil. The writer is not aware
of any other plough from across medieval Europe that
preserves such detail. The scratches run across the
blade at 45º, and this reveals the angle at which the
coulter was set in its plough frame. The shorter-tanged
coulter bears a remarkable resemblance to those used
on the Orkney ploughs in the 19th century, and this
observation is an important comparative aspect that
supports the hypothesis that the two ploughing tradi-
tions are linked despite the differences in time. The
context for the Ballinderry coulter is dated confidently
to the late 10th century, and represents the earliest se-
curely dated coulter from Ireland.

RURALIA X 147
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
There has been no metallurgical analysis of plough
irons, which might consider the presence of stronger
metal strips within individual pieces, but recent ex-
cavation has produced further examples of coulters
from Ireland. In no instance has any earlier date been
recorded. An example of the long-tanged variety was
found in association with a plough share at Faughart
Lower, Co. Louth (Fig. 4). It has a straight-backed tang
that retains a possible linear forge line on its dorsal
surface. The blade is narrow, perhaps by wear. It was
heavily oxidized, with pebbles and clay adhering to the
metal corrosion. The coulter measures 750mm long.
The tang is 450mm long and 30mm wide and thick.
The blade is 300mm long and 105mm in maximum
width. The associated share is a simple symmetrical
type that measures 170mm long and 95mm in maxi-
Fig. 5. Plough coulter from Laracor, Co. Meath. A sample below its find
context gives a terminus post quem of cal AD 780-936. Line drawing
and photograph courtesy of Thaddeus Breen, Valerie J. Keeley Ltd.
148
143–155
Fig. 4. Plough irons from Faughart
Lower, Co. Louth. Recovered during
recent excavations, the heavily oxi-
dised nature of the two irons is typi-
cal of such pieces on dry land sites.
Isometric view of the two irons. The
share measures 170mm long, the
coulter is 750mm long.
mum width. An example of the short-tanged variety
was discovered along with a short bladed iron pruning
hook within the ditch fill of a feature that enclosed a
mound at Laracor, Co. Meath (site reference 04E0987).
The coulter measures 565mm long, 122mm in maxi-
mum width and 27mm thick, and the tang is 200mm
long (Fig. 5). Like the plough irons from Faughart
Lower, the surfaces are oxidized; the information to be
gained from such pieces lies in their overall shape and
any associated contextual detail. The stratum at Lara-
cor was not directly dateable, but an animal bone from
the context immediately below that in which the coulter
was found gave a radiocarbon date of cal AD 780–936
(sigma detail not noted, Thaddeus Breen, pers. comm.).
There has been a mis-identification of two objects
that have been published as coulters, and it is neces-
sary to deal with these here because both objects come
from earlier contexts. Excavation of a multi-period site
at Ballynakelly, Co. Dublin, recovered an object asso-
ciated with a double-ditched early medieval settlement
enclosure, and from a context dated to before 775 AD
(site reference 06E0176). The object is made of iron
and is fragmented but is considered to have measured
285mm in maximum length (Fig. 6). Despite this very
short size it was identified as a coulter, and reference
is made to a comparative piece from an excavation at
Ratoath, Co. Meath, measuring only 228mm long and
from a context dated to cal AD 650–780 (sigma detail
not noted, site reference 03E1781) (McCarthy 2009,
Appendix F; McCarthy 2011). Even allowing for degra-
dation due to post-depositional corrosion, both pieces
are simply too small and too flimsy to have served as
the cutting parts of a large agricultural device. It is
necessary to remove these from any further discus-
sion because it is incorrect and misleading to consider
them as coulters.
Contemporary written sources support the ar-
chaeological dating of plough irons found to date,
and thereby provide an independent and complemen-
tary position. As noted above, Críth Gablach, dated
ca. 700, notes that an ócaire would be expected to have
a quarter share in a plough, namely: dam, soc, brot,
cennos(e) – an ox, a share, a goad, and a halter (Binchy
1941, 4). The Martyrology of Oengus, ca. 800, recounts
RURALIA X
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology 143–155

a story where St. Colmcille visits Bishop Etchen to re-

ceive episcopal orders. The bishop is ploughing. Col-
mcille decides to test the bishop’s sanctity and asks
him for the two vital components of the plough; he
asks first for the share (soc), which is given to Colm-
cille, and miraculously the plough continues to work
without it. He then asks for the outer ox (imechtraid) of
the plough team, and the bishop-ploughman orders a
stag which was in the forest to take the ox’s place, and
the plough continues to work (Stokes 1905, 72–73).
The point to note in both these references is the ab-
sence of any mention of a coulter. It is only later that
the word is used; coltar – coulter. There are two ‘lives’
of St. Máedhóg in Irish and both are translations from
Latin that were first compiled in the 12th century be-
fore arriving at their current form in the 16th century
(Doherty 2002). The ‘Life of Maedoc of Ferns (1)’ con-
tains an account of the saint walking towards his mon-
astery, when he sees a plough team with plough iron
and coulter coming towards him, and which he ends
up giving to a convent (Plummer 1922, 180). In the sec-
ond life, ‘(2)’, the saint is watching a plough team mov-
ing from one furrow to the next when the ploughman
falls between an soc & an coltar – the share and the
coulter, and disaster is imminent but the saint raises
his hand and blesses the ploughman and then the ox-
team, so that the team stopped and the man was saved
(Plummer 1922, 215).
Fig. 6. Iron object from Ballynakelly, Co. Dublin, mis-identified as a
The pattern of development in plough technology plough coulter (from McCarthy 2009). The object, on the left, is shown
seen in Ireland has been mirrored in contemporary An- next to the outline of the plough coulter from Laracor, Co. Meath, to
glo-Saxon England. The material record there is more reinforce the point that the object from Ballynakelly is not a coulter.
meagre, and the plough irons that survive are some-
what different in form, but the bulk of the evidence has
ly medieval ecclesiastical sites that have produced evi-
tended to show that the ploughing devices used until
dence of ploughing, while a hoard of iron objects that
the 10th century were ards, at which stage more sub-
included one and possibly two coulters has achieved
stantial devices occur (Fowler 2002, 182–204). There
is an exception to this in the recent discovery of a coul- an early radiocarbon date. Plough pebbles are known
ter at Lyminge, in Kent. The coulter has a longer tang to have been used on the wooden soles of ards and
relative to the length of the blade, and the blade is set ploughs to reduce the wear that the timber parts are
at a slight angle to the straight line of the tang. The exposed to while being pulled through the soil. They
coulter measures 680mm in length of which the tang have tended to be associated with the later medieval
length is 420mm. It was found in a sealed context that period and more recent use, but are now being associ-
is dated to cal AD 570–650 (2 sigma SUERC-35927), ated with quite early contexts in Scotland. Whithorn is
which makes it the earliest Anglo-Saxon coulter recov- a monastic foundation in the southwest region of Gal-
ered (Thomas 2012; Leahy 2013, 224–225). In inter- loway in the Scottish lowlands and was in use between
preting the context of the Lyminge coulter, the excava- the late 5th century and the early modern period, in-
tor compares the coulter with similar finds from the cluding occupation as a priory in the later Middle Ages
Frankish lands. The Kentish kingdom was the strong- (Hill 1997). An assemblage of 329 plough pebbles and
est and most outward-looking Anglo-Saxon kingdom to a possible fragment of a plough were recovered. The
maintain contacts with the Continent, and it is in this stratigraphy at Whithorn appears to be quite shallow
context that the transfer of technology should be con- over much of the site with rock outcropping on the
sidered. While other coulters are known in England, south side, yet the excavation revealed a complex se-
securely dated examples, so far, are later. quence of activity. Plough pebbles and cultivation fur-
The situation in Scotland may be somewhat differ- rows are associated principally with 5th–7th century
ent. There are two recent large-scale excavations at ear- activity and with 9th-century activity (Hill 1997, 80,

RURALIA X 149
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
191–192, 464–466). It was difficult to distinguish the
two phases of cultivation but in both cases the major-
ity of the pebbles occurred in the same central area
of the site and are associated with series of cultivation
furrows that share the same Northeast-Southwest ori-
entation. The excavator was confident that these rep-
resented the remains of the mouldboard plough, but it
is unclear where the idea for such apparatus occurred
at this time.
The second large excavation in Scotland that has
produced evidence for cultivation is the Pictish monas-
tery of Portmahomack in the northeast region (Carver
2004; 2008, 73; Carver et al., in press). In Sector 1, to
the south of St. Colman’s Church, excavation revealed
that the monastic enclosure cut across a series of
numerous parallel lines of cultivation marks that are
interpreted as ard-marks and represent pre-monastic
activity on the site. A collection of plough pebbles was
also recovered to the north, along a terraced wall fea-
ture in Sector 2 southwest of the church. The pebbles
occur in a re-used context, which is interpreted as soil
that was cut from a former plough headland to be used
as building material in the 8th or 9th century. The
pebbles are slightly smaller and appear to be a harder
stone (perhaps basalt) than those that occur in Ireland
during the 13th century (personal observation). Inter-
pretation of the evidence from Portmahomack is more
cautious in associating the presence of pebbles with a
particular plough type, but the presence of pebbles in
such early contexts remains a question deserving of
further research.
The possibility that advanced ploughing devices
existed in Scotland during the early Middle Ages is
also suggested by the discovery of one and possibly
two coulters among a hoard of iron tools found dur-
ing clearance work at Stidriggs, Dumfriesshire, in the
south/southwest of the country (Leahy 2013, 231).
The hoard also included axe-heads, an adze, iron sta-
ples, a tanged awl, four scythe blades and a fish tri-
dent, all within a lead vessel. The two coulters have a
longer blade relative to the tang, and measure 410mm
and 585mm long respectively (www.futuremuseum.
co.uk/collections/people/lives-in-key-periods/archaeo-
logy/early-medieval-(400ad-1099ad)/stidriggs-hoard).
A piece of worked wood found with the iron objects
yielded a radiocarbon determination of cal AD 689–
977 (2 sigma OxA-7878) (Maree Lee Haynes, pers.
comm.). The wood sample was not directly associated
with the coulters and while it may be a contemporary
piece this remains unproven. The wider cultural con-
text of the evidence from Scotland and the implications
of these observations have yet to be developed.
It remains the case in Ireland that ploughing dur-
ing the early Middle Ages was done mostly using ards,
and that such technology was employed at least until
150
143–155
the appearance of the coulter in the 10th century. This
heralded the use of more complex ploughs, and this
point will be returned to below. Comparison with the
19th-century ploughs on Orkney suggests the relative-
ly simple structure that such ploughs in Ireland would
have had, based on a single-stilted or one-handled
form. One should not expect that the arrival of more
complex ploughs fully or even quickly replaced earlier
forms; we should understand the possibility for the
contemporary use of the various types.
Manuring the land and harvesting crops
Contemporary written sources refer to the benefits
of manuring the land and it seems that the principal
source was cattle dung, but manure does not appear to
have been identified archaeologically (Kelly 1997, 57,
229). The sickle was the principal tool used to assist in
harvesting cereals, and sickles survive archaeological-
ly in Ireland as simple curved blades set at right angles
to a tapering tang that would have fitted into a wooden
or bone handle. There are also blades that are set at
right angles to a flanged socket, and the smaller bladed
types may be pruning hooks rather than sickles. The
labour-intensive task of harvesting is reflected in the
laws, which refer to it as a community task, or meithel
(Kelly 1997, 238). It appears that it was usual to cut
cereal high up on the stalk below the ears of grain in
the early period (pre-900 AD). The uses to which the
corn straw can be put include bedding, floor-covering,
thatching, rope-making and basketry, but many of
these products were produced using reeds or with-
ies instead. A change occurs in the Middle Irish pe-
riod (900–1200), when some of the words used to de-
scribe these tasks developed the narrow meaning of
corn-straw (Kelly 1997, 240). This would appear to in-
dicate that prior to ca. 900, the straw stalks of the cere-
al were not harvested in their own right, and that from
the 10th century the stalks are part of the harvested
material. Archaeologists have yet to see these distinc-
tions in the field evidence, and to consider whether
such a change in harvesting technique is reflected in
the different sickle types.
Processing the arable
Little is known about the various methods employed
for storing grain. The law tracts refer to barns – saball
and to other ways of storing grain, but there is perhaps
a need to tease out the different stages of storage re-
quired between the time of the harvest and when the
grain was needed for consumption or re-seeding. Ex-
cavations have uncovered ‘four-poster’ and ‘nine-post-
er’ squared alignments of post holes (O’Sullivan et al.
2013, 199). These may be the remains of granaries,
RURALIA X
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
which could be constructed as buildings in their own
right, or have served to support structures on raised
platforms to deter vermin from accessing the crop.
The lack of clarity surrounding the harvest and crop
storage is an area that future research could consider.
Corn-drying kilns
In striking contrast, the recent excavations have
increased the known numbers of corn-drying kilns
manifold, with almost 800 being excavated since the
1990s. This has led to robust analysis of these fea-
tures, and the contribution of useful insights that
consider changes over time (Monk – Kelleher 2005;
Monk – Power 2012; O’Sullivan et al. 2013, 199–203).
Kilns were used to dry cereals further before they were
milled and ground; they were also used to prepare
grain for malting. Kilns sites are known across Ireland
and there are particular concentrations in the east-
ern half of the country in the north Leinster region.
There are five main types of kiln, ranging from simple
to more complex forms. Many examples occur singly
on sites but there are also numerous examples that
are found together. The use of kilns appears to grow in
popularity from the late Iron Age and peak in the 6th
century, after which numbers decline steadily from
the 8th to the 11th century. The numerical decline over
time seems to be balanced against the development of
larger and better kilns, as they become more efficient
with a preference for key-hole shaped types with long
flues and stone-lining, which could reduce the risk of
accidental fires.
In trying to understand the implications of the vari-
ous chronological and spatial patterns, researchers
highlight a complex of factors that may have influenced
kiln usage, including a warming climate with relatively
less rainfall, and social change associated with a shift
towards urban settlement.
Watermills
The presence of watermills in early medieval Ireland
represents the single most complex piece of techno-
logical apparatus used in food production. The earli-
est reference to mills is from the mid-600s when the
annals record the death of a boy who was crushed in
a mill (Binchy 1955, 56). The date compares with the
earliest known mill sites discovered archaeologically.
Vertical undershot and horizontal watermills are both
known archaeologically from 7th-century contexts, but
it is the horizontal watermill that is most often found
later (Rynne 2000). The law tract on conducted wa-
ter, Coibnes uisce thairdne, is concerned with identi-
fying the rights of those over whose lands mill-races
run (Binchy 1955). It is in the mill-owner’s interest to
RURALIA X
143–155
control their own water source because where this is
not the case mill owners must make payments to the
other parties concerned. New archaeological discov-
eries continue to demonstrate the versatility of their
builders and patrons. The excavation of a tidal mill at
the monastic site of Nendrum, Co. Down (McErlean
– Crothers 2007), reveals the extent to which the pa-
trons were prepared to control their milling operation.
Despite the active marine location and exposure to
advanced degradation of timber by salt water, the mill
operated between the 7th and the 8th centuries and
was rebuilt during this period, when the mill building
was replaced with a stone structure. A different twist
on controlling the water source is perhaps reflected in
the newly excavated site at Kilbegly, Co. Roscommon,
which is one of two known watermill sites that are lo-
cated beside natural springs (Jackman et al. 2013).
The distribution of known watermills favours the
good arable regions of the east and south of the coun-
try but they are also seen more widely (Brady 2006;
O’Sullivan et al. 2013, 208). It is useful to consider the
wider landscape on a case-by-case basis as this can
highlight where crops would have been grown in suffi-
cient quantity to justify investment in the mill site. Wa-
termills may occur in isolation but they are also known
to be part of complex sites, and sometimes have more
than one chute; on such occasions it is clear that the
processing of grain was part of large-scale enterprise.
The nature and extent of that enterprise stills needs to
be understood, but some insight is being gleaned from
an understanding of the dating spectrum of the mill
sites. There is a concentration of watermills between
the mid-8th and the mid-9th century, which is the
same period that sees a shift in emphasis away from
a livestock-dominated economy to one that has more
emphasis on arable production.
Discussion
The emerging archaeological consensus is that soci-
ety in early medieval Ireland was dynamic and that we
are beginning to see good evidence to support views
that have argued for a more complex understanding of
the nature of social organization and economic endeav-
or. Where before the paradigm that saw the dominance
of a social structure and economic outlook throughout
the early Middle Ages as defined by the rural, familial
and hierarchical order described in the Law Tracts, it
is increasingly possible to qualify when that paradigm
was most applicable (late 7th/8th century), and how it
changed and disappeared. The transformation is fully
a result of society moving beyond local boundaries
and the emergence of strong lordships and urban enti-
ties. This trend has been evident archaeologically for
some time (Brady 2006; McCormick – Murray 2007;
151
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
Brady 2011), and the more fully digested examination
of the new excavation data across the period supports
these observations (O’Sullivan et al. 2013). There are
certain trends across data-sets that can be compared
and which result in an overwhelming logic that lies at
the heart of the new narrative. While this short essay
is concerned with agriculture, it is possible to broaden
the perspective, and this only reinforces the patterns
that are becoming clear.
Within the agrarian assemblages, corn-drying kilns
appear to represent the earliest rich corpus of mate-
rial remains, with growing numbers that peak in the
6th century. While changing climate may have influ-
enced the need for kilns on a macro level, there is a
sense that the technology behind the use of kilns was
becoming more capable, and that larger kilns working
more efficiently might explain the progressive drop-off
in numbers after the 6th century. Such a technologi-
cal explanation helps to explain the gradual shift in
agrarian practice that is observed in the animal bone
assemblages and in the pollen data after the 7th cen-
tury. The nuanced changes are interpreted as an in-
creased emphasis on arable husbandry. These devel-
opments fit very well into the chronology of watermill
sites, which currently peak between the mid-8th and
the mid-9th centuries. It is at this time too that wid-
er changes are evident across Ireland. The old power
structures were in decline, and powerful new dynas-
ties emerging. The changes are mirrored in the secular
and the ecclesiastical spheres. Of the few ecclesiasti-
cal sites subject to recent large-scale excavation, the
monastery at Clonfad, Co. Westmeath, has revealed
a specialised interest in large-scale ironworking that
appears to have focused on hand-bell production (Ste-
vens 2012). There are other indications of specialized
large-scale production, and it remains a task for re-
searchers to assemble and digest this information. At
the same time, and perhaps reflecting these changes,
settlement nucleation was taking place. Its clearest
representation lies in the nascent port towns being
developed by Scandinavian influence, but it was also
taking place across the country at larger monastic cen-
tres. The sum of this evidence reflects changes in the
mechanisms of power and authority, where lordship
develops with the desire to control the processing and
distribution of resources.
It is in this context that the changes witnessed in
the agrarian assemblages sit comfortably. It is there-
fore of particular interest that ploughing technology
remains unchanged throughout this period until the
10th century. Despite the increased emphasis on ar-
able husbandry, it remains the case that cultivation of
the soil was achieved using ards until nearly the end
of the early Middle Ages. This pattern is really quite
interesting because it suggests that the plough serves
152
143–155
as a qualification to the wider changes. The absence
of new and developed plough types indicates that it
was entirely possible to cultivate the lands required
using the simpler ard-ploughs throughout the period
that sees large numbers of watermills and related in-
dicators of change. Society in Ireland shifted towards
arable, developed large and influential lordships, and
began to move from a settlement pattern dominated by
dispersed family homesteads to a pattern that included
nucleated settlements. The fact that the ard continued
to be the preferred plough type until the 10th century
suggests that it was quite capable of absorbing these
changes. This indicates that such changes did not ex-
ert undue pressure on the cultivable land but rather
that they were changes related to the organization of
production. This in turn supports the wider argument
for changes in authority and power at this time. Larger
kilns and the presence of watermills reflect the control
of resource distribution more than productive capacity.
It remains to consider the context of the appearance
of the plough in the 10th century. It is perhaps no co-
incidence that the nearest comparison of the plough
type in Ireland lies in Orkney, albeit in the 19th cen-
tury. By the 10th century the Scandinavian presence
in Ireland was very well established, and it extended
across the island far outside the core port towns of
Viking settlement (Bradley 1988; 2009). The contri-
bution of Scandinavian cultures to Irish society is
the subject of current discussion, and I would restate
my observation that it is within this ambience that we
need to consider ploughing (Brady 1994, 40). The 10th
century is a period that sees developments in plough-
ing and cultivation more widely, whether in England
or on the continent, and researchers are now consid-
ering the impetus as a consequence of urban growth
within the context of the ‘total economy’ (Langdon et
al. 1997). The evidence from Ireland provides a sym-
pathetic profile within such a context, and is perhaps
most readily explained in this manner. The appearance
of the plough suggests a perceived need to develop the
cultivated area by new means. Whether this required
deeper ploughing to extend the depth of ploughing on
lands already under cultivation; whether it reflected
increased order and rotation of crops; or whether it
suggests an expansion onto previously uncultivated
lands is not yet clear. No doubt such expansion would
include elements of all these possibilities, but I do not
believe that the appearance of new ploughing technol-
ogy at this time occurs in a vacuum. Allied to such
questions is the sense to which these important devel-
opments touch on issues associated with population
size and growth, but such discussions are for another
occasion.
While the full implications and visibility of these
changes elude us at present, it is worth noting that
RURALIA X
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
the next significant change in ploughing technology
occurs archaeologically in the 13th century, or more
accurately the ‘long 13th century’. It is at this time
that plough pebbles are used in Ireland (Brady 2009).
The pebbles are associated with improved agricultural
technique during the period of ‘High Farming’ before
the 14th-century crises. While the appearance of the
pebbles appear to occur alongside other technologi-
cal changes in the assemblage of agrarian equipment
(changes that may better resemble what historians of
technology refer to as the ‘technological complex’), per-
haps we can take stock of this 13th-century innovation
to understand the implication of the coulter appearing
in Ireland when it did.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the following for assistance with
sourcing information on the relevant assemblages in
England and Scotland: Martin Carver, Mark Hall, Maree
Lee Haynes, Kevin Leahy, Gabor Thomas and Joanne
Turner. I am grateful to Thaddeus Breen, Valerie Kee-
ley and Eoin Halpin for information relating to unpub-
lished material from Ireland, and to Charles Doherty
for discussion on the ‘Life’ of Máedhóg.
Summary
Archaeological research is now confident when deal-
ing with the early medieval period because analysis
has access to robust datasets. Animal-bone and pollen
studies in particular benefit from these statistical ap-
proaches, supported by plentiful radiocarbon determi-
nations. There is growing consensus that transforma-
tions take place within society from the 8th century,
reflecting the growth of lordship and the development
of nucleated settlement. These are associated with
changes in agriculture that reflect control of the pro-
cessing and distribution of resources. Throughout
this period, ploughing continued to be achieved using
the ard. It is only in the 10th century that new plough-
ing technology occurs, long after the social changes in-
dicated in other data sets. This paper suggests that the
development must be understood within the context of
the ‘total economy’, and may be an indicator of popula-
tion growth. It is to the 10th century that researchers
should look to consider this issue.
Zusammenfassung
Die archäologische Forschung kann inzwischen auf
stabile Daten bei der Analyse des frühen Mittelalters
zurückgreifen. Unter anderem basieren diese Daten
auf statistischen Untersuchungen von Tierknochen
und Pollenanalysen, bzw. auf Radiocarbonbestimmun-
RURALIA X
143–155
gen. Es herrscht zunehmend die Annahme vor, dass
gesellschaftliche Transformationen in dieser Zeit Herr-
schaftsbildungen und die Entwicklung von zentralen
Siedlungen des 8. Jahrhunderts reflektieren. Dazu
gehören auch Veränderungen in der Landwirtschaft
sowie die Kontrolle der Verarbeitung und die Vertei-
lung von Ressourcen. Während dieser Zeit wird wei-
terhin mit dem Ard gepflügt. Erst im 10. Jahrhundert
werden neue Technologien beim Pflügen eingeführt,
deutlich später als die konstatierten gesellschaftlichen
Veränderungen. Dieser Beitrag zeigt auf, dass die Ent-
wicklung von Agrartechniken im Zusammenhang ei-
ner umfassenden Wirtschaftsentwicklung betrachtet
werden muss, ein möglicher Indikator war ein Bevöl-
kerungswachstum. Bzgl. dieser Hypothese müssen die
Verhältnisse im 10. Jahrhundert genauer untersucht
werden.
Résumé
La recherche archéologique est maintenant sûre
d’elle quand il s’agit d’étudier le Haut Moyen Âge, parce
que les chercheurs ont accès à des bases de données
fiables. Les études zoologiques et de pollens en par-
ticulier bénéficient d’approches statistiques confor-
tées par d’abondantes datations 14C. Il existe un
consensus croissant pour affirmer que de majeures
transformations ont pris place dans la société dès le
8e siècle, reflétant le développement des seigneuries
et des habitats regroupés. Ceux-ci sont associés aux
changements de l’agriculture qui montrent un chan-
gement dans le contrôle de la transformation et de la
distribution des récoltes. Durant cette période, le la-
bourage se fait toujours à l’aide d’un araire. C’est seu-
lement au 10e siècle que de nouvelles techniques de
labourage apparaissent, bien après les changements
sociaux notés dans d’autres ensembles de données.
Cet article suggère que le développement doit être com-
pris dans un contexte d’ « économie totale » qui pour-
rait être un indicateur de croissance démographique.
Les chercheurs devraient prendre en considération le
10e siècle concernant cette problématique.
Bibliography
Binchy, D. A. 1955:
Irish law tracts re-edited, Ériu 17, 52–85.
Bradley, J. 1988:
The interpretation of Scandinavian settlement in Ireland, in:
Bradley, J. (ed.): Settlement and society in Medieval Ireland:
studies presented to F. X. Martin O.S.A., Boethius, Kilkenny,
47–78.
153
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology
Bradley, J. 2009:
Some reflections on the problem of Scandinavian settle-
ment in the hinterland of Dublin during the ninth century,
in: Bradley, J. – Fletcher, A. – Simms, A. (eds): Dublin in the
medieval world: studies in honour of Howard B. Clarke. Four
Courts Press, Dublin, 39–62.
Brady, N. 1994:
Reconstructing a medieval Irish plough, in: Primeras Jorna-
des internacionales sobre tecnologica agrarian tradicional,
Mai 25–9 1992 (Museo Nacional del Pueblo Espanol, Madrid),
31–44.
Brady, N. 2006:
Mills in medieval Ireland: looking beyond design, in: Walton,
S. (ed.): Wind and Water, the medieval mill. Arizona Center for
Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 39–68.
Brady, N. 2009:
Just how far can you go with a pebble? Taking another look
at ploughing in medieval Ireland, in: Fenwick, J. (ed.), Lost
and Found II. Rediscovering Ireland’s past. Wordwell, Bray,
61–70.
Brady, N. 2011:
Food production in medieval Ireland, aspects of arable hus-
bandry, Ruralia 8, 137–143.
Carver, M. 2004:
An Iona of the East: the early-medieval monastery at Portma-
homack, Tarbat Ness, Medieval Archaeology, 48, 1–30.
Carver, M. 2008:
Portmahomack, monastery of the Picts. Edinburgh Univer-
sity Press, Edinburgh.
Carver, M. – Garner-Lahire, J. – Spall, C. in press 2015:
Portmahomack on Tarbat Ness. Family estate, Pictish mon-
astery, trading farm and medieval township; changing ideolo-
gies in north-east Scotland, 6th to 16th century AD. Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh.
Doherty, C. 2002:
The transmission of the cult of St Máedhóg, in: Ní Chatháin, P.
– Richter, M. (eds): Ireland and Europe in the early Middle
Ages: texts and transmission. Four Courts Press, Dublin,
268–283.
Earwood, C – Beattie, K. 2008:
A medieval plough from Drumlee, county Antrim, Ulster
Journal of Archaeology 67, 118–125.
Fowler, P. 2002:
Farming in the First Millennium AD, British agriculture be-
tween Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and New York.
Hencken, H. O’N. 1936:
Ballinderry crannog No. 1. Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy 43C, 103–239.
Hill, P. 1997:
Whithorn and St. Ninian – the excavation of a monastic town
1984–91. Sutton Publishing for the Whithorn Trust, Stroud.
Jackman, N. – Moore, C. – Rynne, C. 2013:
The mill at Kilbegly. An archaeological investigation on the
route of the M6 Ballinasloe to Athlone national road scheme.
National Roads Authority, Dublin.
Kelly, F. 1988:
A guide to early Irish law. Early Irish Law series III, Dublin.
154
143–155
Kelly, F. 1997:
Early Irish farming. Early Irish Law series IV, Dublin.
Langdon, J. – Astill, G. – Myrdal, J. 1997:
Introduction, in: Astill, G. – Langdon, J. (eds): Medieval farm-
ing and technology: the impact of agricultural change in
northwest Europe. Brill, London, New York , Köln, 1–9.
Leahy, K. 2013:
A deposit of early medieval iron objects from Scraptoft,
Leicestershire, Medieval Archaeology, 57, 223–237.
Lynn, C. 1983:
Some ‘early’ ringforts and crannogs, Journal of Irish Archae-
ology 1, 47–58.
Mac Neill, E. 1923:
Ancient Irish law: the law of status or franchise, Proceedings
of the Royal Irish Academy 36C, 265–316.
McCarthy, C. 2009:
Residential development, Ballynakelly, Newcastle, Co. Dub-
lin, final excavation report, 06E176. Unpublished report of
Archtech Ltd, archived with the National Monuments Section,
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
McCarthy, C. 2011:
The Ballynakelly ringfort, Co. Dublin, in: Corlett, C. – Pot-
terton, M. (eds): Settlement in early medieval Ireland in the
lights of recent archaeological excavations. Wordwell, Dublin,
239–250.
McCormick, F. – Murray, E. 2007:
Knowth and the zooarchaeology of Early Christian Ireland.
Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.
McCormick, F. – Kerr, T. – McClatchie, M . – O’Sullivan, A. 2011:
The archaeology of livestock and cereal production in early
medieval Ireland, AD 400–1100. EMAP report 5.1. Accessible
online at: www.emap.ie
McErlean, T. – Crothers, N. 2007:
Harnessing the tides. The early medieval tidal mills at Nen-
drum monastery, Strangford Lough (Blackstaff Press, Bel-
fast).
Monk, M. – Kelleher, E. 2005:
An assessment of the archaeological evidence for Irish corn
drying kilns in the light of the results of archaeological ex-
periments and archaeobotanical studies, Journal of Irish Ar-
chaeology 14, 77–114.
Monk, M. – Power, O. 2012:
More than a grain of truth emerges from a rash of corn-dry-
ing kilns? Archaeology Ireland 26.2, 38–41.
O’Sullivan, A. – McCormick, F. – Kerr, T. – Harney, L. 2013:
Early Medieval Ireland, AD 400–1100. The evidence from ar-
chaeological excavations. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.
Plummer, C. 1905:
Bethada Náem nÉrenn. Lives of the Irish saints. Volume 2.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Raftery, J. 1972:
Iron Age and Irish Sea: problems for research, in: Thomas, C.
(ed.): The Iron Age in the Irish Sea province, CBA Research
Paper 9, London, 1–10.
Rynne, C. 2000:
The introduction of the vertical watermill into Ireland: some
recent archaeological evidence, Medieval Archaeology 33,
21–31.
RURALIA X
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology 143–155

Stevens, P. 2012: at Lyminge, Kent, Society for Medieval Archaeology Newslet-

Clonfad – an industrious monastery, in: Stevens, P. – Chan-
ning, J. (eds): Settlement and community in the Fir Tulach
kingdom. Archaeological excavation on the M6 and N52 road
schemes, National Roads Authority, 109–136.
Stokes, W. 1905:
Félire Óengusso Céili Dé: the martyrology of Oengu the Cul-
dee. Henry Bradshaw Society 29, London. Reprinted Dublin
1984.
Thomas, G. 2012:
Ploughs, Kent and the Anglo-Saxon conversion, excavations
ter 47, 1–2.
Waterman, D. 1951:
Dundrum Castle, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 14, 15–29.
Waterman, D. 1956:
The excavation of a house and souterrain at White Fort, Dru-
maroad, Co. Down, Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 19, 73–86.
Online source:
www.futuremuseum.co.uk/collections/people/
lives-in-key-periods/archaeology/early-medie-
val-(400ad-1099ad)/stidriggs-hoard

Niall Brady, The Archaeological Diving Company Ltd, nbrady@adco-ie.com

RURALIA X 155
Brady, What the plough can reveal about the role of agrarian technology 143–155

156 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus
Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes
c. 800–1300 AD
Agrartechnologie und Landnutzung in Skandinavien
800–1300
Technologie agraire et occupation des sols dans les paysages scandinaves,
800–1300
Ingvild Øye
Introduction
This article deals with technology, landscapes and
land use in Scandinavia – in this context Denmark,
Sweden and Norway – during five centuries, from
about 800 to 1300 AD. This was a period of great so-
cio-economic transformations – population growth,
political centralisation processes, and increased social
stratifications and intensified rural production, often
ascribed to agrarian changes in technology and land
use. The economic history of farming and the impact
of agricultural technology is an old field of study, long
dominated by historians and ethnologists but also a
meeting point for several other disciplines, such as
geography, place-name studies and archaeology. In the
last few decades, archaeology and landscape studies in
particular have made a major contribution to agrarian
history. A common connection has often been drawn
between agrarian technology, land use and settlement
patterns related to what has been denoted as the agrar-
ian revolution of the Middle Ages. Others have empha-
sised the social aspects and the divergent development
between regions. The aims of this article are twofold;
to explore these links and the impact of technology on
land use on a macro level to get a broader view of the
region as a whole. Divergent development within the
region may, then, also come clearer. A second aim is
to understand what has linked the research in terms
of ideas and conceptual frameworks and how this has
changed over time.
In this context, technology covers a wide range of
cultural practices, and is understood as the techno-
logical system within the broad concept of ‘culture’.
It includes both practical dimensions of technologi-
cal processes and socio-political aspects of ‘cultural
transmission’, socially and in space. The mechanisms
of innovation cover not only the process of introducing
something new: a new idea, method or device but also
successful acceptance and exploitation – or rejection
(Øye et al. 2010). One needs to look at how technology
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 157–172.
FHG
157–172
is balanced within wider farming systems and in dif-
ferent environments over time. The term farming sys-
tems represents an approach by which the different
components relate to each other – such as technology
and farming methods, land use, and environments but
also the socio-political aspects of ownership and man-
agement (Brush –Turner 1987).
Scandinavia as a geographical region varies consider-
ably, both climatically and topographically, from south
to north and from west to east, and as much as one
quarter of the area lies north of the Arctic Circle (Fig. 1).
The best conditions for arable farming are found in the
southern part of medieval Denmark and southern Swe-
den. Further north there are larger areas of outlying
land, containing grazing-land for animal husbandry
and other resources. The central and northern parts
of the region are generally short of arable land. Within
the large areas of outlying land, only a small proportion
has been cultivated; in Norway never more than three
per cent of the land (Fig. 2). To what degree, then, does
the development within the region follow the same tra-
jectories and are they in some ways interconnected?
A period of change
All the Scandinavian countries share a closely re-
lated history and show parallel socio-economic, po-
litical and demographic developments, although not
altogether synchronic. Traditionally, the whole period
from the 9th to the 13th centuries is regarded as one
of economic and demographic growth and expansion,
culminating around 1300 or somewhat before. Chris-
tianisation, unification of the early kingdoms, and ur-
banisation started earliest in Denmark; from the late
9th century onwards. The Oslofjord region in Norway
was under the influence of the Danish kingdom in the
10th century, and landscapes in southern Sweden –
Scania (Skåne), Blekinge and Halland – were made
10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110462
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD 157–172

North Norway
Plain
Lappland Fissure valley terrain
Hilly terrain
Plain with residual hills
Premontan region
Mountain Region
Alpine area
Table mountains
Norwegian
Loose deposits
Sea
Norrland

Bothnian
N O R W A Y Sea

Vestlandet Svealand
Østlandet Bergslagen
S W E D E N

North
Sea Götaland
Skagerrak

D E N M A R K
Baltic
Jylland Sea
Sjælland Skåne
Fyn

Fig. 1. Map of Scandinavia with the present-day borders and names Fig. 2. The geomorphology of Scandinavia. Map adapted after U. Spor-
mentioned in the text (Drawing: P. Bækken). rong 2003, 23, by P. Bækken.

parts of the kingdom during the reign of King Knut in
the early 11th century and remained Danish until the
mid-17th century.
Urbanisation was also strongest in these southern
areas. Among about 175 Scandinavian medieval towns,
only twelve evolved within the present-day borders of
Norway (Andrén 1989). Rural production formed the
basis for subsistence for the growing rural population
but also for the households of landowners, the mon-
archy and the upkeep of a growing urban population.
In the early Scandinavian Middle Ages, from the 11th
and 12th centuries onwards, ecclesiastical institutions,
such as episcopal sees, cathedrals, chapters and oth-
ers, became major landowners that claimed land rent
and other contributions. Socio-economic changes made
their impact on settlements and communities. Clearing
of new land and subdivision or clustering of old settle-
ments transformed the layout of the farmland and the
organisation of farmsteads, hamlets and villages. The
expansion of rural settlements and the emergence of
nucleated permanent villages with surrounding com-
mon fields were most striking in the south-eastern and
most fertile areas of the region of medieval Denmark.
The most influential frameworks for explaining
patterns of medieval settlement concentration and
their relation to social and economic change relate to
power, coercion and lordship, communalism and for-
malisation: field-systems and resource-management,
urbanisation and emerging market-integration. Both
nucleation and expansion of settlements are gener-
ally connected with upward demographic trends in
the countryside and seen as a response to popula-
tion pressure. The development is also connected with
more intensive methods of tillage and improved tech-
nology, as well as physical and tenural reorganisation.
It also involved collective management of fields in or-
der to balance between arable land and pasture. These
developments have been regarded as interconnected
and more or less contemporary around the turn of the
first millennium to the 13th century.

158 RURALIA X
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
In recent decades, researchers have tended to pro-
mote a top-down view of all these changes. Behind
them they have seen the controlling influence of po-
litical authorities or landlords. To support this, struc-
tural regularities have been pointed out, such as the
planned character of many nucleated villages, and the
strip patterns of open fields due to new technology (e.g.
Porsmose 1988). Others are more cautious and see the
changes in settlement and field structures as by-prod-
ucts and parallel developments rather than prime
movers. The chronology of the development of lord-
ship, estates and the influence of royal power upon ru-
ral settlements has, however, been rather vaguely de-
scribed. To what degree are these views still valid and
representative of Scandinavia as a region? And, what
has characterised the research on this field within the
Scandinavian countries?
Diverse approaches to a common field
The state of knowledge related to rural and agrar-
ian development in Scandinavia is based on multi-dis-
ciplinary studies, evidence and approaches achieved
over time. Not least, history has provided important
frameworks and chronologies on a macro level, and is
also of influence on approaches and interpretations
within other disciplines. Although there are many par-
allels in research and scholarly traditions in the Scan-
dinavian countries, there are also differences, as for
source material, methodologies, and approaches. This
brief survey serves as a backdrop when discussing
and comparing these issues, and does not claim to be
all-inclusive. Research leans on cumulative knowledge
of earlier research and a steadily expanding pool of ac-
cessible source material, methodologies within shift-
ing objectives and research traditions of the different
disciplines. This also affects the results and explanato-
ry frameworks – long dominated by an underlying evo-
lutionary and functionalistic way of thinking, shifting
to accentuate demographic, economic, and socio-polit-
ical factors, while social aspects have come more to the
forefront in recent research.
In Scandinavia, the study of medieval rural settle-
ments dates back to the early years of the 20th centu-
ry, both as a specialisation and as subtopics within po-
litical and economic history. Still, it was built on earlier
achievements related to data collection, registration
of different source categories – narratives, law codes
and diplomas, letters and documents with a juridical
impact. Initially, researchers at the oldest universi-
ties, museums, and archives with broad academic re-
sponsibilities were the main agents, and research also
tended to concentrate on central areas and topics. The
post-war establishment of new universities and muse-
ums generally with a more regional profile also had an
RURALIA X
157–172
impact on research of rural history. Variations and dif-
ferences within regions and countries have thus also
become clearer.
Norway, with its least urbanised and most diverse
landscapes, absorbed the field of rural and agrar-
ian history rather early, where the first national over-
views of agrarian history appeared in early 20th cen-
tury (Hasund 1918; 1924). The interwar period was a
blooming age for rural and agrarian history, not least
inspired by Marc Bloch’s studies and the French An-
nales School. The field gained new importance not
least with its emphasis on long term development; for
putting historical developments and divergent develop-
ment between the regions into relative perspectives. In
Norway, the empirical tradition and pioneer geist from
the late 19th and early 20th centuries of systematic
data collecting and publishing of different source cat-
egories, documentary, as well as ethnological and ar-
chaeological evidence, and place-names made it possi-
ble to study settlement, economy and social life based
on empirical evidence in a long-term perspective.
In Denmark and Sweden with their older academic
traditions, historians had a less pronounced interest
in rural and agrarian history but it also appeared here
in the early 1900s, with an emphasis on economic
aspects, property structures, demography, and settle-
ments, especially the nucleation of villages, compara-
ble to the development on the Continent. There is also
a notable imbalance of archival material. In these coun-
tries, the historical source material of cadastres from
the Late Middle Ages and maps from the 17th centu-
ry, are generally older than in Norway where similar
sources appear around two hundred years later.
Since the 1930s to the present, a retrogressive meth-
od has gained a strong position in Norwegian agrarian
studies. The method is based on the study of accounts,
tax lists, record evidence from the post medieval pe-
riods and maps from the 19th century documenting
old farm structures and field systems, used in combi-
nation with the more fragmentary medieval sources
in search for archaic features. The method has been
considered as especially suitable because of a high de-
gree of structural continuity in the Norwegian agrar-
ian society (Holmsen 1981 [1940]) – an idea that has
almost become a dogma. The overall theoretical and
methodological framework for Norwegian agrarian his-
torical research has been a high degree of continuity,
within a settlement pattern of smaller and dispersed
farmsteads and a system of self-sufficiency compared
to the more nucleated settlements further south.
Differences between the Scandinavian countries
were also revealed in the large scale Nordic project,
Deserted Farms and Villages (1968–1976), which fo-
cussed on the scale, character and consequences
of desertion in the Late Middle Ages in the different
159
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
countries. It also stimulated new local empirical stud-
ies and measurements and estimates of the crisis,
economically and demographically in the different
countries and regions (Sandnes – Salvesen 1978). The
project also revealed that different methodologies, ap-
proaches and source material within the countries,
affected the results. This was partly due to the system-
atic use of the retrogressive method but also different
ways of classifying settlements. In Norway, farms with
their own names (Norw. navnegård), as described in
later cadastres as separate fiscal objects, count as the
main structure. Still, they could cover a varying num-
ber of households or holdings – clustered or more dis-
persed, while Danish and Swedish researchers tend to
count clustered settlements but as few as three sepa-
rate farms as villages (e.g. Steensberg 1956, 255). Dif-
ferences in terminology and research traditions may
thus disguise similarities and exaggerate differences.
Archaeologists and ethnologists have played an
important role in studying the concrete remains of
tools and fields in different areas. Studies of tools in
Viking Age graves have shown the extensive material
of tools for tillage and harvesting that evidently sym-
bolised different work domains (Brøgger 1933; Petersen
1951). Traditionally, ethnologists have shown a strong
interest in the pre-industrial rural society and mate-
rial culture – including agrarian technology, land use
and communal forms of work. The first generations
of academically trained ethnologists had, however, no
clear boundary to archaeology. Both disciplines op-
erated within evolutionary and functionalistic para-
digms. Drawing on knowledge of pre-modern artefacts
and techniques, ethnologists could help to explain the
function, especially of the objects found in medieval
archaeological contexts.
The heydays within ethnological research started
in the inter-war period. In Denmark, Axel Steensberg,
played an influential role from the mid-thirties and
over a long time span, concentrating on issues and
material related to settlement structures, technologi-
cal development, especially of ploughing and field sys-
tems. His colleague and earlier student, Grith Lerche,
focussed her studies on medieval ploughing and how
it shaped the fields. By reconstructions of a medieval
mouldboard plough, based on archaeological traces
and experiments in the fields, she was able to provide
a better understanding of their function and effects
in the fields (Lerche 1994). Her studies have also been
useful for further studies and identification.
Steensberg’s contemporary Scandinavian colleagues
in ethnology and the museum sector, Sigurd Erixon,
Ragnar Jirlow in Sweden and Hilmar Stigum and Far-
tein Valen-Sendstad in Norway have also made impor-
tant contributions for understanding agrarian techno-
logies and agrarian work processes, and settlements. In
160
157–172
recent ethnology, however, agrarian studies have waned
significantly. More recently, however, the historian
Janken Myrdal has studied a broad spectre of histori-
cal evidence, including mural paintings and ethnologi-
cal information to throw light on medieval ploughing
in Sweden (Myrdal 1985; 1997; 1999a; 1999b; 2011).
Historical evidence can, however, mostly be used retro-
spectively to throw light on the Viking period and the
early Middle Ages. The broad field of archaeology and
landscape studies must, then, fill the gap.
The laws protecting archaeological remains and
structures are fairly similar in Scandinavia, and all
archaeological material older than the Reformation
is automatically protected. How the laws have been
practised, has, however, shifted. Generally, older ex-
cavations of rural settlements have been on a smaller
scale; concentrated on the traces of farm houses and
neglecting the surrounding fields and structures. Dur-
ing the last three decades, larger rescue excavations
carried out as open-air excavations have expanded
extensively, often caused by larger infrastructural de-
velopment. Large scale open-air studies did, however,
also occur at an earlier stage although more as excep-
tions than a rule, such as excavation of Store Valby in
Zealand (Sjælland) directed by Steensberg (Svart Kris-
tiansen 2006, 22). Of recent projects, the Øresund pro-
ject is one of the larger ones, covering both sides of the
Sound, crossing national borders. On the Danish side
it involved an excavation of a whole farm complex in
one of the medieval villages, Tårnby in Zealand (Svart
Kristiansen 2005). Such excavations have been able to
reveal larger settlement complexes, although not com-
pletely. In Denmark and Scania, archaeology has dem-
onstrated that villages and fields from the early Iron
Age, such as at Vorbasse in Jutland (Hvass 1983), have
moved over centuries and relocated cyclically within
larger resource areas which were used rather exten-
sively before the settlements became stationary in the
early Middle Ages. In Norway, projects have to a larger
degree included different environments and include
land use and exploitation of resources in the outlying
areas and seasonal settlements of various forms, such
as shielings, and different forms of quarrying and iron
production (cf. Øye 2005).
The expanding field of rural landscape studies, then,
is based on both large and smaller scales. Increased
interdisciplinary collaboration has also provided new
and concrete evidence about settlements, field struc-
tures and farming. Not least, environmental archaeo-
logy and the analysis of pollen and macro fossils have
contributed to a wider picture of the rural resources
and variations in cultivation and land use. Large-scale
excavations and research projects, such as in the
landscape of Ystad in Scania (Berglund 1991), serve as
important examples of how environmental archaeo-
RURALIA X
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
logy can provide a fuller understanding of long-term
chronologies. Also smaller, dispersed settlements have
been excavated, at least partly, both in Norway (e.g.
Kaland 1987; Randers 1981) and Sweden (e.g. Anders-
son – Svensson 2002). In Sweden, cultural geographers
have played an important role in studies of field struc-
tures – methods that have been adopted and adapted
in main stream archaeology.
In Norway, the archaeological research of medieval
rural settlements has been concentrated on abandoned
and rather marginal, dispersed and small-scaled sin-
gle farms in the south-west and western parts of the
country. The question of agglomerated settlement has
not been central in medieval archaeological research so
far. Until the 1970s, archaeological investigations were
mainly engaged in house constructions and the layout
of the farmhouses; the farmland itself gained less atten-
tion. New interest in the ecological processes, has also
here called for closer co-operation between archaeo-
logists and natural scientists, resulting in investiga-
tions of the farmland and the utilisation and the car-
rying capacity of the natural resources (Randers 1981;
Kaland 1987; Pedersen 1990; Holm 1995). It has, howev-
er, been difficult to archaeologically trace the more sus-
tainable, historically documented medieval farms and
farms from the Viking period (Martens 2009), probably
due to the permanency in their location. Small scale
excavations based on test pitting of fossilised struc-
tures, fences, lynchets, clearing cairns and other traces
within different zones of the farm areas have therefore
been carried out to throw light on shifting land use and
the origins of farms that have been used into the pre-
sent. In Western Norway (Vestlandet), such studies have
shown that farms may have demonstrated a large de-
gree of stability in the settlement core and surrounding
infield and in many cases, also a longer history than
indicated through traditional dating methods based on
documentary evidence and the established place-name
chronology (Øye 2011; cf. also J. Larsen this volume).
Test pitting was also used to a large extent when
studying the origins of villages on the island Funen
in Denmark in the 1970s (Grøngaard Jeppesen 1981).
Different scales may thus provide complementary per-
spectives on rural change. Above the ground, the evi-
dence of medieval settlements can take many forms,
such as traces of plot boundaries, settlement earth-
works and buildings, and where early maps exist, it is
often a basic starting point for assessing relative lev-
els of nucleation and dispersion and different forms
of land use. Together, all these approaches have given
a broader understanding of how different cultural pro-
cesses interact in a long-term perspective. Still, the ex-
cavated sites represent a minor sample of the available
archaeological evidence. The question is then: is such
evidence able to fill the time gap between the later his-
RURALIA X
157–172
torically better documented settlement and field struc-
tures and capable of substantiating the chronology
and development of agrarian transformations from the
Viking period to the end of the High Middle Ages?
The latest state of research on a macro level of settle-
ment development, land use and technology in the pe-
riod 800–1300AD, has been presented in the national
agrarian histories in Scandinavia, first published in
Denmark in 1988 (Porsmose 1988), in Sweden in 1999
(Widgren – Pedersen 1998; Myrdal 1999), and in Norway
three years later (Øye 2002). Short versions in English
of the Norwegian and Swedish histories appeared in
2004 (Almås ed. 2004) and 2011 (Myrdal – Morell eds
2011), respectively. An updated version of the Danish
development was published in English in 2007 (Hybel
– Poulsen 2007). These results, together with other re-
cent and more specialised studies, are useful for com-
parison.
Shifting settlement patterns and farm
structures
Around 1300, clear regional patterns in settlement
and land use can be distinguished on a macro level. By
this time, nucleated settlements, such as villages and
hamlets, were primarily located in the areas with the
best farmland; in southern Sweden and Denmark, and
single dispersed farmsteads in areas with rougher and
more broken topography further north. In Western
and North Norway, they could, however, also comprise
various forms of nucleated farms besides individu-
al dispersed farmsteads (Øye 2000, 290–291; 2004,
96–99). As already noted, the divide between farms,
hamlets and villages can be somewhat blurred due to
difference in nomenclature and research traditions in
Scandinavia (Widgren 1997; Øye 2000). Attempts to re-
construct nucleated farmsteads in Norway, as they ap-
peared before the large division of farms from the mid-
dle of the 19th century onwards have also been made
(Berg 1968), but only in South-West Norway (Rønneseth
1975). However, these studies have not had any greater
impact on later research of medieval farms – and the
question of agglomeration has not been focused upon
in Norway. Although differences between dispersed
farmsteads, hamlets and nucleated villages can be re-
cognised as general patterns, there is a risk of drawing
too sharp distinctions and neglecting variations. The
archaeological resources for tracing medieval settle-
ment are unevenly distributed between regions and
countries, and the southern parts are generally best
represented. This may also have relevance as for the
assessment of land use.
It is also important to understand the medieval
settlement beyond the best arable zones of lowland
to achieve a more inclusive exploration of the range
161
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
of rural settlement, and possibly also interplay. Re-
sources in outlying areas of farms played an impor-
tant role for settlement patterns and land use and were
most important in areas where arable land was more
limited. Such outlying areas comprise the larger parts
of resource areas for agriculture in West and North
Scandinavia: grazing-land for animal husbandry but
also minerals, such as soapstone and schist for quar-
rying and not least, iron production in the inner areas
of South-Eastern Norway and mid Sweden which were
expanding areas dominated by single farms in the Vi-
king period. Here labour intensive farming was often
combined with other income strategies; proto-indus-
tries, fishing and hunting oriented towards surplus.
Still, commons and outlying areas were not always
‘free for all’, and recent research tends to see the inter-
ests of more powerful interest groups behind many of
the large scale enterprises.
In North Norway, so called farm mounds (gårds-
hauger) form a special settlement type – characterised
by accumulated masses and deposits of household re-
fuse, turf from ruined buildings, manure and other de-
bris, often 0.5–5 m high and covering areas of 50–200
x 50–100 m (Bertelsen 1979). They generally date from
the Late Iron Age to the present (Munch 1966; Bertelsen
– Lamb 1995; cf. also V. Martens, this volume). They do,
then, demonstrate strong continuity in settlement and
land use, in an area where animal husbandry played
a dominant role in a mixed rural economy that also to
a large degree included fishing and catch from the sea
(Bertelsen 2005). Studies in northern areas of Sweden
are fewer. An area such as Norrbotten in the northern
part, which makes up a quarter of Sweden’s land sur-
face, has only recently been subject to such studies
(Wallerström 1995). There are also many signs that this
northerly part of present-day Sweden was culturally
separate from the areas to the south. Here, the estab-
lishment of agriculture as the farming of land can be
dated to the 13th century at the latest, somewhat before
the colonisation from the south when Sweden gained
territorial rights in this area in the 14th century (ibid).
The chronology of the nucleation and expansion
of settlements in the southern areas and the causes,
however, is not so clear. Fragmentary source material
and partial excavations make it difficult to get the full
view of such processes, and retrospective analyses
based on later information, may not reflect the earlier
Areas Number of rural households
c. 1300
Present-day Denmark 102,000/112,500
Present-day Norway 64,000/75,000
The Swedish provinces 75,000
Tab. 1. Medieval settlement in Scandinavia (Orrman 2003,269).
162
157–172
development. Archaeological excavations in different
contexts, combined with other source material, are
therefore crucial for establishing a more precise chro-
nology and for understanding these processes.
Around 1300 and perhaps some decades earlier,
it has been estimated that the medieval settlement
reached a high point which was not repeated until
the 16th and 17th centuries in Sweden, and until the
17th, 18th and 19th centuries in Norway and Denmark
(Myrdal 1999a, 27; Øye 2004,100; Hybel – Poulsen
2007, 132). The landscape, however, is never static. In
Norway, as well as in Denmark and Sweden, expan-
sion and colonisation seem to have been in the most
forested parts. Woodland was generally the most im-
portant biotope that was subject to medieval colonisa-
tion in Scandinavia (Söderberg –Myrdal 2002, 83; Øye
2004, 99; Hybel – Poulsen 2007, 35). In more fertile ar-
eas, the expansion was more limited to already open
land. In Denmark, the expansion has been calculated
to be at least 50 per cent in some regions but the rapid
expansion of arable areas seems to have taken place
somewhat later, from about 1000 AD (Hybel – Poulsen
2007, 9).
Fluctuations in the size and number of settlements
can, however, only be estimated based on different
indirect sources, and the demographic trend before
1000 AD is not clear at all. In Norway, the expansion
in some areas may indicate that the population may
have doubled or even tripled since the early Viking pe-
riod, not least based on place-names and archaeologi-
cal evidence. However, the estimates can only be ap-
proximate and uncertain, and evidence from various
sources is generally weak and lacks good contempo-
rary documentation. Still, this can give a rough idea
of the medieval settlement and population in various
parts of Scandinavia by the end of the period (Tab. 1).
Traditionally, population growth has been seen as
an obvious force behind the process of land clearance
and expanding settlements, but geographical and eco-
logical conditions were also important for how it was
organised and carried out in different areas. The po-
tential for change was also determined by other condi-
tions, such as disposal of and access to land, earlier
cultural practices and other societal structural change.
People from different social strata had different objec-
tives and possibilities that may have limited their ac-
tions and adaptive capacity. This includes sovereignty,
property rights, access to or restrictions on land use.
The new kingdoms, urban centres and ecclesiastical
institutions also played a role in shaping land and eco-
nomic change. The elite, powerful lords or ecclesiasti-
cal institutions have been seen as important agents of
settlement change, not least connected to the formation
of nucleated villages. Tenural structure, local lordship
and aristocratic kinship are, then, also important but
RURALIA X
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
not always easy to reconstruct because of the paucity
of source material. Although an under-studied field of
research for many geographical areas, medieval land-
ownership seems to comprise considerable regional
differences. By the end of the period, around 1300, a
large percentage of the Scandinavian peasants were
tenants. It has been calculated that some 70 per cent
of the land in Norway (Helle 1995; Øye 2004, 8), and as
much as 85–90 per cent in Denmark (Hybel – Poulsen
2007, 209–210), was integrated into estates which were
to a large extent related to the advance of religious in-
stitutions. In Norway, such land was generally restrict-
ed to the coastal districts and concentrated around the
major towns, and with more freehold in inland, upland
areas. In Sweden, more land, around 50 per cent, was
held by freeholders, especially in the northern areas
(Söderberg – Myrdal 2002, 89). Peasantry was thus
subject to secular, ducal and ecclesiastical landowner-
ship in the High Middle Ages. These trends may also
reflect earlier landownership in the Viking period and
Early Middle Ages, as has been substantiated in recent
studies from Norway (Skre 1998; Iversen 1999; 2008) –
in contrast to earlier conceptions of a mainly free peas-
antry in the Viking period. In this period well into the
13th century, the agrarian work force also comprised
a large group of unfree slaves, semi-free labourers and
later tenants, dependant on the conditions of their ten-
ure (Myrdal 1999, 96; Øye 2004, 89; Hybel – Poulsen
2007, 209). The differences in landownership and dif-
ferent stratifications within rural societies may also
have contributed to regional differences in settlements
and land use, and in hierarchies within economic but
also social landscapes. Seen in a time perspective, the
explanatory frameworks and arguments have shifted,
from evolutionary, environmental and demographic
frames to stronger socio-economic, socio-political and
social perspectives.
Historiographically, there are also different views as
to the consequences of population pressure and the in-
teraction between resources and demographic change:
from a focus on the problem of keeping food produc-
tion in pace with a rising population, based upon the
assumption that population growth and cultivation of
new and marginal land give rise to poorer yields and
outcome per capita, to a more optimistic outlook. In
her economic and socio-anthropological studies, Ester
Boserup (1965; 1981), has substantiated that popula-
tion pressure may lead to agricultural innovations and
stimulate productivity. Population growth and pres-
sure on land may in fact also have been an economic
driver in times of an emerging market economy and
opened up for more diverse and specialised land use
(de Vries 1974). The new urban communities may have
had a stimulating effect on the countryside in terms of
demand and ways of production.
RURALIA X
157–172
Settlements and land use
Around 1300, distinct geographical patterns in set-
tlements and land use can be recognised with a strong
concurrence between geo-topographical conditions,
settlement structures, field systems, and land use. The
beginning of the period is more diffuse as for chro-
nology of nucleation and new strategies in land use
– in precise timing, speed, formation and intensity.
The causes are therefore also discussed: were chang-
es in settlement structures and land use caused by
top-down regulations or bottom-up solutions?
In their studies of villages at Funen, the archaeolo-
gist Torben Grøngaard Jeppesen and the historian
Erland Porsmose tried to date when moving villag-
es became static, but arrived at somewhat different
chronological frames, respectively ca. 1000–1200
(Grøngaard Jeppesen 1981, 110–112) and 950–1100
(Porsmose 1987, 26–28; 1988), based on different as-
sessment of a not too solid dating material. Later stud-
ies have shown that the formation and regulations of
nucleated villages happened to a large degree in the
12th century but developed over a longer time span
into the 14th century. In some areas, the moving vil-
lages continued to exist longer. Recent studies, then,
show greater variations than earlier conceived (Carelli
2001, 32–38). The dating also has consequences for
the interpretations. Porsmose saw the emergence of
stationary villages, population growth, technological
changes and new methods within farming as intercon-
nected processes related with socio-political changes:
formation of political administrative units and emerg-
ing ecclesiastical landscapes with the development of
the church and organisation in parishes (Porsmose
1981, 457; 1988). His interpretations have later been
influential, but also criticised.
Church building has been seen as one of the stabi-
lising factors in the processes of stabilising the mov-
ing villages (e.g. Liebgott 1989) and may serve as a
useful socio-economic and demographic indicator of
settlement growth and the spatial redefinition of the
settlement pattern in the Early Middle Ages. The de-
velopment of the church village Kyrkheddinge, near
the episcopal centre of Lund in Scania, may serve
as an important example, also based on archaeology
(Schmidt Sabo 2001; 2005). Here, it has been possible
to trace the development of a main farm from the Late
Viking Age, expanding as a nucleated village during the
medieval period. The nucleation seems to have start-
ed in the beginning of the 12th century but still not
within regulated plots and to be radically altered dur-
ing the 13th century. By the end of the 12th century,
a stone church was under erection, possibly replacing
a wooden church from the preceding century. From c.
1200 to the end of the 15th century no fundamental
163
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
changes could be observed. Judging by later landown-
ership in the Late Middle Ages when 65 per cent of the
land was owned by the church and the rest by the lo-
cal elite, local magnates or the church seem to have
taken a founding role in Kyrkheddinge (Schmidt Sabo
2001, 60–80).The study implies, then, a close connec-
tion with the royal and ecclesiastical powers and as a
process stretching over several hundred years.
The earlier mentioned excavations in Tårnby in Zea-
land, also made it possible to follow the development
of a farmstead within its plot structure of the medie-
val village of twelve farmsteads from around 1100AD
into the Early Modern period. Although the number
was stable, complex restructuring of buildings went
on over time (Svart Kristiansen 2005). In her further
studies of farms in medieval Denmark, Mette Svart
Kristiansen has analysed structures and the chronol-
ogy in 35 partially excavated village sites. Most of these
villages seem to have been established before 1200AD,
from the turn of the millennium into the 13th and 14th
centuries. It appeared that the plots and settlement
patterns were more flexible and varied than shown in
later documentary evidence, and also with regional
variations. It is possible that there was a general regu-
lation in the beginning of the 13th and 14th centuries
(Svart Kristiansen 2006, 114–121). A pattern emerges,
then, where larger farms in the Viking period were
split up into smaller farmsteads within a village struc-
ture of smaller plots of different sizes which later be-
came regulated. Such a development has also opened
for new interpretations, caused by changes in social
patterns – based on smaller households within small-
er economic units (Carelli 2001, 63–66; Svart Kristian-
sen 2006, 121). This is also an explanation that earlier
gained wide support in Norway for explaining the ex-
pansion of new farmsteads and splitting up of older
farms (e.g. Holmsen 1961).
Together, archaeology and landscape studies com-
bined with written evidence have been able to build a
more solid empirical platform which brings nuances
into the broader picture of settlement patterns in time
and space. Recent research also modifies and ques-
tions earlier interpretations about structures and
chronology, and gives a more varied pattern of nucle-
ated settlements and changes over a longer time span
than interpreted by for instance Porsmose. In some ar-
eas, in Norway and Sweden, there are indications that
farmsteads may have an older history than the tra-
ditional source categories are able to catch (Vikstand
– Zachrisson 2006; Øye 2011). Altogether, farmsteads
as well as nucleated villages may have developed over
longer drawn-out periods. Fluctuations and tempo-
rary as well as permanent abandonments have also
been documented in this period of expansion (e.g. Øye
2002, 251).
164
157–172
Tools and tillage
The issue, then, is: did the villages and common
fields, technological novelties and new crops come
into being as interdependent elements in more or less
integrated and interconnected systems (cf. Myrdal
1997)? And did this happen more gradually and flex-
ibly in time and space as recent studies of villages may
imply?
Maximisation of yields to meet the demands of the
growing population, as well as the new institutions
and landowners, seems to have been a common chal-
lenge all over Europe in this period. In Scandinavia,
with generally more marginal conditions for arable
farming, grain-growing was especially important as it
is reckoned to have produced four times more calorific
output per unit area than animal production (milk)
(Lunden 2004, 152). Thus, population growth would
encourage grain-growing, which could produce the
greatest yield per unit acreage, measured in terms of
energy. Consequently, fields were the areas with the
most labour input. Did it also stimulate technologi-
cal advance, innovations and adaptations of such? Or
could it be met by more labour input and more or less
the same tools?
The introduction and increasing use of the plough,
from the Viking period at the latest, and strengthen-
ing the traditional and old wooden tools by furnishing
them with iron mountings, represent important tech-
nological advances. Although archaeological traces of
these early ploughs are very fragmentary, they indi-
cate that farmers had a ploughshare completely made
of wood with a thin asymmetrical iron-sheath and
presumably also a fixed mouldboard that would help
to turn the ground surface over. This made it possi-
ble to break up untilled and heavier soils. The heavier
mouldboard plough represents a far more effective tool
in heavy soils than the old and light scratch ard. Man-
ual tools, such as spades and hoes, were more labour
intensive but efficient in steeper terrain and on small-
er plots. The ard was also suitable in light sandy soils.
Different types of tillage tools could therefore be used
side by side and should not necessarily be seen in an
evolutionary perspective. To what degree, then, does
the composition of tools and equipment correspond
with different types of settlements and field systems in
time and space?
The archaeological evidence for prehistoric and me-
dieval ploughs and ploughing is generally scarce and
the iconographic evidence is only from the Late Mid-
dle Ages and restricted to Denmark and southern Swe-
den. In the archaeological record, often only the iron
shares and coulters are left, or as traces of plough-
ing in fossilised high-ridged fields. They do, however,
require datable material and contexts to understand
RURALIA X
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
them within chronological and spatial frameworks. In
Norway, the archaeological evidence of agricultural im-
plements from c. 700 to 900 AD is amazingly high due
to the burial customs of the period and the many hoard
finds. According to the national overview by Jan Peters-
en from 1951, around 1100 agricultural tools are rep-
resented, mainly remains of sickles, leas and hoes but
also ploughing equipment. The latter are represented
with around 70 specimens of which 20 stem from
graves, 28 from hoards and the rest as single finds
without clear contexts and are often found together
with other remains of agricultural implements, espe-
cially hoes. Most of them stem from the inner parts of
Eastern Norway (Østlandet) and more randomly from
and other regions (Petersen 1951, 177–178). The divide
between asymmetrical plough sheaths and symmetri-
cal ard sheaths is, however, not easily recognised, and
they appear either with a pointed or rounded shape of
varying size. They are generally rather small; the point-
ed are often the longest up to ca. 20 cm in length (ibid,
176) and may weigh from only ca. 150 gm to ca. 1.3 kg
but mostly between 400 and 600 gm.1 A piece of a
wooden ard of beech wood was found during the ex-
cavations in Tårnby, 14C-dated to 1420 (Lerche 2005,
311–322).2 Although it is the only medieval ard so far
documented in Denmark, it demonstrates that it was
used in village contexts in the Late Middle Ages.
1
Ard sheats from The University Museum of Bergen, measured
and weighed by the present author.
2
Length: 55.2 cm; Height: 58 cm.
RURALIA X
157–172
Fig. 3. Ard from the community of Vik
in Sogn, Western Norway. In Norway,
prehistoric agricultural tools, such
as the ard and hoe, have been used
into the 20th century in some are-
as. The ard shoved the soil to both
sides and crumbled it, and the iron
sheath made it easier to cut through
and till even heavier soil. (Photo: De
Heibergske Samlinger, Musea i Sogn
og Fjordane).
The finds of coulters are also indicative of proper
ploughs, but in Norway these are few and rather small,
and are not securely dated. Judging by written records,
they became larger and heavier during the Middle Ages
and increased to 1–1.5 kg in Sweden and 1.5–4 kg in
Danish areas, and even up to 7 kg, but lighter shares
were also in use (Lerche 1994, 34; Söderberg – Myrdal
2002; Øye 2004, 121). While the few coulters found in
archaeological contexts in Norway were rather light
and small, only ca. 25–30 cm in height, the late me-
dieval specimens from Jutland (Jylland) could meas-
ure 55 cm and weigh more than 5 kg (Lerche 1994,
38–39). The larger and heavier coulters could, then,
cut through heavier soils and therefore be used in
deeper ploughing. The customary wheeled foretrain of
the heavy plough also helped to take its weight. In Jut-
land there is evidence of the wheel plough from traces
of wheels and horse hoofs in a high-ridged field dat-
ed to the 11th century (Ramskou 1981,101; Porsmose
1988, 280). As the early traces are rather few, it has
been argued that it was first in the 12th century that
the field system became more common (Carelli 2001,
62–63). The find of the so-called Dannevirke wheel
from Schleswig in medieval Denmark and dated to the
12th and 13th centuries is, however, the only medieval
find of the tool itself (Lerche 1994, 39). Iconographic
evidence from mural paintings shows, however, that
ploughs did not necessarily have a wheel. Ploughs
and harrows are mentioned in general terms and as
integrated pairs in documents and laws from the 13th
century, but without further description. Harrowing
165
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
made it possible to break heavy clods and weeds, cov-
er the seed, spread the manure and reduce the labo-
rious task of hoeing, and may have been introduced
in Scandinavia together with the mouldboard plough.
Finds of dated arable tools in Denmark demonstrate
that harrows were used in the late 9th century (Lerche
1994, 22) and indirectly also indicate the existence of
ploughs and a combined use.
The two ploughing tools, the traditional light ard and
the new mouldboard plough, existed side by side and
were used for different purposes and on different soils.
Judging by sources used retrospectively, the scratch ard
was still in use in many places in Scandinavia through-
out the period 800–1300 AD (Fig. 3), also in Denmark
and held a dominant position in Sweden, including in
the central agricultural region in Mid-Sweden (Orrman
2003, 274). Although it is difficult to date and map the
distribution more precisely, there is enough data to
substantiate the argument that the use of the heavy
wheel plough was adopted only in the south-eastern ar-
eas of Scandinavia, in Denmark and Scania in the Ear-
ly Middle Ages. In Norway, ploughs were mostly used in
the south-eastern and central parts of the country, in
Østlandet and Trøndelag, in the Early Modern period,
but have left little evidence in the medieval record. In
the Oslofjord-region, traces of ploughing and field sys-
tems have been discovered, including high-ridged fields
presumably medieval and caused by the plough (Øye
2002, 333). These southern regions of Scandinavia
also became the northernmost outposts of the wheel
plough in medieval Europe (Myrdal 1999, 56; Hybel –
Poulsen 2007, 202–203). Fragmentary remains inter-
preted as ploughing tools and plough marks in the soil
may indicate that the mouldboard plough was actually
introduced in Jutland even long before the Viking pe-
riod (Larsen 2011, cf. Larsen, this volume). In that case,
then, it would be more in correspondence with its dis-
tribution further south on the Continent.
While the heavy wheel plough required several
draught animals, the lighter ploughs (ard and mould
board plough without a wheel) required only a pair of
oxen or one horse. The development of more suitable
harnessing, especially the use of horse collar and the
introduction of solid horseshoes by the Early Middle
Ages made it possible to make more effective use of
horses as draught animals. When shod and better har-
nessed, horses could work considerably faster than
oxen, which were important in areas with a short grow-
ing season, and in the contexts of small-scale farming.
It is therefore interesting to observe that the earliest
evidence of horses used for ploughing in Scandinavia
stems from northern Norway, dating to the latter part
of the 9th century. However, the earliest finds of horse
shoes appear somewhat later, namely in the early
11th century in Norway (Øye 2004, 122). Later, work-
166
157–172
horses also seem to have been common in Denmark,
as well as in less fertile areas in Norway and north-
ern Sweden, where they were more frequently used
as draught animals than in central and south-eastern
Sweden and south-eastern parts of Denmark (Myrdal
1999b, 103–104). This was probably due to their mul-
ti-functional qualities. In a medieval deserted hamlet
in Värmland in western Sweden with limited arable
land, several remains of horse shoes were also among
the archaeological finds from its main settlement pe-
riod from the late 13th century (Andersson – Svensson
2002, 73–85).
Certainly elements of Scandinavia’s geographical
position and institutional development might have
hindered technological development and promoted re-
gional heterogeneity and diversity in technical devel-
opment, appropriate to each region’s society and en-
vironment. In areas, where arable land was scattered
and not very cohesive in nature, fields were still tilled
with hoes and spades and were generally a preferable
option for the smaller fields. Such tools were absolute-
ly necessary for farmers who could not afford ploughs
or draught animals. The manual tools also became
stronger being strengthened by iron mountings, from
the 10th century at the latest. It seems, however, judg-
ing by information from the 18th and 19th centuries
that manual tools could have worked the soil as deep
as the ard but were four to five times more labour in-
tensive. Still, spades and hoes were dominant tools
in many areas in Norway as late as in the 19th cen-
tury, although the ard and ploughs were available tools
(Valen-Sendstad 1964, 41). The tools should, then, not
only be seen in an evolutionary perspective.
Efficiency in harvesting was important in a region
with a short growing season. By using longer and more
functional sickles, leas and scythes, cutting grass and
grain could be done faster and adapted to different ter-
rains, field types, plants and vegetation. Judging by ar-
chaeological finds, this progress started in the early Vi-
king Age and in Norway developed into the long lea in
the 13th century. In addition, the flail for threshing the
grain appeared between ca. 1000 and 1200 AD in Scan-
dinavia (Myrdal 1999a, 75), making this time-consum-
ing work more effective, a novelty that has been related
to the expansion of rye. Concrete and datable finds are
however few, and contemporary illustrations are not
always as trustworthy as direct sources. Water mills
also represented a new technology in food-processing.
In Western and Northern Norway, large scale quarry-
ing of hand-quern stones started in the Viking period.
The largest production area in Hyllestad in Sogn de-
veloped early in the period and expanded in the 10th
century to also supply wider markets in Denmark and
southern Sweden (Baug 2013). Water mills appeared in
Denmark and at an early stage, with the earliest traces
RURALIA X
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD 157–172

field, as a large part of the energy came from non-cul-

tivated areas. The infield and outfields were thus com-
plementary, making it possible to maintain animal
husbandry, which in turn benefited arable production
through the manure (e.g. Øye 2003). In major parts of
Norway and Sweden – and to some extent Denmark –
it was the outlying land that was capable of providing
a surplus to meet economic demands from the land-
owners and the expanding landowning institutions,
not only agricultural products and food supplies, but
products based on quarrying of quern- and millstones
(Baug 2013), vessels of soapstone and whetstones (Resi
1991), and not least iron production (Tveiten 2012;
Rundberget 2013), which again promoted the advances
in agrarian technology. In Norway, these changes ap-
pear from the Viking period and expanded in the Early
Middle Ages to decline in the 13th century (Fig. 4; 5),
while in Sweden, iron production also continued on a
large scale after 1300.

Fig. 4. Recorded iron production sites and the distribution within pre-
sent communities in Norway. The distribution map also reflects produc-
tion before c. 800 AD (Source: O. Tveiten 2012).

C14-dated to the Late Viking period, c. 1000 AD but

first more securely dated from the 12th century on-
wards (Fischer 2004, 86, 89,107). This is also the case
in Norway (Øye 2004, 124f), but in Scania apparently
from the 11th and 12th centuries (Myrdal 1999a, 78).
While larger communal mills mainly belonged to mon-
asteries and larger landowners, smaller water driven
querns had a wider distribution. The improvements
within agrarian technology appear, then, within a pe-
riod of some hundred years, but not altogether simul-
taneously or in all areas. There is, however, a tendency
that they appear first in areas to the south. The more
labour intensive tools seem to best represented in ar-
eas with less arable land. In some areas, in inland dis-
tricts of Sweden and Eastern Norway, extensive forms
of cultivation based on slash-and-burn methods were
used through the whole period (Gren 1991; Holm 2005).
Fig. 5. Recorded Late Iron Age and medieval coal pits and their dis-
The expansion into the marginal areas also led to tribution within present communities in Norway. The distribution map
more extensive and specialised use of these areas. shows that the largest concentrations were located in the inland of the
south eastern parts of Norway. Access to wood and coal production
From an agricultural point of view and as an ecologi-
was a precondition for iron production The coal pits indirectly reflect
cal system, such outlying areas, meadows, woodland, the concentrations of iron production in these centuries, c. 800–1300
marshlands and heath land, supplied energy to the in- AD (Source: O. Tveiten 2012).

RURALIA X 167
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
Technology and field systems
In the south-eastern parts of Denmark and Sweden,
which were areas with denser settlements and the best
conditions for arable cultivation, the wheel plough and
harrow seem to be connected with the emergence of
a new way of cultivation – the two-field and three-field
system. In the two-field system the arable land was
divided into two fields or groups of fields; one group
was planted with grain while the other half was laid
fallow until the next planting season to recover fertil-
ity. After harvesting the first group of fields was turned
to fallow, with the livestock permitted to graze on the
stubble and enrich the soil with their manure. In the
three-field system, fields lay fallow in a three-year cycle,
two-thirds of the total area was cultivated and the fal-
low, then, was reduced correspondingly (Myrdal 1999b,
112). Traditionally, the three-field system has been
connected with winter sowing of grains, often rye that
could endure the winter climate. Other species were
sown in the spring to be harvested in late summer.
By providing two harvests a year, it reduced the risk
of crop failure and could also increase the crop yields.
The system could also improve the soil and fertility
by alternating deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants.
The system based on a more communal system with a
longer spread of the work intensive periods of sowing
and harvesting thus opened for cultivation of larger ar-
eas than within single farms.
Palaeo-botanical research has also revealed an ex-
tended use of winter rye in certain regions during the
Early Middle Ages, which may also have promoted ro-
tations. This system also spread to the southernmost
parts of Sweden, and as in Denmark, two-course ro-
tation, half and four-five-course rotations existed, sys-
tems that were also known in Norway, where espe-
cially four-course rotation is known from the eastern
parts bordering to Sweden (Øye 2004, 115–116). It has,
however, been difficult to prove contemporaneity be-
tween the field systems and adjacent settlements on
archaeological grounds. Palaeobotanical studies have
also shown more diverse grain production than in the
early part of the studied period, with different grains
adapted to different soils, climates and farming meth-
ods. Barley, the dominant grain in Scandinavia in the
Iron Age, now seems to have lost some of its central
position, except in northern areas of Sweden and Nor-
way. Not only did rye become more important, but oats
also increased in importance in western parts of Nor-
way and Sweden, making these areas part of the North
Atlantic oats region. Wheat was less common and re-
served for the best grain growing areas (Orrman 2003,
73–74).
In Scandinavia as whole, two and one-field systems,
which demanded intensive manuring, and variants be-
168
157–172
tween the two were most common. Studies of fossil field
landscapes in Scania have documented a two-course
system around 1000 AD, where half of the arable
land lay fallow every second year (Berglund 1991). By
the 13th and 14th centuries and possibly earlier, this
had become a well-established system in eastern and
central Sweden, in the most fertile areas in the Mälar
region, including Uppland, Södermanland, Västman-
naland and Östergötland and to some extent also in
southern Norway (Myrdal 1999b; Orrman 2003, 271–
272). This is, however, largely based on retrogressive
methods than on archaeology. In some areas in Nor-
way, such as in Mid-Norway (Trøndelag) and Eastern
Norway, which had more arable land than the rest of
the country, one quarter of the arable should lie fallow
according to medieval law codes, evidently to avoid soil
exhaustion because of shortage of manure. This sys-
tem is also known from south-western parts of Sweden
along the border with Norway. In Norway and Sweden,
the spread of new technology and techno-complexes
could, then, appear in different regional combinations
adapted to particular ecotypes and environmental con-
ditions (Øye 2004, 124–125; 2009b).
In areas with less arable land in other areas in Nor-
way and Sweden, the most common traditional farm-
ing method involved increasing animal husbandry,
prevailingly single farms, enclosed fields based on
annual cropping, largely without fallow periods. This
also represents a highly productive arable agriculture,
as animal husbandry could supply more manure per
unit. In such areas the light ard, hoes and spades
were the dominating implements. The ard sheaths are
mostly found in graves from the eastern part of Nor-
way and less so from Western Norway but still of the
same types. Iron mountings of hoes were far more fre-
quent grave goods in the Viking period than the ard,
altogether 7.5 times more frequent, and even more so
in Western Norway, indicating tillage based on manual
work.
The causal mechanisms which promoted change
or stability are often difficult to identify empirical-
ly. These changes cannot be explained by one factor
alone, as they represent complex and integrated pro-
cesses, caused by both endogenous and exogenous
pressure. It was marked by a slow development of
longue durée that could also be interrupted by faster
non-linear shifts that are not necessarily synchro-
nous. As a whole, the differences in land use and tech-
nology within medieval Scandinavia to a large extent
seem to reflect the physical variations in the agricul-
tural potential of the land, in north and south and east
and west Scandinavia. The development of different re-
gions as for settlement structures and land use can be
traced back with distinctive characteristics. Settlement
structure and ownership also seem to have influenced
RURALIA X
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
field systems and organisation/reorganisation of land,
technology and to a certain degree also plant produc-
tion. The regional differences within Scandinavia seem
to be long lasting thus extending the Middle Ages, and
may have been supported by institutionalised rules
and memory integrated in different socioeconomic
systems, among others the relation between arable
farming and husbandry, infield and outfield resourc-
es. Still, there were also local and regional variations
in the timing and intensity of the process. The areas
where the new technologies within arable farming first
appeared, were also the most densely populated and
urbanised areas. In Scandinavia, the introduction of
ploughs and harrows and other technologies, species
and field systems, as well as new industries in outly-
ing areas, seems to have occurred over both brief and
longer periods, in the Viking period and the Early Mid-
dle Ages but were not always synchronous. The vary-
ing types of landscapes reflect spatial heterogeneity in
land use and technologies where changes occurred on
regional scales and across national borders.
The regional changes seem to represent more dis-
continuous shifts with expansion and innovation both
in the infields and outfields, starting in the Viking pe-
riod and escalated in the Early and High Middle Ages.
The agents of settlement change – the elite, powerful
lords or ecclesiastical institutions – also became more
dominant in the High and Late Middle Ages. The shifts
do not always appear synchronically and in all parts
of Scandinavia. In the most fertile agricultural areas to
the south, changes in arable farming seem to appear
earlier than further north. In the western and north-
ern areas of Scandinavia, the innovations were to a
larger extent related to the various resources in the
outlying areas; fishing, hunting, quarrying and iron
production. The increasing need for and consumption
of iron is reflected in the numerous production sites
in inland areas in south eastern parts Norway, as well
as in parts of Sweden, and are intimately connected
to, and a precondition for, the improvements in tillage
tools.
Concluding remarks
By the end of the 13th century, Scandinavian arable
farming had largely reached a technical level of the
period that preceded the agricultural revolution of the
18th and 19th centuries. Increased access and use of
iron did, however, make the tools stronger and more
efficient. The regional differences within Scandinavia
seem to be long lasting, representing a cumulative cul-
turally transmitted body of knowledge that seems to
have evolved by horizontal adaptive processes. These
processes may have been supported by institutional-
ised rules and memory integrated in different socio-
RURALIA X
157–172
economic systems. The changes that caused the re-
organisation of land must have been based on close
cooperation between the inhabitants of the new vil-
lages and hamlets and may have been caused by direct
and perhaps external agency but also by internal de-
velopment. The areas where the new technologies first
appeared were also the most densely populated. Still, it
is difficult to establish a clear chronology and causal
connections, as there are often imprecise chronologi-
cal frameworks for dating rural settlements and land
use. The scarcity of quantifiable evidence makes it
hard to measure how the expansion of arable land was
balanced to the growing population and should there-
fore also be assessed in a wider agrarian perspective of
the rural economy.
Still it can hardly be a coincidence that technolo-
gies that had been known for centuries further south
appear at a later stage in Scandinavia, indicating that
they were first adopted and adapted when required and
possible, but not in the region as a whole. The diverse
landscapes in Scandinavia with varieties of settlement
patterns with their special resources also offered other
and new possibilities able to specialise and produce
other kinds of food and commodities even for larger
markets, giving the region a special profile within
agrarian economy within a period of dynamic change.
Summary
This article deals with technology, landscapes and
land use in Scandinavia in a long-term perspective
from about 800 to 1300 AD, a period of major so-
cio-economic transformations. The article aims to ex-
plore the links and the impact of technology on land
use on a macro level in search of regional characters
and development. Being based on results achieved
through several disciplines, such as archaeology, his-
tory, ethnology, toponomy, landscape and environmen-
tal studies, an aim has also been to understand what
has linked the research in terms of ideas and concep-
tual frameworks and how this has changed over time.
Zusammenfassung
Der Artikel behandelt Agrartechnologie, Landschaf-
ten und Landnutzung in der Zeit von 800 bis 1300,
einer Periode grundlegenden sozio-ökonomischen
Wandels. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung regiona-
ler Eigenheiten und Entwicklungen werden auf einer
Makro-Ebene Zusammenhänge und Auswirkungen
der Agrartechnologie auf die Landnutzung unter-
sucht. Auf Grundlage der Forschungsergebnisse un-
terschiedlicher Disziplinen wie der Archäologie, der
Geschichte, Ethnologie, Ortsnamenskunde sowie der
Landschafts- und Umweltforschung zielt der Beitrag
169
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
auf ein Verständnis, welche Ideen und Konzepte die-
se Disziplinen miteinander verbunden haben, und wie
sich diese im Lauf der Zeit entwickelt haben.
Résumé
Cet article concerne la technologie, les paysages et
l’occupation des sols en Scandinavie, sur une pers-
pective à long terme, entre les années 800 et 1300,
une période de transformations socio-économiques
majeures. L’article a pour but d’explorer les liens et
l’impact des techniques d’occupation des sols sur une
macro-échelle, dans le but d’identifier des caractéris-
tiques régionales et leur développement. Se basant
sur les résultats de diverses disciplines, comme l’ar-
chéologie, l’histoire, l’ethnologie, la toponymie, l’étude
des paysages et de l’environnement, un second but
est aussi de comprendre ce qui a lié la recherche en
termes d’idées et de cadre conceptuel et d’analyser ce
qui a changé dans le temps.
Bibliography
Almås, R. (ed.) 2004:
Norwegian agricultural history. Tapir Academic Press. Trond-
heim.
Andersson, S. – Svensson, E. (eds) 2002:
Skramle – The true story of a deserted medieval farmstead.
Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 27, Lund 6. Stock-
holm.
Andrén, A.1989:
State and towns in the Middle Ages. The Scandinavian Expe-
rience, Theory and Society 18, 585–609.
Baug, I. 2013:
Quarrying in Western Norway – An archaeological study of
production and distribution in the Viking period and the Mid-
dle Ages. Unpublished PhD-thesis: University of Bergen.
Berg, A. 1968:
Norske Gardstun. Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforsk-
ning, Skrifter serie B, 55. Oslo.
Berglund. B. E. 1991 (ed.):
The cultural landscape during 6000 years in southern Swe-
den – the Ystad project, Copenhagen.
Bertelsen, R. 1979:
Farm mounds in North Norway. A review of recent research,
Norwegian Archaeological Review 12, 48–56.
Bertelsen, R. – Lamb, R. 1995:
Settlement mounds in the North Atlantic. in: Bertelsen, R.
(ed.), Sentrale temaer i nordnorsk mellomalderarkeologi. Uni-
versitetet i Tromsø. Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap. Stensil-
serie B, 34. Tromsø.
Bertelsen, R. 2005:
The sea as ‘innmark’ and ‘utmark’, in: Holm, I. – Innselset, S.
– Øye, I. (eds), ‘Utmark’ The outfield as industry and ideology
170
157–172
in the Iron Age and the Middle Ages, UBAS International I,
21–29, Bergen.
Boserup, E. 1965:
The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. The Economics
of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. London:
George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Boserup, E. 1981:
Population and Technological Change: a study of long-term
trends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brush, S. B. – Turner, B. L.1987:
The nature of farming systems and views of their change, in:
Turner, B. L. – Brusch, S. (eds), Comparative Farming Sys-
tems,11–48, New York.
Brøgger, A. W. 1933:
Sigd, ljå og snidill. Bidrag til bondesamfunnets historie I.
Jordbruk og bondesyssel. Instituttet for sammenlignende
kulturforskning, Serie a: XIV, Oslo.
Carelli, P. 2001:
En kapitalistisk anda. Kulturelle förändringar i 1100-talets
Danmark. Lund Studies in Medieval archaeology 26. Lund.
de Vries, J. 1974:
The Dutch Rural Economy of the Golden Age, 1500–1700.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fischer, C. 2004:
Tidlige Dandske Vandmøller. To middelalderlige vandmøller
ved Tostrup og Vejerslev. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Høj-
berg.
Grøngaard Jeppesen, T. 1981:
Middelalderbyens oppståen. Kontinuitet og brud i den fynske
agrarbebyggelsen mellom yngre jernalder og tidlig middelal-
der. Odense.
Hasund, S. 1919:
Det norske landbruks historie, Kristiania.
Hasund, S. 1924:
Bønder og stat under naturalsystemet. Kristiania.
Helle, K. 1995:
Under konge og kirkemakt, 1130–1350. Aschehougs Norges-
historie 3. Oslo.
Holm, I. 1995:
Trekk av Vardals agrare historie. Varia 31. Universitetets Old-
saksamling. Oslo.
Holm, I. 2005:
Forvaltning av agrare kulturminner i utmark, Universitetet
i Bergen Arkeologiske Skrifter, UBAS, Nordisk 4. Bergen.
Holmsen, A. 1961:
Norges historie. Fra de eldste tider til 1660. Oslo.
Holmsen, A. 1981 [1940]:
Nye metoder innen en særskilt gren av norsk historieforsk-
ning, Historisk Tidsskrift 32, Oslo, 27–45.
Hvass, S. 1983:
Vorbasse. The development of a settlement through the first
millennium A.D., Journal of Danish Archaeology 2, 127–136.
Hybel, N. – Poulsen, B. 2007:
The Danish resources c. 1000 –1550. Growth and recession,
The Northern World 34. Leiden: Brill.
RURALIA X
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
Iversen, F. 1999 [1997]:
Var middelalderens lendmannsgårder kjerner i eldre gods-
samlinger? En analyse av romlig organisering av graver og
eiendomsstruktur i Hordaland og Sogn og Fjordane. Arkeo-
logiske avhandlinger og rapporter fra Universitetet i Bergen
4, Bergen.
Iversen F. 2008 [2005]:
Eiendom, makt og statsdannelse. Kongsgårder og gods i Hor-
daland i yngre jernalder og middelalder. Universitetet i Ber-
gen Arkeologiske Skrifter, UBAS, Nordisk 6. Bergen.
Jirlow, R. 1970:
Die Geschichte des Swedischen Pfluges. Stockholm.
Kaland, S. H. H. 1987:
Viking/Medieval Settlement in the Heathland Area of Nord-
hordland. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings Skrifter. Nye rekke
9. Proceedings of the Tenth Viking Congress, Knirk, J. ed.
Oslo, 171–190.
Larsen, L. A. 2011:
Muldfjælsploven i Danmark. Fra yngre romersk jernalder til
senmiddelalderen. Published by Afdelingen for Middelalder-
og Renæssancearkæologi & middelalderarkæologisk nyheds-
brev. University of Aarhus, Moesgaard. Højbjerg.
Lerche, G. 1994:
Ploughing implements and tillage practices in Denmark from
the Viking Period to about 1800. Experimentally substanti-
ated. Herning: Poul Kristensen.
Lerche, G. 2005:
Ard, in: Svart Kristiansen, M. (ed.), Tårnby – gård og landsby
gennom 1000 år. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter, 311–
322, Højbjerg.
Liebgott, N.-K. 1989:
Dansk middelalderarkæologi. København.
Lunden, K. 2004:
Recession and new expansion 1350 –1814, in: Almås, R. (ed.),
Norwegian agricultural history. Trondheim: Tapir Academic
Press, 144–232.
Martens, J. 2009:
Middelalderens jordbruksbebyggelse i de sentrale strøk. Den
tapte middelalder? Varia 71, 7–22.
Munch, G. S. 1966:
Gårdshauger i Nord-Norge, Viking 30, 25–54.
Myrdal, J. 1985:
Medeltidens åkerbruk – agrarteknik i Sverige ca. 1000–1520.
Stockholm.
Myrdal, J. 1997:
The agricultural transformation of Sweden, 1000–1300, in:
Grenville, A. – Langdon, J. (eds), Medieval Farming and Tech-
nology. The Impact of Agricultural Change in Northwest Eu-
rope. Leiden: Brill, 147–172.
Myrdal. J. 1999a:
Jordbruket under feodalismen 1000–1700. Det svenska jord-
brukets historia 2. Stockholm: Nordiska museet.
Myrdal, J. 1999b:
The agrarian revolution restrained: Swedish agrarian tech-
nology in the 16th century in a European perspective, in:
Liljewall, B. (ed.), Agrarian Systems in Early Modern Europe.
Technology, Tools, Trade, 96–145, Stockholm.
RURALIA X
157–172
Myrdal, J. 2011:
Farming and feudalism 1000–1700, in: Myrdal, J. – Mo-
rell, M. (eds), The Agrarian History of Sweden: 4000 BC to AD
2000, Nordic Academic Press, 72–117, Lund.
Orrman, E. 2003:
Rural conditions, in: Helle, K. (ed.), The Cambridge History
of Scandinavia 1, Prehistory to 1520. Cambridge University
Press, 250–311, Cambridge.
Pedersen, E. A. 1990:
Rydningsrøysfelt og gravminner – spor av eldre bosetnings-
struktur på Østlandet, Viking 53, 50–66.
Pedersen, E. A. – Widgren, M. 1998:
Järnålder 500 f. Kr–1000 e. Kr., in: Jordbrukets första femtu-
sen år 4000 f. Kr–1000 e. Kr. Det svenska jordbrukets histo-
ria 2, 237–459, Borås.
Petersen, J. 1951:
Vikingetidens redskaper. Videnskapsakademiets Skrifter 2,
Hist.-Fil. Kl. 2ba, Oslo.
Porsmose, E. 1981:
Den regulerede landsby. Studier over bebyggelsesudviklin-
gen fra Fyn i tiden fra ca. 1700 til ca. 1000 e. Kr. fødsel I–II,
Odense.
Porsmose, E. 1987:
Bebyggelshistorisk teori og syntese. Landsbyens udvikling
ca. 1000–1800 e.Kr. Skrifter fra Historisk institut, Odense
universitet, 36, Odense.
Porsmose, E. 1988:
Middelalder o. 1000–1300, in: Bjørn, C. (ed.), Det danske
landbrugs historie 4000 f. Kr –1536. vol.1. Odense: Landbo-
historisk Selskab, 205–417.
Ramskou, T. 1981:
Lindholm Høje – a Danish Viking Period Field, Tools and Til-
lage IV:2.
Randers, K. 1981:
Høybøen – en ødegård på Sotra. En undersøkelse av bruks-
perioder og erverv basert på bosetningsspor fra eldre jernal-
der og middelalder. Unpubl. thesis in archaeology, University
of Bergen.
Resi, H. G. 1991:
Die Wetz- und Schleiffsteine aus Haithabu, Berichte über
die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 28. Neumünster: Wachholtz
Verlag.
Rundberget, B. 2013:
Jernets dunkle dimensjon. Jernvinna i sørlige Hedmark.
Sentral økonomisk faktor og premiss for samfunnsutvikling
c. AD 700–1300. Unpublished PhD dissertation in archaeo-
logy, University of Oslo.
Rønneseth, O. 1975:
Gard und Einfriedigung. Geografiska Annaler serie B, Hu-
man Geography 2, Stockholm.
Sandnes, J. – Salvesen, H. 1978:
Ødegårdstid i Norge. Det nordiske ødegårdsprosjekts norske
undersøkelser, Oslo.
Schmidt Sabo, K. 2001:
Vem behöver en by. Kyrkheddinge, struktur og strategi under
tusen år. Riksantikvarieämbetet arkeologiska undersöknin-
gar. Skrifter 38, Lund.
171
Øye, Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landscapes c. 800–1300 AD
Schmidt Sabo, K. 2005:
Den medeltida byns sociala dimensioner. Riksantikvarieäm-
betet arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter 67, Lund Studies
in Historical Archaeology 1, Lund.
Skre, D. 1998:
Herredømmet. Bosetning og besittelse på Romerike 200–
1350 e. Kr., Acta Humaniora, University of Oslo.
Sporrong, U. 2003:
The Scandinavian landscape and its resources, in: Helle, K.
(ed.), The Cambridge History of Scandinavia 1. Prehistory to
1520. Cambridge University Press, 15–42, Cambridge.
Steensberg, A. 1956:
Bebyggelsen på landet i Danmark i historisk tid. Nordisk Kul-
tur XIII, Lantbruk och bebyggelse. Stockholm.
Svart Kristiansen, M. 2005:
Tårnby – gård og landsby gennom 1000 år. Jysk Arkæologisk
Selskabs Skrifter, Højbjerg.
Svart Kristiansen, M. 2006:
Bag gårdleddet. Arkæologiske studier af den middelalderlige
bondegård i Danmark. Unpublished PhD-thesis, Aarhus Uni-
versity, Aarhus.
Söderberg, J. – Myrdal, J. 2002:
The Agrarian Economy of Sixteenth-Century Sweden. Acta
Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Eco-
nomic History 35. Almqvist & Wiksell International. Stock-
holm.
Tveiten, O. 2012:
Mellom aust og vest: Ein arkeologisk analyse av jarnvinna
kring Langfjella i yngre jarnalder og mellomalder. Unpublis-
hed PhD-thesis: University of Bergen.
Valen-Sendstad, F. 1964:
Norske landbruksredskaper 1800–1850-årene. Lillehammer.
Vikstand, P. –Zachrisson, H. D. 2006:
Lerslätterna och sta(d)-namnen. Om relationen mellan äldra
järnåderens lerslättboplatser och stad-namn i Mälardalen,
in: Særheim, I. – Uppstad, P. H. – Wagner, Å. K. H. (eds), Bu-
stadsnamn på stadir. Rapport frå NORNAS 33. symposium
på Utstein kloster, 7.–9. mai 2004, NORNA rapporter 81, Sta-
vanger, 173–212.
Ingvild Øye, Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies, and Religion, University of Bergen, Pb. 7805, N-5020
Bergen, ingvild.oye@ahkr.uib.no
172
157–172
Wallerström, T. 1995:
Norrbotten, Sverige och Medeltiden. Problem kring makt och
bosätting i en europeisk periferi, Lund Studies in Medieval
Archaeology 15:1, Lund.
Weber, B. 1984:
“I Hardanger er Quernberg og Helleberg … og Hellerne, de
tyndhugne Steene, bruger man til at bage det tynde fladbrød
paa…”, Viking 47, 149–160.
Widgren, M. 1997:
Bysamfällighet och tegskifte i Bohuslän 1300–1750, Udde-
valla.
Øye, I. 2000:
Norway in the Middle Ages: Farms or hamlets – and villages
too?, Ruralia 3, 12–23, Prague.
Øye I. 2002:
Landbruk under press 800–1350, in: Jorda blir levevei
4000–1350 e. Kr. Norges landbrukshistorie 1. Samlaget,
216–414, Oslo.
Øye, I. 2003:
Outfields as part of the medieval farm – four archaeological
case studies from Western Norway, in: Bergstøl, J. (ed.), Scan-
dinavian archaeological practice – in theory. Oslo Archaeo-
logical Series 1, 400–411.
Øye, I. 2005:
Introduction, in: Holm, I. – Innselset, S. – Øye, I. (eds), ‘Ut-
mark’ The Outfield as Industry and Ideology in the Iron Age
and the Middle Ages, UBAS International I, 9–20, Bergen.
Øye, I. 2011:
Settlements and Agrarian Landscapes. Chronological issues
and archaeological challenges, in: Sigmundarsson, S. (ed.),
Viking Settlements and Viking Society: Papers from the Pro-
ceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík and
Reykholt, 16–23 August 2009. University of Iceland Press,
494–506, Reykjavik.
Øye, I. – Barndon, R. – Engevik, A. 2010:
Technology and regions in a long time perspective – an in-
troduction, in: Barndon, R. –Engevik, A. – Øye, I. (eds), The
Archaeology of Regional Technologies. Case Studies from the
Palaeolithic to the Age of Vikings: Edwin Mellen Press, 1–11,
New York.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 173–183

North Norwegian farm mounds – economic resources

and landscape conditions
Nord-Norwegische Siedlungshügel – ökonomische Ressourcen
und Landschaftsbedingungen

Les „farm mounds“ dans le Nord de la Norvège – ressources

économiques et conditions liées au paysage

Vibeke Vandrup Martens

Introduction
The rural landscape in Arctic Northern Norway is
characterised by a special type of settlements – the so-
called farm mounds. These mounds are the archaeo-
logical remains of centuries of settlements in the same
location. A farm mound may represent a single farm or
several farms or holdings clustered in a hamlet or a vil-
lage. They represent divergent subsistence strategies,
caused by different conditions in landscape or societal
structures. Since the farm mounds were registered
as archaeological monuments at an early date, not a
single farm mound has been completely excavated. In
Norway they comprise the largest assemblages of me-
dieval archaeological deposits outside the towns and
thus represent a major source for the cultural history
of both Norse and Sámi rural settlements in northern
Norway.
Taking the recent investigations of two farm mounds
in Troms County, Voldstad and Saurbekken in combi-
nation with earlier research, this paper presents the
north Norwegian farm mounds as an archaeological
monument and discusses the economic resources and
landscape conditions as requirements for their exist-
ence. Why are the settlements fixed in the same spots,
forming settlement mounds, instead of moving around
in the landscape in order to maximise land use, as is
found elsewhere in Southern Scandinavia and Europe?
State of research
During the national survey of archaeological monu-
ments in Norway, farm mounds or settlement mounds
were registered, particularly in the ‘High North’, in the
three northern-most Norwegian counties of Finnmark,
Troms and Nordland, which are all located in the Arc-
tic zone. Some 869 such farm mounds are listed in the
Norwegian national cultural heritage database, Askel-
adden. The distribution of the farm mounds over the
length of the country (Fig. 1a) seems very clear, with the
vast majority in the counties of Finnmark (56, Fig. 1b),
Troms (285, Fig. 1c) and Nordland (494, Fig. 1d). How-
ever, this is not necessarily a true or complete picture
of the actual, physical presence of the monument type,
but may be a reflection of different research traditions
in different parts of the country.
In eastern Norway it has been an established, but
untested truth, that due to unbroken settlement conti-
nuity from Late Prehistory to present day at the central
farmsteads nothing has been preserved for archaeolog-
ical research. Surprisingly this assumption has not led
to a wholesale monument listing of all modern farms,
but rather left to chance if or when farm mounds or
any rural medieval remains have been found or inves-
tigated in those parts of the country (Martens 2009).
In spite of this, minor excavations at a few sites have
proved that even in this area settlement mounds with
well preserved archaeological deposits may be found,
and have raised awareness that more may be uncov-
ered.
At Fusk in Østfold County, the deposits were 70cm
deep. They consisted of silty, humus-mixed sand with
lenses of fine sand, charcoal and heat-affected stones.
The few artefacts found in the trench were of stone;
soapstone vessels, a spindle whorl, whetstone, loom
weight and baking stone. All these could be dated from
the shape of the soapstone vessels to the medieval pe-
riod, and all are typical household waste finds consist-
ent of a farm mound (Stene 2009).
Åker in Hedmark County has a distinct mound
shape and preserved deposits of about 100cm in
depth. Investigations at Åker have been carried out
in many stages over the decades, the latest as evalu-
ations of state and extent of preserved archaeological
remains in several different campaigns between 2005
and 2008. The deposits were coarse and dry, consist-

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 173–183.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110463
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds 173–183

Fig. 1. Listed farm mounds in

Norway. Source: Askeladden
database January 2014. VVM/
NIKU.

174 RURALIA X
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds
ing mostly of humus-mixed silty sand mixed with heat-
affected stones. In some areas of the mound, these
stones form up to 30-cm deep compact deposits, indi-
cating possible brewery activities at the site. The arte-
facts found were consistent with a farm mound, typi-
cal household waste; animal bones, pottery, but even
metal objects were well preserved in these dry depos-
its. The artefacts found in the central mound could be
dated to late Viking Age/Early Medieval through to the
18th century but archaeological remains and particu-
larly rich metal finds from earlier periods have been
found elsewhere on the farm, indicating a high posi-
tion in the social hierarchy (Martens 2013).
At Bygdø Kongsgård (Bygdø Royal Manor House) in
Oslo, excavations were carried out in the winter 2004-
2005, when the building was to be renovated. This site
is another example of high social status, since me-
dieval written sources connect it to the king and the
church. Since the excavations were carried out inside
and beneath a standing building, the sequences of ar-
chaeological deposits were disturbed by later building
phases, and the deposits themselves were dry, but they
were preserved in one to two metres depth and con-
sisted of typical farm mound fill, household waste and
building remains, dating mainly to the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance (Karlberg – Simonsen 2009).
In 2010, an excavation was carried out at the farm
Them in Vestfold County, beneath the oldest parts of
the present-day main building. The building had been
dated by dendrochronology to 1563. The archaeologi-
cal remains beneath the floor consisted of household
waste and building remains, most of which could be
dated to the 15th century. The deposits were about
50cm deep. Beneath these was a deposit covering the
whole site, dated to Late Viking Age, and underneath
that layer were older settlement traces, dated to Early
Viking Age, Roman Period, Bronze Age and the Neo-
lithic (Johansson 2011). Deposits, building remains,
artefacts and ecofacts were all consistent with typical
farm mound fill, again underlining the importance of
looking for medieval rural settlement remains in all of
the country.
During the past 50 years, not a single farm mound
has been entirely excavated, only minor trenches have
been investigated, either for rescue or research pur-
poses. The investigations have proved that the main el-
ements of the farm mound deposits are house remains
from houses built of turf sods and wood, and general
household waste while dung only plays a minor role in
the build-up of the archaeological deposits (Bertelsen
1984; 1989; 2002; 2011; Brox – Stamsø Munch 1965;
Lind 2002; Urbańczyk 1992). Reidar Bertelsen has
been the single most active farm mound researcher in
Norway, and his extensive research is referred to else-
where in this paper.
RURALIA X
173–183
Voldstad and Saurbekken, farm mounds
in Harstad municipality, Troms County
In conjunction with a research project on in situ pres-
ervation, research investigations have recently been
carried out at two farm mounds in Northern Norway.
Voldstad
In 2013 a minor excavation was carried out at the
farm mound Voldstad, Harstad, Troms (Fig. 2). The
landowner who lives on the farm mound, Leif Anders-
en, generously communicated his knowledge about the
farm and its history. At the redistribution and mapping
of arable land in 1866, Voldstad consisted of 504,000m2
of inland, of which 75,000m2 were non-arable. It also
had large outfield areas of about 5,542 500m2. The
outfields were shared within an elk-hunting team, but
it still left the farm with considerable land. Obviously,
this is stretching the term farm, since 35 main build-
ings existed (with eight different owners in the 1865
registry (Leif Andersen pers. comm., Lysaker 1956b)),
meaning that Voldstad should rather be understood
as a hamlet. This would also be a valid description for
Voldstad in the medieval period, since at least three
farmers were registered there (Lysaker 1956b), and the
land was owned partly by Trondenes church (Harstad,
Troms), and a small part by Bakke monastery (near
Trondheim) at least after the Black Death (Lysaker
1956b, 98) – but even before 1349, Trondenes church
had received part of Voldstad as a gift.
Voldstad was chosen as a site because it is a typi-
cal representative of the farm mounds which are still
in active use. During a week in August 2013, a small
trench (70cm by 2 metres) was hand dug from the
grass turf surface down to the bedrock (110–120cm
below surface) (Figs. 2b, 2c). The location of the trench
was deliberately chosen to not interfere with any of the
35 buildings mapped in the 1866 land redistribution
and was placed between the modern farm building,
built in the 1950s, and its predecessor, the 18th-cen-
tury main building which is in a state of near collapse
and about to become part of the mound (Fig. 2a).
The archaeological deposits in the trench consisted
of typical household waste; lots of wood and leather,
a few sherds of pottery and single objects of glass,
iron and stone, in addition to large amounts of ani-
mal bones (cattle, sheep, pig), fish bones (mainly cod/
whitefish) and a few bird bones. The finds of animal,
bird and fish bones confirm a mixed economic back-
ground, and in the rich farm soil of Troms County
inner fjord areas, large amounts of cattle and sheep
bones were to be expected. The two top deposits were
artefact dated through pottery finds to the 18th cen-
tury, the third to the 14th century. The artefacts in the
175
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds 173–183

Fig. 2a

Fig. 2c

Fig. 2b

Fig. 2d Fig. 2e

Fig. 2. Voldstad farm mound, August 2013. Fig. 2a: Farm mound seen from the sea. Fig. 2b: digging the trench, old farm house and fiord
in background. Fig. 2c: excavated trench to bedrock. Fig. 2d: installed monitoring equipment in trench. Fig. 2e: Backfilled trench, datalogger
cabinet and old main building. Photos: VVM/ NIKU.

176 RURALIA X
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds
fourth and deepest archaeological deposit were also
medieval, but could not be exactly dated, consisting
mainly of leather scraps and wood. In general, the de-
posits were humus-rich and in a good state of pres-
ervation, which made them good sources of informa-
tion. About 80cm below the surface, the subsoil layers
started, with decreasing amounts of in-washed humus
until the bedrock was reached 110–120cm below the
surface. No house remains were found, but as known
house sites were deliberately avoided, this was to be
expected. The artefacts and ecofacts found during the
investigation demonstrate that the main elements of
a farm mound apart from building remains is house-
hold waste and not dung.
Since the overall aim of the project is the evalua-
tion of state of preservation of the deposits, combined
with sampling for soil macro fossils, pollen and geo-
chemistry, monitoring equipment (Fig. 2d) measuring
temperature, soil humidity and redox was installed,
before the trench was backfilled with its own material
(Fig. 2e). Redox means a set of geochemical parameters
studied to decide whether the conditions within the de-
posits are reduced or oxidised. Oxygen and oxidising
conditions cause the most degradation of archaeologi-
cal remains. The report work is in progress, and only
the fieldwork results are available. The monitoring will
continue at least until the end of 2015.
Saurbekken
The farm mound Saurbekken in Harstad town,
Troms County (Fig. 3a), was chosen as a site for our
project because it is a typical and well-preserved ex-
ample of a farm mound deserted after the Black Death
with the added value of previous archaeological inves-
tigations. During two campaigns in 1970 and 1972,
a five by five metre square was excavated in the farm
mound Saurbekken (Fig. 3b). Undisturbed archaeolog-
ical deposits were found 15cm beneath the grass turf,
continuing to a little more than one metre below the
surface (Holm-Olsen – Bertelsen 1973; Bertelsen 1973;
2002). It is known that this farm mound was deserted
after the Black Death in 1349 (Lysaker 1956a, 11), and
the excavation turned up artefacts and five building
phases from the 11th century until the Black Death
in the 14th century. The earliest and best preserved
building remains are by Bertelsen (2002) compared to
the late Viking Age/ early medieval house at the Stau-
ran farm mound in Troms County (Urbańczyk 1992,
Fig. 55).
The more than 40-year old excavation of the site
(Fig. 3b) gives valuable input to the state of preserva-
tion of the archaeological remains as they may be com-
pared to the modern investigations for instance con-
cerning the estimations of depth and extent (Fig. 3e)
RURALIA X
173–183
of the archaeological deposits. In 2012, geophysical
investigations consisting of a surface laser scan and
georadar measurements were carried out (Gustavsen
2013). The surface model produced from the laser
scan (Fig. 3c) may also be used as a monitoring param-
eter in the future, since a consecutive scan will reveal
changes in the surface, thus offering a potent instru-
ment to observe possible future effects of the current
planned infrastructure work in the street that will cut
the western parts of the farm mound.
Judging from the georadar investigations the size
of the preserved farm mound remains is estimated to
ca. 1700m 2 (Fig. 3e), indicating that this must have
been a solitary farm. The shape would indicate that
parts of the mound may be found beneath the modern
road St. Olavsgate in Harstad west of the listed monu-
ment. The estimated depth of the archaeological depos-
its from the georadar section (Fig. 3d) is about one me-
tre, which corresponds well with the excavation results
from 1972 (Fig. 3b) (Gustavsen 2013). It is notable that
the old excavation is very visible in all the geophysical
measurements, both in the surface model made from
the laser scan and in the plan and section of the geora-
dar measurements.
Economic background for rural settlements
The farm mounds are expressions of varied ethnic,
economic and historical background; Norse farms,
Sámi fjord settlements and medieval fishing villages.
Some farm mounds were deserted after the Black
Death in the 14th century, some in the 18th centu-
ry. A large number were deserted after World War II,
when the Norwegian government gave active support
(re-housing and jobs) to leave farms and move to the
towns to work in factories (Alnæs 1999). Some are
used during parts of the year as museums, re-using
preserved farm buildings from the 17th and 18th cen-
turies without modern infrastructure improvements,
but quite a few are still inhabited today.
A farm mound or settlement mound may support
only a single farm (Fig. 4), or several farms. The same
type of settlement mounds are also found in Iceland,
Greenland and the Orkney Islands (Bertelsen 1984;
Snæsdótir 1993; Urbańczyk 1992). Settlement mounds
occur elsewhere, for instance in Jutland where they
are known as ’byhøj’ (village mound), in the Middle East
(tells/village mounds) (Bertelsen 1989; Rosen 1986), in
the western North Sea coastal region known as terp,
Wierde, Woerd, Warf, Werft, Wurt or værft (farm/ham-
let/village mound), but apparently the reasons for liv-
ing at the same site for thousands of years and leaving
a mound of archaeological remains differ. ‘Byhøje’ and
tells are often much larger and dated much earlier than
the farm mounds. While the Dutch, German and Dan-
177
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds 173–183

Fig. 3a

Fig. 3b

Fig. 3c

Fig. 3d

Fig. 3e

Fig. 3. Saurbekken, Harstad, Troms. Geophysical investigations June 2012. Fig. 3a: Photo towards the SW, KP/NIKU. Fig. 3b: Excavation plan and
sections 1972 fieldwork, Holm-Olsen & Bertelsen 1973. Fig. 3c: Surface model from laser scan, LG/ NIKU. Fig. 3d: Georadar section, LG/ NIKU.
Fig. 3e: Estimate of farm mound extent from georadar investigations, LG/ NIKU.

178 RURALIA X
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds
Fig. 4. A medieval farm mound reconstructed. Elgsnes, Harstad, Troms. Drawing Marianne Skandfer 1997.
ish coastal settlement mounds are created in defence
against the sea, with a deliberate build-up of deposits
to raise the buildings out of reach of the tides, it seems
that the north Norwegian farm mounds, like the Iron
Age ‘byhøje’/settlement mounds of Jutland in Den-
mark (Runge 2009, 161–165) were created more from
a land-use perspective – living on the non-arable land.
The first hypothesis put forward for the accumula-
tion of farm mounds was by Arthur Brox (Brox – Stam-
sø Munch 1965), who believed that farm mounds mainly
existed because of the stock fish trade. It was the idea
that the deposits must mainly consist of dung, because
cereal production was not a main issue to these farm-
ers, thus dung was not used to fertilise the fields but
simply left to accumulate around the farm. Stock fish is
Norway‘s longest sustained export commodity and so-
cioeconomically the most profitable export over the cen-
turies. Stock fish is first mentioned as a commodity in
the Icelandic saga Egils saga, when allegedly the Chief
Torolv Kveldulvssøn in the year 875AD shipped stock
fish from Helgeland in Norway to Britain. This product
represented most of Norway‘s export and a large part of
the economy from the Viking Age throughout the Mid-
dle Ages (Kurlansky 1997). It must be considered a valid
hypothesis that the development of the Hanseatic trade
and the Catholic need for a fish diet on fasting days all
year around was a large part of the successful develop-
ment of the stock fish trade (Simpson et al. 2000). How-
ever, there are indications that large-scale fishing took
place in these waters even before that (Simpson et al.
2000), and there is no particular reason to assume that
the rural economy of northern Norway changed per-
ceptibly in the transition to the medieval period.
Archaeological investigations of farm mounds from
the past fifty years have proved that the main elements
of the farm mound deposits are not dung, but house
remains from houses built of wood and turf sods,
and general household waste (Bertelsen 1984; 2011;
Urbańczyk 1992; Lind 2002). This is comparable to the
RURALIA X
173–183
situation at the Iron Age settlement mounds in north
Jutland. However, in this region it has been demon-
strated that not only are flat settlements coexisting in
the same regions but there are no remarkable con-
struction differences between houses on the mounds
and on the flat settlement. It may thus seem that the
reason for the build up of the archaeological deposits
may be due to the use or lack of use of the fertile settle-
ment ground for manuring the surrounding agricultur-
al land (Runge 2009, 161–165). Such a strategy would
be understandable only if the economical emphasis
was on husbandry rather than crops. In Jutland it is
therefore seen as an indication of economical speciali-
sation; some settlements within a given area specialise
on husbandry while others have emphasis on cultiva-
tion. In northern Norway the mounds may be seen as
a result of the climatic limitations for crop cultivation.
Bertelsen made a model for deposit accumulation of
the farm mounds, with time and stability of location
adding to the depth of the deposits, whereas natural
breakdown, mobility of location and agricultural ero-
sion contribute to the area it occupies (Bertelsen 1984,
9). Even though the access to good fishing grounds
and the increasing stock fish trade may be the direct
cause of origin for some of the fishing villages and farm
mounds, particularly in the Lofoten area, excavations
have shown that this explanation does not hold true
for all. In Iceland, the main economic subsistence fac-
tor was sheep and wool production (Snæsdótir 1993).
Through a lifetime of research on the north Norwe-
gian farm mounds, Reidar Bertelsen has even proven
that the main economical background for most farm
mounds (with a possible exception for Lofoten) was not
the stock fish trade but cattle (Bertelsen 1973; 1984;
2011). If one compares the findings of Bertelsen with
those of Runge, it may be possible that husbandry as
a main subsistence factor is more closely connected
to the fixity of settlement and the building up of farm
mounds.
179
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds
Organisation of rural settlements
Farm mounds versus flat settlements
In most of Scandinavia, the prehistoric and medi-
eval settlements are found archaeologically as part
of one or possibly a couple of phases, leaving few
raised traces, with the exception of fossil landscapes
that have been left unaffected by modern land use. So
what is the difference in the case of the farm mounds?
One major factor is certainly the use of turf sods as
building materials. Urbańczyk suggests that when a
turf house starts to disintegrate, it is not easily moved
far away, since the sods are heavy, but quite easily
spread out to form the basis of the next building phase
(Urbańczyk 1992). Another fact is that the medieval
household waste management consisted mainly of
tossing waste outside, and eventually spreading it to
form new flat activity surfaces. The pattern of deposit
build-up is most obvious in the medieval towns, where
many people lived in a limited space, but it is also seen
in some Danish medieval villages, like Tårnby – which
might perhaps also be termed a farm mound with its
1.3m of preserved medieval deposits (Svart Kristian-
sen 2004; 2005), and we see the same pattern on the
Norwegian farm mounds, which are the largest assem-
blages of medieval archaeological deposits outside the
towns. Since no excavations have been carried out in
flat areas between farm mounds in Northern Norway,
we do not know if any ordinary (i.e. flat) settlements
exist at the same time as the farm mounds. It is there-
fore hard to assess whether the lack of flat medieval
settlements in Northern Norway is reflecting reality or
history of research. This is a hypothesis which ought
to be tested.
In north Jutland in Denmark, flat settlements are
found in the same areas as the settlement mounds,
and often the two types of settlements are scattered be-
tween each other. The Danish village mounds (‘byhøje’)
are defined as being raised settlement mounds of min-
imum of 0.6m in height with settlement continuity of
a minimum of 300 years (Runge 2009, 161). The use
of turf walls as opposed to wattle-and-daub was ear-
lier explained by a lack of trees for building material
in the landscape of Thy (Runge 2009, 162–165). The
lack of available wood may likewise be a part of the ex-
planation for the use of turf in northern Norway, even
though wooden house remains have also been found
in the farm mounds (e.g. Lind 2002). However, in Jut-
land turf sods were used as wall building materials
on many other sites, which were not transformed into
mounds. Furthermore, in the eastern part of North
Jutland wood was not as scarce a resource but even
there, village mounds are found, with household waste
as the major contributing factor to the build-up of de-
posits. Mads Runge therefore suggests that the rea-
180
173–183
son for the formation of settlement mounds must be
sought elsewhere and that the place continuity of ’by-
høje’ has its base in rights of property, economical spe-
cialisation, and a strict social hierarchy, which again
depended upon a need for optimal use of the arable
land and building on the non-arable land (Runge 2009,
162). Most of the settlement mounds in north Jutland
have been dated to Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
(including the Roman Period), and it is important to
note that the typical contemporary settlement form
in all of southern Scandinavia is the flat settlement.
It may therefore be, as Runge suggests, that the long-
lived settlements at the mounds represent an upper
social stratum in the Prehistoric settlement. Whether
this model may be transferred to the Norwegian farm
mounds remains to be investigated, but the rich ar-
chaeological remains from the Roman and the Merov-
ingian periods at the Åker mound indicate that it may
be the case (Martens 2013).
Single farms versus villages
Of the two sites chosen in this study, Saurbekken is
defined by its size as a single farm, while Voldstad, with
its cluster of farms, in other countries and different
research traditions would have been termed a hamlet.
However, according to Norwegian research tradition
the rural settlement was organised in single farms (cf.
Øye, this volume). Even when such farms are found
in nucleated clusters, it is generally denied that it re-
flects a village organisation (Holmsen 1980). While this
discussion is outside the scope of the present paper
it is in its place to question why some farm mounds
represent single farms, while others represent several.
Rich economical resources on land or in the sea may
be the foundation for larger communities, hamlets or
villages, whereas a single farm does not need much to
subside. In northern Norway two settlement mound
types are actually called hamlets or villages, fiskevær
(fishing hamlet) or kirkevær (village with church) (Ber-
telsen 1973; 2011), but using a different word for vil-
lage from that which would have been used in the rest
of the country (vær, instead of klyngetun or landsby).
In the archaeological database of listed monuments in
Norway, Askeladden, there is no clear pattern of single
farms contra clustered farms (klyngetun), but that may
be because of the Norwegian research tradition of not
calling settlements with more than one farmer hamlets
or villages, but rather calling all of them farms, some
then separated into several households with individ-
ual owners/holders (with the above mentioned excep-
tion of fishing and church villages). It is important to
note that the Norwegian term ’farm’ differs from the
continental term in that it may cover more than one
household. Still, in many cases it is hard to imag-
RURALIA X
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds
ine that there was no cooperation between the single
households in a nucleated cluster of farms.
Economy and land use
As indicated by ecofacts and climatic restraints, the
economy of the farm mounds seems to base primar-
ily on husbandry supplied with fishing and hunting.
There are, however, regional differences.
If one looks at the spatial distribution of the listed
farm mounds, it is notable that all the ones in Finn-
mark County are in coastal locations (Fig. 1b), indicat-
ing that an economy based on income from the sea is
a likely deciding factor. The Finnmark farm mounds
have large outfield areas, and the keeping of sheep
and goats, possibly cattle, and possible keeping but
certainly hunting of reindeer may have contributed to
the economy, since this is so far north in the Arctic
zone that cereal crops have no time to mature. Still, ce-
real may have been grown for cattle fodder, as is pres-
ently done. This theory is supported by plant macro-
fossil finds in the stratigraphic investigations of farm
mounds (Griffin 1985) and pollen studies of farm de-
velopment in northern Norway (Vorren 2009).
In Troms County (Fig. 1c), the farm mounds are
distributed along the inner fjord areas, with a nota-
ble concentration in the Harstad area. This area has
much richer farming soil and a longer growing sea-
son, though it is still in the Arctic zone, making cereal
production a possible though marginal income source
(Griffin 1985). However, even here cattle and sheep play
a major role in the economy, and fishing is important,
as evidenced by the ecofact finds from farm mound ex-
cavations (Bertelsen 1984).
The largest concentration of listed farm mounds
in any county occurs in Nordland (Fig. 1d). Even this
county is located almost completely in the Arctic zone.
Here, the most intense concentration is in the Lofoten
area, an archipelago to the north in the county. This
area is characterised by steep mountains, small areas
of arable land, and very good fishing grounds. It is a
fair assumption that the stock fish trade is a major
subsistence factor for these farm mounds. This land-
scape also exemplifies the land use question, since it
would be logical to use the limited amount of arable
land for agriculture, thus leading to settling on the
non-arable land, and a build-up of settlement deposits
creating the farm mounds. This process would then
form a good parallel to the north Jutland settlement
mounds in the Early Iron Age, as described above,
though still leaving the question of why one does not
use the well-manured settlement area for cultivation.
Even in the richer farming areas of Troms, there are
few areas where it would have been possible to have
RURALIA X
173–183
the long strip fields which were ideal for the mould-
board plough, which was otherwise the revolutionary
efficiency improving agrarian tool of Europe in the
high middle ages. Archaeological traces of long, raised
strip fields are very rare in Norway (see e.g. finds from
Fyldpå in Vestfold County in Rødsrud et al. 2008). The
archaeological evidence in the three northernmost
Norwegian counties consists of ard marks, indicating
that the use of the easier movable ard and, for the steep
areas, spade and hoe cultivation, were most likely the
preferred tools and cultivation methods throughout
the medieval period (cf. Øye 2015).
Conclusion
A farm mound is a rural settlement containing ar-
chaeological remains from hundreds of years of set-
tlement at the same site. The archaeological deposits
have accumulated to form a mound, often making
them distinct landscape features. They are listed
monuments in the Norwegian national cultural herit-
age database, and they are the largest assemblages of
medieval archaeological deposits outside the towns.
The farm mounds are expressions of varied ethnic,
economical and historical background and represent
important sources to cultural history of both Norse
and Sámi rural settlements in northern Norway. Most
of the farm mounds may be found in the counties of
Nordland, Troms and Finnmark in Arctic Norway, but
there are exceptions further south. However, they are
far and few between. This may be partly a reflection of
realities, but may also be a reflection on research tradi-
tions and investigation methods.
A farm mound or settlement mound may support
only a single farm, or several farms clustered together
(klyngetun, fiskevær, kirkevær). It is important to note
that the Norwegian term farm differs from the conti-
nental in that it may cover more than one household.
Some farm mounds were deserted at different points
in history, others are still inhabited today.
Investigations have proved that the main elements
of the farm mound deposits are house remains from
houses built of turf sods and wood, and general house-
hold waste. As indicated by artefacts, ecofacts and cli-
matic restraints, the economy of the farm mounds
seems to base primarily on husbandry supplied with
fishing, stock fish trade and hunting. It is suggested
that husbandry as a main subsistence factor is the
major reason for the fixed site of settlements and the
subsequent formation of the farm mounds due to the
lack of use of the settlement soil as fertiliser on the
arable land.
The fixation of the settlements and thus the creation
of settlement mounds may further find its cause in
181
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds
more structured rights of property and a strict social
hierarchy, which again depended upon a need for op-
timal use of the arable land and building on the non-
arable land. The closest parallel to the Norwegian farm
mounds may be found in the north Jutland settlement
mounds (byhøje) from the Early Iron Age, which ap-
pear to be products of economic specialisation and
social hierarchy. This may also be the case in Arctic
Norway.
Summary
Farm mounds – built-up archaeological deposits
from long term rural settlements at fixed sites – is
a characteristic of the medieval rural settlement in
northern Norway, the Norse settlements on the North
Atlantic Islands, the south west coast line of the North
Sea and the Iron Age settlements in Northwest Jut-
land. The main elements of the farm mound deposits
are house remains from houses built of wood and turf
sods, and general household waste. A farm mound or
settlement mound may support only a single farm, or
several farms or holdings. In the present paper, the
north Norwegian farm mounds are compared to the
medieval rural settlement in eastern Norway and to
the Iron Age settlement mounds of north Jutland. It
is argued that the formation of settlement mounds is
a result of both social structures and economic strate-
gies, the mounds representing an economical empha-
sis on husbandry in combination with fishing and
other non-agricultural resources.
Zusammenfassung
Siedlungshügel – bestehend aus archäologischen
Kulturschichten, die sich durch eine langfristige Orts-
konstanz einer ländlichen Siedlung aufgebaut haben
– sind typisch für mittelalterliche Siedlungsplätze in
Nord-Norwegen, alt-nordischen bzw. eisenzeitlichen
Siedlungen auf den Inseln im Nordatlantik, der süd-
westlichen Nordseeküste und im Nordwesten Jütlands.
Der Hauptbestandteil der Hügelablagerungen stammt
von den Häusern aus Holz und Rasensoden sowie
sonstigen Siedlungsabfällen. Auf einem Siedlungshü-
gel lag jeweils ein einzelner Hof oder eine Gruppen-
siedlung. Der vorliegende Beitrag vergleicht die Sied-
lungshügel aus Nord-Norwegen mit solchen aus dem
östlichen Norwegen sowie dem eisenzeitlichen Nord-
Jütland. Der Aufbau von Siedlungshügeln wird als
Folge besonderer sozialer Strukturen wie auch wirt-
schaftlicher Strategien verstanden. Siedlungshügel
repräsentieren demnach überwiegend Viehwirtschaft
in Verbindung mit Fischfang und der Nutzung anderer
nicht-agrarischer Ressourcen.
182
173–183
Résumé
Les « farm mounds » – tertres issus de couches ar-
chéologiques liées à l’établissement successif sur le
long terme de communautés rurales dans des endroits
déterminés – sont une caractéristique de l’habitat rural
médiéval du Nord de la Norvège, des colonies scandi-
naves dans les îles de l’Atlantique Nord, de la côte sud-
ouest de la Mer du Nord mais aussi des communau-
tés sédentaires de l’Âge du Fer dans le nord-ouest du
Jutland. Les éléments principaux trouvés parmi les
couches des « farm mounds » sont des vestiges de mai-
sons en bois et en tourbe, ainsi que des déchets ména-
gers divers. Sur chaque « farm mounds » ou monticule
communautaire s’établissaie une seule ferme ou bien
un groupe d’habitations. Dans cet article, les « farm
mounds » du Nord de la Norvège sont comparés aux
communautés rurales médiévales de la Norvège occi-
dentale ainsi qu’aux monticules d’habitation de l’Âge
de Fer présents dans le nord du Jutland. L’auteur de
cet article affirme que la formation des monticules
d’habitation découle à la fois de structures sociales et
de stratégies économiques spécifiques. Les monticules
correspondent essentiellement à des activités d’éle-
vage en combinaison avec de la pêche et l’exploitation
d’autres ressources d’origine non agraires.
Acknowledgements
This work constitutes part of a current research
project, Archaeological Deposits in a Changing Climate.
In Situ Preservation of Farm Mounds in Northern Nor-
way (InSituFarms). The project is financed by the Re-
search Council of Norway in the Environment 2015
programme over the period 2012–2015. The project
number is 212900/E40. Project partners in the In-
SituFarms project are: Norwegian Institute for Cul-
tural Heritage Research (NIKU); Norwegian Institute
for Agricultural and Environmental Research (Bio-
forsk); MVH Consult, the Netherlands; Archaeological
Museum, University of Stavanger; Vienna Institute for
Archaeological Science; Tromsø University Museum;
The Culture Department, Troms County Council; The
National Museum of Denmark; The Directorate of Cul-
tural Heritage (Riksantikvaren)
I would like to thank the Research Council of Nor-
way for the funding, the project partners for their valu-
able work and good company, and the land owner at
Voldstad, Leif Andersen, for valuable input and a most
welcoming attitude on site. I would also like to thank
Inga Fløisand, NIKU, and my husband Jes Martens for
reading, commenting and giving constructive input to
the manuscript.
RURALIA X
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds
Bibliography
Alnæs, K. 1999:
En ny arbeidsdag. Historien om Norge, bd IV. Gyldendal.
Askeladden: https://askeladden.ra.no/
Bertelsen, R. 1973:
Gårdshaugene i Harstad kommune. Et bidrag til områdets
økonomiske historie i middelalderen. MA thesis (magister-
grad), archaeology, University of Bergen.
Bertelsen, R. 1984:
Farm mounds of the Harstad area. Quantitative Investiga-
tions of Accumulation Characteristics, Acta Borealia 1 nr. 1,
7–25. Tromsø.
Bertelsen, R. 1989:
Gårdshaugene i Nord-Norge. Eksempler på Nordatlantiske
teller, Hikuin 15, 171–182.
Bertelsen, R. 2002:
Saurbekken i Harstad, in: Povl Simonsen (ed.), Mellomalder-
arkeologi mellom Salten og Senja. Tromura nr. 35, 15–20.
Tromsø.
Bertelsen, R. 2011:
Tilkomsten av fiskevær, med særlig blik på kysten mellom
Vestfjorden og Lopphavet, in: Hansen, L. I. – Holt, R. – Im-
sen, S. (eds), Nordens plass i middelalderens Europa. Sam-
funnsomdanning, sentralmakt og periferier, Speculum Bo-
reale 16, 78–88. Stamsund.
Brox, A. – Griffin, K. 1985:
Stratigraphic studies of farm mounds in northern Norway.
ISKOS 5, 191–204.
Gustavsen, L. 2013:
Georadarundersøkelse ved Saurbekken, preliminary report.
NIKU oppdragsrapport 19.
Holm-Olsen, I. M. – Bertelsen, R. 1973:
Gårdshaugen Saurbekken i Harstad, Nikolay 13, 6–8.
Holmsen, A. 1980:
Gård og gods i Norge i eldre tid. Oslo.
Johansson, J. 2011:
Hus och bosättningsspår. Them Nedre, 42/1, Tønsberg, Vest-
fold. Rapport Arkeologisk Utgravning, KHM, UiO. Oslo. (Un-
published excavation report).
Karlberg, I. – Simonsen, M. F. 2009:
Bygdø Kongsgård – en gårdshaug med bebyggelsesspor fra
middelalder og renessanse, in: Bergstøl, J. (ed.), Arkeologiske
undersøkelser 2003–2004. Varia 77,189–205. Oslo.
Kurlansky, M. 1997:
Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World. New
York: Walker.
Lind, K. E. 2002:
Gårdshaugen på Skutvik, Hamarøy kommune, in: Povl Si-
monsen (ed.), Mellomalderarkeologi mellom Salten og Senja.
Tromura 35, 21–26. Tromsø.
Lysaker, T. 1956a:
Harstad nedre, øvre og nordre. Trondenes Bygdebok II, 9–14.
Harstad.
Vibeke Vandrup Martens, NIKU – Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research. vvm@niku.no
RURALIA X
173–183
Lysaker, T. 1956b:
Vollstad med Svartvatnet. Trondenes Bygdebok III, 93–113.
Harstad.
Martens, J. 2009:
Middelalderens jordbruksbebyggelse i de sentrale strøk. Den
tapte middelalder?, in: Martens, J. – Martens, V. V. – Stene, K.
(eds), Den tapte middelalder? Middelalderens sentrale jord-
bruksbebyggelse. Artikkelsamling. Varia 71, 7–22. Oslo.
Martens, V. V. 2013:
The Magnate Farm of Åker. Past, present and future of a farm
with central functions. Ruralia 9, 329–339.
Rosen, A. M. 1986:
Cities of Clay. The Geoarchaeology of Tells. Chicago – Lon-
don.
Runge, M. 2009:
Nørre Hedegård. En nordjysk byhøj fra ældre jernalder. Jysk
Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter 66. Højbjerg.
Rødsrud, C. L. – Martens, V. V. – Lislerud, A. – Gjerpe, L. E.
2008:
Kapittel 15. Fyldpå 1, Emmerød 4, Gulli 6, Eikeberg 7, Tveiten
9 og Bakskjul 11. Varia 73, 329–332. Oslo.
Snæsdótir, M. 1993:
Icelandic Farm Mounds and their Accumulation. MA thesis
(D-uppsats), medieval archaeology, University of Lund.
Simpson, I. A. – Perdikaris, S. – Cook,G. – Campbell, J. L. –
Teesdale, W. J. 2000:
Cultural Sediment Analyses and Transitions in Early Fishing
Activity at Langenesværet, Vesterålen, Northern Norway. Geo-
archaeology 15, No. 8, 743–763.
Stene, K. 2009:
En gårdshaug i Østfold. Undersøkelser av kulturlag fra mid-
delalder på gården Fusk i Askim commune, in: Martens, J.
– Martens, V. V. – Stene, K. (eds), Den tapte middelalder? Mid-
delalderens sentrale jordbruksbebyggelse. Artikkelsamling.
Varia 71, 191–202. Oslo.
Svart Kristiansen, M. 2004:
Arkæologiske undersøgelser af den middelalderlige landbe-
byggelse – metodiske problemer og prioriteringer i fortiden,
nutiden og fremtiden. Bol og by. Landbohistorisk tidsskrift
2003, 1–2, 9–29.
Svart Kristiansen, M. 2005 (ed.):
Tårnby. Gård og landsby gennem 1000 år. Jysk Arkæologisk
Selskabs Skrifter 54. Højbjerg.
Urbańczyk, P. 1992:
Medieval Arctic Norway. Warszawa.
Vorren, K.-D. 2009:
Farm Development in the Malangen Area, Northern Norway
– A Pollen-Analytical Case Study, Acta Borealia 26, Nr 2,
156–174.
Øye, I. 2015:
Agrarian technology and land use in Scandinavian landsca-
pes c. 800–1300 AD, Ruralia 10.
Personal communications
Leif Andersen, Voldstad, August 2013 & January 2014.
183
Martens, North Norwegian farm mounds 173–183

184 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 185–194

Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape

in western Norway – the fjord farm Indre Matre
Archäologische Untersuchungen einer Agrarlandschaft
in Westnorwegen – Indre Matre, ein Hof am Matersfjord

Recherche archéologiques d’un paysage agraire en Norvège

de l’Ouest. La ferme du fjord Indre Matre

Janicke Larsen

Introduction
In the years 2003–2005, the author of this article
carried out archaeological investigations at the farm
Indre Matre as part of the doctoral project, ‘From place
to farm: An agrarian analysis of Indre Matre in Kvin-
nherad, Hordaland’ (Zehetner 2007). The aim was to
investigate a farm’s development in a long-term per-
spective and to shed light on issues related to when
and how farms were established, and how agrarian
landscapes have developed over time, and the rea-
sons for this particular development. The study was
carried out within an early and well-established tradi-
tion of archaeological research into farming and land-
scapes at the University of Bergen, but based on new
approaches.
In western Norway, archaeological research of agrar-
ian landscapes has long had the goal to broaden the
knowledge about farming and rural settlements from
the Iron Age and the Middle Ages. In the first part of the
20th century, abandoned Iron Age and medieval farms
were investigated by focusing on the settlement areas
(Shetelig 1910; Petersen 1933; 1936). From the 1950s
onwards (e.g. Rønneseth 1955; 2001 [1974]; Myhre 1969;
1972; Randers 1981; Kaland 1979), also the farmland
at such abandoned settlements was included, such
as fossilised traces of old fields, lynchets, clearance
cairns, fences and roads. During the last 15–20 years,
after a period with less attention on agrarian issues,
the old research field has been revitalised. The issue of
how single farms have developed has once more come
to the fore, but now concentrating on more sustainable
farms that have been used into the present, and with
less emphasis on the more marginal and abandoned
farms. This new approach also tends to include farms
which have not necessarily been regarded as having
medieval or earlier origins (see Åstveit 1998).
The split up and vertical topography in western Nor-
way, with its scarcity of arable land, is well suited for
archaeological investigations of rural settlements and
farm land, although in varying degree from region to re-
gion. The new research programme started off as part of
a larger interdisciplinary research project 1998–2001
supported by the Norwegian Research Council. ‘The
traditional farm in western Norway’ (Austad – Øye
2001), where the archaeological investigations have
mostly been carried out as supervised master’s pro-
jects (Øye 2002a; Stang 2003; Lia 2005; Dahle 2005;
Olsen 2006; Sivertsen 2006; Foyn 2008; Sætre 2008).
During the last decade, research into rural and farm-
ing topics has also been carried out as doctoral
projects (Holm 2005; Iversen 2008 [2004]; Zehetner
2007).
A closer examination of how a farm developed, seen
in a long-term perspective, was the starting point for
the investigation at Indre Matre. To understand the
farm within a broader framework, the study also in-
cluded an analysis of farms in the neighbouring com-
munities to assess the farm’s position from broader
social and economic perspectives. These communities
used to be belong to three different administrative ar-
eas: (1) the parish of Holmedal, (2) Skånevik skipreide
(originally an administrative district related to the con-
scription of naval service), and (3) Uskedalen, formerly
Kvinnherad skipreide (Fig. 1). These areas included
altogether 41 farms with their own names (Norw.
navnegård) but a farm could also comprise several
holdings. These farms were included in a comparative
settlement analysis. The geographical demarcation of
Indre Matre’s surroundings is based on the natural
topographical boundaries, especially with regard to
communications and old communication routes. The
study area is characterised by natural boundaries,
such as fjords, valleys and mountains. In order to de-
cide whether Indre Matre originally had been a part of
a larger resource area than known from historic times,
a retrogressive method was used as an analytical tool.
By studying later and more secure sources, from ca-
dastres, maps and documentary evidence about farm

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 185–194.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110464
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
Fig. 1. The map show Indre Matre and the boundaries for the 41 farms
in the area surrounding the farm.
size, measured according to production, ownership,
farm names, farm boundaries, etc. information was
seen in relation to, and in contrast with, the archaeo-
logical evidence. Using this approach it was possible to
achieve a broader understanding of the development
of the settlements also in the surrounding areas that
could not be studied archaeologically. It made it, how-
ever, possible to shed light on the social and economic
relationship between this particular farm and the sur-
rounding settlements, for example with regard to pos-
sible earlier settlement hierarchies.
The investigation was, then, carried out on two ge-
ographical levels, based on different approaches and
degree of scrutiny. To achieve a broader understand-
ing of the development of the farm and its relation to
the neighbouring communities, several sub-questions
had to be examined. Was the farming at Indre Matre a
result of long-term processes or was the farm estab-
lished by clearing the land within a limited period? If
that was the case, when did it happen and how have
farming systems changed over time? What was the
physical layout of the area and did it change? Altogeth-
er, which factors promoted change or stability? It was
also interesting to look for structures in the landscape
that might shed light on social conditions related to
186
185–194
the establishment and development of different types
of settlements. An issue here relates to a farm called
Ytre (outer) Matre, at the mouth of the long Matersf-
jord and whether Indre (inner) Matre at the head of the
fjord originally constituted a common resource area,
and what kind of position Indre Matre might have had
in its larger surrounding areas.
The investigation has made use of different ap-
proaches to the landscape, both old and newer histori-
cal records, oral traditions, as well as archaeological
and scientific dating methods. The term farm (Norw.
gård) here includes a sedentary settlement, arable
farming and animal husbandry and a resource area
with more or less fixed boundaries towards its sur-
rounding area (Zehetner 2007, 20 ff.; cf. also Øye, this
volume for a broader discussion of the term).
The investigations at Indre Matre
– the area
Matersfjorden in the region of Kvinnherad is situ-
ated in what is described as an outer coastal region in
western Norway, and Indre Matre is located at the head
of this fjord. Today, the area is characterised by small-
scale agriculture and scattered single farms, which so
far had received little archaeological attention.
The farming area at Indre Matre is a well-preserved
agricultural landscape, mostly undisturbed by modern
farming methods and deep soil cultivation (Fig. 2). The
farm is mentioned in legal documents from 1314 and
1347. During the Middle Ages, it belonged administra-
tively to the north-western part of Skånevik skipreide,
and ecclesiastically to the parish of Holmedal. The area
with moraine infields with good drainage is well suited
to farming. The outfields comprise many resources,
pastures as well as woodland, and fish in the fjord and
river. Today, the infields constitute about 100 decares
(1 daa= ¼ acre) and the outfields about 5,000 decares.
At least 20 visible grave mounds from the Iron Age
are located in the vicinity of the historical clustered
farm (Norw. klyngetun), a high number compared to
the surrounding farms and the rest of the neighbour-
ing area. When taking earlier surveys into considera-
tion (Bendixen 1898, 19; Lavik 1959; Myhre 1977), as
well as the author’s own records, there are reasons to
assume that the original number of monuments has
been much higher.
The farmyard (Norw. tun) and the infields of Indre
Matre is situated on a river terrace on the eastern side
of the river Blåelva. On the western side of the river a
large, cleared area, denoted Træo, also contains a large
number of preserved stone structures of uncertain
origin. Træo is situated on a somewhat lower altitude
than the farmyard and the central infields on the other
RURALIA X
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
side of the river. Two stone wall passages lead from
the farmyard into the outfields. One of them leads out
through an area of fenced-in fields, a borderland be-
tween the infields and the outfields, and further into
the outer resource area of grazing land and wood-
land. The other one leads to Træo. In order to access
the area, the formerly mighty river Blåelvo, before it
was regulated in the early 20th century, would have
to be crossed, and that would not be possible without
a bridge. It was possible to cross the river by boat or
by crossing further upstream, but none of these op-
tions was ideal. However, access to the large outlying
resources and communications on the western bank
necessitated the access to these areas.
Theoretical perspectives
A landscape is ever-changing. However, there are al-
ways elements which will remain for a long time. On a
farm such as Indre Matre, there are several structures
of a very great age, which have remained despite sev-
eral changes in farming techniques. In order to throw
light on the question of which factors promote change,
and which have a stabilising effect on the physical
structuring of the area, theories of the British cultural
geographer Robert A. Dodgshon’s (1998) opened new
perspectives, especially for assessing the relation be-
tween infields and outfields by using his approach of
how so-called ‘manifest’ structures affect the utilisa-
RURALIA X
185–194
Fig. 2. The infields and
closer outfields of Indre Ma-
tre. The farmyard faces the
fjord, and the infields are
located in close proximity to
the farmyard, surrounded by
the outfields and woodland.
Træo is located on the right
side of the river Blåelvo.
Photo Janicke Larsen, 2004.
tion of areas over time. These are structures that re-
main stable, in spite of changes in function through
time, and were younger structures related to an older.
A grave mound may serve as an example of a mani-
fest structure where younger structures, for example
a road, relates to it and goes around it. Dodgshon’s
term inertia, slowness, refers to factors which have
a conserving effect on the landscape. In the present
investigation, a working hypothesis has been that vis-
ible physical structures have had a conserving effect
within a defined settlement area, and that this effect
is traceable in the landscape and the archaeological
record. I have therefore been careful to examine the
physical structures on a farm level, as well as their in-
terrelations. An issue, then, is if some structures have
a stronger preserving effect than others.
The archaeological investigations
Archaeological fieldwork, corresponding fifty weeks
of work, was carried out on the farm. This included
the registration and investigation of fossilised and relic
landscape structures. The main part of the field work
was concentrated on the infield areas, including small-
scale investigations in the form of trenches through a
sample of fossilised structures, such as lynchets, fenc-
es, boundary markers and pathways and others. Such
structures are located in different zones on the farm:
infields with a high degree of labour investment are
187
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
located near the farmyard, while less labour-intensive
areas are found in the outskirts of what today are the
infields, and in outlying areas. Investigations were also
carried out in areas close to the outfields, with indica-
tion of earlier cultivation. The present farmyard area
could not be investigated due to the standing build-
ings. Larger parts of the arable land have been subject
to deep ploughing during the last fifty years. Traces of
earlier cultivation have therefore to a large extent been
lost, but fortunately small patches with preserved lay-
ers from earlier periods were found in the outskirts of
these arable fields, as well as in less cultivated areas at
the farm. Small-scale sample investigations based on
trenches in these areas form the basis for assessment
and interpretation of changes in farming types and of
possible structural changes over time.
In total, 31 trenches were opened and documented.
Trenches opened through lynchets provide especially
valuable information about the history of cultivation.
Structures such as stone fences, roads, grave barrows
and traces of building sites provide information about
the spatial structuring of the farm. In total, there are
24 14C dates from cultivated layers in trenches from
the infields. The relative dating of the remaining lay-
ers was established on the basis of stratigraphic anal-
yses and layer correlation. In the trenches, the stra-
tigraphy was studied morphologically and was dated
by using 14C analyses, partly combined with pollen
analyses.
The different zones within the farm were studied in
their relation to each other. In order to assess the farm
in a long-term perspective, the archaeological results
were supplemented with historical sources and oral
information. This meta-chronic landscape, containing
different structures from different periods, gave an
opportunity to analyse the mutual relationship be-
tween the structures. This made it possible to uncover
chronological relations between the layers that did not
intervene in the landscape very much. Older physical
structures above the ground may influence the later
formation of the landscape. It was therefore interesting
to study which structures had been the most stable
over time, and what effect they have had on the forma-
tion of later structures.
Supplementary sources
The variety of resources that constitute a farm can
be difficult to trace using only archaeological evidence.
Historical sources and knowledge of the historical
farming methods as a basis for understanding the de-
velopment are important to be able to recognise larger
changes that have taken place in the landscape. Place
names from the infields and outfields (micro names)
were therefore collected, systemised and analysed in
188
185–194
connection with the fieldwork. Some of the toponymic
material was collected before the start of the investi-
gation, but not all names had been mapped. In total,
387 micro names from the area within the present-day
farm boundaries have been assessed (Zehetner 2008).
These names provide information about land-use in
more recent times, but also enable a more extensive
analysis of the totality of resources at the farm. In the
hilly landscape of western Norway, the potential for cul-
tivation is relatively limited and therefore more stable
over longer periods than is suggested by the more re-
cent place names reflecting activities, such as logging,
haymaking and other outfield activities. However, the
place names have provided a useful basis for assess-
ing social and cultural aspects of the farming. They
have also made it possible to make a spatial analysis
of how resources were used in the landscape, and also
indicate use which may reach further back than the
names themselves. The names, then, help to provide
a broader understanding of the use of the landscape.
They tell about pathways, boggy areas, good pastures
and woodland, where the birch and the pine trees
grew.
Oral sources, based on information given by people
who have grown up here, have also been important for
understanding the agricultural landscape. In addition,
written sources from the Middle Ages and onwards
give important information, not least for the study of
the wider surroundings of Indre Matre.
Results: Land clearance and development
of the farm
The results from the archaeological fieldwork
showed signs of land being cleared for pasture as early
as in the late Neolithic period and perhaps for culti-
vation in the late Bronze Age. The first clear signs of
agriculture were documented in layers from the early
Roman period, and these indicate clearing of new land
and extensive cultivation. From this period, there are
also traces of at least one grave that was no longer vis-
ible on the surface. The pollen analyses support these
results, and show that the woodland was in the pro-
cess of being cleared in the early Iron Age. The clear-
ing of the forest resulted in an open cultural landscape
(Hjelle 2007, 302). Agriculture seems therefore to have
been taken up relatively quickly at Indre Matre, prob-
ably as a result of clearing new land, and a sedentary
settlement was established at the same time as the
farming. The expansion in area continued throughout
the early Iron Age (500 BC– c. 550AD) and into the
late Iron Age, and it is not until the Merovingian period
(c. 550–800) that traces of a more intensive cultivation
appear, co-existing with more extensive forms of agri-
culture (Fig. 3). A further expansion was seen at the
RURALIA X
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway 185–194

start of the Viking Age (ca. 800–1050), in that larger

areas were being used for cultivation. From the Viking
Age and into the Middle Ages, the utilisation of arable
land increased significantly. This is reflected in thicker
cultivation layers, but the profiles also show that some
fields were still cultivated less intensively. The archae-
ological investigations give little information about
cultivation in the period from after the Reformation
(1536/37) up to the present day. This period is, how-
ever, documented in other sources, both written and
oral source. Additionally, the place names indicate a
strongly cultivated landscape of arable fields with their
own names.
A similar clearing of land seems to have taken place
at about the same time in several places in the sur-
rounding area. In the historical settlement analyses,
several areas along the Matersfjord, at Halsnøy and
at the mouth of the valley of Uskedalen, had a mainly
concurrent settlement development. The investigation
showed, however, clearly that to obtain more precise
information about the speed and utilisation rate, ar-
chaeological investigation must be carried out on a
more detailed level. Here, the investigations at Indre
Matre may serve as a model.
Fig. 3. Profile showing continuity of cultivation through several exten-
Investigations into the more marginal area of Træo sive and intensive phases. The profile is taken from a trench in the
show that cultivation dates back to the early Iron Age. Storåkeren in the central infield. The cultivation layers are dated to AD
This archaeological interpretation was supported by 1065–1215 (layer 4), AD 995–1025 (layer 6), AD 980–1015 (layer 7)
and AD 775–880 (layer 8). Drawing Janicke Larsen – Gitte Hansen,
the pollen analyses, through the uncovering of pol- 2003.
len grain from wheat, contemporary weeds and weeds
from the Chenopodioideae family, in addition to strong
indications of pasturing. This shows that areas consid- Structures – change and stabilizing factors
ered unsuitable for cultivation today, may have been
utilised in other periods, but by using different ways When the farm was established in the early Iron Age,
of farming than in the main area. Several larger stone it seems that the establishment lead to a structuring
structures, as well as several cairns, are still visible of fields and grave monuments, where the graves indi-
in the landscape, but there are no direct indications rectly indicate the position of the settlement even from
of settlement, although this cannot be ruled out com- an early phase. The fields and their utilisation have
pletely. to a larger degree been affected by changes in farm-
The place names made it possible to divide the ing systems, depending on the degree of extensive and
farm area into different zones of utilisation. They also intensive farming. The intensification took place clos-
reflect a variety of non-physical, cultural and social est to what seems to have been the farmyard from the
structures which are now lost. The names link, then, beginning. Different parts of the area have changed in
to different areas of utilisation and rights of use. The different degrees as a consequence of changing farm-
name density is also highest in the infields and in are- ing methods. The fact that the infields closest to the
as bordering to the outfields, and indicate areas where farmyard still have left structures such as visible pre-
the degree of utilisation was highest (Fig. 4). By map- historic graves, shows that new structures have been
ping areas of different types of utilisation, it is pos- adjusted to older preserved structures. The outfields
sible to map which activities may date further back closest to the farm and the other outlying areas seem,
than the name itself. Through the toponymic analysis, however, to have been more exposed to change. Funer-
then, the totality of resources of the farm become more ary monuments seem generally to have been respect-
clear (Fig. 4).Furthermore, the names help personalise ed up to the present day. They thus form a very stable
the landscape through personal names and names re- group of manifest monuments in the landscape and
lated to special events. In this overgrown coastal land- younger structures have related to them. At the same
scape, names can also help pinpoint outfield struc- time, individual funerary monuments at the farm re-
tures which are no longer visible or easily accessible. late to common pathways, and are probably secondary

RURALIA X 189
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
Fig. 4. Overview of collected place names from the infields and closer outfields of Indre Matre. Mapping Janicke Larsen.
to these traffic arteries. When more intensive tilling
of the fields started, these fields also became stable
structures. Stone fences, established in the late Iron
Age/medieval period, roads, and not least the topogra-
phy are other important factors in the structuring of
the landscape. In the infields, fences, and the bounda-
ries they represent, have kept their shape and function
through a long time, while in the outfields, they to a
larger degree seem to have lost their function. Fences
and roads emphasise the economic and social struc-
turing of a farm area.
There are also signs of extensive stability in the
settlement and farming areas on the 31 surrounding
farms, although this is based on more traditional cri-
teria and indirect sources and interpretations, without
the same basis of a more accurate dating framework
as at Indre Matre.
190
185–194
Two subordinate smallholdings (Norw. husmanns-
plass) were established in the Early Modern period in
more remote parts of the farm. Through archaeologi-
cal analyses from these places, no settlements earlier
than the beginning of the early 18th century could be
documented. When they were abandoned in the 19th
century, all cultivation in these areas also came to an
end, and the areas were again used for pasturing and
haymaking. Data from smaller patches of cultivated
land on other parts of the farms, in the border area
between infields and outfields, also testify to shorter
periods of cultivation. Seen together, this strengthens
the theory that changes and more flexible modes of
utilisation were more easily accomplished in the pe-
riphery than in the central areas. In the farmyard area
and the closest infields much labour had been invest-
ed over a long time and was less susceptible to change.
RURALIA X
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
This investment naturally also lead to higher yields in
these areas than in areas where less labour had been
invested.
Social conditions – spatial organization
In the project, the question of whether the farm In-
dre Matre consisted of the same resource area as in
recent times was also assessed, or if it at an early stage
comprised a larger area, which included smaller farms
in the western area of the fjord stretching towards the
farm of Ytre Matre at the mouth of Matersfjorden. The
spatial distribution of burial monuments is an impor-
RURALIA X
185–194
tant indicator, together with sources about ownership.
Indre Matre differs from the neighbouring farms in
Matersfjorden with its many grave monuments from
the Iron Age. There are no such monuments at Ytre
Matre or any of the farms between the two. Their
names, inner and outer, may reflect a common herit-
age (Sandnes 1976, 32). Today, the name Matre appears
at three farms in the area, Indre Matre, Ytre Matre and
Matrestveit, and two valleys at the same side of the
fjord are both named Matredsdalen. The main name
Matre is the same, but the suffix -tveit indicates a sec-
ondary subdivision. The distribution of grave monu-
ments, together with an analysis of the boundaries,
Tab. 1. The farms in Holmedal and
Uskedalen, mentioned with land rent
in the tax record of 1647. The land
rent converted into ‘lauper’ (units of
about 15 kilograms) of butter is re-
corded under the column ‘landskyld’.
Rv. = relative value.
191
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
names, oldest references in written sources, size and
archaeological findings, may indicate that the farm,
now denoted Indre Matre, was the centre of a larger re-
source area than the present farm of Indre Matre itself
– probably denoted Matre originally.
The grave monuments and archaeological finds re-
lated to agricultural activity were also mapped and as-
sessed and a boundary analysis was carried out. Older
farm boundaries often follow natural lines in the land-
scape, and an analysis of boundaries may therefore be
used to distinguish older boundaries from more recent
ones (Hovstad 1980, 29). The shape of the boundaries
may also indicate older subdivisions. The farm names
can also be seen in relation to these boundaries, as
the different types of names may indicate the rela-
tive age of the farms. It is, for example, assumed that
the farms with names ending in -land may originate
from the Migration period (c. 400–550 AD) (Sandnes
1976, 30; Myhre 2002, 126), and that they were pro-
ductive right into the Middle Ages (Øye 2002b, 238),
while uncompounded nature names in the definite
form, such as Li (hillside), Vik (bay) and Eik (oak) may
date from the early Iron Age. The oldest mentions in
written sources were used as a starting point, as this
may indicate an even older origin. Some of the farms
are first mentioned as early as the 14th and 15th cen-
turies, while the majority are first mentioned in the
late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. Medi-
eval sources mentioning Matre indicate that the farm
had a special significance in the local area in the 14th
century. When farms are not mentioned in written
sources before long into the 17th century, this many
indicate younger farms or that they were abandoned
in the late Middle Ages. This is a common assumption,
since few new farms were cleared in the period of de-
cline in the late Middle Ages, when there were still a
large number of abandoned farms available. When the
clearing started again in the 16th century, the older
farms were reclaimed first (Sandnes – Salvesen 1978,
18f). The relative value of the farm, based on land-
skyld (annual land rent) as noted in the tax register
of 1647, may help to determine the relative age of the
farm. A high rent may often indicate high age, and a
low rent a younger farm. The rent was given in kind,
with a fixed exchange rate, and this makes it possible
to calculate the relative value of the farm within a given
area (Tab. 1).
The name Matre, which is first mentioned in 14th
century, probably included a larger area with its own
settlement hierarchies, which may indicate that the
area was organised in a differently than in later peri-
ods. The surrounding comparative study area seems
to have had a strong degree of freehold, and the pres-
ence of grave monuments (as an indication of freehold
and inheritance rights) and a retrospective study of the
192
185–194
ownership conditions in the area have made it possi-
ble to support this interpretation.
The farm structure is created by and adapted for the
local conditions – both social and natural conditions,
in the form of ownership structures and farming prac-
tices, as well as limitations and possibilities offered by
the landscape. The analysis of farm boundaries in the
surrounding study area shows that the stability docu-
mented in the central settlement and farming areas,
has not been as equally high in the outskirts, where
areas were subdivided into single dispersed farms.
The landscape did not always form the layout of these
subdivisions, meaning that the boundaries do not nec-
essarily follow the natural topography. It would also
appear that there have been changes in the organisa-
tion of the farm and land ownership over time. The in-
fields of Indre Matre may therefore be seen as a robust
structure where the most intensively utilised areas
has been stable, even though the ownership structure
have seen several changes during the period covered
by the investigation.
In a long-term perspective, and in a larger, region-
al context, the farm development of Indre Matre has
many parallels with other farming settlements in west-
ern Norway which have been investigated, even though
the pace of the change may differ. On the level of the in-
dividual farm, based on archaeological investigations,
a more nuanced picture can, however, be revealed.
Conclusion
This sort of investigation is very demanding in re-
sources, but gives a detailed and comprehensive in-
sight into the use of the landscape over time. The
theoretical approach has helped the understanding
of how the farm landscape was structured. By seeing
the development of Indre Matre in relation to its sur-
rounding area, it has also been possible to assess the
agrarian landscape in a wider context, and understand
the internal development of Indre Matre in a broader
geographical, historical and social context.
Summary
This article deals with an archaeological study of
the agrarian landscape of a farm in western Norway.
The farm Indre Matre in Kvinnherad, a fjord districts
in western Norway, forms the main study area. The
farm is still in use but many old structures of early
farming are still preserved in the agrarian landscape.
The article presents methodological and theoretical
approaches in exploring such a meta-chronic agrar-
ian landscape. Based on excavations and analysis
of the physical remains, such as stone fences, clear-
RURALIA X
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
ance cairns and arable fields, the author elucidates
the issue of how the landscape was constructed and
developed over time, including economic, social and
ideological aspects. The farm is also seen in the wider
context of the surrounding community, comprising
41 historical farms.
Zusammenfassung
Der vorliegende Artikel behandelt die archäologi-
sche Untersuchung des Hofkomplexes Indre Matre am
Matersfjord in der westnorwegischen Gemeinde von
Kvinnherad. Der Hof wird zwar bis heute betrieben,
doch sind viele Strukturen früherer Bewirtschaftung
in der Agrarlandschaft erhalten. Methodische und
theoretische Ansätze zur Untersuchung einer solch
vielschichtigen Landschaft werden diskutiert. Archäo-
logische Ausgrabungen, die Auswertung von Gelän-
destrukturen wie Steinmauern, Lesesteinhaufen und
Ackerrelikte bilden für die Autorin die Grundlage für
eine Untersuchung der Umgestaltung und langfristi-
gen Wandels der Landschaft.
Résumé
Cet article traite d’une étude archéologique sur le
paysage agraire d’une ferme en Norvège de l’Ouest.
La ferme d’Intre Matre à Kvinnherad, une région de
fjords, constitue le sujet principal de l’étude. La ferme
est toujours en activité mais beaucoup de structures
anciennes sont encore conservées dans le paysage.
L’article présente les approches méthodologique et
théorique d’une telle recherche. Basée sur des fouilles
et sur l’analyse des restes physiques comme les murs
de limite, les tas d’essartage et les champs, l’étude a
identifié l’évolution du paysage et a analysé les aspects
socio-économiques et idéologiques. La ferme est aussi
replacée dans le contexte de la communauté qui l’en-
toure et qui comprend 41 fermes historiques.
Bibliography
Auestad, I. – Øye, I. 2001:
Den tradisjonelle vestlandsgården som kulturbiologisk sys-
tem, in: Skar, B. (ed.)Kulturminner og miljø. Forskning i gren-
seland mellom natur og kultur, Norsk institutt for kulturmin-
neforskning, 135–205, Oslo.
Bendixsen, B. E. 1898:
Fornlevninger i Søndhordland. Særtrykk af aarsberetning fra
1897fra foreningen til norske fortidsmindesmærkers beva-
ring, 13–26. Kristiania.
Dahle, K. 2005:
Bruk og forvaltning av utmarken. Arkeologiske undersøkelse
i et utmarksområde i Romsdal. Unpublished master’s thesis
in archaeology, University of Bergen.
RURALIA X
185–194
Dodgshon, R. A.1998:
Society in time and space. A Geographical Perspective on
Change. Cambridge.
Foyn, S. Ø. 2008:
Rønset: en agrararkeologisk analyse av gården Rønset i Hyl-
lestad, Sogn og Fjordane. Unpublished master’s thesis in ar-
chaeology, University of Bergen.
Holm, I. 2007:
Forvaltning og agrare kulturminner i utmark. UBAS, Nordisk
nr. 4, Universitetet i Bergen.
Hovstad, H. 1980:
Gårdsgrenser. Et bosetningshistorisk hjelpemiddel? Institutt
for sammenliknende kulturforskning. Oslo – Bergen – Oslo.
Hjelle, K. L. 2007:
Pollenanalyser av jordprofiler fra Indre Matre, Kvinnherad.
Paleobotanisk rapport fra Bergen Museum, De naturhisto-
riske samlinger, University of Bergen, in: Zehetner, J. L., Fra
sted til gård. En agrararkeologisk analyse av Indre Matre
i Kvinnherad, Hordaland.
Iversen, F. 2008:
Eiendom, makt og statsdannelse. Kongsgårder og gods i Hor-
daland i yngre jernalder og middelalder. UBAS, Nordisk nr. 6,
Universitetet i Bergen.
Kaland, S. H. H. 1979:
Lurekalven, en lyngheigård fra vikingtid/middelalder. En
økonomisk studie, in: Fladby, R. – Sandnes, J. (eds), På leiting
etter den eldste garden, 71–86. Oslo
Lavik, P. J. 1959:
Registrering 1959, Indre Matre, Holmedal s., Skånevik pg.,
Hordaland. Unpublished report from Hordaland county’s ar-
chives. Bergen
Lia, V. 2005:
Bruk og uttrykk gjennom tid i et jordbrukslandskap. Ornes
i Luster. En arkeologisk landskapsanalyse med punktunder-
søkelser i innmark. Unpublished master’s thesis in archaeol-
ogy, University of Bergen.
Myhre, B. 1969:
Gårdsanlegget på Ullanhaug. AmS-Skrifter 4. Stavanger.
Myhre, B. 1972:
Funn, fornminner og ødegårder. Jernalderens bosetning
i Høyland Fjellbygd. Stavanger Museums Skrifter. Bind 7.
Stavanger.
Myhre, B. 1977:
Upublisert innberetning. Indre Matre, Kvinnherad, Horda-
land gnr. 250. Hordaland fylkeskommunes arkiver. Bergen.
Myhre, B. 2002:
Landbruk, landskap og samfunn 4000 f. Kr.–800 e. Kr. Nor-
ges Landbrukshistorie Vol. I. Jorda blir levevei, 4000 f. Kr.–
1350 e.Kr., 10–212, Oslo.
Olsen, D. E. F. 2006:
Gård og støl: en arkeologisk punktanalyse av Stølsdalen, Jon-
dal kommune, Hordaland. Unpublished master’s thesis in ar-
chaeology, University of Bergen.
Petersen, J. 1933:
Gamle gårdsanlegg i Rogaland fra forhistorisk tid og middel-
alder. Bind 1. Institutt for sammenliknende kulturforskning.
Serie B, skrift XXIII. Oslo.
193
Larsen, Archaeological investigations of an agrarian landscape in western Norway
Petersen, J. 1936:
Gamle årdsanlegg i Rogaland fra forhistorisk tid og middel-
alder. Bind 2. Institutt for sammenliknende kulturforskning.
Serie B, skrift XXXI. Oslo.
Randers, K. 1981:
Høybøen – en ødegård på Sotra. En undersøkelse av boset-
ningsspor fra eldre jernalder og middelalder. Unpublished
thesis in archaeology, University of Bergen,
Rønneseth, O. 1955:
Nokre problem frå gardsamfunnet på Jæren, Heimen X, 150–
180. Trondheim.
Rønneseth, O. 2001 [1974]:
Gard og gjerde. Faser i utviklingen av Jærens kulturland-
skap. Hafrsfjord.
Sandnes, J. 1976:
Gards- og andre bustadnavn, in: Sandnes, J. – Stemhaug, O.
(eds), Norsk Stadnamnleksikon, 28–33. Oslo.
Sandnes, J. – Salvesen, H. 1978:
Ødegårdstid i Norge – det nordiske ødegårdsprosjektets nor-
ske undersøkelse. Det Nordiske ødegårdsprosjekt 4. Oslo.
Shetelig, H. 1910:
En ældre jernaldersgaard paa Jæderen, Bergen museums
Aarbog 1909. No. 5, 5–16. Bergen.
Sivertsen, A. K. 2006:
Jordbruks- og busetnadsutvikling i Jostedalen med utgangs-
punkt i punktundersøkingar i innmarka på gardane Nedrelid
og Kruna. Upublished master’s thesis in archaeology, Univer-
sity of Bergen.
Janicke Larsen, Bergen City Museum, Postboks 4052 Sandviken, NO-5835 Bergen, Norway, janlar@bymuseet.no
194
185–194
Stang, G. B. 2003:
Kroken – gard og grend: Arkeologiske punktundersøkinger
i Kroken, Luster, Sogn og Fjordane. Upublished master’s
thesis in archaeology, University of Bergen.
Sætre, A. N. 2008:
Sæsol: Jordbruk i kvernsteinslandskap: En arkeologisk punk-
tundersøkelse av en gård i drift. Upublished master’s thesis in
archaeology, University of Bergen.
Zehetner, J. L. 2007:
Fra sted til gård. En agrararkeologisk analyse av Indre Matre
i Kvinnherad, Hordaland. Unpublished doctoral thesis in ar-
chaeology University of Bergen.
Zehetner, J. L. 2008:
«Før elvi skal til Omvik gå, før skal ho gjenom bergi blå» – om
den kulturhistoriske verdien av å bevare stedsnavn. Sunn-
hordland årbok 2008. Band 89, 25–58.
Øye, I. 2002a (ed.):
Vestlandsgården – fire arkeologiske undersøkelser. Havrå –
Grinde – Lee – Ormelid (Julshamn, L., R. Bade, K. A. Valvik
og J. Larsen). Arkeologiske avhandlinger og rapporter nr. 8.
Bergen Museum.
Øye, I. 2002b:
Landbruk under press 800–1350. Norges landbrukshisto-
rie vol. I. Jorda blir levevei, 4000 f. Kr.–1350 e. Kr., 214–414.
Oslo.
Åstveit, J. L.1998:
Ormelid. Sentral eller marginal? Unpublished master’s thesis
in archaeology, University of Bergen.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 195–201

Increase in iron production – a prerequisite

for change in the medieval landscape
Die Steigerung der Eisenproduktion – eine Voraussetzung
für den Wandel der mittelalterlichen Umwelt

Augmentation de la production de fer – une condition

préalable au changement dans le paysage médiéval

Catarina Karlsson

A fundamental feature of the expansion during the
High Middle Ages, ca 1000–1300, was a growing inter-
dependence between the agrarian and the non-agrar-
ian sectors. The leap forward increased the need for
iron dramatically, not only because a larger amount of
iron implements were made and used – but because
iron was used in new ways in many different sectors
of society.
One of the new applications of iron was for imple-
ments subjected to heavy wear. The new technology
meant that new soil-types could be cultivated, with
improved efficiency as a result. This was of great im-
portance for the High Medieval economic expansion
and modernisation, where iron production and con-
sumption, and simultaneous expansion of arable land
were vital. In Sweden this process was characteristic
of the centuries between 1000 and 1400 AD. Between
the end of the first millennium and the Black Death,
which struck in the mid-14th century, the popula-
tion of Sweden approximately doubled in size, much
like in the rest of Europe. After the plague, in the 15th
century, the population decreased to the same size as
before the expansion period (Myrdal 2011). This had a
major impact on the cultivation of arable land. A re-
cent compilation of pollen diagrams clearly states the
changes in the medieval landscape, first colonisation
and expansion, then decline and abandonment (La-
gerås 2007).
This study tries to quantify the amount of iron
needed to replace the constant wear on plough or ard
shares. The paper focuses on ard shares, since the
ard was the main ploughing implement during the
Middle Ages in Sweden. Through archaeo-metallurgic
analysis we conclude that the ard shares were made
of hardened steel or had an inlay of steel in the edge.
Throughout history, iron has been produced with dif-
ferent hardness, ranging from steel to more flexible,
easily malleable iron. During the medieval period of
expansion the ard shares not only became thicker and
longer (Myrdal 1985), but they were also made of hard-
ened steel. The consumption of iron in agriculture in-
creased at the time of expansion, not only due to addi-
tional and larger iron tools, but also by wear on tilling
implements. In this project, a co-operation between
archaeologist, C. Karlsson and historian, J. Myrdal,
we used experimental archaeology to test wear per
ploughed kilometre.
The ard ploughing project
The experiments with ard ploughing have been car-
ried out during two seasons at Östra Järvafältet, north
of Stockholm, Sweden (Fig. 1, 2). The farmland is very
well preserved, in a landscape shaped by agriculture,
from the Bronze Age to the present day. Sollentuna
municipality has the ambition to maintain the farm-
land by using traditional agrarian methods. The farm-
land thereby is a surviving relic of our history. In other
words, the fields ploughed within this project are part
of a long farming tradition. Two medieval ard shares
were chosen as models for replicas used in the experi-
ments. One was a find from Norrlandsgatan in Stock-
holm dated to the 14th century, the other was from
Varnhem monastery, from the 12th century. Three
fields were ploughed during autumn and spring for
two seasons. The same ard was used but with the rep-
lica of the Stockholm ard share the first year and the
Varnhem share the second year.
During the experiment we used an ard from the
20th century, to which a wooden sole was mounted
(Fig. 3). The sole was adjusted to fit the shape of the
replica share. Then the ard share was hammered on
to the sole without the use of any fastening devices.
When the ard share was put to work in the soil it got
stuck harder on the sole and there was no risk of it
falling off.
The soles used were all made out of oak. Oak, beech
and curly birch are recorded in ards from archaeo-

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 195–201.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110465
Karlsson, Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape 195–201

horses. There was one significant difference though –

the horse pulling alone tired earlier and needed more
frequent breaks (Fig. 4; 5).
The conclusion regarding the functionality of our
replicas made of iron and steel is that both of them
performed flawlessly during the experimental phase.
They were exposed to wear but they stood the test, the
metal did not crack or break in any way, demonstra-
ting that our replicas did the job – ploughing fields
and breaking fallow. On three different occasions the
plough ran into large underground stones (over 5 kg)
but still the ard shares stayed functional and in shape
(even though our ard did not). That proves that the ard
shares were hard enough to do the job but also flexible
enough to receive hard blows without breaking. Anoth-
er aspect of functionality was that there no problem
with mounting or removing the ard share.
To sum this up it can be concluded that the two ard
shares showed relatively even wear, which makes it
probable that no unforeseen factors affected the end
result. The wear was slightly higher on the Varnhem
ard share, this was likely due to the greater hardness
of the Stockholm share.

From kilometre to hectare

The wear on the ard shares is given in grams per
kilometre, since it was easy to understand and still be
very precise. But more relevant and often more com-
patible with data from written sources is a measure of
how many grams were worn off per hectare or any oth-
er given unit of land. It seems easy enough if you only
need to know the area of a field, but in reality the effect
of our effort depends on the shape of the field. In this
case we ploughed c. 3.5 furrows per metre. But tur-
ning zones were needed at both ends of the field where
it was necessary to walk further after completing each
furrow (Tab. 1).
In this example the furrows are straight, without
using the cross-ploughing method which was used
in the experiment. You can use the same example for
cross-ploughed fields, in which case the perfect field is
Fig. 1. Map of Sweden with Uppland highlighted. Östra Järvafältet
shaped like a square rather than rectangular. Further-
marked with a circle. more it is assumed that the farmer used the simplest
strategy and continued to plough through the turning
logical contexts. The draught animals were two North zone.
Swedish horses. In the Middle Ages Swedish farmers
used horses or oxen, but oxen are hard to come by
these days, and since the choice of draught animal was Replica Wear Ploughed Grams
in gram distance/km km
of little or no consequence to our experiment, we de-
Stockholm replica 54 21,92 2.46
cided on horses. Most of the time they worked in pairs
Varnhem replica 54 19,80 2.72
but we also experimented with one horse. We could not
distinguish any difference in the wear due to the dif- Sum/mean 108 41,72 2.58

ference in the speed of ploughing between one or two Tab. 1. Showing wear/kilometer.

196 RURALIA X
Karlsson, Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape 195–201

Fig. 2. The field at Båtsmanstorpet. Photo Cata-

rina Karlsson.

In reality this discussion about field shapes means the same 35 km to plough your furrows (70×500 =
that the more oblong and narrow the field is, the small- 35000) and 10 m extra per 500 m furrow. The result
er the turning zone becomes, reducing the amount of is 35 km + 700 m (70×10) or 35.7 km: an insignificant
additional space you need to turn around animal and extra distance.
plough at the end of the field. This becomes very ap- Based on this calculation it possible that narrow
parent in this example with three differently shaped fields were preferred if you chose not to cross-plough.
fields, all measuring one hectare. It should be noted
that these three fields look rather unreal, since A is
completely square while B and C are perfectly rectan-
gular. In nature fields seldom are geometrically per-
fect like this, nor are they totally flat. But these unreal
fields will serve to illustrate my point, that the charac-
ter and the shape of the field controls how many kilo-
metres you need to plough the whole field. If 3.5 fur-
rows per metre in a hectare is applied as a standard,
the result would be 35 kilometres in all fields, A, B and
C (3.5×100 ×100 = 35,000 m). But if you include the
turning zone the picture changes radically (Fig. 6).
A) 350 furrows, each 100 m long. The distance from
the furrow in the middle to one edge is 50 m, then the
distance decreases progressively when you get closer Fig. 3. The archaeological finds and their replicas. From the left: the
to the middle. The same applies when you work your Varnhem ard share, the Varnhem replica, the Stockholm ard share and
way to the other edge. That means roughly 50 m extra the Stockholm replica. Photo Catarina Karlsson.
per 100 m ploughed furrow (350×50 = 17500), in all
35 + 17.5 km = 52.5 km.
B) Width 50 m and length 200 m means a different
result altogether. This requires 175 furrows (3.5×50
= 175), each of them 200 m long. From the middle
furrow to the edge it is 25 m. In this field too it takes
35 km to complete the ploughing (175×200 = 35000)
plus 25 m extra for each furrow. In all that means
35 + 4.4 = 39.4 km (175×25=4375).
C) Width 20 m and length 500 m means that you Fig. 4. Schematic outline of the harnessing of the draft animals during
will only need 70 furrows (3.5×20 = 70). You need the experiment.

RURALIA X 197
Karlsson, Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape 195–201

Fig. 5. Opid and Caruzo harnessed at the ard.

Photo Catarina Karlsson.

It saved your time as well as man, material and ani-
mal power. To go straight on with your ard or your
plough is quite easy but the turns demand greater ef-
forts both for the animal and the carter. But why make
these turns if they mean such an increase in effort? In
theory you can lift up your plough and carry it while
the animals turn on the spot, which in itself is a hard
thing to teach them. The carriage needs quite a lot of
space to turn around (it can be up to 6 m long). The de-
scribed pattern has evolved through the centuries and
it probably is the most rational way to plough a field
with horse- or oxen-power.
To summarise this discussion about wear we have
found that the wear in our ploughing experiment can
be measured to between 2.46 g and 2.72 g per km, or
ca 100 g per ha. In other words – to plough one hectare
we needed to walk about 41 kilometres, which seems
reasonable according to these calculations (Tab. 2).
This is less than the wear Grith Lerche presented in
her studies on Danish wheel ploughs (Lerche 1994),
but it still is a substantial amount of iron. In com-
parison to Lerche’s experiments, her shares were less
hardened which may explain the different outcome.
We do not know enough about possible differences in
the quality of iron used in Denmark and Sweden and
therein might be found part of the explanation.

Field Wear (g) km gr/km gr/ha

Båtsmanstorp 6 2,50 2,4 120
Båtsmanstorp 6 2,2 2,7 120
Allmogeåkem 6 3,64 1,6 90
Allmogeåkem 7 2,7 2,6 100
Norra
7 3,2 2,2 80
tvåsädesåkem
Norra
8 3,2 2,5 90
tvåsädesåkem
Södra
9 2,9 3,1 120
Tvåsädesåkem
Sum/mean 49 102

Tab. 2. The average wear is 100 grams per hectare in our ploughing
Fig. 6. Field shapes: examples. with the replica of the Stockholm ard share.

198 RURALIA X
Karlsson, Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape
Medieval requirements and consumption
of iron in agriculture
The results of the experiments provide a starting
point for calculations of wear in agriculture. Here are a
few examples, based upon the following assumptions.
The wear is approximated to 100 grams of iron
and steel per ploughed hectare (10,000 m2), with
conditions similar to the situation when the Stock-
holm replica was used. Its hardness was measured to
HV 412–463. That is much softer than the original
Stockholm ard share, though it is very hard compared
to Grith Lerche’s hardest plough share, measured to
HV 262–277. The Varnhem ard share at HV159-262 is
closer to Lerche’s results. In other words, the measured
hardness of the Stockholm replica is right between the
recorded results from the archaeological finds.
The second assumption is that the field were
ploughed with an ard and that two-course rotation was
employed. Ard ploughing and a two-course rotation are
recorded from Uppland during the Middle Ages but one
very important question remains. How many times
were the fields ploughed in a year? As a minimum
once in spring and once in autumn can be assumed.
But we know from historical records that sometimes
the fields were ploughed several times a year to pro-
cess them better. Some researchers have also claimed
that the ard was used to cover the seed which would
give an additional ploughing. But in this example we
assume two annual ploughings. Half of the total arable
land was ploughed twice a year (two-course rotation),
with a mean wear of 100 g/ha.
The third assumption concerns the amount of land
that actually was put under the plough. In this case we
have to use hypothetical cases with medieval farms of
different sizes and correspondingly differences in ara-
ble land. Little is known about the actual sizes of fields
during the Middle Ages. In these test cases geometrical
maps from 1630–1655 have been chosen. The National
Archives digital map archive contains 12,000 maps of
villages and farms from that period (www.riksarkivet.
se/geometriska). The areas of fields are not recorded
at a sufficient level, so this material will only be em-
ployed to reach an approximation of the average arable
land in the county. The arable land is stated in tunn-
land, a Swedish unit roughly equivalent to 5,000 m2, or
0.5 ha. To reach an approximation on the total amount
of arable land, the average area of arable has been
worked out, and records stating the total sum of farms
in the whole of county Uppland have been used.
The calculations were based on two different spatial
levels, the farm and the county. One of the farms whose
fields we ploughed in our experiment was Väsby Farm
in Sollentuna parish, County Uppland and therefore it
felt natural to use that unit for the farm level (Fig. 1).
RURALIA X
195–201
Annual agricultural consumption
From these calculations you can the reach an esti-
mate of the amount of iron annually consumed by ag-
riculture.
Väsby Farm
21 tunnland/2 (two-course rotation) = 10.5 tunnland
10.5×50 g iron per tunnland = 525 g×2 (ploughings) =
1.050 kg of iron a year
County Uppland
Average 18.9 tunnland arable land×8,900 = 168,210
tunnland / 2 (two-course rotation) =
84,105 tunnland arable land a year
84,105 × 50 g iron = 4,205,250 g = 4,205 kg × 2
(ploughing spring and autumn) =
8.410 kg of iron a year
In other words, you needed little more than 1 kg of
iron each year to plough the fields of a normal-sized
farm in Uppland. Thus we may estimate the total
amount of iron needed in Uppland to replace the wear
caused by ploughing to 8.4 tonnes a year.
When do you need a new ard share?
How long is the time that you can plough with your
ard share – how great does the wear have to be before
you have to re-forge or make a new ard share? Our rep-
lica of the Stockholm ard share weighed 801 g while
the original share weighed 573 g. That this replica was
more than 200 g heavier was mainly due to the fact
that the original share had lost one side of its socket. It
is not known how long the original ard share was, but
an estimate can be made from its present state and
from our replica.
On the replica about 50 % of the weight lies between
the point and the point where the socket starts; in oth-
er words the point weighed about 400 g. The point is
about 100 mm long. It is concluded that, if the point
weighs 400 g and is 100 mm long, every 10 mm of
wear equals about 40 g. The same assumption about
the Varnhem ard share, where the calculated weight for
the point was 859/2 = 430 g and its length 100 mm,
we arrive at a wear of 43 g/10 mm. Our experiment
have proved that you need at least 50 mm left below
the socket, if the ard share is to do its work effectively.
If we apply that observation to the Stockholm and the
Varnhem shares it means that they had about two hec-
tares time left to run.
199
Karlsson, Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape
To use up to about 10% (c.80 g) of the Stockholm ard
share you would need to do two rounds of ploughing
of a little less than a tunnland (0.5 ha). Another way to
put it is, with an average wear of 2.5 g/km, you need
to work your way through slightly more than 30 km
of arable land (30 × 2.5 = 75). Conclusively, a wear of
40–45 g/10 mm means that for every tunnland, where
an average wear of 50 g has been calculated takes off
a little more than 10 mm. Depending on the original
length of the ard share we may assume that at Väsby
Farm one ard share’s weight in iron was consumed
each year. In reality that means at least two ard shares
a year, since the upper half of the tool had to be length-
ened or re-forged to be of any use. One conclusion
emanating from this discussion is that when the farm-
ers increased their amount of arable land they also
needed longer ard shares to avoid having to acquire
new ard shares so often.
Conclusions
The technological changes shaped the new land-
scape. The improved ard share enabled the farmers to
claim new land more easily. Land that never had been
cultivated before was turned into arable land and the
landscape changed indefinitely. High Medieval eco-
nomic expansion and modernisation made it possible
to control the increased surplus production of food. It
led to new methods for regulation and organisation of
production. This in turn enabled the whole society to
change and to grow into a new state. The amount of ar-
able land increased together with the harvest yield and
the population of Sweden.
Thus, it can be concluded that not only did the ex-
pansion of the agrarian sector and the opening of the
landscape form the basis for the development of mines
and towns, but also the reverse applied – populating
mining districts in mountain-areas (in Sweden Bergs-
lagen) was a essential for the agrarian expansion.
Increase in iron production was a prerequisite for
change in the medieval landscape and the rural devel-
opment was closely interrelated to iron production and
trade.
Summary
A fundamental feature of the expansion during the
High Middle Ages, ca 1000–1300, was a growing inter-
dependence between the agrarian and the non-agrar-
ian sectors. One of the new applications of iron was
implements subjected to heavy wear. The new tech-
nology meant that new soil-types could be cultivated,
with improved efficiency as a result. This was of great
importance for the High Medieval economic expansion
and modernization, where iron production and con-
200
195–201
sumption and simultaneous expansion of arable land
were vital. This study tries to quantify the amounts
of iron needed to replace a constant wear on plough
or ard shares. The paper is focusing on ard shares,
since the ard was the main ploughing implement
during the Middle Ages in Sweden. Through archaeo-
metallurgic analysis we conclude that the ardshares
were made of hardened steel or had an inlay of steel
in the edge. With forged replicas of two ardshares we
carried out an experiment during two seasons with ar-
dploughing and measuring of the wear on the share.
The wear is approximated to 100 grams of iron and
steel per ploughed hectare (10 000 m2), with condi-
tions similar to the situation when the replica was
used.
Zusammenfassung
Ein grundlegendes Merkmal der Expansion wäh-
rend des Hochmittelalters von etwa 1000–1300 n. Chr.
war eine zunehmende Verflechtung zwischen dem
Agrar- und den nicht-agrarischen Bereichen. Insbe-
sondere die intensive Verwendung von Eisen führte
zu starkem Verschleiß. Mit neuen technologischen
Entwicklungen in der Eisenproduktion konnten wei-
tere Bodentypen mit einer verbesserten Effizienz kul-
tiviert werden. Dies war von großer Bedeutung für
die wirtschaftliche Expansion und Modernisierung
des Hochmittelalters, aber auch für die Produktion
und den Verbrauch von Eisen, zugleich ist eine Aus-
weitung der Anbauflächen von Bedeutung. In der vor-
liegenden Studie wird versucht zu eruieren, wie viel
Eisen benötigt wurde, um die stete Abnutzung der
Pflugscharen auszugleichen. Dabei liegt der Fokus
auf den Hakenpflug (Ard), da dieser im mittelalterli-
chen Schweden am häufigsten verwendet wurde. Aus
archäometallurgischen Analysen kann geschlossen
werden, dass die Pflugschar aus gehärtetem Stahl be-
stand oder eine Stahl-Einlage an der Schneide besaß.
Mit zwei nachgeschmiedeten Scharen wurde über zwei
Pflugperioden ein Experiment durchgeführt, bei dem
der Verschleiß an der Schar gemessen wurde. Danach
dürfte sich der Verschleiß ca. 100 Gramm Eisen und
Stahl pro gepflügtem Hektar (10 000 m2) betragen
haben.
Résumé
Une des caractéristiques fondamentales de l’expan-
sion durant le Haut Moyen Âge, ca 1000–1300, fut
celle de l’interdépendance croissante entre l’agraire et
les secteurs non-agricoles. Une des nouvelles applica-
tions du fer a été la fabrication d’outils soumis à des
travaux lourds. Cette nouvelle technologie signifie que
de nouveaux types de sols purent être cultivés, avec
RURALIA X
Karlsson, Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape 195–201

une efficacité accrue. Ce fut d’une grande importance Bibliography

pour la croissance économique du haut Moyen Âge
et de la modernisation économique, où la produc-
tion de fer et de la consommation et de l ‘expansion
simultanée des terres arables étaient vitales. Cette
étude tente de quantifier les quantités de fer néces-
saires pour palier l’usure constante des charrues et
de leurs socs. L’étude se concentre sur les travaux
avec araire, puisque l’araire était l’outil principal du
charruage au Moyen Âge en Suède. Grâce aux ana-
lyses archéo-métallurgiques, nous concluons que les
socs étaient en acier trempé ou avait une incrustation
d’acier sur le tranchant. A l’aide de deux répliques
de socs forgés, nous avons réalisé une expérience
au cours de deux saisons et mesuré l’usure du soc.
L’usure est évaluée à 100 g de fer et d’acier par hectare
labouré (10 000 m2).
Lagerås, P. 2007:
The ecology of expansion and abandonment: medieval and
post-medieval agriculture and settlement in a landscape per-
spective. Stockholm.
Lerche, G. 1994:
Ploughing implements and tillage practices in Denmark from
the Viking period to about 1800 experimentally substanti-
ated. Herning.
Myrdal, J. 1996:
Jordbruksredskap av järn före år 1000, in: Perlinge, A (ed.).
Landbon, ladan och lagen och hägnaderna, arbetstiden och
bygdelaget samt ytterligare 20 agrarhistoriska artiklar. Stock-
holm.
Myrdal, J. 2011:
Farming and feudalism: 1000–1700. The agrarian history of
Sweden: from 4000 BC to AD 2000. Lund.

Catarina Karlsson, Tel. +46 70 33 111 99, SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Agricultural His-
tory, P.O.Box 7013, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden, catarina.karlsson@slu.se

RURALIA X 201
Karlsson, Increase in iron production – a prerequisite for change in the medieval landscape 195–201

202 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 203–223

Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300:

written sources, archaeology and images
Die Rolle des Spatens für die Landwirtschaft
und die intensivierte Landnutzung vom 11.–13. Jahrhundert:
schriftliche, archäologische und bildliche Quellen

La houe et la bêche et l’intensification

de l’utilisation des terres 1000–1300:
sources écrites, l’archéologie et représentations

Janken Myrdal – Alexandra Sapoznik

Introduction
In this paper we argue that the importance of hand
cultivation in the high medieval period has been un-
derestimated and that the use of hand tools was an
essential part of the expansion which characterised
the period from 1000 to 1300. While various schol-
ars have suggested that hand cultivation was of some
importance (e.g. Bloch 1966, 193–195; Duby 1968,
19, 115; Dyer 1989, 171), little work has focused on
the implications of widespread hand cultivation.
Cheap, versatile and effective, the spade and the hoe
were tools of the poor farmer and the smallhold-
ing peasant. In the high pressure economic environ-
ment of the high medieval period, as peasant holding
sizes decreased and standards of living fell, it seems
probable that the significance of hand cultivation in-
creased.
Direct written evidence of medieval peasant agricul-
ture is very rare. Medieval manorial records were kept
to facilitate the management of the lords’ estates, rath-
er than the lands of their peasant tenants, and so while
demesne agriculture is well understood (cf. Campbell
2000) the agricultural practices of peasants remain
largely hidden. We must therefore look to alternative
sources to understand what peasants were doing with
the land they cultivated for their own use, and from
which they earned their living. In this study we take a
‘source-pluralistic’ approach (Myrdal 2012a), combin-
ing analysis of archaeological evidence and medieval
images of labour in order to examine the agricultur-
al technology to which peasants had access and the
implications of this for how peasants cultivated their
land. In particular, we will examine the most famous
medieval image of agricultural labour—Adam delv-
ing—in order to determine the extent to which hand
cultivation characterised peasant agriculture.
Michael Camille’s study of medieval pictures of
Adam has demonstrated that images of Adam delving
rose in popularity over the 12th and 13th centuries
(Camille 1995). Although primarily concerned with the
implication of Adam-iconography for understanding
the developing ideology of the Three Orders, Camille
did attribute the ubiquity of Adam delving in part to
the expansion of arable over this period. Yet Camille’s
study, which drew upon a relatively small set of imag-
es, did not fully consider the importance of the change
in hand tools with which Adam was depicted over the
medieval period, nor the implications of this for under-
standing medieval agriculture. Furthermore, although
Camille remarked that the spade was used north of the
Alps and the hoe south of the Alps, in fact regional dif-
ferences within northern Europe were far more com-
plicated than this assessment allows. In this paper we
argue that close examination of a large set of images
of Adam working the land shows important regional
preferences for the hoe or the spade, and that the hand
tools used to denote Adam’s labour agree with the ar-
chaeological record to a remarkable degree. Further-
more, the developing trope of Adam delving was related
not to the expansion of arable agriculture, but rather
to its intensification, as the proportion of smallhold-
ing peasants increased over the high medieval period.
These peasants were too poor to own ploughs or teams
of draught animals, and the small size of their hold-
ings made hand tilling a viable method of cultivation.
Thus we argue that images of Adam and Eve in their
labours are an important and overlooked source for
understanding the material culture of the peasantry,
and that the tools with which Adam is shown digging
can be best understood within the economic context of
the drive towards ever greater agricultural production

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 203–223.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110466
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
to feed an expanding and largely impoverished popula-
tion.
The period from 1000 to 1300 was one of tremen-
dous expansion in Europe. It is estimated that the pop-
ulation of Europe in some regions at least doubled, and
in others tripled or more (Britain doubled or tripled,
Schofield – Whittle 2011, 50; North France more than
tripled, Béaur – Feller 2011, 101; Scandinavia at least
doubled, Gadd – Johansen – Lindkvist 2011, 269). Pop-
ulation growth in some places outpaced the supply of
land and holdings became fragmented. By the 13th cen-
tury, if not earlier, a large proportion of the peasantry
of Europe were left with holdings too small to sustain a
family even on the knife’s edge of subsistence (Bartlett
1994, 126; Hatcher – Miller 1978, 144–156).
This fragmentation of holdings, and consequent de-
cline in the amount of land to which each household
had access, had two notable consequences. First, peas-
ants were under pressure to produce greater amounts
of grain from ever-decreasing amounts of land, result-
ing in increased intensity of land use. Second, many
very poor peasants could not afford ploughs and
teams or even the plough parts and animals to needed
have a share in a team.
In addition to needing to feed themselves, peasants
were also under pressure to produce grain to pay as
food rents, as lords took advantage of high grain prices
by extracting larger amounts of peasant produce. It is
estimated that across northern Europe, food rents ef-
fectively stripped peasants of much, if not all, of the
surplus they may have been able to produce (Power
2006, 62; Bartlett 1994, 127; Abel 1962, 98; Rösener
1985, 154). Under these circumstances it is likely that
peasant agriculture was driven by the intense use of
resources. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that peas-
ants were able to achieve levels of arable output which
significantly exceeded those of their lords (Stone 2005,
269; Sapoznik 2012).
Medieval yields have long been discussed (e.g. Sli-
cher van Bath 1963; van Bavel – Thoen 1999; Campbell
2000). The question posed in this paper is how small-
holding peasants, disadvantaged in terms of capital,
equipment and livestock were able to achieve such
high levels of output. It will be shown that the answer
lies in labour-intensive hand cultivation, particularly
the increasing use of the iron-shod spade. In this, the
high medieval period might very well mirror the pattern
seen during the 19th century, also a period of popula-
tion growth, in which the number of very small-holding
farmers increased and so too did hand cultivation.
Although medieval cultivation certainly differed in
some respects from that of the 19th century, ethno-
graphic descriptions of how hand cultivation was con-
ducted offer a useful starting point for understanding
204
203–223
medieval cultivation techniques. In northern Belgium
it has been noted that spade cultivation increased the
quality of the soil, pulverising it more effectively and
allowing for more assiduous weeding, ultimately in-
creasing yields on spade-cultivated land (David 1984).
On the periphery of Europe spade cultivation led to
the development of highly specialised implements, as
in Ireland, and extensive spade cultivation also devel-
oped in the Northern Isles, Shetland and Orkney. Here
spades were used to form narrow rigs and furrows
which reproduced the form of ploughed fields, but on
a smaller scale (Fenton 1978, 44, 289). Furthermore,
in southwestern Norway, spade cultivation allowed for
yields higher than those achieved with the improved
ploughs of the period. A typical farm had 4–5 spades,
clods were broken with mallets and, as in the Northern
Isles, the family worked together (Valen-Sendstad 1964,
28–38; Visted – Stigum 1971, 196–199). Much of this
work was done piecemeal. It was not uncommon in the
19th century for men and women to work together with
spades, while draught implements such as the ard or
plough were used exclusively by men. These are the
regions in which spade cultivation was perhaps most
highly developed, and the spade was used to the exclu-
sion of the plough, but it is likely that in other places
the spade complemented the plough and vice versa.
Written sources
Sources for the 19th century are abundant, includ-
ing literature, newspapers, photographs, statistics,
and ethnographies, among many others. For the High
Middle Ages, however, very few aspects of daily life are
described in the written record, and the poorest sec-
tions of society are almost wholly invisible.
Some clues regarding peasant agriculture, or at least
the technology to which peasants had access, are in-
dicated in manorial accounts of labour services owed
to the lord. For example, a Danish cadaster of c.1370
notes that peasants with very small holdings were to
render boon works with a hoe, rather than a plough
(Poulson 1997, 136). That wealthier peasants ploughed
while poorer peasants delved in parts of France is
well known and indeed this tiered system of manou-
vriers and laboureures is neatly illustrated in the late
13th-century register of revenues from the demesnes
of Jan I Oudenaarde, which shows one ploughman and
four peasants with spades working the land (Fournier
1962, 263–272; Preedy – Noel 2002, pl.31). That spade
cultivation was used on demesne lands is further in-
dicated by a Flemish account dating from 1285–1320
in which it is noted that spades were used to cultivate
several hectares of the fields (Derville 1999, 101–102).
The prevalence of smallholding peasants working with
hand tools likely reflects the lack of draught animals
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
on the holdings of poor peasants, and indeed it has
been estimated for England that only peasants with
four hectares (10 acres) or more would have owned
their own plough and team, while poorer peasants
would have had to borrow these from their wealthier
counterparts. (Postan 1954; Langdon 1986, 235–244).
John Langdon has argued that the borrowing, sharing,
or hiring of ploughs and teams was so common that
only one tenth of the land in England was cultivated by
hand rather than the plough. (Langdon 1988, 88; 1986)
However, if we see the plough and the spade as comple-
mentary tools, which could be used to varying degrees
depending on the extent to which peasants had access
to both types of equipment, then it seems likely that a
large proportion of the population in the High Middle
Ages, even in England, probably worked mainly with
hand tools. (We will explore the implications of this in
an English context in a future study.)
Agricultural treatises are of course a significant
source of information regarding cultivation practic-
es. We have only used the most comprehensive, with
80 000–200 000 words. Smaller agricultural treatises,
with under 10 000 words such as Walter Henley’s, can-
not be used for a discussion ex silentio. The three larg-
est treatises are: Columella, Palladius and Crescentiis.
Here it is interesting to note that Columella, writing in
Italy in the 1st century AD describes working in the
field with hoes. Columella estimated how many work-
days were needed on larger manors, suggesting that
the number of days invested in ploughing and hoe-
ing was typically equal, although for the cultivation of
beans more working of the soil by hand was necessary
(Columella 2:12, Ash 1941). Palladius, writing in the
5th century, concerning Italy and southern France,
and drawing upon Columella, does not discuss large-
scale hand cultivation of the fields in the same way—
although he does list among the ‘countryfolk’s’ imple-
ments hoes and spades as well as ploughs (Ficht 2013).
In contrast, Petrus Cescentiis’ Ruralia Commoda, writ-
ten in Italy in the early 14th century describes the com-
bined efforts of the hoe and the plough in cultivating
the field, and here the two types of tilling are entwined.
He particularly notes that fields should be dug rather
than ploughed for deeper cultivation (Vollman 2007).
These large agricultural treatises give the impression
that hoeing did not have the same paramount impor-
tance in the Late Antiquity as it had when Columella
wrote his text, nor as it would receive in the High Mid-
dle Ages when Crescentiis was writing.
To give substance to the hypothesis that hand cul-
tivation, and particularly spade cultivation, played an
increasingly important part in peasant agriculture
over the high medieval period, we will first argue that
there was a technical change which facilitated the use
of hand tools for cultivation. We will then consider the
RURALIA X
203–223
dissemination of this new technology, before turning
to the implications of the widespread application of
hand cultivation for peasant agricultural practices in
the high medieval period.
Archaeology – the spade
The spade is an efficient and powerful implement
which has been the dominant digging tool in most of
Europe for much of the past millennium. The spread
of the iron-shod spade over the High Middle Ages was
an important aspect of technological change. This im-
plement existed in Roman times in the northern parts
of the Empire. Around the year 1000 the use of this
spade increased in regions where it had previously ex-
isted, and also spread to other regions of Northern and
Western Europe. It was especially prevalent in moist
areas, such as England. In more arid lands, such as
around the Mediterranean and Spain, hoes continued
to be the dominant hand tool for tillage.
Spade typology. The spade is a specialised hand tool
which is pressed into the earth in order to cut and lift
the soil. It has three main elements: 1. A well-formed
handle to allow maximum force by hand; 2. A short
shaft to maximise the transfer of pressure 3. The
blade, to which the user applies the rest of his body
weight by placing his foot on the shoulder and pushing
the blade into the ground. The shoulders of the spade
blade are straight, and although the modern spade
typically has two shoulders, the medieval spade often
had only one. The blade itself could be of iron, wood,
or wooden with an iron shoe. Spades with an all-iron
blade are perhaps the oldest type, and were the most
common spade used in the Roman Empire. The iron-
shod spade, with an iron sheath attached to a wooden
blade, was a later innovation, and probably developed
in the damp climate of northwest Europe. Iron-shod
spades had a number of important advantages over
the all-iron bladed spade: by using less iron they were
cheaper to produce and repair; they were less easily
clogged with clay; they were lighter than the all-iron
blade, and the blade could be larger for the same rea-
son. By maintaining the cutting efficiency of iron with
its shoe, the iron-shod spade has a crucial advantage
over the all-wooden spade, being a much more efficient
digging-implement.
Archaeological identification. Iron-shod spades are
fairly easily identified, even when only part of the ob-
ject is found. An iron shoe can be identified by its dis-
tinctive hollowed edge channel, and the wooden blade
by holes for nails with which to attach the shoe or an
indentation along the edge where the shoe was in-
serted or countersunk. Yet proving that an implement
205
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
does not exist is almost as important as discussing
its presence, and in this, lack of evidence should be
posed against the possibility of evidence. If there are
many other iron objects of the same kind, in this case
agricultural implements, then the lack of spades can
be taken as evidence for a limited presence of spades.
Thus a relatively large amount of evidence must be
collected before reliable conclusions can be drawn. By
analysing the spread of the iron-shod spade we hope to
identify when digging was an important part of work
in the countryside and, conversely, if there have been
periods when this type of work was not prominent.
Roman period. Hand-tilling was an important aspect
of agriculture in the Roman Empire. While hoes were
more important than spades in the Empire, spades
were also widely used. In addition to being part of the
standard equipment of the infantry soldier, spades
were also important agricultural implements. Small
subsistence farmers used hand tools (Withe 1967,
13; Frayn 1979, 142–143). Although classical authors
do not mention the iron-shod spade in particular, ar-
chaeological evidence demonstrates that they did ex-
ist, particularly in the northwest of the Empire and
most especially in Roman Britain (White 1967, 23–27;
Rees 1979, 322). The best preserved of these is a one-
shouldered spade from Stonea Grange (Cambs.) and
dates from the late 2nd to early 3rd century (Jackson
– Potter 1996, 546–547). The iron-shod spade also ex-
isted along the limes in northern France, Belgium and
Germany, although nowhere was it as common as in
Roman Britain (Pohanka 1986, 115), and north of the
Empire no iron-shod spades have been found despite
the prevalence of other iron implements.
Early medieval period, 500–1000: Eastern Europe. Ar-
chaeological evidence indicates that the iron-shod
spade was in general use in Kiev from the 8th–9th cen-
turies and in Hungary by the 10th –11th centuries
(Balassa 1973; Beranová 1984, 33). Henning’s study of
agricultural implements in southeastern Europe has
demonstrated that the iron-bladed spade dominated
along the limes during the Roman period, with the
iron-shod spade spreading north of the limes from the
5th–8th centuries while the iron-bladed spade re-
mained in use within the Empire. Yet from the 8th
to 10th centuries the wholly iron-bladed spade dis-
appeared, replaced by the iron-shod spade (Henning
1987, 70–76).
Early medieval period, 500–1000: Western Europe.
Henning has noted that, despite the relative preva-
lence of tools for hand cultivation during the Roman
era in northern France and Belgium, in the post-Ro-
man period these implements are wholly absent. This
change, he argues, is due to the improved ploughs of
206
203–223
the period, which made hand tilling less necessary
(Henning 2004, 405, 418). However, a number of iron-
shod spades have been found in northern France from
the centuries before and around the year 1000. Three
have been found in the Paris region, dated from the
9th and 10th centuries (Reignez 2002, 133–134, 398:
9th and 10th century, Alexandre-Bidon – Lorcin 2003,
174: 11th century), and two more from the Loire Val-
ley (Legros 2012, 143–145, 164: 9–10th century; Mane
2012, 255–256: 9–10th century). Furthermore, two
written sources dating from around the turn of the
9th century, a polyptych from Annapes and a list of
implements sent east from the core region of the Caro-
lingian empire, mention iron-shod spades (Devroey
2003, 126). Therefore, it seems probable that the iron-
shod spade was of some importance in Carolingian
France. Evidence from Anglo-Saxon England is scarc-
er. An iron-shod spade from Sandtun (Kent) dating
from the 8th–9th centuries indicates that the imple-
ment was known (Wilson 1971, 77, 81). The number of
examples of iron-shod spades from England increased
in the centuries around 1000, as demonstrated in Ta-
ble 1 below. On the whole, it appears that although the
iron-shod spade continued to be used in the former
Roman provinces during the early Middle Ages, it was
not common again until the 9th century and later.
Early medieval period, 500–1000: Central and northern
Europe: Henning’s recent survey of agricultural imple-
ments in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Aus-
tria, southwestern Poland and Bohemia between 350
and 650 indicates only one hoe and no spades, de-
spite the numerous finds of ploughs and scythes (Hen-
ning 2014, confirmed by personal communication from
Joachim Henning). Far north, in Norway, an astonish-
ing number of agricultural tools have been found from
this period. Among these, 20 to 40 ploughs have been
found and over a hundred sickles and scythes (Pe-
tersen 1951, 123–187). Yet no iron-shod spades have
been found in Norway, nor in Sweden where numer-
ous sickles, scythes and ploughshares have also been
found (Myrdal 1982).
Yet the lack of iron-shod spades does not necessar-
ily indicate that spades were not used in central and
northern Europe. A number of wooden spades have
been found in this region in the centuries before the
turn of the millennium (Szabó et al 1985, 22–23).
However, although numerous wooden objects have
been found which date to earlier in the period, it ap-
pears that in this region even the wooden-bladed spade
was not common until the end of the first millennium
(Haarnagel 1979; Engelhardt 1970). This is reinforced
by a close reading of Lerche’s study of Viking age
spade finds and an examination of the spades held in
the National Museum of Denmark, which demonstrate
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
the total dominance of the wooden spade in this re-
gion before the turn of the millennium (Lerche 1976).
At Elisenhof (Jutland) iron objects, including a plough-
share and sickles were found, yet no spade irons were
discovered. There was, however, an excellent example
of a two-shouldered wooden spade, with a well formed
handle and short shaft dating from the 9th century
(Westphalen 1999; Szabó et al 1985, 21).
The archaeological evidence indicates that between
500–1000, the iron-shod spade decreased in impor-
tance in England and northern France where it had
previously been common, and was still non-existent
in central and northern Europe. Yet in the east, all the
way to Kievan Rus, the iron-shod spade was of consid-
erable importance. In the northwest, the wooden spade
became common over this period and was an impor-
tant implement by the 9th century. Why these spades
were not given iron shoes is not clear, as other iron
implements such as ploughshares were not uncom-
mon. It is possible that the simple task of digging did
not merit the use of iron, and indeed in this period the
Icelandic sagas and Scandinavian laws indicate that
digging was typically slaves’ work while ploughing was
a free man’s task (Myrdal 2011, 300–301).
The High Middle Ages, 1000–1300. After the turn of the
millennium the iron-shod spade becomes a common
find across Europe. The most complete inventories of
iron finds during this period are from England and
Sweden (Tab.1), both of which indicate an increase in
the number of iron-shod spades, as demonstrated in
the table below.
Although there are no finds of iron-shod spades
from Sweden before the 13th century, three 12th-cen-
tury images of Adam delving with an iron shod indi-
cate that the implement was likely well known in Swe-
den by this time. The evidence so far suggests that the
general spread of the iron-shod spade began quite ear-
ly in England, which is not surprising given that it had
been known there since Roman times. In Scandina-
via, where the wooden spade had long been common,
the iron-shod spade only began to spread from the
11th–12th century. In contrast to England and Swe-
den, very few spades have been found in France.
Reignez found only two from the 14th and 15th centu-
England Sweden
900–1100 5* 0 have become more common in parts of east-central Eu-
1100–1200 0 0
1200–1300 4 1*
1300–1400 3 4
* = one wooden blade with indications of irons shoe attached
Tab. 1. Archaeological finds of iron shod spades in England (Goodall
2001; Morris 2000) and Sweden (Myrdal 1986).
RURALIA X
203–223
ries (Reignez 2002, 134), while in Italy the archaeologi-
cal evidence indicates the total dominance of the hoe
over the spade (Giannichedda 1996, 247).
In parts of central Europe the evidence for iron-shod
spades is more abundant—perhaps because archae-
ologists in this region have been more interested in
this type of find. Balassa notes two iron-shod spades
from the 10th century, one each from the 12th and
13th centuries, and several more thereafter (Balassa
1973, 4–5; Müller 1975 does not mention spades).
A ploughshare along with a coulter and hoes dating
from the 14th century have been found in the Czech
lands (Klápště 2011, 99). Although there is no summa-
ry catalogue of iron finds in southern Germany, im-
ages of iron-shod spades from this region are found at
least from the 14th century. Kempke notes that wood-
en-bladed spades were common in northern Germany
until the iron-shod spade was introduced and spread
during the Middle Ages (Kempke 2000, 67), but this
conclusion is based on very few finds.
As discussed above, the iron-shod spade had long
been used in what is now southern Russia, but fur-
ther north in Novgorod the archaeological evidence
indicates that the wooden spade may have prevailed
(Kolchin 1989, 25–26, pl. 9). Although Kolchin argues
that some of the 36 spades dating from the 10th to
15th centuries presented in his study were iron shod,
none of the spades pictured has the features typical
of an iron-shod spade and indeed he notes that the
spades were made of hard wood which could be used
without an iron edge. Nonetheless, Kohroshev has ar-
gued that spade blades ‘were often bound with iron’
(Kohroshev 2007, 120–121) and an image from Pskov
in northwestern Russia shows an iron-shod spade dat-
ing from the 11th century (Grekow 1958, 375).
From the evidence available, it is reasonable to con-
clude that the use of iron-shod spades increased over
the period from 1000–1300. In England and north-
ern France the implement had existed for centuries,
but now became one of the most common tools. In
northern and central Europe, digging spades did not
exist—or were extremely uncommon—until the 9th cen-
tury when they were made entirely of wood. Between
1000–1200 the iron-shod spade was introduced across
northern Europe, from Scandinavia to Russia. On the
easternmost edge of our study, the lands of the Kievan
Rus, the iron-shod spade had been in use during the
whole of our period, but now the implement appears to
rope, such as Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia.
There are, of course, many gaps in this review, and the
conclusions presented are based on sometimes scarce
evidence. Nonetheless, the general conclusion that the
iron-shod spade increased in importance in the centu-
ries after the turn of the millennium seems valid.
207
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Interpretation of the archaeology: What we have de-
scribed is not the introduction of a new implement,
but the spread of a technology – a specific iron-shod
tool for digging. This can be seen as a part of a general
increase in iron consumption in the High Middle Ages,
leading to a higher production (cf Catarina Karlsson in
this volume), because working with an implement in
the soil creates more wear than using iron for cutting
grain or other such tasks. This is in line with the use
of iron for larger plough-shares, for horse shoes, etc.
The increased use of iron for digging had a number of
consequences (dyke-building, ditching, etc), but it also
made spade cultivation more efficient.
Images – Adam and Eve
As the number of poor peasants was increasing as
a consequence of the economic pressures outlined
above, so too was the iconography of tillage by hand.
We argue that these were two facets of the same phe-
nomenon. In this part of the study we concentrate on
depictions of Adam and Eve after the Fall. Concentrat-
ing on a single motif and examining the material-cul-
ture content of these images reveals an iconography
that is strongly suggestive of the importance – indeed
ubiquity – of the spade in the medieval ideas of agri-
cultural labour.
208
203–223
Method. In medieval Christian art Adam’s work after
the Fall is one of the most common depictions of ag-
ricultural labour. Images of Adam and Eve provide a
source for understanding attitudes towards hard man-
ual labour, as well as offering an important opportu-
nity for examining the implements used to perform
this labour.
In the high medieval period images of Adam and Eve
after the Fall typically depict Adam cultivating the soil
by hand, either with a hoe or spade, and Eve spinning
with a distaff spindle. Yet the development of this trope
was perhaps not inevitable. In Genesis 3:18–19 God
says to Adam: ‘cursed is the ground because of you. In
toil (laborare) you shall eat of it all the days of your life.
Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you and you
shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread…’. In the Latin Vulgate Bible there
is no mention of digging (fodere) or spinning (nere).
The development of this image throughout Europe is
all the more interesting when considered alongside
the archaeological evidence discussed above, and seen
within the context of growing pressure to intensify ag-
ricultural practices. Furthermore, both before and af-
ter the high medieval period Adam is not infrequently
depicted ploughing, rather than digging. The earliest
image in our collection, the Ashburnham Pentateuch
dating from the late-6th to early-7th century and pos-
Fig. 1. Baptismal font at East Meon, Hampshire,
England: An angel teaches Adam to delve with an
iron-shod spade while Eve is spinning with a dis-
taff spindle, 1130s–1140s. (Museet 1983, pl 122.
Groupe Artège – DDB – Zodiaque, reproduced with
permission).
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
sibly created in Italy, shows both Adam and Cain with
ploughs. A number of images from 15th-century Scan-
dinavia also depict Adam working with an ard or plough
(Myrdal 1986). Later sources, such as the Vitae Adae
et Evae, a mid-15th century Bohemian manuscript in
which Adam is shown digging with a spade before be-
ing taught to plough by an angel, and 16th-century im-
ages of a Slavonic legend, also depict Adam ploughing
(von Erffa 1989, 265, 270). We know of no similar im-
ages from the high medieval period. Thus it is in the
period of high medieval population growth and agricul-
tural intensification that Adam’s toil is entirely depicted
with the tool of the poorest peasants. Images of Adam
and Eve therefore provide an important, but underuti-
lised, source for understanding attitudes towards hard
manual labour in medieval Europe. This hard labour is
specifically associated with digging and cultivating the
land by hand and therefore indicates the significance of
hand tools within medieval agriculture.
Apocryphal stories also influenced the ways in
which Adam and Eve were depicted. Brian Murdoch’s
survey of such stories from across Europe shows that
a small part of these concern Adam and Eve’s work
(Murdoch 2009, 92, 119, 133, 144–145). These some-
times mention Michael or other angels teaching Adam
about agriculture, a scene which also occurs in some
images of Adam and Eve, but there is no detailed de-
scription what kind of work Adam is performing. On
the whole, Adam’s work with the soil takes a more
prominent place in the images than in the written,
apocryphal, stories.
Although we will return to this in more detail below,
it is important here to note the role of artistic influence
RURALIA X
203–223
Fig. 2. Baptismal font at Östra Nöbbelöv, Skåne, Swe-
den: Adam sowing and Eve covering the seed with a
hoe, second half of the 12th century (Myrdal 1986,
114).
between regions in determining iconographic prefer-
ences. Because of this, general trends in images and
their relationship to regional material culture cannot
be understood from a few images alone. We have col-
lected a significant number of images of the Labours
of Adam and Eve from across Europe dating from
c.600 to c.1400. The collection here is limited to im-
ages that have been published, or are readily available
in digitised form through online catalogues of national
libraries. Although this method may introduce some
sample bias, the images collected do allow for the anal-
ysis of key trends over time between regions. (Besides
a number of publications and homepages at the net,
presented as a catalogue on www.agrarhistoria.se, we
also have used von Erffa 1989 and Mavroska 2009). We
believe we have covered most of the well-known images
of the Labours of Adam and Eve to c.1300. Because
the number of illuminated manuscripts produced in-
creased rapidly from the 14th century on, we have only
collected a few illustrative examples of the Labours af-
ter c.1300.
The relative increase in the number of work pictures. In
nearly all the images of the Labours, Adam works the
soil by hand, either a spade or a hoe. Our first ques-
tions is: when did this “trope” emerge? We began by
examining a limited series of publications, beginning
with the 64-volume encyclopedia of Romanesque art,
La nuit des temps, which focuses mainly on France
in the 10th to 12th centuries, but which includes rest
of Europe, some pre-Romanesque art and some from
the early 13th century. Only images shown in plates
are included in this survey, while those that are men-
209
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Original Sin Adam and Eve at work
Before c.1000 4 0
c.1000–1100 10 0
c.1100–1200 15 2
Tab. 2. Adam and Eve in Romanesque Art (La nuit de temps 1–64,
1954–1985).
tioned only in the text have been excluded. The re-
sults from this survey support Camille’s finding that
whereas images of Original Sin were prevalent before
the 12th century, over the 12th century and thereafter,
images of Adam and Eve after the Fall begin to be de-
picted (Tab. 2).
Our larger sample shows some images of Adam at
work earlier than 1100, but mainly confirms the im-
pression that there was a sharp increase in images
depicting Adam at work from about 1100. We also
have three images from Constantinople dating to the
11th century. From the 14th century only a few exam-
ples from England and France have been included, but
four images from Germany and Central Europe, three
from southern Europe and three from Scandinavia all
dating to the fourteenth century are important comple-
ments to the main image catalogue.
The earliest images of Adam and Eve after the Ex-
pulsion show them being given a sheaf and a lamb
(von Erffa 1989, 343). These early images of Adam and
Eve are interpreted as a legitimation of the tithe, which
in later iconography was connected with the story of
Cain and Abel in which Cain tries to avoid the offering
(the tithe) and is therefore rejected. These cannot be
considered as depictions of work.
Of our collection of images, 63 depict both Adam
and Eve and 5 show only Adam. Byzantine images
have been excluded, but it is worth noting that imag-
es from Constantinople show a different selection of
tasks performed by Adam and Eve than do European
sources. For example, an ivory casket dating from the
10th –11th centuries shows Adam and Eve working to-
gether at a forge and then harvesting grain.
England France
Period 0 0
800–1000 0 4
1000–1100 2 0
1100–1200 4 4
1200–1300 8 9
Total 14 17
Tab. 3. Images of Adam and Eve working before 1300 (See Appendix). The five regions are: England; France (including French-speaking Switzerland);
Germany (including Austria, Bohemia, Alsace and German-speaking Switzerland); Scandinavia; Southern Europe (including Italy and the Iberian
Peninsula).
210
203–223
Eve working. Prior to the year 1000 Eve is not shown
at work, but from 1100, Eve is depicted working with
different tasks: spinning, taking care of children and
also working with hand tools, most often a hoe, along-
side Adam.
Over the 12th century Eve is increasingly shown
spinning, an image which becomes dominant over the
thirteenth century and fixed by the fourteenth. Images
of Adam and Eve working together seem to have been
particularly prominent in the 11th and 12th centuries,
but with regional differences. Adam and Eve work-
ing the land together was an important feature of im-
ages from Southern Europe and Scandinavia. It is in
Scandinavia, too, where images of Adam and Eve are
the most varied: Adam is shown sowing seed while
Eve uses a hoe on a 12th-century baptismal font in
Östra Nöbbelöv, Scania (Fig. 2), Sweden and again in a
13th-century font from Östra Eneby (Fig. 4), Östergöt-
land, Sweden, although even more unusually, here Eve
uses a spade.
Although we have found no pictorial images from
England of Adam and Eve working the land together,
the earliest religious play about Adam and Eve, the
Anglo-Norman “Jeu d’Adam” from the mid-12th cen-
tury, depicts them cultivating the soil together. After
the expulsion from Paradise, God tells the couple that
they shall work in great sweat and great labour. The
choir sings “in the sweat of thy face”, followed by the
stage instruction: “then Adam takes a spade (fossori-
um) and Eve a hoe (rastrum) and they begin to cultivate
the earth and sow corn. After they sowed they go and
sit down, at a little distance, as if worn out with toil
and gaze frequently towards Paradise, beating their
breasts and weeping. Then comes the Devil and plants
thorns and thistles in the cultivated ground and then
he goes away. When Adam and Eve return to their plot
and see thorns and thistles, they prostrate themselves
in violent grief…” (Muir 1970; 2001, 150). Here we see
echoes of the above-mentioned ethnographic evidence
for hand cultivation in the modern period, which in-
dicates that such work typically involved men and
women working together. This feature appears to have
Scandinavia Germany S. Europe Summary
0 0 1 1
0 0 2 6
0 1 4 7
3 1 5 17
2 1 3 23
3 15 5 54
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Not working, without child
800–1000
1000–1100
1100–1200
1200–1300
Tab. 4. Eve’s activity when Adam is working (digging).
also been true in the medieval period. Our analysis of
high medieval images of Adam and Eve suggests that
prior to the 13th century Eve was often depicted work-
ing together in the field with Adam, but thereafter their
labours become separated, and she is almost always
shown spinning.
Spades and hoes in Adam’s and Eve’s work. Our analy-
sis of images largely supports Camille’s statement that
the spade was used in Northern Europe while the hoe
was used in the south (Camille 1995), although our
collection also demonstrates the changing preference
from hoe to spade for much of northern Europe over
the high medieval period.
As can be seen from the table above, the most
marked difference is between England and France,
where the spade is dominant, and Southern Europe,
where the hoe is ubiquitous. Between these extremes
are Scandinavia and Germany, where both implements
are shown in varying proportions. On the whole, the
changing iconography of the tools Adam uses is in
keeping with the archaeological evidence from each
region. In France there is a shift from the hoe to the
spade in the images, which mirrors the increasing ar-
chaeological evidence of iron-shod spades over our pe-
riod. In England, where the iron-shod spade had been
known since Roman times and where spade finds are
relatively common from an early date, the spade is
dominant in the iconography of Adam and Eve labour-
ing, even from the earliest manuscript in the collection,
which dates to c.1000. In German-speaking areas the
spade appears in images of Adam only in the 14th cen-
tury, although pictures of the spade in other contexts
exist in Germany before 1300. For example, a 12th-cen-
tury manuscript of the Jungfrauenspiegel shows a man
digging with a spade while a woman is sowing seed (Ep-
perlein 1975, pl. 39). Fourteenth-century manuscripts
England France
Spade 16 12
Hoe 2 6
Total 18 18
Tab. 5. Total number of spades and hoes in images of Adam and Eve (catalogue See Appendix). The five regions are: England; France (including
French-speaking Switzerland); Germany (including Austria, Bohemia, Alsace and German-speaking Switzerland); Scandinavia; Southern Europe (in-
cluding Italy and the Iberian Peninsula).
RURALIA X
203–223
With child Digging Spinning
2 4 0 0
1 1 3 0
2 0 5 9
0 0 1 20
of the Sachsenspiegel depict a number of iron-shod
spades being used for various tasks. In Scandinavia
the hoe seems to have been prominent alongside with
the spade. Here a further 12th-century image, this time
of grave digging, shows an iron-shod spade. In South-
ern Europe the hoe is dominant, with two exceptions.
One is an iron-shod spade, the other is an interesting
image on a 11th-century bronze door in Verona, where
Eve is pulling a small plough (a wheel ard).
Artistic influence. How far does the distribution of hoes
and spades in medieval images correspond to an actu-
al distribution of how they were used at the time in Eu-
rope? In the discipline of art history discussion about
influence between regions and artists is extensive.
The most common view is that influence was mainly
about style and overall iconography, but the details
were often drawn in accordance with regional culture.
In a study of over 200 medieval images of shepherds
(half of them the shepherds at the Nativity) it has been
shown that the details (types of shepherd’s staff, musi-
cal instruments, clothing) differed regionally, as could
be expected from other sources and ethnographical
comparisons (Myrdal 2012b). Our study of Adam im-
ages points in the same direction.
As noted above, the archaeological evidence from
Italy suggests that the hoe was the primary implement
of hand cultivation, and this absence of the spade is
replicated in images of Adam from Italy and the Ibe-
rian Peninsula. An example is the illustration of the
Anglo-Catalan Psalter (BnF MS Lat. 8846), which was
illuminated in Canterbury c.1200 and in Catalonia
c.1375–1400. In its initial illumination in England,
Adam is shown with a spade, yet later illumination
undertaken in Catalonia depicts Adam with a hoe
(Pulsiano – Hussey 2008, 111; Mane 1994, 54; pl. 28;
Brandt 1927, 229). It seems reasonable to assume that
Scandinavia Germany S. Europe Total
6 2 1 37
4 5 16 33
10 7 17 70
211
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
the illuminators’ preferences for hoe or spade reflect
the prevailing imagery in the region. Another case is
the single exception to the dominance of the hoe in
Southern Europe. The frescoes at the convent of Santa
Maria in Sigena show an angel teaching Adam to delve.
The angel digs with a spade while Adam has a hoe. The
frescoes are thought to have been painted by English
artists connected with the Winchester Bible, possibly
having trained at Winchester (Pächt 1961). The Win-
chester Bible was produced between 1160 and 1175,
and the frescoes from Sigena date from around the
turn of the thirteenth century. Sigena frescoes are very
likely an example of a detail taken from a different cul-
ture, and the striking consistency between archaeology
and images concerning the distribution of hoes and
spades in Europe demonstrates the value of medieval
images as sources for material culture.
The proverb. The proverb “When Adam delved and Eve
span – who was then a gentleman”, will be familiar to
most readers, famously recorded as having been spo-
ken by the rebel preacher John Ball during the Peas-
ants’ Revolt of 1381 in England (Walsingham, 321). In-
deed, this proverb may have been invented by Ball or a
contemporary of his (Singer 1995 – 2002, entry “Adel
4:1”). Iterations of this proverb spread throughout
northern Europe over the later Middle Ages (Freedman
1999, 61–62). It is interesting to note that this proverb,
212
203–223
Fig. 3. Canterbury Psalter, illuminated in Canterbury,
Kent, England: Adam delving with an iron-shod spade,
Eve breastfeeding and spinning with a distaff spindle,
illuminated in Canterbury, c. 1200 (Bibliothèque na-
tionale de France, reproduced with permission).
which portrays Adam digging with a spade, developed
in England and spread mostly through northern Eu-
rope – where the spade was the dominant implement
for digging. The development of this proverb indicates
that, by the late-14th century at least, the image of
Adam delving had become a fixed trope.
Interpretation of the Adam and Eve images. One expla-
nation for the increased importance of images of la-
bour is as praise of peasants as the base of society.
This was expressed in the idea of “the three orders”,
or the three necessary parts of medieval society: those
who fought, those who prayed and those who worked
(Duby 1980). These ideas were taking shape in the cen-
turies before AD 1000 and became generally accepted
thereafter as one of the most prominent ideological
conceptions of medieval society (Freedman 1999).
The portrayal of Adam’s work has two facets, both
of which are found in the Bible. One is agricultural
work as the foundation for human existence. The oth-
er is labour as a curse, and more precisely labour as
cumbersome and very difficult. This is why hand till-
ing the fields came to denote Adam’s work, the hard-
est conceivable work, over the Middle Ages. It follows
from this that hand cultivation was well known in this
period, for if it had been otherwise, images of Adam
would have had little meaning for those who looked
upon them.
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Conclusion
This analysis of written records, archaeology and
images has demonstrated that hand cultivation was
an increasingly important feature of European agri-
culture over the High Middle Ages. Written evidence
suggests that the population growth which charac-
terised the period from 1000 to 1300 left a growing
number of peasants with very small holdings. Many
of these small farmers were too poor to own draught
animals or ploughs, and consequently turned to hand
tools to cultivate their land. Alongside rising popula-
tion and increasing pressure to intensify agricultural
production, we see the dissemination of the iron-shod
spade across northern Europe. This spade type was
a more efficient digging implement than the wooden-
bladed spade and cheaper and lighter than the iron-
bladed spade. Its spread over the 11th to 14th cen-
turies therefore makes sense within the context of
declining wealth as the proportion of smallholders in-
creased, and the consequent reliance on hand tools to
cultivate the land. The spread of the iron-shod spade
is shown in both the archaeological record and in im-
ages of Adam after the Fall. Our analysis of these two
very different sources has demonstrated that not only
does the iconography of Adam digging become more
prominent over the High Middle Ages, replacing early
images of Adam ploughing, but also that the tool with
which Adam is depicted reflects to a very great extent
the archaeological evidence. Thus Adam delves with an
iron-shod spade across northern Europe and with in-
creasing frequency over our period, as the iron-shod
spade came into general use.
Images of Adam after the Fall were meant to remind
their viewers of the punishment faced by mankind for
Original Sin. That delving with an iron-shod spade be-
came the image though which this punishment was
conveyed reveals the difficulty, ubiquity and impor-
tance of spade cultivation in medieval agriculture. The
period from 1000 to 1300 saw not only the increasing
application of the spade to arable agriculture, but be-
cause of this, the period also saw the spade acquire
cultural significance.
Our conclusion is that widespread hand cultivation
is an underestimated aspect of high medieval agricul-
ture. This was not a backward way of working the soil,
but rather a dynamic part of an increasingly intensive
system of agriculture. This system was both land and
labour intensive, demonstrating the growing impor-
tance of small farmers within the medieval economy.
Yet these small, poor farmers who comprised such a
large section of medieval society are mostly excluded
from the written record. Therefore, this study also
demonstrates the need to use alternative sources to
understand the lives of those sections of society whose
RURALIA X
203–223
existence now lies mostly in the shadows, hidden from
the historian’s view. The combination of different types
of sources, analysed together and in pluralistic ways,
opens up new means by which the lives of the vast
majority of the medieval population can be examined.
Thus the importance of the spade to medieval agricul-
ture, not just in those regions typically associated with
this type of cultivation, such as Flanders, but across
the whole of northern Europe comes to light. Adam
delved with an iron-shod spade because the poor peas-
ant delved with an iron-shod spade.
Summary
Between 1000 and 1300 the need to feed a rapidly
rising population drove the intense use of land and la-
bour across northern Europe. Over this period artistic
representations of the spade developed, particularly of
Adam delving, in a pattern which mirrors the increas-
ing prominence of this technology in the archaeologi-
cal record. Widespread spade cultivation may therefore
be an overlooked means by which smallholding peas-
ants increased agricultural production on their land.
Zusammenfassung
Im Zeitraum des 11. bis 13. Jahrhunderts führ-
te der Druck einer schnell wachsenden Bevölkerung
im nördlichen Europa zu einer Intensivierung der
Landnutzung und einem effektiveren Einsatz der Ar-
beitskraft. In dieser Zeit entwickelten sich künstleri-
sche Darstellungen des Spatens, meist Adam mit dem
Spaten, was seine steigende Bedeutung im archäolo-
gischen Fundmaterial widerspiegeln. Möglicherweise
stellt ein weiter verbreiteter Spatenbau eine bislang
weitgehend übersehene Strategie dar, mit der Klein-
bauern die Erträge auf ihrem Land steigerten.
Résumé
Entre l’an mil et 1300, le besoin de nourrir une po-
pulation en croissance rapide entraîna le labourage
intensif des terres à travers l’Europe du Nord. Durant
cette période, la représentation iconographique de
bêches augmenta, particulièrement celles d’Adam bê-
chant, et font écho à la prédominance de cette « tech-
nologie » dans les enregistrements archéologiques. La
généralisation de la culture à la bêche doit par consé-
quent être considérée comme un moyen – sous-estimé
par les chercheurs – par lequel les petits propriétaires
ont augmenté la rentabilité de leurs terres.
213
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300 203–223

Bibliography Epperlein, S. 1975:

Abel, W. 1962:
Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft vom frühen Mittel-
alter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart.
Alexandre-Bidon, D. – Lorcin, M. –T. 2003:
Le quotidien au temps des fabliaux: textes, images, objets.
Paris.
Ash, B. D. 1941:
Columella on Agriculture. Books I–IV. Cambridge. Mass.
Balassa, I. 1973:
Randbeschlagene Holzspaten in Mittel- und Osteuropa,
Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde 68–69, 3–7.
Bartlett, R. 1994:
The Making of Europe: Conquest, colonization and cultural
change, 950–1350. Princeton.
Béaur, G. – Feller, L. 2011:
France 1000–1750, in: Vanhaute, E. – Devos, I. – Lampre-
cht, T. (eds), Rural Economy and Society in North-Western
Europe, 500–2000: Making a Living: Family, Income and La-
bour. Turnhout, 99–126.
Beranová, M. 1984:
Types of Slavic Agricultural production in the 6th-12th cen-
turies A.D., Ethnologia Slavica 16, 7–47.
Bloch, M. 1966:
French Rural History: An Essay on its Basic Characteristics.
London.
Brandt, P. 1927:
Schaffende Arbeit und bildende Kunst. Leipzig
Camille, M. 1995:
‘When Adam Delved’: Laboring on the Land in English Medi-
eval Art, in: Sweeny, D. (ed.), Agriculture in the Middle Ages:
Technology, Practice, and Representation. Philadelphia,
Penn. 247–276.
Campbell, B. M. S. 2000:
English Seigniorial Agriculture. Cambridge.
David, J. 1984:
Spade cultivation in Flanders, Tools and Tillage V:1, 3–12.
Derville, A. 1999:
L’agriculture du nord au Moyen Âge: Artois, Cambrésis,
Flandre Wallonne. Villeneuve d’Ascq.
Devroey, J.-P. 2003 :
Economie rurale et société dans l’Europe franque (VIe–IXe
siècles). Paris.
Duby, G. 1968 :
Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West, trans.
C. Postan. London.
Duby, G. 1980:
The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, trans. A. Gold-
hammer. Chicago.
Dyer, C. 1989:
Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages: Social Change
in England, c.1200–1520. Cambridge.
Engelhardt, C. 1970 [1867] :
Sønderjyske og fynske mosefund 3, Kragehul og Vimose-
fundene. København.
Der Bauer im Bild des Mittelalters. Berlin.
Fenton, A. 1978:
The Northern Isles: Orkney and Shetland. Edinburgh.
Ficht, J. G. 2013:
Palladius the work of farming. A new translation from the
Latin. Blackawton.
Fournier, G. 1962:
Le peuplement rural en Basse Auvergne durant le haut
Moyen Âge. Paris.
Frayn, J. M. 1979:
Subsistence farming in Roman Italy. Fontwell.
Freedman, P. 1999:
Images of the Medieval Peasant. Stanford.
Gadd, C.-J. – Johansen, H. C. – Lindkvist, T. 2011:
Scandinavia, 1000–1750, in: Vanhaute, E. – Devos, I. – Lam-
precht, T. (eds), Rural Economy and Society in North-Western
Europe, 500–2000: Making a Living: Family, Income and La-
bour. Turnhout, 265–292.
Giannichedda, E. 1996:
Zignago e i problemi dell’archeologia rurale nell’Italia setten-
trionale, Ruralia 1, 242–250.
Grekow, B. D. (ed) 1958:
Geschichte der USSR, 2: Feudalismus. Berlin.
Goodall, I. 2001:
Ironwork in Medieval Britain: An Archaeological Study. Lon-
don.
Haarnagel, W. 1979:
Die Grabung Feddersen Wierde: Methode, Hausbau, Sied-
lungs- und Wirtschaftsformen sowie Sozialstruktur. Wies-
baden.
Henning, J. 1987:
Südosteuropa zwischen Antike und Mittelalter: archäologi-
sche Beiträge zur Landwirtschaft des 1. Jahrtausends u. Z.
Berlin.
Henning, J. 2004:
Germanisch-romanische Agrarkontinuität und -diskonti-
nuität im Nordalpinen Kontinentaleuropa – Teile eines Sys-
temwandels? Beobachtungen aus archäologischer Sicht, in:
Hägermann, D. (ed.) Akkulturation: Probleme einer germa-
nisch-romanischen Kultursynthese in Spätantike und früh-
em Mittelalter. Berlin, 397–435.
Henning, J. 2014:
Did the Agricultural Revolution go East with Carolingian
Conquest? Some reflections on early medieval rural econom-
ics of the Baiuvarii and Thuringi, in: Ausenda, G. – Hines, J.
– Steuer, H. (eds), Baiuvarii and Thuringi: An Ethnographic
Perspective, 1–29.
Jackson, R. P. J. – Potter, T. W. 1996:
Excavations at Stonea Cambridgeshire 1980–1985. London.
Kempke, T. 2000:
Landwirtschaft, in: Wieczorek, A. – Hinz, H.-M. (eds), Europas
Mitte um 1000. Katalog. Darmstadt, 64–67.
Klápště, J. 2011:
Living on the land, in: Carver, M. – Klápště, J. (eds), The Ar-
chaeology of Medieval Europe. Vol. 2. Twelfth to sixteenth cen-
turies. Aarhus, 97–146.

214 RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Khoroshev, A. S. 2007:
Agriculture, in: Brisbane, M. – Hather, J. G. (eds), Wood use in
medieval Novgorod. Oxford, 119–123.
Kolchin, B. A. 1989:
Wooden artefacts from medieval Novgorod. Oxford.
La nuit des temps 1–64, 1954–1985: La Pierre-Qui-Vire,
Yonne.
Langdon, J. 1986:
Horses, Oxen and Technological Innovation: The Use of
Draught Animals in English Farming from 1066 to 1500.
Cambridge.
Langdon, J. 1988:
Agricultural implements, in: Astill, G. – Grant, A. (eds), The
Countryside of Medieval England. Oxford, 86–108.
Legros, V. 2012:
Le mobilier métallique des habitats ruraux de la fin du Haut
Moyen Âge, in: Valais, A. (ed.), L’habitat rural au Moyen Âge
dans le nord-ouest de la France. 1: Les syntheses. Rennes,
131–176.
Lerche, G. 1976:
The spades from Dannevirke and Jelling, in: Danachair, C. Ó
(ed.), Folk & Farm. Dublin, 110–126.
Mane, P. 1994:
Le rhythm de la terre: le temps du blé et des vendanges, in:
Le Roy Ladurie, E. (ed.), Paysages, paysans. L’art et la terre en
Europe du Moyen Âge au XXe siècle. Paris.
Mane, P. 2012:
L’agriculture et l’artisanat dans le campagnes médiévales a
travers l’iconographie et les découverts archeologiques, in:
Valais, A. (ed.), L’habitat rural au Moyen Âge dans le nord-
ouest de la France. 1: Les syntheses. Rennes, 253–288.
Mavroska, V. V. 2009:
Adam and Eve in the Western and Byzantine Art of the Middle
Ages. Frankfurt am Main.
Miller, E. – Hatcher, J. 1978:
Medieval England: Rural Society and Economic Change,
1086–1348. London.
Morris, C. A. 2000:
Craft, industry and everyday life: wood and woodworking in
Anglo-Scandinavian and medieval York. York.
Muir, L. R. 1970:
Adam, a twelfth-century play translated from the French with
an introduction and notes, Proceedings of the Leeds Philo-
sophical and Literary Society 13, 149–204.
Muir, L. R. 2001:
Extra-liturgical Latin and early vernacular drama, in: Tyde-
man, W. (ed.), The Medieval European Stage 500–1550. Cam-
bridge, 137–204.
Müller, R. 1975:
Die Datierung des mittelalterlichen Eisengerätfunde in Un-
garn, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
27, 59–101.
Murdoch, B. 2009:
The Apocryphal Adam and Eve in Medieval Europe: Vernac-
ular Translations and Adaptations of the Vita Adae et Evae.
Oxford.
RURALIA X
203–223
Myrdal, J. 1982:
Jordbruksredskap av järn före år 1000, Fornvännen, 81–104.
Myrdal, J. 1986:
Medeltidens åkerbruk. Stockholm.
Myrdal, J. 2011:
Milking and grinding, digging and herding: Slaves and farm-
work 1000–1300, in: Sindbæk, S. M. – Poulsen, B. (eds), Set-
tlement and lordship in Viking and early medieval Scandina-
via. Turnhout, 293–307.
Myrdal, J. 2012a:
Source pluralism as a method of historical research, in: Hell-
man, S. – Rahikainen, M. (eds), Historical knowledge: in quest
of theory, method and evidence. Newcastle upon Tyne, 155–
189.
Myrdal J 2012b:
Boskapsskötseln under medeltiden. Stockholm.
Pächt, O. 1961:
A cycle of English frescoes in Spain, The Burlington Maga-
zine 103, 162–176.
Petersen, J. 1951:
Vikingetidens redskaper. Oslo.
Pohanka, R. 1986:
Die eisernen Agrargeräte der Römischen Kaiserzeit in Öster-
reich. Studien zur Römischen Agrartechnologie in Rätien,
Noricum und Pannonien. Oxford.
Postan, M. M. 1954:
The Famulus: The Estate Labourer in the XIIth and XIIIth
centuries. The Economic History Review Supplements 2.
Cambridge.
Poulson, B. 1997:
Agricultural technology in medieval Denmark, in: Astill, G.
– Langdon, J. (eds), Medieval Farming and Technology: The
Impact of Agricultural Change in Northwest Europe. Leiden,
115–146.
Power, D. 2006:
The Central Middle Ages: Europe 950–1320. Oxford.
Preedy, L. – Noel, W. (eds) 2002:
Medieval mastery: book illumination from Charlemagne to
Charles the Bold, 800–1475. Leuven.
Pulsiano, P. – Hussey, M. 2008:
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 8846 Illustrated Triple
Psalter (‘The Paris Psalter’)’, in: Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in
Microfiche Facsimile 343, Temple, Arizona, 111–118.
Rees, S. E. 1979:
Agricultural implements in prehistoric and Roman Britain.
Oxford.
Reigniez, P. 2002 :
L’outil agricole en France au Moyen Âge. Paris.
Rösener, W. 1985:
Bauern im Mittelalter. München.
Sapoznik, A. 2013:
The productivity of peasant agriculture: Oakington, Cam-
bridgeshire, 1360–99, Economic History Review 66, 518–544.
Schofield, P. R. – Whittle, J. 2011:
Britain 1000–1750, in: Vanhaute, E. – Devos, I. – Lam-
precht, T. (eds), Rural Economy and Society in North-Western
215
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300 203–223

Europe, 500–2000: Making a Living: Family, Income and La- Visted, K. – Stigum, H. 1971:
bour. Turnhout, 47–70. Vår gamle bondekultur 1. Oslo.
Slicher van Bath, B. H. 1963: Vollmann, K. 2007:
Yield Ratios, 810–1820. Wageningen. Petrus de Crescentiis, Erfolgreiche Landwirtschaft. Ein mit-
Singer, S. 1995–2002: telalterliches Lehrbuch. Stuttgart.
Thesaurus proverbiorum medii aevi : Lexikon der Sprichwört- Von Erffa, H. M. 1989:
er des romanisch-germanischen Mittelalters 1–14. Berlin. Ikonologie der Genesis. Die Christlichen Bildthemen aus
Stone, D. 2005: dem Alten Testament und ihre Quellen 1. München.
Decision-Making in Medieval Agriculture. Oxford. Walsingham, T. 1863–1864:
Szabó, M. – Grenander-Nyberg, G. – Myrdal. J. 1985: Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, 2 vols (Rolls Series).
Die Holzfunde. Die frühgeschichtliche Marschensiedlung Westphalen, P. 1999:
beim Elisenhof in Eiderstedt. Frankfurt. Die Kleinfunde aus der frühgeschichtlichen Wurt Elisenhof.
Neumünster.
Valen-Sendstad, F. 1964:
Norske landbruksredskaper 1800–1850-årene. Lillehammer. White, K. D. 1967:
Agricultural implements of the Roman world. Cambridge.
van Bavel, B. J. P. – Thoen, E. (eds) 1999:
Land Productivity and Agro-Ecosystems in the North Sea Wilson, D. 1971:
Area. Turnhout. The Anglo-Saxons (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth.

Janken Myrdal, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7013 SE-75007, Uppsala, Sweden, janken.myrdal@
slu.se
Alexandra Sapoznik, King‘s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom, alexandra.sapoznik@kcl.ac.uk

216 RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Appendix
Images of Adam and Eve working in Europe before 1400
Pre-800
+1. Description: Adam ploughing, Eve with child
Implements pictured: Ard
Original source: The Ashburnham Pentateuch (Paris, Bib-
liothèque Nationale de France, MS nouv. acq. lat. 2334, also
known as the Tours Pentateuch)
Date and place of origin: N. Africa, Spain or Italy, l.6th- or
early 7th-century,
Published source: Verkerk, D., Early Medieval Bible Illumina-
tion and the Ashburnham Pentateuch (Cambridge, 2004)
800–1000
2. Description: Adam working, Eve breastfeeding
Implements pictured: Hoe
Original source: Bible von Moutier-Grandval (London, Brit-
ish Library Add. MS 10546)
Date and place of origin: Tours, c.830–c.840
Published source: Pächt, O., Buchmaleri des Mittelalters (5:e
ed München, 2004) pl.9.; Walter, I., Codices illustres. The
world’s most famous illuminated manuscripts 400 to 1600
(Köln, 2001), p. 460
3. Description: Adam digging and Eve (with child?)
Implements pictured: Hoe
Original source: Bamberg Bible (Bamberg, Staatliche Biblio-
thek, ms Bibl A.I.5 fol 7v)
Date and place of origin: Tours, 834–843
Published source: Mavroska V., Adam and Eve in the Western
and Byzantine Art of the Middle Ages (Frankfurt, 2009), fig. 3
4. Description: Adam working, Eve with child
Implements pictured: Hoe
Original source: Bible de Vivien dite de Charles le Chauve
(Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS Lat. 1)
Date and place of origin: Tours, 845–846
Published source: Mane, P., Le travail à la campagne au
Moyen Âge : étude iconographique (Paris, 2006), p. 97 fig. 26
5. Description: Adam working, Eve breastfeeding
Implements pictured: Hoe
Original source: Bible of San Paolo Bible fuori le Mura,
Rheims, c.875, (Abbey of St Paul-outside-the-walls, Rome)
Date and place of origin: Rheims, c.875
Published source: Mavroska V., Adam and Eve in the West-
ern and Byzantine Art of the Middle Ages (Frankfurt, 2009),
fig. 5; Mentioned in Kessler, H., The Illustrated Bibles from
Tours (Princeton, 1977), p.25; image from internet , black and
white; colour image: http://www.scalarchives.com)
RURALIA X
203–223
6. Descripton: Adam being given tool by an angel, Eve with
child
Implements pictured: Two-pronged hoe or mattock
Original source: Homilies of Gregor Nazianzus (Paris, Biblio-
thèque Nationale de France, MS grec. 510, f 52v)
Date and place of origin: Constantinople, 879–882
Published source: Brubaker, L., Vision and Meaning in Nonth-
century Byzantium (Cambridge, 1999), fig.10; mentioned in
Haney, K. E.,The Winchester Psalter: An Iconographic Study
(Leicester, 1986), p. 77
7. Description: Adam and Eve working
Implements pictured: Forge (Eve working bellows) and sickle
(Adam cutting grain, Eve carrying sheaf)
Original source: Ivory panels from a small casket (New York,
Metropolitan Museum of Art 17.190.139)
Date and place of origin: Constantinople, 10th–11th centuries
Published source: Evans, H.C. and W.D. Wixom (eds),The
Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzan-
tine Era (New York, 1997), p. 235; image from internet, from
the Metropolitan Museum of Art website: http://metmu-
seum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/464019,
http://metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/
search/464020)
1000–1100
8. Description: Adam and Eve being expelled and after the
expulsion
Implements pictured: Adam with iron-shod spade and caul-
dron (or seed basket?) Eve with whorl of a spindle (?)
Original source: Caedmon Manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian MS
Junius 11, p.49)
Date and place of origin: England, c.1000
Published source: Haney, K. E.,The Winchester Psalter: An
Iconographic Study (Leicester,1986), pl. 39, p. 77
9. Description: Adam and Eve at work, Eve breastfeeding –
Angel instructing Adam
Implements pictured: Adam with hoe
Original source: Bronze doors, St Mary’s Cathedral, Hildes-
heim (Germany), bronze doors commissioned c. 1015
Date and place of origin: Hildesheim, Germany, commis-
sioned c. 1015
Published source: Kleiner, F. (ed.) Gardner’s Art Through the
Ages: The Western Perspective, 14th edn. (Wadsworth, 2014),
p. 326; image from internet: http://art-history-images.com/
photo/8272
217
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
10. Description: Adam working, Eve reaping corn
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), sickle (Eve)
Original source: Ripoll Bible (Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana MS Vat. Lat. 5729)
Date and place of origin: Spain, 1015–1020
Published source: Haney, K. E.,The Winchester Psalter: An
Iconographic Study (Leicester,1986), pl. 46
11. Description: Adam and Eve ploughing (Eve pulling an
ard with wheel or a separate coulter, she relies on a staff)
Implements pictured: Ard
Original source: Bronze door, San Zeno
Date and place of origin: Verona, Italy, 11th century
Published source: Kleinhentz, C. (ed.) Medieval Italy: An
Encyclopedia vol.1 (New York, 2004), p. 328 ;image from in-
ternet: http://benedante.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/basilica-of-
san-zeno-verona.html)
12. Description: Adam and Eve working
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), rake? (Eve)
Original source: Old English Hexateuch (London, British Li-
brary MS Cotton Claudius B IV f.7v)
Date and place of origin: England, 2nd quarter of the
11th century–2nd half of the 12th century
Published source: Camille, M. ‘When Adam Delved’: Labor-
ing on the Land in English Medieval Art, in Sweeny, D. (ed)
Agriculture in the Middle Ages: Technology, Practice, and Rep-
resentation (Philadelphia, 1995), p. 252; Haney, K. E.,The Win-
chester Psalter: An Iconographic Study (Leicester,1986), pl. 41
13. Description: Adam and Eve being expelled, followed by
two scenes of Adam working
Implements pictured: Hoe, sickle
Original source: Ivory Box with Scenes of Adam and Eve,
Cleveland Museum of Art
Date and place of origin: Byzantine Constantinople,
9th–10th centuries
Published source: Cleveland Museum of Art, (Cleveland
1924), p. 747; described in Berabò, M., ‘La cacciata e il lavoro
dal Paradiso dei progenitore in alcune miniature medievali’,
in G. Schoenburg Waldenburg (ed.), La miniatura italiana in
età romantica e gotica (Florence, 1979), p. 273; image from
internet, Cleveland Museum of Art website: http://www.cleve-
landart.org/art/collections)
14. Description: Adam and Eve leaving Paradise
Implements pictured: Two-pronged hoe
Original source: 11th–12th century ivory-casket, kept in
Pesaro, Italy
Date and place of origin: Italy, 11th–12th centuries
Published source: Brandt, P. Schaffende Arbeit und bildende
Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), p. 227, Abb. 289
15. Description: Adam and Eve working in a field grown
with bushes
Implements pictured: Hoes
Original source: ‘Salerno ivories’, Salerno Cathedral
Date and place of origin: Salerno, Italy, c.l.11–e.12th centuries
Published source: Brandt, P., Schaffende Arbeit und bildende
Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), p.226, Abb. 287; Mavroska V., Adam
and Eve in the Western and Byzantine Art of the Middle Ages.
(Frankfurt, 2009), p. 58
218
203–223
1100–1200
16. Description: Adam and Eve working
Implements pictured: Hoes
Original source: West facade Cathedral of San Geminiano,
Modena
Date and place of origin: Modena, c.1100s
Published source: Brandt, P. Schaffende Arbeit und bildende
Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), p. 226, Abb. 288
17. Description: Adam digging and Eve standing next to him
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade and hoe (Adam hold-
ing both)
Original source: Baptismal font, St Peter’s church, Hook Nor-
ton, Oxfordshire
Date and place of origin: Hook Norton, Oxfordshire,
e.12th cent.
Published source: Altvater, F., ‘Chores, computation and the
Second Coming: Calendar images and Romanesque baptis-
mal fonts’, in H. M. Sonne de Torrens and M. A. Torrens (eds),
The Visual Culture of Baptism in the Middle Ages (Farnham,
2013), p.157; described in Bond, F., Fonts and Font Covers
(London, 1908), p.171
18. Description: Adam and Eve working the ground, next
image Adam building, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), clodbreaker
or hoe? (Eve)
Original source: Stone relief on baptismal font, Gotland, Swe-
den
Date and place of origin: Gotland, Sweden, e.12th century
Published source: Myrdal, J., Medeltidens åkerbruk (Stock-
holm, 1986), p.110
19. Description: Adam working and Eve sitting
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam)
Original source: Pantheon Bible (Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana MS lat. 12958 c. 4v)
Date and place of origin: Rome?, c.1125
Published source: Berabò, M., ‘La cacciata e il lavoro dal
Paradiso dei progenitore in alcune miniature medievali’, in
G. Schoenburg Waldenburg (ed.), La miniatura italiana in età
romantica e gotica (Florence, 1979), p.271 (image from Dod-
well, C.R. (ed.) Pictorial Arts of the West, 800–1200 vol. 7 (Yale,
1993) pl.166, p.178)
20. Description: Adam working
Implements pictured: Hoe
Original source: Giant Bible from Todi (Rome, Biblioteca Ap-
ostolica Vaticana , MS lat. 10405c 4v)
Date and place of origin: Rome?, c.1125
Published source: Berabò, M., ‘La cacciata e il lavoro dal
Paradiso dei progenitore in alcune miniature medievali’, in
G. Schoenburg Waldenburg (ed.), La miniatura italiana in età
romantica e gotica (Florence, 1979), p. 276
21. Description: Adam and Eve carrying their tools
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: St Albans Psalter (Hildesheim, St Gode-
hard’s Church MS St Albans)
Date and place of origin: St Albans, England, c.1120–1145
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Published source: Geddes, J., The St Albans Psalter. A Book
for Christina of Markyate (London, 2005) (Geddes misinter-
preted Adam’s implement as scythe)
22. Description: Angel instructing Adam to delve, Eve spin-
ning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Baptismal font, East Meon, Hampshire,
England (cf similar baptismal font in Winchester)
Date and place of origin: Tournai, Belgium, 1130s–1140s
Published source: Musset, L., La nuit de temps vol. 59 : An-
gleterre romane. 1, Le sud de l’Angleterre (Saint-Marie de La
Pierre-qui-vire, 1983), pl.122, p. 325–330
23. Description: Adam working soil, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Hortus deliciarum, 1167–1185, Mont Sainte-
Odile, Alsace
Date and place of origin: Mont Sainte-Odile (Hohenburg Ab-
bey), Alsace, 1167–1185
Published source: mentioned in Haney, K. E.,The Winchester
Psalter: An Iconographic Study (Leicester,1986), p.77
24. Description: Adam digging, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: stained glass medallion, Normée, Marne
Date and place of origin: Normée, Marne, France, c. 1175
Published source: Les Vitraux de Champagne-Ardenne
(CVMA France Recensement IV, 1992), p. 367–368; Musée de
l’Orangerie. L’art en Champagne au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1959),
No. 113, p. 59–60; Gordecki. L, Le Vitrail Roman (Fribourg,
1977); Musée des arts décoratifs, France, Le Vitrail Français
(Paris, 1958); image from internet: http://vidimus.org/issues
/issue-28/panel-of-the-month/)
25. Description: Adam delving
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (hoe hanging from
tree)
Original source: Canterbury Cathedral West window
Date and place of origin: Canterbury, England, 12th cent.
Published source: Camille, M. ‘When Adam Delved’: Labor-
ing on the Land in English Medieval Art, in Sweeny, D. (ed)
Agriculture in the Middle Ages: Technology, Practice, and Rep-
resentation (Philadelphia, 1995), p. 248; image from internet,
black and white: http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-28/panel-
of-the-month/)
26. Description: Adam and Eve working
Implements pictured: Spade (Adam), hoe (Eve)
Original source: Baptismal font, Östra Vemmenhög, Skåne,
Sweden
Date and place of origin: Östra Vemmenhög, Skåne, Sweden,
second half of 12th cent.
Published source: Myrdal, J., Medeltidens åkerbruk (Stock-
holm, 1986), p.115
27. Description: Adam sowing, Evecovering the seed, ridges
Implements pictured: Hoe (Eve), seed basket (Adam)
Original source: Baptismal font, Östra Nöbbelöv, Skåne, Swe-
den
Date and place of origin: Östra Nöbbelöv, Skåne, Sweden,
second half of 12th cent.
RURALIA X
203–223
Published source: Myrdal, J., Medeltidens åkerbruk (Stock-
holm, 1986), p.114
28. Description: Angel giving Adam and Eve their tools,
next image Adam delving and Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Malmesbury Abbey South Porch
Date and place of origin: Malmesbury (Wilts.), England,
12th cent. (begun 1170s?)
Published source: K. E.,The Winchester Psalter: An Icono-
graphic Study (Leicester,1986), p.77 pl. 43; Galbraith, K. J.,
‘The Iconography of the Biblical Scenes at Malmesbury Ab-
bey’, Jnl. Brit. Archaeological Assoc. 28 (1965), 39–56
29. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Wall painting, St Nicholas, Tavant, Touraine
(Indre-et-Loire) France
Date and place of origin: Tavant, Touraine (Indre-et-Loire),
l.12th cent., France
Published source: Musset, L., La nuit de temps vol. 6 Touaine
(Saint-Marie de La Pierre-qui-vire, 1977), colour pl. 4
30. Description: Adam working ground, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Cathedral of Monreale
Date and place of origin: Sicily, 1180s
Published source: Camille, M. ‘When Adam Delved’: Labor-
ing on the Land in English Medieval Art, in Sweeny, D. (ed)
Agriculture in the Middle Ages: Technology, Practice, and Rep-
resentation (Philadelphia, 1995), p. 251; Mavroska V., Adam
and Eve in the Western and Byzantine Art of the Middle Ages
(Frankfurt, 2009), fig.74–75
1200–1300
31. Description: An angel teaches Adam to work the land,
next image Adam working and Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Spade (Angel), hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Monasterio de Santa María de Sigena (Mu-
seu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya),
Date and place of origin: Sigena, Aragon, Spain, c.1200
Published source: Freedman, P., Images of the Medieval Peas-
ant (Stanford, 1999), p.28, 65
32. Description: Adam delving and Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source:: stained glass, Chartres, window 6:21 ‘The
parable of the good Samaritan’
Date and place of origin: Chartres, France, e.13th cent.
Published source: mentioned in Miller, M. B., Chartres Ca-
thedral (Chartres 2005, p 70; image on internet: http://
www.paradoxplace.com/Church_Stuff/Christian_Themes/
Adam_&_Eve.htm#Eve
33. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Transept rose window, Lincoln Cathedral
Date and place of origin: Lincoln, England, e.13th century
Published source: Morgan, N. J. The Medieval Painted Glass
of Lincoln Cathedral, (CVMA Occasional Papers, 3, Oxford,
219
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
1983); Nelson, P. Ancient Painted Glass in England 1170–1500
(London, 1913); Winston, C ‘An Account of the Painted Glass
in Lincoln Cathedral and Southwell Minster: with some gen-
eral remarks on glass-painting’, Proceedings of the Archæolog-
ical Institute at the Annual Meeting at Lincoln (1848, in Mem-
oirs Illustrative of the Art of Glass-Painting, London, 1865,
77–105); Winston, C, ‘On the Glazing of the North Rose Win-
dow of Lincoln Cathedral’, Archaeological Journal, 14 (1857,
in Memoirs Illustrative of the Art of Glass-Painting, London,
1865, 222–230); Westlake, N.J.H A History of Design in Paint-
ed Glass, 2 Vols.; Woodforde, C A Guide to the Medieval Glass
in Lincoln Cathedral (London, 1933); Lafond, J, ‘The Stained
Glass Decoration of Lincoln Cathedral in the Thirteenth cen-
tury’, The Archaeological Journal, 103, (1946/4), p.119–157;
image from internet: http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-28/
panel-of-the-month/
34. Description: Adam delving, Eve breastfeeding and spin-
ning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Canterbury Psalter (Paris, Bibliothèque Na-
tionale de France, MS Lat 8846 f.1)
220
203–223
Date and place of origin: Canterbury, England, c.1200
Published source: Mane, P., Le travail à la campagne au
Moyen Âge : étude iconographique (Paris, 2006), p. 99, fig. 29;
Mane, P., ‘Le rhythm de la terre: le temps du blé et des ven-
danges’, in E. Le Roy Ladurie (ed.), Paysages, paysans. L’art et
la terre en Europé du Moyen Âge au XXe siècle (Paris, 1994),
p. 54, fig. 28
35. Description: Adam with hoe
Implements pictured: Hoe
Original source: Wall painting, Glanshammar, Närke, Sweden
Date and place of origin: Glanshammar, Närke, Sweden,
e.13th century
Published source: Myrdal, J. Medeltidens åkerbruk (Stock-
holm, 1986), p.108
36. Description: Adam working the land and Eve spinning
(German text: Adam breaks new land ‘Rodet’)
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: ‘Cursus Sanctae Mariae’, Pierpont Morgan
Library, New York
Date and place of origin: Moravia, c.1200–1230
Fig. 4. Baptismal font at Östra Eneby, Östergötland,
Sweden: Eve digging with an iron-shod spade, and
Adam sowing seed. In the background is a hoe or short
scythe, 13th century (Myrdal 1986, 115).
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Published source: Husa, V., Traditional Crafts and Skills:
Life and Work in Mediaeval and Renaissance Times (London,
1967) pl.54
37. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: ‘The English Psalter’ (Munich, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek lat 835 f 8v)
Date and place of origin: England, first quarter 13th cent.
Published source: Brandt, P. Schaffende Arbeit und bildende
Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), p.227, 229 Abb. 292; Mavroska V.,
Adam and Eve in the Western and Byzantine Art of the Middle
Ages. (Frankfurt, 2009), fig.79
38. Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Reliquarium, Saint-Maurice-en-Valais
Date and place of origin: Saint-Maurice-en-Valais, Switzer-
land, c.1225
Published source: Burmeister, A., La nuit des temps vol. 8 :
Suisse romane (2. éd., Saint-Léger-Vauban, 1968), pl. 44, 100,
122, 337 ; Thoumieu, M., Dictionnaire d’iconographie romane
(La Pierre-qui-Vire, 1986), p. 22
39. Description: Angel giving Adam and Eve tools, next im-
age Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Winchester Psalter (London, British Library
MS Cotton Nero C IV)
Date and place of origin: Winchester, England, m.12th–
m.13th centuries
Published source: Haney, K. E.,The Winchester Psalter: An
Iconographic Study (Leicester,1986), pl.1
40. Description: Adam working the land, Eve mourning
(other figures are man holding two children, woman spin-
ning)
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff
Original source: Bible moralisée (Vienna, Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, Codex Vindobonensis 2554)
Date and place of origin: Champagne or Paris?, France,
c.1220–1230
Published source: Walther, I. and N. Wolf, Codices Illustres:
The World’s Most Famous Illuminated Manuscripts 400–1600
(Köln, 2001), p.157
41. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Psalter Blanche of Castile (Paris, Biblio-
thèque de l’Arsenal MS 1186)
Date and place of origin: N. France, c.1235
Souce: on the internet; S.Whatling, Narrative art in northern
Europe, c.1140–1300, unpublished PhD thesis (Courtauld In-
stitute of Art, University of London, 2010), http://www.medi-
evalart.org.uk/PhD/6_Reactivating_the_recipient.html figure
6.33)
42. Description: Adam and Eve leaving Paradise tools, next
image Adam working the land, Even spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Mosaic, Church of San Marco
RURALIA X
203–223
Date and place of origin: Venice, Italy 1220–1290
Published source: Jolly, P.H., Made in God’s Image?: Eve and
Adam in the Genesis Mosaics at San Marco, Venice (Berkeley,
1997), pl. 2
43. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Bible with prologues, without Psalms, ‘The
Bible of Robert de Bello’ (London, British Library MS Burney
3 f5v)
Date and place of origin: S.E. England, c.1240–1253
Source: image from internet: British Library website, http://
www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?
MSID=8789&CollID=18&NStart=3
44. Description: Adam being taught to delve by Christ
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade
Original source: Bible Picture Book (Art Institute of Chicago)
Date and place of origin: France, c.13th century
Published source: Camille, M. ‘When Adam Delved’: Labor-
ing on the Land in English Medieval Art, in Sweeny, D. (ed)
Agriculture in the Middle Ages: Technology, Practice, and Rep-
resentation (Philadelphia, 1995), p. 272
45. Description: Eve delving, Adam sowing ridges
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Eve), seed basket
(Adam), hoe or short scythe in background
Original source: Baptismal font, Östra Eneby, Östergötland,
Sweden,
Date and place of origin: Östra Eneby, Östergötland, Swe-
den, 13th century
Published source: Myrdal, J., Medeltidens åkerbruk (Stock-
holm, 1986), p.115
46. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Picture Bible (The Hague, KB, 76 F 5 fol. 2v
sc. 2A)
Date and place of origin: St Omer, Benedictine Abbey of
St. Bertin, France, c.1190–1200 (text added c.1290–1300)
Source: image from internet: http://manuscripts.kb.nl/
show/images/76+F+5
47. Description: Angel giving Adam and Eve their tools
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Carrow Psalter (Baltimore, Walters Museum
MS Walters 34 f22v)
Date and place of origin: E. Anglia, England, m.13th cent.
Published source: Camille, M. ‘When Adam Delved’: Labor-
ing on the Land in English Medieval Art, in Sweeny, D. (ed)
Agriculture in the Middle Ages: Technology, Practice, and Rep-
resentation (Philadelphia, 1995), p. 255; image from internet:
http://www.thedigitalwalters.org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/
html/W34/description.html)
48. Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning and
breastfeeding
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Arsenal Old Testament (Paris, Bibliothèque
de l’Arsenal MS 5211)
Date and place of origin: Acre?, m.13th cent.
221
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Fig. 5. North porch of Chartres Cathedral, France: Adam digging with
an iron-shod spade and Eve spinning with a distaff spindle, 13th cen-
tury (Brandt 1927, Abb. 295.)
Published source: Mavroska V., Adam and Eve in the Western
and Byzantine Art of the Middle Ages. (Frankfurt, 2009), fig. 9
49. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning, children col-
lecting wood
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Old Testament Miniatures with Latin, Per-
sian, and Judeo-Persian inscriptions, ‘The Morgan (or Macie-
jowski) Bible’, (New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library MS
M.638 2r)
Date and place of origin: Paris, France, 1240s
Published source: A Book of Old Testament illustrations of
the middle of the thirteenth century: sent by Cardinal Bernard
Maciejowski to Shah Abbas the Great, king of Persia, now in
the Pierpont Morgan Library at New York described by Sydney
C. Cockerell, with an introduction by Montague Rhodes James
and notes on the armour by Charles J. Ffoulkes (Cambridge,
1927)
50. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: The Eaton Roundels (Eton College MS 177
2r)
222
203–223
Date and place of origin: England, 13th cent.
Published source: Mavroska V., Adam and Eve in the West-
ern and Byzantine Art of the Middle Ages. (Frankfurt, 2009),
fig. 8; Avril, H., The Eton Roundels: Eton College MS 177 ‘Figu-
rae bibliorum’ (Aldershot, 1990)
51. Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Cathedral in Rheims
Date and place of origin: Rheims, France, m.13th cent.
Published source: Brandt, P. Schaffende Arbeit und bildende
Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), p.230, Abb. 297
52. Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Cathedral in Chartres North Porch
Date and place of origin: Chartres, France, 13th cent.
Published source: Brandt, P. Schaffende Arbeit und bildende
Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), p. 230, Abb. 295
53. Description: Adam delving Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Bible, with the Interpretation of Hebrew
names, ‘The Bible of William of Devon’, (London, British Li-
brary MS Royal 1 DI f5)
Date and place of origin: England, c.1275–1300
Published source: J. Wirth (ed), Les marges à drôleries des
manuscrits gothiques (2008), p 94; image from internet, Brit-
ish Library website, http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminat-
edmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=8746&CollID=16&NSta
rt=10401
1300–1400 (Especially for France and Flanders
this is not an exhaustive catalogue)
Description: Angel giving Adam a spade (Text: angel gives
them spade, “beche” and distaff and spindle); the next im-
age Adam delving and Eve spinning (Text: Adam digs in the
dry earth)
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Queen Mary Psalter (London, British Li-
brary MS Royal 2 B VII)
Date and place of origin: London/Westminster or E. Anglia?,
England, c.1310–1320
Published source: Queen Mary’s psalter: Miniatures and
drawings by an English artist of the 14th century reproduced
from royal Ms. 2 B. VII in the British Museum. With introduc-
tion by Georg Warner (London, 1912) Pl.6, 17
Description: Adam delving, next image Adam with his
sons, sowing; then Adam with ‘Cayn’ harvesting with sickle
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), seed baskets
and sack, sickles
Original source: Biblia picta Velislai, ‘Velislai Bible’, (Prague,
National Library of the Czech Republic, XXIII.C.124 f5v)
Date and place of origin: Bohemia, 1325–1349
Published source: Husa, V., Traditional Crafts and Skills:
Life and Work in Mediaeval and Renaissance Times (London,
1967), p. 41, 209, cf. pl. 9, 11
RURALIA X
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300
Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Holkham Bible (London, British Library
Add. MS 47682 f4v)
Date and place of origin: England, c.1327–1335
Published source: The Holkham Bible picture book: a facsim-
ile. (2007). London: British Library 4v
Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Bible Historiale (London, British Library,
MS Yates Thompson 20 f.1
Date and place of origin: Paris, France, c.1320–1340
Published source: British Library website, http://www.bl.uk/
catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=8112
&CollID=58&NStart=20
Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning, child in
cradle
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Gammelgarn, Gotland, Sweden
Date and place of origin: Gotland, Sweden, first half of
14th cent.
Published source: Myrdal, J., Medeltidens åkerbruk (Stock-
holm, 1986), p.108
Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Stained glass, Hejde
Date and place of origin: Hejde, Gotland, Sweden,
m.14th cent.
Published source: Anderson, A., S.M. Nordman and C.A.
Roussell, Die Glasmalerien des Mittelalters in Skandinavien
(Stockholm, 1964) Taf. 126
Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Manuscript from Neapoli 14th c (Biblia
Hamliton, Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin)
Date and place of origin: Naples, 14th cent.
Published source: Salmi, M., Italienskt bokmåleri 1956 (La
miniatura italiana.. 1. ed. Milano 1956) p. 40
Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning?
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff? (Eve)
Original source: Paduan Bible, Rovigo, (Bibl dell’Academia
dei Concordi MS 212 f3r)
Date and place of origin: Italy, 14th cent.
Published source: Haney, K. E., The Winchester Psalter: An
Iconographic Study (Leicester,1986) pl. 45
RURALIA X
203–223
Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Misericord, Lund
Date and place of origin: Lund, Skåne, Sweden, l.14th cent.
Published source: Wrangel, E., Korstolarna i Lunds domkyrka
(Lund, 1930) pl.45:9, 45:11
Description: Adam and Eve receiving their tools
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Canterbury Psalter (Paris, Bibliothèque Na-
tionale de France, Lat. 8846 f.150v)
Date and place of origin: Catalonia, 3rd quarter of 14th cen-
tury
Published source: Brandt, P. Schaffende Arbeit und bildende
Kunst (Leipzig, 1927), p.229 Abb.292; detail in P. Mane, Le
travail à la campagne au Moyen Âge : étude iconographique
(Paris, 2006), p. 97 fig. 28
Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Petri Altar (Grabow Altarpiece) St Peter’s
Church (Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle)
Date and place of origin: Hamburg, Germany, c.1379–1383
Published source: Epperlein, S., Bäuerliches Leben im Mittel-
alter : Schriftquellen und Bildzeugnisse (Cologne, 2003), p.31;
Platte, H, Meister Bertram. Bilderhefte der Hamburger Kun-
sthalle (Hamburg, 1973) p. 37
Description: Adam working the land, Eve spinning
Implements pictured: Hoe (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Speculum humanae salvationis (London,
British Library MS Harley 3240 f6)
Date and place of origin: Germany or Switzerland, last quar-
ter 14th cent.
Source: image on internet: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/il-
luminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=7563&CollID=8&
NStart=2838
Description: Adam delving, Eve spinning, cradle with baby
Implements pictured: Iron-shod spade (Adam), distaff (Eve)
Original source: Speculum humanae salvationis (Harvard
University, Houghton Library, MS Lat 121 f 5v)
Date and place of origin: Bohemia, l.14th cent.
Published source: Wilson, A & Wilson, J. L., A medieval mir-
ror, Speculum Humanae Salvationis 1324–1500 (Berkeley,
1984), p 42
223
Myrdal – Sapoznik, Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–1300 203–223

224 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus
The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
Der Streichbrettpflug in Dänemark 200–1500 n.Chr.
La charrue au Danemark, 200–1500
Lars Agersnap Larsen
Introduction
The earliest history of the mouldboard plough in
the medieval Danish area, which is geographically
described by the present Denmark and Southern
Schleswig in North Germany, Scania, Halland and Ble-
kinge in Sweden, has been an object of thorough stud-
ies with varying intensity since the beginning of the
20th century (Larsen 2011, 7–13).
Until quite recently the introduction of the mould-
board plough in the Danish area was closely linked
with the open-field system, which is considered to
be the foundation of dynamic societal changes in the
Danish area c. 1000–1300 AD. The open-field sys-
tem is often explained in correlation with a medieval
agricultural and technological revolution, where the
mouldboard plough, ridged strips and crop rotation
were introduced together. Studies in Danish medieval
written sources seem to date the agrarian changes to
1000–1200 AD, whereby the use of the mouldboard
plough had not been thought of as being much older.
Until the end of the 1990’s this idea was not con-
tradicted by the Danish archaeological evidence for the
mouldboard plough, which in many ways is unique in
a European perspective. Subsequently new archaeo-
logical finds of well-preserved plough furrows made by
the mouldboard plough have been discovered which
clearly show that it was introduced to the Danish area
about 700–800 years earlier than previously thought,
that is, during the Late Roman Iron Age, about 200–
400 AD. This material challenges our knowledge about
the introduction of the mouldboard plough and the
history of the cultivation systems in the Danish area
up until the Middle Ages and therefore the material
has been the object of renewed investigations (Larsen
2011).
The Northwestern European background
of the mouldboard plough
The Roman agricultural literature mentions several
of the most important characteristics of the mould-
board plough: the mouldboard, the coulter and the
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 225–236.
FHG
225–236
forecarriage, but there are doubts about the reading
of the sources (White 1967, 130–145; Fries 1995, 38).
For a long time it has been commonly acknowledged
that the earliest evidence of the use of the plough is
known from the Dutch and Northwest German areas
by the North Sea. The oldest known examples come
from Oudemolen, Velsen Hoogovens, Moster and Vo-
gelenzang in The Netherlands, which are dated to the
4th–2th centuries BC (Poel 1961, 161; Jelgersma et al.
1970, 140–142, 166 and 6.11; Mezger 1969, 13–14,
30–31; Groenman-van Waateringe 1961, 88). The fur-
rows found at Denekamp are a bit younger and can be
dated to the period 250 BC to 55±6 AD (Verlinde 2004,
80–82), while the furrows found at Groningen can be
dated to the time around the birth of Christ (Griffen –
Praamstra 1973, 81). The oldest known example from
Germany derives from the excavations at Feddersen
Wierde, where the furrows are dated to the second half
of the 1st century BC (Haarnagel 1979, 261–264). Fur-
rows from the 2nd century AD have been found by
Haamstede in the Netherlands and by Ostermoor at
Brunsbüttelkoog north of the mouth of the Elbe (Poel
1961, 161; Bantelmann 1960, 60–61, 78–79). Hereby
there is evidence of the use of the mouldboard plough
at the latest in the Early Roman Iron Age, 1–200 AD,
just south of the old Danish area.
Archaelogical finds of plough parts
Archaeological finds include the only known ex-
amples of wooden parts from the plough, such as
the beam, the sheath, the sole and the mouldboard,
as well as the iron parts, the coulter, draught chains
and shares. In a meadow near Navndrup in Northern
Jutland a beam made of oak was found during drain-
age works. The beam has been radiocarbon dated to
1225–1385 AD (Vensild 1970; Larsen 2011, 20–23).
The well-preserved beam, which is almost complete,
measures 2.67 m in length, and has clear traces of the
positioning of the stilt and handle, the sheath and the
coulter together with the forecarriage near the front.
10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110467
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
All five known sheaths and soles from the plough
have been found in bogs at Tømmerby, Villersø, And-
bjerg, Onsild and Linå in Jutland (Lerche 1994; Lars-
en 2011, 23–33). Out of these, four sheaths and soles
have been radiocarbon dated to the Late Middle Ages,
1375–1536 AD, or Renaissance, 1536–1660 AD. They
are made from a bifurcated branch of oak or beech,
which on the side of the sole that cuts the soil has
been enhanced with little pebbles glued into drilled
holes with resin to reduce the heavy wear as it moves
through soil. The other side is protected by the mould-
board. They all show signs of wear and tear around
the hole and the tongue of the sole, on which the share
was placed in a relatively shallow angle of 10–17°.
The only two known mouldboards are both bog finds
from Øster Kippinge on Falster, but they are unfortu-
nately still undated (Larsen 2011, 62–64). Both mould-
boards are examples of the plain type, which was re-
placed by the curved type in the 18th century.
Fig. 1. Finds of plough furrows from 200 AD to 1500 AD in the old Danish area mentioned in the text.
226
225–236
Finds of coulters are known from Engelsborg, Gam-
mel Lindholm, Skaverup and Veksø together with two
stray finds known as Odense I and II. Presumably they
belong to the plough, although a tool known as the ris-
tle, which only consists of a coulter placed in a beam
with a handle, also used similar coulters (Larsen 2011,
56–57). There is no definite evidence of the use of a
coulter on the ard, though it sometimes has been sug-
gested (Larsen 2011, 56). The finds from Engelsborg
and Gammel Lindholm can with caution be dated by
context to the Late Middle Ages or Renaissance, while
the find from Veksø belongs to a deposit of tools which
is dated to the period c. 950–1050 AD. For the time
being the find is the oldest known part of the plough
from the Danish area; that is if it actually originates
from the plough (Larsen 2011, 56–60; Lund 2006).
The only two known draught chains from the Dan-
ish area have been found in the castle-moat Nørrevold
in the South of Jutland. They are dated to the middle
RURALIA X
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
of the 14th century like the rest of the archaeological
finds from the castle-moat (Madsen 1990).
Finds of shares show a surprising variety of shapes.
There is no clear understanding in the scientific liter-
ature of the distinction between shares from the ard
and the plough. Though it is a basic consideration
that a symmetrical constructed tool such as the ard
must have used symmetrically shaped shares, while
an asymmetrical tool such as the mouldboard plough
must have used asymmetrical shaped shares, which
ideally could undercut the furrow slice in front of the
one-sided mouldboard (e.g. Bentzien 1969, 58; 1980,
21–35; Fries 1995, 27–46; Larsen 2011, 34–56). A few
researchers have stated that the symmetrical share
should not always be interpreted as a share from an
ard, as they suggest that they originally were used on
the plough, but were gradually replaced as the advan-
tages of the asymmetrical share were recognised (eg
Henning 1987, 48–49; Lerche 1994).
No finds of wooden shares from the Danish area
are positively identified as shares from the plough,
although the share-like wooden object from the Vi-
king Age (750–1050 AD) settlement Gammel Hviding
near Ribe should probably be identified as an asym-
metrically shaped share (Lerche 1994, 290–291; Lars-
en 2011, 36–37). The only finds of shares, which are
convincingly identified as shares from the plough are
the distinctly asymmetrically shaped iron shares from
Gammel Lindholm, Nyborg, Odense, Alrø, Borgsted,
Ravnsborg and Nørrevold (Larsen 2011, 33–56). The
finds from Nørrevold are dated to the middle of the
14th century, while the finds from Ravnsborg are likely
to be dated to the High or Late Middle Ages. The finds
from Borgsted and Gammel Lindholm can with cau-
tion be dated to the Late Middle Ages or Renaissance,
while the find from Alrø can only be dated to before
1600 AD.
More than a 100 pieces of broken wheels and axles
have been found in bogs or in the ground in the Dan-
ish area. Several are dated to the period from Late Ro-
man Iron Age to the Late Middle Ages (Skovbo 1987).
None of the excavated parts can with certainty be
connected with the fore-carriage of the plough, as it
is not possible with certainty to differentiate between
the wheels and axles used variously on the wagon and
the plough. The diameter of wheels on the mouldboard
plough in the 18th and the 19th century usually range
from 60 cm to 80 cm, and eight wheels or fragments
of wheels have been interpreted cautiously as wheels
from a plough (Larsen 2011, 65–67).
The archaeological finds together with pictorial rep-
resentations on frescoes and seals from the Danish
area suggest that the plough was a four-sided construc-
tion with the mouldboard fixed on the right side. How
far back in time such a four-sided plough was used is
RURALIA X
225–236
not known with certainty. On illustrations from north-
west Europe it can be traced back to the second half
of the 10th century (Steensberg 1936, 262–271), which
probably without a doubt is the case with the Danish
area. It is possible that farmers in the Iron Age devel-
oped the method of construction that was best suited
to the asymmetrical function of the plough. Obviously
it would be wrong to expect that a tool that has been
used for more than 1500 years remained unchanged
in every way, and it cannot be ruled out that there were
other versions of the mouldboard plough.
Traces of the plough
We can recognise the traces, which the ploughs
made in the soil quite well. Where the ard only breaks
up a narrow strip of soil, and cuts a shallow furrow,
it is only with the introduction of the mouldboard
plough with its vertical coulter, horizontal share and
one-sided mouldboard that it became possible to cut
a furrow slice, and turn it to the side over the previ-
ous open furrow, so that the turf was turned face-down
(Larsen 2011, 79). It has been much debated if the ard
held in a slanting position was able to turn the soil in
the same way as the plough, but several experimental
ploughings with the ard point to the same conclusion:
the ard has not been able to produce unbroken furrow
slices or continuously turn the loosened furrow with
the turf face-down (Henning 1987, 68, note 41; Aberg –
Bowen 1960, 145; Thaer 1817, 10). Therefore evidence
of turned furrows is a very good indication of the use
of a mouldboard plough.
Often various disturbances have blurred or removed
the earlier traces of turned furrows. However, this does
not exhaust all possibilities. Where the ploughing was
too deep, or the topsoil was too thin, the plough could
leave traces of furrows in the underlying layers. Ex-
periments with reconstructed ploughs, and analyses
of undisturbed furrows show that the bottom of the
furrows typically prove to be soil-filled furrows up to
20–30 cm in width. In cross section it will often appear
almost wavy with a more or less steep side that cuts
the soil, an even middle section of c. 13–18 cm, and an
oblique furrow where it is scraped by the mouldboard
(Lerche 1994). In an archaeological context it will be
easy to separate the traces made by the ard from those
made by the mouldboard plough as long as more than
the lower few centimetres are preserved (Lerche 1994;
Larsen 2011, 80–84).
A field’s appearance is characterised by the plough-
ing implements. The plough with the fixed mouldboard
can basically make three different ploughing patterns,
which in certain combinations create different types
of fields:
227
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
• to gather a strip one begins ploughing in the mid-
dle, where the first furrow is ploughed towards the
middle, then the plough is turned, and the next fur-
row is turned towards the first and so on;
• in casting one begins along one edge of the strip,
where the first furrow is turned away, then the
plough is turned, and the same is done along the
opposite side and so on, until one reaches the mid-
dle of the strip;
• where all furrows are ploughed on the same side
over the entire width of the strip, ploughing begins
on one side, after which the plough is turned, and is
driven along the strip without ploughing, at the end
of the strip ploughing begins again alongside the
first furrow and so on.
Alternate gathering and casting will produce a flat
strip, while the ridged strip is produced when the field
is gathered more often than it is cast. Written sources
from the 18th century tell how Danish peasants usu-
ally maintained their ridged strips by gathering them
2–3 times as often as they were casted (Høegh 1795).
From the same written sources it is concluded that the
peasants first and foremost ploughed in the pattern
of the ridged strips because of their draining effect,
as surplus water could run away in the open furrows
between the ridges, especially when cultivating winter
crops, such as rye.
Occurrences of ridges give a clear indication of the
presence of the plough, but it does not follow that eve-
ry type of ridge is due to the plough, as the ard held in
a slanting position could produce narrow, low ridged
strips. This method is mentioned by Roman writers
(Vejbæk 2003, 142–144). The occurrence of flat fields
228
225–236
can be connected with either the ard or the plough,
and a proper identification of the tool requires traces
of the ard or the plough to be found.
Several hundred examples of flat and ridged strip-
fields are known in the Danish area. The majority is
preserved in open grassland and in forests, where the
ridges have been mapped by the use of Lidar technolo-
gy. In cultivated fields whole systems of levelled, ridged
strip-fields can sometimes be found on aerial photos
taken at a favourable time. For the time being it is dif-
ficult to date these fields by the use of traditional ar-
chaeological or scientific methods. Certainly many of
these are a relic of fields that were levelled, or maybe
even given up at the time of the agricultural reforms
in the decades around 1800 AD, but some field sys-
tems are likely to be several centuries older. This is the
case with the ridged fields in the forest Gribskov in the
north of Zealand, which can be seen around the village
of Krogsdal, which was abandoned before the middle
of the 16th century. None of these vast, fossilised field
systems has been subjected to more thorough investi-
gations.
Archaeological investigations have unearthed sev-
eral smaller occurrences of fossilised traces of the
plough dated from the Late Iron Age to the Middle
Ages, in the shape of ridges, turned furrows and fur-
row strips (Fig. 1).
Although fields ploughed by the mouldboard plough
are often so poorly preserved that it is not possible to
interpret the field structure, this is not the case with
the spectacular example at Klinkerne just south of
the mouth of Skjern Å in Ringkøbing Fjord (Eriksen
et al. 2009, 76–77, 301–302; Larsen 2011, 93–96).
Fig. 2. Section through turned plough
furrows dated to 500–800 AD exca-
vated at Klinkerne. Photo: Arkæologi
Vestjylland.
RURALIA X
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD 225–236

In 1999 parts of a well-preserved field with traces of

turned furrows was found on the surface of a beach
ridge beneath several layers of marsh soil (Fig.2; 3).
The field was 50 m in length and over 30 m in width.
The field was ploughed perpendicularly to the slope,
and a number of furrows were ploughed together in
ridges of c. 6–12 m in width. These were separated
by c. 1 m wide unploughed areas with the character
of shallow ditches. Most areas only showed signs of a
single ploughing after which the area seems to have
gone back to pasture. Based on a series of radiocarbon
dates from the humus and peat, a date of 500–800 AD
is suggested. This makes Klinkerne the oldest North-
ern European example of a ridged system of strip-
fields that dominated the cultivated landscape until
the beginning of the 19th century.
At Fjand south of Nissum Fjord parts of a very well-
preserved field of ridges and traces of turned furrows
was excavated in 1994–95 and in 2004. They were
covered by a thick layer of sand drift and traces of set-
tlement from the 13th century (Eriksen et al. 2009,
74–76, 296–297; Larsen 2011, 91–93). The ridges are
at least 150 m long and of various widths, but they
were mostly 9–10 m wide. Analyses show that the con-
tent of phosphorus in the topsoil is 200 mg/kg greater
than in the base of the soil, which from a theoretical
standpoint suggests the field was cultivated and fer-
tilized for about 125 years (Christensen 1997). On the
basis of finds dated to the Viking Age that were found
in the layers of sand drift, and radiocarbon dates of Fig. 3. The uncovered surface of turned plough furrows excavated at
material from the topsoil, a Viking Age or perhaps Late Klinkerne. Photo: Arkæologi Vestjylland.
Germanic Iron Age date, 550–750AD, is suggested.
Another well-preserved field of ridges and traces of
turned furrows was excavated at Filsø west of Varde be- On the islands Amrum and Föhr in the Wadden Sea
tween the 1960s and 1991. The field was partly covered more than 50 locations with intact ridges have been
by raw humus and partly covered by a thick layer of recorded in the sand hills. The dating is problematic,
sand drift, on which a house site from the second half but a date range of the Late Iron Age to the Middle Ages
of the 12th century was discovered (Vejbæk 2011; Lars- have been suggested (Hingst 1981).
en 2011, 88–91). Based on the dating of artefacts and Large parts of a field system with very narrow and
radiocarbon dates, the field is dated to 1050–1080 AD. low ridges covered by sand drift were excavated in
Soil-filled, open furrows from a ridged tillage sys- 1956 and 1980 at Lindholm Høje in Northern Jutland
tem were discovered in 1998 and 1999 at Grimballe (Ramskou 1957; Lerche 1981). The fields are divided in
in Southern Jutland. Several of the soil-filled furrows an area with c. 60 parallel ridges, and a smaller area
were cut by post-holes from a house site with fences of with c. 10 parallel ridges. The individual ridges var-
the 12th-century date, which indicates the field system ied between 5 m and 131 m in length and 0.5 m and
must be earlier than that (Larsen 2011, 102). –1.10 m in width, while the height from furrow to ridge
In the 1920’s to the 1960’s several square kilometres did not exceed 0.1 m. The ridges pre-date the late Vi-
of 8–10 m wide strip-fields with clear traces of turned king Age because of a house site of that date overly-
furrows were discovered on the island Südfall north of ing the sand drift, but how much earlier they are can-
Ejderstedt in the The Wadden Sea (Hagemeister 1979). not be determined. The making of the ridges has been
The fields were exposed by a strong tide, where protec- the subject of much debate, but the latest excavation
tive sediments of sand were temporarily washed away. seems to show evidence of furrows characteristic of
This fantastic fossil field system is part of the settle- the mouldboard plough can be recognized (Veibæk
ment and parish of Rungholt, which disappeared dur- 1974, 77–78; Lerche 1981, 113–114). Beneath the bar-
ing the storm surge on the 15th–17th January 1362. row at Grydehøj on Zealand a field system of narrow,

RURALIA X 229
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
low ridges were excavated in 1958, which typologically
resembled the fields at Lindholm Høje, although they
were only c. 0.6 m in width and a few centimetres high
(Andersen 1995). On top of the field a cremation was
discovered, which was radiocarbon-dated to the 7th
century AD, and the field it is presumed, was culti-
vated just before the burial. Like the site at Lindholm
Høje the type of plough that was used is debateable,
and both the plough and the ard have been suggest-
ed without having convincing arguments for either of
them (Andersen 1995, 115; Veibæk 1974, 74–76; 2003,
136–138).
In a number of locations smaller systems of regu-
lar, parallel, turned furrow slices have been uncovered,
but without their extent or the ploughing pattern being
determined. At the excavation in 1967–68 of the marsh
settlement Tating-Haferacker from 100–300 AD, paral-
lel and turned furrow slices were discovered directly
on the surface of a storm beach, which was covered by
accumulated peat and manure dated to the later phase
of the settlement (Bantelmann 1970). An excavation in
1990–94 of an iron production site from 200–450 AD
at Joldelund uncovered several parallel, turned fur-
row slices (Jöns 1997; Erlenkeuser – Willkomm 1997).
The partly overlapping furrow slices were discovered
beneath big slag heaps, indicating the traces must be
older than the other activities on the site.
The traces of turned furrows that were uncovered
beneath the oldest phase of Danevirke near Schleswig
in 2013 seem to have the same dating. The oldest
phase of the defensive earthwork Danevirke has not
been dated, but the second oldest phase is radiocar-
bon dated to the decades around 500 AD (Witte 2013).
230
225–236
Fig. 4. Section through turned plough
furrows dated to 200–700 AD exca-
vated at Henneby. Photo: Arkæologi
Vestjylland.
Also at Henneby in Western Jutland turned furrows
were dated stratigraphically to the period 200–700 AD
during excavations uncovered in 2012 (Fig. 4). The
only known settlement in the area is dated to Late Ro-
man Iron Age, and the excavators therefore carefully
suggest that the furrows may belong to the settlement
(Bentsen 2014).
In the beginning of the 8th century the marsh set-
tlement of Elisenhof was founded on a storm beach
on the northern side of the mouth of the Eider, which
in the following centuries developed into a settlement
mound. Nearby and beneath parts of the earliest settle-
ment of the 8th–9th centuries, traces of both ard and
turned furrows were found on the surface of the old
marsh (Bantelmann 1975), indicating the use of both
ard and plough in the Early Viking Age.
In 1972–74 traces of parallel, turned furrow-slices
were found by St. Sct. Peder Stræde in Viborg in the
top of a thick layer of buried topsoil. The traces of the
plough are older than c. 1050 AD, when a township
was laid out in the area. Possibly the traces should be
related to the Viking Age farm found south of the street
(Noe 1977). Interestingly the remains of a harrow with
wooden teeth were found in a well nearby. The harrow
has been radiocarbon dated to 810–990 AD (Lerche
1982). The remains of the harrow from Viborg must
be considered as further evidence of the use of the
plough in Viborg in the Viking Age.
Turned furrow slices in exposed sections have since
2003 been documented near the top of the steep cliffs
at Ulbjerg Klint north of Viborg. Their dating is a prob-
lem, but as they were covered with layers of sand drift,
RURALIA X
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
they can hardly be younger than the 15th–16th centu-
ries when a long period of sand drift began in the area
(Larsen 2013).
In a number of locations the bottom of turned fur-
rows have been found, which by all accounts must
be traces of the plough. In 1974 the bottom of two
different ploughings were found during excavations
in Dommerhaven in Ribe. The ploughings were con-
nected to a farm that was abandoned, when Ribe was
founded in the early years of the 8th century. There
were narrow ard marks in several directions, while the
other marks consisted of regular, parallel, broad fur-
rows, with slightly slanting furrow bottoms, which it
has been suggested were the result of ploughing with
an ard held in a slanting position (Veibæk 1974, 59–64;
Bencard – Jørgensen 1990, 53–57). Today this interpre-
tation will have to be rejected because the traces bear
no resemblance to any other known traces of the ard,
whether from archaeological contexts or experimental
ploughings. On the other hand the asymmetrical and
almost “wavy” cross-section of the marks resembles
the bottom of furrows made by a mouldboard plough,
found archaeologically and with experimental plough-
ing (Hardt 2003, 27; Larsen 2011, 110–112).
During excavations in 1979–81 at the church of
Sønder Vium a buried layer of topsoil was found be-
neath a thick layer of sand drift. At the bottom of the old
topsoil clear, parallel furrow traces were visible in the
underlying sand. They are interpreted as the bottom
of furrows made by the mouldboard plough. A date of
the Viking Age or the Early Middle Ages was suggested
because of ceramics found in the old topsoil (Jensen
1982). However the datable evidence is unclear, and
the excavation does not allow a date more precise than
c. 400–1150 AD, based on the furrow traces overlying
a burial dated to Late Roman Iron Age, and the base of
the Early Medieval church overlying them.
A number of similar traces of furrows are known
from other locations in the Danish area (Larsen 2011,
109–119). Here the interpretations have also been de-
bated, but it seems relevant to compare the material
and interpret the ploughings as having been made by
the mouldboard plough.
In light of the traces from Tating-Haferacker, Jold-
elund and Danevirke it must be assumed that the
mouldboard plough has been known and used in vast
parts of Southern Schleswig in the Late Roman Iron
Age. Possibly it can be shown that the plough was used
in the North of Jutland at this time, as the traces from
the plough found in Henneby may be from the Late Ro-
man Iron Age instead of the Germanic Iron Age, 400–
750 AD. In spite of the insecurity regarding Henneby,
the traces from Dommerhaven in Ribe and Klinkerne
show that the plough was known and used in signifi-
cant parts of Western Jutland at the latest in Late Ger-
RURALIA X
225–236
manic Iron Age. The other parts of the Danish area do
not present clear traces of the plough at this period,
although the furrows beneath Grydehøj in Zealand
might be due to the plough. Similarly the traces dated
to the Viking Age found in Hedeby, Fjand, Viborg, Lind-
holm Høje and Löddeköpinge show that the plough
must have been known and used in large parts of Jut-
land and parts of Scania before the end of the Viking
Age. Ttraces from the Early Middle Ages show evidence
of the plough at Filsø and at some other locations in
Jutland and on Funen, but so far no certain traces of
the plough are known from Zealand or Scania. Only a
few locations with traces of the plough are known in
the western part of the Danish area that are dated to
the later Middle Ages: Ringkøbing, Puggårdsgade in
Ribe, Amrum and Südfall.
At first sight this review of the fossil traces of the
plough suggests that the introduction of the plough in
the Danish area was a long process, which began in the
south of Schleswig at the latest in the Late Roman Iron
Age, and continued in western parts of Denmark by the
Germanic Iron Age at the latest, and in the remaining
parts of the Danish Area in the Viking Age at the latest.
The question is however, if the review has given a bet-
ter basis for answering when and how the mouldboard
plough became a regular tool in the various parts of
the Danish area. All things considered evidence for the
plough only survives where the conditions for preser-
vation have been particularly good, and where archaeo-
logical excavation has revealed turned furrows. In west-
ern Jutland especially, peaty soils and sand drift have
provided good conditions for preservation of turned
furrows, while the same conditions seldom exist in
other parts of Denmark. This is emphasised by the fact
that finds of turned furrows from the Middle Ages are
almost exclusively found in Western Jutland, although
the plough is considered to have been common in most
of the Danish area at this time. Therefore the absence
of fossilised turned furrows may not be used as evi-
dence of not having known and used the plough in the
area in question. Based on this it would be irrespon-
sible to dogmatically declare anything unambiguous
about the regional variations in the introduction of the
plough in the Danish area. The problem may be indi-
rectly answered by using another source material. Per-
haps the spread of rye cultivation may be used as an
indicator of the presence of the plough in a given area.
Rye cultivation as an indicator for the use
of the plough?
Rye, as we know it in historical time, does not re-
quire much from the type of soil, but it does require
that the soil has been loosened and that the soil is
not waterlogged. Also surface water can destroy the
231
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
rye (Larsen 1969, 23–24). Therefore the mouldboard
plough has been considered as the precondition for
a more widespread and systematic cultivation of rye,
and especially winter-grown rye, in the wet Northwest-
ern European lowlands. This is because the plough
could efficiently loosen the soil, and gather the fields
into ridged strips, which made draining the fields easi-
er (e.g. Porsmose 1988, 290). Up until the middle of the
19th century, when drain pipes began to be used ex-
tensively, ridged strips were the primary way of getting
rid of water in the fields on both heavy clay soils and
lighter sandy soils that have water-blocking layers of
clay, or hard pan, just below the turf (Dalsgaard et al.
2000, 59–64).
In the light of this it can be argued that a limited
cultivation of rye did not depend on ridged strips. You
could use the relatively few well-drained areas that ex-
isted, while the presence of a more systematically and
comprehensive cultivation of rye, especially winter-
grown rye, could indicate the presence of systems of
ridged strips and thereby the use of the mouldboard
plough. This assumption is supported by the fact that
the oldest known traces of the mouldboard plough
is coincident in date with the cultivation of rye as a
fully integrated crop south of the Danish area in the
Netherlands and the northwest Germany (Bebre 1992,
142–146), and a similar coincidence a little later of
traces of the mouldboard plough and the widespread
cultivation of rye in the southwest Danish area.
Archaeobotanical findings of rye from the Danish
area show that rye is found sporadically in the Late
Bronze Age, but only during the 3th–4th centuries AD
is rye found in large quantities in a number of loca-
tions in the Southwest Jutland, Northern Jutland and
on Funen, and may be considered a common crop
(Robinson et al. 2009; Larsen 2011, 120–123). At two
locations in the southwest Jutland it has been dem-
onstrated that some kind of crop rotation was already
practiced at the end of the Late Roman Iron Age, where
spring-grown barley was cultivated in a fertilized field
followed by winter-grown rye (Mikkelsen 2002; 2003).
This pattern continued and is emphasised during the
Germanic Iron Age, when rye gains considerably at
locations in most of Jutland and on locations in the
Southwest Scania, and in both Jutland and Scania
there are fairly clear indications that rye is winter-
grown (Robinson et al. 2009; Grabowski 2011). This
period shows great changes in the cultivated crops, as
the varieties were reduced to mainly oats, hulled barley
and rye. The trend from the Germanic Iron Age con-
tinued and is emphasised in the Viking Age, where rye
and hulled barley become more and more equally dis-
tributed (Robinson et al. 2009; Grabowski 2011).
The geographical spread of the crops makes it dif-
ficult to carry out detailed geographical comparisons
232
225–236
in time and space; especially as the development in
the Eastern Jutland, on Funen, and on Zealand is very
poorly illustrated due to an insufficient archaeobotani-
cal material, while Scania and the Northern, Western,
and Southern Jutland have been well investigated. The
general development clearly shows that rye after a cau-
tious start in Late Roman Iron Age is found increas-
ingly during the Germanic Iron Age and the following
years.
It would be irresponsible to draw too extensive con-
clusions on the relations between rye and the plough,
but if one accepts the thesis of a connection between
the mouldboard plough and a more wide-spread and
systematic cultivation of rye – and especially winter-
grown rye, then it is tempting to claim that the survey
reflects an agriculture where the mouldboard plough
has been used in the majority of the Danish area dur-
ing the Germanic Iron Age.
Perspectives on the early introduction
of the mouldboard plough
The mouldboard plough is interesting in both an
ecological and socio-economic context, because it had
a major significance for tillage and caused a restruc-
turing of the field structures that with time spread to
the structure of settlements and properties.
The idea of a technological revolution about 1000 AD
as a catalyst for the dynamic society changes is no
longer valid since the backdating of both the mould-
board plough, ridged strips and crop rotation clearly
show that these significant agricultural preconditions
of the medieval open-field system, have been very well-
known in the Danish area long before the open-field
system took shape at the beginning of the Early Mid-
dle Ages 1000–1200 AD. Thus there is no reason for
maintaining the idea of a technological revolution in
the Early Middle Ages. Instead the dynamic changes
in the Middle Ages is more likely to be explained by
a general economic expansion, which among other
things is expressed by a significant expansion in new
villages and the associated expansion of the cultivat-
ed landscape during the Early Middle Ages. Relatively
new Danish studies have estimated that the percent-
age of cultivated land rises from 2–5 % in c. 1000 AD
to around 11–17 % in c. 1250 AD, which shows that
the area of cultivated increased from three to five times
(Stenak et al. 2009, 288–289). Additionally crop areas
produce more than ten times more food energy than
the same areas would produce with meat production
(Lunden 1978).
In what connection the earlier introduction of the
mouldboard plough should be understood is far from
explained. This is due to the fact that our knowledge
RURALIA X
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
about the plough is still insufficient and unevenly
spread in time and space just like the evidence of cul-
tivation systems in the period from 200 to 1050 AD.
This can therefore not be much more than an outline.
It seems likely the introduction of the plough is con-
nected with significant changes in society during the
transition from the Early and Late Roman Iron Age
c. 200 AD, and is characteristic of society in the follow-
ing centuries (Jensen 2003, 377ff; Jensen 2004). The
changes are seen clearly in the structure of the settle-
ments, where many single farmsteads and small vil-
lages were abandoned and were gathered in fewer and
relatively larger villages. Farms were now separated by
fences, and they grew in size as well in numbers and
the size of the buildings. This suggests that the indi-
vidual farm had a bigger workforce than before, and it
suggests a more developed agrarian economy. The sep-
arate fencing of every farm probably indicates a struc-
ture where the occupancy of the common areas out-
side the village is connected with the individual farm.
The previous extensive field system of small Celtic
fields was abandoned at around the end of Early Ro-
man Iron Age and the beginning of the Late Roman
Iron Age, after which our knowledge of the develop-
ment and appearance of the field structures is limited
until 1000–1200 AD, when the Danish provincial laws
show signs of a development from an older structure
with individual cultivation systems to a fully developed
open-field system (Hoff 1997, 163–209).
At the same time in the Roman Iron Age changes in
the South West Norway, Östergötland, Uppland, Öland
and Gotland suggest that the extensive, space–con-
suming cultivation systems known as Celtic fields, are
replaced by a more intensive cultivation system, where
the fields of every farm were separately fenced in the
so-called infields surrounding the villages, while the
outfields with vast common pastures would be found
further away (Myhre 2002, 137ff; Pedersen – Widgren
1998, 292ff). This transformation of the cultivated
landscape had also taken place in the Danish area,
and one can easily imagine such an infield-outfield
system as the predecessor of the open-field system in
the Middle Ages. The development of the agriculture
in 200–1200 AD has been suggested as one long pe-
riod of constant change, probably with great regional
variety, where a livestock and an extensive cultivation
system was replaced over time by an improved live-
stock and intensive cultivation system based on crops
(Näsman 2009, 112–113). The earlier introduction
of the plough and the construction of ridged and/or
flat field systems must have influenced the organisa-
tion of the infield, and gradually made it impractical to
move the settlement around within the resource area,
as had been done since the centuries before Christ.
Estimations of the percentage of cultivated land from
RURALIA X
225–236
different Danish locations show that some settlements
already had cultivated fields during the Germanic
Iron Age that correspond to the medieval fields, while
other settlements have had far smaller areas (Odgaard
– Nielsen 2009). This difference in the proportion of
cultivation probably represents a transition from a
mainly livestock-based system to a crop-based system,
which at least in some locations began earlier than pre-
viously presumed. This is one of the reasons why we
currently see that some villages become fixed at their
present location in Late Germanic Iron Age, and not
exclusively in the transition between the Viking Age
and the Middle Ages c. 900–1100 AD, as it was previ-
ously suggested (Hansen 2011, 95–103).
By cultivating the soil more efficiently the mould-
board plough created the basis of a bigger production
of crops, and the introduction of crop rotation meant
a significant spread in risks and work. At last the Iron
Age peasant could plough the area for winter-crops im-
mediately after harvesting, and furthermore plough at
a time when the draught animals were in a good condi-
tion after a summer’s grazing. The cultivation of win-
ter-rye also meant that the crop was already planted
before the usual weeds became a problem. Also the in-
troduction of winter-rye meant a possibility to expand
the cultivated area in the spring, if the seeding in the
autumn had failed.
A number of indicators exist, which show that the
agrarian society of the Late Iron Age was able to pro-
duce an increasing surplus, which could support a
more complex society. This is shown, amongst other
things, by the foundation of big and rich productive
sites from the 6th and 7th centuries AD by the founda-
tion of the earliest towns like Ribe, Aarhus and Hedeby
in the 8th and 9th centuries, by the emergence of re-
gional kingdoms, and the wars over resources in the
period 200–600 AD (Jensen 2004; Jørgensen 1995).
The earlier introduction of the mouldboard plough fits
well in this development – not as one, but as one of
several significant factors.
Summary
The introduction of the mouldboard plough in the
medieval Danish area has until quite recently been
closely connected with the introduction of the open–
field system of the Middle Ages c. 1000–1200 AD.
Since the 1990’s new archaeological excavations and
new interpretations on old research have shown that
the mouldboard plough was used in the Southwest of
the Danish area c. 700–800 years earlier than previ-
ously assumed, i.e. Late Roman Iron Age c. 200–400
AD. Whether the earlier use takes place all over the
Danish area or there are regional differences, has not
yet been clearly demonstrated.
233
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD
Zusammenfassung
Die Einführung des Streichbrettpfluges in den Land-
schaften des mittelalterlichen Dänemark wurde bis vor
kurzem eng mit der Einführung der Dreifelderwirt-
schaft in der Zeit des 11./12. Jahrhunderts verknüpft.
Seit den 1990er Jahren haben neue archäologische
Forschungen mit einer Neubewertung älterer Unter-
suchungen gezeigt, dass der Streichbrettpflug im Süd-
westen des damaligen dänischen Gebiets schon 700
bis 800 Jahre früher als bisher angenommen verwen-
det wurde – nämlich seit der späten römischen Kaiser-
zeit. Bislang ist unklar, ob diese Beobachtung für ganz
Dänemark zutrifft, oder ob mit regionalen Unterschie-
den gerechnet werden muss.
Résumé
Jusqu’à tout récemment, l’introduction de la char-
rue au Danemark au Moyen Âge a été étroitement
liée à l’introduction de l’assolement entre 1000 et
1200. Depuis les années 1990, de nouvelles études
archéologiques et des réinterprétations des anciennes
recherches ont montré que la charrue fut en usage
dans la région sud-ouest du Danemark environ 700
à 800 ans plus tôt qu’initialement estimé. Il n’est pas
encore certain si cette diffusion précoce concerna
tout le Danemark ou seulement certaines régions.
Bibliography
Aberg, F. A. – Bowen, H. C. 1960:
Ploughing Experiments with a Reconstructed Donneruplund
Ard, Antiquity 34, 144–147.
Andersen, S. W. 1995:
Lejre – skibssætninger, vikingegrave, Grydehøj, Aarbøger for
nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1993, 7–142.
Bantelmann, A. 1960:
Die kaiserzeitliche Marschensiedlung von Ostermoor bei
Brunsbüttelkoog, Offa 16 1957/58, 53–79.
Bantelmann, A. 1970:
Spuren vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Besiedlung auf einem
Strandwall bei Tating, Eiderstedt, Probleme der Küsten-
forschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 9, 49–55.
Bantelmann, A. 1975:
Die frühgeschichtliche Marschensiedlung beim Elisenhof in
Eiderstedt. Landschaftgeschichte und Baubefunde.
Behre, K.-E. 1992:
The history of rye cultivation in Europe, Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany 1, 141–156.
Bencard, M. – Jørgensen, L. B. 1990:
Excavation and Stratigraphy, Ribe Excavations 1970–76,
Vol. 4 Text, 15–167.
234
225–236
Bentsen, L.C. 2014:
Museet for Varde By og Omegn, VAM 1653 Henneby. Unpub-
lished excavation report.
Bentzien, U. 1969:
Haken und Pflug.
Christensen, P. M. 1997:
Agerbrug i vikingetiden – et studie af fosfor i jorden, Geolo-
gisk Nyt 4, 12–15.
Dalsgaard et al. 2000:
Dalsgaard, K. – Mikkelsen, M. – Mortensen, F. K. – Od-
gaard, B. – Torp, S.– Thomsen, K. Y.:
Bakkeølandskabet, hede og fygesand, in: Mellem hav og hede,
59–86.
Eriksen et al. 2009:
Eriksen, P. – Egeberg, T. – Olesen, L. H. – Rostholm, H.:
Vikinger i vest. Vikingetiden i Vestjylland.
Erlenkeuser, H. – Willkomm, H. 1997:
14
C-Datierungen von Holzkohleproben der Ausgrabungen in
Joldelund, in: Frühe Eisengewinnung in Joldelund, Kr. Nord-
friesland: Ein Beitrag zur Siedlungs- und Technikgeschichte
Schleswig-Holsteins 1, 197–214.
Fries, J. C. 1995:
Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Agrartechnik auf der Britischen
Inseln und dem Kontinent. Eine vergleichende Studie.
Grabowski, R. 2011:
Changes in cereal cultivation during the Iron Age in southern
Sweden: a compilation and interpretation of the archaeobot-
anical material, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20:5,
479–494.
Griffen, A. E. – Praamstra, H. 1973:
De Groninger St.-Walburg en haar ondergrond.
Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 1961:
Nederzettingen van de Hilversumcultur te Vogelenzang (N.H.)
en Den Haag (Z.H.), in: In het voetspoor van A.E. van Giffen,
81–92.
Haarnagel, W. 1979:
Die Grabung Feddersen Wierde. Methode, Hausbau, Sied-
lungs- und Wirtschaftsformen sowie Sozialstruktur.
Hagemeister, J. 1979:
Rungholt. Sage und Wirklichheit.
Hansen, J. 2011:
Rynkeby – 14C-dateringer i en fynsk landsby med stedkon-
tinuitet fra yngre germansk jernalder, in: Fynske Minder,
95–103.
Hardt, N. 2003:
Jernalderens og vikingetidens landbrug, in: Det Sønderjyske
Landbrugs Historie. Jernalder, vikingetid og middelalder.
Henning, J. 1987:
Südosteuropa zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. Berlin.
Hingst, H. 1981:
Spuren alter Achersysteme auf der Insel Amrum, Offa 37,
316–333.
Hoff, A. 1997:
Lov og Landskab. Landskabslovenes bidrag til forståelsen
af landbrugs- og landskabsudviklingen i Danmark ca. 900–
1250.
RURALIA X
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD 225–236

Høegh, H. J. C. 1795: Mikkelsen, P. H. 2003:

Ansiisning til et velindrettet Jordbrug. Det arkæobotaniske indhold i jernudvindingsovnene, in:
Jelgersma et al. 1970: Drengsted. Bebyggelse, jernproduktion og agerbrug i yngre
Jelgersma, S. – de Jong, J. – Zagwijn, W. H. – van Regteren romersk og ældre germansk jernalder, 183–205.
Altena, J. F.: Myhre, B. 2002:
The coastal dunes of the western Netherlands; geology, veg- Landbruk, landskab og samfunn 4000 f.Kr.–800 e.Kr., Norg-
etational history and archaeology, in: Mededelingen Rijks Ge- es landbrukshistorie I, 11–213.
ologische Dienst. Nieuwe Serie 21, 93–167.
Näsman, U. 2009:
Jensen, J. Aa. 1982: Jernalderens driftformer i arkæologisk belysning, Danske
Under Sønder Vium kirke – jernaldergrav, hedeopdyrkning landbrugslandskaber gennem 2000 år, 99–116.
og sandflugt, in: Fram 1982, 24–40.
Noe, P. 1977:
Jensen, J. 2003: Pre-Medieval Plough Marks in Viborg, Tools and Tillage III:1
Danmarks Oldtid. Ældre Jernalder 500 f.Kr.–400 e.Kr. 1976, 59–64.
Jensen, J 2004: Odgaard, B. – Nielsen, A. B. 2009:
Danmarks Oldtid. Yngre Jernalder og Vikingetid 400–1050 Udvikling i arealdækning i perioden 0–1850 – Pollen og
e.Kr.
landskabshistorie. In: Danske landbrugslandskaber gennem
Jöns, H. 1997: 2000 år, 41–58.
Ergebnisse der archäologischen Untersuchungen. In: Frühe
Pedersen, E. A. – Widgren, M. 1998:
Eisengewinnung in Joldelund, Kr. Nordfriesland: Ein Beitrag
Järnalder 500 f.Kr. – 100 e. Kr., in: Det Svenska Jordbrukets
zur Siedlungs- und Technikgeschichte Schleswig-Holsteins 1,
historia. Jordbrukets första femtusen år, 237–459.
45–196.
Poel, J. M. G. van der 1961:
Jørgensen, L. 1995:
De landbouw in het verste verleden, Berichten van de Rijks-
Stormandssæder og skattefund i 3.–12. århundrede, Fortid
dienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodenmonderzoek 10–11,
og Nutid, 2, 83–110.
1960–1961, 125–194.
Larsen, P. H. 1969:
Porsmose, E. 1988:
Kornets dyrkning, Landbrugets Plantedyrkning II, 23–44.
Middelalder o. 1000–1536, Det danske landbrugs historie 1,
Larsen, L. A. 2011: 205–417.
Muldfjælsploven i Danmark. Fra yngre romersk jernalder til
senmiddelalder. Nyhedsbrevets ph.d. afhandlinger og special- Ramskou, T. 1957:
er, Ny række, bind 20. Et landbrug fra 1000 årene på Lindholm Høje, Fra National-
museets Arbejdsmark 1957, 97–100.
Larsen, L. A: 2013:
Viborg Museum, VSM G419 Ulbjerg Klint. Unpublished re- Robinson et al. 2009:
port. Robinson, D. E. – Mikkelsen, P. H. – Malmros, C.:
Agerbrug, driftsformer og planteressourcer i jernalder og vi-
Lerche, G. 1981:
kingetid (500 f.Kr. – 1100 e.Kr.), in: Danske landbrugslandsk-
Additional comments on the Lindholm Høje Field, Tools and
aber gennem 2000 år, 117–142.
Tillage IV:2, 110–116.
Skovsbo, P. O. 1987:
Lerche, G. 1982:
Oldtidens vogne i Norden.
A Viking Harrow Down a Well, Tools and Tillage IV:3, 185–191.
Steensberg, A. 1936:
Lerche, G. 1994:
North West European Ploughtypes of Prehistoric Times and
Ploughing Implements and Tillage Practices in Denmark
the Middle Age, Acta Archaeologica 7, 244–280.
from the Viking Period to About 1800. Experimentally Sub-
stantiated. Stenak el al. 2009:
Lund, J. 2006: Stenak, M. – Rømer, J. R. – Näsman, U. – Odgaard, B.:
Vikingetidens værktøjskister i landskab og mytologi, Forn- Landskabsforandringer gennem 2000 år, in: Danske land-
vännen 101:5, 322–341. brugslandskaber gennem 2000 år, 283–301.

Lunden, K. 1978: Thaer, A. 1817:

Forholdet mellem åker- og dyreproduksjon i eldre tid, Heimen Grundsætninger for Landoeconomien. Tredje Deel. Trans-
17, 687–698. lated by J. C. Drewsen.

Madsen, L. S. 1990: Veibæk, O. 1974:

Dagligliv på Nørrevold – hvad udgravninger og genstande Ploven og dens betydning med særlig henblik på landsbyor-
kan berette, Sønderjyske Årbøger 1990, 5–20. ganisation.
Mezger, J. 1969: Vejbæk, O. 2003:
Vondsten van het Monsterse Geestje, Westerheem 18, 3–42. Om agerryggenes oprindelse og udvikling, in: Bol og by 2003:
1–2, 133–187.
Mikkelsen, P. H. 2002:
Fra bondens mark – arkæologiske undersøgelser af jernalde- Vejbæk, O. 2011:
rens agerbrug, Naturens Verden 6, 38–45. Agre og miler ved Filsø, Kuml 2005, 187–224.

RURALIA X 235
Larsen, The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD 225–236

Vensild, H. 1970: White, K. D. 1967:

Navndrupåsen. Et bidrag til hjulplovens historie, in: Bidrag
til Viborgegens topografi og historie, 52–70, 153–154.
Verlinde, A. D. 2004:
De Germaanse nederzetting te Denekamp binnen een regio-
naal archeologisch kader van de Romeinse tijd, Overijsselse
Historische Bijdragen 119, 57–92.
Agricultural Implements of the Roman World.
Witte, F. 2013:
Unpublished results from the excavation at Danevirke in
2013. The excavation has been carried out by ”Archäologi-
sches Landesamt Schleswig-Holstein” and ”Museum Sønder-
jylland – Arkæologi Haderslev”.

Lars Agersnap Larsen, Viborg Museum, Hjultorvet 4, DK-8800 Viborg, L4L@viborg.dk

236 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 237–245

Norse agriculture in Greenland?

Farming in a remote medieval landscape
Altnordische Landwirtschaft in Grönland?
Ackerbau in einer entlegenen mittelalterlichen Landschaft

L’agriculture norroise au Groenland?

Pratiques agricoles dans un paysage médiéval isolé

Peter Steen Henriksen

Introduction
The Norse settlers in Greenland were essentially
livestock farmers with dietary supplements from
hunting and fishing. According to ‘Kongespejlet’ (‘The
Kings’ Mirror’) written about 1260, the Norse also at-
tempted to cultivate cereals in Greenland (Larson 1917)
and archaeological finds of millstones, one of which
was locally produced, show that they processed cere-
als or other seeds. But we know very little about the
extent of their arable farming, how successful it was
or which plants were cultivated. To investigate these
questions plant material (cereal grains, seeds, leaves
and twigs) found in sediment samples from archaeo-
logical excavations of Norse farms have been analysed
and identified, a technique known as plant macrofos-
sil analysis. Macrofossil analysis of occupational sites
and rubbish dumps (middens), has given us a fairly
thorough knowledge of prehistoric farming in Scan-
dinavia but it has not been much used in Greenland.
To date only one Norse barn and three middens from
the Western Settlement (east of Nuuk) (McGovern et al.
1983; Fredskild – Humle 1991; Ross – Zutter 2007) and
a peat deposit close to Norse ruins in Qassiarsuk in
the Eastern Settlement have been analysed for plant
macrofossils. Qassiarsuk is probably the same site
which was known as Brattahlið when Erik the Red set-
tled there in 985 AD (Fredskild 1978).
The Norse arrived in Greenland with a tradition for
farming going back thousands of years but they had
to adapt to the new and different surroundings. Wheth-
er they tried to retain their tradition of mixed arable
and livestock farming in spite of the severe climate or
whether they quickly abandoned any attempt to culti-
vate the soil is not known. An alternative to growing
crops would have been the importation of grain and/
or the harvesting of seeds from locally growing wild
grasses such as lyme grass (Leymus mollis). Sediment
samples were collected for macrofossil analysis from a
series of Norse ruin sites during three field seasons in
2010, 2011 and 2012 in an attempt to address the ques-
tion of whether the Norse cultivated their own grain or
imported it from abroad. An additional aim of the pro-
ject was to investigate the possible manuring of the in-
fields using phosphate analyses of soil samples from
both the infield and outfield areas at Norse settlements.
Soil phosphorus values are elevated due to the deposi-
tion of household refuse and animal dung and are an
indicator of human activity (Holliday – Gartner 2007).
Fieldwork
A series of Norse ruins from Vatnaverfi, Qorlortup
Itinnera and Igaliku, which the Norse knew as Garð-
ar, were investigated during three summer seasons
(2010–12) (Fig. 1). Further description of the fieldwork
can be found in Henriksen (2010; 2012). The middens
around the Norse houses were located using an open
soil sampler (gouge auger). Only small midden re-
mains were found at most of the ruins from Qorlort-
up Itinnera and only a few samples were taken from
these sites. Some more complete middens have sur-
vived, one of which covered around 100 m2 and is up
to 0.75 m thick and located directly southeast of the
Ø35 ruin (Fig. 1). A drainage channel was dug through
this midden in the mid-1980s and we know from the
local sheep farmer that well-preserved wooden arte-
facts including barrel staves were unearthed. It was
observed during sampling in 2010, that this drainage
has caused the groundwater level to fall below the mid-
den and that it has now dried out and no wooden ma-
terial is now preserved. A large amount of carbonised
material was however found in the midden layers and
around 20 sediment samples were taken (Fig. 2). The
middens at the two sites, Ø3 and Ø4, were sampled
in the western end of Qorlortup Itinnera. The ruins
are well preserved at both sites, and only affected by
modern farming to a minor degree. The middens are

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 237–245.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110468
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape 237–245

ed from selected layers for flotation during the rescue

excavation.
North of Igaliku and the bishop’s residence, a small
farmstead (Ø49) is situated at the end of Igaliku Fjord.
A 0.7 m-thick midden was found just south of the
dwelling. The midden is still rather well preserved with
partly degraded remains of bone and other organic
matter. A series of sediment samples were taken from
this site. Site Ø64 is situated 12 km southeast of Ig-
aliku at the end of Kujalleq fjord. This site has been
excavated several times. The midden was recorded
as degraded in 2008 when a trench was excavated
(Arneborg et al. 2009). The trench was still clearly vis-
ible on the surface in 2011 allowing easy sampling
and as pieces of charcoal were clearly visible in the
profile, a series of samples were taken for flotation.
Another smaller ruin group (Ø209) was investigated
400 m northwest of Ø64 and a 0.15 m thick midden
layer was found under the remains of wall turfs just
next to the dwelling. The midden was dry and degrad-
ed but contained a lot of charred material and a series
of samples were therefore similarly taken for flotation.
The last ruin group visited was Ø171 in the Vatnah-
verfi region where thick, well preserved midden layers
had previously been recorded in a drainage channel.
Remains of bones and wooden artefacts were well
preserved in this midden due to a high ground water
Fig. 1. Map of south-west Greenland showing the location of the Norse level. Two profiles were sampled as there were good
farms investigated during the project.
preservation conditions for both burnt and unburnt
material.
very dry and therefore the organic remains are almost
completely degraded. Nevertheless carbonised mate-
rial is still preserved in the two middens and a series
of sediment samples were taken for flotation. Samples
for phosphate analyses were also taken at both sites
from infield and outfield areas and from all houses
and pens at 20 m intervals and from just above the
subsoil. All total 343 phosphate samples were taken
covering an area of 12 hectares at Ø3 and Ø4.
The ruins at the Norse bishop’s residence at Garðar
(ruin Ø47), Igaliku, are associated with a midden situ-
ated 100–150 m to the east and covering hundreds
of square metres. The midden consists of peat layers
with a lot of charcoal, bones, wood chips and other
wooden waste. A rescue excavation was carried out
through the RAPID Garðar Collaborative Rescue Project
(http://www.nabohome.org/cgi_bin/explore.pl?seq
=161) in 2012 due to the cutting of the midden by a se-
ries of drainage channels. During the excavation many
cubic metres of midden were wet sieved producing ar-
chaeological artefacts of bone, soapstone and wood. At
the same time, samples for macrofossil analysis were
collected from the drainage channel walls during the
field season of 2010 and further samples were collect- Fig. 2. The excavation at Ø35. Photo Inge Kjær Kristensen.

238 RURALIA X
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape
A total of 100 sediment samples of 2–5 litres, equiv-
alent to 450 kg of sediment were taken over the three
summer field seasons. Additional midden samples
collected in 1997 by Charlie Christensen and Annine
Moltsen from a midden at Ø34 (a few hundred metres
east of Ø35 in Qorlortup Itinnera) and stored at the
National Museum of Denmark were also available for
analysis.
Sample analysis
The macrofossil analysis of the sediment samples
and the phosphate analysis were undertaken at the
National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen. The
samples were split in two groups as defined by the hy-
drological status of the middens: wet and dry.
Wet middens
The middens at Ø34 and Ø47 are situated in local
depressions and saturated by a high water table result-
ing in good preservation of the organic material. Peat
growth during the Norse period and later means that
plant remains, wooden artefacts, wood chips, bone,
charcoal and other waste are preserved in the peat.
This also means that so many seeds and other plant
material are preserved that their extraction is labori-
ous and a very time-consuming process. Up to 2000
seeds per 100 ml of sediment were preserved in some
layers at these middens and in these cases, only 100
ml of sediment was analysed from each layer. The sam-
ples were wet sieved, i.e. washed through sieves with
mesh sizes down to 0.25 mm and the plant material
was identified, to species if possible, using a dissecting
microscope. Carbonised plant material was also found
at the Ø47 midden during the rescue excavation of the
midden in 2012. However, the mesh size was 4 mm
and thus only large plant material was found.
Dry middens
The middens at Ø3, Ø4, Ø35, Ø49, Ø64 and Ø209
are more or less fully dried out, either because they
were originally deposited on dry ground or because of
the digging of modern drainage channels. The organic
material in the middens is therefore either partially
or totally degraded and only burnt plant material was
preserved. This has allowed larger sample sizes to be
analysed, as burnt seeds and other plant material can
be separated from the sediment matrix by flotation.
During flotation the sample is poured into water, the
charcoal and other burnt material floats to the surface
and can then be passed through a fine sieve. The col-
lected material can then be sorted and identified using
a dissecting microscope. Seeds and other plant mate-
RURALIA X
237–245
rial were identified by comparison with modern plant
material in the National Museum of Denmark’s refer-
ence collection.
The phosphate samples
The phosphate samples from Ø3 and Ø4 were ana-
lysed using a Merck Reflectoquant RQflex 10, a port-
able reflectometer combined with phosphate sensitive
test-strips. This is an advanced spot test measuring
the acid soluble phosphate in the soil samples. A 1 ml
subsample of dry soil was mixed with 5 ml of water
and ten drops of reagent (sulphuric acid). After two
minutes a test strip was immersed in the mixture for
1.5 minutes and then measured. In the sulphuric solu-
tion orthophosphate ions (PO43–) react with molybdate
ions on the test strip to form molybdophosphoric acid.
This is reduced to phosphomolybdenum blue (PMB)
that is determined reflectometrically in the RQflex 10.
Results
Midden content
The macrofossil analysis results from the still wet
midden at Ø34 and the drained and dried out midden
at Ø35 are shown in Fig. 3. The macrofossil results
from Ø34 and Ø35 illustrate the general pattern of
most of the wet and dry middens. The two farms were
situated around 700 m apart in the eastern part of the
Qorlortup Itinnera valley north of Qassiarsuk and the
middens probably formed in the same way with a simi-
lar water saturation and contents prior to the drainage
at Ø35.
The wet midden plant macrofossil content is domi-
nated by stems and roots of herbs and grasses, moss-
es and thousands of unburnt seeds. The latter come
partly from wetland taxa dominated by blinks (Mon-
tia fontana) with whorl-grass (Catabrosa aquatica),
silverweed (Potentilla anserina), rushes (Juncus sp.)
and sedges (Carex sp.) and partly ruderal taxa with
common chickweed (Stellaria media), knotgrass (Po-
lygonum aviculare) and shepherd’s purse (Capsella
bursa-pastoris). Among the very small amount of burnt
material found were twigs and fragments of willow (Sa-
lix sp.) and birch (Betula sp.) along with other woody
fragments and occasional seeds of grasses and com-
mon chickweed (Stellaria media). Fragments of the
seaweed knotted wrack (Ascophyllum nodosum), which
is presently abundant on rocks in the tidal zone along
protected coasts of southwest Greenland, were also
found. The burnt material in the midden is interpreted
as fireplace residue from the houses.
The on-site wet sieving of Ø47 at Garðar during the
rescue excavation of the midden resulted in a consid-
239
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape 237–245

Fig. 3. Macrofossil concentration (per 100 ml.) diagrams

from the middens at Ø34 and Ø35. Carbonised plant re-
main are shown in red, uncarbonised in green and char-
coal in black.

erable amount of household waste, including bones,
wood and charcoal. Additionally, two burnt barley
(Hordeum vulgare) kernels and a few burnt fragments
of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) were found. One of the
hazelnut fragments has been radiocarbon dated to
994–1154 cal. AD (Table 1). These plant remains were
found using a 4 mm mesh sieve and many cereal
grains may have been lost.
Very little unburnt plant material was preserved in
the dry middens and this material consisted mainly
of seeds of blinks and megaspores of lesser clubmoss
(Selaginella selaginoides), both of which are very resist-
ant to degradation. The decomposition of the organic
material in the midden has led to an increase in the
relative concentration of the burnt component. This ef-
fect is illustrated at Ø35 which had up to 15,000 char-
coal fragments ( 1 mm) in 5 litres of sediment. These
fragments mainly consisted of wood fragments of
birch, willow and, as in most middens, numerous frag-
ments of knotted wrack. One small midden immediate-
ly outside a house at Ø37 situated 4 km from the coast
consisted almost entirely of burnt knotted wrack.
The most significant and important discovery from
this project is the burnt remains of cereal grains from
Norse farmsteads. Those from the midden at Ø47 are
mentioned above but three other middens also pro-
duced cereal remains (Fig. 4). At Ø3, a kernel of barley
was found in the lowest 0.15 m of the midden. Two ra-
diocarbon dates of (1) a willow twig and (2) a crowberry
(Empetrum nigrum) seed and seeds of common chick-
weed from the same layer gave ages of 1044–1216 cal.
AD and 1022–1180 cal. AD respectively.

Calibrated age (2σ) Radiocarbon Age Dating ID

IntCal09 BP
Ø47, nutshell 994–1154 AD 983 ± 25 AAR-17478
Ø49, twig 1031–1183 AD 916 ± 25 AAR-18161
Ø49, seeds 1030–1176 AD 919 ± 25 AAR-18162
Ø35, twigs 897-1025 AD 1054 ± 30 AAR-18163
Ø35, buds 997–1155 AD 978 ± 25 AAR-18164
Ø3, seeds 1022–1180 AD 932 ± 35 AAR-18165
Tab.1. The C14 dates from the Norse
Ø3, twig 1044–1216 AD 889 ± 25 AAR-18166 sites with cereal finds.

240 RURALIA X
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape
2 mm
Ø3 Ø35
Ø47 Ø49
Fig. 4. The barley finds. The finds from Ø3, Ø47 and Ø49 are grains.
The finds from Ø35 are two rachis segments, the part that joins the
grains with the straw. Photo Peter Steen Henriksen.
At Ø49, a kernel of barley was found in the lowest
10–30 cm of the midden. Two radiocarbon dates of
(1) a twig from glandular birch (Betula glandulosa) and
(2) seeds of crowberry and juniper (Juniperus commu-
nis) from the same layer gave ages of 1031–1183 cal.
AD and 1030–1176 cal. AD respectively. Finally, and
most importantly, at Ø35, two rachis of barley were
found in a very charcoal-rich layer in the lower 5 cm
of the midden. Two radiocarbon dates of (1) glandu-
lar birch twigs and (2) birch and willow buds from the
same layer gave ages of 897–1025 cal. AD and 997–
1155 cal. AD respectively.
RURALIA X
237–245
The phosphate analyses
The results of the analyses are shown in Fig. 5. The
results are given as mg PO43–/l. Although the results
are considered only semi-quantitative, due to extrac-
tion with sulphuric acid not measuring all types of soil
phosphate, this method has been shown to reliably
indicate human activity at archaeological sites (Holli-
day – Gartner 2007). Background levels of phosphate
are generally very low to zero outside the area of the
ruins at both Ø3 and Ø4. Areas with intense human
activity such as houses, stables and middens there-
fore showed a distinct increase in values. Outside the
ruins, only a few areas showed a limited increase in
phosphate values.
Discussion
Is this evidence of Norse cereal cultivation?
The occurrence of barley in the oldest layers of four
out of the seven of the more thoroughly investigated
middens suggests that barley was fairly common in
the households of the earliest Norse settlers in south-
ern Greenland. It is difficult however, to determine how
barley was used or how extensively it was used, purely
on the basis of these finds of kernels and rachis.
The important question is whether the Norse set-
tlers cultivated their own cereals in Greenland or
whether they imported all their grain from abroad. We
know that flax (Linum usitatissimum) was cultivated by
the Norse, as flax pollen were found in samples from
Fig. 5. Maps showing the distribution of soil
phosphate at the two sites Ø3 and Ø4. The re-
sults are given as mg PO43–/l.
241
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape
midden layers from the Western Settlement (Sørensen
1982; Fredskild – Humle 1991). Flax plants produce
only few, heavy pollen grains that are not easily wind
dispersed and hence usually are found very close to
the plant itself.
Cereal-like pollen has been found at numerous sites
in the Eastern Settlement and this has led to the sug-
gestion that the Norse cultivated cereals (Edwards et
al. 2008). The cereal-like pollen type was not present at
several of these sites prior to the Norse settlement, but
as it cannot be differentiated from the wild lyme grass,
it cannot be used as definitive evidence of Norse cereal
cultivation. The rachis found at Ø35 is a very strong
indication that there was local cultivation of cereals. It
is very unlikely that grain was transported to Green-
land prior to threshing, not only because it would take
up a lot of space, but also because straw bales in open
Viking ships would be difficult to keep dry, affecting
both the grains’ ‘shelf life’ and germination potential.
Any grain exported to Greenland would probably have
already been threshed and sealed in watertight con-
tainers for transportation. If additional cereal kernels
can be found, further insight into the question of lo-
cal cultivation versus import could be gained by prov-
enance analysis using strontium and lead isotopes
(Frei – Frei 2011).
It has previously been discussed whether it was at
all possible to grow barley to maturity in southern
Greenland during the Norse period (Hansen 1991).
Experiments conducted in 1997 by local agricultural
consultant Kenneth Høegh showed that Norwegian
and Icelandic barley types can reach germination ma-
turity in the inner, warmest regions of the Eastern
Settlement (K. Høegh 2011, pers. comm.). The climate
during the beginning of the Norse period was as warm
as the present day or slightly warmer (Arneborg 2005)
and would not have prevented barley cultivation.
Is there evidence of manuring the infields?
It has been previously suggested that the infields
were intensively manured to improve haymaking
(Krogh 1982). These phosphate results do not sug-
gest any form of manuring at any significant level and
therefore give little information about possible agricul-
ture in the infields. The areas outside the ruins that
show a limited increase in soil phosphate values prob-
ably represent traces of buildings or other structures
which are no longer visible.
Seaweed use
Burnt residue of knotted wrack (Fig. 6) was found
in many samples from most of the middens from both
242
237–245
coastal and inland farmsteads, for example at Ø36
which is located 5 km from the coast. Its presence in
the domestic middens shows that it was commonly
used in Norse households. The use of seaweed for nu-
merous purposes is known from the North Atlantic
area.
The discovery of a container with fly maggots and
carbonised seaweed at the Norse farmstead Gården
under Sandet in the Nuuk area is the basis for the sug-
gestion that seaweed was used by the Norse to produce
salt for the conservation of meat (Buckland – Panagio-
takopulu 2005).
It is known from Iceland that during historic times
knotted wrack was used as fuel and to a lesser ex-
tent also as food for humans (Hallsson 1964). Knot-
ted wrack is tasty (author’s experience) with a high
vitamin and mineral content (Pedersen 2011) and may
therefore have been a beneficial part of the diet of the
Norse population in a landscape where access to other
vegetables was very limited. From the Icelandic sagas
it is known that another species of seaweed, dulse
(Rhodymenia palmata) was eaten by Icelanders in the
early medieval period. The use of knotted wrack as
feed for sheep is known from Norway (Pedersen 2011)
and Iceland (Hallsson 1964), but isotopic analysis of
animal bones from Norse farms in Greenland shows
that marine fodder was probably not used (Nelson et
al. 2012). It is not possible to know which of the above
mentioned uses of seaweed was practised in the Norse
households but the abundance of carbonised seaweed
in almost all the Norse middens and especially the
concentration of seaweed in the midden at Ø36, could
point at the use of seaweed as fuel.
Vegetation around the Norse settlements
The macrofossil analysis also gives information
about the plants growing on the middens and shows
that they were vegetated by both annual weeds and
wetland plants. The annual plants were dominated by
common chickweed, annual meadow-grass (Poa an-
nua), knotgrass and shepherd’s purse. These are all
taxa which were brought to Greenland by the Norse
settlers in, for example, animal fodder or seeds (Fred-
skild 1988; Schofield et al. 2013). Blinks dominates the
wetland plant taxa and was abundant on all the ana-
lysed middens, showing that there was lush vegetation
around the middens where there was ample moisture
and a high nutrient level. Similar vegetational com-
positions were found in previous investigations of
Norse sites in both the Eastern and Western Settle-
ments (Fredskild 1969; McGovern et al. 1983; Fredskild
– Humle 1991; Ross – Zutter 2007) and are currently
being re-established around the modern sheep farms.
RURALIA X
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape
5 mm
Future perspectives
This project has shown that barley was present in
the Eastern Settlement during the early Norse period
and is the first secure evidence of this. No further con-
clusions regarding the scale of local cultivation ver-
sus importation, nor how the cereals were used, can
be made due to the limited sample sizes from each
investigated farm and the resulting small number of
finds. Focused, detailed excavations and larger sam-
ple sizes are needed to clarify how cereals were used
and whether they were cultivated in Greenland. The
two farmsteads where cereals have already been found
(Ø35 and Ø49) both have c. 0.7 m of undisturbed,
stratified midden layers preserved and these would
be a natural choice for further investigations. The mid-
dens are partly dried out which means that, although
much of the organic material has degraded, on-site
flotation of the sediment would allow the processing
of large samples and therefore a larger and more repre-
sentative amount of burnt material could be analysed.
The analysis would cover the whole of the Norse period
and additionally enable us to collect enough material
for strontium and lead isotope analysis and possibly
answer the important question of whether the cereals
were grown in Greenland or whether they were import-
ed. An extra bonus from these investigations would
be the large amount of charcoal collected. This can be
identified and would give important information re-
garding the fuel economy of the Norse period and the
resources available at the time.
Summary
The aim of the project Norse Farming in Greenland?
Agriculture on the edge was to determine whether the
RURALIA X
237–245
Fig. 6. Carbonised remains of the seaweed knot-
ted wrack (Ascophyllum nodosum) from the mid-
den at Ø37. Photo. Peter Steen Henriksen.
Norse farmers actually cultivated crops in Greenland
during colonisation in the Viking age and the medieval
period. This was investigated by analysing macrofos-
sils extracted from soil samples of middens, combined
with phosphate analyses of the area around Norse
farmsteads.
In three field seasons 450 kg of soil was sampled
from 12 Norse farmsteads together with samples for
phosphate analysis covering an area of 12 ha from two
farmsteads. The soil samples contained numerous
seeds from wild plants giving information about the lo-
cal vegetation. Charred grains and threshing waste of
barley was found in samples from four sites, strongly
indicating that barley was cultivated in Greenland by
the Norse farmers. The phosphate analyses showed
no sign of any deliberate manuring of the infields as
high concentrations of phosphate were only found
around the houses and pens.
Résumé
L’objectif du projet « Agriculture Norroise au Groen-
land: L’agriculture en limite« est de déterminer com-
ment les fermiers norrois ont effectivement cultivés
au Groenland pendant la colonisation viking et la
période médiévale. Cela a été étudié par analyse de
macrofossiles extraits d’échantillons des sols, combi-
née avec l’analyse de phosphate de la zone autour des
fermes.
En trois saisons sur le terrain, 450 kg de sol ont
été échantillonnés à partir de 12 fermes scandinaves
ainsi que des échantillons pour l’analyse de phos-
phate couvrant une superficie de 12 hectares de deux
fermes. Les échantillons de sol contenaient de nom-
breuses graines de plantes sauvages donnant des
243
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape
informations sur la végétation locale. Les graines car-
bonisées et le battage des déchets de l’orge ont été trou-
vés dans des échantillons provenant de quatre sites,
indiquant clairemet que l’orge a été cultivé au Groen-
land par les fermiers norrois. Les analyses de phos-
phate n’ont pas révélé des traces de fertilisation des
champs, seul les valeurs de phosphate étaient élevées
près des maisons et des enclos.
Zusammenfassung
In dem Beitrag zur altnordischen Landwirtschaft
bzw. dem Ackerbau in einer entlegenen mittelalterli-
chen Landschaft Grönlands sollte diskutiert werden,
ob die nordischen Bauern tatsächlich während der
Landnahme Grönlands in der Wikingerzeit und wäh-
rend des Mittelalters Kulturpflanzen angebaut haben.
Diese These wurde durch die Analyse von Bodenpro-
ben mit Makrofossilien von Abfallhaufen, sowie durch
Phosphatuntersuchngen des Bodens um die nordi-
schen Höfe herum untersucht.
Währen dreier Kampagnen wurde 450 kg Boden-
proben von 12 altnordischen Höfen und Proben für
die Phosphatanalyse auf einer Fläche von 12 ha ein-
gesammelt. Die Bodenproben enthalten zahlreiche
Samen von Wildpflanzen, die Hinweise auf die lokale
Vegetation geben. Verkohlte Körner und Dreschrück-
stände von Gerste wurden in Proben von vier Stand-
orten gefunden, was stark darauf hindeutet, dass die
nordischen Bauern in Grönland Gerste angebaut ha-
ben. Die Phosphatanalysen zeigen keine Anzeichen für
eine bewusste Düngung der Felder. Hohe Phosphat-
konzentrationen wurden nur in der Nähe der Häuser
und Einfriedung festgestellt.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the excavation teams who made the
fieldwork possible. In 2010 the team included Caro-
line Polke Hansgaard (National Museum of Denmark)
and Inge Kjær Kristensen (Museum Salling). In 2011
the team included Christian Koch Madsen, (National
Museum of Denmark), Inge Kjær Kristensen (Museum
Salling), Konrad Smiarowski (City University of New
York, USA) and Michael Nielsen (University of Green-
land/Greenland National Museum and Archives).
Further thanks go to Pauline Knudsen and Georg
Nygaard from Greenland National Museum and Ar-
chives who have supported the projected and given the
necessary permits.
Finally thanks to Sandie Holst (National Museum of
Denmark) for producing the phosphate distribution
maps and Catherine Jessen (National Museum of Den-
mark) for translation of the manuscript.
244
237–245
Bibliography
Arneborg, J. 2005:
Greenland irrigation systems on a West Nordic background.
An overview of the evidence of irrigation systems in Norse
Greenland c.980–1450 AD, Ruralia 5, Památky archeologickė
–Supplementum 17, 137–145.
Arneborg, J. – Hebsgård, M. – Lynnerup, N. – Madsen, C. K. –
Paulsen, C. P. – Smiarowski, K. 2009:
Resources, Mobility, and Cultural Identity in Norse Green-
land, Vatnahverfi Project – Report from the Field Work 2008.
Danmarks Middelalder & Renæssance, Nationalmuseet, Fel-
trapport 26, København.
Buckland, P. C. – Panagiotakopulu, E. 2005:
Archaeology and the Palaeoecology of the Norse Atlantic Is-
lands: a Review, in: Mortensen, A. – Arge, S. V. (eds) Viking
and Norse in the North Atlantic. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðska-
parfelag, Annales Societatis Scientiarum Færoensis Supple-
mentum 44, 136–150.
Edwards, K. J. – Schofield, J. E. – Mauquoy, D. 2008:
High resolution paleoenvironmental and chronological
investigations of Norse landnam at Tasiusaq, Eastern
Settlement,Greenland, Quaternary Research 69, 1–15.
Fredskild, B. 1969:
Nordboplanter – vikingernes ukrudt, Tidskriftet Grønland 4,
97–106.
Fredskild, B. 1978:
Paleobotanical investigations of some peat deposits of Norse
age at Qagssiarssuk, South Greenland. Meddelelser om
Grønland 204(5).
Fredskild, B. 1988:
Agriculture in a marginal area – South Greenland from the
Norse landnam (985 A.D.) to the present (1985 A.D.), in:
Birks, H. H. – Birks, H. J. B. – Kaland, P. E. (eds), The Cultural
Landscape – Past, Present and Future, Cambridge University
Press, 381–393.
Fredskild, B. – Humle, L. 1991:
Plant remains from the Norse farm Sandnes in the Western
Settlement, Greenland, Acta Borealia 8, 69–81.
Frei, K. M. – Frei, R. 2011:
The geographic distribution of strontium isotopes in Danish
surface waters – A base for provenance studies in archaeol-
ogy, hydrology and agriculture, Applied Geochemistry 26, Is-
sue 3, 326–340.
Hallsson, S. V. 1964:
The Uses of Seaweeds in Iceland, in: de Virville, A. D. – Feld-
mann, J., Proceedings of the Fourth International Seaweed
Symposium. Pergamon Press. Oxford, 398–405.
Hansen, B. U. 1991:
Using climate and vegetation studies in southern Greenland
to estimate the natural resources during the Norse Period,
Acta Borealia 8, 40–55.
Henriksen, P. S. 2010:
Nordboernes agerbrug i Grønland – et agerbrug på grænsen,
in: Gulløv, H. C. – Paulsen, C. – Rønne, B. (eds), Nordlige Ver-
dener – ændringer og udfordringer. Rapport fra workshop 1
på Nationalmuseet 29. september 2010. National Museum,
Copenhagen, 84–89.
RURALIA X
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape
Henriksen, P. S. 2012:
Agriculture on the edge – the first finds of cereals in Norse
Greenland, in: Gulløv, H. C. – Toft, P. A. – Hansgaard, C. P.
(eds), Northern Worlds – Challenges and solutions. Report
from workshop 2 at the National Museum, 1. November 2011.
National Museum, Copenhagen, 174–177.
Holliday, V. T. – Gartner, W. G. 2007:
Methods of soil P analysis in archaeology, Journal of Archae-
ological Science 34, 301–333.
Krogh, K. J. 1982:
Erik den Rødes Grønland. Nationalmuseets Forlag København
Larson, L.M. (translator) 1917:
The king’s mirror (Speculum Regalae – Konungs Skuggsjá).
Twayne Publishers and the American-Scandinavian Founda-
tion. New York.
McGovern, T. H. – Buckland, C. – Savory, D. – Sveinbjarnardot-
tir, G. – Andreason, C. – Skidmore, P. 1983:
A Study of the Faunal and Floral Remains from Two Norse
Farms in the Western Settlement, Greenland, Arctic Anthro-
pology 20, No. 2, 93–120.
Peter Steen Henriksen, National Museum of Denmark, Frederiksholms Kanal 12, DK-1220 København, Denmark,
peter.steen.henriksen@natmus.dk
RURALIA X
237–245
Nelson, D. E. – Heinemeier, J. – Møhl, J. –Arneborg, J. 2012:
Isotopic Analyses of the Domestic Animals of Norse Green-
land, in: Arneborg, J. – Heinemeier, J. – Lynnerup, N. (eds),
Greenland Isotope Project: Diet in Norse Greenland AD
1000–AD 1450. Journal of the North Atlantic, Special Volume
3, 77–92.
Pedersen, P. M. 2011:
Grønlands havalger. Forlaget Epsilon. Copenhagen.
Ross, J. M. – Zutter, C. 2007:
Comparing Norse Animal Husbandry Practices: Paleoethno-
botanical Analyses from Iceland and Greenland, Arctic An-
thropology 44, no. 1, 62–86.
Schofield, J. E. – Edwards, K. J. – Erlendsson, E. – Ledger,
P. M. 2013:
Palynology supports ‘Old Norse’ introductions to the flora of
Greenland, Journal of Biogeography 40, no. 6, 1119–1130.
Sørensen, I. 1982:
Pollenundersøgelser i møddingen i Niaqussat, Tidsskriftet
Grønland 5–7, 296–302.
245
Henriksen, Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape 237–245

246 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 247–254

Structuring landscape, shaping community

Strukturierung von Landschaft, Formung von Gemeinschaft

Structurer le paysage, former la communauté

Johan P. W. Verspay

Introduction
Though still too often treated as a mere backdrop
against which social life unfolds, the rural landscape
is in fact interwoven with the communities that lived
within. Studying it is vital for understanding these
communities. The cover sand area of North-Brabant,
in the southern part of the Netherlands, saw a tho-
rough transformation of its countryside during the
Late Middle Ages and Early Modern period (Theuws
– Roymans 2009, 11–13). This transformation is re-
flected in various aspects. There is the shifting of
settlements and changes in the construction of farm-
houses (Verspay 2007; Huijbers 2007). Next there is the
expansion of arable land and changes in agricultural
strategies and methods (Verspay 2011). These develop-
ments took place within the integration of this region
in the duchy of Brabant, the emergence of cities and
an early market economy and a changing administra-
tive organisation (Theuws 1989). This paper focuses
on a particular element of the aforementioned trans-
formation: a remarkable change in the structure of the
rural landscape that occured in the Late Middle Ages
and explores how this structure connects to the com-
munities that were part of it.
The emergence of spatial demarcation
in de Late Middle Ages
In the cover sand area of North-Brabant it is hard to
find any archaeological trace of spatial design up un-
til the Late Middle Ages or Early Modern period. Then,
apparently in a relatively short period of time the ru-
ral landscape is structured, marked out and divided
in smaller plots and parcels. This can be illustrated
by some large-scale excavations in this region: Best
– Aarle (Meurkens – Tol – Verspay in prep.), Eersel –
Kerkebogten (Lascaris 2011), Veldhoven – Oerle-Zuid
(Van der Heiden – Theuws – Verspay 2011) en Someren
– Waterdael (De Boer – Hiddink 2012).
Best – Aarle: An area of 12,2 ha was excavated in the
arable land of the former hamlets of Aarle and Naas-
tenbest. Remains of preceding occupation related to
the latter were found dating back to the late 9th centu-
ry. From here a series of consecutive farmyards could
be traced up to the late 19th century. The settlement
was studied in close connection to the surrounding
landscape (Meurkens – Tol – Verspay, in prep.).
Eersel – Kerkebogten: In the arable land and pas-
tures southeast of the hamlet ‘t Kerkhof, remains of a
settlement were discovered dating between 1050 and
1250 AD. This settlement is believed to be part of the
medieval village of Eersel, prior to its relocation during
the Late Middle Ages. In total an area of 7,2 ha was ex-
cavated including a substantial part of the surround-
ing landscape (Lascaris 2011).
Veldhoven - Oerle-Zuid: The arable land south of Oer-
le, named the Kerkakkers, was itself the subject of an
extensive study. For this purpose a specific method was
developed which focussed on the man-made plaggen
soils, field boundaries and infrastructure and could be
incorporated in regular archaeological prospection us-
ing test trenches. In total an area of 5,3 ha was exca-
vated. (Van der Heiden – Theuws – Verspay 2011).
Someren – Waterdael III: The area southwest of
Someren is one of the most intensively studied rural
areas in the Netherland. During the Waterdael III-pro-
ject an area of over 30 ha area was excavated. Apart
from prehistoric features, remains were found of set-
tlements dating to the Early and High Middle Ages.
Although the research focussed on the settlement re-
mains, the extend of the excavation meant that it in-
cluded a large part of the surrounding landscape as
well (De Boer – Hiddink 2012).
In the village of Someren evidence of spatial demar-
cation was found in the shape of ditches. In the High
Middle Ages ditches were only found as part of the
roads and incidentally to mark individual farmyards.
Although most of the roads with their adjacent ditches
stayed in use after the settlement shifted around the
start of the Late Middle Ages, we now see the entire site
being parcelled and marked out with ditches.
The research in Best shows that this re-allotment
was not only related to the fact that this site was

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 247–254.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110469
Verspay, Structuring landscape, shaping community
largely occupied during the High Middle Ages. Here a
substantial area outside the high-medieval settlement
was excavated as well, yet the ditches marking the al-
lotment of the fields and meadows all date to the Late
Middle Ages/Early Modern Period.
A rare example of spatial demarcation dating to the
High Middle Ages, was found in Eersel-Kerkebogten.
Here an oval area was uncovered, marked out by a
ditch, west of – or perhaps in the centre of – the set-
tlement. Next to this area and in close relation to it, we
can see several smaller plots, marked out, again, with
ditches. No traces of further allotment of the central
field were found, nor of the area east to it. After the
settlement had shifted the entire site was structured
anew. Apart from a central road none of the new par-
cels bore any relation to the previous structure.
Much is still unclear about the exact moment this
new layout was brought about and at what rate this
development took place. Ditches and other forms of
spatial markings are often difficult to date precisely.
Moreover, if not directly related to the settlement, these
features usually do not receive much attention during
an excavation. There is, however, the possibility that
previous to the ditches different forms of demarcation
were used which left little or no archaeological trac-
es, such as hedges or light fences. The problem then
would be that of archaeological visibility. Neverthe-
248
247–254
Fig . 1. The cover sand area in North Brabant with the
location of the sites of Best, Eersel, Veldhoven and
Someren.
less, sites like Eersel-Kerkebogten show that a distinct
break in the way the landscape was structured did
take place. Although parts of the main outlines of the
spatial structure from the High Middle Ages were pre-
served in the late medieval landscape, many of them
were erased and overwritten with the new layout.
Motives for demarcation
It is tempting to look upon this change in spatial de-
marcation in terms of developments in landownership:
as a shift from feudal land tenure to leasehold or even
privately owned land. When people start to have their
own piece of land there arises a need to mark out clear-
ly its boundaries and fix them in a durable form. This
might also provide an answer as to why the shapes of
the plots suddenly change from a more or less organic
form to predominantly rectangular shapes. This would
make sense if the need arose to determine exact plot
sizes for taxation or rent.
In any case, since laying out a new field system
involves breaking with the existing structures, both
physical and social, involvement, if not initiative, of the
relevant landlord(s) is self-evident. More detailed study
is, nevertheless, necessary to test this hypothesis and
positively establish this link. There is however more to
this transformation. First, the ways in which different
RURALIA X
Verspay, Structuring landscape, shaping community
parts of the landscape were marked varies, from open
fields with simple cornerstones to enclosed field sys-
tems girded with wooded earthen banks and ditches.
The excavation in Veldhoven-Oerle-Zuid is a good ex-
ample of this variety.
These various forms of demarcation were related to,
and in fact defining different field systems. The bound-
ary stones were used at the open fields and the wooded
earthen banks at the enclosed fields, accompanied by
some singular ditches.
Both field systems were in use simultaneously and
seem to be related to specific forms of land use, in-
RURALIA X
247–254
dicating differentiated and probably complementary
agricultural strategies. At the open fields thick man-
made plaggen soils can be found bearing marks of fre-
quent ploughing and digging with a spade. Man-made
soils were also found at the enclosed fields. Here they
are however less thick and bear little traces of spad-
ing. This indicates a strategy in which part of the fields
were intensively cultivated – the open fields –while an-
other part of the fields was more extensively cultivated.
The wooded banks on the latter would serve as an ef-
fective fence keeping livestock in, unnecessary when
a particular field was used as pasture during fallow.
Fig . 2. Archaeological remains of
spatial demarcation from the High
Middle Ages (top) and Late Middle
Ages – Early Modern period (bot-
tom) in Someren-Waterdael (after
De Boer – Hiddink 2012, fig. 6.1
and 7.2).]
249
Verspay, Structuring landscape, shaping community
Features of wooded banks were also found on areas
with no man-made soils, most likely pastures. So the
changes in the specific form of demarcation might be
related to specific forms of land use.
Next thing to notice is that a substantial amount of
the parcel boundaries correspond with the plots as
drawn on the earliest available topographical maps,
the land registration plans dating to the early 19th cen-
tury. This could be found at every one of our examples.
These maps do represent land ownership. This could
indicate that the emergence of marked fields is indeed
related to a shift towards privately owned property.
250
247–254
Fig . 3. Archaeological remains of
spatial demarcation from the High
Middle Ages (top) and Late Middle
Ages – Early Modern period (bot-
tom) in Best-Aarle.
Spatial demarcation and social structure
In spite of these similarities, archaeological evidence
shows that the various tillage layers at the open fields
continue uninterrupted across individual plots and
boundaries, covering an area that is surely too exten-
sive for one family to work on its own. This indicates
that owning land and working it were different things.
It further suggests that despite individual ownership,
land was worked (at least in part) at a communal level.
This could indicate ‘Flurzwang’, an agreement or even
an order from the community on sequence for the
RURALIA X
Verspay, Structuring landscape, shaping community
crops in the crop rotation system and also on dates for
the work (spading, ploughing, sowing and harvesting)
(Schildt 2008, col. 1604–1605).
The importance of communal working of the soil
cannot be overstressed. Not only does this enhance
the productivity and fertility of the field, but by its na-
ture this communal activity also shapes social groups
(Verspay 2011, 179). It creates, strengthens and main-
tains bonds between people (Johnson 2007, 141–144).
This is in particular the case with strenuous work like
spading. Additionally, communal activities provides a
shared identity.
RURALIA X
247–254
This co-working social group could coincide with a
settlement group, a group of people living in the same
village or hamlet. Initially, it most likely does. But after
the fields became private property and various plots
were repeatedly sold, this was not necessarily the case
anymore. In Best we see the plots of a single block be-
ing owned by people from across the parish and even
beyond (Vangheluwe, in prep.). In such cases, commu-
nal working would create a social group that would oth-
erwise not exist. A social group centred around fields.
If we continue along this line even further, we could
speculate that due to the increasingly heavy labour in
Fig . 4. Archaeological remains of
spatial demarcation from the High
Middle Ages (top) and Late Middle
Ages – Early Modern period (bot-
tom) in Eersel-Kerkebogten (after
Lascaris 2011, fig. 9.1 and 10.1).
251
Verspay, Structuring landscape, shaping community
connection with the intensification of agriculture these
groups consisted probably mainly of men. Of course
other factors contribute, like the availability of labour.
But the fields could increasingly have become the do-
main of men. This shows that open fields not only pro-
vided for rye, but were also an important factor in the
constitution of social networks and creating identity
within rural society. The particular form of demarca-
tion, plain stones, facilitates precisely that.
Now we have established a link between a specific
form of demarcation and the social relations of the
people working these farm lands, it is interesting to
find that, between our sites, there are actually great
differences in the way the fields were marked. In Veld-
hoven the open-field system seems to have been in the
heart of the rural landscape, whereas in other places
this form is absent. In Eersel we see wooded earthen
banks being the dominant form; in Best and Someren
it is single ditches. These differences might have to do
with the particular part of the landscape on which the
sites where located: Veldhoven was situated on the top
of a coversand ridge, while Eersel and Best were situ-
ated lower, on the flanks of such a ridge. The condi-
tions in Someren, however, are similar to Veldhoven,
252
247–254
yet the open fields seem to be absent and no boundary
stones were reported.
Does this difference in demarcation of farmland
mean that the communities living off these lands had
a different social structure? A difference in social co-
hesion? A difference between communally organised
versus individually organised? And does this relate to
other aspects of the community as well? It would be
interesting to compare settlement structure and the
layout and demarcation of farmyards. These questions
remain to be answered.
So, social motives might have played a role in choos-
ing certain forms of demarcation. I suggest that facili-
tating communal working of the fields was an intend-
ed quality of the boundary stones. However, even when
such effects were not deliberate, they still might have
come into play. For according to Gregory and Urry
“spatial structure is a medium through which social
relations are produced and reproduced” (Gregory –
Urry 1985, 3). By repeatedly interacting with ones sur-
roundings, people will internalise its form and struc-
ture. Therefore, even when this might not have been a
determining factor when enclosing fields with ditches,
the message of private property and individuality will
Fig. 5. Archaeological remains of spa-
tial demarcation dating back to the
Late Middle Ages – Early Modern pe-
riod in Veldhoven-Oerle-Zuid. (after Ver-
spay 2011, fig 6.37).]
Fig. 5a. Boundary stones in de open
fields in Veldhoven-Oerle-Zuid found in
the arable soil during excavation (left)
and in present day use (right).]
Fig. 5b. Remains of wooded earthen
banks from former enclosed fields lie
well-preserved in de woods adjacent to
Veldhoven-Oerle-Zuid (left) and encoun-
terd as archaeological feature (right).
RURALIA X
Verspay, Structuring landscape, shaping community 247–254

be enhanced by it. This, of course, has to do with the

correlation between the physicality of the marker and
the perception of it as a boundary, including the re-
lated associations. A wooded earthen bank not only
keeps livestock out by being a physical obstacle, es-
pecially when covered in dense and prickly shrubs, it
also signifies to the beholder that a border is in place.
On the contrary, simple boundary stones, which are
equally suitable for marking purposes, might not even
be noticed by an onlooker as dividing a piece of land.
Thus intended or not, the structure of the landscape
had an effect on the mentality and social relations of
people. Therefore ordinary spatial elements like ditch-
es, earthen banks and border stones can provide a val-
uable insight in important processes like, for example,
the transformation of the countryside of North Bra-
bant. The significance of these elements is not limited
to land use or ownership. It extends to the communi-
ties that lived off these fields. There is a social side to
spatial structures. Fig. 6. The tillage layers in the thick man-made soil continue uninter-
rupted under and over the boundary stone present.

Summary
In the cover sand area of Noord-Brabant, in the
southern part of the Netherlands, it is hard to find any
archaeological trace of spatial design up until the Late
Middle Ages/ Early Modern period. Then, apparently
in a relatively short period of time the rural landscape
is structured, marked out and divided in smaller plots
and parcels. It is temptive to look upon this as a shift
from estates to privately owned land. However, there’s
more to it. First, the ways in which different parts of
the landscape were marked varies, from open fields
with simple cornerstones to enclosed field systems
girded with wooded earthen banks and ditches. These
field systems were in use simultaneously and seem to
indicate different and probably complementary agrar-
ian strategies. Next, a substantial amount of the parcel
boundaries correspond with the plots as drawn on the
earliest available maps, dating to the early 19th centu-
ry. These maps do represent land ownership. However,
archaeological evidence shows that the various tillage
layers continue uninterrupted across individual plots
and boundaries, covering an area that is surely too ex-
tensive for one family to work on its own. This suggests
that owning land and working it were different things.
It further suggests that despite individual ownership,
land was worked (at least in part) at a communal level.
This could indicate ‘Flurzwang’ but is not necessarily
so. However, the importance of communal spading of
the soil cannot be overstressed. Not only does this en-
hance the fertility of the field, but by its nature this in-
tensive, communal activity also shapens social groups.
And if the various lots became private property, this
group does not necessarily coincide with the settlement
group. This way new social networks can be formed
by working the fields. Further, due to the increasingly
heavy labour in connection with the intensification of
agriculture these groups consisted probably mainly of
men. This shows that fields provided not only for rye,
but were also an important factor in constitution social
networks and creating identity. The particular form of
demarcation facilitates precisely that.
Zusammenfassung
Durch die weite Abdeckung mit Sandflächen in
Noord-Brabant, in den südlichen Niederlanden, sind
archäologische Spuren der Raumgestaltung des späten
Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit schwer zu fassen.
Später wird in einer relativ kurzen Zeit die ländliche
Landschaft strukturiert, abgegrenzt und in kleine-
re Parzellen aufgeteilt. Auf den ersten Blick scheint
es, als bilden sich private Besitzverhältnisse ab. Eine
detaillierte Analyse zeigt zusätzliche Aspekte auf. Zu-
nächst ist festzustellen, dass mit unterschiedlichen
Methoden die Landschaft gegliedert wird, einerseits
durch offene Feldfluren und Grenzsteine, andererseits
gibt es geschlossene Systeme, die von bewaldeten Wäl-
len und Gräben umgeben sind. Diese Feldsysteme be-
standen zeitgleich und dokumentieren möglicherweise
variierende Agrarstrategien. Zahlreiche der Flurstück-
grenzen entsprechen den Grundstücken auf frühen
verfügbaren Karten aus dem beginnenden 19. Jahr-
hundert, die Landbesitz darstellen. Die archäologi-
schen Befunde der verschiedenen Bodenbearbeitungs-

RURALIA X 253
Verspay, Structuring landscape, shaping community
formen lassen sich über Grundstücksgrenzen hinweg
dokumentieren, damit repräsentieren die bearbeiteten
Felder größere Flächen, als es für eine Familie notwen-
dig wäre. Dies legt den Schluss nahe, dass Landbesitz
und Landbearbeitung unterschiedlich organisiert wa-
ren. Vermutlich wurden die Felder (zumindest teilwei-
se) gemeinschaftlich bearbeitet. Eventuell weist diese
Form der Bearbeitung auch auf einen “Flurzwang“ hin.
Dies führt nicht nur zur Verbesserung der Fruchtbar-
keit des Feldes, sondern die gemeinschaftlichen Tätig-
keiten bringen auch eine Weiterentwicklung sozialer
Gruppen mit sich, möglicherweise entstehen neue so-
ziale Netzwerke. Ferner bestehen diese Gruppen wohl
aufgrund der zunehmend schwerer werdenden Arbeit
im Zusammenhang mit der Intensivierung der Land-
wirtschaft aus Männern. Die Untersuchung zeigt, dass
über die Aussage, dass Roggen angebaut worden ist,
auch Aussagen zu sozialen Gruppen und die Schaf-
fung von Identität möglich sein können.
Résumé
Dans la zone sablonneuse du Noord-Brabant (NL),
il est difficile de trouver des traces archéologiques
d’occupation de l’espace avant le Bas Moyen Âge ou
le début des Temps modernes A ce moment, il semble
que, dans une relativement courte période, le paysage
rural fut restructuré et divisé en plus petites terres et
parcelles. Il est tentant d’y voir une modification des
domaines en terres privées. Néanmoins, c’est plus
que ça. Les preuves archéologiques suggèrent qu’en
dépit des propriétés privées, les terres étaient toujours
exploitées en commun. La pénibilité du travail du sol
soude naturellement les groupes sociaux. Quand les
différentes parcelles devinrent privées, les groupes so-
ciaux en question ne coïncidèrent plus forcément avec
les groupes de l’habitat d’avant. De cette manière, de
nouveaux réseaux et identités sociaux peuvent se for-
mer en travaillant dans les champs, en une nouvelle
forme particulière de catégorie sociale.
Johan Verspay, University of Amsterdam, department Amsterdam Centre for Ancient Studies & Archeology (ACASA), Turf-
draagsterpad 9, 1012 XT Amsterdam, The Netherlands, jverspay@uva.nl
254
247–254
Bibliography
Boer, E. de – Hiddink, H. 2012:
Opgravingen in Waterdael III te Someren 2. Bewoningssporen
uit de latere prehistorie, de Vroege en Volle Middeleeuwen,
Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 50).
Gregory , D. – Urry, J. (eds) 1985:
Social relations and spatial structures. London.
Johnson, M. 2008:
Ideas of landscape. Oxford.
Lascaris, M. 2011:
Opgravingen in Eersel-Kerkebogten. Landschap en bewoning
in de Bronstijd, Ijzertijd, Romeinse tijd, Middeleeuwen en
Nieuwe Tijd, Amsterdam (Zuidnederlandse Archeologische
Rapporten 44).
Theuws, F. C. W. J. 1989:
Middeleeuwse parochiecentra in de Kempen 1000–1350, in:
Verhoeven, A. A. A. – Theuws, F. C. W. J., Het Kempenproject.
De Middeleeuwen centraal, Waalre, 97–216.
Theuws, F. C. W. J. – Roymans, N. G. A. M. 2009:
Veldhoven-Zilverackers. Cultuur en Landschap van Verleden
Gemeenschappen. Een wetenschappelijk onderzoekskader
ten behoeve van de archeologie in het plangebied, Amster-
dam.
Heiden, M. van der – Theuws, F. – Verspay, J. 2011:
De archeologie van de Brabantse akkers. Toegelicht aan de
hand van het onderzoek van de Universiteit van Amsterdam
in Veldhoven, Amsterdam (Themata 4).
Schildt, B. 2008:
Flurzwang, in: Coderdes, A. – Lück, H. – Werkmüler, D. –
Schmidt-Wiegand, R. (eds), Handwörterbuch zur deutschen
Rechtsgeschichte 1, Berlin, col. 1604–1605.
Verspay, J. P. W. 2007:
Onzichtbare Erven. Het Brabantse platteland in de Late-Mid-
deleeuwen en Nieuwe tijd, Amsterdam (master-thesis).
Verspay, J. P. W. 2011:
De landschapsgeschiedenis van de Oerse akkers, in: Van der
Heiden – Theuws – Verspay, De archeologie van de Brabant-
se akkers. Toegelicht aan de hand van het onderzoek van de
Universiteit van Amsterdam in Veldhoven, Amsterdam (The-
mata 4), 96–179.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus
Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe
Landschaftsgeschichte und Archäologie der offenen Feldfluren in Europa
Histoire et archéologie du paysage de champs ouverts en Europe
Hans Renes
Introduction
The landscape of open fields is one of the main
types of historic landscape in Europe. The term ‘open
fields’ refers to the large arable fields that have an open
character because the individual parcels of the owners
were not surrounded by hedges, woodbanks, drystone
walls or other visible boundaries. The simplest defini-
tion of open-field agriculture is: ‘the means by which
land was cultivated by the inhabitants of a township
who worked their holdings in unenclosed parcels’
(Taylor 1981, 13). It is a landscape many people re-
member from their youth, partly because so many peo-
ple worked in it during harvest times (Lemaire 2013).
The basis of the open fields is the use of the same
arable field year after year for growing grain. In fact,
the distribution of medieval open fields reflects the
geography of large-scale grain production in Europe
during that period. The growing importance of grain
cultivation during the High Middle Ages, sometimes
referred to as cerealization (Bartlett 1994, 152; in Ger-
man: Vergetreidung) was related to the substantial pop-
ulation growth during that period.
Since the end of the 19th century, these landscapes
have been studied by geographers, historians and ar-
chaeologists. Interesting differences exist between Brit-
ish and continental research traditions, which make
international comparative research difficult. In Britain
the emphasis is on landscape archaeological traces
of former open fields and, hence, on medieval agrar-
ian techniques. Continental, particularly German, re-
search has focused on the origins and development
of the complex field patterns and on the development
of landownership. The term ‘open field’, which acts as
an umbrella term in English-language literature (Or-
win – Orwin 1954; Rowley 1981), is known in French
(champs ouverts), but is rarely used in German-lan-
guage literature. Elsewhere I have discussed how the
different research traditions are connected to the dif-
ferent landscape histories (Renes 2010).
In this paper, I focus on the traces of open fields in
different parts of Europe. I will distinguish two peri-
ods. The first period, up to the early 14th century, cov-
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 255–265.
FHG
255–265
ers the period of origin and growth. The heyday of the
open fields ended during the first half of the 14th cen-
tury due to population decline, which was followed
by a series of reorganisations of the European land-
scape.
Types and terminology
Much attention has been given to the origins of open
fields (see, for example, Rowley 1981). It is, however,
most probable that open fields come into existence
everywhere where different adjacent landowners use
their fields year after year for grain growing. In such
circumstances it is logical to remove the hedges or
woodbanks between their fields, as these boundaries
are unnecessary and have disadvantages such as tak-
ing up space and casting shadow. Therefore, we may
assume that open fields can be – and have been – in-
vented separately in different regions and in different
periods.
In the case of more specific types of open fields that
developed during the Middle Ages, such as the com-
mon fields (see below), diffusion from a single region
of origin is more likely, although even these seem to
have been invented independently from each other in
continental Europe and on the British Isles. The heavy
mouldboard plough, responsible for the development
of ridge and furrow and often seen as an explanation
for the occurrence of strip fields in general, was prob-
ably invented in north-western Europe and gradually
moved eastward through Europe (Bartlett 1994, 152).
The most well-known subtype of open field is the
common field (known in German-language literature as
the Gewannflursystem; Egli 1985). The common field
system was defined by Thirsk (1964) as having the fol-
lowing characteristics:
[1] arable and meadow are divided into strips among
the cultivators, each of whom may occupy a number of
strips scattered about the fields;
[2] both arable and meadow are thrown open for
common pasturing by the stock of all the commoners
after harvest and in fallow seasons. During the fallow
10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110470
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe 255–265

periods, the arable in fact becomes part of the com-
mon grazing;
[3] there is common pasturage and waste, where the
cultivators of strips enjoy the right to graze stock and
gather timber, peat and other commodities;
[4] the order of these activities is regulated by an as-
sembly of cultivators (the manorial court or a village
meeting).
An even more rigorous definition mentioned by Gray
(1915) is the Midland system (in German literature some-
times referred to as Zelgensystem; Egli 1985), which is
a two- or three-field system in which the furlongs were
grouped into two or three ‘fields’, crop rotations were
organised on a village basis and the individual farmers
had to adapt to an obligatory communal management
of the fields, a system of enforced biennial or triennial
crop rotations (German: Flurzwang). In fact the whole
village was run like one big farm. This system implies
not only that the two or three fields were more or less
the same size, but also that the strips of an individual
farmer were more or less evenly distributed over the

Fig. 1. Field systems in pre-industrial Europe, according to Hopcroft (1999, 21); with additions after Frand-
sen 1988). She distinguishes a core region with ‘communal open fields’ (comparable to what other authors
call ‘regular open fields’) surrounded by zones with ‘less communal’ or more individually managed open
fields.

256 RURALIA X
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe
fields (Krenzlin 1961b, 23; Fox 1981, 66). The introduc-
tion of such a system must have implied a reorganisa-
tion and a further fragmentation of landownership.
The different varieties of common fields are often
called ‘regular’ open-field systems as against the ‘irreg-
ular’, more individual systems. Regular systems could
mainly be found in the core regions of medieval open
field agriculture, as they were mapped by the American
sociologist Rosemary Hopcroft (1999; fig. 1). But even
there, systems that operated on an individual basis
could be found, as in the large open fields in the south-
ernmost part of the Netherlands and the neighbouring
part of Belgium. In some cases, manors seem to have
followed an enforced crop rotation on their own land
(Hackeng 2006). A comparable situation is known from
16th-century Hessen (Germany), but here, as in some
other parts of Germany, three-field systems with forced
crop rotations seem to have gained ground during the
17th and 18th centuries (Scharlau 1961, 271)
Phase 1: Origins and growth
(9th – early 14th centuries)
Written sources mention arable with unenclosed
strips around the 10th century (Banham 2010, 189).
This seems to have been a period of transformation.
In many regions, a period lasting several centuries in
which settlements were often relocated, came to an
end. From this period, most settlements and their ar-
able lands kept the same location for centuries. Most
of the arable lands during that period must have been
small and were surrounded by extensive forests and
rough pastures.
Following that period, development took different di-
rections. Some regions developed into the grain baskets
of high-medieval Europe. In these regions, during the
12th and 13th centuries, and in some instances even
earlier (Dyer 2003, 15), the open arable fields came to
occupy entire village territories. In other regions, the
arable was concentrated in small open fields or in in-
dividual enclosures, as part of systems of mixed farm-
ing, combining arable with animal husbandry (Spek
2004). These different developments suggest a growing
regional specialisation.
The early origins of open fields still pose a number
of questions, that may be the subject of further study.
Older landscape features
One of these questions concerns the relation to the
earlier landscape from Iron Age, Roman and Dark Age
periods. While the spread of open fields meant a trans-
formation of the landscape, the local development was
often gradual and could take place within existing
RURALIA X
255–265
landscape structures. Landscape archaeologists find
a growing number of older field boundaries that have
survived as boundaries in the later open fields (Taylor
– Fowler 1978; Oosthuizen 2006; Chadwick 2013; Rip-
pon et al. 2013; Williamson 1988, 6). Further insights
may be derived from archaeological excavations of fos-
sil fields under later fields (Astill 1988, 69).
Open fields and settlement nucleation
An intriguing question concerns the often-suggest-
ed relationship between open fields and settlement
nucleation. This relationship is certainly not as simple
as has often been suggested in the past (Rippon 2008:
13; Oosthuizen 2013). In the first place, open fields
occur in combination with very different settlement
types. In many regions, small – and sometimes also
larger – open fields are combined with hamlets and
dispersed farms (see for example Flatrès 1957, 420;
Roberts – Wrathmell 2002, who also show the nuances
and complexities). Still, in the medieval core regions of
the open-field landscapes, the large common fields are
almost everywhere combined with nucleated villages.
One reason for this must have been functional: with
continuing fragmentation it became ever less useful to
live amidst one’s property. The village, with its central
position in the pattern of field ways, became the best
place to build a farm. This must be one of the explana-
tions for the change from a pattern of dispersed settle-
ment to one of concentrated villages and the desertion
of older dispersed hamlets and farms. Such develop-
ments have been described in Britain as well as on the
Continent (Williamson 2003, 13–14; Lewis et al. 1997;
Schreg 2006, 153, 158).
The medieval nucleated villages must have had a
relatively open structure, often with farms situated
around a village green. The very large, densely built
settlements that are known in German literature as
Haufendörfer mainly date from Early Modern popula-
tion growth, when the houses of cottagers and labour-
ers filled the gaps between the old established farms as
well as, in many cases, the village green (for examples:
Vits 1999, 104; Williamson 2013, Plate 27).
In the oldest development of villages and open fields,
there are still questions of chronology. The dating of
the process of settlement concentration is still not
completely clear; estimations vary between the 8th and
12th centuries and, in a very interesting contribution,
Tony Brown and Glenn Foard even concluded that the
concentration of villages preceded the development of
the common fields, making the connection between
the two still more complex (Brown – Foard 1998; High-
am 2010, 11). Moreover, the connection with the agrar-
ian system is not always obvious.
257
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe
Landownership and field patterns
Another challenge is the connection between differ-
ent data and sources. Whereas in many deserted open
fields the evidence comes from the landscape archaeo-
logical study of, particularly, ridge and furrow (see be-
low), on the Continent a very different tradition exists
of research into the historical development of the pat-
terns of landownership. This tradition started with the
great pioneering work of the German researcher Au-
gust Meitzen, who mapped different field patterns on
the basis of 19th-century cadastral maps, explaining
the differences according to the ethnic origins of the
local population (Meitzen 1895; fig. 2). Meitzen’s work
was later transferred to the English landscape by How-
ard Levi Gray (1915).
During the 1950s and 1960s German geographers
in particular have used these data as a starting point
for research into the earlier development of the field
patterns. From the oldest cadastral maps, they strug-
gled through enormous amounts of archival data on
land transactions to arrive at the medieval ownership
Fig. 2. A map from Meitzen’s book on settlement, showing a densely built village surrounded by an open field.
258
255–265
patterns. With this method, a much less fragmented
late medieval landscape was reconstructed, particu-
larly by Anneliese Krenzlin (1961a; Krenzlin – Reusch
1961).
The fragmentation of landownership is usually at-
tributed to population pressure. Particularly in periods
of population growth, the fragmentation of landowner-
ship intensified. In the core regions of the open-field
landscapes, extremely fragmented strip-field patterns
already existed during the 13th century, while in other
regions the fragmentation process was concentrated
in the 16th and 18th centuries (Krenzlin 1961b). In
most of the open fields the smallest units of ownership
were narrow strips, although open fields with block-
shaped fields did exist.
The narrow strips that characterised most open
fields can partly be explained by the practice of sub-
division: when a field is subdivided, the easiest way is
to draw parallel lines from one of the sides. However,
there were also agrarian-technical reasons, in particu-
lar the influence of the heavy, poorly manoeuvrable
RURALIA X
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe 255–265

plough that during the Middle Ages was drawn by a

team of oxen, further diminishing its manoeuvrability.
This made strip fields easier to manage. This plough-
ing practice also explains the reversed S-shape of
many medieval strips, which made the turning at the
end of the field easier, with ploughs that usually had
the mouldboard on the right-hand side (Eyre 1955).
However, patterns of landownership, as reconstruct-
ed through archival study and cadastral or estate
maps, differ from the agrarian technical strips that are
mapped by landscape archaeologists in deserted open
fields.

Field boundaries
A characteristic of open fields is that the bounda-
ries between the individually owned sections were
not marked by hedges or other visible elements. In
open fields that were ploughed in ridge and furrow
it was easy to recognise the individual parcels. Else-
where, this must have been difficult, especially when
large open fields were ploughed or sown at the same
time.
There has been some discussion on the question
of whether balks have been used as strip boundaries.
Beecham found no reliable evidence in written sources
(Beecham 1956), but recent publications present some
proof (Hall 2014). A method that has certainly been
Fig. 3. A boundary stone marking the fieldstrips of two farmers on the
used is the placing of boundary stones or wooden small open field of the hamlet of Emmikhuizen in the central Nether-
stakes (Rackham 1986, 173–174) at the corners of the lands. Location: 52°02’41” N / 1°31’33” W
strips. Such boundary markers are still in use (fig. 3)
and corner stones have been found in archaeological
research (Verspay 2011, 141–143; see also his paper in the number of grain mills dropped by 15% (Langdon
this volume). 2004, 28, 41). This reflects a downward tendency that
probably started in the middle of the 14th century,
related to population decline (the Black Death). Later,
Grain trade and grain milling numbers continued to fall, with changes in land use.
As far as we know, such systematic studies are un-
When we connect the growth of open fields to the
known in continental Europe.
development of large-scale grain production, there is
yet another source that can give indirect access to the
chronology. This source is the growth of the number Phase 2: Crisis and transformations
of large corn mills, especially watermills with vertical (early 14th century – present)
water wheels and, in flat landscapes, windmills. In
general, there is insufficient research into the larger This brings us to the second important period in the
picture of the diffusion of these mills, as most of the development of open fields. The open fields reached
archaeological as well as molinological research seems their heyday in the early 14th century (Renes 2010;
mainly interested in individual mills. Only a few histo- Fig. 4). The late medieval demographic and economic
rians have shown interest in the quantitative aspects. crisis brought about a restructuring of European ag-
In Poland, for example, the number of grain mills grew riculture. The demand for grain diminished dramati-
substantially around 1200 (Hoffmann 1989, 53). For cally, whereas the demand for animal products and
England, Darby estimated 6,082 mills in 1086 (Darby wine held up better. As always in such circumstances,
1977, 361), a number that may have risen to an all- different regions reacted in different ways. In many re-
time high of 10,000 or even 12,000 corn mills around gions, the open-field systems kept on functioning; in
1300 (Holt 1988, 116). Between 1300 and the 1370s, other regions they gave way to pasture, vineyards or

RURALIA X 259
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe 255–265

Openfields

Size of towns
Intermediate
Large
Very large

North Sea

es t
London r ug en
B Gh
r es
Yp Cologne
Prague
Atlantic Paris
Ocean

Lebeau
Birot
Milan Venice

Bologna
Genoa
Toulouse Florence

Barcelona

Naples
Cordova
Seville
Granada
Mediterranean Sea Palermo 8682 ©UU 2014

0 500 km

Fig. 4. Open fields and towns in Europe. The open fields in the Mediterranean are based on Birot (Birot – Gabert 1964), for the remaining parts of
Europe on Lebeau (1969), for England changed after Rackham (1986). The towns are based on Pounds’ map of European towns in the fourteenth
century (Pounds 1990, 164).

(in parts of Central Europe and in regions with poor
sandy soils in France) fishponds. In a number of ‘pe-
ripheral’ regions the open fields were laid waste, to-
gether with the settlements to which they belonged.
A fundamental change took place in the British Isles
and particularly in the old core region of open-field
agriculture in Central England (‘the Central Province’;
Roberts – Wrathmell 2002). Here, a centuries-long pro-
cess of conversion began, turning open fields to sheep
pastures, leading to the gradual disappearance of open
fields in the British Isles (Hooke 2010).
Together with demographic and economic recovery,
the Early Modern period brought further changes in
the geography of the open fields. Regional markets gave
way to a European market for grain, resulting in an-
other reorganisation of the agrarian landscapes of Eu-
rope. We might summarise this as an eastward shift of

260 RURALIA X
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe
the open fields. On the one hand, their slow disappear-
ance from the British Isles continued through a num-
ber of processes: [1] the spread of sheep farming in the
‘Central Province’; [2] a second stage of the enclosure
movement when arable lands were consolidated and
enclosed; and [3] the disappearance of peasant arable
from the hills and, from the end of the 18th century
onwards, from the Scottish Highlands and Islands.
But these processes were not limited to the British
Isles. On the Continent, large parts of western France
(particularly Normandy) underwent a process towards
specialisation in animal husbandry, which was con-
nected to the growth of Paris in particular. Also in some
other urban regions, open fields gave way to enclosed
pasture, as, for example, in the present border region
of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, around the
cities of Liège and Aix-la-Chapelle.
At the same time, new open-field landscapes with
regular three-field systems were laid out in parts of
Eastern Europe, particularly in the present border
regions of Poland, Belorussia and Lithuania (French
1983).
Many of the older open-field landscapes of continen-
tal Europe survived. To face increasing competition,
most of these landscapes were modernised during the
Early Modern and Modern periods. For example, the
open fields in Denmark and Sweden were enclosed in
the decades around 1800 to make them more compat-
ible in the international competition for arable prod-
ucts. In parts of Germany during the 19th century, a
number of open fields were reconstructed in order to
improve the road system. While the fragmentation of
land continued, it did not appear to be problematic.
RURALIA X
255–265
Where open fields disappeared, they sometimes left
traces in the landscape, which can provide important
information on the medieval landscape.
Ridge and furrow and headlands
One of the main relics of the medieval open fields
are the remains of ridge and furrow (German: Wölb-
äcker; Fig. 5). Ridge and furrow is the outcome of
ploughing along the same lines, turning the furrow
inwards, for many years. The ridges must have been
appreciated by the farmers (Astill 1988, 70): with the
same ploughing equipment, flat ploughing was possi-
ble cutting one season’s furrow through the previous
season’s ridge (O’Keeffe 2000, 64). The ridges could
be very high and steep-sided, hence the references
to ‘high-backs’ in some parts of England (Eyre 1955,
87). However, we have to realise that ridge and furrow
only partly overlaps with open fields. It occurs also
in other landscape types and many open fields have
never known ridge and furrow, which seems to have
been particularly useful on heavy soils that were diffi-
cult to drain. However, the medieval distribution is still
unclear. In many regions that remained arable during
the Early Modern period and in the 19th century, ridge
and furrow disappeared with agricultural modernisa-
tion that included cross-ploughing and underdrainage
after enclosure (Liddiard 1999).
The age of ridge and furrow varies. Parts are cer-
tainly medieval: traces have been found under – or
have been dissected by – certainly younger landscape
features that date from the 11th or 12th century (Tay-
lor 1981). Other examples date from the Early Modern
Fig. 5. Medieval ridge and furrow
above Wood Stanway. Location:
51°58’57” N / 1°54’15” W
© Copyright Philip Halling and li-
censed for reuse under the Creative
Commons Licence.
261
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe
period or even from the early 19th century (Eyre 1955,
80). Many have been used for a long time and even
reflect adaptations to technological or other develop-
ments (Wilson 1989).
Until the middle of the 20th century (and partly even
today) large regions in the English Midlands were still
characterised by ridge and furrow topography. Ridges
and furrows were mapped by fieldwork and from air
photographs, and in a number of regions they have
made it possible to map the former (open) arable.
Smaller traces have been found on the Continent,
mainly in regions that were under forest. There they
are difficult to map; only recently have detailed LIDAR
techniques made a more systematic mapping possible
(see, for example, Ewald – Klaus 2010, 87).
In areas that were used as arable during the 19th
and 20th centuries, the traces of ridge and furrow
have disappeared with ploughing, although the for-
mer headlands (German: Ackerbergen; Fig. 6) on the
boundaries of furlongs may survive much longer (Tay-
lor 1975, 84).
Fossilised strips
The enclosure of open fields has in many cases
been drastic, for example in many parts of England
and in most of Denmark and South Sweden. In many
other cases, however, enclosure was piecemeal and
left traces in the new field pattern. Former open-field
strips that have been fossilised in the later enclosed
landscape can be seen on modern air photographs on
the British Isles, in Normandy and in the North of Ger-
many, to mention only the most obvious examples.
262
255–265
Fig. 6. A headland west of Moreton-
in-Marsh (Cotswolds, England). The
footpath follows a headland that
divides fields with different direc-
tions of ridge and furrow. Location:
c. 51°59’ N / 1°44’ W
Epilogue
The landscapes of open fields were the agrarian
core regions of medieval Europe. In considering open
fields, two things stand out.
First, the large and intensively organised open fields,
especially, must be seen as a specialised agrarian land-
scape that functioned within a context of regionalised
markets. The open fields can therefore not be studied
without taking into account their connections to ur-
banised regions and the enclosed and mountainous
regions that specialised in animal husbandry and in
forestry.
Second, the geography of open fields changed dur-
ing the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period,
first through population decline and crisis, but later
also with the emergence of a pan-European market
for grain and the growing (urban) demand for a varied
food supply.
Research on this topic has come from different dis-
ciplines. On the Continent, since the late 19th century,
geographers have focused on reconstructing settle-
ment types and field patterns. Most (but not all) ge-
ographers lost their interest in this type of research
during the 1970s, but medieval historians have shown
increasing interest.
Another type of research came from the interest in
deserted settlements and fields, also started by geog-
raphers but gradually taken over on the Continent by
landscape archaeologists and in the British Isles by
interdisciplinary groups of landscape archaeologists,
landscape historians and a few geographers.
However, results from different disciplines have to
RURALIA X
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe
be combined to make any further progress in this type
of study. Therefore, historiographic knowledge of the
older research and research traditions is, in my opin-
ion, extremely important.
Summary
The landscapes of open fields were the grain bas-
kets of medieval Europe. The term ‘open fields’ refers
to the large arable fields that have an open character
because the individual parcels of the owners were not
surrounded by hedges, woodbanks, drystone walls or
other visible boundaries. In this paper, I focus on the
traces of open fields in different parts of Europe, dis-
tinguishing two periods. The first period, up to the ear-
ly 14th century, covers the period of origin and growth.
The heyday of the open fields ended during the first
half of the 14th century due to population decline,
which was followed by a series of reorganisations of
the European landscape (the second period, until the
present day). Both these periods have left traces in the
European landscape.
Zusammenfassung
Die Landschaften der offenen Feldfluren waren die
Kornkammern des mittelalterlichen Europas. Der Be-
griff “offene Feldflur” bezieht sich auf großen Ackerflä-
chen, die einen offenen Charakter haben, da die einzel-
nen Parzellen von den Eigentümern nicht von Hecken,
Baumreihen, Trockenmauern oder anderen sichtba-
ren Grenzen umgeben wurden. In diesem Beitrag kon-
zentriere ich mich auf die Spuren von offenen Feldern
in verschiedenen Teilen Europas in zwei Zeiträumen.
Die erste Zeitspanne reicht bis zum frühen 14. Jahr-
hundert und umfasst den Zeitraum der Entstehung
und Entwicklung der offenen Feldfluren. Die Blüte-
zeit endete in der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts
aufgrund eines Bevölkerungsrückgangs, es folgte eine
Reihe von Veränderungen in Europa in der folgenden
zweiten Periode, die bis heute andauert. Beide Phasen
haben Spuren in der europäischen Landschaft hinter-
lassen.
Résumé
Les paysages de champs ouverts furent le grenier à
grains de l’Europe médiévale. Le terme « champ ouvert
» fait référence aux larges champs labourables qui ont
un caractère « ouvert » parce que les parcelles indivi-
duelles ne sont pas entourées de haies, palissades ou
murs ni autres limites. Dans cet article, je me concentre
sur les traces de champs ouverts dans les différentes
régions d’Europe, distinguant deux périodes. La pre-
mière, jusqu’au 14e siècle couvre la période des débuts
RURALIA X
255–265
et de la croissance. L’apogée des champs ouverts se
termine dans la première moitié du 14e siècle, liée au
déclin de la population et fut suivi par une série de
réorganisations du paysage en Europe (la seconde pé-
riode, jusqu’à nos jours). Ces deux périodes ont laissé
des traces dans le paysage européen.
Bibliography
Astill, G. 1988:
Fields, in: Astill, G. – Grant, A. (eds), The Countryside of Me-
dieval England. Oxford, 62–85.
Banham, D. 2010:
‘In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread’. Cereals and
cereal production in the Anglo-Saxon landscape, in: Higham,
N. J. – Ryan, M. J. (eds), Landscape Archaeology of Anglo-Sax-
on England. Manchester, 175–192.
Bartlett, R. 1994:
The Making of Europe. Conquest, colonization and cultural
change 950–1350. London.
Beecham, H. A. 1956:
A review of balks as strip boundaries in the open fields, Agri-
cultural History Review 4, 22–44.
Birot, P. – Gabert, P. 1964:
La Méditerranée et le Moyen-Orient. Presses Universitaires
de France. Paris (vol. 1, revised ed.).
Brown, T. – Foard, G. 1998:
The Saxon landscape: a regional perspective, in: Everson, P.
– Williamson, T. (eds), The Archaeology of Landscape. Stud-
ies presented to Christopher Taylor. Manchester/New York,
67–94.
Chadwick, A. 2013:
Some fishy things about scales. Macro- and micro-approach-
es to Later Prehistoric and Romano-British field systems.
Landscapes 14, 13–32.
Darby, H. C. 1977:
Domesday England. Cambridge.
Dyer, C. 2003:
Making a Living in the Middle Ages: the people of Britain
850–1520. London.
Egli, H.-R. 1985:
Die Rückschreibung zur Rekonstruktion der Gewannflur-
genese im bernischen Seeland, Geographica Helvetica 40,
19–24.
Ewald, K. C. – Klaus, G. 2010:
Die ausgewechselte Landschaft. Vom Umgang der Schweiz
mit ihrer wichtigsten natürlichen Ressource. Bern – Stutt-
gart – Wien (3nd ed.; 1st ed. 2009).
Eyre, S. R. 1955:
The curving plough-strip and its historical implications, Agri-
cultural History Review 3, 80–94.
Flatrès, P. 1957:
Géographie Rurale de Quatre Contrées Celtiques: Irlande,
Galles, Cornwall & Man. Rennes.
263
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe 255–265

Fox, H. S. A. 1981: Lebeau, R. 1969, reprint 1986:

Approaches to the adoption of the Midland system, in: Row-
ley, T. (ed.), The Origins of Open-field Agriculture. London/
Totawa, 64–111.
Frandsen, K.-E. 1988:
The field systems of southern Scandinavia in the 17th cen-
tury; a comparative analysis, Geografiska Annaler 70 B,
117–121.
French, R. A. 1983:
The introduction of the three-field agricultural system, in:
Bater, J. H. – French, R. A. (eds), Studies in Russian Histori-
cal Geography 1. London, 65–81.
Gray, H. L. 1915:
English Field Systems. Harvard UP (2nd edition, London
1959).
Hackeng, R. 2006:
Het middeleeuwse grondbezit van het Sint-Servaaskapittel te
Maastricht in de regio Maas-Rijn. Maastricht.
Hall, D. 2014:
The open fields of England. Oxford.
Higham, N. 2010:
The landscape archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England: an in-
troduction, in: Higham, N. J. – Ryan M. J. (eds), Landscape
Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester, 1–21.
Hoffmann, R. C. 1989:
Land, Liberties, and Lordship in a Late Medieval Countryside;
agrarian structures and change in the Duchy of Wrocław.
Philadelphia.
Holt, R. 1988:
The Mills of Medieval England. Oxford.
Hooke, D. 1988:
Early forms of open-field agriculture in England, Geografiska
Annaler 70 B, 123–131.
Hooke, D. 2010:
The past in the present. Remnant open field patterns in Eng-
land, Hungarian Journal Landscape Ecology (Special issue),
43–51.
Hopcroft, R. L. 1999:
Regions, Institutions, and Agrarian Change in European His-
tory. Ann Arbor.
Ilešič, S. 1961:
Die jüngeren Gewannfluren in Nordwestjugoslawien, Geo-
grafiska Annaler 43, 130–137.
Krenzlin, A. 1961a:
Zur Genese der Gewannflur in Deutschland, nach Untersu-
chungen im nördlichen Unterfranken, Geografiska Annaler
43, 190–202.
Krenzlin, A. 1961b:
Die Entwicklung der Gewannflur als Spiegel kulturland-
schaftlicher Vorgänge, Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde
27, 19–36.
Krenzlin, A. – Reusch, L. 1961:
Die Entstehung der Gewannflur nach Untersuchungen im
nördlichen Unterfranken. Frankfurt/Main.
Langdon, J. 2004:
Mills in the Medieval Economy, England 1300–1540. Oxford.
Les Grands Types de Structures Agraires dans le Monde.
Paris.
Lemaire, T. 2013:
Korenvelden, in: Lemaire, T., Verre velden. Essays en excur-
sies 1995–2012. Amsterdam, 123–164
Lewis, C. – Mitchell-Fox, P. – Dyer, C. 1997:
Village, Hamlet and Field. Changing medieval settlements in
central England. Manchester –New York.
Liddiard, R. 1999:
The distribution of ridge and furrow in East Anglia: plough-
ing practice and subsequent land use, Agricultural History
Review 47, 1–6.
Meitzen, A. 1895:
Siedlung und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen und Ostger-
manen, der Kelten, Römer, Finnen und Slawen. Berlin (3 vol-
umes and atlas).
O’Keeffe, T. 2000:
Medieval Ireland. An archaeology. Stroud.
Oosthuizen, S. 2006:
Landscapes Decoded. The origins and development of Cam-
bridgeshire’s medieval fields. Hatfield. Explorations in Local
and Regional History 1.
Oosthuizen, S. 2013:
Debate. The emperor’s old clothes and the origins of medieval
nucleated settlements and their open fields, Medieval Settle-
ment Research 28, 96–98.
Orwin, C.S. – Orwin, C.S. 1954:
The Open Fields. Oxford (2nd edition; original edition 1938).
Pounds, N.J.G. 1990:
An Historical Geography of Europe. Cambridge.
Rackham, O. 1986:
The History of the Countryside. The full fascinating story of
Britain’s landscape. London.
Renes, J. 2010:
Grainlands. The landscape of open fields in a European per-
spective, Landscape History 31/2, 37–70.
Rippon, S. 2008:
Beyond the Medieval Village. The diversification of landscape
character in Southern Britain. Oxford.
Rippon, S. – Smart, C. – Pears, B. – Fleming, F. 2013:
The fields of Britannia. Continuity and discontinuity in the
pays and regions of Roman Britain, Landscapes 14, 33–53.
Roberts, B. K. – Wrathmell, S. 2002:
Region and Place. A study of English rural settlement. Lon-
don.
Rowley, T. (ed.) 1981:
The Origins of Open-Field Agriculture. London – Totawa.
Scharlau, K. 1961:
Flurrelikte und Florformengenese in Westdeutschland. Er-
gebnisse, Probleme und allgemeine Ausblicke, Geografiska
Annaler 53, 264–276.
Schreg, R. 2006:
Die Archäologie des mittelalterlichen Dorfes in Süddeutsch-
land. Probleme – Paradigmen – Desiderate, Siedlungsfor-
schung. Archäologie-Geschichte-Geographie 24, 141–162.

264 RURALIA X
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe
Spek, T. 2004:
Het Drentse Esdorpenlandschap; een historisch-geografische
studie. Utrecht.
Taylor, C. 1975:
Fields in the English landscape. London.
Taylor, C. C. 1981:
Archaeology and the origins of open-field agriculture, in:
Rowley, T. (ed.), The Origins of Open-Field agriculture. Lon-
don –Totawa, 13–21.
Taylor, C. C. – Fowler, P. J. 1978:
Roman fields into medieval furlongs, in: Bowen, H.C. Bowen
– Fowler, P.J. (eds): Early Land Allotment. Oxford, BAR British
Series 48, 159–162.
Thirsk, J. 1964:
The common fields, Past and Present 29, 3–25.
Verspay, J. 2011:
De landschapsgeschiedenis van de Oerse akkers, in:
Hans Renes, Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands / Faculty of
Arts, VU University Amsterdam, j.renes@uu.nl
RURALIA X
255–265
Theuws,F. – Van der Heiden, M. – Verspay, J., De archeolo-
gie van de Brabantse akkers, toegelicht aan de hand van het
onderzoek van de Universiteit van Amsterdam in Veldhoven.
Amsterdam, 96–179.
Williamson, T. 1988:
Explaining regional landscapes: woodland and champion
in Southern and Eastern England, Landscape History 10,
5–13.
Williamson, T. 2003:
Shaping Medieval Landscapes; settlement, society, environ-
ment. Macclesfield.
Wilson, D.R. 1989:
Alterations to ridge and furrow: some examples illustrated,
in: Aston, M. – Austin, D. – Dyer, C. (eds), The Rural Settle-
ments of Medieval England. Studies dedicated to Maurice Be-
resford and John Hurst. Oxford, 183–190
265
Renes, Landscape history and archaeology of open fields in Europe 255–265

266 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 267–278

Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)

from the Early Middle Ages to the Modern Period:
Archaeology and History
Landwirtschaft und Landschaft auf dem Guthof Wellin (Belgien)
vom Frühmittelalter bis zur Moderne: Archäologie und Geschichte

Pratiques agraires et paysages dans le domaine de Wellin (Belgique)

du haut Moyen Âge à l’époque moderne : Archéologie et histoire

Philippe Mignot – Nicolas Schroeder

The site of Wellin (Belgium) is one of the rare early
medieval estate centres that has been excavated and is
well known through written evidence. This paper is an
attempt to revisit the archaeological and documentary
evidence in a perspective that focuses mainly on agrar-
ian practices and landscapes. Firstly, we will summa-
rise the interpretations that have been made of the site
and its history, particularly for its origins in the early
medieval period. A second part discusses these per-
spectives in the light of recent studies. Finally, we will
address the question of the broader agrarian context
and the landscapes connected to the estate centre of
Wellin, from the Early Middle Ages to the modern pe-
riod. This approach will focus on material aspects of
agrarian practices and the territories related to them,
but also on perceptions of the environment.
Wellin: the site, its archaeological
structures and textual evidence
The contemporary village of Wellin is located about
twenty kilometres east of the river Meuse, at the meet-
ing point of two distinct geographical regions: the Fa-
menne and the Ardennes, which are separated by a
narrow strip of limestone called the Calestienne. The
centre of the village is currently a circular plot includ-
ing the church. Excavations were carried out in this
area between 1977 and 2000, covering 2000 square
metres (Evrard 1994; 1997; 1999).
Archaeology
Besides a Bronze-Age tomb, the earliest trace of oc-
cupation is a deep pit carved out of the limestone. It
is probably of Roman origin and may have been dug
to extract lead. It has been filled up, probably in Ro-
man times, and certainly before the first quarter of the
6th century.
Burials with funerary deposits, typical for the 6th
and 7th century, were installed in the area. Thirty
graves have been excavated, but the funerary zone is
likely to have been larger. One female tomb contained
exceptionally rich deposits, such as jewellery made
out of gold and garnet. Probably in the 7th century,
a timber-building was constructed on the upper part of
the Roman extraction pit, a few metres away from one
of the oldest tombs. It burned down, providing a layer
of debris, dated around AD 650 by radiocarbon.
After this mid-7th-century phase, the excavated area
has been used for various purposes. As written evi-
dence makes clear (see below), a chapel was built be-
fore the middle of the 8th century, probably in the un-
excavated zone on the south east of the site, where the
church building is still situated nowadays. This part
of the area kept its funerary function. At the same pe-
riod, timber-buildings covered the western part of the
site, as shown by post-holes and wear-traces. The area
above the extraction pit and the burned-down house
became a dumping ground. A layer of dark earth,
60 cm deep, has been excavated. It contained a signifi-
cant amount of animal bones (4938 mammal bones
and 1472 bird bones), a few shells from marine mol-
luscs, botanical remains, fragments of glass, ceram-
ics, metallic objects (knifes, a key, nails, a ring, an ar-
rowhead), spindle whorls, varied weaving tools, objects
and waste resulting from bone and antler sculpting.
The composition of the bone sample will be specified
below. Botanical remains included wild cherries and
strawberries, raspberries, dewberries, brambles, el-
der, barley and wheat. Analyses of the glass remains
suggest that the deposit has to be dated from the 8th
century. Because of the quality of the glass, the pres-
ence of antlers and deer bones, shells from sea mol-
luscs and various precious objects, it seemed very
likely that the deposit and the buildings were related to
aristocrats (Evrard 1999, 84).

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 267–278.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110471
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
Archaeological evidence for later periods is scarce,
but sufficient to show that the excavated zone re-
mained a core area of some importance with funerary
and sacred functions. In the high Middle Ages (11th
or 13th century?), the area has been surrounded by
a moat and a circa 1.5-metre thick curtain wall. The
moat had a V-shaped profile, was 3 metres deep and
5 metres wide. It has been filled up progressively from
the 11th/13th to the 16th century, as show the ceramic
fragments found during the excavations.
Written evidence
The interpretation of the early medieval structures
as the core of an aristocratic site is largely supported
by the written evidence. Wellin is cited as an estate
(villa) in a charter dating from 747 (Heidrich 2011, no.
15). This document records a transaction in which the
mayor of the palace, Carloman, gave the estate of Wellin
and all of its dependencies to the abbey of Stavelot-
Malmedy, situated in the north-eastern part of the Ar-
dennes. This charter has been used to suggest that the
excavated area was the burial and living site for the in-
habitants of the villa belonging to Carloman. The de-
posit would have been related to the consumption and
production activities of this aristocratic centre. A sec-
ond charter has been written between 751 and 768 in
order to record that the abbot Anglin gave the church
of Wellin to a priest named Severus (Halkin – Roland
268
267–278
Fig. 1. Wellin, aerial
view of the excavat-
ed area.
1909, no. 21). As we saw above, this document has been
used to suggests that a church or an oratory was build
in Wellin before the middle of the 8th century. High me-
dieval evidence shows that the estate remained in the
hands of the monks of Stavelot. In the late medieval
and modern period, the monks had to share the lord-
ship with the count of Luxembourg and the manor was
granted out in leasehold (Pekel 1997). However, until
the Revolution, Wellin remained a property of the ab-
bey of Stavelot-Malmedy.
New interpretations of archaeological
and written evidences
Written evidence: the site and its status from
747 to the 860s
A new analysis of the written evidence leads to im-
portant re-evaluations of the history of ownership and,
indirectly, of the interpretation of the archaeological ev-
idence. A first point is that although the villa was given
to the abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy in 747, the monks did
not use it directly as a monastic estate, which would
have provided them with goods and different sources
of income. The 747 charter specifies that although the
ownership of the villa was transferred to the abbey, the
abbot Anglinus and, after his death, his nephew Got-
bald, should benefit from its usufructs. A royal char-
ter written in 862 shows that at that time, Wellin was
RURALIA X
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium) 267–278

Fig. 2. General
map of the ex-
cavations.

granted out in precaria to Wigfrid, a royal ministerialis

Fig. 3. Detail of the ‘waste pit’.
(Schieffer 1966, 410–413). This evidence suggests that
Wellin was not managed as a typical monastic estate,
i.e., as part of the broader monastic economic organi-
sation. The villa was rather ‘indirectly’ managed by the
monks, who owned it, but granted it out to aristocrats.
This information is key to analysing correctly the pro-
duction and remains of consumption, and particularly,
to interpret the archaeozoological evidence adequately.
The change in property that occurred in the middle of
the 8th century did not involve a shift towards a ‘mo-
nastic economy’.
The first piece of evidence suggesting that Wellin
was an estate belonging directly to the monks is a roy-
al charter from 873 (Kehr 1934, 205). Wellin’s status
probably changed between 862 and 873, as a result of
the division of the abbey’s landholdings in three parts,
one belonging to the abbot, one to the community of
Stavelot and one to the community of Malmedy. At
that moment, Wellin became an estate belonging to the
community of Stavelot. This evolution led to the end
of granting out and its reorganisation as a proper mo-
nastic estate. An estate record, copied in a false char-
ter (Schroeder 2010) shows that in the second half of
the 9th century, the estate of Wellin was composed of
a manorial centre (mansus indominicatus), 62 peasant
holdings (mansi) and the chapel (capella). The kind of
goods and incomes that were transferred to the abbey
and the monks in Stavelot is not clear. All we know is

RURALIA X 269
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
that, at the beginning of the 12th century, Wellin owed
16 pounds and 40 sheep a year to the abbot (Halkin –
Roland 1909, no. 153). At the same period, the monks
still owned 40 peasant holdings (mansi) in Wellin
(Halkin – Roland 1909, no. 150) and a mill that was
related to the estate, but situated on the river Lesse
in Chanly, and granted out (Halkin – Roland 1909,
no. 137).
Archaeozoology
The new interpretations of archaeological evidence
essentially concern the faunal remains. They had been
studied by Regine Wattiez in 1983, reviewed by Anton
Ervynck (Ervynck 1997), and the results were pub-
lished in general overviews of the excavation (Evrard
1996; 1999). More recently, Achilles Gautier provided a
new analyse of this material, making some points that
have a significant impact on our understanding of the
economy of the estate of Wellin in the 8th century, but
also in the high and late Middle Ages. Indeed, Gauth-
ier analysed three other sets of bones that come from
the moat and can be dated from the 13th/14th centu-
ries.
The analyse of the 8th-century deposits shows that:
• Meat consumption predominantly consisted in pork
(87.2 percent of bones in a group of 4364 bones and
43.3 percent in another group of 376 bones), beef
(6.6 and 35.1 percent of bones), sheep and goat (6.2
and 21.5 percent of bones).
• The size of pig bones suggests that these animals
grew up in excellent environmental conditions,
whereas bovine bones are smaller than the average,
probably because their breeding conditions were
less good.
• The detailed recording of mandibular tooth erup-
tion and wear suggests that pigs were slaughtered
in winter, after having been fattened in the woods
(Ervynck 1997). This analyse also revealed that very
young piglets were consumed in high proportions,
a fact that points towards an aristocratic consump-
tion pattern.
• Significantly more bones from female sheep have
been identified, than from males. This imbalanced
sex ratio suggests that sheep breeding was centred
on milk and wool production.
• There is a small percentage (1.5 percent) of horse
remains, with some bones in anatomic connection,
which suggests that horses were not eaten.
• The total amount of wild mammals is relatively low,
compared to domestic mammals (only 5.1 percent of
bones). However, there is significant evidence to sug-
gest hunting activities.
270
267–278
• Dogs were quite numerous, tall and well taken care
of.
• Birds of prey used for falconry are attested in high
proportions: at least six goshawks, four sparrow
hawks and three falcons (about the archaeozoology
of falconry, see Prummel, 2013).
• Deer, boar and roe bones make 40, 11 and 4 percent
of the wild mammal bones.
• The percentage of bones from predators such as
foxes or otters (29.5 and 4 percent of wild mammal
bones) are abnormally high in the deposit. The best
explanation for this fact is that they were hunted for
their fur. This could also concern other animals,
such as squirrels (5.8 percent of wild animal bones)
and beavers.
• Out of the 1472 bird bones, 75 percent are chicken
bones; 21 percent are goose or duck bones. It is not
possible to know if those were domestic or wild ani-
mals.
The comparison of the 8th-century’s meat diet pat-
tern in Wellin (high quantities of young pigs, deer)
with more recent and better documented data sets
confirms that the deposit is related to an aristocrat-
ic consumption and production site (Ervynck – De
Meulemeester 1996; Ervynck 2006). It was a diversified
exploitation, combining livestock breeding, various
forms of hunting and craft activities. The animals were
consumed, but bones, antlers and fur were also pro-
cessed.
The three late medieval deposits are less impor-
tant in quantity than the ones from the 8th century
(156, 184 and 483 bones). Bovine bones are predomi-
nant (16 of 65 identified bones, 31/81, 93/233) on
pig (11/65, 24/81, 66/233) and sheep bones (11/65,
17/81, 53/233). Following on Anton Ervynck’s work
(Ervynck 2006), Achilles Gauthier points out that the
predominance of pig bones in the early medieval de-
posit and bovines in the late medieval assemblages
could be related to anthropogenic change in environ-
ment, landscape and agrarian practices. Pigs were pre-
dominantly raised in woodlands, whereas cattle herds
are rather related to open landscapes, i.e. grassland
and fallow land. The more diversified animal husband-
ry pattern of the late medieval period and the scarce
evidence for wild animals (only 1.1 percent of identi-
fied mammal bones) suggests that during the High
Middle Ages a shift towards an economy that was more
centred on crop cultivation and/or extensive grazing
occurred. It might be related to deforestation. However,
this interpretation is slightly problematic. The late me-
dieval sample size is quite small and the social origin
of those deposits is unknown. They might indeed have
been dumped in the moat from outside or inside of the
fortified area.
RURALIA X
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
Open questions: chronology and extent
of the site
On the broader archaeological level, despite the rich-
ness of the material, some questions remain unan-
swered. It seems important to point them out.
Although its dating to the 8th century is secure, the
chronology of the early medieval bone deposit remains
imprecise, affecting our understanding of the site’s
economy. Was this deposit accumulated on a long or a
short-time period? Does it reflect a long-term econom-
ic pattern or an exceptional event?
The links between the Merovingian cemetery and
the church attested in 751–68 remain an open ques-
tion. One of the major problems is that from the end of
the 7th century onwards, the tradition to put goods in
graves ceased in the studied region. Also, subsequent
uses of the area have led to significant disturbance to
the cemetery. Due to these facts, the chronology of the
burials after the 7th century remains unclear. In order
to understand how burial practices and the cemetery
evolved, excavations should be carried out in the site
of the contemporary church.
A last open question concerns what percentage of
the entire site has been excavated. From the 8th to
the 18th century, the excavated area has been a com-
bined aristocratic and funeral area. Maps and archives
show that in the modern period, this core with its ‘sa-
cred’ and ‘power’ functions was surrounded by peas-
ant housing, forming a village. From the second half
of the 9th century onwards, peasant holdings (mansi)
were attached to the estate centre of Wellin (Schroeder
2010). However, we do not know where the houses of
those peasants were situated. Research on the estate
of Villance, situated 20 kilometres south of Wellin and
belonging to the monks of Prüm, showed that in the
late 9th century peasant holdings could be situated far
away from the estate centre to which they belonged to
(Devroey 2011; Devroey – Schroeder 2012). The study
of cemeteries suggests that in the Merovingian period,
very small communities (one or two families) were
Fig. 4. North-South section of the tithing of Wellin.
RURALIA X
267–278
dispersed in the countryside surrounding Wellin (De
Meulemeester – Henrotay – Mignot 2000). However, this
does not exclude that peasant houses surrounded the
excavated area in the Merovingian or Carolingian pe-
riod. If they did not, we have to assume that at some
point in the Middle Ages, a process of nucleation or
growth led to the formation of the modern village (see
Schreg 2006). Those questions have to remain unan-
swered for now. Only new excavations in the contem-
porary village (Vanmechelen – Chantinne 2009; Mahé-
Hourlier – Poignant 2013) and/or the surrounding
countryside (Schreg 2006) would allow a better under-
standing of these issues.
Wellin and its landscape: agrarian
practices and the perception
of the environment
In 1997, Maurice Evrard published a map that dis-
played the territory of the commune of Wellin on a geo-
logical background (Evrard 1997, 40). Evrard intended
to show that the diversity in production and consump-
tion reflected in the archaeozoological evidence and bo-
tanical remains found in the 8th-century deposit could
be explained by the contrasting environment of Wellin.
From that same perspective, René Noël had already
highlighted the importance of the differences between
the rich limestone soils on the north of Wellin and the
poor schist soils on its south (Noël 1990, 807–11). The
northern part is indeed known as Calestienne, a low-
land limestone band, that runs from east to west, with
good soils and a milder climate than on the southern
part (Christians 1988, 39). It is part of a larger region
called Famenne. On the south of the Famenne rise the
Ardennes, a hilly and rough low mountain range, with
poorer soils, colder and wetter climate, than in the sur-
rounding lowlands. Consequently, the Calestienne is
better suited for crop-growing, whereas the Ardennes
are devoted to woodland and wasteland exploitation.
The line that separates these different patterns in
land-use and settlement runs on the contemporary
271
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
commune of Wellin. In its northern part, the altitude
is below 250 metres, whereas it rises from 250 to
400 metres in the part of the territory that is situated
in Ardennes. The river Lesse and its tributaries have
deeply eroded the relief and cut steep-sided valleys.
This has repercussions on the soils, which tend to be
thin and exposed to heavy erosion.
Considering these observations, Evrard and Noël
tried to show that the diversity in archaeozoological
and botanical remains found in Wellin implies that the
economic ‘catchment area’ of the site stretched over the
Calestienne and the Ardennes. By doing so, they used
contemporary environmental data, such as geological
maps and referred to the regional characteristics set
out in the discourse of academic geographers in the
19th and 20th centuries to explain archaeological evi-
dence. This approach is of course legitimate, but also a
bit problematic. Over the last decades, environmental
archaeology has brought up more and more evidence
showing that soils, plants or rivers change over time
(Burnouf 2009). They have their own dynamics, influ-
enced by human and natural factors. Therefore, the
formation of regions and contrasted landscapes is a
long term process, that is as much influenced by natu-
ral conditions as it is by human intervention (Rippon
2012). The agricultural use of land is surely adapted
to environmental factors (Williamson 2004; William-
son – Liddiard – Partida 2013), but human activity can
also simplify complex landscapes or, indeed, increase
heterogeneity in homogeneous contexts. Rippon has
argued convincingly that this type of landscape shap-
ing is not only related to agricultural activity, but also
to the identities and perceptions of local communities.
Particular landscapes, resources, and material culture
– ‘imposed by nature’ or ‘cultural choice’ – can con-
tribute to arouse feelings of regional specificity that,
in return, lead to the shaping of varied landscapes. To
study such regional differentiation processes, it is nec-
essary to look at various types of evidence that inform
about agrarian practices, landscapes, territories, iden-
tities and representations in a long-term perspective
(Rippon 2012). Following on Rippon’s work, this part
of the paper puts together archaeological and written
evidence, in order to approach the landscape and the
environment surrounding the estate of Wellin, from
the early medieval to the modern period.
The Famenne and the Ardennes in Merovingian
times
In the area covered by an imaginary circle with a ra-
dius of 10 kilometres and centred on Wellin, the only
known archaeological evidence relating to the Merov-
ingian period comes from cemeteries (Pronce 1990;
Roosens 1949; Geubel 1953; Mignot 2010a; 2010b). It
272
267–278
is striking that these burial sites (Éprave, Wancennes,
Éclaye, Resteigne, Lavaux, Revogne, Froidlieu, etc.)
were concentrated in the lowlands of the Famenne re-
gion. Only one burial has been found in the part of the
Ardennes that is under study here (Geubel 1953). This
does of course not mean that the Ardennes were not
settled or economically exploited at all (Wickham 1990).
Settlement patterns and the geography of burials are
connected, but they do not mirror each other perfectly.
The polarisation of cemeteries in the lowlands could
reflect the geography of central places, elites and so-
cial bounds, such as fidelities or kin. In his work on
the early medieval Black Forest, Rainer Schreg has
observed a similar pattern of Merovingian cemeter-
ies restricted to lowlands. To explain this observation,
Schreg argues that ‘early outland use in the highlands
[was] dependent on permanent settlements with cen-
tral functions in the lowlands’ (Schreg 2009, 321).
This model allows to explain the uneven repartition
of archaeological and written evidence. Communities
and farmers living in the uplands would be less rich
because they were dwelling in a ‘landscape with high
risk of insufficient surplus’ (Schreg rightly substitutes
‘marginal landscape’ with this expression), but also
because they were in a less competitive social context.
Displaying social hierarchies through donations to the
Church and rich burials would be something typical
for lowland communities, which were living close to
central places. Upland farmers might have been ex-
posed to less direct aristocratic pressure and therefore
closer to what Chris Wickham has called the peasant-
mode of production (Wickham 2005, chapter 9. See
p. 540 about the particularities of certain communi-
ties living in ‘marginal’ land). It is worth noticing that
Schreg’s model perfectly fits to explain the evidence
from the Famenne and the Ardennes, two regions with
quite similar environmental features than the Black
Forest and its surrounding lowlands.
These observations show that as early as in the 6th
and 7th centuries, regional differences between the
Ardennes and the Famenne were important. They can
be explained by the contrasts in relief, climate and
probably soil-types, but they were not only a matter of
natural settings. The social and symbolic landscapes
of both regions were already very different. It is indeed
likely that the concentration of cemeteries in the low-
lands had an impact on the material landscape and the
perception of space.
The Carolingian period: hunting and regional
differentiation
As Maurice Evrard and René Noël showed, the ar-
chaeozoological and palaeoenvironmental evidence
from Wellin suggests that in the 8th century, the eco-
RURALIA X
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
nomic ‘catchment-area’ of the estate involved arable
land, grass and large tracks of woodland. They argued
that this diversity was related to the regional charac-
teristics of the Ardennes and the Famenne. It is im-
portant to notice that beyond agricultural practices,
other activities could contribute to form the percep-
tion of contrasted landscapes. Hunting, for example, is
an activity that varies depending on the environment.
The new archaeozoological analyses are very interest-
ing from that point of view. Indeed, falconry and deer
hunting are both attested in Wellin, but these types of
hunting do not take place in the same type of land-
scapes. The first one is a typical open-space activity
carried out in river areas, fields, marches, etc. (Van
den Abeele 1990, 42) and the second one is related to
large woodlands, such as the Ardennes (Hennebicque
1980). Hence, the evidence from the deposit of Wellin
suggests that the hunters attached to the estate were
hunting with diversified techniques that were adapted
to the varied landscape surrounding the site.
In the Carolingian period, written evidence gives
relevant information about political territories and re-
gional differentiation. A charter from 862 reveals that
Wellin was situated in the Famenne pagus (Van Rey
1977, 104). Other charters show that all localities situ-
ated on its south were in the Ardenne pagus, whereas
all localities on its north were situated in Famenne
(Van Rey 1977, map 4). It is not clear if a pagus was a
proper administrative territory or a region in a larger
RURALIA X
267–278
geographical sense and whether their boundaries were
clearly defined (West 2011; Margue 2011, 511). How-
ever, in the case of the Ardennes and the Famenne,
Axel Wieger has shown that the distinction was clear-
cut and that it followed the line of division that con-
temporary geographers, focussing on relief and geol-
ogy, draw between both regions (Wieger 1976, 1–8). As
scarce as it is, this evidence suggests that differences
in landscapes and their uses were perceived and led to
regional differentiation in the 9th century.
Land and territories in 10th-century Famenne
Four charters written in the first half of the 10th
century record the exchange of land in the studied
area (Halkin – Roland 1909, 134–136, 144–146, 157–
161). These documents only concern land situated
in Famenne. They give suggestive information about
landscapes, and the social and agrarian organisation
in this lowland area. The plots that were exchanged
consisted of arable land, but also grassland, especially
in river valleys and lower grounds. Grassland must
have been very important, judging from the frequency
with which it is mentioned in charters (Mignot – Ton-
glet 2005).
The charters situate the plots in different villas,
that were already called by the names of the villages
surrounding Wellin nowadays: Halma, Chanly, Auffe
and Resteigne. The word villa is polysemic and could
Fig. 5. Wellin and its surroundings in the 10th century:
territories and landownership.
273
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
be used to designate estates, settlements and less or
more formalised territorial divisions (Renard 2010). So
what were these villas cited in the 10th-century evi-
dence? Two charters, dating from 926 and 947, enact
and confirm the tradition of a field of approximately
8.5 acres (34 bunaria) belonging to the estate of Wellin.
This large parcel was situated between land belonging
to the monastery of Saint-Hubert, and three otherwise
unknown men called Gozbert, Leutgerus and Odilo.
The charters mention that this piece of land belonged
to the villa of Wellin, but also that it was situated in the
villa of Halma. This slightly paradoxical formulation
can only be understood if the charters refer to the villa-
estate of Wellin and the villa-territory of Halma. What
this charter reveals is that the region surrounding
Wellin was divided in some sort of territories, called
villae, in which several people owned land. It seems
unlikely that these villae were very formal, ‘adminis-
trative’ districts (contra Renard 2010). Indeed, the two
charters also mention another parcel of approximately
2.3 acres (9 bunuaria) of land and a hayfield. Those
are situated in the villa of Resteigne in the first char-
ter and between Chanly and Resteigne in the second
one. This suggests that those villa-territories were not
clearly defined, but rather informal localities or vicini-
ties. We do not know if the villages that exist nowadays
274
267–278
and are named like the 10th century’s villae already
existed in that period. However, it is likely that settle-
ments of some sort, nucleated or dispersed, were al-
ready related to the villa-territories. In this perspective,
it is important to notice that the charters mention that
Chanly and Resteigne had watermills, which were pow-
ered by the river Lesse.
The charters show that in the 10th century, the es-
tate of Wellin consisted of the excavated estate centre,
but also of scattered pieces of land, that were less or
more intermingled with land belonging to other own-
ers and situated in an informal patchwork of localities.
Such a diverse and complex social landscape, with im-
portant infrastructure, such as watermills, surely re-
flects a long history of settlement and land-use. It is
striking that this evidence only concerns the Famenne
region and not the fringes of the Ardennes situated on
the south of Wellin. Patterns of early medieval land-
owning and estate organisation similar to the one ob-
served in Famenne can be found in Ardennes (Devroey
2011; Devroey – Schroeder 2012), but only on the cen-
tral plateaus and the upper, less eroded parts of the
valleys. No archaeological or written evidence suggests
that the steep valleys and slopes on the south of Wellin
have ever been intensively populated or exploited.
Fig. 6. Types of grains payed as rent in several manors situ-
ated between the Meuse and the Ardennes, 13th–14th cen-
tury.
RURALIA X
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium) 267–278

Late medieval and modern territories, field layout

and crop farming
By combining late medieval and modern written
sources with maps from the 18th and 19th centuries,
it is possible to study the agrarian territory surround-
ing Wellin and crop farming. Of course, the picture is
only half-formed and one should not assume that late
medieval and modern agrarian practices and struc-
tures can simply be projected backwards to the high
and early Middle Ages. However, this research is in-
formative for its own period and relevant observations
for earlier times can be achieved through a careful
framing of the evidence.
Archives from the 16th and 17th century refer to pa-
rochial boundaries and the territories in which tithes
were perceived.1 This archival data shows that, although
small differences existed, the communal boundaries
known from 19th-century maps were quite similar to
modern parochial boundaries. The territory of Wellin,
but also those of Chanly, Halma, or Resteigne, formed
long strips (circa 3 x 9 kilometres in the case of Wellin)
oriented from north to south. Most settlements and ar-
able land were situated in the northern part of these
territories, the Calestienne. The central and southern Fig. 7. Wellin as it appears on the ‘Carte de Cabinet des Pays-Bas autri-
chiens, levée à l’initiative du comte de Ferraris’, 1770–1778. The sec-
parts were in the Ardennes and consisted essentially of
tion in the white rectangle is labelled ‘communal land, that is ploughed
woodlands and wastelands, with rare and small settle- every 18 to 20 years’ (see Fig. 8).
ments (Fays and Daverdisse on the territory of Wellin).
Grassland was predominantly situated around the set-
tlement and the small stream running on its north. husbandry based on rye and oats was applied in the
Early 19th-century maps show that arable land Ardennes (Schroeder 2014). Two or three years of crop
around the village of Wellin was organised in fields production were followed by six to ten years of fallow.
with a predominant east-west orientation, following the Tithe records show that in the early 17th century, farm-
general topography of the area and the road network. ers in Wellin cultivated spelt, oats and rye, whereas
Most fields were divided in thin and long strips. Those communities situated on its north did not cultivate rye
fields, situated on the northern part of the village ter- and communities on its south did not cultivate spelt.2
ritory were not the only area where crops were grown. Recent research based on peasant rent suggests that
On the late 18th-century Ferraris map, the transition the environmental differences between the Famenne
zone between Calestienne and Ardennes is displayed and the Ardennes already resulted in those varied crop
as a strip of wasteland described as ‘communal land, types and agricultural practices in the 13th and 14th
that is ploughed every 18 to 20 years’. This means that centuries (Schroeder forthcoming). The evidence is too
besides the permanent fields situated on the best soils, scarce to consider earlier periods and extrapolations
temporary fields could also be reclaimed in the waste- should be avoided. Indeed, as we saw with the analysis
lands of the Ardennes. of late medieval bone deposits, significant deforesta-
In the early 19th century, the crop-rotations on the tion, change in the landscape and agrarian practices
lands of the district of Wellin belonging to the Famenne might have occurred during the high medieval period. It
were triennial, whereas in the Ardennes, four or five is however striking to notice that the farmers in Wellin
years of cultivation were followed by six to seven years were growing crops in two very different environments.
of fallow (Hoyois 1949, 233). Research on the 16th We do not know where or how their predecessors in the
and 17th centuries shows that in the Famenne, three- early and high middle ages grew crops, but they surely
course rotations based on spelt and oats were com- had to take into account the significant environmental
mon (Billen 1988, 77), whereas a system of convertible constraints imposed by relief, climate and soil.

2
1 Liège, Archives de l’État, Abbaye de Stavelot-Malmedy, 330, Liège, Archives de l’État, Abbaye de Stavelot-Malmedy, 330,
f° 223–230. f° 8–10.

RURALIA X 275
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
Fig 8. Communal land that is ploughed every 18 to 20 years’ in the township of Wellin: Cadastre from 1830 superimposed on the ‘Carte de Ferraris’,
1770–1778.
Conclusions
Excavations and written evidence show that in the
8th century Wellin was an aristocratic estate centre
with consumption, production, housing and funer-
ary functions. The property of the estate was given to
the abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy in 747, but Wellin has
probably been granted out to various aristocrats until
the 860s. After this period and until the Revolution, it
was a monastic estate belonging to the community of
Stavelot. From the late medieval period onwards, maybe
earlier, the site developed into a village, which it still is.
Although many questions remain about the site and
its history, archaeological and written evidence pro-
vide information about landscapes and agrarian prac-
tices in and around Wellin from the Merovingian pe-
riod to the 19th century. Due to insufficient evidence,
the picture is at best half-formed and presents itself
as a patchwork of analyses. However, these varied ap-
proaches show that Wellin was situated at the interface
between two contrasted regions. The economy of the
site, the relations between farmers and elements of the
ecosystem surely changed over time, but at all periods,
agrarian or hunting practices, landscapes and their
perceptions were deeply influenced by the significant
276
267–278
regional differences between the lowland-Famenne
and the upland-Ardennes. Rather than an opposition
between a ‘fertile’ region and ‘sterile’ marginal land,
the evidence points towards a diversified and com-
bined use of the site’s environment.
Zusammenfassung
Zwischen 1977 und 1996 wurden archäologische
Ausgrabungen im Zentrum des Dorfes Wellin in den
Ardennen durchgeführt (Provinz Luxemburg). Dabei
wurde eine Reihe von Strukturen aufgedeckt, die die Be-
siedlung des Ortes von der Mitte des sechsten Jahrhun-
derts bis zur Gegenwart beleuchten. Die ausgegrabenen
Bereiche des achten bis zehnten Jahrhunderts geben
indirekte Hinweise auf Landwirtschaft, Jagd sowie all-
gemein die Gestaltung der Umwelt. Diese archäologi-
schen Daten und deren Interpretation werden sinnvoll
durch Schriftquellen aus der in der Mitte des 7. Jahr-
hunderts gegründete Abtei Stavelot ergänzt. Wellin ge-
hörte nach demnach 743 zur Herrschaft des höheren
Adels. Die Gegenüberstellung von zwei Quellenarten
liefert weiterführende Hinweise zu Produktionsformen
im Gebiet südlich der Maas, einem Zeitraum, aus dem
bislang insgesamt wenig Quellen vorliegen.
RURALIA X
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
Résumé
Entre 1977 et 1996, des fouilles archéologiques
menées au centre du village de Wellin en Ardenne
(province de Luxembourg) ont mis au jour une série
de structures qui éclairent l’occupation du lieu depuis
le milieu du VIe siècle jusqu’à nos jours. La fouille
d’une aire de rejets de consommation bien datée entre
le VIIIe et le Xe siècle fournit des indices indirects sur
l’élevage, la chasse et, plus globalement, l’environne-
ment. Ces données matérielles permettent une inter-
prétation archéologique complétée utilement par les
sources écrites issues de l’abbaye de Stavelot, fondée
au milieu du VIIe siècle et à laquelle le domaine de
Wellin fut légué en 743 par un membre de la haute
aristocratie. Cette confrontation entre deux sources
de nature différente permet d’esquisser des modes de
production dans l’espace au sud de la Meuse pour une
période encore mal documentée.
Bibliography
Billen, C. 1988:
Histoire, in: Genicot, L.-F. (ed.), Architecture rurale de Wallo-
nie/Fagne et Famenne, Liège, 52–82.
Burnouf, J. 2009:
Archéologie environnementale : des milieux et des hommes,
in: Burnouf, J. (ed.), Manuel d’archéologie médievale, Paris,
61–94.
Christians, C. 1988:
Géographie, in: Genicot, L.-F. (ed.), Architecture rurale de Wal-
lonie/Fagne et Famenne, Liège, 34–51.
De Meulemeester, J. – Henrotay, D. – Mignot, P. 2000:
Facteurs du regroupement villageois entre Meuse et Moselle
au Sud de la Meuse (Belgique/Grand-Duché de Luxembourg).
Une appréciation actuelle des connaissances archéologiques,
Ruralia 3, Prague, 24–36.
Devroey, J.-P. 2006:
Puissants et misérables. Système social et monde paysan
dans l’Europe des Francs (VIe–IXe siècles), Bruxelles.
Devroey, J.-P. 2011:
La hiérarchisation des pôles habités et de l’espace rural. Au-
tour des possessions de l’abbaye de Prüm (893) en Ardenne
belge, in: Gaillard, M. – Margue, M. – Dierkens, A. – Pet-
tiau, H. (eds), De la mer du Nord à la Méditerranée. Francia
Media. Une région au cœur de l’Europe (c. 840 – c. 1050),
Luxembourg, 175–206.
Devroey, J.-P. – Schroeder, N. 2012:
Beyond royal estates and monasteries: landownership in the
early medieval Ardennes, Early medieval Europe 20, 39–69.
Ervynck, A. – De Meulemeester J., 1996:
La viande dans l’alimentation seigneuriale et la variété des
terroirs: l’exemple des Pays-Bas méridionaux, in: Collar-
delle, M. (ed.), L’homme et la nature au Moyen Âge, Paléoenvi-
ronnement et sociétés occidentales, Paris, 36–41.
RURALIA X
267–278
Ervynck, A. 1997:
Detailed recording of tooth wear (Grant 1982) as an evalua-
tion of the seasonal slaughtering of pigs? Examples from
Medieval sites of Belgium, Archaeofauna 6, 67–79.
Ervynck, A. 2006:
Top-predator or survivor? The castle of Sugny as seen
throught its animal remains, Les Cahiers de l’Urbanisme,
Hors série, Septembre, 78–89.
Evrard, M. 1994:
L’évolution du noyau historique d’un domaine mérovingien
révélée par les fouilles à Wellin (Prov. Lux.), in: Actes du LIe
Congrès de la Fédération des Cercles d’Archéologie et d’His-
toire de Belgique, 2. Bruxelles, 114–121.
Evrard, M. 1997:
Les recherches archéologiques à Wellin, in: Stavelot – Wellin
– Logne. Une abbaye et ses domaines, Wellin, 22–51.
Evrard, M. 1999:
Histoire et archéologie associées pour une meilleure connais-
sance de Wellin, domaine de l’abbaye de Stavelot-Malmedy, De
la Meuse à l’Ardenne 29, 73–84.
Ewig, E. 1963:
Les Ardennes au haut Moyen Âge, Anciens Pays et assem-
blées d’États – Standen en Landen, 28, 1–38.
Geubel, A. 1953:
Découvertes de tombes anciennes à Villance, Curia Arduen-
nae 16/4, 3–6.
Halkin, J. – Roland, C.-G. 1909:
Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Stavelot-Malmedy, 1,
Bruxelles.
Heidrich, I. 2011:
Die Urkunden der Arnulfinger, Hannover.
Hennebicque, R. 1980:
Espaces sauvages et chasses royales dans le Nord de la Fran-
cie, VIIème–IXème siècles, Revue du Nord 62, 35–57.
Hoyois, G. 1949:
L’Ardenne et l’ardennais : l’évolution sociale et économique
d’une region, 1, Gembloux.
Kehr, P. 1934:
Die Urkunden Ludwigs des Deutschen, Karlmanns und Lud-
wig des Jüngeren. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Die Ur-
kunden der Deutschen Karolinger, 1, Berlin.
Mahé-Hourlier, N. – Poignant, S. (eds) 2013:
Archéologie du village, Archéologie dans le village dans le
nord de la France (Ve–XIIIe siècle). Actes de la table-ronde,
22–24 novembre 2007, M.A.N., Saint-Germain-en-Laye/
Condé-sur-Noireau.
Margue, M. 2011:
Pouvoirs et espaces comtaux. Le cas des comtés ardennais
(Xe–XIIIe siècle), Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 89,
507–532.
Mignot, P. – Tonglet, B. 2005:
Les campagnes de l’An Mil entre Ardenne et Meuse, Les Ca-
hiers de l’Urbanisme 56, 6–10.
Mignot, P. 2010a:
Mourir à la campagne entre l’an 550 et 1750. Archéologie
du cimetière paroissial de Froidlieu, in: Balace, S. – De Poor-
ter, A. (eds), Entre paradis et enfer. Mourir au Moyen Âge,
277
Mignot – Schroeder, Agrarian practices and landscape in the estate of Wellin (Belgium)
600–1600. Catalogue d’exposition, Bruxelles, Musées royaux
d’art et d’histoire, du 2/12/2010 au 24/4/2011, Bruxelles,
172–181.
Mignot, P. 2010b:
Les relations entre cimetières et regroupement de l’habitat
rural médiéval: l’exemple de Froidlieu (Wellin, province de
Luxembourg), in: Yante, J.-M. – Bultot-Verleysen, A.-M. (eds),
Autour du « village ». Établissements humains, finages et
communautés rurales entre Seine et Rhin (IVe–XIIIe siècles).
Actes du colloque international de Louvain-la-Neuve, 16–17
mai 2003, Louvain-la-Neuve, 355–378.
Noël, R. 1990:
Pour une archéologie de la nature dans le Nord de la « Fran-
cia ». In: L’ambiente vegetale nell’alto medioevo. Settimane di
studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 37, Spo-
leto, 763–820.
Pekel, M. 1997:
Le domaine de Wellin, seigneurie foncière et hautaine :
Maîtres des lieux et partage de l’autorité. In: Stavelot – Wellin
– Logne. Une abbaye et ses domaines, Wellin, 53–60.
Pronce, B. 1990:
L’occupation du sol à l’époque mérovingienne dans la pro-
vince de Luxembourg et au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg,
Documents d’archéologie régionale, Université catholique de
Louvain, 3, 58–92.
Prummel, W. 2013:
Falconry in continental settlements as reflected by animal
bones from the 6th to 12th centuries AD, in: Grimm O. –
Schmölcke U. (eds), Hunting in northern Europe until 1500
AD, Neumünster, 357–377.
Renard, E. 2010:
Domaine, village ou circonscription administrative ? La poly-
sémie du mot « villa » aux VIIIe–Xe siècles et l’assise territoriale
des paroisses rurales, in: Yante, J.-M. – Bultot-Verleysen, A.-M.
(eds), Autour du « village ». Établissements humains, finages
et communautés rurales entre Seine et Rhin (IVe–XIIIe siècles).
Actes du colloque international de Louvain-la-Neuve, 16–17
mai 2003, Louvain-la-Neuve, 153–177.
Rippon, S. 2012:
Making sense of an historic landscape, Oxford.
Roosens, H. 1949:
De Merowingische begraafplaatsen in België : repertorium al-
gemene beschouwingen, Gent.
Schreg, R. 2006:
Dorfgenese in Südwestdeutschland: das Renninger Becken
im Mittelalter, Stuttgart.
Schreg, R. 2009:
Development and abandonment of a cultural landscape.
Archaeology and environmental history of medieval settle-
ments in the northern Black Forest, Ruralia 7, Turnhout,
315–333.
Philippe Mignot, Direction de l’archéologie, Ministère de la Région wallonne, Namur, Rue de Brigades d΄Irlande 1, B-5100
NAMUR, philippe.mignot@spw.wallonie.be
Nicolas Schroeder* (Chargé de recherches du F.R.S.-FNRS, Université libre de Bruxelles), nschroed@ulb
* My contribution to this paper was partly written at the University of Oxford as part of a post-doctoral project, with fun-
ding from the Wiener-Anspach Foundation. María Mancilla García and Jean-Pierre Devroey commented on a first version
of the paper and suggested important improvements. I thank them for their help.
278
267–278
Schieffer, T. 1966:
Die Urkunden Lothars I. und Lothars II. (Monumenta Ger-
maniae Historica. Die Urkunden der Karolinger, 3), Berlin –
Zürich.
Schroeder, N. 2010:
Parvitas regni, villae dominicatae et vassalorum. Note sur un
faux diplôme de Lothaire II au profit de l’abbaye de Stavelot
(†862 DD LoII 37), Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 88,
921–33.
Schroeder, N. 2014:
Les cultures temporaires en Ardenne belge du Moyen Âge au
XIXe siècle, in: Viader, R. – Rendu, C. (eds), Cultures tempo-
raires et féodalités : les cycles culturaux dans l’Europe mé-
diévale et moderne. Actes du colloque de l’abbaye de Flaran,
12–13 octobre 2012, Toulouse, 101–116.
Schroeder, N. forthcoming:
Remarques sur la céréaliculture en Ardenne au Moyen Âge.
In: Actes du 9e Congrès de l’Association des Cercles Franco-
phones d’Histoire et d’archéologie de Belgique. 56e Congrès
de la Fédération des Cercles d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de
Belgique (24 août 2012, Liège). Liège, (forthcoming).
Van den Abeele, B. 1990:
La fauconnerie dans les lettres françaises du XIIe au XIVe siècle,
Leuven.
Vanmechelen, R. – Chantinne, F. 2009:
L’archéologie au cœur du village : Haillot (Ohey), des origines
mérovingiennes à l’exode rural (VIIe–XIXe siècles), De la Meuse
à l’Ardenne 41, 123–174.
West, C. 2011:
Principautés et territoires : comtes et comtés, in: Gaillard, M.
– Margue, M. – Dierkens, A. – Pettiau, H. (eds), De la Mer du
Nord à la Méditerranée. Francia Media, une région au coeur
de l’Europe (c. 840–c. 1050), Luxembourg, 131–150.
Wickham, C. 1990:
European forests in the early middle ages: landscape and
land clearance. In: L’ambiente vegetale nell’alto medioevo.
Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto me-
dioevo 37. Spoleto, 479–548.
Wickham, C. 2005:
Framing the early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterra-
nean, 400–800. Oxford.
Wieger, A. 1976:
Das Siedlungs- und Agrargefüge des Condroz und der Fa-
menne in seiner historischen Entwicklung und in der Ge-
genwart. Aachen.
Williamson, T. 2004:
Shaping medieval landscapes: settlement, society, environ-
ment. Bollington – Macclesfield – Cheshire.
Williamson, T. – Liddiard, R. – Partida, T. 2013:
Champion: the making and unmaking of the English Midland
landscape. Exeter.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 279–290

Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring:

Studying the time-space dynamics of agricultural areas
with surface-collected off-site material
Archäologische Quellen zur Ackerdüngung:
Off-site Scherbenschleier als Grundlage für Erkenntnisse
zur Entwicklung landwirtschaftlicher Flächen in Zeit und Raum

Les preuves archéologiques de l’épandage de fumure :

étudier les dynamiques spatiotemporelles des espaces agraires
avec le mobilier hors-site de prospection

Nicolas Poirier

Introduction
Off-site material collected while fieldwalking sur-
veys has been considered for a long time as a ‘back-
ground noise’, an impediment to the detection of sites.
In the last forty years, the extent of archaeologists’
interest from the site to the territory has led to a re-
consideration of this off-site material and the use of
it as a marker of formerly cultivated areas (Wilkinson
1982; Bintliff – Snodgrass 1988; Wilkinson 1989; Ba-
kels 1997). Whereas this interpretation is commonly
accepted in most of Anglo-Saxon countries and used
by few French researchers (Raynaud 1989; Favory –
Fiches 1994), there is still a debate regarding the in-
terpretation of this material (Forbes 2013). That is why
we wanted to formalise it and to document the prac-
tice of improving the soil from Antiquity to the Modern
Period (Poirier – Nuninger 2012). At the same time, the
French Archaedyn Project was engaged in a study of
the time-space dynamics of agricultural spaces from
Protohistory to Modern Times based on off-site materi-
al collected during fieldwalking campaigns in different
study areas of northern and southern France (Poirier
– Tolle 2008; Poirier et al. 2012).
Off-site material as remain of manuring
practices?
Even if this does not constitute a proof, we have to
mention at the outset that most of the fieldwalking
campaigns conducted in France during the last thirty
years have led to the collection of off-site material dat-
ing from the Bronze Age to nowadays (Ferdière – Zado-
ra-Rio 1986; Ferdière – Rialland 1994; Favory – Fiches
1994; Ferdière – Rialland 1995; 1996; Poirot 1998; 2010).
If this presence is clearly visible, its interpretation as
the product of manuring practices is based on an ini-
tial assumption that the spreading of livestock manure
collected in barns was used during earlier periods. To
confirm this hypothesis, we will first focus on the iden-
tification of written and iconographic sources attesting
the ancient practice of manuring.
Manuring of croplands is attested since
Antiquity
Most of the Roman agronomists recommended the
use of manure to improve the quality of soil: Cato (2nd
century BC) details the necessary tools to spread the
manure (De Re Rustica, V); Varro (1st century BC)
suggests that the dunghill has to be located near the
farmstead (Res Rusticae, I, 38, 3); Columella (1st cen-
tury AD) is the most explicit regarding the spreading
of manure, detailing the quantities needed for a given
area (De Agricultura, II, 5). Pliny the Elder (1st century
AD) specified which types of soil need improvement,
the best time in the year to spread the manure, the re-
quired quantities of livestock to produce enough ma-
nure, etc. (Naturalis Historia, XVIII, 53).
Iconographic sources, such as the agricultural calen-
dar found on a mosaic at Saint-Romain-en-Gal (France),
illustrate the spreading of manure (Fig. 1).
These texts and recommendations regarding the
use of manure were compiled and transmitted during
the Middle Ages by means of the agronomic literature
from the 13th century, for example in the Ruralium
commodorum libri duodecim of Pietro de Crescenzi.
From the Carolingian period, the ‘Capitulare de Villis’
had already advised to spread not only the manure,

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 279–290.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110472
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring 279–290

The proximity between houses and stables

or manure pits
The first argument is commonsense. The proxim-
ity of residential and livestock buildings suggests that
there would have been a more or less conscious mix-
ture of organic and manufactured waste in the forma-
tion of manure. One cannot imagine why a strict sep-
aration would have been made between the different
sources of organic matter production, when often the
partition between the living spaces of humans and ani-
mal housing was only slightly marked materially. Such
close proximity was also recommended in ancient
(Varro, Res Rusticae, I, 13) and medieval agricultural
treatises (Mane 1985, 736).

The incorporation was recommended

by agronomists
Ancient agricultural literature also recommended
Fig. 1. Mosaïc illustrating the transport of manure (Saint-Romain-en-
Gal, France). the incorporation of domestic waste into the manure.
Cato proposed that the periods of bad weather should
be dedicated to the cleaning of stables, barns, and
all the buildings of the farm (De Re Rustica, XXXIX).
but also all the waste from the farm (Delatouche 1977,
81). Taxation, rental and sale documents also contain
information about the practice of manuring. For ex-
ample, in southern France, we can find many refer-
ences to structures that can be identified as manure
pits, called femoracius (Puig 2003). We also sometimes
have references to the sale of manure (Monnet 1992),
or the duty of a tenant to spread manure over the
land at least one time during the period he occupies it
(Brunel 2004; Viader 2006). The medieval iconography
also attests to the practice of manuring (Mane 1985).
The Rustican mentioned above contains an agricultur-
al calendar illustrating this practice for the month of
February: two men are spreading manure in a closed
space where many other piles have been already dis-
persed (Fig. 2).

Domestic waste could be incorporated into

the manure.
The second assumption is that domestic waste, in-
cluding sherds of pottery, could be incorporated into
the manure, deliberately or not. These sherds and
fragments of building materials were mixed with other
waste on manure piles usually located near the settle-
ment, and spread with organic materials in the fields.
They alone would have survived once the organic mat-
ter had decomposed. This assumption is supported by
a number of sources confirming the incorporation of Fig. 2. Agronomic treatise from Pietro di Crescenzi, 1459. February
household waste, including the sherds of broken pot- dedicated to the spreading of animal manure, Condé Museum, Chan-
tery, within the manure spread. tilly, France, Ms 340.

280 RURALIA X
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring 279–290

Columella indicates that the farmer should collect all that received significant inputs over time (Entwistle et
the waste from the farm, and keep it in a pit (De Agri- al. 2000, 300). This association between phosphorus
cultura, II, 14). The same advice is given in the medi- and manure has been well demonstrated by measure-
eval treaties (Fleta, II, 73 cited by Grand – Delatouche ments in gardens which have much higher phospho-
1950, 267). rus rates than those on the associated areas (Entwistle
et al. 1998, 64). There may also be a direct relationship
between the amount of soil organic matter and density
This incorporation is attested by of archaeological artefacts collected in the topsoil (Poir-
archaeological sources, geochemical ier 2010, 97).
observations, and archival texts.
Recent archaeological evidence also attest to the in- An ancient but still discussed
corporation of household waste into manure. interpretation
During archaeological fieldwork, slight excavated
This assumption about the interpretation of off-site
structures have been interpreted as remains of ma-
material as a vestige of agrarian inputs is sometimes
nure pits (Ciezar-Epailly – Gonzalez 1998). This inter-
denied by using other explanations. Fentress (2000,
pretation, based on the organic nature of the sediment
47) recalled the main alternative interpretations.
and occasionally supported by chemical analysis, il-
lustrates in concrete terms the practices and facilities
mentioned in medieval texts. It is important to note Lost artefacts, ephemeral occupations?
that in the excavated examples, the pit is located close
to residential buildings and sediment found in these The first is the archaeological myth of the ‘vase
structures contained sherds, thus proving the real- that fell off the mule’, identifying the off-site remains
ity of the mixture of animal litter and waste from the as lost and broken objects was already been consid-
house. ered and rejected in 1980s by Bintliff and Snodgrass
(Bintliff – Snodgrass 1988). The second concerns the
The iconography can once again support this argu-
very ephemeral remains of meals left by field workers
ment. The few existing iconographic representations
or transhumance routes and seasonal movements of
of the dunghill are those depicting the biblical parable
people who may have left slight traces. These alter-
of Job, a wealthy noble who should bear with resig-
native interpretations are, however, not sufficient to
nation the loss of his property, his children, and the
explain the regular presence and quantities that can
suffering of the disease. The text – and some icono-
be very large, of pottery sherds scattered in the top-
graphic representations – described him on a dung-
soil, up to several thousands of sherds per hectare
hill scattered with sherds which he uses to scratch his
in southern France at the Roman period, for example
wounds (Fig. 3).
(Raynaud 2000).
It should finally be noted that the chemical and bio-
logical soil analyses identifying high levels of trace el-
ements allow the recognition of sites themselves and
their associated areas of activities. Human activities
developed within a settlement have a tendency to en-
rich the soil with certain elements, including potas-
sium, magnesium and phosphorus (Entwistle et al.
1998, 54). In particular, it has been repeatedly dem-
onstrated that high levels of metals (lead, copper and
zinc) were indicative of the presence of inhabited sites
(Bintliff et al. 1990, 11; Linderholm – Lundberg 1994,
310; Entwistle et al. 1998, 66). Bintliff also noted that
a halo of a hundred metres is detectable around the
sites, probably due to inputs or the presence of ani-
mals (Bintliff et al. 1990, 12). It is even possible to
observe a strict correlation between the levels of met-
als (lead, copper, zinc) and density of offsite material
collected around the sites (Neil Rimmington 2000).
The land-use can in turn be detected by high levels of
Fig. 3. Job on his manure pile strewn of bones and shards - Book of
phosphorus. Indeed, the spreading of manure, rich in Hours of Anne of Brittany (XVth century). Copy of 1848, Curmer edi-
phosphorus, contributes to mark chemically the areas tions, Loches castle (Indre-et-Loire, France).

RURALIA X 281
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
A ‘background noise’ produced by eroded
sites?
A third interpretation is to consider the presence
of sites eroded by natural phenomena (alluvial or col-
luvial) or anthropogenic processes (eg. agricultural
practices) that could not be detected in the usual form
of definable concentrations. Sherds moved by runoff
from natural erosion are clearly identifiable by their
high wear, which often makes their typological clas-
sification problematic. Displacement by erosion leads
to downslope concentrations of sherds, which look
like pebbles and are radically different from manur-
ing shards. The density and regular dissemination of
manuring shards implies an activity that goes beyond
the phenomenon of erosion. Far from being random,
as if it resulted from a mechanical action of erosion,
the spread of this material appears generally associ-
ated with that of contemporary archaeological sites.
The hypothesis of the erosion of sites due to post-
depositional anthropogenic activities also seems un-
convincing. Cultural practices are often put forward
to explain the dispersion of artefacts related to a bur-
ied site rather than the spreading of manure material.
However, the experimental archaeological work carried
out in England in the Butser Ancient Farm by Reyn-
olds has clearly demonstrated the low displacement of
fragments in the topsoil on the horizontal plane as a
result of agricultural practices (Reynolds 1988; Clark –
Schofield 1991). We can also notice a good fit between
the area of material concentration visible in field sur-
veys, and the surface of underlying excavated struc-
tures, which argues in favour of a low dispersion of
these artifacts (Ferdière – Rialland 1995).
Too little manure and not enough
transportation means?
A final objection to discuss is that the manure was
rare and should be reserved for parcels requiring the
most attention, such as enclosed gardens attached to
houses; and that transportation means and neces-
sary energy for their implementation did not permit a
spreading of manure on a large scale or in spaces too
far from the settlement.
However, this statement is contradicted by the agro-
nomic literature itself, which speaks of manure spread-
ing in the fields (‘in agrum’ in Varro, Res Rusticae, I,
13), for cereals (‘segelibus’ in Columella, De Agricultura,
II, 14). In addition, some observations of the cultural
practices of traditional societies in Africa show that it
is possible to transport the dried manure with baskets
over fairly long distances (up to 2 km) (Sautter 1993,
449). This transport of small regular amounts, which
is also indicated in the texts of the Roman agrono-
282
279–290
mists, ancient or medieval iconographic sources al-
ready cited, therefore suggest an input into plots that
can be quite distant from the source settlement.
Preliminary conclusion: off-site material
can be used as a marker of improved areas
Regarding all these arguments, we can conclude
that the off-site material collected during fieldwalking
surveys may reflect the location of intensely cultivated
areas.
This position has been supported since the 1970s
by several researchers, especially G. Foard in England
who was one of the first to draw attention to the im-
portance of this material, previously interpreted as a
‘background noise’ (Foard 1978).
Research in this direction has permitted us to move
on from a view of survey only focused on the discovery
of settlement sites, in favour of an understanding of
a continuous space, where ‘off-site’ material can mark
the influence of settlements on the surrounding area.
However, the location of improved spaces only pro-
vides a minimal estimation of the effectively exploited
area. Indeed, a number of conditions are necessary for
the discovery of spread material. It only marks that part
of the territory given over to agriculture, land where an
input was necessary to obtain a satisfactory harvest,
where an organic amendment was applied consisting
of manure from animals living near the settlement for
a sufficient period of time to allow the accumulation of
material. Besides these conditions, the presence of off-
site material is still conditioned by a number of filters
related to the amount of ceramic in circulation at dif-
ferent times, the management of waste and the num-
ber of cattle available.
The absence of off-site material does not allow the
conclusion that the areas in question were not culti-
vated, but opens up a range of possibilities which it is
not possible to decide between.
The study of agrarian spaces within
the French Archaedyn Project.
The ArchaeDyn program aims to develop quantita-
tive indicators of density and flows of population and
economic activities in the long time, as well as space
allowances of exploited areas. It proposes to clarify the
question of links between the different levels of inte-
gration of the territorial system by multiscale and mul-
tidisciplinary approach (Nuninger et al. 2008).
A working group dedicated to cultivated areas has
developed a protocol for analysing agrarian spreading
identified through off-site material collected in field-
walking surveys, compared to the inhabited sites, and
RURALIA X
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
the modelling of their spatial and diachronic dynam-
ics, including the definition of relevant indicators to
estimate the stability and durability of the human in-
vestment over time (Poirier et al. 2012).
A diachronic, comparative and quantitative
approach
It is a comparative approach that aims to compare
the trajectories of development of rural areas in six
different micro regions of northern and southern
France.
Fig. 4. Study areas.
RURALIA X
279–290
The study areas
The study area of Neuvy-le-Roi in Touraine was sys-
tematically surveyed between 1992 and 1996 (Poirot
1998), while the valley of Choisille was surveyed as
limited windows between 2006 and 2008 in the part
of the ECLIPSE II program which aimed particularly
to measure the link between land-use and erosion dy-
namics (Poirier et al. 2013). In Berry, I surveyed the
area of Sancergues between 2003 and 2006 as part
of my doctoral research whose goal was to model the
territorial dynamics in the long term (Poirier 2010). In
283
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
Languedoc, the study areas of Lunellois and Vaunage
were surveyed in 1980s and 1990s under the direc-
tion of C. Raynaud and F. Favory and have been the
subject of extensive analyses of population dynamics
within the Archaeomedes program (Van Der Leeuw et
al. 2003). Finally, in Provence, the Maures mountains
were surveyed by Dr. Gazenbeek in the 1990s (Berton-
cello – Gazenbeek 1997) (Fig. 4).
A common chronological frame
The first obstacle encountered was the definition of
a common timeframe for different study areas, even
though the possibilities of dating ceramics are highly
variable from one region to another, ranging from a
half-century in Languedoc for the Roman period, to
only three or four centuries in Berry and Touraine,
for the particular type of material which is collected
during fieldwalking operation and without any strati-
graphic context. We decided to use the lowest common
denominator, i. e. the chronological framework for
integrating a maximum of study areas. The observa-
tion time (from Protohistory to the modern period) has
Fig. 5. Evolution of manured area.
284
279–290
been divided into six chronological phases of varying
lengths:
– 5th century BC–1st century BC for Phase 1,
– 1st–3rd century AD for Phase 2,
– 4th–7th century AD for Phase 3
– 8th–11th century AD for Phase 4
– 12th–15th century AD for Phase 5
– 16th–18th century AD for phase 6.
How to compare? relative indicators
Our approach is quantitative in order to be compar-
ative. The desire to quantify the observed processes is
to ensure the reproducibility of the analysis in each of
the integrated microregions. But it also poses a num-
ber of challenges given the diversity of contexts of dif-
ferent study areas being compared. This quantitative
approach has required the definition of indicators to
estimate the duration, stability and intensity of the
land enhancement. These indicators should enable a
comparison of the study areas on a relative base, and
not on absolute values (density, surface) that are quite
incomparable.
RURALIA X
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
Long term variations of extent
and intensity of manuring
The calculation of the total area which delivered at
least one example of manuring, for each study area
and for each period, allows the interpretation of ma-
nured spaces’ pulses in the long term in terms of ex-
tension or retraction.
Absolute area values are not comparable from one
area to another, since they are determined by the size
of these study-areas which is itself related to the ex-
tent of ground surveys conducted. So we chose to nor-
malise the raw values obtained within the total area
surveyed. Then the values can be compared. Each
period is represented by the percentage of the total
area surveyed which has yielded remains of manur-
ing (Fig. 5).
We can identify first a variable start in the Protohis-
tory, with manured areas ranging from less than 5%
for the Maures mountains to 90% for Vaunage. The two
most southern study-areas then do not give the same
impression during the first chronological phase stud-
ied. The three northern-most areas appear less differ-
ent from each other, with values ranging from 14% for
the Choisille Valley to nearly 30% for Neuvy-le-Roi.
The Roman period (1st–4th century AD) appears
everywhere as a phase of growth in the manured ar-
eas, but not necessarily as a peak of settlement occu-
pancy. The increase is quite spectacular in most study-
areas, apart from Vaunage where the area manured
grew by only 2 points, but the margin of increase was
RURALIA X
279–290
Fig. 6. Average dura-
bility index for each
study-area.
not very large given that the image of full landscape
was already readable during the previous phase. Else-
where, the area manured significantly increased by
about 40 or 50 points, and 75 points higher for the
Maures Mountains going from 4% in phase 1 to 80%
of area manured in phase 2.
If we observe an extension of manured area eve-
rywhere during the Roman period (phase 2), we also
see a kind of decrease during Late Antiquity (phase 3),
but again in very different terms. While the manured
area drops sharply in Touraine Choisille (6.5%) and
les Maures (1.6%), the land use is maintained at more
than 20% of the area surveyed in Berry (Sancergues),
nearly 60% in Touraine (Neuvy-le-Roi) and reduced to
less than 10% of the area surveyed in Vaunage, whose
manured area is maintained at more than 88%.
In three cases, the reduction in manured areas
continued during the Middle Ages (phase 4). The pro-
portion of manured land is reduced to 4% of the area
surveyed in Touraine (Choisille) and 13% in Vaun-
age, while no evidence of manuring in this period was
found in the Maures mountains. In contrast, in Ber-
ry (Sancergues) and Touraine (Neuvy-le-Roi), the ma-
nured areas increase in the early Middle Ages up to
67% for one and 82% for the other study-area.
The changes are very different for the central Middle
Ages (phase 5). If three areas show approximately the
same rate of around a third of area manured (Berry
(Sancergues), Touraine (Choisille and Vaunage)), such
figures masks real differences in trends. Out of the
two study-areas which had witnessed a significant in-
285
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
crease in manured areas during the previous phase,
one (Touraine (Neuvy-le-Roi)) sees this influence con-
firmed by a further increase of the manured surface,
while another (Berry (Sancergues)) shows a further de-
cline in this area around 34%. In contrast, the three
areas that had suffered decrease in Phase 4 show a
more or less strong recovery in Phase 5. This recov-
ery is very clear in Touraine (Choisille and Vaunage)
from 4 to 32% and 13 to 35% respectively of manured
area.
The modern period (phase 6) finally appears in the
majority of observed cases as the period of maximum
extension of the manured spaces that extend to all the
land surveyed (between 95 and 99% of the surveyed ar-
eas Berry (Sancergues), and Touraine (Choisille) Tou-
raine (Neuvy-le-Roi)). The Maures mountains do not
belong to this model, the area manured in the modern
period reaching only 10% of the area surveyed. The
data have not been calculated for the Vaunage.
Fig. 7. Factor analysis of durability and intensity indices and socio-environmental variables.
286
279–290
Durability of human investment and socio-
environmental constraints
In the long term we were interested in estimating the
durability of the agricultural investment by calculating
an indicator for each single collection unit:
(n phases occupied / n total phases) x
[1 – (n hiatus / n phases occupied)]
Where n phases occupied is the number of occupied
chronological phases which have delivered at least
one proof of manuring, n total phase is the maximum
score possible occupation (six phases in this case),
and n hiatus is the number of phases which delivered
no sign of manuring following an occupied phase. This
durability index ranges from 0 (for a study area which
would present no trace of occupation) to 1 (for a study
area that presents a continuous and uninterrupted oc-
cupation (Fig. 6).
RURALIA X
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring 279–290

Classe Classe 1 Classe 2 Classe 3 Classe 4 Classe 5

Size 22,7% 29,5% 11,5% 17,1% 19,2%
Description Average durabil- Average durabil- Low durability & Low to average Maximum inten-
ity & Intensity, ity & low inten- intensity, low to durability but sity & durability
on indifferent sity, on steep average slopes, indifferent in- values, on indif-
slope values or slopes with low average sunlight, tensity value, on ferent slopes,
soil quality, ben- sunlight, with benefiting from average slopes, with a pretty
efiting from good low quality soils good soil qual- with average sun- good sunlight,
sunlight and a and low settle- ity and indiffer- light, benefiting good soil quality
good settlement ment network ent settlement from good soil and good settle-
network network quality and aver- ment network
age settlement
network
Interpretation No socio-environ- Strong socio- No socio-environ- No socio-environ- Strong socio-
mental determin- environmental mental determin- mental determin- environmental
ism determinism ism ism determinism
Fig. 8. Hierarchical clustering of collection units.

The Maures mountains and the Choisille valley in
Touraine appear as the two study areas with the low-
est durability index (0.25). Then we find the areas of
Berry (Sancergues) and Vaunage with average durabil-
ity indices (0.36 and 0.47 respectively), while Touraine
(Neuvy-le-Roi) area clearly stands out with a durability
index of 0.66.
We then sought to determine the factors that explain
the variability of the values of durability indicators
of land-use by comparing their distribution to other
socio-environmental variables. Each collection unit of
offsite material has been described with several geo-
graphic settings, thanks to GIS: slopes’ intensity, solar
radiation, soil quality and density of the surrounding
settlement system. All of these criteria, associated with
durability indicator, were combined in a factor analy-
sis (Fig. 7).
The first axis is clearly structured by variables of in-
tensity, solar radiation, and to a lesser extent by the
surrounding settlements indicator. The right side of
the factorial plan combines the lowest variable mo-
dalities of durability, intensity, solar radiation and
surrounding settlement, while the left half contains
the highest modalities, whose association is well high-
lighted. The different qualities of soils are in opposite
quadrants of the factorial plane.
The hierarchical clustering (AHC) made following
this factor analysis enables us, in general terms, to
group the collection units with low intensity and dura-
bility values associated with unfavourable socio-envi-
ronmental conditions (steep slopes, low solar radiation
values, unfavourable soil and surrounding settlement
undeveloped) in classes 2 and 3. Collection units with
the highest intensity and durability values associated
with more favourable socio-environmental parameters
are grouped in Class 5.
But there is also, in class 4 for example, any areas
where durability index is sometimes strong, despite
very average socio-environmental parameters. In con-
trast, class 1 includes manured areas whose durabil-
ity and intensity values are average despite good socio-
environmental conditions. This is therefore a question
of the simple geographical determinism.
Conclusion
This approach allows the restitution of the ‘trajecto-
ries’ of rural areas’ enhancement in the long term by
ancient societies. The interpretation must, of course,
remain tentative, given the limitations related to the
presence or absence of offsite material. The absence
of this material does not necessarily mean absence of
exploitation, and the results are only a minimum es-
timation of the areas effectively cultivated, probably
those most intensely cultivated. However, the moni-
toring of these privileged spaces has permitted us to
identify the pulses of these intensive agricultural ar-
eas in terms of increase and decrease of development,
and thus address the economic rhythms that affected
these areas over time. The comparative approach does
not question the existing macroeconomic models as a
whole, but light has been cast on the local modulations
by going down to the micro-regional level and varying
the observation contexts.
For the medieval period, this study documents the
debated question of the existence and terms of some
form of agricultural growth in the early Middle Ages
(Centre culturel de l’abbaye de Flaran 1990; Devroey
2008). Different readings and re-readings of Carolingi-
an cartularies and polyptics had focused the debate in
the 1980s. If the data of rescue archaeology today pro-
vide prompt information on this issue – by the discov-

RURALIA X 287
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
ery of silage areas, organized plot systems and many
agricultural settlements – the estimation of the surface
occupied by cultivated areas is precious information
to assess growth. It is very clear in Touraine and Ber-
ry, where progression of manured areas is spectacu-
lar, but it is much more difficult to demonstrate in the
southern contexts.
This study also demonstrates the ability of the an-
cient rural societies to overcome geographical con-
straints. If the increase in cultivated areas is made
of successive gains and losses, it is constant over the
long term. The growth of needs in the production of ag-
ricultural products led successive societies to include
in their cultivated areas geographical contexts which
were a priori unfavourable: steep slopes or less sunny
spaces, heavy or acidic soils, areas away from populat-
ed places. This integration had to be accompanied by
technological advances and additional efforts in terms
of soil improvement, as indicated by the increase in
densities of off-site material.
Summary
Manuring is a farming practice that left archaeologi-
cal traces. Indeed, the incorporation of waste into ma-
nure has resulted in the spreading of broken pottery
across manured plots. The interpretation of off-site
scatters as remains of manuring is based on ancient
texts and archaeological evidences. The French Ar-
chaedyn project aimed at identifying major trends and
local peculiarities regarding the amendment of fields
from Antiquity to Modern Times, on several French
study areas. We defined indicators to estimate the sta-
bility and durability of agrarian occupation, based on
the spatial analysis of off-site material. The results give
the image of spatial and temporal changes of cultivat-
ed areas in the long term.
Zusammenfassung
Düngung ist eine Praxis der Landwirtschaft, die
sich archäologisch erfassen lässt. Der Zuschlag von
Abfall zur Mistdüngung führte zur Verteilung von Ke-
ramikscherben auf allen gedüngten Flächen. Die Inter-
pretation dieses off-site-Scherbenschleiers basiert auf
Schriftquellen wie auf archäologischen Indizien. Das
französische Projekt Archaeodyn will in verschiedenen
Regionen Frankreichs generelle Trends und regiona-
le Entwicklungen der Bodennutzung von der Antike
bis zur Neuzeit identifizieren. Aufgrund der räumli-
chen Ausprägung des Scherbenschleiers wurden Kri-
terien zur Abschätzung der Intensität und Dauer der
Ackernutzung definiert. Damit lassen sich langfristi-
ge zeitliche und räumliche Wechsel der Landnutzung
zeigen.
288
279–290
Résumé
L’épandage du fumier est une des rares pratiques
agricoles qui a laissé des traces archéologiques. En
effet, l’incorporation des déchets domestiques dans
les fumures a entraîné la dispersion de poteries cas-
sées dans les parcelles amendées. L’interprétation du
mobilier hors-site de prospection comme vestiges de
ces épandages est basée sur des textes anciens et des
preuves archéologiques. Le projet français ArchaeDyn
visait à identifier les grandes tendances et les parti-
cularités locales concernant la mise en valeur agraire
des champs, de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne, sur
plusieurs zones d’études françaises. Nous avons défini
des indicateurs pour estimer la stabilité et la durabi-
lité de l’occupation agraire, basés sur l’analyse spatiale
de ce matériel hors site. Les résultats donnent l’image
de pulsations spatiales et chronologiques des espaces
cultivées dans la longue durée.
Bibliography
Bakels, C. 1997:
The beginnings of manuring in western Europe, Antiquity
71, 442–445.
Bertoncello, F. – Gazenbeek, M. 1997:
Dynamique du peuplement en moyenne montagne : le mas-
sif des Maures (Var) entre le deuxième Age du fer et la fin de
l’Antiquité, in: Burnouf, J. – Bravard, J.-P. – Chouquer, G.
(eds), La dynamique des paysages protohistoriques, antiques,
médiévaux et modernes : XVIIIe Rencontres internationales
d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, actes des recontres,
19–20–21 octobre 1996 APDCA, Sophia Antipolis, 601–620.
Bintliff, J. – Snodgrass, A. 1988:
Off-site pottery distributions: A regional and interregional
perspective, Current Anthropology 29 (3), 506–513.
Bintliff, J. – Davies, B. – Gaffney, C. – Snodgrass, A. – Wa-
ters, A. 1990:
Trace metal accumulation in soils on and around ancient
settlements in Greece, in: Bottema, S. (ed.), Man’s Role in the
Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape: Proceed-
ings of the Symposium on the Impact of Ancient Man on the
Landscape of the E Med Region & the Near East: Groningen,
March 1989, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 159–172.
Brunel, G. 2004:
Entre concessio et conventio. Le vocabulaire du prélèvement
seigneurial en France du Nord (XIIe–XIVe siècles), in: Bou-
rin, M. – Martinez Sopena, P. (eds), Pour une anthropologie
du prélèvement seigneurial dans les campagnes (XIe–XIVe
siècles). Réalités et représentations paysannes (Colloque
tenu à Jaca du 5 au 9 juin 2002) Publications de la Sor-
bonne, Paris, 109–136.
Centre culturel de l’abbaye de Flaran 1990:
La croissance agricole du haut Moyen Âge. Chronologie, mo-
dalités, géographie (Dixièmes Journées internationales d’his-
toire de l’abbaye de Flaran, 9–11 septembre 1988), CDT du
Gers, Auch.
RURALIA X
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
Ciezar-Epailly, L. – Gonzalez, V. 1998:
Les villae de Seine-Maritime : première approche, In: Actes de
la table ronde archéologique, Dieppe, 17–18 septembre 1996,
Proximus, 85–96.
Clark, R. H. – Schofield, A. J. 1991:
Interpreting Artefact Scatters. Contributions to Ploughzone
Archaeology, Oxbow Monograph, Oxford.
Delatouche, R. 1977:
Regards sur l’agriculture aux temps carolingiens, Journal
des savants, 2 (1), 73–100.
Van Der Leeuw, S. – Favory, F. – Fiches, J.-L. 2003:
Archéologie et systèmes socio-environnementaux. Etudes
multiscalaires sur la vallée du Rhône dans le programme
ARCHAEOMEDES, CNRS, Paris.
Devroey, J.-P. 2008:
Une société en expansion ? Entre Seine et Rhin à la lumière
des polyptiques carolingiens (780–920), in: Movimientos
migratorios, asentamientos y expansion (siglos VIII–XI) – En
el centenario del professor José Maria Lacarra (1907–2007),
XXXIV Semana de Estudios Medievales Estella, 16 a 20 de
julio de 20072, Pampolona, 231–261.
Entwistle, J. A. – Abraham, P. W. – Dogshon, R. A. 1998:
Multi element analysis of soils from Scottish historical sites.
Interpreting land use history through the physical and geo-
chemical analysis of soils, Journal of archaeological science
25, 53–68.
Entwistle, J. A. – Abraham, P. W. – Dogshon, R. A. 2000:
The geoarchaeological significance and spatial variability of a
range of physical and chemical soil properties from a former
habitation site, isle of Skye, Journal of archaeological science
27, 287–303.
Favory, F. – Fiches, J.-L. 1994:
Le programme collectif : occupation des sols en Narbonnaise
depuis la conquête romaine jusqu’au Moyen-Âge, in: Favo-
ry, F. – Fiches, J.-L., Les campagnes de la France méditerra-
néenne dans l’Antiquité et le haut Moyen-Age. Etudes micro-
régionales), DAF n°42, Paris, 27–51.
Fentress, E. 2000:
What are we counting for?, in: Francovitch, R. – Patterson, H.
– Barker, G. (eds), The Archaeology of Mediterranean land-
scape – Extracting meaning from ploughsoil assemblages),
Oxbow Books, Oxford, 44–52.
Ferdière, A. – Zadora-Rio, E. 1986:
La prospection archéologique – Paysage et peuplement –
Actes de la table ronde des 14 et 15 mai 1982, DAF n°3, Paris.
Ferdière, A. – Rialland, Y. 1994:
La prospection archéologique systématique sur le tracé de
l’autoroute A 71 (section Bourges-sud du Cher). lre partie,
Revue archéologique du Centre de la France, 33 (1), 7–86.
Ferdière, A. – Rialland, Y. 1995:
La prospection archéologique systématique sur le tracé de
l’autoroute A 71 (section Bourges-sud du Cher). 2e partie,
Revue archéologique du Centre de la France, 34 (1), 5–87.
Ferdière, A. – Rialland, Y. 1996:
La prospection archéologique systématique sur le tracé de
l’autoroute A 71 (section Bourges-sud du Cher). 3e partie,
Revue archéologique du Centre de la France, 35 (1), 5–65.
RURALIA X
279–290
Foard, G. 1978:
Systematic fieldwalking and the investigation of saxon set-
tlement in Northamptonshire, World Archaeology 9 (3),
357–374.
Forbes, H. 2013:
Off-Site Scatters and the Manuring Hypothesis in Greek
Survey Archaeology: An Ethnographic Approach, Hesperia:
The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens 82 (4), 551–594.
Grand, R. – Delatouche, R. 1950:
L’agriculture au Moyen Âge : de la fin de l’Empire Romain au
XVIe siècle. E. de Boccard, Paris.
Linderholm, J. – Lundberg, E. 1994:
Chemical characterization of various archaeological soil
samples using main and trace elements determined by in-
ductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry,
Journal of archaeological science 21, 303–314.
Mane, P. 1985:
L’iconographie des manuscrits du Traité d’agriculture de
Pier’de Crescenzi, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome.
Moyen-Age, Temps modernes 97 (2), 727–818.
Monnet, C. 1992:
L’évacuation des déchets en milieu urbain au bas Moyen Âge,
l’exemple des fosses à fond perdu de la cour Napoléon du
Louvre à Paris (XIII–XVe s.) et mesures diverses pour assai-
nir les villes, Louvain-la-neuve.
Neil Rimmington, J. 2000:
Soil geochemistry and artefact scatters in Beotia, Greece, in:
Pasquinucci, M. – Trément, F. (eds), The Archaeology of medi-
terranean landscape : Non-destructive techniques applied to
landscape archaeology. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 190–199.
Nuninger, L. – Favory, F. – Tourneux, F. P. 2008:
From Archaeomedes to ArchaeDyn, in: Posluschny, A. – Kar-
sten, L. – Herzog, I. (eds), Layers of Perception. Proceedings of
the 35th Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology Conference, Berlin, Germany, April 2–6, 2007.
Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10. Habelt, Bonn.
Poirier, N. – Tolle, F. 2008:
Measurements of Diachronic Stability of Agrarian Exploita-
tion, in: Posluschny, A. – Karsten, L. – Herzog, I. (eds), Layers
of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th Computer Applica-
tions and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference,
Berlin, Germany, April 2–6, 2007, Kolloquien zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte 10. Habelt, Bonn.
Poirier, N. 2010:
Un espace rural à la loupe. Paysage, peuplement et territoires
en Berry de la Préhistoire à nos jours, Presses Universitaires
François-Rabelais, Tours.
Poirier, N. – Georges-Leroy, M. – Tolle, F. – Fovet, E. 2012:
The time-space dynamics of agricultural areas from Antiqui-
ty to Modern times, in: Gandini, C. – Favory, F. – Nuninger, L.
(eds), Settlement patterns, production and trades from the
Neolithic to the Middle Ages, BAR International Series 2370,
Archaeopress, Oxford, 39–59.
Poirier, N. – Nuninger, L. 2012:
Techniques d’amendement agraire et témoins matériels. Pour
une approche archéologique des espaces agraires anciens,
Histoire & Sociétés Rurales 38 (2), 11–50.
289
Poirier, Archaeological evidence for agrarian manuring
Poirier, N. – Morin, E. – Joly, C. – Leturcq, S. – Visset, L. 2013:
Occupation du sol et impact érosif dans la vallée de la Choi-
sille (France, Indre-et-Loire). Approches croisées pour la res-
titution des paysages anciens, ArchéoSciences. Revue d’ar-
chéométrie 37, 67–88.
Poirot, A. 1998:
Neuvy-le-Roi (Indre-et-Loire), depuis ses origines jusqu’au
XIXe siècle, Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 37
(1), 139–178.
Puig, C. 2003:
Du fumier à l’épandage, enrichir le sol en Rousillon entre les
XIe et XIVe siècles ap. J.-C., in: Favory, F. – Vignot, A. (eds),
Actualités de la recherche en Histoire et archéologie agraires:
actes du colloque AGER V, 19–20 septembre 2000. Presses
Universitaires Franc-Comtoises, Besançon, 67–78.
Raynaud, C. 1989:
Archéologie du paysage autour de l’Etang de l’Or (Hérault).
Choix, contraintes et méthodes de prospection, Archéologie
en Languedoc 2–3 , 59–83.
Raynaud, C. 2000:
Territoire et peuplement en France, de l’Age du Fer au
Moyen Âge. L’archéologie spatiale à la croisée des chemins,
Nicolas Poirier, Chargé de Recherche CNRS – UMR 5608 TRACES, équipe Terrae, Maison de la Recherche – Université
Toulouse 2 – Jean-Jaurés, 5 Allées Antonio Machado – 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9, nicolas.poirier1@univ-tlse2.fr
290
279–290
in: Bintliff, J. – Kuna, M. – Venclová, N. (eds), The future of
surface artefact survey in Europe. Sheffield Academic Press,
57–69.
Reynolds, P. J. 1988:
Sherd movement in the ploughzone—physical data base into
computer simulation, in: Rahtz, S. – Richards, J. (eds), Com-
puter and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 548, Oxford,
201–219.
Sautter, G. 1993:
Parcours d’un géographe. Des paysages aux ethnies, de la
brousse à la ville, de l’Afrique au monde. Arguments, Paris.
Viader, R. 2006:
Tenures et contrats agraires dans le sud de la France (Xe–XV e
siècles ), Contratti agrari e rapporti di lavoro nell’Europa me-
dievale, 225–250.
Wilkinson, T. 1982:
The definition of ancient manured zones by means of exten-
sive sherd-sampling techniques, Journal of Field Archaeo-
logy 9 (3), 323–333.
Wilkinson, T. 1989:
Extensive sherd scatters and land-use intensity: some recent
results, Journal of Field Archaeology 16 (1), 31–46.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 291–308

Medieval north-west Spain: What can agrarian archaeology

tell us about living rural landscapes?1
Nordwest-Spanien im Mittelalter: Was sagt uns die Landschaftsarchäologie
über den ländlichen Raum der Gegenwart?

Le nord-ouest de l’Espagne médiévale: que peut nous dire

l’archéologie agraire des paysages ruraux vivants?

Margarita Fernández Mier – Pablo Alonso González

1. Introduction
The last few decades have witnessed the emergence
of many novel lines of enquiry in European medieval
rural history. This is largely due to the relevance and
success achieved by medieval archaeology, which has
incorporated many new epistemological and methodo-
logical tools that have made ‘landscape’ a central focus
of research. The study of settlement networks (Hame-
row 2002; 2006; 2012) has been enriched with bio- and
geoarchaeological studies of the ways societies interact
and transform the environment. However, this growth
has been uneven in Europe. The Anglo-Saxon histo-
riography proved the most innovative throughout the
20th century, which led to the emergence of landscape
archaeology and its multiple strands and approaches
during the 1970s (Rippon 2009). French archaeology
also has a long history, highly influenced by the key
study of Marc Bloch on rural history (1931). The influ-
ence of geography in French archaeology is remarkable
and has led to the prevalence of long-term approaches,
such as the Annales school, and morphological stud-
ies (Chouquer – Watteaux 2010). Meanwhile, German
settlement archaeology (Siedlungsarchäologie) usually
focused on the role played by race and ethnicity in the
interpretation of landscapes, although recent years
have witnessed a shift towards environmental archae-
ology in the attempt to reconstruct ancient landscapes
and the human impact on them (Schreg 2013).
The archaeology of Mediterranean countries followed
a different trajectory. The existence of a rich architec-
tural and monumental heritage has probably prevent-
ed the early emergence of landscape approaches. How-
ever, it has also enabled the development of innovative
1
This work was funded by the projects ‘La formación de los
paisajes del NW peninsular en la Edad Media’ HAR2010-
21950-CO3-03 (Plan Nacional I+D+i, Spanish Ministry of
Economy and Competitivity), and co-funded by the Dirección
General de Política Forestal del Principado de Asturias (Spain).
methodologies in the study of architecture, such as the
Italian archaeology of architecture. In Spain, since the
1980s, some researchers highlighted the need to carry
out archaeology of medieval peasantry, focusing on
the impact of peasant communities in the landscape
(Barceló 1988). Their influence remained marginal
due to the burden of an institutionalised and positiv-
ist medieval history. However, from rural medieval his-
tory studies, new methodologies gradually emerged to
address landscape transformations, heavily drawing
on historical materialist epistemologies. This was par-
alleled with the reception of influences from French
landscape archaeology and more recently from the
Anglo-Saxon literature. Accordingly, new strands of
landscape research emerged, both in the Islamic field
(Kirchner 2011) and in the northern areas dominated
by feudal kingdoms.
Until the 1980s, the medieval history of the north-
ern Iberian peninsula was characterised by a focus
on the political entities that existed in these territories
between the 8th and 12th centuries. Regional studies
started in the late 1980s which engaged with issues
concerning settlement patterns, economic activity, the
articulation of landscapes and the distribution of so-
cial power. This paved the way for an understanding
of medieval landscapes, by focusing on the emergence
and role of villages in the organisation of space (Mar-
tínez Sopena 1985; Pallares – Portela 1975; 1995–1996;
Portela – Pallares 1998; Torrente 1985–1986) and on
other related concepts such as the valley communi-
ties and the village community – comunidad de valle y
comunidad de aldea (Estepa 1998; García de Cortazar
1988;1995; Díez Herrera 1990; Peña Bocos 1995). How-
ever, there was a paucity of landscape approaches.
Most research was conducted from written documen-
tation without accounting for the constitutive elements
of space: agricultural structures and parcels, farming
terraces and enclosures, drainage pits and livestock

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 291–308.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110473
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
buildings, irrigation systems or agricultural micromor-
phology. At this stage, Barceló’s Arqueología Medieval,
en las afueras del medievalismo (1988) marked a turn-
ing point in signalling these deficiencies and opening
the door to novel approaches to medieval peasant so-
cieties.
Undoubtedly, the delayed emergence of an archaeol-
ogy of rural spaces is related to the late development
of medieval archaeology in the Iberian peninsula. This
can also be explained by the character of the north-
ern Iberian peninsula, where villages of early medieval
origin in medium and high mountain areas are still
currently inhabited (Fernández Mier 2013; Fernández
Mier et al. 2014). Only during the 1990s did the devel-
opment of a landscape archaeology in Spain lead to a
qualitative advancement, initially in the kinds of ter-
ritorial approaches and then finally in the approach to
landscape as itself (Orejas – Ruiz del Árbol 2013). Since
then, settlement patterns became the main element
of analysis and benchmarks in understanding the
transition from ancient to medieval societies (Barrios
– Martín Viso 2000-2001). New lines of enquiry moved
beyond this approach and started taking into account
not only inhabited settlements but the landscape more
broadly, following French work after Bloch (Chouquer
– Watteaux 2010) and Anglo-Saxon landscape archaeol-
ogy (Rippon 2009). This required the study of agrarian
morphology, understood as the product of human ac-
tion on the environment that can provide useful infor-
mation on the societies that shaped them (Fernández
Mier 1996; 1999; García Camino 2002). This resulted in
a radical shift in the conception of the object of study.
Landscapes were no longer the backdrop of social dy-
namics; they began to be addressed as the product of
the interaction between humans and the environment.
Accordingly, investigations demanded long-term ap-
proaches to shed light on the diachronic evolution of
landscapes.
Two further shifts recently took place in the in-
vestigation of rural medieval areas. First, the large
amount of information provided by rescue (or preven-
tive) archaeology (Vigil Escalera 2007; 2010). Second,
the emergence of archaeological research in deserted
villages, following other European studies (Hamerow,
2012; Zadora Río 2009). These studies pose new ques-
tions and develop new methodologies that advance the
analysis of inhabited areas and the understanding of
the complex territoriality and articulation of peasant
communities. Thus, a growing strand of agricultural
archaeology has focused in the study of productive
spaces, incorporating geoarchaeological studies that
shed light on complex landscape stratigraphy (Quirós
Castillo 2009;2012; Ballesteros Arias 2010; Ballesteros
Arias et al. 2006; 2010).
The archaeology of deserted villages became the
292
291–308
basic working strategy to address the study of the
Middle Ages, especially the Early Middle Ages (7th to
10th centuries). However, following other European
studies (Lewis 2007; 2005–2012; Aston – Gerrard 2013;
Jones – Page 2006; Turner – Webster 2011; Turner –
Webster – Duggan 2013), it was necessary to develop
a research methodology for medieval villages that con-
tinue to be occupied nowadays. We cannot forget that a
high percentage of the villages mentioned in medieval
scrolls are still inhabited and today occupy the same
spaces as in medieval times, a circumstance which
has hindered a proper understanding of the transfor-
mation processes that took place between the 5th and
10th centuries. In this context, an on-going archaeo-
logical research project has been studying two villages
of Asturias from 2009: Villanueva de Santo Adriano,
located in the surroundings of a major centre of ear-
ly medieval power near the river Trubia (Fernández
Fernández 2010; 2012; Fernández Mier et al. 2014), and
Vigaña, a mid-mountain village that will be the focus
of this chapter. In both cases, microterritorial studies
were carried out with the aim of mapping all the avail-
able sources, a methodology that has proved success-
ful in other areas where it has been applied (Gerrard
– Aston 2007; Gardiner – Rippon 2007; Rippon 2006;
Rogerson 1997; West – McLaughlin 1998; Hey 2004).
This research methodology could be framed within the
local history tradition of Anglo-Saxon studies, which
applies a holistic approach to landscapes but without
losing sight of the ultimate focus of the research: the
peasants who shaped the territory. The landscape is
therefore a means and not an end for the understand-
ing of peasant life and the perception of the territory in
which they carry out their daily activities.
2. The Vigaña Project: a long-term
microterritorial research in a mountain
area
Vigaña is a little village located on a small platform
in the middle of a slope at 650 metres high within the
Pigüeña valley in the Cantabrian Mountains (Fig. 1).
The territory of exploitation of the village extends from
the bottom of the valley at 250 metres high, to the high-
est pastures at 1150 metres high. This comprises an
area of about 700 hectares spread in different ecologi-
cal niches: from the surroundings of the river to the
extensive high mountain pastures with plenty of water
resources. The territory of Vigaña was well defined by
the 12th century, following similar divisions between
other nearby villages (Fernández Mier 1999). The vil-
lage preserved a system of traditional exploitation un-
til the mid-20th century. This system resulted from a
long process of articulation in which both the peasant
communities and local elites have played a fundamen-
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
tal role. This form of exploitation has, since the 1950s,
undergone a rapid process of dismantling associated
with population loss that derives from modern devel-
opment programmes promoting the replacement of
mixed livestock and agricultural production with ex-
tensive farming models that profit from the large pas-
ture areas (Alonso González 2014).
The area comprises different elements traditionally
considered as archaeological sites. This includes an
Iron Age hill fort located relatively close to the medieval
village, whose chronology probably ranges between the
8th century BC to the 1st century AD. In addition, there
is a megalithic construction located in the high pasture
areas, probably dating back to the Neolithic or Chalco-
lithic eras. Next to these elements stands the medieval
village, which is well documented in the scrolls of the
nearby monastery of Balmonte, a medieval ecclesiasti-
cal power which has dominated the Pigüeña valley and
other neighbouring territories since the 12th century,
RURALIA X
291–308
Fig. 1. Location of Vigaña. Partial
view of the Pigüeña valley showing
Samartín d’Ondes with Vigaña in the
background.
although its foundation dates back to an earlier period.
These features made Vigaña an ideal site to implement
a new methodology that would allow us to understand
the articulation of the landscape as a whole, including
inhabited, agricultural and pasture areas. This holistic
approach might prove useful in shedding light on peri-
ods, including the Early Middle Age, for which we have
little information owing to the poor survival of their ar-
chaeological record. The aim is to understand peasant
working processes, their everyday practices and their
capacity to transform their surrounding environment
according to a set of given possibilities and resources.
This chapter will focus on the presentation of the in-
formation about the medieval period obtained in the
four archaeological campaigns, leaving aside meth-
odological issues that have been addressed elsewhere
(Fernández Mier 1999; 2010; 2013; Fernández Mier et al.
2013). Nonetheless, it is necessary to set out some ba-
sic assumption guiding our research.
293
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
0 200 400
m
Fig. 2. Location of the test pits carried out in the surroundings of the village. 1. Las Corvas. 2 and 3. El Castru. 4. Iglesia de San Pedru de Vigaña.
5. La Sienra. 6. L’Hortal. 7. L’Eirón. 8. Las Murias. 9. Arrichere. 10. La Granda. The test pits that did not provide archaeological data are indicated
in black.
One of the main assumptions of our research is the
need for a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates
all potential data from every source, including written
and oral sources, toponymic record, archaeology, eth-
nography, palaeoenvironmental and geoarchaeological
studies. This provides in-depth knowledge of the terri-
tory that underpins the design of the archaeological in-
tervention. In the case of Vigaña, all data that could be
obtained through archaeological surveys had already
been analysed in the 1990s (Fernández Mier 1999). Eth-
noarchaeology played a fundamental role in the study
of agricultural and farming practices, because it pro-
vides an in-depth knowledge of the traditional uses of
space that only a few people still maintain in mountain
areas. These works deepen and contextualise our his-
torical interpretations beyond the brief and superficial
information provided by written documentation or ar-
chaeological excavations. We must bear in mind that in
many areas of the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula,
traditional uses and frameworks of common manage-
ment of the land have endured up to the mid-20th cen-
tury, with the fragmentary and partial continuation of
these practices to the present day.
294
291–308
A significant bulk of ethnographic information has
to do with place-names, whose durability in moun-
tain areas allows the identification of areas and sites
mentioned in the written documents, especially those
from the 12th century (Fernández Mier 2006). Place-
names are fundamental for the identification of vil-
lage boundaries and grazing areas. Conflating current
place-names and written documents with the informa-
tion drawn from the archaeological surveys and exca-
vations generates a substantial amount of useful in-
formation about chronological transformation of the
landscape, its uses and main economic practices. Be-
yond identifying village boundaries – usually present
in the documents created by local authorities – place-
names open the door to the exploration of social issues
because the act of naming involves the whole commu-
nity in the process. This engagement can be active –
naming itself – or passive – the acceptance, use and
transmission of a name through the social memory of
the village. The combination of these different sources
allows us to understand the relation between commu-
nities, material culture and landscape, thus avoiding
simplifications and enabling multiple interpretations
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
of different contextual problems of the record (David –
Kramer 2001).
The approach outlined here highlights the need to
bring together the study of areas of agricultural and
livestock production and inhabited areas. This re-
quires embracing an enlarged understanding of the
concept of archaeological site in terms of scale and
chronological depth (Quirós Castillo 2010; Fernández
Mier et al. 2013). The concept of site should not be re-
stricted to what is generally considered to be, that is,
abandoned inhabited areas, unique buildings, ceme-
teries, pottery or mining dumps and the like, and must
encompass the study of productive spaces in connec-
tion to inhabited areas, such as fields, agricultural ter-
races, pastures areas, fences and forests (Fig. 2). Only
then we can account for the huge complexity involved
in the entanglements between production, identity and
social dynamics of peasant communities.
As every investigation on landscape will necessarily
involve wide chronologies, this methodology demands
a diachronic approach in the interpretation of the so-
cial construction of landscapes. This is fundamental
for identifying continuities and ruptures between dif-
ferent production models, assessing the significance
of the relation between human groups and the envi-
ronment, and for evaluating the resilience and adapt-
ability of peasant communities to new articulations
of power and economic demands (Williamson 2003).
Therefore, although we will focus here on the medieval
period, it is necessary to refer to other historical peri-
ods documented in our research that can support our
interpretation of the medieval era.
Lastly, we want to emphasise the multifunctional
character of the agrarian space. Since medieval times
at least, cereal crops, livestock production and forest
exploitation were intermingled practices. Agricultural
areas alternated the production of different garden
crops and cereals with complex rotation systems that
required the development of strict rules of use. Howev-
er, at some point between the 16th and 19th centuries,
the agricultural areas largely expanded and colonised
forests and pastures, leaving behind a characteristic
micromorphology made of cultivation terraces, irriga-
tion systems or plough traces. Similarly, written docu-
ments refer to farming together with cereal production
areas in a system called derrota;2 that is, agricultural
and farming practices were always tightly connected
in a complex multifunctional system of production
inserted in a social system of rules, interactions and
complementarity.
2 3
Derrota refers to the practice of introducing cattle in areas of
cereal production after the harvest. These agrarian units were
divided into different parcels that each household cultivated in-
dividually. Once the cereal (triticum spelta) was harvested, the
cattle of all the owners of a parcel in the area could enter the lot.
RURALIA X
291–308
3. The traditional organisation
of agricultural space
The initial stages of the investigation, comprising
the study of place-names and of agricultural lots, writ-
ten documentation and surface archaeological sur-
vey, allowed us to understand the main elements and
features in the articulation of the landscape. The ag-
ricultural organisation, both medieval and modern, is
structured around the central inhabited area, which
becomes the linchpin of a territory articulated with a
series of paths departing from the village to other ar-
eas of production or villages. The village is made of a
series of houses constructed without a pre-determined
plan with fenced orchards for each family. Similarly,
the many pathways connecting the village with pro-
duction areas were surrounded by closures to prevent
the entrance of livestock to agricultural growing areas.
There were usually two main agricultural areas dedi-
cated to cereal production.3 These were organised in
large, well-defined, enclosed plots that were subject
to regulations established by the community. These
rules were usually codified during the 17th and 18th
centuries, allowing us to understand the complexity of
the forms of territorial exploitation.
The pasture areas, often individually owned, were
usually located near the productive lands, in terrains
that were less favourable for agriculture and closer to
streams. Similarly, vineyards were located near the ag-
ricultural areas. The picture becomes more complex in
medium and high altitude areas. Here, larger pasture
terrains producing food for the livestock are arranged
in well-defined and enclosed plots subject to precise
regulations of their use.4 There are other enclosed
spaces of collective exploitation designed to maintain
certain types of livestock in times of necessity, such
as the oxen working the fields or the cows producing
milk for family consumption. A fourth area is consti-
tuted by communally owned pasture areas. Those are
exploited collectively by the neighbours under com-
plex management frameworks. Finally, the land con-
sidered unsuitable for other activities remains as for-
est, usually constituted by abrupt areas away from the
village and in the boundary areas with other villages.
In some places, forests were collectively owned and ex-
ploited while in others they were completely parcelled
and owned individually (García Fernández 1975; 1988;
Rodríguez Gutiérrez 1989; García Martínez 1988; 2003;
Álvarez Menéndez et al. 1990; Fernández Mier 1996;
2010; 2013; González Álvarez 2013).5 Starting from the
There are different terminologies for these areas: erías, corti-
nales, naliegas, llourías, llaburías, morteras, veigas, llousas,
sienrras and vilares.
4
The terms used to name it are: morteras, praderas and cotos.
5
The forms of property and exploitation of forests are highly
295
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
exhaustive knowledge of Vigaña’s territory, we planned
a series of archaeological interventions in inhabited
and productive areas, including the hill fort and the
village, with the aim of gaining a better understanding
of the landscape stratigraphy.
4. Results of the archaeological research
4.1 Las Corvas
The sector of Las Corvas is a terraced area currently
covered by grasslands in the bottom of a small valley
south of the village (Fig. 2). It presents a series of nar-
row, elongated and curved plots enclosed by stone-
walls that serve both as markers for the plot limits and
as part of the features that make the structure of the
terrace. The excavation cut one of these stonewalls
that divides two terraces. The pottery and constructive
materials recovered in the excavation point to a chro-
nology of use ranging between the 19th and mid-20th
centuries (Fig. 3). Under the levels of the contemporary
agrarian soil there was a succession of soil levels be-
tween 2 and 2.5 metres thick formed in a long process
of sedimentation of material coming from the upper
parts of the slope (Stratigraphic Units [S.U.] 304 and
305). There is archaeological and ethnographic evi-
dence of the existence of a water canal that irrigated
the valley, whose construction was related to the cul-
tivation of corn and potatoes which were introduced
into the area during the 16th and 19th centuries re-
variable throughout the north of Spain and their evolution
after the XVI is rather complex, thus preventing any form of
generalisation.
296
291–308
Fig. 3. Stratigraphic profile of the test
pit carried out in Las Corvas.
spectively. There are traces and grooves of irrigation
canals in the western profile of the area excavated (S.U.
308). At lower levels, there are remains of a wall col-
lapse of small, medium and large size (S.U. 307) that
covered the entire area of the intervention. This level
was associated with an abundance of charcoal and
some very fragmented and worn materials, such as
rough hand-made pottery.
The level of collapse covered three fireplaces associ-
ated with floor levels and postholes in a terrain that
had been previously staggered. The fireplaces present
different morphologies. One is barely noticeable since
it was located at the corner of the area excavated (FP1),
in an area covered by charcoal in a clay soil and with-
out any stones in its base defining its limits. Its thin-
ness indicates a reduced period of use (S.U. 328). An-
other fireplace (FP2), with a diameter of 1 metre and
13 centimetres deep, was a small bucket on the ground
without any reinforcement, and filled with small lime-
stones (S.U. 341). It was located close to a third unit
(FP3), which presented a subcircular shape of 90 cen-
timetres in diameter and was delimited by small
stones and clay reinforced walls. It was filled with large
amounts of burnt wood. In a similar level to these fire-
places, there were four holes of different sizes filled
with stones and soil, one of which had a fragment of
a boat-shaped pestle. One of the holes was function-
ally associated with the fireplace, while the other three
could be related with some kind of cover of the place.
This level was covering a layer of tread clay with small
size stones, which stretched across most of the exca-
vated area. To the west and south, this level was cut
by negative features – possibly ditches – that delimited
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
the area of occupation. The building structure associ-
ated with these levels remains unknown, although it
could be a cottage built up with wooden poles, as sug-
gested by a series of semicircular impressions on the
trench delimiting the structure to the south, which can
be related with vertical posts attached to the floor of
the cottage.
The dating of the hearths provided the following
chronology: FP1: 2 3640–3515 cal BC; FP2: 2 3804–
3657 cal BC; FP3: 2 3140–3006 cal BC. Accordingly,
the level can be ascribed to the final Neolithic period,
scarcely known in the Cantabrian area in terms of in-
habited sites (Fernández Mier – González Álvarez 2014).
4.2 El Castru
This hill fort site is located in a limestone outcrop at
the bottom of the small valley of Valle’l Pandu, over the
Pigüeña river valley (Fig. 2). There is a steep slope that
limits accessibility to the area by east and south, while
the north and west sides present two pits and embank-
ments that surround and define the space of the sum-
mit. The highest area is bounded by a wall enclosing
an almost circular perimeter of reduced dimensions.
The interior of the hill fort and its outer slopes were in-
tensely cultivated in contemporary times. Consequent-
ly, the morphology of the hill fort was severely altered
due to the construction of terraces that reutilised the
abundant large stone blocks from the collapse of Iron
Age walls. An exploratory excavation of 3 by 4 metres
was carried out in one of the best preserved terraces
on the southern side of the fort, confirming that it was
a platform created in modern times with a stonewall
associated with contemporary materials, such as glass
and construction material. These arrived from the vil-
lage of Vigaña because of fertilisation processes that
implied the transport of manure and domestic waste
to the new terraces of the 20th century.
The second area excavated in the upper area of the
hill fort was a 6 by 8 metre area where we document-
ed two domestic units, an area of bronze metallurgic
works and a large collection of fauna bones. Under
the 20th-century levels associated with agricultural
activities, there was a stratigraphic unit related with
the phase of natural deposition of sediments over
the occupation layers of the fort, probably during the
1st century AD. The materials recovered were charac-
teristic of the Iron Age period, including shreds of re-
duced burnished pottery of the Second Iron Age (5th
to 1st centuries BC). This level of abandonment over-
laps a domestic layer where we could document two
circular stone constructions of the Second Iron Age.
In turn, these cover a hut made up of wooden posts.
In association with the domestic layers, we recovered
a large amount of skeletal remains, mainly of cattle,
RURALIA X
291–308
which reveals the significance of this activity in the
area since the Iron Age. This information is still under
analysis, but it will surely provide a clear picture of the
ways of life of the community that inhabited El Castru
during the Iron Age and about the long-term articula-
tion of the landscape in the Vigaña area.
The interventions in Las Corvas and El Castru con-
firm the livelihood of this territory in prehistoric times
and the large extent to which it has undergone pro-
found alterations due to modern agricultural practic-
es. In some cases, these processes favour the destruc-
tion of previous remains, especially in the case of the
large terraces built throughout the area. In other cases
such as Las Corvas, the large amounts of sediments
served to cover and preserve the Neolithic settlement.
4.3 El Valle: the cemetery of the church
of San Pedro de Vigaña
One of the main objectives of the project is to un-
derstand the chronology of the occupation of currently
inhabited villages following methodologies employed
in other European areas. Accordingly, a series of four-
teen interventions were carried out in the surround-
ing area of the village, three of which did not provide
any information (Fig. 2). This is probably the result of
the intense erosive processes in mountainous areas,
which in our case displaced the archaeological record
to secondary positions. Moreover, we excavated two ar-
eas located near to the Church of San Pedro (Fig. 4).
The church presents three construction phases, with
the older materials dating back to the 15th century.
However, it is mentioned in various scrolls at the Ca-
thedral of Oviedo Archive, which point to the poten-
tial existence of an earlier building. The fact that the
church plays a fundamental role in the organisation
of the territory is a compelling reason to think that the
oldest centre of the medieval settlement could be locat-
ed in its vicinity. The two areas excavated were located
at similar heights, separated by a higher area with an
orchard. These orchards are usually found within the
village. They are dedicated to growing vegetables and
are usually bounded by stonewalls of about one or two
metres high attached to the rock. The orchards are
filled with earth transferred from agricultural areas
and domestic waste, a process related to the transfer
of domestic materials to the orchard. The medieval
documentation repeatedly mentions these agricultural
units, although most currently existing orchards are
more recent, as neighbours recall how they were built
in association with their houses.
The excavation of the two lots extending on both
sites of the orchard allowed us to document a cem-
etery attached to the church. At a certain point, the
community lost memory of it as a burial area and it
297
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
started to be privately owned and used partially as a
growing garden and granary, as an hórreo – elevated
barn – was constructed in it. Only a little plot next to
the church remained as communal land. The first ex-
cavation was conducted in an area where an hórreo
had existed until recently. We could document the col-
lapse of the hórreo and a pavement below it to flatten
the area for the construction of the hórreo. This level
covered a layer of clay soil under which we located part
of a cemetery with slabs used as covers preserved in
their original context. There were nine tombs with dif-
ferent typologies and dimensions, as well as a number
of negative units identified as postholes, both previ-
ous and later to the phase of burial. The fillings of the
tombs and postholes can be considered ‘dark earths’,
blackish soils with abundant charcoal, scrap metal,
and worn reduced pottery with combed and reticulated
decoration. According to radiocarbon dating, the chro-
nology of these materials ranges between the 6th and
11th centuries. However, it is necessary to take into ac-
count the secondary position of these elements, which
were probably removed from inhabited areas near the
cemetery and used to fill the negative units after their
abandonment. In turn, the chronology of the cemetery
298
291–308
Fig. 4. Aerial photography of the
cemetery of the church of San Pedru.
is full medieval, according to the dating of one layer
overlying the graves: 2 1287–1432 cal AD.
The absence of archaeological layers related with
levels of habitat contrasts with the relative abundance
of domestic materials in the fillings of burial pits and
postholes. This leads us to consider the existence of
domestic occupation areas near this sector dating
back to the early medieval period between the 6th and
11th centuries, with most dates pointing to the 10th
century. In the eastern part of the excavation, an area
remained unaffected by the cemetery where we docu-
mented the traces of three postholes carved in a level
where we could recover two worn fragments of terra
sigillata. In turn, in the excavation in the nearest area
to the Church, we documented 54 burials, most of
them very altered by the construction works of the
15th-century church and by the on-going reuse of the
site for burial. The occupational sequence starts with
an early medieval chronology, probably before the es-
tablishment of an ecclesiastical building. The oldest
cemetery levels correspond to two burials, one with a
north-south orientation and another with a west-east
orientation. Those are cut by two postholes that seem
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
to be part of a wooden building structure. According to
radiocarbon dating of materials in the secondary posi-
tion recovered in the first area of the cemetery below
the hórreo (2 550–645 cal AD), one of the burials pre-
sents significant grave goods dating back to the sec-
ond half of the 6th century and the first half of the 7th.
In the filling of one of the postholes we recovered two
tiny fragments of terra sigillata whose typology cannot
be defined, and a third fragment in another tomb was
similarly problematic.
This initial phase is difficult to characterise due to its
subsequent transformations. In later phases we find a
cemetery level, clearly related with a previous church,
made of tombs with slabs, some of them monumental,
with an east-west orientation. One of the tombs is cut
by the foundation trench of the church, with a slightly
different orientation from the trench. Although some
of them were reused afterwards, these graves were eas-
ily identifiable because all present more than one indi-
vidual who were anatomically placed. A third phase of
the cemetery corresponds with a level of tombs with
slabs more rudimentary than the preceding ones.
These present an east-west orientation but they are
aligned with the contemporary church. Finally, the last
phase of the cemetery presents simple pit burials with-
out structures of any kind.
The complexity of the cemetery reflects the broad
variety of uses and the long-term diachronic occu-
pation of the village. While the area located north of
the church seems to have been abandoned in the late
Middle Ages and early modern times, the cemetery is
displaced to a small area south of the church where
the contemporary cemetery is located. In it, unidenti-
fied simple burials in the ground share space with the
niches of the contemporary inhabitants of the village.
This shows the repeated use of the surroundings of the
church as a cemetery since the 6th or 7th centuries, if
not earlier, and up until the present day. The existence
of postholes in the area point to the existence of some
unidentified wooden structure, prior to the third phase
of the cemetery and posterior to the first phase, whose
relation with the second phase of occupation with the
monumentalised tombs cannot be established.
4.4 La Sienra
In order to locate agricultural areas related to the vil-
lage, we conducted a test pit excavation in the agricul-
tural lands closest to the village (Fig. 2). The study area
is called La Sienra and is located near the inhabited
area. Until recently it was the most important cultiva-
tion area of the village, as documented according to
oral surveys. Although the place has been documented
since medieval times, there is no reference to the kind
of use it had (Fernández Mier 1996; 1999). The stratig-
RURALIA X
291–308
raphy is relatively simple (Fig. 5). Under the humus
layer (Horizon 0) there are several units (Horizon A) re-
lated to crop levels of medieval, modern and contempo-
rary times, in light of the scant pottery recovered (S.U.
001, 002 and 003). One of the levels of use (S.U. 003)
provided several postholes of small dimensions placed
in line that would probably correspond to a wooden
palisade (S.U. 007). These units cover other levels with
plenty of charcoal and pottery fragments. A carbon de-
termination from S.U. 008 yielded an early medieval
date (2 687– 874 cal AD). In turn, the S.U. 009 did not
provide any archaeological information that can be re-
lated with a phase of abandonment and accumulation
of sediment derived from natural erosion. Below S.U.
009 there was a further level of use without structures,
where a prehistoric worn pottery fragment appeared
(of unclear chronology). The dating of a charcoal frag-
ment associated with this level provided a prehistoric
date (2 2858–2500 cal BC). This level was covering a
level of yellow clay (Horizon C) stretching throughout
the excavated surface.
We carried out chemical soil analysis of each ar-
chaeological unit. The levels of nitrogen, phosphorus
and calcium gradually increase throughout the strati-
graphic sequence, in parallel with higher levels of soil
acidity, showing an increase in the amounts of organic
matter. The only nutrient whose presence declines is
potassium. The higher levels of potassium are record-
ed in the levels dated in the Neolithic era, coinciding
with a lower presence of phosphorus, nitrogen and
calcium. High levels of potassium indicate the crea-
tion of a layer of soil through deforestation of an area
using the technique of logging, slash and burning of
the forest. In line with these itinerant practices, the
place seems to have been abandoned later on, when a
gradual process of sedimentation of materials coming
from the upper part of the slope takes place. Then, the
agricultural use of the area is resumed during the Mid-
dle Ages until the present day. Accordingly, the levels
of nitrogen, phosphorus and calcium present different
patterns from the previous. The abundance of organic
matter along with ceramic materials relates with fer-
tilising practices and the transfer of manure and do-
mestic waste from inhabited areas or livestock areas to
agricultural lands (Fernández Mier et al. 2014).
Pollen studies point to a deforested landscape in
the entire sequence from the Early Middle Age: the
tree layer consists mainly in chestnut, juniper, hazel,
yew, birch, poplar, aspen and pine (the latter possibly
originating from a distant place), with chestnut being
the most abundant species. The herbaceous vegeta-
tion is dominated by graminiae grasses, revealing the
significance of grasslands, although other vegetation
characteristic of wet environments is also present,
including rushes, sedges, Ranunculaceae, Umbellifer-
299
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
ae, Liliaceae, Lotus tp. (a bean characteristic of moist
and flooded areas), Mentha (Labitiae characteristic of
flooded soils) and ferns, which points to a landscape
of waterlogged and high humidity soils. The human
impact on the environment is apparent throughout
the sequence. The scarce presence of trees and the
high presence of ruderal plants in the palynological
sequence, which are characteristic of human-altered
environments, confirm the high levels of human in-
tervention. By contrast, there are no grounds to speak
of an agricultural use of the area, due to the lack of
grains and any other type of weed plant or crop spe-
cies associated with it. The low rates of cereal pollen
300
291–308
Fig. 5. Stratigraphic profiles of the
test pits carried out in the cultivation
areas of the village.
production and diffusion prevent its spreading too far
from the source area, which means that there were no
agricultural fields in the surroundings of La Sienra.
The presence of other crops, such as fruit or legumes
is unlikely given the scarce presence of these taxa in
the sequence analysed. The existence of nitrophilous
taxa, however, confirm the dedication of the area for
livestock farming, which concurs with the information
provided by the chemical soil analysis previously dis-
cussed.
Therefore, the pollen study suggests that the area
was highly deforested with a prevalence of spaces dedi-
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
cated to livestock. The input of organic matter could be
related, on one hand, to the direct presence of livestock
in the area during certain times of the year and, on the
other, by processes of fertilisation for haymaking, as
confirmed by the presence of pottery. This practice is
still carried out today in the highest areas throughout
the months of February and March. The meadows are
fertilised with manure from the stables located in the
village or in the surrounding areas to facilitate grass
growth in the spring which will be cut and stored dur-
ing summer. The significance of farming in this area
would be supported by the remains of a wooden pali-
sade documented in plenary medieval era levels (S.U.
006 and 007) (Fernández Mier et al. 2014).
In conclusion, the archaeological evidence suggests
that this area was not dedicated to cereal production
during the medieval period, at least in the specific area
of our intervention, which does not exclude the possi-
bility of agricultural production in other more remote
areas. This contrasts with the dedication of the area
to agricultural production in recent periods primarily
because of its proximity to the inhabited area. All evi-
dence points to the importance of livestock-related ac-
tivities in a largely deforested and humanly influenced
landscape since at least the 8th century. Furthermore,
livestock exploitation seems not to have been extensive,
as traditionally thought for the early medieval period,
but rather intensive. Accordingly, there was an alterna-
tion in landscape use between the introduction of land-
scape in certain areas that were at other times of the
year dedicated to haymaking and fertilising processes.
4.5 L’Hortal
The positive results achieved in La Sienra led us to
carry out a further 3 by 2 metre excavation in the sur-
roundings of the current inhabited area, in an area of
favourable weather conditions (Fig. 2). The excavation
was later enlarged after exploring the GPR exploration
of the site. The stratigraphy was rather simple, present-
ing two contemporary levels of use between the hu-
mus horizon and the geological levels. The use layers
had a series of negative structures of different dimen-
sions, some of which are of natural origin and filled
with sediment coming through erosion processes from
upper areas of the slope. At least one of the units had a
human origin, a posthole preserving some of the pack-
ing that held the pole, thus suggesting the presence of
some sort of construction. Two pieces of charcoal in
the filling of the hole dated 2 3367–3084 cal BC and
3024–2902 cal BC. We documented two further holes
whose human origin cannot be proved, although their
morphology and dimensions do suggest this.
The major erosion in this area can be related with
agricultural practices and the articulation of the con-
RURALIA X
291–308
temporary agricultural practices, which have erased
most ancient structures. Therefore, we only preserve
about 40 centimetres of the lower parts of the struc-
tures. As in other excavated areas, there is a scarcity
of material remains. We could barely recover twenty
coarse and worn pottery fragments, located in the con-
tact area between the upper levels of ploughing and
the rock. These resemble some fragments located in
Las Corvas, suggesting a potential prehistoric chronol-
ogy. The intervention in productive areas confirmed
our interpretation of the existence of continued agri-
cultural production since medieval times, which has
erased previous domestic structures from the Neolith-
ic period. Despite the low amounts of documented ma-
terial culture, these artefacts are interesting because
they provide information – however decontextualised
and difficult to interpret – about a historical period
that had hitherto remained largely unknown in the
Cantabrian area.
4.6 Arrichere
Arrichere is a former space of agricultural produc-
tion currently abandoned and covered by trees (Fig. 2).
It is located near El Castru, on a sloping hillside area
that provides one of the best areas for the cultivation
of spelt in Vigaña. For this reason, we chose this area
to carry out a 2.5 by 1 metre test pit on the remains of
agricultural terraces. The stratigraphy presents an up-
per level related to livestock farming and the contempo-
rary use of the space (Fig. 5). Below this there is a level
filling the terrace with modern ceramic tiles, which is
supported by retaining walls built with masonry of ir-
regular shapes (S.U. 003). A series of trenches (S.U.
004) made in the geological clay hosted the base of the
wall supporting the terrace. The geological substrate
was covered by a layer of descaled and weathered clays.
Those probably had constituted a thin layer of soil be-
fore the construction of the terrace, taking into account
the high inclination of the terrace. The materials recov-
ered in the S.U. 002 and the morphology of the terrace
point to a late chronology for their construction, one
probably related to the productive pressure on these
marginal spaces in contemporary times, furthered by
the population growth after the 18th century.
4.7 L’Eirón
This 3 by 1 metre test pit was conducted in an area
identified by morphological studies as a potential sec-
tor of expansion of the productive area of Val.le’l Pan-
du, one of the most important productive areas in the
20th century (Fig. 2). The objective was to document
the construction sequence of the terraces built with-
out reinforcing stonewalls (a practice widespread in
301
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
Vigaña). The stratigraphy (Fig. 5) presents a first level
associated with contemporary livestock farming over
this ancient area of agricultural production (S.U. 001).
Below it there is a layer of crop production (S.U. 002)
leaning on a terrace, which yielded little materials.
This level is covering a layer of burnt, reddened clays
that could be the result of agricultural practices before
the construction of the terraces. This layer of soil rests
on a recess made in the geological substrate. The ma-
terials extracted would consequently become part of
the filling of the top of the terrace, in order to diminish
the slope of the terrain. In other cases, such as the ter-
race of Arrichere, the terrace was reinforced with sim-
ple walls of modern chronology. Therefore, the system
documented in L’Eiron, without walls, could be the an-
tecedent of the modern stonewalled terraces (Fernán-
dez Mier – González Álvarez 2014).
4.7 La Granda
The intervention in La Granda was the only one
excavated mechanically using a light digger (Fig. 2).
The idea was to understand the construction process
of a terrace. Following similar experiences in Galicia
and the Basque Country (Ballesteros Arias et al. 2006;
Quirós Castillo 2009), we excavated a large 20 by 1 me-
tre ditch which offered a good overall view of the con-
structive process of the terrace (Fig. 5). The top layer
(S.U. 001) was associated with the recent use of the
space for livestock farming. Underneath, a low wall
made of masonry served as the containment structure
to create the terrace (S.U. 003). In relation with the
construction of the wall, a filling of soil levelled out the
terrain between the terrace wall and the ground. The
wall was placed in a series of soil recesses (S.U. 004)
carved in the geological clays (S.U. 005). Furthermore,
there was a previous construction phase in which a
trench was excavated in a slightly more elevated area
than the previous terrace. This was possibly intend-
ed to create a non-reinforced embankment similar to
the one found in L’Eirón. In a second phase, a further
trench was created in the geological substrate of sand
and clay where the wall was placed, in the step created
by the previous embankment.
The chemical analyses of the S.U. 001, 002 and
005 showed the high acidity of soils throughout the
whole stratigraphy. The rates of some nutrients such
as phosphorus are very low, pointing to the absence
of fertilisation. Similarly, there is a low presence of ni-
trogen, only increasing in the contemporary levels of
use. There is an overall gradual improvement of the
conditions for agricultural production, but it is not as
prominent as in other areas studied. In terms of chro-
nology, the radiocarbon dating of the S.U. 002 points
to the 16th century (2 1485–1669 cal AD).
302
291–308
4.8 The brañas of Folgueras and L’Estoupiel.lu
In addition to the interventions in areas of agricul-
tural production in the surroundings of the village,
we conducted various interventions in high livestock
pasture areas – brañas – located between 900 and
1,100 metres high (Fig. 6). As previously mentioned, a
landscape approach involves the holistic study of the
economic system, in which the large pasture areas
and forests play a fundamental role. The complexity of
studying mountain areas has delayed its investigation.
Early works in this direction began in Europe during
the 1980s (Chang – Koster 1986). More recently, some
projects have addressed the study of grassland areas
with archaeological methodology in the Alps (Walsh
et al. 2006; 2007), the Pyreneess (Ariño – Gurt – Pa-
let 2004; Rendu 2003; 2006; Galop 1998; 2005), the
Tuscan Apennines (Giovannetti 2004) and Scandi-
navia (Emanuelsson et al. 2003). Early in the 1990s,
Barceló (1995) called for the need to carry out archaeo-
logical studies of mountain areas and livestock farm-
ing by mountain communities in Spain. Only during
the 2000s did this line of enquiry emerge as an ar-
chaeological endeavour with a series of works sharing
similar objectives and approaches (Ballesteros 2004;
2008; Agirre et al. 2003; Leizaola 2011; González Álva-
rez et al. 2014). This strand of research has started to
document pastoral structures with wide chronologies
dating back to late prehistory, allowing us to under-
stand the role of farming activities in the human oc-
cupation of mountain landscapes.
In Vigaña, we investigated Folgueras and L’Estoupiel.
lu, the two most important areas of pasture. The pas-
tures are exploited both individually and collectively.
The private owners of meadows have small cabins or
huts for the storage of the hay that is harvested during
summer. The detection of traces of specialist livestock
farming in these areas poses a challenge because no
materials can be located on the surface, in line with
the overall scarcity of pottery in mountain areas. Ac-
cordingly, we developed an excavation strategy based
on random sampling, carrying out 1x1 metre test pits
within a virtual grid of 25x25 metres. In Folgueras, the
results were limited and we were only able to recover
contemporary material, fundamentally tiles. Regarding
l’Estoupiel.lu, we carried out 39 test pits and 13 pro-
vided archaeological materials, mostly roof tiles from
a tile building documented in the east of our survey
area. Three excavations provided lithic materials, small
pieces of flint, and remains of removal of the cortex or
flaking cores that could be related with the productive
activities of the communities that built megaliths in
the area at least since Neolithic times. In fact, the near-
by test pits that yielded archaeological information are
located near a megalith monument, a large tumulus
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
with a height of 4 metres over ground level. Other test
pits in the highest area of the braña provided evidence
of red-burnt disturbances of the clay substrate, which
could be related to productive practices related to the
opening of new pastures for exploitation.
Complementing this research strategy, we excavated
an enclosure in Folgueras (Fig. 5) consisting of a small
ditch that bound an area. The soil extracted from the
ditch was placed on the outside in order to delimit a
small space dedicated for cultivation. According to
our ethnographic survey, the presence of agricultural
structures in an area mostly dedicated to livestock
farming has to do with the production of grains like
rye or spelt (cavaos). The co-existence of these crops
RURALIA X
291–308
Fig. 6. Braña de L’Estoupiel.lu, the
main pasture area of the village.
with cattle herds required the enclosure of the perim-
eter of the production area. Written documentation
of the 16th century refers to the growing presence of
crops to the detriment of pasture areas here, a pro-
cess favoured by the monastery of Balmonte. This
was a great blow to the community, which struggled
to maintain livestock with fewer pasture areas. These
agricultural structures or cavaos were mostly created
from the 19th century onwards. There is comprehen-
sive legislation regulating their creation, allowing their
implementation in areas of communal property in
case of necessity and controlling the potential threats
of their privatisation. The 4.50 by 1 metre excavation
of Folgueras cuts a stretch of a well-preserved section
303
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
of the soil ditch and of the pit associated with the inter-
nal area of the parcel. It provided scarce archaeological
materials, predominantly constructive materials and a
fragment of a modern painted or glazed pottery rim.
Similarly, it did not provide useful material for radio-
carbon dating. Despite the limited chronological data
obtained from the intervention in high pasture areas,
we consider further archaeological research in this
direction to be necessary. A better knowledge of the
variety of archaeological remains associated with pas-
ture areas and brañas will surely allow us to deepen
our knowledge of their chronology and of the collective
practices of production in these common areas (Lind-
holm et al. 2013) that have been historically subject to
attempts at privatisation.
5. Conclusion
The different methodological approaches applied to
the study of Vigaña have yielded important quantitative
and qualitative information about the major long-terms
processes shaping the landscape in the area. The
southern part of the village provides most information
about the prehistoric period. Here, the occupational
sequence begins in the late Neolithic with a seemingly
seasonal site that leveraged the potential of the sur-
rounding ecological niches. Then, the setting of the
population involved the establishment of a fortified vil-
lage that articulated the uses of the surrounding space.
This probably occurred during the early Iron Age (9th–
6th centuries BC), although we still lack data to provide
a more definite chronology. Livestock farming practices
were fundamental here, according to the abundance of
animal skeletal remains – mainly cattle – located in the
site. The hill fort was occupied until the 1st century
AD, coinciding with the Roman conquest of the north
of the Iberian Peninsula. At this time, the area of pre-
historic occupation was abandoned and went on to be-
come a space of agricultural and livestock production
exploited from the new settlement.
Our research did not provide data on Roman occu-
pation, except for a few paltry fragments of terra sig-
illata of difficult chronological ascription. Then, there
is extensive information again starting from the early
medieval times. The necropolis excavated next to the
church of San Pedru in Vigaña has been used as a
cemetery since at least the 7th century AD, and has
remained in use until the present day. This reveals the
existence of a nearby settlement that probably coin-
cides with the currently inhabited village. Some graves
in secondary position and their fillings provide some
information about the emergence of this settlement.
This also coincided with the start of productive activi-
ties and the creation of fields during the 8th century,
most likely associated with livestock farming. At the
304
291–308
time, the landscape was largely deforested and dedicat-
ed to intensive productive practices, such as hay for
feeding the livestock. Although the presence of cereals
has not been documented, it is not possible to exclude
their presence in nearby areas. This incipient agrar-
ian organisation articulates a productive space that
combines agricultural and livestock farming activi-
ties, perfecting the strategies for the exploitation of the
territorial resources. This medieval landscape can be
documented by both written and archaeological sourc-
es. Then, in the 16th century, there was a significant
landscape transformation related with the construc-
tion of terracing systems without retaining walls as a
result of the introduction of a new crop coming from
America: corn. This transformation can be observed
in other nearby villages (Fernández Fernández 2012).
The latter significant landscape transformation took
place during the 19th and 20th centuries, when many
enclosures and terraces with retaining stonewalls and
fences were created. The overall transformation of the
landscape can be documented both in the surround-
ings of the village and in the grazing areas. We could
not record features of medieval chronology in the pas-
tures. However, we documented megalithic construc-
tions of Neolithic origin and many modern structures
that indicate a continued human pressure to exploit
these areas. Pollen samples from the village support
this hypothesis by showing a deep deforestation of the
area since the Early Middle Ages, probably connected
with its continuous use since prehistoric times.
This paper has focused on presenting the empirical
data obtained in the excavation of both the inhabited
areas and the spaces of agricultural production and
livestock farming in Vigaña. We aim to highlight the
need to address landscape research in terms of agro-
systems, a basic concept allowing us to interpret the
data obtained from landscape excavations. Planning
the study of the village from this perspective has al-
lowed us to shed light on medieval agricultural practic-
es and to understand the role played by the peasantry
in shaping the landscape. Furthermore, this methodol-
ogy has enabled us to gather information about histor-
ic periods that about which there was almost no infor-
mation in the area, such as the Neolithic and the Early
Middle Ages. These overall positive results point to the
need for carrying out landscape archaeology research
in currently inhabited villages occupying the same ar-
eas as medieval settlements, addressing at the same
time both productive and domestic areas.
Summary
One of the main challenges facing archaeology is
how to shed light on the settlement patterns and land-
scape formation of medieval times in areas that have
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
remained more or less unaltered and been continu-
ously occupied until the present day. As the British
studies have shown, we cannot write the history of the
medieval times by drawing exclusively from the study
of deserted villages. We also need to take into account
and carry out research in currently inhabited villages
of medieval origin.
Similarly, we must define research strategies for
understanding the landscape of every specific village.
Our chapter will present the results of our investiga-
tion on Vigaña, a site located in Asturias, Spain. Here,
we have articulated a comprehensive research strategy
based on agricultural archaeology that allowed us to
deepen our understanding of settlement patterns and
landscape formation during medieval times.
Zusammenfassung
Eine der Hauptherausforderungen für die Sied-
lungsarchäologie ist die Erforschung der Siedlungs-
strukturen und der Landschaftsentwicklung im Mittel-
alter in jenen Gebieten, die bis heute Zeit mehr oder
weniger kontinuierlich besiedelt sind. Britische Studi-
en haben gezeigt, dass die mittelalterliche Siedlungsge-
schichte nicht verstanden werden kann, wenn sich die
Forschung ausschliesslich auf Wüstungen beschränkt.
Erforderlich ist eine Berücksichtigung noch heute be-
wohnter Dörfer, die auf das Mittelalter zurück gehen.
Zudem müssen Forschungsstrategien definiert wer-
den, um die Siedlungslandschaft jedes einzelnen Dorfs
zu verstehen. Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt dazu die
Ergebnisse der Forschungen in Vigaña, einem astu-
rischen Dorf vor. Eine umfassende archäologische
Forschungsstrategie berücksichtigt auch die landwirt-
schaftlichen Aspekte und erlaubt es, unser Verständ-
nis von Ansiedlungsstrukturen und Landschaftsfor-
mation im Mittelalter zu vertiefen.
Résumé
L’un des principaux défis confrontant l’archéologie
est d’éclairer les types de peuplement et la formation
du paysage à l’époque médiévale dans les zones qui
n’ont subi que peu de changements au fil des siècles
et qui sont encore habitées de nos jours. Le cas britan-
nique a montré que l’on ne peut pas écrire l’histoire
du Moyen Âge exclusivement à partir de l’étude des
villages désertés. Il faut également prendre en compte
les villages d’origine médiévale encore habités et y faire
des recherches.
De la même façon, il faut définir des stratégies de
recherche permettant de comprendre le paysage de
chaque village particulier. Notre article présentera les
résultats de notre enquête sur Vigaña, un site qui se si-
RURALIA X
291–308
tue dans les Asturies, en Espagne. Dans le cadre de ce
projet, nous avons élaboré une stratégie de recherche
globale basée sur l’archéologie agricole qui nous a per-
mis d’approfondir notre compréhension des types de
peuplement médiévaux et la formation du paysage à
l’époque médiévale.
Bibliography
Agirre, J. – Moraza, A. – Mujika, J. A. 2003:
Primeros vestigios de un modelo económico de ganadería
estacional especializada. Los fondos de cabaña tumulares de
Arrubi y Esnaurreta (Aralar), Kobie 27, 105–129.
Agirre, J.– Moraza, A. –Mujika, J. A. 2003:
La transición entre dos modelos de ganadería estacional de
montaña. El fondo de cabaña pastoril de Oidui (sierra de Ara-
lar), Kobie 27, 163–190.
Alonso González 2014:
La transición al pos-productivismo: parques patrimoniales,
parques culturales y ordenación territorial, EURE 40 (119),
217–238.
Álvarez Menéndez, B. – Fernández Hevia, J. M. – Fernández
Mier, M. – López Calvo, M. J. 1990:
Espacio y propiedad en un territorio de montaña: la Tierra
del Privilexu (Teberga), Boletín del Instituto de Estudios Astu-
rianos 133, 145–214.
Ariño, E. – Gurt, J. M. – Palet, J. M. 2004:
El pasado presente. Arqueología de los paisajes en la Hispa-
nia Romana. Salamanca.
Aston, M. A. – Gerrard, C. M. 2013:
Interpreting the English village. Landscape and community
at Shapwick. Somerset. Oxford.
Ballesteros Arias, P. 2004:
Arquitectura tradicional ganadeira na Sierra do Suido, Cua-
dernos de Estudios Gallegos 51(117), 9–48.
Ballesteros Arias, P. 2008:
A paixase ganadeira na serra do Suido, El Museo de Ponteve-
dra 62, 109–143.
Ballesteros Arias, P. 2010:
La arqueología rural y la construcción de un paisaje agrario
medieval: el caso de Galicia, in: Kirchner H. (ed.), Por una ar-
queología agraria. Perspectivas de investigación sobre espa-
cios de cultivo en las sociedades medievales hispánicas. BAR
International Series 2062, 25–39. Oxford.
Ballesteros Arias, P. – Criado, F. – Andrade, J. M. 2006:
Formas y fechas de un paisaje agrario de época medieval:
A Cidade da Cultura en Santiago de Compostela, Arqueología
espacial 26, 193–225.
Ballesteros Arias, P. – Kirchner, H. – Fernández Mier, M. –
Ortega, J. – Quirós Castillo, J. A. – Retamero, F. – Sitjes, E.
– Torro, J. – Vigil-Escalera Guirado, A. 2010:
Por una arqueología agraria de las sociedades medievales
hispánicas. Propuesta de un protocolo de investigación, in:
Kirchner H. (ed.), Por una arqueología agraria. Perspectivas
305
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
de investigación sobre espacios de cultivo en las sociedades
medievales hispánicas. BAR International Series 2062, 185–
202. Oxford.
Barceló, M. 1988:
Arqueología Medieval. En la afueras del “medievalismo”. Bar-
celona.
Barceló, M. 1995:
Crear, disciplinar y dirigir el desorden. La renta feudal y el
control del proceso de trabajo campesino: una propuesta so-
bre su articulación, Taller d’historia 6 (2), 61–72.
Barrios, A. – Martín Viso, A. 2000–2001:
Reflexiones sobre el poblamiento rural altomedieval en el
Norte de la Península Ibérica, Studia Historica, Historia Me-
dieval 18–19, 53–83.
Bloch, M. 1931:
Les caracteres originaux de l’histoire rurale francaise. Paris.
Chang, C. – Koster, H. A 1986:
Beyond bones: toward an archaeology of pastoralism, in:
Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and
theory 9, 97–148. London.
Christie, N. – Stamper, P. 2012:
Medieval Rural Settlement. Britain and Ireland, AD 800–
1600. Oxford.
Chouquer, G. – Watteaux, M. 2010:
L’archéologie des disciplines géohistoriques. Paris.
David, N. – Kramer, C. 2001:
Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge.
Díez Herrera, M. C. 1990:
La formación de la sociedad feudal en Cantabria. Santander.
Emanuelsson, M. – Johansson, A. – Nilsson, S. – Pettersson, S.
– Svensson, E. 2003:
Settlement, shieling and landscape. The local history of a for-
est hamlet, Almqvist & Wiksell International. Stockholm.
Estepa, C. 1998:
Comunidades de aldeas y formación del feudalismo. Revisión
de la cuestión y perspectivas, in “Romanización” y “Recon-
quista” en la península ibérica. Nuevas perspectivas, 271–
282. Salamanca.
Fernández Fernández, J. 2010:
Una aportación desde la arqueología del paisaje al conoci-
miento del primer poblamiento humano del valle de Trubia.
Estudio geoarqueológico y análisis SIG del territorio. Oviedo.
Fernández Fernández, J. 2012:
Estudios multiescalares sobre la Alta Edad Media en el Valle
del Trubia (Asturias, España) (PhD unpublished). Oviedo.
Fernández Mier, M. 1996:
Análisis histórico-arqueológico de la configuración del espa-
cio agrario medieval asturiano. Mélanges de la Casa de Veláz-
quez 32, 287–318.
Fernández Mier, M., 1999:
Génesis del territorio en la Edad Media. Arqueología del pai-
saje y evolución histórica en la montaña asturiana: el valle
del río Pigüeña. Oviedo.
Fernández Mier, M. 2006:
La toponimia como fuente para la historia rural: la territoria-
lidad de la aldea feudal, Territorio, sociedad y poder 1, 35–51.
306
291–308
Fernández Mier, M. 2010:
Campos de cultivo en la Cordillera Cantábrica. La agricultura
en zonas de montaña, in: Kirchner H. (ed.), Por una arqueo-
logía agraria. Perspectivas de investigación sobre espacios de
cultivo en las sociedades medievales hispánicas. BAR Inter-
national Series 2062, 41–59. Oxford.
Fernández Mier, M. 2013:
Arqueología agraria del Norte Peninsular. Líneas de investiga-
ción sobre un paisaje multifuncional. El ejemplo de Asturias,
in: A. García Porras (ed.), Arqueología de la producción en
época medieval, 418–444.Granada.
Fernández Mier, M. – Aparicio Martínez, P. – González Álva-
rez, D. – Fernández Fernández, J. – Alonso González, P. 2013:
Proyecto de investigación: la formación de los paisaje agra-
rios del Noroeste Peninsular en la Edad Media (siglos V–XII),
Debates Arqueología Medieval 3, 359–374.
Fernández Mier, M. – Fernández Fernández, J.– Alonso Gon-
zález, P. 2014:
The Investigation of Currently Inhabited Villages of Medieval
Origin: Agrarian Archaeology in Asturias (Spain). Quaternary
International, 346, 41–55.
Fernández Mier, M. – González Álvarez, D. 2014:
Más allá de la aldea: Estudio diacrónico del paisaje en el en-
torno de Vigaña (Belmonte de Miranda), in: Excavaciones Ar-
queológicas en Asturias, Oviedo, 353–365.
Galop, D. 1998:
La forêt, l’Homme et le troupeau dans les Pyrénées. 6000 ans
d’histoire l’environnement entre Garonne et Méditerranée.
Toulouse.
Galop, D. 2005:
Les transformations de l’environnement pyrénéen durant
l’Antiquité: l’état de la question à la lumière des données po-
lliniques. Aquitania Supplément 13, 17–327.
García Camino, I. 2002:
Arqueología y poblamiento en Bizkaia, siglos VI–XII. La confi-
guración de la sociedad feudal. Bilbao.
García de Cortazar, J. A. 1988:
La sociedad rural en la España medieval. Madrid.
García de Cortazar, J. A. 1995:
Las forma de organización social del espacio del valle del
Duero en la Alta Edad Media: de la espontaneidad al control
feudal, in: Despoblación y colonización del Valle del Duero,
siglos VIII–XX, IV Congreso de Estudios Medievales, 13–44.
León.
García Fernández, J. 1975:
Organización del espacio y economía rural en la España At-
lántica. Madrid.
García Fernández, J. 1988:
Sociedad y organización del espacio tradicional de Asturias.
Oviedo.
García Martínez, A. 1988:
Los Vaqueiros de Alzada de Asturias. Un estudio histórico-
antropológico. Oviedo.
García Martínez, A. 2003:
La trashumancia en Asturias, in: Elías Pastor, L. – Novoa Por-
tela, F. (eds), Un camino de ida y vuelta; la trashumancia en
España, 95–107. Barcelona.
RURALIA X
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes
Gardiner, M. – Rippon, S. 2007:
Medieval Landscapes. Oxford.
Gerrard, C. M. – Aston, M. A. 2007:
The Shapwick Project, Somerset. A Rural Landscape Explo-
red. Leeds.
Giovannetti, L. 2004:
Archeologia e storia della montagna della Garfagnana e de-
lle sue risorse. Il caso di Gorfigliano nel piu amplio contesto
apuano e appenninico, in: Quirós Castillo, J. A. (ed.), Archeo-
logia e storia di un castello apuano, 225–252. Florencia.
González Álvarez, D. 2013:
Traditional pastoralism in the Asturian Mountains: an eth-
noarchaeological view on mobility and settlement patterns,
in: Lugli, F. – Stopiello, A. A. – Biagetti, S. (eds), Ethnoarchaeo-
logy: current research and field methods. Conference Procee-
dings, Rome, Italy, 13th14 May 2010, 202–208. Oxford.
Hamerow, H. 2002:
Early Medieval settlements. The archaeology of rural commu-
nities in northwest Europe, AD 400–900. Oxford.
Hamerow, H. 2006:
‘Special Deposits’ in Anglo-Saxon settlements. Medieval Ar-
chaeology 50, 1–30.
Hamerow, H. 2012:
Rural settlements and society in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford.
Hey, G. 2004:
Yarnton. Saxon and medieval settlement and landscape. Ox-
ford.
Jones, R. – Page, M. 2006:
Medieval villages in an English landscape: beginnings and
ends. Macclesfield.
Kirchner, H. 2011:
Archaeology of the landscape and archaeology of farmed ar-
eas in the medieval hispanic societies, Imago temporis. Me-
dium Aevum 5, 55–86.
Leizaola Calvo, F. 2011:
Cabañas tumulares en la Sierra de Andía (Navarra), in: Gar-
cía Orellán, R. – Leizaola, A. – Sánchez Martín, I. (eds), En
recuerdo de Joxemartin Apalategi Begiristain, 153–171. Do-
nostia-San Sebastián.
Lewis, C. 2007:
New avenues for the investigation of currently occupied me-
dieval rural settlement: preliminary observations from the
Higher Education Field Academy, Medieval Archaeology 51,
133–163.
Lewis, C. 2005–12:
http://www.access.arch.cam.ac.uk/reports/cors (29.1–2014)
Lindholm, K. J. – Sandström, E.- Ekman, A. K. 2013:
The archeology of the commons. Journal of Archaeology and
Ancient History 10, 1–49.
Martínez Sopena, P. 1985:
La Tierra de Campos occidental. Poblamiento, poder y comu-
nidad del siglo X al XIII. Valladolid.
Orejas, A. – Ruiz del Árbol, M. 2013:
Arqueología del paisaje: procesos sociales y territorios, in:
Quirós Castillo, J. A. (ed.), La materialidad de la Historia. La
Arqueología en los inicios del siglo XXI, 201–240. Madrid.
RURALIA X
291–308
Pallares, M. C. – Portela, E. 1975:
Aproximación al estudio de las explotaciones agrarias en Ga-
licia en los siglos IX–XII. Actas de las primeras jornadas de
Metodología aplicada a las ciencias históricas. II: Historia Me-
dieval 9. Santiago, 95–113.
Pallares, M.C. – Portela, E. 1995–96:
De la villa del siglo IX a la aldea del siglo XIII. Espacio agrario
y feudalización en Galicia, Asturiensia Medievalia 8, 47–69.
Peña Bocos, E. 1995:
La atribución social del espacio en la Castilla altomedieval.
Una nueva aproximación al feudalismo peninsular. Santan-
der.
Portela, E. – Pallares, C. 1998:
La villa por dentro. Testimonios galaicos de los siglos X y XI.
Studia Historica. Historia Medieval 16, 13–43.
Quirós Castillo, J. A. 2009:
Arqueología de los espacios agrarios medievales en el País
Vasco. Hispania (69) 233, 619–652.
Quirós Castillo, J. A. 2010:
De la arqueología agraria a la arqueología de las aldeas me-
dievales, in: Kirchner H. (ed.), Por una arqueología agraria.
Perspectivas de investigación sobre espacios de cultivo en las
sociedades medievales hispánicas. BAR International Series
2062, 11–22. Oxford.
Quirós Castillo, J. A. 2012:
Arqueología del campesinado medieval: la aldea de Zaballa.
Bilbao.
Rendu, C. 2003:
La montagne d’Enveig. Une estive purénéenne dans la longue
durée. Perpignan.
Rendu, C. 2006:
“Transhumance»: prélude à l’histoire d’un mot voyageur, in:
Transhumance et estivage en Occident des origines aux en-
jeux actuels, Actes des 26e journées internationales d’histoire
de l´Abbaye de Flaran (Sept 2004), 7–29. Toulouse.
Rippon, S. 2006:
Landscape, Community and Colonisation: The North Somer-
set Levels During the 1st to 2nd Millennia ad, Council for Bri-
tish Archaeology Research Report 152. York
Rippon, S. 2009:
Understanding the medieval landscape, in: Gilchrist R. – Rey-
nolds, A. (eds) Fifty Years of Medieval Archaeology, 227–255.
Leeds: Society for Medieval Archaeology.
Rodríguez Gutiérrez, F. 1989:
La organización agraria de la montaña central asturiana.
Oviedo.
Rogerson, A. – Davison, A. – Pritchard, D. – Silvester, R. 1997:
Barton Bendish and Caldecote: Fieldwork in South-West Nor-
folk. East Anglian Archaeology 80, Dereham.
Ruralia:
http://www.ruralia.cz/index.html (2013-10-17).
Schreg, R. 2013:
Historical Archaeology, History, and Cultural Sciences in
Germany: Some reflections, in: Mehler N. (ed.), Historical Ar-
chaeology in Central Europe, 31–51. Society for Historical
Archaeology.
307
Fernández Mier – Alonso González, Medieval north-west Spain: living rural landscapes 291–308

Schreg, R. 2014: Walsh, K.,– Mocci, F. – Palet-Martínez, J., 2007:

Ecological Approaches in Medieval Rural Archaeology, Euro- Nine thousand years of human/landscape dynamics in a
pean Journal of Archaeology 17/1, 83–119. high altitude zone in the southern French Alps (Parc National
Torrente Fernández, I. 1985–86: des Ecrins, Hautes-Alpes), Preistoria Alpina 42, 9–22.
Términos agrarios en el Medievo asturiano (siglos XIII–XVI),
Asturiensia Medievalia 5, 75–87. Walsh, K. – Richer, S. – de Beaulieu J. L. 2006:
Attitudes to altitude: changing meanings and perceptions
Turner, S. – Webster J. 2011:
within a ‘marginal’ Alpine landscape – the integration of
Medieval and later settlement around Chassenon (Charente),
palaeoecological and archaeological data in a high-altitude
France: fieldwork in 2011, Medieval Settlement Research 26,
landscape in the French Alps, World Archaeology 38(3), 436–
60–66.
454.
Turner, S. – Webster, J. – Duggan M. 2013:
West, S. E. – McLaughlin, A. 1998:
Medieval and later settlement around Chassenon (Charente),
Towards a Landscape History of Walsham le Willows, SuColk.
France: fieldwork in 2012. Medieval Settlement Research 28,
East Anglian Archaeology 85, Ipswich.
93–95.
Wickham, C. 2009:
Vigil-Escalera, A. 2007:
Una historia nueva de la alta Edad Media. Europa y el mundo
Granjas y aldeas altomedievales al norte de Toledo (450–800
mediterráneo, 400–800. Barcelona.
d.C.), Archivo Español de Arqueología 80, 239–284.
Williamson, T. 2003:
Vigil-Escalera, A. 2010:
Shaping Medieval Landscapes. Settlement, Society, Environ-
Formas de parcelario en las aldeas altomedievales del Sur
ment. Oxford.
de Madrid. Una aproximación arqueológica preliminar, in:
Kirchner H. (ed.), Por una arqueología agraria. Perspectivas Zadora Rio, E. 2009:
de investigación sobre espacios de cultivo en las sociedades Early Medieval Villages and estate centres in France (c.300–
medievales hispánicas. BAR International Series 2062, 1–9. 1100), in: Quirós Castillo, J. A. The Archeology of Early Me-
Oxford. dieval Villages in Europe, 77–98. Vitoria/Gasteiz.

Margarita Fernández Mier, University of León, Campus de Vegazana, 24071, León, Spain, margarita.mier@unileon.es
Pablo Alonso González, pa332@cam.ac.uk

308 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 309–323

Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia

(13th–16th centuries)
Entwässerungsanlagen im mediterranen Spanien
(13.–16. Jh.)

La technologie du drainage agricole dans les régions

méditerranéennes ibériques au Moyen Âge (XIIIe-XVIe s.)

Josep Torró

1. Presenting the issue

The agricultural expansion that occurred between
the 11th and the 13th centuries did not in general af-
fect wetlands in the Mediterranean as extensively as in
north-western Europe.1 At any rate historiography has
to a degree ‘underestimated’ Mediterranean wetlands,
as pointed out by Horden and Purcell. In contrast
to the coastal swamps of the North Sea or the Atlan-
tic marshes, which can stretch without interruption
across areas of over 100,000 ha, and with the excep-
tion of major river deltas (Rhone, Po), Mediterranean
wetlands are of a markedly local nature; they are but
one feature within the varied environmental repertoire
present in each micro-region (Horden – Purcell 2000,
186–190). This is observable on the eastern coast of
the Iberian Peninsula, where coastal, and to a lesser
extent riverine, wetland environments are generally
more modest in size than those found in northern
Europe. For this reason, the analysis of draining ac-
tivities should not be fully divorced from that of other
agricultural activities that were aimed at preparing the
land for cultivation in the medieval period, and which
often happened simultaneously and in the same ter-
ritorial context.
This need for contextualisation becomes even more
evident if we consider the fact that land-reclamation
processes in the medieval period in the Eastern Ibe-
rian Peninsula followed relatively swift military con-
quest and were, therefore, not gradual phenomena. In
order to understand the real impact of these process-
es, two considerations that are rarely taken into ac-
count – particularly outside Spain, but largely because
of the lack of clarity in Spanish historiography – must
be given due regard:
1
Only hitherto unknown or unpublished documents will be re-
ferred to in the footnotes. Abbreviations used are ACA = Archi-
vo de la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona); AMV = Arxiu Municipal
de València; ARV = Arxiu del Regne de València.
1. The radical differences concerning social organi-
sation between al-Andalus (Muslim, Arabic-speaking)2
and the northern Christian kingdoms. The charac-
terisation of these differences is beyond the scope of
this paper, but it is worth keeping in mind that each of
these societies produced their own type of agricultural
space, the features of which were clearly distinguish-
able (Barceló 1996b; Glick 2007).
2. The effects of the conquest were not limited to a
change in the ruling elites or to the ‘Christianisation’ of
the conquered. The victors engaged in a policy of colo-
nisation through the expulsion of pre-existing groups
and other measures which resulted in the total or par-
tial disappearance of the native populations; no signifi-
cant assimilation processes took place. In some areas,
some Muslim communities of varying sizes remained
in place, but they were always segregated and, in most
cases, in a minority (Guichard 1991–92, 451–479).
Christian colonists were forced to adapt the agricul-
tural spaces abandoned by the Muslims to the needs
posed by their own social order and the peculiar re-
quirements of a process of colonisation. In the eastern
regions of the Iberian Peninsula, and most particularly
in the Kingdom of Valencia, the transformation went
beyond the land which had already been under cultiva-
tion before the conquest. It also involved a widespread
drive towards land-reclamation, which included si-
multaneous operations of forest and bush-clearing,
hillside-terracing, the development of new irrigation
systems and, of course, wetland-drainage. This last
process took place mostly along the coast, for agricul-
tural and settlement purposes (Torró 2009a). In this
regard, immediately after the conquest, between the
mid-13th century and the 1330s, the kings of Aragon,
the military orders (Hospitallers and Templars) and
2
The label ‘Muslim Spain’ is incorrect and confusing.

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 309–323.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110474
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
some secular lords, embarked on numerous projects
which involved the drainage of marshland areas in or-
der to distribute the lands so obtained among peasants
and large landowners. Occasionally, these projects had
the support of the Church, which temporarily ceded its
tithes in the expectation of a profitable future increase.
Similarly, members of the nearby urban elite were al-
lowed – individually or in association with others – to
invest in the construction of the necessary drainage
infrastructures in exchange for land and privileges
(Glick 1970, 98–102; Guichard 2006; Torró 2010; 2012).
In order to understand the technical processes
involved in the draining and breaking-up of these
lands we must identify their essential characteris-
tics. The marshes on the Mediterranean coast of the
Iberian Peninsula, and especially those in the Gulf of
Valencia (Fig. 1), which are commonly referred to as
marjals, are the result of the emergence of barrier is-
lands formed by north-to-south sea currents. The is-
lands are flat and lumpy areas of sand and pebbles
that cut off the sea from former bays which then be-
come progressively filled with sediment (silt and peat).
Once the marshland was fully formed, and the bar-
rier island was turned into a beach barrier (restinga),
these areas are constantly supplied with, mostly un-
derground, fresh water from the nearby mountain
310
309–323
Fig. 1. Location of the places mentioned
in the text.
aquifers. In the rainy season, the excess accumulated
water discharges into the sea through outlets called
goles, which the sea currents tend to close again after
the end of the season.
At any rate, the Iberian Mediterranean wetland is a
far from homogenous space. The bottom of these wet-
lands is often irregular and full of potholes and chan-
nels, upon which poorly consolidated silt and peat
rest; sometimes, this gives them a gentle undulating
profile. The agriculturally viable soils (although they
always have a very high watertable) are interspersed
with seasonal (autumn and winter) and permanent
lagoons, the underground water sources of which are
not always well known. These spaces oscillate between
1000 and 3000 ha in area, although some consider-
ably smaller – e. g. Peníscola (200 ha) – and larger – e.
g. Albufera (from the Arabic. buhayra, ‘small sea’) in
Valencia – spaces are also known. The latter example
is located between the rivers Turia and Júcar (Fig. 1),
and embraces a total area of 50,000 ha (including the
central lagoon and the marjals strips around it), which
makes it one of the largest wetland areas in the West-
ern Mediterranean, second only to Camarga (Rosselló
1982; 1993; Sanchis 2001).
It is also worth stressing that the written record con-
cerning these medieval wetland-draining processes is
RURALIA X
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
abundant. Texts make constant, precise and unques-
tionable allusions to the fact that these areas were
not being cultivated before the conquest. This does
not mean that they did not play a role in peasant sub-
sistence strategies, or that, in W. H. TeBrake’s words,
they were ‘beyond the realm of normal human affairs’
(TeBrake 1985). There is little doubt that these areas
were assiduously visited by fishermen, bird-hunters
and gatherers of reeds and other water plants. Similar-
ly, these areas were also important sources of salt, the
crystallisation of which was facilitated by the exchange
of fresh and sea water in combination with dry and hot
summers. The most important pre-conquest economic
use of these spaces was, however, as pasture land, es-
pecially in the winter months. In fact, the Arabic term
used to refer to them, marj, which the conquerors
adopted and adapted (marjal), means ‘meadow’ (prat in
Catalan); the assimilation of the terms prat and marjal
in the written record is, indeed, not infrequent (Torró
2009a, 94–96). All these activities imply the regulation
of water levels, which strongly suggests that drainage
channels were in operation during the Andalusi pe-
riod, although they were not necessarily the sort re-
quired for the agricultural exploitation of wetlands.
An area of wetland on the left bank of the river Ebro,
in the meander immediately past the city of Tortosa
(conquered by the Catalans in 1148), for instance, was
found to have a network of channels which were not
primarily aimed at the irrigation of agricultural fields,
but at the regulation of the water levels in the meadow.
The transformation of this area into extensive agricul-
tural land was carried out by the Christian colonists
shortly after the conquest (Virgili 2010). Similar cases
are not hard to find. During recent building works in
the marsh of Pego, in the southern coast of the Gulf
of Valencia, A. Bazzana had the opportunity to ob-
serve the diagonal sections of several parallel chan-
nels which, according to the pottery found in the fill,
had been opened during the Muslim period (10th–11th
century) and had gone out of use in the late Middle
Ages (Bazzana – De Meulemeester 2009, 288–289).
The analysis of the documentation shows that, to-
wards the mid-13th century, this marjal was not put
to significant agricultural use and that the main eco-
nomic activity in the area, other than stock-grazing,
was the collection of reeds, which were used in the lo-
cal manufacturing of mats. The case of Ibiza, on the
other hand, shows that the draining of marshes for
agricultural ends was not unknown to Andalusi peas-
ant communities. The area of wetland next to the city,
currently known as Prat de la Vila, was drained three
centuries before the conquest and divided into two dis-
crete areas: a fully desiccated stretch in the upper part,
which was used for vegetable gardens and surrounded
by peasant settlements, and a meadow area adjacent to
RURALIA X
309–323
the sea shore (González Villaescusa – Kirchner 1997).
The decision to turn the upper area into agricultural
land was probably based on the fact that excess wa-
ter could be easily evacuated. The wetland area em-
braces the coast of a small bay where several torrents
converge. Although the flow of these torrents tends to
stagnate due to the decreasing gradient of the slope
in their lower course, in contrast with most Mediter-
ranean coastal wetlands there is in this case no beach
barrier that needs to be overcome (these barriers are
normally between 100 and 1000 m in width and are
periodically rebuilt by currents and waves).
It seems clear, therefore, that Andalusi peasant com-
munities had the necessary drainage skills, but were
very mindful of the social benefit-investment function
of their efforts. Constructing a relatively small network
of channels aimed at controlling the water levels in a
meadow and thus facilitating the grazing and the gath-
ering of water-plants is very different from building a
dense and permanent system capable of maintaining
a fully functioning agricultural area. Apart from the
considerable initial investment involved in the digging
up of the numerous channels and ditches, these sys-
tems were fragile and costly to maintain, as the Chris-
tian colonists soon discovered.
2. Essential components of draining
systems
The draining systems constructed in Mediterranean
contexts are markedly different from those in Atlantic
environments (and, exceptionally, in the Po valley). In
relation to the latter type, the embankment of coastal
marshes and the enclosure of freshwater fens play
a crucial role in containing water and protecting the
drained areas of land (Rippon 2000, 186–219; Sarrazin
1985). For the former, in contrast, raised land barriers
are generally of little relevance. Surface run-off and
floods are hardly ever a problem, unless in the proxim-
ity of a major river. If this is the case, the river course
tends to be higher than the surrounding alluvial lands
due to the amount of sediment present in the riverbed,
making the floods almost inevitable and land barriers
inefficient. This is, for example, the case with the river-
banks at the lower course of the rivers Júcar and Segu-
ra. Nevertheless, these banks were heightened with ar-
tificial dykes (motas), the initial chronology of which is
uncertain. They were in any case insufficient against
heavy increases in the river flow. Land enclosures
were, on the other hand, present on the left bank of
the lower Segura, although they exhibit similar prob-
lems with regard to their chronology due to the lack
of archaeological studies. The written record does not
refer to them with clarity until the 17th century (Ros-
selló 1993, 39).
311
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
Fig. 2. Drainage network in the marjal of Peníscola (from c. 1300).
Embankments for the containment of sea water and
the protection of drained areas are, in any case, totally
unknown. The explanation rests in the absence or the
diminutive nature of tides, which are easily contained
by natural beach barriers. For the same reason, sys-
tems of sluice gates aimed at facilitating the evacua-
tion of excess fresh water while containing tides are
also lacking. This does not mean that such an excess
of water is left uncontrolled, but rather that is carried
out through outlets (goles) via which the wetland dis-
charges into the sea across the restinga during peri-
ods of saturation. The gola (from the Latin gula) often
takes the shape of an elongated lagoon (estany, from
the Latin stagnum), perpendicular to the restinga.
These golas are often rich in fish. Closing and opening
the restingas allowed for the regulation of water levels
in the coastal marshes of the Gulf of Valencia (Mateu
– Sanchis – Ferri 1999). The written record suggests,
however, that the main concern was how to keep the
gola open, especially in the wet season (autumn and
winter), in order to ensure the evacuation of excess
water. In 1314, the gola located between Morvedre and
Puçol was being looked after by a single guard, whose
job it was to make sure that ‘the water from the lagoon
(stagni) discharges well into the sea’. In exchange, this
guard enjoyed exclusive fishing rights.3
3
ACA Cancillería, reg. 211, f. 192r.
312
309–323
Most of drainage ditches were open, although some
drainage networks composed of underground ditches
(albellons) are currently being studied in the eastern
plains of the island of Mallorca. These ditches are
walkable galleries, lined and vaulted with dry stone, a
technique that permits the filtration of stagnant water
deposits and facilitates maintenance. The number of
channels necessary for the efficient drainage of the
land explains their underground nature, since their
presence on the surface would have significantly de-
creased the area available for cultivation in what was
regarded as a highly fertile area. It appears that albel-
lons were in use in Mallorca at least since the final
years of the Middle Ages.4 A similar system may be de-
tected towards 1423 in Albufera de Gaianes, a small
lagoon in the mountains of the Kingdom of Valen-
cia. Referred to in this particular case as alcavons, it
seems that their main function was to drain the waters
of the lagoon and to divert it towards the Cela gorge.
The lord of the land demanded periodical maintenance
work, or escura, from his Muslim vassals (Febrer 2006,
181–185).
These are, in any case, truly exceptional examples,
more typical of continental marshes and lagoons. In
Iberian coastal wetlands, the architecture of agricul-
tural drainage systems was simpler. Open ditches and
4
Work in progress by Antoni Mas (Universitat de les Illes
Balears), whom I would like to thank for the information.
RURALIA X
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
channels were often sufficient for the evacuation of the
excess water into the sea or a water course. The marjal
located behind the restinga to the north of the tombolo
of Peníscola offers an illustrative example of a typical
medieval water-level control system in a coastal marsh-
land. Its small size (200 ha at its maximum) and the
absence of surface water courses (water mostly comes
from underground sources) created favourable condi-
tions for the construction of a relatively simple drain-
age network (Fig. 2). The chronology is also well known
– between ca. 1276 and 1307 – on the basis of the writ-
ten record (Torró 2010, 164). The system includes three
major, interconnected collection channels with rough-
ly parallel courses. The outermost channel (Séquia del
Rei), where the other two (Templera and Sangonera)
discharge, was also the earliest. Water is evacuated
from the main channel straight into the sea and not
into the lagoon of the gola, which is the natural water
outlet of the marsh. The presence of salt-evaporation
ponds in this lagoon and the need to control the influx
of fresh water may be behind this feature: a 18th-cen-
tury map – the earliest available – clearly shows that
the Séquia del Rei, although connected to the lagoon of
the gola, discharged water straight into the water of the
southern shore of the tombolo. The channel received
the water drained by over two hundred ditches, which
were perpendicularly arranged along its course (2.9
km). There were, therefore, around a hundred ditches
of varying length on each side, an outline which is
reminiscent of the bones of a fish. These basic ditches
separated long and narrow plots of agricultural land,
RURALIA X
309–323
which had been progressively raised with the soil ex-
tracted during periodical scouring work. With regard
to the other two major channels, the presence of per-
pendicular ditches is limited to the tail end or to one of
the sides only, which creates wide areas where desic-
cation is not complete. These sectors have traditionally
been used as grazing areas, and are easily accessible
from droveways.
The morphological and survey work carried out in
medieval draining networks in the plains of the Valen-
cian coastline has shown that there are three basic
types of trench:
1. Major collection channels, such as Séquia del Rei
in Peníscola, which in its lower course is over 10 m
in width (Fig. 3). These are generally the earliest struc-
tures to be built and the key elements upon which the
correct functioning – and the resilience – of the whole
system rests. Naturally, some water filters off into
these channels from the ground, but their main func-
tion is to collect the flow from the secondary network
of channels and ditches, and to discharge it into the
sea. In addition, they often collect excess water from
irrigation and surface water currents, the course of
which they frequently modify. The significant volume
of water so channelled is often large enough to be
used as a power source for watermills and to irrigate
those desiccated areas where the watertable descends
sharply during the summer months. In consequence,
these channels are not fundamentally different from
irrigation and watermill channels: all have gentle gra-
dients (in order to reduce erosion), banked profiles and
Fig. 3. Marjal of Peníscola: con-
vergence of the Séquia Templera
(‘Templars’ channel’, right) with the
Séquia del Rei (‘King’s channel, left).
313
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
raised walkways (caixers) on top, and some were even-
tually consolidated with the planting of trees (such as
elms and willows).
2. Secondary channels, which in principle can be de-
fined as the channels that gather the water collected by
basic ditches and carry it to the major collection chan-
nel, not directly to the sea. It must be pointed out that
large channels – for example in Peníscola – running
parallel or in convergence with the main channel, join-
ing it only towards its lower course, and carrying sim-
ilar volumes of water due to their comparable (if not
larger) size, belong to the previous category. Secondary
channels are characterised by their short course and
their auxiliary nature. In general, they seem to have
been added at a later date.
3. The ditches that divide the actual agricultural
surface, cutting through the watertable and accumu-
lating the drained water. The main difference between
these ditches and collection channels is that their role
is not to transport water and they are not given a de-
fined gradient. We can distinguish between first- and
second-rate ditches. The former, approximately 3 to
6 m in width, are disposed between parallel collection
channels and run along the front of the plots drained
by second-rate ditches (Figs. 2, 6). They may have been
drawn before (in which case they are straight) or after
the short sides of the plot merged (in which case they
have a zigzagging outline). Second-rate ditches will
join first-rate ditches or circulation channels at one
or both of their ends, and are, therefore, rarely very
long. The width of, and the interval between, these
ditches depend on the macroporosity of the soil and,
it follows, on the amount of water contained within
it. In the most highly saturated areas which are still
suitable for agriculture, these ditches are very close to
one another, between 8 m and 20 m apart, and their
width varies between 2 and 5 m. Often they represent
one-third, or even more, of the total area of the plots.
Excavation or scouring of the ditches, which can be as
much as 2 m deep, permitted the raising of the adjoin-
ing fields, thus improving drainage and fertility (López
Gómez 1989, 56–62). Of all the elements in drainage
systems, these ditches are the most open to varia-
tion. Collection channels are in this sense much more
rigid: even if the system collapses and is abandoned
for decades – as happened in the second half of the
14th century – the first step towards its reactivation
is invariably the restoration of these main channels,
which are emptied of fill and structurally reinforced.
Basic ditches are much more open to being affected by
the plasticity of hydromorphic soils. They fill up easily
if due care is not taken or the land is left uncultivated.
Moreover, since their location has little relevance to the
operation of the system, they can be dislocated easily
and their number can change without much of an im-
314
309–323
pact after a period of abandonment. In any case, these
modifications had little effect on the structure of the
drainage system.
The terminology used to refer to these elements in
the written record is not always as precise as could be
hoped, nor does it correspond to the schematic clas-
sification just offered. The documentation is, however,
very useful in clarifying the operation of these sys-
tems. Often, the texts use the term cequia (Catalonian
séquia, from the Arabic sâqiya), which is also used to
refer to irrigation systems, sometimes in the company
of an adjective (cequia magna, cequia maior, cequia
magistra) to allude to major channels. The term scur-
ritorio or escorredor (Cat.) is also a frequent generic ap-
pellation for drainage channels: the element that dis-
tinguishes it from cequia is the fact that a scurritorio
is only used to carry drained water and is in principle,
not used for irrigation. Their length and location are
open to multiple variations. In fact, the same chan-
nel may be regarded as a cequia for part of its course
and as an escorredor in its lower course (Torró 2012,
176–177). A parallel case can be found in the so-called
azarbes (from the Arabic sarab, ‘conduit’, ‘drain’) in the
huerta of Murcia, which prolong irrigation acequias but
only to discharge the excess water (‘dead water’) and
thus help to prevent flooding, already facilitated, as
mentioned, by the elevated position of the river with re-
gard to the surrounding plain (Martínez 2010, 56–58).
Sometimes, basic draining channels are referred to
with the term braçal (i.e., ‘branch of a canal’, in a clear
parallelism with irrigation networks), and in the case
of Peníscola, argira, which is a frequent word in the
local toponymy, and likely to be etymologically related
to azarbe (Glick 1970, 228–229). The most commonly
used word is, by far, palafanga; it is considered a syno-
nym of trench (fossatos sive palafangas) – suggesting
that the excavation of a palafanga can be less careful
than that of a channel – and the term is generally em-
ployed to refer to the ditches which divided the agri-
cultural surface and also to the channels that evacu-
ated filtered water. For this reason, some of them can
be of considerable length (palafangue magne) and play
a similar role to escorredors: towards 1320, the lord of
Nules ordered the excavation of two long palafangas
in the local marsh; the soil dug up was used to raise
an embankment (mota) between them.5 The word pala-
fanga is also used to refer to a handled spade used
to throw up soil. Although the use of both meanings
emerges in the written record at a similar date (around
1300), it seems clear that the use of the word to refer
to the tool predates the others, which derived from it.
As an agricultural tool, the spade is particularly
well-suited to heavy and clayey soils, which rarely fea-
5
ACA Cancillería, reg. 171, ff. 226r, v.
RURALIA X
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
ture in Mediterranean agricultural lands. Only agricul-
tural activity carried out in marshy areas, such as the
Llobregat delta or the region of the Albufera in Valencia,
made significant use of this tool, which appears much
less commonly in inventories than hoes. It seems that
the use of the spade was limited to occasional tasks,
such as the scouring of ditches and channels. With
regard to the excavation techniques followed, the in-
formation that could be obtained by the transverse
examination of an archaeological section is still lack-
ing. The ditches dating to the Andalusi period, which
were observed by A. Bazzana in the marjal of Pego, had
a depth of 1.6 m from the current surface level and
a U-shaped profile, as shown in the published photo-
graph (Bazzana – De Meulemeester 2009, 289). It has
to be pointed out, however, that in the case of channels
that have remained active up to the present day, the
section has widened as a consequence of erosion and
successive episodes of scouring. In any case, manual
shovelling of fills would have been absolutely crucial to
keep a ditch or channel in a good condition. The use of
oxen for excavation is not documented until the 17th
century (Villalmanzo 2004, 53). In 1406, the tenant of
the Albufera in Valencia committed himself to covering
the cost of the scouring and to finalising the new chan-
nel for the conduction of the water from the marsh to-
wards the lagoon, making ‘a work of palafanga’.6 An
essential aspect of this undertaking was to ensure
that the inclination of the walls of the channels was
adequate for the type of soil. In general, all ditches and
channels were wider at the top than at the bottom: the
measures agreed between Guillemin de Montbardon
and the town council for the moat built in Cocentaina
in 1275 suggests an inclination of nearly 39o (80%)
(Torró 2009b, 273). Our remaining references are not
so precise, but it is self-evident that all profiles subject
to wetting processes would rapidly degrade if a certain
inclination was exceeded, depending on the type of soil
(higher on clayey soils and lower on sandy soils). Those
in charge of shaping and maintaining these drainage
networks would have had a good empirical knowledge
of these thresholds.
3. Planning criteria and design
The combination of the data collected during the
analysis of the written record, the fieldwork data, the
toponymy, and the morphological analysis of cartogra-
phy and aerial photography has resulted in the iden-
tification of several medieval drainage networks in
the Gulf of Valencia, generally dating to between the
late 13th and the early decades of the 14th centuries.
Often, these are partly concealed among the ramifica-
6
AMV A-23, ff. 51r, v.
RURALIA X
309–323
tions of later expansions and transformations. Some
interesting patterns have been identified (Fig. 4). First,
their physical structure, which is characterised in
most cases by the presence of three collection chan-
nels that form a sort of fork and converge just before
discharging into the lagoon of the gola. This is the
main framework to which the secondary channels and
drainage ditches are subordinate. Second, their scale
is also comparable: the length of these channels is
generally between 1 and 3 km, permitting the desic-
cation of roughly between 50 and 200 ha (Torró 2010,
170; 2012, 179). The marjal of Corbera-Cullera is, in
this regard, an exception; there, the main channels are
in excess of 10 km in length due to the peculiar dis-
position of the marshland, the northernmost area of
which turns around away from the coast.
Obviously, the design of drainage systems is strong-
ly conditioned by the morphology of wetlands. This
severely limits the scope of design. The marjals in the
Gulf of Valencia have an elongated shape, and are nor-
mally between 1 and 3 km in width, while their length
can be in excess of 15 km. In some cases the design
can be affected by the presence of a river mouth per-
pendicular to the coast (Fig. 4). In these cases, the
marsh tends to turn towards the interior, in parallel
with the river course, and invade part of the alluvial
plain. This is the case with Corbera-Cullera, next to the
right bank of the Júcar; in addition, this river has a
raised bed, which acts as a barrier and retains the wa-
ter inside the marsh.
The layout of drainage systems was not designed
without regard for the variable conditions of wetlands.
Areas more easily flooded, such as low-lying spots or
zones affected by underground water sources, for ex-
ample, tended to be avoided. It was therefore not un-
common for areas not to be completely desiccated.
These, not fully drained areas were left uncultivated
and used as pasture land for all kinds of livestock.
Cattle and horses were particularly numerous (Torró
2012, 180–181). In other cases, the limits of agricultur-
al drainage were set by the lord, who may have wished
to reserve some land as his private hunting grounds or
to lease it out. This occurred particularly often in espe-
cially biodiverse and rich areas, such as the Albufera
in Valencia, which was kept by the king of Aragon as
his personal property (Sanchis 2001).
One conditioning factor that should not be forgotten
is the political fragmentation of the territory. On the
one hand, there were the limits between lordships (ex-
ercised by the nobility, ecclesiastical institutions or the
king) and urban jurisdictions (exercised by town coun-
cils), which often overlapped with one another. Due to
their length, it was not uncommon for the same marsh
to be divided between the jurisdictional areas of two or
more domains or towns (Fig. 4). The agents involved
315
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
Fig. 4. General morphology of drainage axes in the marjales of the Gulf of Valencia.
were always eager to set the geographical boundaries
with precision and to defend zealously their rights and
interests. At the beginning of the 14th century, the
aforementioned lord of Nules, for example, had to de-
fend himself from the complaint lodged by the nearby
town of Borriana, which belonged to the king, for caus-
ing severe damage to his property with the construc-
tion of two palafangas. In cases such as these, where
the smallest of incidents affected neighbouring terri-
tory – channels that trespassed over the limits or al-
tered the water flow – sparked conflicts and lawsuits
at the royal court. The political fragmentation of the
territory could have led to a transverse position of the
axes in the wetland, with the result that only a portion
of which could be thus desiccated. This option also re-
duced the time needed to put land under cultivation,
and did not call for the gathering of financial resourc-
es required by a longitudinal network encompassing
the whole extension of the marjal (Torró 2010, 168).
The disposition of the marsh next to the mouth of the
Júcar and turning away from the coast was the main
cause of a conflict between the interior village of Cor-
bera and the coastal town of Cullera (Fig. 4.6). Long
channels running across the territory of the neigh-
316
309–323
bouring town were necessary in order to carry the wa-
ter from the inner part of the marjal to the sea. This
was totally opposed by the inhabitants of the coastal
settlement (Torró 2009a, 93). There is clear evidence of
protracted and often interrupted works, in the midst
of a conflict situation, including changes of plans and
sabotage. Ultimately, the course of the channels had
to adapt to the limits between both jurisdictional areas
and some turns are indeed impossible to explain in
purely topographical terms.7
Apart from these factors, the design criteria for the
construction of these systems must also be taken into
account. We must not forget that they were built to
respond to a series of social objectives, based on the
distribution of new lands among a certain number
of beneficiaries under a given set of conditions. For
these reasons, we must give due consideration to the
fact that these processes were rarely ‘spontaneous’
land-reclamation initiatives undertaken by ‘autono-
7
In 1433 it was reported that the inhabitants of Cullera had
‘filled up and upset’ the channels from Corbera that ran
through their territory towards the sea: ARV Reial Cancelleria,
50, f. 81r.
RURALIA X
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
mous’ peasant groups. On the contrary, in this regard
the presence of the lordly power was very prevalent.
It was the king, along with the other members of the
nobility, who, by means of direct grants (special do-
nations or gratiarum) or through the actions of their
bailiffs (routine donations), determined who would
benefit from the new lands reclaimed from the marsh
and how. This resulted in a geometric land allocation
– with the creation of well-defined, regularly shaped,
conventionally-sized plots of land – which had a sig-
nificant influence on the position of interspersed ele-
ments (secondary channels, first-rate ditches) (Torró
2012, 160–162; 2010, 165–166).
There is, in addition, an essential technical condi-
tion that every drainage system must observe: the de-
sign must consider the filtration of underground water
and its diversion towards the evacuation point, as well
the circulation of surface water courses. Collection
‘forks’ were not, in consequence, only aimed at carry-
ing the water drained by the multitude of minor ditch-
es, but also played other important roles. The first was
to prevent superficial overflows – either constant or
episodic – from saturating and flooding the wetlands,
and most particularly those drained for cultivation. In
order to intercept torrents and small water courses, it
was sufficient for the main collection channel to run
along the highest elevation curve of the area to be
drained; this solution was, for example, implement-
ed in Peníscola and the marjal of l’Arrif de Morvedre
(Torró 2012, 165–167, 176). A comparable solution was
followed in the desiccated lagoons in medieval Langue-
doc, which were surrounded by a deep ditch or circulus
stagni that blocked and diverted descending rain wa-
ter and stopped it from flooding the agricultural area
(Abbé 2006, 147–151). Similarly, and more frequently,
they also prevented the accumulation of water behind
the beach barrier: in almost every case, a long channel
runs alongside the back barrier, between the dunes of
the restinga and the marsh, thus working to prevent
the formation of water pools that could easily extend
into the desiccated spaces. This channel was built as
a part of the main ‘fork’ wherever it ran more or less
parallel to the coastline, but if this was not the case it
was carried out as a supplementary task in the frame-
work of the same project (Fig. 4) (Torró 2012, 156–161,
170–172).
If the flows were significant in volume, the tail ends
of channels must also have acted as catchment areas
for the springs discharging water into the periphery of
the marsh and for the torrents and irrigation channels
running towards it from higher ground in the interior.
In such cases, the channel not only protected agricul-
tural lands, but also supplied irrigation water which,
as we shall see shortly, may have been necessary in
some sectors of the desiccated areas. The catchment
RURALIA X
309–323
of surface water courses was facilitated by positioning
the collection channels perpendicularly to the coast-
line, that is, transversally to the marsh. This also made
the division of the drainage system according to the
limits between lordships and town territories sharing
the same marjal much easier (Figs 4.1, 4.3, 4.5).
4. Drainage and irrigation
It is not possible to analyse the construction of me-
dieval agricultural drainage systems in the eastern
regions of the Iberian Peninsula without taking into
consideration the relation of this phenomenon to oth-
er aspects of the land-reclamation policies set forth af-
ter the Christian conquest, such as the expansion and
densification of conquered irrigation systems (Guinot
2008; Guinot – Esquilache 2012; Ortega 2010; Virgili
2010). In contrast to what the current structure of the
‘great huertas’ in Valencia and Murcia suggests, the
Andalusi irrigated spaces in the alluvial plains (vegas),
despite depending on long channels for water supply,
did not compose a continuous agricultural landscape.
Instead, rounded or pear-shaped blocks of plots, be-
tween 5 and 30 ha in size, were separated by unirrigat-
ed, or at least, not-regularly irrigated, areas of a signifi-
cant size (Esquilache 2012; Guinot 2008). The position
of these hydraulic systems, in a pre-littoral zone and
near the lowest course of rivers, forced the occupants
to maintain a relationship with the adjacent coastal
marshes. In fact, in the case of the vega of Valencia, a
significant part of these ‘voids’ interspersed between
cultivated areas corresponded to marshy areas at the
time of the conquest, and were used as pasture land
(Guinot – Esquilache 2010, 121–143).
After the conquest, the wet meadows which had
previously been inside irrigation systems were inte-
grated into them, along with other ‘empty’ areas. Thus,
the original irrigated spaces were surrounded by new
areas with a clearly distinct plot-morphology. The ex-
pansion of irrigation systems involved the modifica-
tion of the courses of secondary channels or branches
(braçals) aimed at servicing more extensive and diffuse
irrigation strategies and also at reducing reflows into
original courses, increasing the flow of excess water
into the adjacent marjals. This phenomenon signifi-
cantly increased the arrival of surface water into the
coastal marshes, which was an additional problem for
drainage processes and which could have led to the ex-
tension of the marjal upon the nearby irrigated spaces.
In the late 13th century, the landowners of the lower
course of the Montcada, one of the major channels
of the city of Valencia, were causing grave damage to
the lands below, which belonged to the neighbouring
town of Morvedre, where works for the expansion of
irrigation systems and for the drainage of the marsh
317
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
– towards which the excess water from the channel
was being diverted – were being executed (Torró 2012,
167–168). Similarly, in the mid-15th century, the land-
owners in the higher sectors of the vega of Castellón
used to take more than their share of irrigation waters,
the excess of which was not redirected into the main
channel, but flowed downslope ‘feeding the marjals’.8
In the same town of Castellón, the initial works for
the construction of a drainage system started around
1314 with the explicitly stated intention of directing
the excess of irrigation water into ‘the sea or the la-
goon’, rather than feeding the marsh further (Fig. 5).9
The necessity of protecting the new irrigated spaces
was complementary to the need to supply some of the
drained sectors with irrigation water. We must keep
in mind that, in marjales adapted to agricultural uses
across the whole of their breadth, central areas pre-
serve acceptable levels of humidity even in the sum-
mer months (marjal fanguera or de saó), whereas in
the marginal areas the watertable is lower and does not
reach the roots of plants during this season (solada)
(Fig. 6) (Rosselló 1982, 492). Crops in these areas were
therefore left in need of irrigation, which was achieved
by collecting underground water through the digging
of wells and by means of animal-powered waterwheels,
for example in Peníscola and other areas with no ad-
jacent vega (Fig. 2). This solution, at any rate, seems
to have become generalised only after the medieval
period (Torró 1998). However, when the marsh was in-
8
ARV Reial Cancelleria, reg. 56, ff. 170v–171r.
9 10
ARV Reial Cancelleria, reg. 635, ff. 68v–69r.
318
309–323
Fig. 5. Alluvial plain of
Castellón between the
13th and the 14th cen-
turies.
deed close to an extensive irrigated area or vega, the
usual procedure was to use collection channels as
temporary projections of secondary irrigation chan-
nels in the vicinity, thus acting as irrigation channels
– at least in part – and channels for the transportation
of drained water. This is precisely the case with Cas-
tellón, Morvedre and Nules (Figs 4, 5) (Domingo 1982;
Domingo 1983, 40–44; Torró 2010, 166–168).
The functional equilibrium between irrigated spac-
es and marjales can already be ascertained in the de-
sign of hydraulic systems built in the Andalusi period.
There is evidence for irrigation channels evacuating
into permanent lagoons or even into sea outlets. One
of the branches of the channel of Favara, to the south
of the vega of Valencia, operated as a drainage channel
running towards the Albufera, and probably reached
the sea through a gola. The increase in volume of chan-
nelled water brought about by the extension of irriga-
tion systems after the conquest, however, marked the
beginning of a new period in which this relationship
became more complex and, most likely, harder to man-
age. By 1310 the widening of this channel was consid-
ered an urgent necessity because the narrowness of
the course was causing the water to overflow and even-
tually discharge into the Albufera instead of running
into the sea.10 This seems to have helped in the main-
tenance (and even the slight increase) of the perimeter
of the lagoon, an event which undoubtedly burdened
the drainage processes that were being undertaken at
this time in the northern marshy strip, as well as in-
ACA Cancillería, reg. 289, f. 147r.
RURALIA X
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
creasing the volume of water being channelled. There
were further implications. At a certain point, the con-
stant arrival of fresh water into the lagoon was a threat
to the normal salinity levels and, it follows, to the rich
aquatic fauna – which was a source of income for the
king, who held the monopoly over fishing rights. Fol-
lowing this, in 1342, the construction of a new chan-
nel aimed at diverting the increasing excess water
from the south of the vega (‘that multitude of fresh
water running into the Albufera’) into the river Turia
was set in motion (Sanchis 2001, 55–56; Sáinz de la
Maza 1983, 153). Things were, however, not quite as
simple as that. If an excess of water was detrimental,
so too was its scarcity: the droughts suffered by the re-
gion in the early 15th century dried out the fresh water
sources of the Albufera. The water levels were so low
that the fish supply of the city of Valencia was under
threat. In order to correct this situation, the diversion
of the channel constructed 60 years earlier was pro-
posed in 1403 for the redirection of fresh water back
into the lagoon.11
5. Weaknesses and risks
The case of the Albufera shows the potentially high
costs of maintaining a functional equilibrium between
irrigated spaces next to, or reclaimed from, marjales
and the areas permanently or seasonally flooded and
put to other economic purposes. This problem was
11
AMV A-22, f. 229r.
RURALIA X
309–323
Fig. 6. Drainage network in Els Eixu-
tals, marjal of Castellón (from
c. 1320).
intimately connected to the possibility of the marsh
returning to the desiccated areas if drainage systems
malfunctioned. This risk was inherent in this sort of
project, and the only way to prevent it from becoming a
reality was to ensure the adequate maintenance all of
its components. The technology of agricultural drain-
age did not, therefore, conclude with the construction
of the network, but extended into its conservation,
maintenance and repair. In this regard, the written
record supplies us with an excellent quality of evi-
dence.
As we have already pointed out, the major concern
of the builders of drainage systems was to prevent the
obstruction of sea outlets or goles. This involved the
manual removal of the sand accumulated by the waves,
although from a certain point – the date of which is
uncertain – this task was assisted by the installation
of wooden gates. These devices were perfected in the
post-medieval period, and allowed for a more efficient
regulation of water levels (Sanchis 2001, 116–144). In
fact, the main problem soon became how to keep the
collection channels clean of blockages, the possibility
of which increased with longer and more numerous
channels. The transportation of sediments brought
about by the increasing volume of fresh water, the
accumulation of vegetable matter, and the erosion of
the channel beds and the associated drainage ditches,
tended inexorably towards the formation of blockages
(although this was not a regular process).
In this regard, one of the most damaging factors for
the conservation of drainage networks was the move-
319
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
ment of livestock, which was inevitable due to the pas-
tures being interspersed between cultivated sectors.
Commonly, livestock included large and small ani-
mals, including goats and sheep, and their movement
caused the sloping walls to crumble away and more
sediment to fall into the channel beds. The documen-
tation dating to between the 14th and the 16th centu-
ries is rich in recurring orders and regulations aimed
at restricting this phenomenon by all possible means.
In the marjal located in the northernmost sector of
the Albufera, livestock was not allowed to walk on the
walkways set along the top of the main channels, and
could only cross them using the available bridges.12 In
Castellón, the construction of new bridges across col-
lection channels (escorredors) was also prohibited to
limit the proliferation of livestock routes (Garcia-Oliver
1987, 52; Revest 1957, 41–42, 76–77, 165).
Furthermore, the frequent obstruction of chan-
nels generated or worsened problems concerning the
storage capacity of the systems. As mentioned before,
obstruction was the cause of numerous episodes of
flooding, and had the potential to ruin nearby agricul-
tural lands (Glick 1970, 47–48, 98–102). This is ex-
actly what happened in the marjal of Corbera as early
as 1314, because the main channel ‘blocked, dirty and
filled up’ was not evacuating the water into the mouth
of the river Júcar.13 In the mid-15th century the city
council of Valencia justified the need to increase the
number of collection channels in the marsh to the
north of the Albufera by pointing out that the existing
ones were permanently blocked, leading to the accu-
mulation of waters which could be dangerous for pub-
lic health (‘an infection hazard’) as well as a threat to
a large area of land, the cereal crops grown on which
were very necessary in the city.14
The blockage of channels could only be averted
through periodical scouring. This was generally left
to specialist labourers, called palafanguers, who often
came from countries north of the Alps and were famil-
iar with all manner of earthworks (Torró 2012, 176–
177; 2009a, 103–104). Their ability was crucial for the
conservation of the channel profile, especially because
untidy spade-work could easily result in the feared
deformation of the channel width. In order to prevent
this, they often marked the edges of the channel with
esparto thread or other marks.15 Sometimes, a perma-
nent demarcation system based on wooden stakes was
used, but these needed to be renovated periodically
due to their rapid deterioration under the prevalent
highly humid conditions.16 Apart from signalling the
12
AMV A-34, ff. 112r, v (1448).
13
ACA Cancillería, reg. 241, f. 133r.
14
AMV A-32, ff. 197r–198r (1444).
15
AMV d3-2, ff. 31v–35r (1390); A-23, ff. 52r, v (1406).
16
AMV A-34, ff. 123r, v, 139r (1448)
320
309–323
breadth of the channel, these stakes also helped to sta-
bilise the walls. A very eloquent example of this kind
of maintenance work can be found in the decision to
consolidate the bed of the torrent of Catarroja in 1393,
with the ultimate aim of stopping the soil falling from
its banks contributing to the blocking of the channels,
which were at this time being reopened in the north-
ern sector of the Albufera. As the written record re-
veals, the reinforcement of the banks was to be carried
out with stakes and interwoven canes tied with esparto
thread. The gaps behind these frames were then to be
filled with soil to increase the robustness of the con-
struction. A similar procedure is described concerning
the repairs of notches on the channel walls.17
The cost of this sort of maintenance work became
impossible to manage as a consequence of the arrival
of the Black Death in 1348, both in terms of organisa-
tion and resources. For years, channels were neglected
and the drainage systems built on alluvial plains were
soon collapsing. The best known case, due to its prox-
imity to the city of Valencia, corresponds to the mar-
jal to the north of the Albufera (Glick 1970, 99–100;
González Villaescusa 2002, 413–424; Sanchis 2001,
82–83). Estimates carried out in 1386 suggest that the
marsh had reclaimed a sector of 1800 ha (one league
long and half a league wide), although this may be an
exaggeration and an area of half that size would be
closer to the truth. After several failed attempts to re-
sume drainage works, a major agreement between the
bishop and the local elite was necessary to ensure that
the means for the effective maintenance of the drainage
system – under the supervision of the city council –
were forthcoming. On this basis, the restoration of the
former channel network and the reclamation of flooded
agricultural land could finally be undertaken in 1390.
The considerable resources set aside for this task en-
sured the success of the project, and by the early 15th
century, brand-new channels were being opened and
new agricultural lands were being created (Glick 1970,
321–323; Rubio Vela 1991; Sanchis 2001, 84–85). This
resulted in the construction of an extraordinarily com-
plex – and nearly impossible to reconstruct – channel
network. The difficulty of the reconstruction is ampli-
fied by the magnitude of the changes suffered by this
landscape in the last few decades.
6. Conclusions
The construction of drainage systems for the crea-
tion of new agricultural land is part of the general
dynamic of land-reclamation initiated in the Mediter-
ranean regions of the Iberian Peninsula in the wake
of the Christian conquest of the 12th (Tortosa) and
17
AMV d3-2, f. 327r.
RURALIA X
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
13th centuries (Valencia, Murcia). Previously, during
the Andalusi period, coastal marshes were basically
used as pasture land, although they were sometimes
equipped with trenches or channels for the regulation
of water levels. The exceptional case of the bay of Ibiza
and the agricultural use to which its drained wetland
was put long before the arrivals of the feudal con-
querors can be explained by the unusual absence of
a beach barrier blocking the evacuation of water into
the sea. In fact, it is the combination of these coastal
landforms (restingas) and the absence of tides that cre-
ates the singular conditions with which this paper is
concerned. This singularity, obviously, also extended
to the structure of draining systems, which were dif-
ferent – there were no embankments, enclosures or
sluices – from those being constructed on the Atlantic
coast and other Northern European regions.
Most drainage systems adopted a fork-shaped de-
sign, with three roughly parallel or diagonal channels
converging in a small lagoon through which water was
carried across the beach barrier to empty into the sea.
These main channels connected, directly or indirect-
ly (through secondary channels), with a multitude of
ditches which outlined and drained the agricultural
lands. The plasticity of the marshy soils had a consid-
erable effect upon these ditches, the orientation and
number of which could change over time. At any rate,
the collection channels remained as the main axes of
the system. This is shown by the fact that even after
the total collapse and abandonment of the system – for
example after the plague in 1348 – the previous col-
lection channels were reused rather than replaced by
brand new networks, when draining works were even-
tually resumed. This is important, as it reveals due
adherence to the basic principle of the ‘rigidity line’,
which has been assumed as a guiding principle in
morphological studies concerning irrigation systems
(Barceló 1996a).
It seems clear that choosing to re-utilise existing
systems would reduce the cost with the added secu-
rity of the system’s proven efficiency, but it is equally
true that the course of drainage channels could not be
arbitrarily decided because the morphological choices
open to the builders were, in fact, quite limited. These
projects were conditioned by physical factors, such as
the morphology of wetlands and the convenience of
avoiding areas which were particularly hard to drain.
These were used as hunting or fishing grounds or as
pasture lands, all of which required adequate access.
Furthermore, political factors, especially the fragmen-
tation of the territory into lordly and urban jurisdic-
tional areas, were also a very significant hurdle for the
creation of unified draining systems.
Draining axes were designed on the basis of two ma-
jor criteria. The first had a social character: the need
RURALIA X
309–323
to integrate the network and a geometric distribution
of lands which were divided into regularly-shaped
and regularly-sized plots. The second criterion was
strictly functional. In order to play its role efficiently,
the system had to combine the filtration of under-
ground water with the conduction of superficial cur-
rents (torrents, springs, excess irrigation water), with
the double aim of protecting the newly drained lands
from flooding and, if necessary, providing water for
irrigation. The functional equilibrium between irri-
gated spaces and marjals in Mediterranean alluvial
plains rested upon this compromise. In the Andalusi
period, this relationship barely involved the controlled
transfer of fresh water into waterlogged marsh areas.
However, the relationship became notably more com-
plex after the Christian conquest following the expan-
sion of irrigated areas (which increased the volume of
water arriving at the marshes at the lower end of ir-
rigation channels) and the interposition of a third and
new element between the irrigated vegas and the fish-
ing-grounds and pasture lands: lands reclaimed for
agricultural purposes in the interior of the marshes.
This new agricultural ecosystem was soon found to be
ridden with complications. The increasingly difficult
issue of drainage management resulted in operational
failures and revealed the vulnerability of the system,
showing that the process could easily work in reverse.
As shown by the example posed by the city of Valencia,
the complexity of the systems required regular and in-
tensive maintenance work, a solid institutional frame-
work and considerable financial resources, the provi-
sion of which would eventually be the responsibility of
the urban councils.
Summary
In Mediterranean areas of the Iberian Peninsula,
medieval processes of agricultural expansion did not
involve the drainage of wetlands to the same degree
as in Atlantic or Central Europe. These processes
were mostly carried out in coastal marshes of small
dimensions, so their study cannot be dissociated from
other transformations taking place in the associated
agricultural landscape. Recent studies undertaken in
this region – especially in Valencia – have shown that
the extensive draining of marshes was a policy intro-
duced after the Christian conquest and was closely
related to the settlement of new colonists between the
13th and the 14th centuries. This paper examines the
basic components of drainage systems (the typology
and function of ditches and channels), the criteria fol-
lowed in terms of their design (with regard to condi-
tioning factors), the articulation of drained spaces with
irrigation networks and, finally, the issue of mainte-
nance.
321
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
Zusammenfassung
Während des mittelalterlichen Landesausbaus spie-
len im mediterranen Spanien Trockenlegungen von
Sümpfen eine geringere Rolle als an der Atlantikküste
und in Mitteleuropa. Solche Projekte wurden meist in
kleinem Maßstab im küstennahen Marschland reali-
siert, so dass man sie im Kontext des übrigen Land-
schaftswandels sehen muss. Neue Forschungen v.a. in
Valencia zeigen, dass Trockenlegungen vor allem nach
der Reconquista im Zuge einer Neubesiedlung des
13. und 14. Jahrhunderts vorgenommen wurden. Der
Artikel untersucht die wichtigsten Elemente der Ent-
wässerungsanlagen (Form und Funktion von Gräben
und Kanälen), ihr Gesamtkonzept (unter Berücksichti-
gung der Rahmenbedingungen), die Nutzung und Auf-
teilung des drainierten Landes und schließlich auch
die Frage nach ihrer Instandhaltung.
Résumé
Dans les régions méditerranéennes de la péninsule
ibérique, l’expansion agricole médiévale ne fut pas en
relation avec l’assèchement de zones humides à un ni-
veau comparable à celui de l’Europe atlantique ou cen-
trale. Ce type d’opération fut fondamentalement mené
à bien sur des marais côtiers de dimensions plutôt lo-
cales, de façon que leur étude ne peut être catégorique-
ment dissociée de celle d’autres aménagements de leur
environnement agricole général. Les récents travaux
réalisés dans ces régions – et plus particulièrement au
Pays valencien- indiquent que le drainage extensif des
marais est une nouveauté découlant de la conquête
chrétienne, étroitement liée à l’établissement de la
population colonisatrice entre les XIIIe et XIVe siècles.
Au travers de cette étude, on examine donc les com-
posants élémentaires des systèmes de drainage (typo-
logie et fonctions des fosses et canaux), les critères de
planification et de conception (facteurs qui déterminent
leur morphologie), l’articulation des espaces drainés
avec les réseaux d’irrigation et, finalement, la problé-
matique de leur conservation fonctionnelle.
Bibliography
Abbé, J.-L. 2006:
À la conquète des étangs. L’aménagement de l’espace en Lan-
guedoc méditerranéen (XIIe–XVe siècles), Presses Universitai-
res du Mirail, Toulouse.
Barceló, M. 1996a:
El diseño de espacios irrigados en al-Andalus: un enuncia-
do de principios generales, in: Barceló, M. – Kirchner, H. –
Navarro, C., El agua que no duerme. Fundamentos de la ar-
queología hidráulica andalusí, El Legado Andalusí, Granada,
51–71.
322
309–323
Barceló, M. 1996b:
Saber lo que es un espacio hidráulico y lo que no es, o al-An-
dalus y los feudales, in: Barceló, M. – Kirchner, H. – Navar-
ro, C., El agua que no duerme. Fundamentos de la arqueo-
logía hidráulica andalusí, El Legado Andalusí, Granada,
75–88.
Bazzana, A. – De Meulemeester, J. 2009:
La noria, l’aubergine et le fellah. Archéologie des espaces irri-
gués dans l’occident musulman médiéval (9e–15e siècles),
Academia Press, Ghent.
Domingo, C. 1982:
L’acció antròpica en la marjal de Nules, Acta Geologia Hispa-
nica 14, 557–562.
Domingo, C. 1983:
La Plana de Castellón. Formación de un paisaje agrario medi-
terráneo, Caja de Ahorros de Castellón, Castellón de la Plana.
Esquilache, F. 2012:
Perspectivas y problemas en la aplicación de la arqueología
hidráulica a las grandes huertas fluviales. Un balance de
la investigación en la huerta de Valencia, in: Castro A. et al.
(ed.), Estudiar el pasado: aspectos metodológicos de la in-
vestigación en Ciencias de la Antigüedad y de la Edad Media
(BAR S2412), Archaeopress, Oxford, 211–221.
Febrer, M. V. (ed.) 2006:
Les aljames mudèjars valencianes en el segle XV. PUV, Va-
lencia.
Garcia-Oliver, F. (ed.) 1987:
El llibre d’establiments de Gandia, Arxiu Municipal de Gan-
dia.
Glick, T. F. 1970:
Irrigation and Society in Medieval Valencia, Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Glick, T. F. 2007:
Paisajes de conquista. Cambio cultural y geográfico en la Es-
paña medieval, PUV, Valencia.
González Villaescusa, R. 2002:
Las formas de los paisajes mediterráneos, Universidad de
Jaén.
González Villaescusa, R. – Kirchner, H. 1997:
La construcció d’un espai agrari drenat andalusí al hawz de
la madîna de Yâbisa. Anàlisi morfològica, documental i ar-
queològica del Pla de la Vila, in: Barceló, M. (ed.), El curs de
les aigües. Treballs sobre els pagesos de Yâbisa (290-633
H/902-1235 dC), Consell Insular d’Eivissa i Formentera, Ibi-
za, 65–96.
Guichard, P. 1990–91:
Les musulmans de Valence et la Reconquête (XIe–XIIIe siè-
cles), Institut Français de Damas, Damascus, 2 vol.
Guichard, P. 2006:
L’aménagement et la mise en cultura des marjals de la región
valencienne au début du XIVe siècle, in: Cressier, P. (ed.), La
maîtrise de l’eau en al-Andalus. Paysages, pratiques et techni-
ques, Casa de Velázquez, Madrid, 113–123.
Guinot, E. 2008:
Agrosistemas del mundo andalusí: criterios de construcción
de los paisajes irrigados, in: J. I. de la Iglesia (ed.), Cristian-
dad e Islam en la Edad Media hispana. XVIII Semana de Es-
RURALIA X
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries)
tudios Medievales, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, Logroño,
209–238.
Guinot, E. – Esquilache, F. 2012:
La reorganización del paisaje agrario en la huerta de Valencia
después de la conquista cristiana. El sistema hidráulico de
Montcada y Banifaraig en el siglo XIII. Debates de Arqueolo-
gía Medieval 2, 229–276.
Guinot, E. – Esquilache, F. 2010:
Moncada i l’orde del Temple en el segle XIII. Una vila de
l’Horta de València en temps de Jaume I, Institució Alfons el
Magnànim, Valencia.
Horden, P. – Purcell, N. 2000:
The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History,
Blackwell, Oxford.
López Gómez, A. 1989:
Estudios sobre regadíos valencianos, Universitat de València.
Martínez, M. 2010:
La cultura del agua en la Murcia medieval (s. IX–XV), Edicio-
nes de la Universidad de Murcia.
Mateu, J. F. – Sanchis, C. – Ferri, M. 1999:
El golf de València durant els segles XVI i el XVII. Canvis am-
bientals, in: Geoarqueologia i Quaternari litoral. Memorial
M. P. Fumanal, Universitat de València, 367–374.
Ortega, J. M. 2010:
La agricultura de los vencedores y la agricultura de los venci-
dos: la investigación de las transformaciones feudales de los
paisajes agrarios en el valle del Ebro, in: Kirchner, H. (ed.),
Por una arqueología agraria. Perspectivas de investigación
sobre espacios de cultivo en las sociedades medievales hispá-
nicas (BAR S2062), Archaeopress, Oxford, 123–145.
Revest, R. (ed.) 1957:
Libre de Ordinacions de la Vila de Castelló de la Plana, Socie-
dad Castellonense de Cultura, Castellón de la Plana.
Rippon, S. 2000:
The Transformation of Coastal Wetlands. Exploitation and
management of Marshland Landscapes in North West Eu-
rope during the Roman and Medieval Periods, Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Rosselló, V. M., 1982:
Els espais albuferencs del País Valencià. Acta Geologica His-
panica 14, 487–493.
Rosselló, V. M., 1993:
Albuferas mediterráneas. Cuadernos de Geografía 53, 35–
64.
Rubio Vela, A. 1991:
Vicisitudes demográficas y área cultivada en la Baja Edad Me-
dia. Consideraciones sobre el caso valenciano. Acta Historica
et Archaeologia Mediaevalia 11–12, 259–297.
This article has been written under the research project “Changes in the cultivated ecosystem of the late medieval King-
dom of Valencia” (HAR2011-27662) of the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spain).
Josep Torró, Departament d’Història Medieval, Universitat de València (Spain). josep.torro@uv.es
RURALIA X
309–323
Sáinz de la Maza, R. 1983:
Noticias documentales sobre la Albufera (1283–1358). An-
nals de l’Institut d’Estudis Comarcals 2, 135–153.
Sanchis, C. 2001:
Regadiu i canvi ambiental a l’Albufera de València, PUV, Va-
lencia.
Sarrazin, J.-L. 1985:
Maîtrise de l’eau et société en marais poitevin (vers 1150–
1283). Annales de Bretagne et des pays de l’Ouest, 92:4,
333–354.
TeBrake, W. H. 1985:
Medieval Frontier. Culture and Ecology in Rijnland, Texas
A&M University Press, College Station.
Torró, J. 1998:
La colonización del valle de Pego (c. 1280–c. 1300). Prospec-
ción y estudio morfológico: primeros resultados. Arqueología
Espacial 19–20, 443–461.
Torró, J. 2009a:
Field and Canal-Building after the Conquest: Modifications
to the Cultivated Ecosystem in the Kingdom of Valencia, ca.
1250–ca. 1350, in: Catlos, B. A. (ed.), Worlds of History and
Economics. Essays in Honour of Andrew M. Watson, PUV, Va-
lencia, 77–108.
Torró, J. (ed.) 2009b:
Llibre de la Cort del Justícia de Cocentaina (1269, 1275–
1278, 1288–1290), PUV, Valencia.
Torró, J. 2010:
Tierras ganadas. Aterrazamiento de pendientes y desecación
de marjales en la colonización cristiana del territorio valen-
ciano, in: Kirchner, H. (ed.), Por una arqueología agraria.
Perspectivas de investigación sobre espacios de cultivo en
las sociedades medievales hispánicas (BAR S2062), Archaeo-
press, Oxford, 157–172.
Torró, J. 2012:
Colonización cristiana y roturación de áreas palustres en el
reino de Valencia. Los marjales de la villa de Morvedre (ca.
1260–1330), in: Torró, J. – Guinot, E. (eds), Hidráulica agra-
ria y sociedad feudal. Técnicas, prácticas, espacios, PUV, Va-
lencia, 147–185.
Villalmanzo, J. (ed.) 2004:
Honorat Navarro: Fundació de la Cartoixa d’Ara Christi, PUV,
Valencia.
Virgili, A. 2010:
Espacios drenados andalusíes y la imposición de las pautas
agrarias feudales en el prado de Tortosa (segunda mitad del
siglo XII), in: Kirchner, H. (ed.), Por una arqueología agraria.
Perspectivas de investigación sobre espacios de cultivo en
las sociedades medievales hispánicas (BAR S2062), Archaeo-
press, Oxford, 147–155.
323
Torró, Agricultural drainage technology in medieval Mediterranean Iberia (13th–16th centuries) 309–323

324 RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

The material culture and agricultural traditions

in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas:
a new study proposal
Materielle Kultur und landwirtschaftliche Traditionen: Neue Forschungsansätze
in frühmittelalterlichen östlich-merowingischen Regionen

La culture matérielle et les traditions agricoles au début du Moyen Âge

dans les régions de l’Est mérovingien: une nouvelle proposition d’étude

Paolo de Vingo

Introduction
Between the 5th and 8th centuries iron metallurgy
underwent a complete and profound transformation,
shifting from broad-scale intensive production (based
on a model typical of the Roman-imperial economic
organisation) to an economic system that tended to
be regional, characterised by the dissemination of
production centres across the territory and, to some
extent, the subordination of metalworking activities
to agricultural activities (Cima 1986, 189; 1991, 121;
Farinelli – Francovich 1994, 445–446; La Salvia 1998a,
23–24; 1998b, 29; La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 947).
In order to understand this change, which presents
powerful elements of discontinuity, a key element is
the study of the Late Antique legacy, not from a macro-
economic standpoint – in other words, not by examin-
ing the general trends of economic development – but
using the material structures of production, and con-
ducting an in-depth analysis of the technological herit-
age typical of Germanic populations (White 1978, 4–6).
Archaeometry plays a decisive role here. While it can-
not further specify the chronological horizon, it is cer-
tainly able to define the technical and productive one
and thus the routes followed in the possible transfer
of technical knowledge (Mannoni – Giannichedda 1996,
49–54; La Salvia 1998b, 24).
Rather than ‘break’, the word ‘discontinuity’ has
been used, because it is better suited to discussions
revolving around the production activities of a tradi-
tional and pre-industrial society. In effect, the term
‘break’ in such a context acquires an overly specific
meaning of caesura, which often has the negative con-
notation of the cessation, disappearance or loss of
technical knowledge. This perspective does not take
into account the conformity of traditional artisanal
knowledge – all of which based on practical know-
how, excluding theoretical knowledge – which needs
the continuity of the crafts tradition and the stability
of workshop organisation, intended not merely for the
maintenance of the material structures of production,
which include places and work instruments, but above
all as an uninterrupted continuation of the technical
precepts that are the true content of this trade and
guarantee its endurance.
This continuity is also the fundamental assump-
tion for defining technical processes capable of vary-
ing products according to the needs of different types
of patrons (White 1978, 76; La Salvia 1995, 266–267;
1997, 50–54). For the period examined here, there are
no indications nor any archaeological findings that al-
low us to assume that the technological legacy handed
down by the Greeks and Romans disappeared – unless
we consider an effective decline in the overall volume
of production to be entirely equivalent – or that there
was a technical regression (Monneret de Villard 1919,
12; White 1978, 12–15; Wickham 1988, 121).
Consequently, the ‘continuity–break’ dichotomy
is not consistent with the attempt to reconstruct the
technological-productive structure of preindustrial so-
cieties delineated along the lines of complexity rather
than a simple and pre-established path (Pleiner 1993,
540–553; de Rijk 1995, 81–86; Voss 1995, 133–138; de
Rijk 1997, 43; Pleiner 2000, 45–47; La Salvia – Zagari
2003, 958–949).
0. Metal craftsmen in early medieval
settlement contexts
Burials and settlement contexts can be character-
ised by personal or everyday items and the pottery
used to prepare and preserve food, as well as the dis-
covery of work tools, particularly those that may be
related to metalworking, not only as a probable indi-

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 325–349.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110475
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

Fig. 1. Brno-Kotlářská (Czech

Republic), grave goods from a
goldsmith’s burial (after Hegew-
ish 2008, 257).

Fig. 2. Poysdorf (Austria), grave

goods from a goldsmith’s burial
(after Stadler 2008b, 284).

326 RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

cation of the conduct of crafts activities, but above all 316–317) and Kölked-Feketekapu (Schmauder – Bócsi
the special consideration that blacksmiths and gold- 2008, 347–348).
smiths enjoyed in the social structure, at least in the In the Langobard cemeteries on the Italian penin-
case of individuals buried in graves with metalworking sula, the number of particular classes of artefacts and
tools (Giostra 2000, 13; Lusuardi Siena – Giostra 2003, the presence of craftsmen and merchants among the
903). buried confirm the commercial and productive liveli-
Burials containing this type of object are quite rare ness of the individual settlements, which received and
in Italy and continental Europe alike and, overall, they distributed products on a large scale (de Vingo 2012,
mark a situation that shows little uniformity and may 314–315).
reflect a differentiation of roles and socio-econom- In the Friuli area, the graves of these male individu-
ic connotations, only a small part of which can be als appear in the outlying areas of Cividale del Friuli
gleaned from what was left in burial contexts.
in Grupignano and the cemetery of San Mauro. In the
In 1937, the early medieval burial of a male was dis- first case, it is an isolated burial that yielded a small
covered when the foundations of a building were ex- anvil with a central hole and squared head, a curved
cavated in Brno-Kotlářská, in what is now the Czech and pointed implement, and a Mediterranean-style sil-
Republic. It contained a set of composite tools made ver belt buckle, datable to the early 7th century. De-
up of an iron anvil, a pair of tongs, two iron hammer- spite the lack of information regarding the context in
heads, a bronze receptacle, a small scale, four stone which this discovery was made – the associated mate-
weights, a graver, fragmentary plates, a bronze disc, rials do not make it possible to formulate specific the-
a sandstone rasp, bronze and iron trimmings, a horn ories regarding the ethnic group of the deceased, his
comb and an iron axe head (Bóna 1976, 50; Tejral 1976, social status or lifestyle – the fact that the burial is sit-
81–82; 1988, 230; Čizmářová 1990, 20–21; La Salvia – uated in an outlying area beyond the urban centre of
Zagari 2003, 955; Hegewisch 2008, 256; Tejral 2008, Cividale may indicate a landowning craftsman buried
70–71) (Fig. 1). on his estate (Brozzi 1963, 19–22; 1972, 167–174; Mat-
A grave in the cemetery of Poysdorf (grave 6), Aus-
tria, also dates back to the first half of the 4th centu-
ry and it included not only a shield boss, two knives
and a buckle, but also large pincers, an iron anvil,
two hammerheads, a sandstone rasp, a grindstone,
a fragment of a small pair of tongs, tweezers, a clamp,
and two bronze brooch models, one a ‘bow’ brooch
and the other with ‘opposing animal protomes’ (Bóna
1976, 50–51; Stadler 1990, 32–33; La Salvia – Zagari
2003, 955; Lauermann – Adler 2008, 301–302; Stadler
2008b, 287–288) (Fig. 2). Both burials present a depo-
sition structure and instruments typical of the ‘Late
La Tène culture of the Iron Age’ that had developed
along the lower Elbe and in the Bohemian-Moravian
area, as the production of iron shows rather similar
characteristics in these two areas, not only in terms
of the extensive organisation of the production centres
spread throughout the territory, but also in the type of
furnaces and the instruments that were used (Decaens
1971, 65–66; La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 957–958).
At the Langobard cemetery of Hegykő-Mező, Hun-
gary (grave 34), the discovery of a small scale, a plate
with a beaded edge that is probably Byzantine in ori-
gin, a finely decorated bone comb and an axe head al-
lows us to speculate that it was the burial of a mer-
chant who weighed and traded metals rather than that
of a craftsman (Bóna 1976, 52–53; Bóna – Horváth
2009, 42–43) (Fig. 3). Lastly, several tools connected
with the workmanship of iron were also found at the
Langobard cemeteries of Veszkény-Nagyhalom (Bóna Fig. 3. Langobard cemetery of Hegkő-Mező utca (Hungary), grave
1990, 62–63; Hajnal – Schmauder – Hegewisch 2008, goods from grave 34 (after Bóna – Bóna Horváth 2009, plate 10, 245).

RURALIA X 327
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

Fig. 4. Langobard cemetery of Leno-Porzano (Brescia, Italy), grave goods from male grave 224 (after De Marchi 2000, 479).

328 RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
taloni 1989, 48–50; Brozzi 1990, 372; Ahumada Silva
1998, 149). Instead, the partial set of instruments that
was found indicates formal and temporal continuity
vis-à-vis the other Central European contexts that have
been examined. In particular, the type of anvil that was
found shows interesting parallels with similar imple-
ments from the Roman age and likely attributable to
a Mediterranean production environment (Henning
1991, 71–74; La Salvia 2000, 68–69).
In the case of the cemetery in San Mauro, three
graves of craftsmen/merchants have been discovered,
two of which with artefacts that make this interpreta-
tion reliable (graves 2, 43), while the third one (grave
52) is more problematic (Ahumada Silva 2010, 105).
In the heart of the Brescian duchy, one of the buri-
als (grave 224) excavated in the Langobard cemetery
of Leno–Porzano, dated to the second quarter of the
7th century, presented grave goods that included an
anvil, a whetstone and a small iron block (Fig. 4). The
utensils that were discovered tell us that the male bur-
ied here must have been a freeman (weapons and belt
trimmings were found in the grave alongside the skel-
eton) and a craftsman-blacksmith, whose role in early
medieval society is confirmed by documentary sourc-
es, which in the 8th century recalled their role as wit-
nesses in the legitimation of private deeds, and thus
indirectly acknowledging their importance (de Marchi
2000, 488–489).
A grave in the cemetery of Castel Trosino (grave 37)
has also yielded a crucible and two iron implements,
one of which may have been part of a scale, as well as
a silver composite belt with a ‘dot and comma’ decora-
tion, a small buckle and strap end made of bronze, a
decorated gold cross and an African Red Slipware plate.
This burial has been interpreted as that of a goldsmith
– the deceased has been identified as a free craftsman,
despite the lack of specific instruments and weapons
– datable to the early 7th century. It clearly points to
a high economic status, while the lack of weapons
among the grave goods allows us to suggest that his
origins were Roman-Byzantine. That possibility is not
unlikely in a cemetery with a very high percentage of
burials without grave goods. However, the substantial
number of artefacts foreign to the Germanic material
culture and the frequent lack of weapons represent
two circumstances that can be interpreted as the con-
sequence of the solid integration of different ethnic
groups, rather than a rapid acculturation process of
the Langobards (Ricci 1995, 237–243; Paroli – Ricci
2005, 54–55).
A grave in the cemetery of Nocera Umbra (grave 9)
instead yielded a shield boss and a sword, as well as
a bone comb and a bronze basin, along with a preci-
sion scale. This grave, datable to the second half of the
7th century at the latest, contained elements typical of
RURALIA X
325–349
Langobard burials of males with a low economic sta-
tus. The fact that the only work tool is a scale, evoking
the same situation as the grave in the Langobard cem-
etery of Hegykő-Mező, makes it possible to theorise
that the deceased may have been a person who regu-
larly dealt with precious metals, the exclusive privilege
of a merchant or official, as a goldsmith would have
had specific work implements (Rupp 2005, 13–15).
In southern Piedmont two different settlement con-
texts, datable to the early Middle Ages, have yielded
materials that make it possible to suggest complex
metalworking activities, as confirmed by equipment,
semi-finished goods and casting slag, and a large num-
ber of finished goods made to be used for breeding live-
stock, farming and crafts (de Vingo 2011a, 180–182).
A set of instruments (bronze anvil and iron ham-
mers) and artefacts (lead ingots) from random discov-
eries on the hilltop of Castelvecchio di Peveragno (Cu-
neo) have been attributed to a blacksmith/goldsmith,
based on the fact that these items were discovered next
to an artisanal area in an archaeological excavation
dated to the late 5th–6th century, with a great deal of
casting slag, fragments of soapstone crucibles and Ro-
man materials (glass, mosaic tesserae, coins) intend-
ed to be brought back into the production cycle. The
implements were composed of a bronze anvil with a
squared striking surface that was pointed, which made
it possible to use it by setting it on a wooden support,
and a set of hammers of different sizes, the two largest
ones with a round hole running through them to hold
the wooden handle, and the third with a squared hole
(Micheletto 1998, 59–60; Micheletto 2007, 172). The lat-
ter hammerhead, in particular, can be compared with
a similar one found in a blacksmith’s grave in Hérou-
villette (grave 10), in northern France, which is datable
to the early 6th century (Décaens 1971, 19–20), and the
one from Molteno (grave 8), reused a number of times
between the 4th and the early 6th centuries (Nobile
1990, 375). The small anvil from Castelvecchio di Pe-
veragno demonstrates interesting similarities with the
ones placed in the graves at Brno-Kotlářská, Poysdorf
and Grupignano, and a grave at San Gervasio di Cen-
tallo in the Cuneo area (Micheletto 2007, 172).
The latter complex is an example of a religious build-
ing reconstructed through the initiative of a commu-
nity in which the Langobard cultural and ethnic com-
ponent is confirmed not only by certain grave goods
but also by the complete anthropological study done
on the burials (Bedini – Bartoli – Paglialunga – Severini
– Vitiello 1997, 347–350), as it seems that between the
second half of the 6th century and the 7th century the
cemetery was established for the new community that
replaced the ancient landowners in the management
of the estate and patronage of the church (Mennella
1993, 220–222; de Vingo 2011b, 277–278).
329
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

Fig. 5. Early medieval cemetery of Hérouvillette (Calvados, France), iron-working tools from grave 10 (after Aufleger 1996, 620).

330 RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
San Gervasio underwent extensive reconstruction
work, the patron of which can likely be identified as
the person buried in the small northern aisle in a care-
fully crafted masonry tomb, with the singular deposi-
tion of iron utensils between his lower limbs, includ-
ing a hammer, an instrument with bent tips whose
function is unclear, and a small anvil with an oddly
elongated shape (Micheletto – Pejrani Baricco 1997,
334–336; Pantò – Pejrani Baricco 2001, 22). While the
joint presence of elements is interesting – such as the
privileged position of the burial in a place of worship
and the deposition of tools, indicating the interpen-
etration of different factors such as a Christian faith
that, by this time, had been profoundly absorbed,
and aspects of the German funerary ritual – this also
makes it even more difficult to identify the individual,
a high-ranking figure who may have been a magister,
possibly the one who reconstructed the church, or the
patron and financial backer of this work (Giostra 2000,
15–16).
Metalworkers – and blacksmiths in particular – en-
joyed a privileged position in the Germanic world, as
can be deduced not only from ancient Norse sagas
Fig. 6. Mästermyr (Gotland, Sweden), iron metallurgy tools and preci-
sion scale (after Roth 1986, 43).
RURALIA X
325–349
but also Roman-Germanic legislation. These consid-
erations can also encompass the Langobard setting, in
which these artisans often appear as freemen involved
in property transactions (Micheletto – Pejrani Baricco
1997, 325–316, 334–335; La Salvia – Zagari 2003,
959–960; de Vingo 2012, 318).
As to other testimonies in continental Europe,
first of all there is the extraordinary discovery of the
cemetery of Hérouvillette (grave 10), where the grave
goods – datable to the 6th century – included many
weapons as well as a chest containing about a dozen
instruments such as punches, goldsmith’s tongs, an
anvil and woodworking instruments (Aufleger 1996,
620; Steiner 2005, 304–305) (Fig. 5). However, there is
also the discovery in Mästermyr (Gotland) of a wooden
chest from the Viking era containing 131 instruments,
from a scale to moulds for repoussé work, pincers,
anvils, saws and scissors for metalworking, similarly
associated with woodworking implements (Arwidsson
– Berg 1983, 45–47; Tálin Bergmann 1983, 193–196)
(Fig. 6).
At Mezoband, in Romania, a 4th-century Gepid grave
yielded an important set of metalworking tools: tongs,
Fig. 7. Mezőband (Romania), iron metallurgy tools from a Gepid grave
(after Bóna 1976).
331
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
Fig. 8. Beckum (Vestfalia, Germany), burin, pincers, hammer for re-
poussé work and precision scale (after Roth 1986, 45).
hammers, a graver, a drill, punches, honing stones, as
well as production waste and casting slag. In this case
the complete lack of weapons has also been attributed
to the fact that the burial was pillaged at some point in
the past (Bóna 1976, 48–49) (Fig. 7).
Goldsmithing tools were also placed in burials dis-
covered in Beckum (Westfalen) (Fig. 8) and Brunn am
Gebirge (Austria) (Winkelmann 1977, 97–99; Roth 1986,
45–46; Stadler 2008a, 261–262), whereas it seems
more likely that the grave at Wallerstätten, near Groß-
Gerau, interpreted as that of a goldsmith, instead held
the body of a wealthy merchant, as it contained only a
scale with a bronze Byzantine weight, a small crucible
and a gold ingot, as well as numerous weapons (Au-
fleger 1996, 618–619). Lastly, a grave at the cemetery of
332
325–349
Marktoberdorf (grave 34) held the body of a blacksmith
who must mainly have produced nails (Roth 1986,
45–46).
In all of the examples described here the common
denominator is the dating of the burials that yielded
metalworking tools: as a rule, their time span, cover-
ing the 6th century, does not go beyond the year 600.
The reason for this may be the later integration of Ger-
manic artisans in the local production system, or at
least in the changed organisation of labour, although
there is no evidence supporting the latter hypothesis
(Giostra 2000, 16).
The rarity of burials with work instruments sug-
gests the great worth of the individual tools and thus
their limited inclusion in burials (Christlein 1966, 40).
In reality, the concept of hoarding valuable objects
must have arisen in the 7th century and, along with
other phenomena such as Christianisation, must have
altered traditional funerary customs, initially leading
to the replacement of more precious objects with less
expensive artefacts, followed by the reduction and, ul-
timately, the disappearance of grave goods (La Rocca
1989, 88). Previously, however, death – one of the most
significant moments in the life of the community –
had demanded the use of the most prestigious and
evocative personal items in rituals with a social and
religious value so intense that it justified the loss of
material goods, as demonstrated by the jewellery and
luxury goods often found in these burials (La Rocca
1998, 79–80).
If this could be confirmed, we could argue that the
tools did not represent personal property but must
have pertained to a production centre, the magister
who coordinated the production activities or the per-
son who employed the workers, a bond witnessed by
several Germanic laws. Graves with a particularly rich
array of instruments for working various materials
and accompanied by weapons could instead pertain to
magistri with multiple interests who were free and en-
joyed a high economic status, or perhaps – though this
is pure conjecture – owners or figures responsible for
overseeing and managing production centres (de Vin-
go 2012, 319–320). In any event, there must have been
free and independent craftsmen such as the one from
Poysdorf, armed with a shield, and the one from Castel
Trosino who fulfilled the needs of the local community.
Though limited and, at times, not very eloquent, these
cases nevertheless paint a rather varied picture, but
they do not contribute decisively to defining the legal
status of craftsmen in the early Middle Ages – regard-
less of which some enjoyed good economic status –
nor to reconstructing the crafts organisation and pos-
sible specialisations, and only allow us to distinguish
blacksmiths from those who worked precious metals
(de Vingo 2012, 319–320).
RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
1. The discovery of farming instruments
in the ‘Regnum Langobardorum maior’
Few Langobard farming implements have been
found in Italy: despite the difficulty in recognising
rural contexts pertaining to the ‘Langobard culture’
and the fact that these artefacts are not always easy to
identify, the variety of technical, social and economic
aspects tied to agricultural tools and the presence of
wood in ancient farming tools help us understand the
little information that is available. The paucity of find-
ings in relation to factors that influence the type (from
climate to technique and the nature of the soil), use
and changes of farming tools makes it rather difficult
RURALIA X
325–349
to structure a comprehensive archaeological study, as
opposed to the detailed iconographic and documen-
tary studies examining medieval agricultural imple-
ments (Brunner 1995, 21–40). Moreover, we know from
iconographic and documentary sources that wooden
farming implements were quite numerous in the Mid-
dle Ages and for some of them we find a gradual transi-
tion from wood to iron, going through an intermediate
phase in which the blade – still made of wood – was
reinforced with a metal tip (La Salvia – Zagari 2003,
968–969).
The period between Late Antiquity and the early Mid-
dle Ages is clearly a key moment for understanding the
medieval ‘farming culture’: the wealth of traditions and
Fig. 9. ‘Speerförmige’ B3 ploughshares
(after Henning 1987, plate 24).
333
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
knowledge of the Roman world was preserved in part,
but at the same time it was also overhauled, exten-
sively in some cases. Moreover, there is a widespread
idea that monasticism played an important role in the
preservation and technological transfer of agricultur-
al know-how from the Roman to the medieval world,
above all in areas in which cities faced difficulties (or
never played a significant role in the first place) (Brun-
ner 1995, 33–34).
Furthermore, to delineate the morphological char-
acteristics, uses and cultural-economic role of agri-
cultural implements we must also consider other ele-
ments. In particular, the way in which the metal blade
was attached to the wooden support tends to be over-
looked, yet it shows interesting ties to the way these
instruments were used. The places and contexts in
which these artefacts were discovered instead allow us
to ascertain the relationship between given settlements
and certain types of agricultural instruments, and
they thus provide elements that can help reconstruct
the spaces and methods of conservation of such tools
in each settlement (Zagari – La Salvia 2001, 863–886).
Fifteen ploughshares of the early Middle Ages from
the Italian peninsula have been reported from contexts
that present ties with the Langobard material culture.
They are iron artefacts with a triangular blade and a
long flattened rod with a rectangular cross-section, of
the ‘spear-shaped’ or ‘Speerförmige B’ type, the origins
of which have been sought in the Celtic cultural sphere,
but with parallels in the development of agricultural
instruments documented archaeologically in central
and eastern Europe between Late Antiquity and the
period corresponding to the ‘Great Migration’ (La Sal-
via – Zagari 2003, 973–974; Zagari 2005, 123; La Sal-
via 2011a, 230–234; 2011b, 81–83). Within this type,
J. Henning has identified three versions: B1 (2nd–3rd
334
325–349
century), the ‘spoon-shaped’ B2, and B3, with an ‘over-
turned pyramid’ shape. B2 was used on wooden sup-
ports in the plains of the southern Danube in contexts
ascribable to the native substrate of Dacia between the
2nd and 4th centuries, while B3 spread in these ar-
eas between the 5th and 6th centuries (Henning 1987,
58–59; La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 975–979; Zagari
2005, 123–125; Vitljanov 2007, 395–396) (Fig. 9).
Of the fifteen ploughshares from the Italian penin-
sula (‘Speerförmige’ B3), six have been identified in the
Piedmont village of Belmonte (Scafile 1972, 28; Forni
1983, 77–78, plate LXXIV.7a; Pejrani Baricco 1990a,
344–345; Micheletto – Pejrani Baricco 1997, 318–325; La
Salvia – Zagari 2003, 960–961; Zagari 2005, 125–126;
Pejrani Baricco 2007a, 172; La Salvia 2009, 33; de Vin-
go 2011a, 180) and four in an early medieval storeroom
at the base of the north slope of the hill of Casteirolo
in Val Bormida to the west of Savona (Palazzi – Parodi
2013, 36). Individual examples come from Turin–Carig-
nano, Parma and Masegra (but ascribed to the late Mid-
dle Ages) (Zagari 2005, 123), whereas of the latter two,
the one at the Civic Museum in Tortona was found in
this area in 1909, though there is no indication as to
provenance (Crosetto 2007, 221–22), and the other is at
the Antiquarium in Castelseprio (de Vingo 2013, 559).
The agricultural tools found at Belmonte include six
ploughshares as well as three pickaxe–hoes, a pickaxe,
a spud, a spade, a shovel and two billhooks made of
iron (Zagari – La Salvia 2001, 970–971). The first three
pickaxe-hoes (Zagari Type 1) present two narrow op-
posed and perpendicular cutting edges, and a central
eye to house the handle (Scafile 1972, 28, fig. 3; Pejrani
Baricco 1990b, 345; Zagari 2005, 114; Pejrani Baricco
2007d, 173) (Fig. 10). This implement is suitable for
mining and for breaking up uneven and rocky ground,
and can be compared to a specimen from Villa Clelia
Fig. 10. Early medieval village of Belmonte (Tu-
rin, Italy), farming tools (after Pejrani Baricco
2007d, 173).
RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

datable to the 4th century (Baruzzi 1978, 424, plate

I.10).
The fourth is referable to a multipurpose pickaxe
(Zagari Type 2), used to till land and remove stones
or to lift roots; it has two opposed and perpendicular
cutting edges, with a clearly prevalent extension of the
horizontal blade at a right angle with respect to the
handle housed in the eye (Scafile 1971, 46, plate II, 2,
4; Pejrani Baricco 1990c, 345–346; Zagari 2005, 114;
Pejrani Baricco 2007, 173e). This artefact can be com-
pared to equipment from the Noric–Pannonian area,
generally datable to the centuries of the Roman Em-
pire (Pohanka 1986, 79, plate 15.65), and from Bolo-
gna–Villa Clelia in a 6th-century context, where it was
interpreted as a hatchet rather than a hoe (Baruzzi
1978, 424 plate I.3).
The spud or small hoe with a triangular blade has a
shank ending in a ‘hook’ in order to fasten it to a wood-
en handle by tying it or using a metal band. Based on
the slightly acute angle of the shank with respect to the
blade, it is possible to reconstruct the angle of the han-
dle, which favoured the ergonomic use of the imple-
ment (Scafile 1972, 30, fig. 13; Pejrani Baricco 1990d,
346; Peirani Baricco 2007c, 173). It is interesting to
observe that this type of implement, very commonly Fig. 11. Medieval fresco in the collegiate church of San Isidoro (León,
used to cultivate gardens and not subject to significant Spain) with a scene of grapevine pruning (after Bango Torviso 2008,
typological evolutions with regard to dating, presents 155).
a distinctive system for attaching the handle with re-
spect to the usual ‘eye’ housing to insert the handle a rectangular shank and holes for attaching the wood-
(White 1967, 43–47). en handle (Scafile 1972, 28–30, fig. 11; Pejrani Baricco
The spade has an almost flat triangular blade with 1990e, 346–347), and the other has a short triangular
a shank to fasten the wooden handle; the shank is shank in order to insert a wooden handle using pres-
slightly bent into a hook at one end. The median axis sure (Scafile 1972, 28, fig. 9; Pejrani Baricco 1990f,
of the blade and shank has an incised ‘zigzag’ decora- 347). Although only a minimal part of the blades has
tion that is quite unusual for an agricultural tool (Sca- been preserved, we can theorise that, given their small
file 1972, 28, fig. 2; Pejrani Baricco 1990g, 347; 2007b, size, they must have been used for pruning vineyards
173). The distinctiveness of this object – which shares or orchards, and harvesting grapes and vegetables
the unique mounting system with other implements (White 1967, 85–97) (Fig. 11).
from Belmonte – represents a different technical and The material from Casteirolo includes not only
cultural tradition with respect to from the Roman-Med- ploughshares (4), ploughshare-fasteners (11) and an
iterranean one, which can be traced to Langobard tech- anvil made of iron (very similar to the one from grave
nical expertise (La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 972–973). 224 at Leno–Porzano), but also a two-tanged hoe that in
The shovel presents a rounded and concave shape the Roman era – two types were identified – was includ-
that is worn on the left side; the tube to insert the ed in the class of hoes and mattocks, equipment used
wooden handle creates an obtuse angle with the blade, to break up very hard soil or clods of earth and thus
with a hole to insert the fastening nail. The angle of the facilitate ploughing. A comparison can be made with
tube determines the inclined position of the handle, a the material found in the well-deposit of Spilamberto 1,
distinctive element of shovels with respect to spades dated between the 6th century and the first half of the
(Scafile 1972, 28, fig. 10; Pejrani Baricco 1990h, 347). following century, although in this case the two tangs
Some of the formal characteristics and the small di- have square ends while those on the Casteirolo two-
mensions correspond to those of a Roman shovel from tanged hoe are triangular (Zagari 2005, 116) (Fig. 12).
Saalburg in Germany (White 1967, 28–31). From the village of Castelvecchio di Peveragno, in
The agricultural tools from Belmonte also include addition to the known blacksmith-goldsmith tools,
two small fragmentary billhooks made of iron: one has two hoe blades were also found, likely used to work

RURALIA X 335
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
Fig. 12. Early medieval storeroom in Casteirolo (Savona, Italy), farming tools (after Palazzi – Parodi 2005, 37).
light soils or earth up plants. One is triangular, with
a curvilinear profile ending in an accentuated point
and with a subcircular housing for the handle; the
other has a heavy quadrangular blade, rounded upper
corners and a round hole to insert a wooden handle
(Micheletto 1996, 124). Of the two hoes indicated here,
only the first one resembles a blade found among the
material from the well-deposit of Spilamberto 1 and
dated between the 5th century and the first half of the
7th (Zagari 2005, 116–117).
The ‘spear-shaped’ ploughshares allow us to make
several suggestions about the types of handles that
were used and consequently about how these instru-
ments were employed. Among the various solutions
available to make an individual agricultural tool opera-
tive, the most useful was indubitably the eye, regard-
less of the chronology, the instrument and the place
of discovery, because it was a practical way to connect
the end and the handle of each implement to permit
optimum use (Zagari – La Salvia 2001, 875–876).
In the case of the ploughshare, connection with the
plough was guaranteed in the types from the Mediter-
ranean area – in other words, for the ‘spade-shaped’
and ‘dagger-shaped’ types – by the presence of metal
336
325–349
tabs. For the specimens found in northern Italy, which
do not have a cavity or metal tabs, we can imagine that
the long rod with which they were fitted must have
been attached with ropes or iron bands held in place
with nails or pins (Zagari 2005, 124–125).
Considering the position and degree of inclination
of the ploughshare, this mounting system must have
been less efficient than the ‘sleeve’ type and may attest
to the influences of a technical-cultural tradition oth-
er than the Roman-Mediterranean one. Furthermore,
the presence of a shank on the spud and spade found
at Belmonte but its absence on the two hoes from
Castelvecchio and the pickaxe from Casteirolo – all
dated between the 5th and 7th centuries – testifies that
there was not a uniform farming culture in early me-
dieval villages and that there were also significant dif-
ferences in how the individual implements were used.
With regard to the spud from Belmonte, the pres-
ence of a different cultural tradition seems more evi-
dent: the traditional system for mounting the handle –
by soaking the wooden handle in water to make it swell
or inserting a wooden wedge into a slit at the extremity
– was replaced by a metal band or ring (Zagari – La
Salvia 2001, 972–973).
RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
2. The discovery of agricultural instruments
in the eastern Merovingian areas
A ‘spear-shaped’ or ‘speerförmige’ ploughshare is
reported among the agricultural equipment datable to
the Imperial Age from Noricum and Pannonia, regions
in which the Celtic substrate seems to have held out
against Romanisation (Pohanka 1986, 36–38). It is a
ploughshare (1st century AD) discovered in Bregenz
in 1906, measuring about 76 cm in length, while the
width of the blade is 13.6 cm. The dimensions and
morphology of this specimen closely resemble those
of analogous Italian artefacts. Furthermore, its discov-
ery site seems to coincide with Roman Brigantium on
Lake Constance, in the province of Raetia, which some
think is where the wheeled plough mentioned by Pliny
originated (La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 973–974; Zagari
2005, 124).
The currency of this type of ploughshare in Raetia
between the 1st and 4th centuries is confirmed by the
presence of ‘spear-shaped’ specimens in the south-
ern part of the west bank of the Danube – along with
coulters with a very highly developed rod – as a result
of the symbiosis between the Late Antique and Celtic-
Germanic traditions during the period of the ‘Great Mi-
grations’ (Henning 1986, 129–130).
Similar ploughshares, identified as ‘Stielschäftung
B1’, have also been documented in the south-eastern
areas along the course of the Danube (Fig. 13). In addi-
tion to these, there are also types such as ‘Tüllenschäf-
tung A’ (in use until the 5th–7th century) (Fig. 14) and
‘Pflugschar mit tüllenartigem Stiel C1’ (Fig. 15), ‘spade-
shaped’ or ‘foliate’ ploughshares that share the pres-
ence of the handle mounted with bent tabs, although
only the first two (‘Tüllenschäftung A’ and ‘Stiels-
chäftung B’) guaranteed deeper ploughing (Henning
1987, 60).
A ploughshare found in a group of tools concealed
in the trench surrounding the Roman fort of Oster-
burken, on the limes in Southwest Germany, situated
between Würzburg and Heilbronn (Baden-Württem-
berg), may be set in relation to an asymmetrical plough
(Henning 1987, 49–51). This deposit, originally thought
to have been hidden by a Roman blacksmith during
the Alamannic raids of the 4th century, has recently
been dated to the 5th century and is considered part
of the tools of an Alamannic farm. Its form seems to
be an intermediate solution between the older Roman
examples and the later ones from the early Middle
Ages, although the discovery of coulters in this same
deposit seems to confirm the presence of the plough
that turns over clods of earth (Brunner 1995, 38).
In 1936 three other ‘hoe-shaped’ ploughshares were
found in central-southern Germany. The first came
from a 6th-century grave in Naumburg (Saxony-An-
RURALIA X
325–349
halt), on the eastern edge of the city, where there were
warehouses datable to the Roman period. There are
no precise indications as to the exact provenance of
the other two. The first of the latter has a more pointed
and tapered blade, while in the second case the right
side shows greater wear (Mildenberger 1951, 61–64;
Schmidt 1961, 145).
In 1936 a set of 68 iron objects was identified in the
western part of the town of Kolín (central Bohemia), in
what is now the Czech Republic, and attributed to the
‘Final La Tène’ period. The objects differ and include
artefacts pertaining to distinct milieus: domestic, mili-
tary, artisanal and rural. In particular, the agricultural
tools – dated to the 1st century BC – present signs
of wear and include ploughshares, hoes, a billhook
and a scythe with its ring fastener for a wooden han-
dle. Based on the composition of the deposit, it has
been supposed that the artefacts reflect the main oc-
cupations of the local population and that they were
concealed during the complex period of the collapse
of Celtic domination in the Bohemian region and the
events that led to the area’s gradual occupation by Ger-
manic tribal groups at the start of the pre-Christian pe-
riod (Martin 1997, 132).
There are very few Type C specimens and they only
appear in south-eastern Europe; they are datable to
the early Imperial Age, whereas for the 5th–6th cen-
tury they are also documented along the southern
course of the Danube, where neither asymmetrical
nor early medieval types have been reported (Henning
1987, 60).
In general, ploughshares from central-eastern Eu-
rope are smaller and shaped differently than those
from the central-western areas: the blade is smaller, it
is less triangular in shape, and the rod ends in a point
and is often bent to the outside at a right angle, unlike
the specimens from Belmonte, which seem to have a
rectilinear extremity that is only slightly arched. The
overall length is between 27 and 54 cm; the maximum
width of the blade ranges from 5 to 8.5 cm for Type B1
and 6–12 cm for B2.
The three types of ploughshares documented in
south-east Europe – despite several differences with
respect to the ‘spear-shaped’ specimens from north-
ern Italy and central Europe – seem to have a common
original prototype, although after appearing in the 1st
century in the areas along the borders between the
ancient provinces of Moesia Inferior and Thrace, they
disappeared during the early Middle Ages, replaced
mainly by Type A ploughshares (Henning 1985).
The oldest finding dates back to the 4th centu-
ry BC and is from a grave in Kolojanovo, Bulgaria,
despite more widespread circulation during the
2nd–3rd century along the lower course of the Danube
337
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

Fig. 13. ‘Stielschäftung’ B1 ploughshares (after Henning 1987, plate 21).

338 RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

Fig. 14. ‘Tullenschäftung’ A1–A2 ploughshares (after Henning 1987, plate 18).

RURALIA X 339
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

Fig. 15. ‘Pflugschar mit tüllenartigem Stiel’ C1 ploughshares (after Henning 1987, plate 27).

340 RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
in the Carpathian Basin, in urban and rural settlement
contexts and cemeteries located close to navigable riv-
ers (Henning 1987, 58). Therefore, the spread of these
ploughshares seems to have followed the course of the
Danube, in areas in which settlements founded by the
Romans (Keszthely, Scrabantia–Sopron, Zamardi, Ca-
ricin Grad, Sisak) show long settlement continuity (La
Salvia – Zagari 2003, 976–977).
Between the 1st and 4th centuries, B1 ‘spear-
shaped’ ploughshares only sporadically characterised
the northern areas of the Balkan course of the Dan-
ube and the only findings of this type involve three
sites, one of which has been identified as a Geto-Da-
cian village from the 2nd–3rd century (Henning 1987,
61–62).
The same territorial sector is also the location of the
findings of B2 ploughshares and sporadic examples
of the traditional ‘hoe-shaped’ type (A1, A2, A3). How-
ever, while along the northern part of the Danube the
B2 types were found in Roman villas from the 2nd–
3rd century as well as Dacian and Geto-Dacian set-
tlements, some of which fortified, along the southern
part they are documented only at Roman villas or mu-
nicipia (La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 977).
Only two specimens of the Type B3 ploughshare,
for the period between the 1st and 4th centuries, have
been identified in Transylvania and the southern sec-
tor of the Danube. There is a decrease in findings of
Type B ploughshares datable between the 5th and
the 7th centuries, and with the exception of just one
B3 specimen, they were found in the areas along the
southern Danube. Type B1 appears in two settlements
(one of which Roman), while Type B2 was found in
three different contexts (one coincides with the Roman
one indicated for B1 but which also yielded a B3 speci-
men), while Type B3 has frequently been found in Ro-
man villas, municipia constantly occupied in Late An-
tiquity and fortified contexts (La Salvia – Zagari 2003,
978).
The large number of Type B ploughshares between
the 8th and 10th centuries drops off to just two find-
ings of B2 specimens: the first north of the Danube
and the second south of it, always in association with
Type A ploughshares. Therefore, this type shows fairly
extensive circulation in Bulgarian territory, where a
diversification of the three subtypes can be observed
over the course of the three periods indicated here. The
B1 variant was never very widespread in central and
eastern Europe except between the 1st and 4th centu-
ries, while as of the following century it is no longer re-
ported. Type B2 has yielded more numerous findings
between the 1st and 4th centuries, and Type B3 shows
a strong presence between the 5th and 7th centuries
(La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 978).
RURALIA X
325–349
3. Central and eastern Europe as an
area of technological and production
exchanges
The fundamental division among the various types
of ploughs distinguishes between symmetrical mod-
els – which move the soil but without turning over the
clods – and the asymmetrical ones, which go in depth
and turn over the clods (White 1962, 39–57; Forni 1991,
361–364; 1996, 102–106). The asymmetrical plough is
characterised by the presence of a ploughshare with
one half that is generally more developed and by a
mouldboard, a slanted element designed to overturn
the clods completely. In addition to these components,
a large blade (coulter) was often added, positioned ver-
tically in front of the ploughshare, which favoured the
tool’s carving action (Zagari – La Salvia 2001, 882).
Scholars have now confirmed the theory according
to which the Romans only had one type of plough, the
symmetrical one suited for dry and uneven Mediter-
ranean soil, whereas the asymmetrical model was al-
legedly imported to Italy in the early Middle Ages from
central-northern Europe as well as the areas along the
northern course of the Danube, where the technologi-
cal tradition of the Celts and the Scythians was re-elab-
orated by the Roman-Germanic population (La Salvia
– Zagari 2003, 983; Henning 2009, 158).
Thanks to the stimulus of the Roman economic
structure – aimed at increasing cereal production in
the ‘imperial breadbaskets’ of the eastern provinces
(Pannonia, Dacia, Moesia and Thrace) – the ancient
symmetrical plough of the Mediterranean tradition
seems to have undergone profound technical transfor-
mations (Henning 1987, 48–61; 2009, 158–159).
Written sources from the early Middle Ages do not
attest to the types of ploughs used in Italy because the
documents mention plovum, aratrum and carruca with-
out any indications as to the differences or similarities
among these models. Consequently, we do not have
enough data to reconstruct the form and function of
these models (Mastrelli 1974, 262; Baruzzi 1978, 163;
Forni 1996, 96–100; Zagari –La Salvia 2001, 883–884).
Furthermore, it is probable that it was only over time
that the symmetrical plough was fitted with all its com-
ponents (mouldboard, asymmetrical ploughshare and
coulter) and it is likely that not only must there have
been intermediate types between the symmetrical and
the asymmetrical models, but also simpler ploughing
equipment, in some cases fitted with a coulter (Baruzzi
1978, 163–164; Cherubini 1981, 296–303).
Some of these written medieval documents that ex-
amine the situation in the central-northern part of the
Italian peninsula mention various types of complex
ploughs that, in some cases, became typical of certain
regions, where they continued to be used until the ear-
341
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
ly 20th century (Cortonesi – Pasquali – Piccinni 2002,
204–205).
The introduction of the asymmetrical plough not
only acted as an ‘extraordinary multiplier of economic
and thus cultural development’ (Forni 1989, 313), but
it also led to profound social changes because it im-
plied rather substantial production costs and required
a draught animal or a team of two animals (Cortonesi
1988, 115). Consequently, the need to amortise this
type of investment encouraged the initiative of a group
of farmers – and no longer the individual farmer –
who evidently participated with equal shares in order
to purchase and maintain it. Furthermore, the heavier
the plough or the more difficult the land to be broken
up, and the more oxen that had to be yoked. The sourc-
es tell us that cows and buffaloes (Marche, Tuscany
and Latium) and mules, donkeys and horses (Apulia)
were used only sporadically to prepare the land for
sowing (Cortonesi – Pasquali – Piccinni 2002, 205).
One of the aspects that provides a better under-
standing of the organisational modes of rural medieval
societies is the technique of manuring, which was un-
known among Germanic populations. If practised reg-
ularly and methodically, however, it could guarantee
a much higher agricultural yield and thus determine
the affirmation of one settlement over another. It would
be very important to know the number of livestock fed
during the winter months and the period in which
they were kept in the sheds, essential information in
order to calculate (albeit completely hypothetically) the
amount of manure that could be obtained (La Salvia –
Zagari 2003, 985).
To improve ploughing on uneven ground, prelimi-
nary operations could be conducted with complemen-
tary equipment such as the spade, the mattock, the
hoe and the two-tanged hoe, because eliminating weeds
and stones allowed the roots of cereals and legumes to
breathe, which made it possible to offset – at least in
part – the lack of adequate manuring, due to the back-
wardness of animal husbandry with stabling in Italy
in the late Middle Ages. Furthermore, animal or plant
fertiliser could be distributed when the land was hoed.
The number of ploughings changed according to the
soil, the type of equipment, the workforce and local cus-
toms (Cortonesi – Pasquali – Piccinni 2002, 191–270).
The central European origins of the asymmetrical
plough seem to be confirmed by its technical char-
acteristics: the difficulty steering this type of plough
made it suitable to be used on long narrows plots,
which occur frequently north of the Alps and are con-
siderably different than the ‘square’ fields typical of
the Mediterranean sector. The latter were formed by
primitive, light and symmetrical ploughs, which had to
criss-cross the land to avoid leaving areas untouched
after surface ploughing (La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 986).
342
325–349
By examining and interpreting traces left on the
ground, the study of the agricultural techniques and
instruments used in antiquity counts numerous ex-
amples in central and northern Europe, and the Brit-
ish Isles, characterised by excessive technological de-
terminism (Barger 1938, 411; White 1967, 41–57).
In 1895 A. Meitzen was the first to trace the form of
the plough to important factors tied to medieval cultiva-
tion techniques. It was not until 1931, however, that M.
Bloch suggested that the use of the ‘hook’ plough was
directly related to the square shape of the plots of land
because the same surface had to be crossed several
times – to make sure not to leave unploughed areas
and to avoid losing the beneficial effects of the moisture
and minerals present in the subsoil – and this type of
plough offered the farmer the best points of reference
to obtain homogeneous and rational ploughing.
Thanks to the use of wheels, a ploughshare, a
mouldboard and a coulter, the new type of plough did
not need to go over the land twice and this led to an
implicit modification of the cultivable surface, which
acquired a rectangular shape. The time that was saved
was dedicated to tilling new lands – leading to in-
creased agricultural productivity and thus population
growth – and perfecting production techniques. In this
way, of three agricultural portions, one was prepared
with the heavy plough so cereals could be sown, while
the other two were left fallow to allow livestock to graze
freely and fertilise the land that would be planted the
following year.
In 1933, at Twyford Down in the English country-
side of Hampshire, ancient traces of rectangular fields
and the coulter of a heavy plough were found in a
level dated to the ‘La Tène III’ period: this discovery
confirms that agricultural equipment and techniques
were introduced in Britannia before the Saxon con-
quest (White 1967, 41–57).
The archaeological findings regarding the introduc-
tion of the asymmetrical plough in central Europe be-
tween Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages seem
to coincide with a drop in artisanal productivity in ur-
ban settings, with significant improvements made to
agricultural tools (scythes, spades, billhooks and hoes)
that would lead to progressive expansion of cultivable
areas and an ensuing increase in production capacity,
which in turn required the construction of new grana-
ries between the 3rd and 4th centuries (Henning 1985,
303–310; 2009, 152–153). In this regard, the case of
the scythe blades found in Osterburken is significant.
Although these types were widespread from the Celtic
phase to the Middle Ages, they are considered the re-
sult of technological advances applied to agricultural
tools that were part of the Roman tradition (Brunner
1995, 39–40; Henning 2009, 161).
RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
Conclusions
The information presented here confirms the need
for an overall reinterpretation of the transition period
between Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages. In-
deed, it is no longer possible to suggest a generalised
crisis and simple involution of the Roman world as a
result of contamination by the ‘barbarian’ world, be-
cause these transformations were already under way
during the Imperial Age, particularly as far as agri-
cultural tools and techniques are concerned. In this
specific case, the changes made to the plough and the
scythe – and secondarily to the manuring technique
– between the 3rd and 5th centuries indicate that
the early medieval agricultural technology cannot be
considered the outcome of the superiority of the clas-
sical over the Germanic tradition, but the result of a
convergence of different socio-economic milieus that
were able to satisfy the needs of a population that was
changing significantly and was no longer the same as
before (Henning 2009, 163–164).
Unfortunately, two methodological errors continue
to be made even now. First of all, differences have al-
ways been considered factors of disparity and it was
never thought that the geographical diversities of areas
with environmental conditions not conducive to agri-
cultural activities (the alpine sector and African prov-
inces) may have encouraged the development of inno-
vative solutions from a technical and organisational
standpoint, subsequently introduced as improvements
in the general economic system; and that social chang-
es above all involved the middle-upper classes and not
the lower-middle classes.
The scenario of San Severino – which would lead to
the withdrawal of all Romans from the territory north
of the Alps, representing a complete break with the
preceding settlement phase – is countered by the con-
tinuity of names from the Roman tradition, which were
still used in Raetia, Noricum and Pannonia when these
provinces must already have been abandoned to their
fate. The complete migration of the population recalled
by Eugippius supposedly never took place in the ways
indicated by the written sources and, if anything, must
only have involved the aristocratic component, where-
as the rest of the population, and particularly the ru-
ral classes, continued to carry out their work (Alföldy
1974, 220–227). The Rhenish-Danubian limes never
represented an insurmountable barrier and rather
than acting as a factor dividing demographic groups
that had always been in contact – and thus subject to
mutual exchanges and influences – it became a point
of convergence and fusion for different cultures (Celt-
ic, Germanic, Roman, Slavic and nomadic).
The evident ties that have been emphasised be-
tween certain Mediterranean agricultural instruments
RURALIA X
325–349
(‘spear-shaped’ ploughshares and the pickaxe–hoe)
with analogous artefacts found in eastern Europe,
considered the area in which the most interesting tech-
nical experiments were conducted, represent food for
thought and discussion (La Salvia – Zagari 2003, 980).
The pickaxe–hoe blades (Pohanka Type 2a) found
in Piedmont at Belmonte and in Emilia at Villa Clelia
present two narrow cutting edges that are opposite and
perpendicular to each other. Therefore, this type of tool
must have been suitable for breaking up land and re-
moving stones from rocky soil, but also for quarrying
in mines. The Belmonte artefact is dated between the
5th and 7th centuries and the blades measure 36.5 X
2.7 X 2.8 cm (Pejrani Baricco 1990c, 345–346; 2007d,
173), whereas the one from Villa Clelia goes back to the
6th century and measures 30 X 2.8 X 1.5 cm (Baruzzi
1978, 421, plate I, 3). These implements are not only
quite similar in both size and chronology, but they also
have a form and measurements similar to those of an
earlier pickaxe-hoe discovered in the Noric-Pannoni-
an area (White 1987, 27–28; Pohanka 1986, 79, plate
15.65). This observation could indicate that it was not
the tools that followed human movements, but that
there was a common heritage of experiences, skills and
concepts that formed and became consolidated after
centuries of continuous contact and cultural exchang-
es, from which the Roman-Germanic populations also
drew (Menke 1990, 35–104; La Salvia 1998b, 15).
These observations and the possibility of establish-
ing relationships with early medieval utensils, identi-
fied in adjacent areas of the European continent, seem
to attest to a Germanic influence in the development
of the early medieval agricultural tools in which the
Langobard component may have served as an element
for the transfer of knowledge and technical know-how
from continental Europe to the Mediterranean. In this
process, the Langobards would not have limited them-
selves to sharing the leading role but would have con-
tributed decisively, uniting metallurgic expertise with
technical and agricultural know-how, thus making a
decisive contribution to the formation of the new ru-
ral culture of the early Middle Ages (La Salvia –Zagari
2003, 983).
Summary
Based on a study of some types of early medieval
iron farm tools produced in the eastern Merovingian
areas, it can be asserted that such implements were
not the products of Mediterranean craftsmen but rath-
er were of allochthonous origin, and specifically cen-
tral European. Since some of these tools, such as spe-
cial kinds of iron ploughs, were completely unknown
in Italy prior to the Langobard conquest, such an event
must be recognised not only as having brought about
343
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
important socio-political and territorial transforma-
tions but also as having had an even more profound
impact on the material culture. To this regard, it is im-
portant to consider the Regnum Langobardorum, along
with the outlying and bordering zones – and Bavaria
and Alamannia in particular – with which the king-
dom developed an intense cultural and commercial
network that included the entire eastern Merovingian
sector and of which the Italian peninsula certainly act-
ed as the central junction. Hence, the eastern Merov-
ingian areas cannot be considered simply as an outly-
ing zone of the Frankish world but, on the contrary,
must be considered, from an economic and cultural
standpoint, a relatively well-defined and uniform geo-
graphic space that, between the end of the 6th and 7th
centuries, played a central role in the transmission of
technological know-how and farm tools from central-
northern Europe to the Mediterranean regions.
Résumé
L’analyse de quelques catégories d’objets agricoles
en fer du Haut Moyen Âge, produits dans les zones
mérovingiennes orientales, permet non pas de les at-
tribuer à la tradition artisanale méditerranéenne mais
de reconnaître plutôt leur forte ascendance allochtone
et, plus précisément, d’Europe centrale. Étant donné
que certains de ces instruments, comme dans le cas
de formes particulières de charrues en fer, étaient tout
à fait méconnus dans la péninsule italique avant la
conquête lombarde, il faudrait désormais considérer
cet événement comme porteur d’importantes transfor-
mations au niveau sociopolitique et territorial mais éga-
lement au niveau, sans doute plus profond, de l’impact
sur la culture matérielle. Il est, à ce propos, important
de relier le Regnum Langobardorum aux zones limi-
trophes et contigües – notamment la Bavaria et l’Ala-
mannia – avec lesquelles ce royaume établit un intense
réseau culturel et commercial, qui comprenait tout le
secteur mérovingien oriental, et dont la péninsule ita-
lique représentait sans aucun doute l’axe central. Les
zones mérovingiennes orientales ne sauraient donc
être considérées tout simplement comme une zone
périphérique du monde franc mais plutôt comme un
espace géographique relativement défini et uniforme
du point de vue économique et culturel qui joua, entre
la fin du VIe siècle et le VIIe siècle, un rôle fondamental
dans la transmission de connaissances technologiques
et d’objets agricoles de l’Europe centrale, du nord et
orientale vers les régions méditerranéennes.
Zusammenfassung
Die Untersuchung einiger eiserner Agrargeräte aus
dem östlichen Merowingerreich zeigt, dass sie nicht
344
325–349
der mediterranen Handwerkstradition zuzuordnen
sind, sondern vielmehr auf eine zentraleuropäischen
Herkunft hinweisen. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass
manche dieser Geräte, wie z.B. die besonderen Formen
des eisernen Pflugs vor der langobardischen Erobe-
rung auf der italienischen Halbinsel völlig unbekannt
waren, erscheint es notwendig, dieses Ereignis nicht
nur als Auslöser wichtigen sozialen und territorialen
Wandels zu sehen. Vielmehr ist auch ein Wandel der
materiellen Kultur zu beachten, der möglicherweise
wesentlich tiefgreifender war. Zudem ist es erforder-
lich in diesem Zusammenhang auch die Verbindun-
gen zwischen dem Regnum Langobardorum und den
Rand- und Grenzgebieten, vor allem mit dem bajuwa-
rischen Gebiet und der Alamannia nachzuvollziehen.
Das Langobardenreich baute intensive Kultur- und
Handelsbeziehungen auf, die den gesamten östlichen
Merowingerkreis einschloss, wobei die italische Halb-
insel sicherlich den zentralen Knotenpunkt darstellte.
Der östliche Merowingerkreis ist somit nicht einfach
nur als Peripherie der fränkischen Welt anzusehen.
Aus wirtschaftlicher und kultureller Sicht stellt er
vielmehr einen relativ klar definierten und gleichför-
migen geographischen Raum dar, der vom Ende des
6. bis zum 8. Jahrhundert für die Vermittlung techno-
logischer Kenntnisse und landwirtschaftlicher Geräte
aus Mittel- und Osteuropa in den Mittelmeerraum eine
wichtige Rolle spielte.
Bibliography
Ahumada Silva, I. 1998:
Sepolture tra tardoantico e altomedioevo a Cividale del Friu-
li. Considerazioni e topografia aggiornata, in: Brogiolo, G.P.
– Cantino Wataghin, G. (eds), Sepolture tra VI e VIII secolo
(Strutture, Topografia, Processi di acculturazione), Proceed-
ings of the 7th Seminar on Late Antiquity and the early Mid-
dle Ages in central-northern Italy, Gardone Riviera 24–26 Oc-
tober 1996, Documenti di Archeologia 13, 143–160. Mantua.
Ahumada Silva, I. 2010:
Le tombe e i corredi, in: Ahumada Silva, I. (ed.), La collina di
S. Mauro a Cividale del Friuli. Dalla necropoli longobarda alla
chiesetta medievale, Ricerche di Archeologia AltoMedievale e
Medievale 34–35, 21–174. Florence.
Alföldy, G. 1974:
Noricum. History of the Provinces of the Roman Empire. Lon-
don – Boston.
Arwidsson, G. – Berg, G. 1983:
The Mästermyr find. A Viking Age Tool Chest from Gotland.
Stockholm.
Aufleger, M. 1996:
Metallarbeiten und Metallverarbeitung, in: Wieczorek, A. – Pé-
rin, P. – von Welk, K. – Menghin, W. (eds), Die Franken Weg-
bereiter Europas, 618–628. Mainz.
RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
Barger, E. 1938:
The Present position of Studies in English Field-Systems,
English Historical Review 53, 385–411.
Baruzzi, M. 1978:
I reperti in ferro dello scavo di Villa Clelia. Note sull’attrez-
zatura agricola nell’alto medioevo, Studi Romagnoli XXIX,
423–446.
Bedini, E. – Bartoli, F. – Paglialunga, L. – Severini, F. – Vitiel-
lo, A.1997:
Paleobiologia del gruppo umano altomedievale della chiesa
cimiteriale di Centallo (Cuneo), in: Paroli, L. (ed.), L’Italia cen-
tro-settentrionale in età longobarda, Conference Proceedings,
Ascoli Piceno, 6–7 October 1995, 345–363. Florence.
Bóna, I. 1976:
A l’aube du Moyen Âge. Gépides et Lombards dans le bassin
des Carpaten. Budapest.
Bóna, I. 1990:
Tomba ducale di Veszkény, in: Menis G.C. (ed.), I Longobardi,
Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli, 2 June–
30 September 1990, 62–63. Milan.
Bóna, I. – Horváth, J.B. 2009:
Langobardische Gräberfelder in West-Ungarn, Monumenta
Germanorum Archaeologica Hungariae. Budapest.
Brozzi, M. 1963:
Attrezzi di orafo longobardo nel Museo di Cividale, Quaderni
della Face 23,19–22.
Brozzi, M. 1972:
Strumenti di orefice longobardo, Quaderni Ticinesi di Numi-
smatica e Antichità Classiche I, 167–174.
Brozzi, M. 1990:
Tomba dell’orefice di Grupignano (Cividale), in: Menis G.C.
(ed.), I Longobardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale
del Friuli, 2 June–30 September 1990, 372. Milan.
Brunner, K. 1995:
Continuity and discontinuity of Roman agricultural knowl-
edge in the Early Middle Ages, in: Sweeney D. (ed.), Agricul-
ture in the Middle Ages. Technology, practice, and represen-
tation, 21–40. Philadelphia.
Camille, M. 1995:
‘When Adam Delved’: Laboring on the Land in English medi-
eval Art, in: Sweeney, D. (ed.), Agriculture in the Middle Ages.
Technology, Practice, and Representation, 247–276. Philadel-
phia.
Christlein, R. 1966:
Das alamanische Reihengräberfeld von Marktoberdorf in All-
gau, Materialhefte zu Baierischen Vorgeschichte 21. Stuttgart.
Decaens, J. 1971:
Un nouveau cimetière du haut Moyen Âge en Normandie, Hé-
rouvillette (Calvados), Archéologie Médiévale 1, 1–126.
Cherubini, G. 1981:
Le campagne italiane dall’XI al XV secolo. L’intensificato
sfruttamento dei terreni coltivati, in Storia d’Italia IV. Co-
muni e Signorie: istituzioni, società e lotte per l’egemonia.
293–303. Turin.
Cima, M. 1986:
Metallurgia in ambiente rurale al sito alto medievale di Miso-
bolo, Archeologia Medievale 13, 173–189.
RURALIA X
325–349
Cima, M. 1991:
Archeologia del ferro. Sistemi materiali e processi dalle origi-
ni alla Rivoluzione industriale. Brescia – Turin.
Čizmářová, J. 1990:
Tomba dell’orefice da Brno, in: Menis G. C. (ed.), I Longobardi,
Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli, 2 June–
30 September 1990, 20–21. Milan.
Cortonesi, A. 1988:
Il lavoro del contadino. Uomini, tecniche, colture nella Tuscia
tardomedievale. Bologna.
Cortonesi, A. – Pasquali, G. – Piccinni, G. 2002:
Uomini e campagne nell’Italia medievale. Roma – Bari.
Decaens, J. 1971:
Un nouveau cimetière du haut Moyen Âge en Normandie, Hé-
rouvillette (Calvados), Archéologie Médiévale 1, 1–126.
De Marchi, P.M. 2000:
Le sepolture di Leno, Brescia, in: Bertelli, C. – Brogiolo,
G. P. (eds), Il futuro dei Longobardi. L’Italia e la costruzione
dell’Europa di Carlo Magno, 487–494. Milan.
De Rijk, P. 1995:
Iron production and manufacturing in the Elbe-Weser-area,
in: Magnusson, G. (ed.), The Importance of Ironmaking: Tech-
nical Innovation and Social Changes, Papers presented at the
Norberg Conference, May 8–13, 81–86. Stockholm.
De Rijk, P. 1997:
Slag-pit furnace between the rivers Elbe and Weser, in Early
Ironworking in Europe. Archaeology and Experiment, Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference, 19–25 September,
Plas Tan y Bwlch Occasional Paper 3, 1–43.
de Vingo, P. 2011a:
Settlement dynamics in the rural area of southern Piedmont
at the end of Roman political control, in: Catteddu, I. – de Vin-
go, P. – Nissen Jaubert, A. (eds), On the Road again. L’Europe
en mouvement, Proceedings of the 4th International Confer-
ence of Medieval and Modern Archaeology, Paris, 3–8 Sep-
tember 2007, 170–190. Genoa.
de Vingo, P. 2011b:
Objects de tradition et objects de la transition dans les pra-
tiques de la classe aristocratique lombarde masculine sur
le territoire piémontais, in: Baldini Lippolis, I. – Morelli A. L.
(eds), Oggetti simbolo. Produzione, uso e significato nel mon-
do antico, Seminar Proceedings, 17–18 April 2010, 269–314.
Bologna.
de Vingo, P. 2012:
The problems of Langobard goldwork in Northern Italy: writ-
ten sources versus archaeological data, in: Baldini, I. – Morel-
li, A. L. (eds), Seminar Proceedings, Luoghi, artigiani e modi
di produzione nell’oreficeria antica, 311–338.
de Vingo, P. 2013:
Utensili litici e da lavoro, armi e oggetti della vita quotidiana
di un villaggio fortificato tra altomedioevo e feudalesimo, in:
345
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
de Marchi, P. M. (ed.), Castelseprio e Torba. Sintesi delle ricer-
che ed aggiornamento, 539–580. Mantua.
Farinelli, R. – Francovich, R. 1994:
Potere e attività nella Toscana altomedievale, in: Franco-
vich, R. – Noyé, G. (eds), La Storia dell’Alto Medioevo italiano
(VI–X secolo) alla luce dell’archeologia. International Confe-
rence, Siena, 2–6 December 1992. 443–466. Florence.
Forni, G. 1989:
Strumenti aratori in Aquileia Romana. Loro origine, evo-
luzione, tipologia. Il contesto socio-economico, Antichità
AltoAdriatiche XXXV, 324–327.
Forni, G. 1991:
Le più antiche evidenze dell’introduzione di vomeri d’aratro
e di altri strumenti agricoli come documento dell’evoluzione
della metallurgia in Italia, in: Cuomo di Caprio, N. – Simo-
ni, C. (eds), Dal basso fuoco all’altoforno, Proceedings of the
1st Symposium, La Siderurgia nell’antichità, Sibrium XX,
359–380.
Forni, G. 1996:
Gli aratri dell’Europa nord-occidentale dalla preistoria al Mil-
le. Dalle incisioni di Monte Bego ai vomeri medievali di Bel-
monte: dall’aratrum all’acialoria, in: Comba, R. – Panero, F.
(eds), Il seme, l’aratro, la messe. Le coltivazioni frumentarie
in Piemonte dalla preistoria alla meccanizzazione agricola,
77–114. Cuneo – Rocca de’ Baldi.
Gabotto, F. 1900:
Un millennio di storia eporediese, Eporediensia IV, 9–10.
Giostra, C. 2000:
L’arte del metallo in età longobarda. Dati e riflessioni sulle
cinture ageminate. Spoleto.
Hajnal, Zs. – Schmauder, M. – Hegewisch, M. 2008:
Veszkény (Komitat Györ-Sopron), in: Hegewisch, M. – Schmau-
der, M. – Theisen, U. (eds), Die Langobarden. Das Ende der
Völkerwanderung, Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen
Landesmuseum Bonn, 22 August 2008 –11 January 2009,
316–317. Darmstadt.
Hegewisch, M. 2008:
Brno-Kotlářská, in: Hegewisch, M. – Schmauder, M. – Thei-
sen, U. (eds), Die Langobarden. Das Ende der Völkerwande-
rung, Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmu-
seum Bonn, 22 August 2008 –11 January 2009, 256–257.
Darmstadt.
Henning, J. 1985:
Frühgeschichtliche Landwirtschaft Südosteuropas: Vom
Großgrundbesitz zur Großgrundwirtschaft, in: Horst, F. –
Krüger, B. (eds), Produktivkräfte und Produktionsverhält-
nisse in ur- und früh- geschichtlicher Zeit. 303–310. Berlin.
Henning, J. 1986:
Zum Problem der Entwicklung materieller Produktivkräfte bei
den germanischen Staatbildungen, Klio LXVIII/1, 128–138.
Henning, J. 1987:
Südosteuropa zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. Berlin.
Henning, J. 1991:
Schmiedegräber nördlich der Alpen, Saalburg Jahrbuch 46,
65–82.
Henning, J. 2009:
Revolution or Relapse? Technology, Agriculture and Early
346
325–349
Medieval Archaeology in Germanic Central Europe, in: Aus-
enda, G. – Delogu, P. – Wickham, C. (eds), The Langobards
before the Frankish Conquest. An Ethnographic Perspective,
149–173. San Marino.
La Rocca, C. 1989:
Le fonti archeologiche di età gotica e longobarda, in: Casta-
gnetti, A. – Varanini, G. M. (eds), Il Veneto nel Medioevo. Dalla
‘Venetia’ alla Marca Veronese, 83–164. Verona.
La Rocca, C. 1998:
Donare, distribuire, spezzare. Pratiche di conservazione della
memoria e dello status in Italia tra VII e IX secolo, in: Bro-
giolo, G. P. – Cantino Wataghin, G. (eds), Sepolture tra VI e
VIII secolo (Strutture, Topografia, Processi di acculturazione),
Proceedings of the 7th Seminar on Late Antiquity and the
early Middle Ages in central-northern Italy, Gardone Riviera
24–26 October 1996, Documenti di Archeologia13, 77–114.
Mantua.
La Salvia, V. 1995:
Gap or Continuity? Mining in Early Medieval Italy, in: Mag-
nusson, G. (ed.), The Importance of Ironmaking: Technical
Innovation and Social Changes, Papers presented at the Nor-
berg Conference, May 8–13, 262–271. Stockholm.
La Salvia, V. 1997:
La fabbricazione delle spade delle grandi invasioni: per la sto-
ria del ‘processo diretto’ nella lavorazione del ferro, Quaderni
Medievali 44, 28–54.
La Salvia, V. 1998a:
Archaeometallurgy of Lombard Swords. Florence.
La Salvia, V. 1998b:
L’artigianato metallurgico dei Longobardi alla luce delle fonti
archeologiche con particolare riferimento alla lavorazione del
ferro. Suggerimenti e problemi, Archeologia Medievale 25,
7–26.
La Salvia, V. 1999:
Notes on Early Medieval Ironmaking in Italy, in: Gomori, J.
(ed.), Traditions and Innovations in the Early Medieval Iron
Production, 83–87. Sopron/Somogyfajsz.
La Salvia, V. 2000:
Archaeometallurgy as a Source for the History of Changes
and Developments within Medieval Daily Life, in: Jaritz, G.
(ed.), History of Medieval Life and the Sciences. 105–115. Vi-
enna.
La Salvia, V. 2011:
Nuovi oggetti con/per nuovi popoli. Migrazioni, trasferimen-
to di tecnologia e integrazione culturale nell’area merovingia
orientale fra V e VIII secolo. L’archeologia della produzione
oltre il modello etnogenetico, in: Ebanista, C. – Rotili, M. (eds),
Archeologia e Storia delle Migrazioni. Europa, Italia, Mediter-
raneo fra tarda età romana e alto medioevo, Proceedings of
the International Study Conference, Cimitile–Santa Maria
Capua Vetere, 17–18 June 2010. 229–251. Cimitile.
La Salvia, V. – Zagari, F. 2003:
Cultura materiale e tradizione tecnica: la metallurgia del fer-
ro dei Longobardi in Italia. I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto
e Benevento, Proceedings of the 26th Study Conference on
the early Middle Ages, Spoleto, 20–23 October 2002, Bene-
vento, 24–27 October 2002. 945–1007. Spoleto.
RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
Lauermann, E. – Adler, H. 2008:
Die Langobardenforschung im norddanubischen Niederös-
terreich und im Tullnerfeld, in: Bemmann, J. – Schmau-
der, M. (eds), Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa (Langobarden –
Awaren – Slawen), Akten der internationalen Tagung in Bonn
vom 25. bis 28. Februar 2008, 299–308. Bonn.
Lusuardi Siena, S. – Giostra, C. 2003:
L’artigianato metallurgico longobardo attraverso la documen-
tazione materiale: dall’analisi formale alla organizzazione
produttiva, in I Longobardi dei Ducati di Spoleto e Beneven-
to, Proceedings of the 26th Study Conference on the early
Middle Ages, Spoleto – Benevento, 20–27 October 2002,
901–945. Spoleto.
Mannoni, T. – Giannichedda, E. 1996:
Archeologia della produzione. Turin.
Martin, M. 1997:
Zwischen den Fronten, in Archäologischen Landesmuseum
Baden-Württemberg (ed.), Die Alamannen, SüdwestLB-Forum,
14 June–14 September, Schweizerisches Landesmuseum
Zürich, 24 October–25 Juanuary 1998, Römisches Museum
der Stadt Augsburg, 6 March–7 June 1998, 119–134. Stutt-
gart.
Mastrelli, C. A. 1974:
La terminologia longobarda dei manufatti, in La civiltà dei
Longobardi in Europa, 257–269. Rome.
Mattaloni, C. 1989:
Grupignano: storia, cronaca e tradizioni di un borgo rurale
friulano. Udine.
Menke, M. 1990:
Archeologia longobarda tra la bassa Elba e l’Ungheria, in:
Gasparri, S. – Cammarosano, P. (eds), Langobardia. 35–106.
Udine.
Mennella, G. 1993:
Cristianesimo e latifondi tra Augusta Bagiennorum e Forum
Vibii Caburrum, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 69, 205–222.
Micheletto, E. 1996:
L’attrezzatura agricola di un villaggio montano fra tardo-
antico e alto medioevo: il Castelvecchio di Peveragno, in:
Comba, R. – Panero, F. (eds), Il seme, l’aratro, la messe. Le
coltivazioni frumentarie in Piemonte dalla preistoria alla
meccanizzazione agricola, 115–132. Cuneo – Rocca de’ Baldi.
Micheletto, E. 1998:
Forme di insediamento tra V e XIII secolo: il contributo
dell’archeologia, in: Mercando, L. – Micheletto, E. (eds), Arche-
ologia in Piemonte. Il Medioevo, 51–80. Turin.
Micheletto, E. 2007:
Utensili di un fabbro-orefice da Castelvecchio di Peveragno,
in: Brogiolo, G. P. – Chavarría Arnau, A. (eds), I Longobardi.
Dalla caduta dell’impero all’alba dell’Italia, Exhibition catalo-
gue, Turin, Palazzo Bricherasio, 28 September 2007–6 Ja-
nuary 2008, 172. Milan.
Micheletto, E. – Pejrani Baricco, L. 1997:
Archeologia funeraria ed insediativa in Piemonte tra V e VII
secolo, in: Paroli, L. (ed.), L’Italia centro-settentrionale in età
longobarda, Conference Proceedings, Ascoli Piceno, 6–7 Oc-
tober 1995, 295–344. Florence.
RURALIA X
325–349
Mildenberger, G. 1951:
Drei frühgeschichtliche Pflugscharen aus Mitteldeutschland,
Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Boden-
denkmalpflege 1, 61–64.
Monneret de Villard, U. 1919:
L’organizzazione industriale nell’Italia longobarda durante
l’Alto Medioevo, Archivio Storico Lombardo 46, 1–83.
Nobile, I. 1990:
Corredo della tomba n. 8 di Molteno, in Milano Capitale
dell’impero romano (286–402), Exhibition catalogue, 375–
376. Milan.
Palazzi, P. – Parodi, L. 2013:
Un ripostiglio di età bizantino-longobarda a Casteirolo: una
scoperta archeologica eccezionale, in Progetto Archè. L’arche-
ologia vista da vicino, 35–39. Carcare.
Pantò, G. – Pejrani Baricco L. 2001:
Chiese nelle campagne del Piemonte in età tardo longobarda,
in: Brogiolo, G. P. (ed.), Le chiese rurali tra VII e VIII secolo in
Italia settentrionale, 8th Seminar on Late Antiquity and early
Middle Ages in northern Italy, Garda, 8–10 April 2000, Docu-
menti di Archeologia 26, 17–54. Mantua.
Paroli, L. – Ricci, M. 2005:
La necropoli altomedievale di Castel Trosino, Ricerche di Ar-
cheologia AltoMedievale e Medievale 32–33. Florence.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990a:
Vomere d’aratro in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis, G. C. (ed.),
I Longobardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del
Friuli, 2 June–30 September 1990, 344–345. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990b:
Piccone in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis, G. C. (ed.), I Lon-
gobardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli,
2 June–30 September 1990, 345. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990c:
Piccone in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis, G. C. (ed.), I Lon-
gobardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli,
2 June–30 September 1990, 345–346. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990d:
Sarchio in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis, G. C. (ed.), I Lon-
gobardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli,
2 June–30 September 1990, 346. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990e:
Falcetto in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis, G. C. (ed.), I Lon-
gobardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli,
2 June–30 September 1990, 346. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990f:
Falcetto in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis, G. C. (ed.), I Lon-
gobardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli,
2 June–30 September 1990, 346–347. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990g:
Vanga in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis, G. C. (ed.), I Longo-
bardi, Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli,
2 June–30 September 1990, 347. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 1990h:
Pala in ferro da Belmonte, in: Menis G. C. (ed.), I Longobardi,
347
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas
Exhibition catalogue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli, 2 June–
30 September 1990, 347. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 2007a:
Vomere di aratro, in: Brogiolo, G. P. – Chavarría Arnau, A.
(eds), I Longobardi. Dalla caduta dell’impero all’alba dell’Ita-
lia, Exhibition catalogue, Turin, Palazzo Bricherasio, 28 Sep-
tember 2007–6 January 2008, 172. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 2007b:
Vanga, in: Brogiolo, G. P. – Chavarría Arnau, A. (eds), I Longo-
bardi. Dalla caduta dell’impero all’alba dell’Italia, Exhibition
catalogue, Turin, Palazzo Bricherasio, 28 September 2007–
6 January 2008, 172–173. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 2007c:
Sarchio, in: Brogiolo, G. P. – Chavarría Arnau, A. (eds), I Lon-
gobardi. Dalla caduta dell’impero all’alba dell’Italia, Exhibi-
tion catalogue, Turin, Palazzo Bricherasio, 28 September
2007–6 January 2008, 173. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 2007d:
Piccone-zappa, in: Brogiolo, G. P. – Chavarría Arnau, A. (eds),
I Longobardi. Dalla caduta dell’impero all’alba dell’Italia, Ex-
hibition catalogue, Turin, Palazzo Bricherasio, 28 September
2007–6 January 2008, 173. Milan.
Pejrani Baricco, L. 2007e:
Piccone, in: Brogiolo, G. P. – Chavarría Arnau, A. (eds), I Lon-
gobardi. Dalla caduta dell’impero all’alba dell’Italia, Exhibi-
tion catalogue, Turin, Palazzo Bricherasio, 28 September
2007–6 January 2008, 173. Milan.
Pleiner, R. 1993:
The Technology of Iron in the Bloomery Period: A Brief
Survey of the Archaeological Evidence, in: Francovich, R.
(ed.), Archeologia delle Attività Estrattive e Metallurgiche,
533–560. Florence.
Pleiner, R. 2000:
Iron in Archaeology. The European bloomery smelters, Pra-
ha.
Pohanka, R. 1986:
Die eisernen Agrargeräte der Römischen Kaiserzeit in Ös-
terreich. Studien zur römischen Agrartechnologie in Rätien,
Noricum und Pannonien. British Archaeological Report, In-
ternational Series 298. Oxford.
Ricci, M. 1995:
Castel Trosino. Tomba 37, in: Paroli, L. (ed.), La necropoli al-
tomedievale di Castel Trosino. Bizantini e Longobardi nelle
Marche, Exhibition catalogue, Museo Archeologico di Ascoli
Piceno, 1 July–31 October 1995, 237–243. Milan.
Roth, H. 1986:
Kunst und Handwerk im frühen Mittelalter. Stuttgart.
Rupp, C. 2005:
Das langobardische Gräberfeld von Nocera Umbra. Katalog
und Tafeln, Ricerche di Archeologia Altomedievale e Medie-
vale 31. Florence.
Scafile, F. 1971:
Di alcuni oggetti in ferro rinvenuti a Belmonte, Ad Quintum
2, 41–46.
Scafile, F. 1972:
Di alcuni oggetti in ferro rinvenuti a Belmonte, Ad Quintum
3, 28–32.
348
325–349
Schmidt, B. 1961:
Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mitteldeutschland. Halle.
Schmauder, M. – Bócsi, S. 2008:
Kölked-Feketekapu, in: Hegewisch, M. – Schmauder, M. –
Theisen, U. (eds), Die Langobarden. Das Ende der Völkerwan-
derung, Katalog zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmu-
seum Bonn, 22 August 2008 –11 January 2009, 345–349.
Darmstadt.
Stadler, P. 1990:
Necropoli di Poysdorf (Mistelbach), Austria inferiore setten-
trionale, in: Menis G. C. (ed.), I Longobardi, Exhibition cata-
logue, Codroipo–Cividale del Friuli, 2 June–30 September
1990, 32–33. Milan.
Stadler, P. 2008a:
Brunn am Gebirge. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mödling, in:
Hegewisch, M. – Schmauder, M. – Theisen, U. (eds), Die Lan-
gobarden. Das Ende der Völkerwanderung, Katalog zur Aus-
stellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn, 22 August
2008 –11 January 2009, 260–262. Darmstadt.
Stadler, P. 2008b:
Poysdorf. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach, in: Hege-
wisch, M. – Schmauder, M. – Theisen, U. (eds), Die Langobar-
den. Das Ende der Völkerwanderung, Katalog zur Ausstel-
lung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn, 22 August 2008
–11 January 2009, 284–288. Darmstadt.
Steiner, L. 2005:
Prêtres et évêques, nonnes et moines, in: Windler, R. – Stei-
ner, L. – Marti, R. – Niffeler, U. (eds), La Svizzera dal Paleoliti-
co all’Alto Medioevo. Dall’Uomo di Neandertal a Carlo Magno
(AltoMedioevo), 307–309. Basel.
Tálin Bergmann, L. 1983:
Der wikingerzeitliche Werkzeugkasten von Maestermyr auf
Gotland, in: Das Handwerk in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher
Zeit 2,193–215.
Tejral, J. 1976:
Grundzüge der Völkerwanderungszeit in Mähren, Studie Ar-
cheologického ústavu Československé akademie věd v Brně.
Prag.
Tejral, J. 1988:
Die Langobarden nördlich der mittleren Donau, in: Busch, R.
(ed.), Die Langobarden. Von der Unterelbe nach Italien,
39–54. Neumünster.
Tejral, J. 2008:
Zur Frage langobardischer Funde nördlich der mittleren Do-
nau, in: Hegewisch, M. – Schmauder, M. – Theisen, U. (eds),
Die Langobarden. Das Ende der Völkerwanderung, Kata-
log zur Ausstellung im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn,
22 August 2008 –11 January 2009, 52–71. Darmstadt.
Vitljanov, S. 2007:
Ein Hortfund mit Eisengegenständen aus Pliska und das
Problem der frühmittelalterlichen Agrartechnik in Bulgarien,
in: Henning, J. (ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settle-
ment in Europe and Byzantium, 393–402. Berlin – New York.
Voss, O. 1995:
Snourp: An Iron Producing Settlement in west Jutland,
1st–7th century AD, in: Magnusson, G. (ed.), The Importance
of Ironmaking: Technical Innovation and Social Changes,
RURALIA X
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

Papers presented at the Norberg Conference, May 8–13, Winkelmann, W. 1977:

132–139. Stockholm. Archäologische Zeugnisse zum frühmittelalterlichen Hand-
White, K. D. 1967: werk in Westfalen, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 11, 92–126.
Agricultural implements of the Roman World. Cambridge. Zagari, F. – La Salvia, V. 2001:
White, L. 1962: Aspetti della produzione metallurgica longobarda, Proceed-
Medieval technology and social change. Oxford. ings of the 14th International Study Conference on the ear-
White, L. 1978: ly Middle Ages, Cividale del Friuli-Bottenicco di Moimacco,
Medieval Religion and Technology. Los Angeles. 24–29 September 1999, 863–886. Spoleto.

Wickham, C. 1988: Zagari, F. 2005:

L’Italia e l’Alto Medioevo, Archeologia Medievale 15, 105–124. Il metallo nel Medioevo. Tecniche, strutture, manufatti. Rome.

Paolo de Vingo, University of Turin, Department of Historical Studies, via S. Ottavio 20, 10124 Torino, Italy,
paolo.devingo@unito.it

RURALIA X 349
de Vingo, The material culture and agricultural traditions in the early medieval eastern Merovingian areas 325–349

350 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 351–370

Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften

– Forschungsfragen, Methoden und Herausforderungen
für Archäologie und Geographie
Medieval agrarian fields in German low mountain ranges
– questions, methods and challenges of archaeological
and geographical research

Les champs agraires médiévaux dans la moyenne montagne allemande.

Questions, méthodes et défis pour la recherche archéologique
et géographique

Rainer Schreg

Äcker und Wiesen sind die Grundlagen landwirt-
schaftlicher Produktion. Ihr geringer Stellenwert in
der deutschsprachigen Archäologie des Mittelalters
steht in einem krassen Gegensatz zu ihrer Bedeutung:
Studien zu mittelalterlichen Feldfluren sind spärlich
und beschränken sich auf einige wenige Projekte (z.B.
Schreg 2013; Keller 1999; Woithe – Rösler 2001). Bis in
die 1970er Jahre war die Flurforschung ein wesent-
liches Arbeitsfeld der historischen Geographie, die
zahlreiche Studien insbesondere aus den Mittelge-
birgslandschaften hervorgebracht hat. Dieser Beitrag
reflektiert die archäologische und geographische For-
schungsgeschichte. Ziel ist es, bisherige Forschungs-
ergebnisse zur landwirtschaftlichen Produktion zu
skizzieren und vor allem auch das Potential aufzu-
zeigen, das insbesondere dann genutzt werden kann,
wenn es gelingt, die heute verfügbaren neuen Metho-
den mit älteren Forschungstraditionen zu verknüpfen.
1. Wandel der Fragestellungen
und Methoden
Altfluren haben seit der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahr-
hunderts die Aufmerksamkeit der Forschung ge-
funden. Danach zeichneten sich verschiedene For-
schungskonjunkturen ab, die durch jeweils eigene
Fragestellungen und einen Wechsel der jeweils for-
schungsführenden Fachdisziplin charakterisiert sind.
Im Hinblick auf eine Bewertung des aktuellen For-
schungsstandes und der perspektivischen Möglich-
keiten im Rahmen einer Landschafts- und Umweltar-
chäologie ist es hier weder erforderlich noch möglich,
die Forschungsgeschichte lückenlos und vollständig
darzustellen (Abb. 1). Hier mag es genügen, einige Pha-
sen der Forschung exemplarisch herauszugreifen.
Hochäcker-Diskussion Anfang 20. Jahrhundert
Bereits im 19. Jahrhundert sind vor allem in Ober-
bayern die sogenannten Hochäcker in großer Zahl be-
kannt geworden (Abb. 2). Heute spricht man von Wöl-
bäckern, die in der englischen Forschung als „ridge
and furrow“ bekannt sind. Das Interesse galt vor allem
Fragen der ethnischen Zuweisung der als fremd und
altertümlich empfundenen Feldstrukturen (Schlett
1832; Ohlenschlager 1882). Mittels Kartierungen auf
den damals neuen Grundkarten der Landesvermes-
sung wurde der Bezug der Hochäcker zu keltischen
Grabhügeln und Viereckschanzen sowie zu römischen
Straßen und Lagern untersucht (z. B. Ranke 1892).
Sie galten in Bayern als vindelikische Relikte der vor-
römischen und römischen Periode. Gefragt wurde
auch nach Bauweise und Funktion der Hochbeete,
denn nach damals gängigen Vorstellungen waren die
Hochäcker auf einem Kiesunterbau angelegt worden.
Mittels einer detaillierten Frageliste sollte geklärt wer-
den, welche Rolle Pflugbau, Be- und Entwässerung
dabei spielten, wie sich die Ackerstrukturen zur Lage
der Hofplätze verhalten und interessanterweise auch,
inwiefern sich die neue Anlage von Hochäckern nicht
auch heute noch empfehlen würde (Historischer Ver-
ein von und für Oberbayern, 1872).
Noch vor dem ersten Weltkrieg konnte gezeigt wer-
den, dass es sich keineswegs um vorgeschichtliche
oder römische Altertümer handelt, sondern um die
Relikte mittelalterlicher und neuzeitlicher, vorindustri-
eller Landwirtschaft (Frank 1912; Reinecke 1911). Es ist
außerordentlich interessant, dass im 19. Jahrhundert
die Hochäcker bereits als altertümlich und fremd emp-
funden wurden, obwohl sie doch erst vor relativ kurzer
Zeit außer Gebrauch gekommen waren und beispiels-

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 351–370.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110476
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften 351–370

Abb. 1. Themen und Methoden der archäologischen und geographischen Flurforschung in Deutschland (Graphik R. Schreg).

weise im Elsass noch bis weit ins 20. Jahrhundert
gepflegt wurden (Ewald 1969). Hier kommt das Para-
digma einer über die Jahrhunderte unveränderten
bäuerlichen Wirtschaft zum Tragen, das beispielswei-
se auch die Forschungen zur Dorfgenese lange Zeit
behindert hat (Schreg 2006a). Wandel im ländlichen
Raum wurde kaum in Rechnung gestellt, da der Bauer
an sich als geschichtslos galt.
Mit der grundlegenden Klärung der Datierungsfra-
ge – die aus heutiger Sicht aber gar nicht so eindeutig
scheint (Jäger 1959) – verlor die Archäologie ihr Inter-
esse an den Hochäckern. Die Archäologie war vor dem
Ersten Weltkrieg – von eher kunsthistorischen Fra-
gestellungen abgesehen – noch weit davon entfernt,
auch in historischen Zeiträumen zu arbeiten. Bis da-
hin hatten sich Archäologen rege an den Forschungen
beteiligt und Hochäcker auch im Rahmen der archäo-
logischen Landesaufnahme erfasst und vermessen
(Ohlenschlager 1882; Reinecke 1911). Danach fanden
Altfluren lange Zeit nur noch vereinzelt das Interesse
von Archäologen, und zwar vor allem dann, wenn doch
eine vorgeschichtliche Datierung erwogen wurde (z. B.
Gutmann 1927).
Hochäcker sind im südlichen Mitteleuropa – und
weit darüber hinaus – weit verbreitet. Sie erweisen
sich als charakteristisch für süddeutsche Altsiedel-
landschaften und deren Gewannfluren (Abb. 3). Be-
sonders gut bekannt sind sie in Südbayern, wo sie
auf Moränen liegen. Fluranalysen in den 1970er Jah-
ren ließen es zu, die Entwicklung der Gemarkung Ho-

352 RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
henbrunn zu rekonstruieren und die Entstehung der
Hochackerfluren so in eine Relativchronologie einzu-
binden (Schwarz 1989).
Moderne, großräumigere Analysen von Wölbäckern
sind ein Desiderat. Mittlerweile gibt es einige neuere
RURALIA X
351–370
Abb. 2. Machtlfing (Gde. Andechs, Lkr. Stran-
berg): historische Kartierung von Wölbäckern
in Relation zu einer römischen villa rustica
(nach Ranke 1892).
geoarchäologische Untersuchungen (z. B. Sittler – Hau-
ger 2005; Woithe – Rösler 2001), doch wissen wir im-
mer noch kaum etwas über die Bewirtschaftungswei-
se, die Einbindung in größere Flurkomplexe und die
teilweise sicherlich notwendigen Drainagen und ggf.
Abb. 3. Bezgenriet (Baden-Württemberg): Im
Luftbild zeichnen sich die ehemaligen Wölbä-
cker einer Gewannflur ab (Foto: Otto Braasch,
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Baden-Würt-
temberg, nach Braasch 1994).
353
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften 351–370

auch Bewässerungsmaßnahmen. Nicht selten sind Flurgenetische Forschungen der Geographie

Wässer wiesen in Mittelgebirgstälern als Wölbäcker
ausgestaltet (Haasis-Berner 2001; Seidenspinner 1991).
Erklärt werden die Wölbäcker durch ein gezieltes Auf-
pflügen. Der nähere Hintergrund und die Funktion
der speziellen Form findet sich in der Literatur meist
nur angedeutet: Zu erwägen ist insbesondere eine Mi-
nimierung des Ernteausfall-Risikos, indem der Acker
sowohl Feuchtigkeit speichernde Bereiche in den Mul-
den, als auch trockenere Bereiche auf den Rippen auf-
weist.
Aus frühen siedlungsgeographischen Arbeiten, die
sich insbesondere für stammestypische Ausbildungen
der Siedlungen interessierten (Meitzen 1895), hat sich
eine geographische Forschungsdiskussion entwickelt,
die zunächst auf der Auswertung historischer Karten
aufbaute (Abb. 4). Dabei ging es um Fragen nach der
siedlungsgeschichtlichen Rolle von Einzelhof, Weiler
und Drubbel (Steinbach 1974 [1927]; Müller-Wille 1944)
sowie um die Frage der Entstehung von Gewann- und

Abb. 4. Typische Flurbilder: Gewannflur, Blockflur, Hufenflur und Einödflur. Ausschnitte der württembergischen Landesvermessung, 1. Hälfte des
19. Jahrhunderts (Flurkarte des Königreichs Württemberg 1818ff.).

354 RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Langstreifenfluren (Hömberg 1935; Krenzlin – Reusch
1961; Schröder 1941). Sehr viel Arbeitsenergie floss in
die typologische Gliederung und die Ausarbeitung ei-
ner detaillierten, international anwendbaren Termino-
logie (Uhlig – Lienau 1978). Die Mikromorphologie der
Äcker, wie sie bei der Wölbackerfrage eine große Rolle
spielte, rückte hier zugunsten der Landschaftsgliede-
rung in den Hintergrund.
Die Flurformengenese wurde als zentraler Beitrag
zur Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Mittelal-
ters aufgefasst. Aus der Entstehung der Fluren erhoff-
te man sich Einblicke in die sich wandelnden Besitz-
RURALIA X
351–370
Abb. 5. Appenhagen, Kartierung ei-
ner Altflur (nach Mortensen – Schar-
lau 1949).
strukturen. Lange Zeit führte eine sehr konservative
Sicht auf den ländlichen Raum aber auch hier zu eth-
nischen Interpretationen. Die Gewannflur beispiels-
weise wurde als alte germanische Urform angesehen.
In ihr sollte sich der germanische Gemeinbesitz wider-
spiegeln, den man in Tacitus’ Germania zu erkennen
meinte (Meitzen 1895). Eine wichtige Grundannahme
war lange Zeit die enge Verbindung zwischen Flur-
form, Siedlungsform und Wirtschaftsweise. So wurde
die Gewannflur etwa von Robert Gradmann mit dem
Haufendorf und der Dreifelderwirtschaft verknüpft
(Gradmann 1914).
355
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften 351–370

Abb. 6. Mikroformen einer mitteleuropäischen agrarischen Kulturlandschaft: 1 Ackerland in Gewannflur (Ebenbau) / agrarian fields in furlong com-
plexes. – 2 Grenzen von Ackerparzellen (Raine) / field border. – 3 Wölbäcker / ridge and furrow. – 4 Stufenraine / lynchet. – 5 Terrassenäcker /
terraced fields. – 6 Waldrandstufe / lynchet at the edge of a wood. – 7 Kulturwechselstufe (Acker-Weide) / lynchet between fields and meadows.
– 8 Gewannstoß/ Anwand / turn-around area of plough. – 9 Anwander / turn-around area of plough in an open field system (Graphik R. Schreg).

Seit den 1940er Jahren wurde zunehmend deutlich,
dass die Flur- und Siedlungsbilder das Produkt einer
langfristigen historischen Entwicklung sind (Müller-
Wille 1944). Mit dem Ansatz der Rückschreibung von
Katasterkarten versuchte man nun durch eine Analy-
se früherer Besitzverhältnisse oder von regelmäßigen
Maßen ältere Flureinteilungen herauszuschälen. Da-
mit konnte gezeigt werden, dass generelle Interpreta-
tionen von Flurbildern kaum möglich sind, sondern
sehr genau die speziellen Prozesse vor Ort zu berück-
sichtigen sind (Krenzlin – Reusch 1961). Aus einer Re-
konstruktion von Formenreihen versprach man sich
Rückschlüsse auf die Art der Siedlungsvorgänge (Born
1980; Nitz 1976).
Als problematisch erwies sich die Abschätzung
der zeitlichen Tiefe, da allenfalls spätmittelalterliche
Lagerbücher noch einen gewissen chronologischen
Fixpunkt bieten können. Versuche über die Rekon-
struktion von Längenmaßen, wie sie etwa im Fall der
Fluranalysen von Aschheim zum Einsatz kamen (Die-
polder 1988), zu einer chronologischen Einordnung
zu kommen, wurden in der Forschung ob einer gewis-
sen berechtigten methodischen Skepsis kaum aufge-
griffen.
In der Nachkriegszeit begannen Hans Mortensen und
Kurt Scharlau mit der Kartierung fossiler Feldstruktu-
ren (Mortensen – Scharlau 1949). 1949 vermaßen sie
die Flurrelikte der Wüstung Appenhagen westnord-
westlich von Bad Hersfeld mit Band- und Schrittmaß
und konnten damit die Existenz einer Langstreifenflur
um 1300 nachweisen (Abb. 5). Die Diskussion um die
Genese der Flurformen erhielt dadurch neue Impulse
(Born 1967). Ein Forschungsschwerpunkt ergab sich
dabei in Nordhessen (Eisel 1965; Kern 1966), wo bei-
spielsweise Altfluren am Ostrand des Westerwaldes
(Born 1957) oder im Riedeselland des nordöstlichen
Vogelsberges (Seel 1963b) untersucht wurden. Ein we-
sentliches Ergebnis der Berücksichtigung der Gelän-
derelikte war die Erkenntnis, dass die „Entwicklung
der Gewannflur kein einheitlicher Vorgang, sondern
zeitlich und regional vielfältig differenziert“ (Scharlau
1961, 273) war. Mögliche Entwicklungsstränge wurden
als Flurformenreihen formuliert (Born 1977). Mit den
Geländeaufnahmen war stets die Hoffnung verbun-
den, auch römische und vorrömische Flursysteme zu
erfassen. Bis zu einem gewissen Grade ist dies in den
ehemals römischen Gebieten auch gelungen, wobei
die Datierungen sich zumeist nur aus der topographi-
schen Lagebeziehung zwischen Altflurrelikten und rö-
mischen villae rusticae oder Grabgärten ergeben (Seel
1963a; Haversath 1984).
Die Geländeaufnahme erwies sich in vielen Fällen
als außerordentlich schwierig, da die besten Erhal-
tungsbedingungen eben in Waldgebieten anzutreffen
sind, in denen eine optische Vermessung sehr zeit-
aufwändig ist. Die erstellten Pläne haben dement-
sprechend häufig den Charakter von Planskizzen, die
kaum Details erkennen lassen. Ohne weitere Unter-
suchungen mittels Grabungen ist es in vielen Fällen
auch kaum möglich, festzustellen, ob ein heute im Ge-

356 RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften 351–370

lände erkennbarer Steinriegel auf ein Trockenmäuer- in Norddeutschland die sogenannten ‚celtic fields’ im
chen zurückgeht oder ob er durch Lesesteine entlang Mittelpunkt des Interesses, bei denen sich allerdings
einer Hecke gebildet wurde. Bei Terrassenkanten ist eine vorgeschichtliche Datierung auch als durchaus
häufig unklar, ob es sich um natürliche geologisch be- plausibel erwiesen hatte (Jankuhn 1957/58; Müller-
dingte Stufen, um alte Ackerterrassen oder lediglich Wille 1979). Mit der Untersuchung von Plaggeneschen
um alte Waldrand- oder Kulturwechselstufen handelt. und dem Einsatz der Phosphatmethode (Lienemann
Steinhügel werfen häufig die Frage auf, ob es sich um 1989) ergaben sich in Norddeutschland wichtige An-
Lesesteinhaufen, Grabhügel oder gar Gebäudereste satzpunkte für eine Integration der Flurforschung in
handelt (Abb. 6). das Programm der Siedlungsarchäologie des Mittel-
Problematisch ist die Datierung von Altfluren. In alters. Insbesondere in den nördlichen Mittelgebirgs-
einer Landschaft können sich Nutzungsreste unter- landschaften von der Eifel im Westen bis in den Harz
schiedlicher Epochen erhalten haben. Auch hier ist im Osten wurden Altfluren von archäologischer Seite
eine Klärung nur mittels archäologischer Grabungen zunehmend auch in archäologischem Kontext unter-
möglich. Die Chance auf datierende Funde ist aller- sucht (Janssen 1965; 1975; Bergmann 1993). In der
dings sehr gering, da Feldfluren eben meist abseits Eifel erfolgte dies im Rahmen der archäologischen
der Siedlungen liegen. Fundmaterial gelangt nur aus- Landesaufnahme (Seel 1962; Janssen 1975), die in ver-
nahmsweise aufs freie Feld, am ehesten mit der Mist- gleichbarer Form in den Landschaften Süddeutsch-
düngung. Der daraus resultierende Scherbenschleier lands nie in Angriff genommen wurde (vergl. Fingerlin
– der freilich selbst eine wichtige Quelle zur Land- 1993).
nutzung darstellt (Schreg 2006b; Jones 2009; Wessel
– Wohlfarth – Gerlach 2008) – liegt insbesondere auf Bodennutzungssysteme
der Ackerfläche, aber eben kaum im Bereich der sicht-
baren Mikroformen. Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Mikroformen der
Die geographische Auseinandersetzung mit Altflur- Altfluren führte zur Frage der Bodennutzungssyste-
relikten erbrachte aufgrund der skizzierten Probleme me. Der Begriff des Bodennutzungssystems bezeich-
der Datierung und Vermessung keine gesicherten net die „Verfahrensweise, (…) nach der beim Ackerbau
Ergebnisse zu den ursprünglich formulierten Fragen die Kulturpflanzen (= Kulturarten) in räumlichem und
der Flurformenentwicklung. Ende der 1970er Jah- zeitlichem Wechsel über die Nutzfläche verteilt wer-
re/Anfang der 80er Jahre geriet die historisch-geo- den“ (Jäger 1978, 197).
graphische Flurforschung deshalb in eine Krise. Die Ein spezielles Interesse galt hier schon lange der
typologische Methode war in Misskredit geraten, da Dreifelderwirtschaft beziehungsweise deren durch
bestenfalls eine Relativchronologie zu gewinnen war, Flurzwang regulierten Form der Dreizelgenwirtschaft.
die aber kaum zeitlich fixiert werden konnte. Viele
Überlegungen zum Alter bestimmter Flurformen (z. B.
Boelcke 1964; Nitz 1974) werden daher heute sehr kri-
tisch gesehen. Mit dem damals vorhandenen methodi-
schen Instrumentarium war kaum ein Fortschritt zu
erzielen. Zugleich war die historische Geographie ins-
gesamt in einer Krise, was zu einem dramatischen Ab-
baus entsprechender Lehrstühle führte (Schenk 2011).
Zwei Kolloquien der Kommission für die Altertums-
kunde Mittel- u. Nordeuropas an der Göttinger Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften 1975/76 (Beck – Denecke
– Jankuhn 1979; 1980) markieren gewissermaßen das
Ende eines größeren, vor allem von der Geographie
getragenen Forschungsinteresses an Altfluren. Mit
mehreren Beiträgen war bei diesen Kolloquien jedoch
auch die Archäologie beteiligt (Müller-Wille 1979; Jans-
sen 1979), überwiegend mit Studien aus Norddeutsch-
land, wo sich die Siedlungsarchäologie seit den 1950er
Jahren verstärkt fossilen Feldfluren zugewandt hatte.
Im Unterschied zur Situation in Süddeutschland, wo
sich die Archäologie nach der mittelalterlichen und
neuzeitlichen Datierung der Hochäcker aus der Flur-
forschung erst einmal zurück gezogen hatte, standen Abb. 7. Bodennutzungssysteme (nach Jäger 1978).

RURALIA X 357
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Während die Fruchtfolge der Dreifelderwirtschaft von
Winter-, Sommergetreide und Brache prinzipiell indi-
viduell durchzuführen ist, ist es das Kennzeichen der
Dreizelgenwirtschaft, dass sie gemeinsam von der ge-
samten Dorfgemeinschaft betrieben wird. Die Acker-
flur wird dazu in drei Zelgen geteilt, die im Wechsel
als Winter-, Sommer- und Brachfeld bebaut wurden.
Während bei der individuellen Bewirtschaftung der
Flächen sichergestellt werden musste, dass das auf
der Brache weidende Vieh nicht auf Nachbars Felder
gelangen konnte und Feldhecken daher in großer Zahl
vorausgesetzt werden müssen, wurden diese mit der
Zelgeinteilung und einem einheitlichen Anbaurhyth-
mus überflüssig. Die Nachbarparzellen konnten zur
Überfahrt („Trieb und Tratt“) sowie zum Wenden des
Pfluggespanns genutzt werden. Mit der Einführung
der Dreizelgenwirtschaft wurden daher inmitten des
Altsiedellandes wichtige Landreserven freigesetzt. Da
die schriftlichen Quellen (und oft auch noch die jün-
gere Forschung) begrifflich nicht zwischen Dreifel-
der- und Dreizelgenwirtschaft differenzierte und die
Bedeutung von „Zelg“ und „Esch“ (in Süddeutschland
im Spätmittelalter der regionale Begriff für die Zelge,
in Norddeutschland die siedlungsnahe, leicht erhöh-
te Kernflur im ewigen Roggenbau) regional und zeit-
Abb. 8. Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse beim Bodennutzungssystem (nach Jäger 1978, Übersicht 1).
358
351–370
lich variierte, war der Zeitpunkt der Einführung eines
Dreizelgensystems lange umstritten. Nach früheren
Ansätzen scheint sich das Zelgsystem erst im Hoch-
mittelalter durchgesetzt zu haben (Hildebrandt 1980).
Es ist wohl eng mit dem damaligen Prozess der Dorf-
genese verbunden (Schreg 2006a, 334–335).
Neben den klassischen getreidebasierten Ackerbau-
systemen in den Zelgen lässt sich eine große Bandbrei-
te anderer Bodennutzungssysteme benennen (Becker
1998). Die verschiedenen Wechselsysteme, die in der
frühen Neuzeit nur in den Randbereichen der Feldflur
betrieben wurden (Abb. 7), finden bis heute jedoch
nur geringes Interesse. Quellenbedingt sind sie sehr
schwer nachweisbar: Die schriftliche Überlieferung
wird von dem herrschaftlichen Interesse an Ackerland
und Getreide geprägt und lässt andere Nutzungsfor-
men nur punktuell aufscheinen. Flurbezeichnungen
wie ‚Egarten’, ‚Mähder’ oder ‚Schwendi’ stehen im süd-
westdeutschen Raum für solche Wechselsysteme, bei
denen sich Ackernutzung in unterschiedlicher Weise
mit Wiesen, Weiden oder gar Wald abwechselte (Keinath
1951). Mit Blick auf diese Wechselsysteme wird auch
deutlich, dass die klare Trennung von Wald- und Of-
fenland nicht ohne weiteres vorausgesetzt werden
darf. Über die klassischen Wechselsysteme hinaus,
RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
die eine Ackernutzung im Wechsel mit Wiese, Weide,
Ödland, Moor oder Wald bezeichnen, müssen hier aber
auch solche Systeme in Rechnung gestellt werden, in
denen ein Wechsel von Siedlungs- und Anbauflächen
erfolgte. Die bis weit ins Mittelalter zu beobachtende
fluktuierende Siedlungsweise mit eher kleinräumigen
Siedlungsverlagerungen könnte darin einen wesentli-
chen Hintergrund haben (Schreg 2012).
Die Perspektive der Bodennutzungssysteme richte-
te ihr Interesse auf die Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse der
Bodennutzungssysteme, während deren Folgen für
die Landschaft kaum thematisiert wurden (Abb. 8).
So sind die Folgen der Einführung der Dreizelgenwirt-
schaft bis heute sehr spekulativ. Der Kern dieser mit-
telalterlichen ‚Flurbereinigung’ war eine Neuverteilung
des Grundbesitzes, mit der bereits beschriebenen
Erschließung von Landreserven. Durch den Verlust
von Hecken und Anwandflächen entstanden relativ
großflächige, einheitlich bewirtschaftete Ackerflächen,
was Auswirkungen auf die Biodiversität, Veränderun-
gen der Hydrologie und des Mikroklimas, vor allem
aber ein erhöhtes Risiko von Bodenerosion zur Folge
gehabt haben dürfte. Flurformen, Bodennutzungssys-
teme und die Vulnerabilität einer Landschaft stehen
nach den Erfahrungen moderner Flurbereinigungen
in einer engen Wechselwirkung.
Anwendungsbezogene historische
Kulturlandschaftsforschung
In den 1990er Jahren verlagerte sich die geogra-
phische Auseinandersetzung mit Altfluren weg von
Forschungsfragen wie der Flurformengenese oder
der Landschaftsentwicklung allgemein hin zu Inven-
tarisation, Erhalt und Pflege von Kulturlandschaften
(Hildebrandt 1994; Bayerisches Staatsministerium für
Landwirtschaft und Forsten 2001; Landschaftsverband
Rheinland – ARKUM 2005). Ihre Erfassung in Kultur-
landschaftskatastern stützt sich mittlerweile auf Geo-
graphische Informationssysteme und wertet Luftbil-
der wie auch LiDAR-Scans aus. Die Ergebnisse fließen
einerseits in die Landesplanung mit ein, andererseits
werden sichtbare Relikte der Bevölkerung mittels Er-
läuterungen und In-Wert-Setzungen ins Bewusstsein
gebracht. Der Begriff der Kulturlandschaft erlebte eine
erneute Konjunktur, nachdem er wegen der unreflek-
tierten Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Konnotationen und
einer problematischen Nutzung in der NS-Zeit lange
eher kritisch gesehen wurde (Schenk 2005).
Neue Methoden der Vermessung und Datierung
Die Erstellung von Kulturlandschaftskatastern
brachte neue Impulse für eine Vermessung von Gelän-
derelikten. Die Entwicklung Geographischer Informa-
RURALIA X
351–370
tionssysteme und moderner Vermessungsgeräte wie
beispielsweise motorisierter Tachymeter erleichtert
heute die Geländeaufnahme, wobei vor allem Luft-
bilder und LiDAR ältere Schichten der Feldfluren er-
schließen, die der bisherigen geographischen For-
schung nicht zugänglich waren (Sittler – Hauger 2005;
Doneus – Briese – Kühtreiber 2008; Sittler 2004; Opitz
– Cowley 2013). Dabei wurde in Norddeutschland so-
gar eine bislang unbekannt Flurform identifiziert, die
als „irreguläres Bank-Senken-Feldsystem“ bezeichnet
wurde. In den Moränenlandschaften insbesondere in
Angeln und Schwansen im Osten Schleswig-Holsteins
wurden natürliche Kuppen und Senken durch Planie-
rungen und Böschungen überformt, um ebene Anbau-
flächen zu gewinnen (Arnold 2011).
Hinzu kommen Möglichkeiten großflächiger archäo-
logischer Prospektion mittels geophysikalischer Ver-
fahren, die es erlauben, ganze Landschaften in den
Blick zu nehmen (Doneus 2013; Kastowsky-Priglinger
et al. 2013). Hat schon vor einigen Jahrzehnten die
Luftbildarchäologie Möglichkeiten eröffnet, auch in
offenen Agrarlandschaften frühere Feldsysteme zu re-
konstruieren (Fries 1995), so sind die Möglichkeiten
mittels LiDAR nochmals deutlich gestiegen. Die Stär-
ken des LiDAR liegen jedoch vor allem darin, dass in
Waldlandschaften, in denen die klassische Luftbildar-
chäologie nicht greift, feinste Geländeunterschiede do-
kumentiert werden können. Allerdings bestehen noch
immer dort erhebliche Probleme, wo dichter Nadelwald
vorherrscht.
Inzwischen stehen auch neue Datierungsmethoden
zur Verfügung, die prinzipiell dazu beitragen können,
die chronologischen Dimensionen von Altflursyste-
men zu erfassen. Neben die schon länger bekannte
Möglichkeit der 14C-Datierungen, die in den vergange-
nen Jahren erheblich weiter entwickelt wurde (Grootes
2011), tritt neuerdings die Optisch stimulierte Lumi-
neszenz (OSL) (Wagner 2008), die erlaubt, den Zeit-
punkt zu bestimmen, zu dem Sedimente abgelagert
wurden.
In den letzten Jahren hat die Geoarchäologie einen
erheblichen Aufschwung genommen. Analyse von Ero-
sions- und Sedimentationsvorgängen liefern wichtige
Aussagen über die Landschaftsentwicklung und die
jeweiligen Landnutzungspraktiken (Bork 1983; 1988;
Dotterweich 2005). Erst ansatzweise sind in Deutsch-
land biomolekulare und geochemische Methoden in
Anwendung (Entwistle – Dodgshon – Abrahams, 2000;
Eckmeier et al. 2011), sieht man einmal von der her-
kömmlichen, bereits seit den 1940er Jahren ange-
wandten Phosphatanalyse ab (Lorch 1939; Gebhardt
1982; Lienemann 1989). Lipide (Evershed 1993), Holz-
kohlen (Eckmeier et al. 2007) oder Boden-DNA (Hebs-
gaard et al. 2009) bieten Anhaltspunkte zur Rekon-
struktion früherer Bodenbewirtschaftung.
359
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Ökologische Perspektive
Die Auseinandersetzung mit Bodennutzungssyste-
men, die Ziele der angewandten Kulturlandschaftsfor-
schung, die steigende Rolle der Geoarchäologie und
das daraus resultierende flächenhafte Bild früherer
Kulturlandschaften begünstigten eine ökologische
Perspektive. Entsprechende Ansätze gab es in der
internationalen Geographie wie in der Archäologie
schon seit den 1970er Jahren (Butzer 1982). Damit
verlagerte sich das Interesse an Altfluren weg von der
historischen Geographie hin zur Bodenkunde und
Geoökologie. Es ging nun weniger um Studien zu den
Flurformen, als vielmehr um ein Verständnis des „Bo-
densyndroms“ der „Mensch-Umwelt-Spirale“ (Bork
1988, 31–37). Große Bedeutung kommt dabei geoar-
chäologischen Studien zur Bodenerosion zu. Einen
wesentlichen Ansatzpunkt boten seit den 1980er Jah-
ren die Wüstungsforschungen im Bergland der Weser
dar, bei denen mehrfach Anzeichen massiver mittelal-
terlicher Erosionsprozesse erfasst wurden (Bork 1983;
1988). Insbesondere das 14. Jahrhundert erweist sich
in Mitteleuropa als die wichtigste Phase der Erosion
und Kolluvienbildung. Es liegt nahe, dies mit dem in
Schriftquellen vielfach zu erfassenden Jahrtausendre-
360
351–370
gen im Juli 1342 (Bauch 2014) zu verknüpfen, wenn-
gleich die chronologische Auflösung der Datierungs-
methoden prinzipiell zu ungenau ist (Bork – Beyer
– Kranz 2011; Bork – Kranz 2008; Beckenbach – Niet-
hammer – Seyfried 2013). So oder so ergibt sich für das
14. Jahrhundert ein interessantes Szenarium des Zu-
sammenspiels zwischen Bodennutzungssystemen, Bo-
denerosion, Wüstungsprozessen, dem Ausbruch der
Pest sowie wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklun-
gen, das prinzipiell nur aus einer humanökologisch-
umwelthistorischen Perspektive in seiner Gesamtheit
analysiert werden kann (vergl. Schreg 2011; 2014).
In Deutschland hat die ökologische Perspektive
vor allem durch die stärker naturwissenschaftlichen
Ansätze der Bodenkunde und Geoarchäologie und
die Bemühungen um eine Vermittlung historischer
Kulturlandschaften an ein breiteres Publikum an Be-
deutung gewonnen. Bäuerliche Freilichtmuseen und
Landschaftsparks spielen hier eine immer wichtigere
Rolle (Schenk 2005). Altfluren wurden hier zunehmend
als Teil eines umfassenderen Ökosystems gesehen,
das insbesondere auch die Bodennutzungssysteme
und die sozialen Bedingungen der Bauern berücksich-
tigte.
Abb. 9. Würzbach (Gde. Oberreichen-
bach): Waldhufendorf sowie unter
Wald erhaltene Altfluren (Graphik
R. Schreg).
RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Aus der Umweltgeschichte und Humanökologie wur-
den verschiedene Studien vorgelegt, die vorindustriel-
le Dorfgemeinschaften und ihren Umgang mit Agrar-,
Weide- und Waldflächen genauer untersuchten. Sie
konnten die engen Zusammenhänge zwischen Land-
wirtschaft und Sozialverhältnissen im Dorf aufzeigen
(McNetting 1981; Beck 2004), gingen aber selten auf die
Flurformen ein, die aber gerade mit den Allmendauf-
teilungen (Zückert 2003) der Neuzeit eine wichtige hu-
manökologische Komponente besitzen.
2. Archäologische Altflurforschung heute:
zwei Beispiele
Diesem Gang durch die Forschungsgeschichte sei-
en ein paar knappe Gedanken zu den Perspektiven
geographischer und archäologischer Flurforschung
angeschlossen, indem zwei Beispiele aktueller For-
schungen knapp aufgegriffen seien.
Mittelalterliche Landnutzung
im Nordschwarzwald
Der Nordschwarzwald ist im Allgemeinen eine Land-
schaft mit nur geringer Wüstungsintensität. Daher
sind hier im Gegensatz zu anderen deutschen Mittel-
gebirge wie der Eifel, dem Westerwald oder dem Vogels-
berg nur wenige Altfluren bekannt geworden. Deutlich
mehr Altflurrelikte sind hingegen von der benachbar-
ten Schwäbischen Alb bekannt, obgleich hier moderne
Forschungen weitgehend fehlen (Morrissey 2005).
RURALIA X
351–370
Abb. 10. Würzbach (Gde. Oberrei-
chenbach): Lesesteinhaufen (Foto:
R. Schreg).
Etwa 8 km westlich von Calw liegen bei Würzbach
die unter Wald erhaltenen Reste eines hochmittelalter-
lichen Waldhufendorfes (Schreg 2009; 2013). Die Kom-
bination verschiedener Methoden – die Auswertung
von Flurkarten, Lagerbüchern, LiDAR-Scans, Surveys,
kleineren Grabungen und geoarchäologischen Sonda-
gen – erschließt eine Siedlung samt zugehöriger Wirt-
schaftsflur (Abb. 9). Eine Modellierung verspricht nä-
here Einblicke in die Wirtschaftsweise einer Siedlung,
die um 1400 verlassen wurde. Deutlich wird durch
vermutlich ältere Flurrelikte wie auch durch unter-
schiedliche Maßeinheiten, die in einem Lagerbuch des
16. Jahrhunderts überliefert sind, dass das heute noch
vorhandene Waldhufendorf nicht als Planform des Lan-
desausbaus gesehen werden kann, sondern das Resul-
tat einer längerfristigen, bislang im Einzelnen freilich
noch nicht geklärten Siedlungsgenese darstellt.
Detaillierte Beobachtungen von Geländestrukturen
lassen begründete Hypothesen über die Größe des
Wirtschaftslandes einzelner Höfe zu, geben Hinweise
auf die Lage des Ackergeländes und der Weideflächen.
Als große Steinhügel treten die ehemaligen Haus-
standorte in Erscheinung (Abb. 10). Im Umfeld gibt
es vielfach kleinteilige Geländestrukturen – Hügel,
Mulden –, die sich bislang einer Erklärung entziehen.
Vermutlich haben wir es hier mit dem eigentlichen
Wirtschaftsareal des Hofes zu tun. Im anschließenden
Gelände haben sich die zugehörigen Feldfluren erhal-
ten. Sie zeichnen sich durch lange, parallele Stein-
riegel, Raine und Terrassenkanten ab. Detaillierte ta-
chymetrische Vermessungen zeigen weitere parallele
361
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Geländestrukturen, die auf eine ehemalige Beacke-
rung zurückgehen könnten. Diese Ackerfläche deh-
nen sich etwa 300 bis 400 m hinter den Hofstandor-
ten aus, ehe dann großflächige Areale mit hunderten
von Lesesteinhaufen einsetzen. Auffallend ist dabei,
dass die Lesesteinhaufen offenbar in einer bewalde-
ten Landschaft zusammengetragen wurden – und da-
mit auf spezielle Landnutzungsformen hinweisen, die
eventuell die neuzeitliche Streuwirtschaft vorweg neh-
men oder auf eine Form der Waldweide zurückgehen.
So unsicher der Befund bisher in seiner Interpretati-
on auch ist, er lenkt den Blick auf heute nicht mehr
übliche Praktiken der Landnutzung.
Die Fundsituation in Würzbach zeigt die Problema-
tik der Datierung. Zwar liegen inzwischen aus Wur-
zelstöcken und Rückegassen auch einige Lesefunde
aus dem Siedlungsareal vor, die bei der zeitlichen
Einordnung helfen, doch sind die klassischen archäo-
logischen Datierungsmöglichkeiten aufgrund des ge-
ringen Fundaufkommens sehr beschränkt. Versuche
zur Datierung der Lesesteinhaufen und -riegel sind
häufig daran gescheitert, dass keine geeigneten Holz-
kohleproben gewonnen werden konnten. Lediglich in
einem geoarchäologischen Sondageschnitt wurden in
Abb. 11. Römerzeitliche Altflurrelikte im Mayener Stadtwald auf der Basis eines LiDAR-Scans (Datengrundlage: LiDAR-Daten Landesamt für Vermes-
sung und Geobasisinformation Rheinland-Pfalz).
362
351–370
ausreichender Menge Holzkohlen geborgen, die eine
Bodenerosion nachgewiesen haben, die noch ins frü-
he Mittelalter datiert und dem Waldhufendorf voraus-
gehen muss. OSL-Datierungen kamen bislang aus
Kostengründen nicht zum Einsatz, dürften aber eine
geeignete Alternative darstellen.
Eine kombinierte Erforschung der Altflur von Würz-
bach insbesondere mit Geländekartierungen, archäo-
logischen und geoarchäologischen Sondagen sowie
Auswertung schriftlicher Quellen ermöglicht eine Re-
konstruktion der ehemaligen Feldflur und ihrer Be-
wirtschaftung und letztlich auch eine Modellierung
der Hofbewirtschaftung im Spätmittelalter.
Römische und mittelalterliche Feldfluren
bei Mayen in der Osteifel
Das zweite Beispiel basiert auf laufenden Forschun-
gen bei Mayen in der Osteifel am Rande des Neuwie-
der Beckens. Die vulkanischen Ressourcen der Region
führten bereits seit der jüngeren Eisenzeit zur Ausbil-
dung spezieller Gewerbe, wie der Mühlsteinprodukti-
on und der Baustein-Gewinnung. Zudem spielt in der
Region die Töpferei eine wesentliche Rolle (Schaaff
RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
2008). Auf dieser Grundlage entwickelte sich in Mayen
ein römischer Vicus, in dessen Umgebung sich zahl-
reiche Villen feststellen lassen. Neben kleineren Guts-
höfen lagen hier auch repräsentative, ausgedehnte Vil-
lenkomplexe. Die Forschungen der vergangenen Jahre
zeigen eine bemerkenswerte Kontinuität der Besied-
lung über die Spätantike hinaus, beispielsweise in der
Töpfereiproduktion, die sich von der römischen Kai-
serzeit bis ins frühe 20. Jahrhundert verfolgen lässt
(Grunwald 2011).
Westlich von Mayen liegen unter Wald erhaltene Alt-
fluren, die in den 1960er Jahren durch den Geogra-
phen Karl-August Seel kartiert wurden (Seel 1963a).
Erfasst wurden mehrere Stufenraine mit einer Höhe
von 0,3–1,0 m Höhe, die Seel suggestiv zu einer „ty-
pischen Streifenflur“ ergänzte (Seel 1963a, 324). Er
betont allerdings, dass die in seinem Plan eingetrage-
nen Ergänzungen „da, wo sie nicht auf gleicher Höhe
liegende Rainstücke verbinden, keine Streifengrenzen
darstellen, sondern in erster Linie die Richtung der
Pflugführung angeben. Zum Teil sind die Einzeich-
nungen aber auch als echte Ergänzungen berechtigt,
da sich im Gelände flache Erdwellen abzeichnen, die
den gut sichtbaren Stufenrainen genau parallel laufen“
(Seel 1963a, 324–325). Für eine römische Datierung
berief sich Seel auf die Lage in einem Waldgebiet, den
durch eine Zusammenstellung mittelalterlicher Schrift-
quellen zum Mayener Stadtwald geführten Nachweis,
dass es im fraglichen Gebiet keine jüngeren Rodungen
gegeben hat, eine enge Verbindung von Siedlungsplatz
und Flur sowie eine Datierbarkeit durch archäologi-
sche Funde (Seel 1963a, 337). Am Narrenborn sind
beispielsweise mehrere römische Gebäude sowie Grab-
gärten bekannt. Wenig südlich der Altfluren war schon
RURALIA X
351–370
in den 1920er Jahren die Villa rustica ‚Im Brasil’ aus-
gegraben worden. Es handelt es sich um eine kleine
Risalitvilla, zu der ein Speicherturm als Anbau rekon-
struiert wurde (Oelmann 1928). Münzfunde aus den
römischen Bauresten am ‚Narrenborn’ und ‚im Brasil’
weisen auf eine Nutzung noch im 4. Jahrhundert.
Heute können die von Seel aufgemessenen Altflurre-
likte mittels LiDAR-Scans überprüft werden (Abb. 11).
Viele der seinerzeit beschriebenen Strukturen lassen
sich problemlos identifizieren; andere sind zwischen-
zeitlich offenbar zerstört. Am deutlichsten sind die Alt-
fluren am ‚Narrenborn’ (Flur I nach Seel), während die
Streifenfluren am ‚Leichenweg’ (Flur II) und ‚Altener
Plateau’ (Flur III) sich nur bedingt erkennen lassen.
Die Interpretation der Flurrelikte als Streifenfluren ist
dadurch zu relativieren. Im betreffenden Areal wurden
auch die Reste einer mittelalterlichen Landwehr lokali-
siert (Hörter 1999). Die LiDAR-Scans zeigen keine ein-
deutigen Reste davon, wohl aber die typischen Hohl-
weg-Trassen, die das Gelände des Mayener Stadtwald
durchziehen.
Im Segbachtal, nur wenige Kilometer entfernt, nörd-
lich von Mayen läuft seit 2010 die intensive Erforschung
einer Kleinlandschaft im Rahmen eines DFG-Projektes
„Zur Landnutzung im Umfeld eines römischen „Indus-
triereviers“ – Interdisziplinäre Studien im Umfeld des
antiken Steinbruchgebietes und Töpferzentrums bei
Mayen (Landkreis Mayen-Koblenz)“. Eine zentrale Fra-
ge gilt der Versorgung des während der römischen Kai-
serzeit boomenden Gewerbezentrums Mayen und den
daraus resultierenden Auswirkungen auf die Kultur-
landschaft. Anforderungen der Mühlsteinproduktion
an die Infrastruktur (Wenzel 2012) spielen dabei eben-
so eine Rolle, wie die Landschaftsgestaltung im Umfeld
Abb. 12. Segbachtal: Schnitt durch
einen Steinriegel „im Winkel“ (Gde.
Mendig). Unterhalb des Steinriegels
befindet sich eine Auffüllung, die rö-
merzeitlichen Steinbruchschutt über-
deckt. Links im Bild: Probennahme für
OSL-Datierung. (Foto: M. Dotterweich,
2011).
363
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
der römischen Achsialvilla ‚Lungenkärchen’ (Grüne-
wald 2012). Dabei zeichnet sich ab, dass man massiv
in die Landschaft eingegriffen hat, möglicherweise um
den Segbach mit einem Woogsystem für den Transport
der hier produzierten Mühlsteine in Richtung Rhein
flößbar zu machen. An mehreren Stellen des Segbach-
tals lassen sich jedoch auch Altflurrelikte identifizie-
ren: Reste von Wölbäckern im Bereich heutiger Streu-
obstwiesen (Wenzel 2013) sowie Blockfluren und eine
große Einfriedung, deren Steinriegel und Raine sich
unter Wald erhalten haben.
An einer Blockwallflur ‚im Winkel’, benachbart zu
einem römischen Gutshof, einem spätantiken Burgus
und einem im Talgrund nachgewiesenen antiken Drai-
nagesystems wurden gezielte Detektorbegehungen mit
Einzelfundeinmessung, Phosphatanalysen und klei-
nere Sondagen vorgenommen. Ziel war es, Aufbau,
Nutzung und Datierung der Flurreste zu klären. Auf-
grund der Funde sowie der Nachbarschaft zu römi-
schen Gebäuderesten, wurde zunächst eine römische
Datierung der Flur angenommen. Die mit Steinriegeln
eingefassten nicht ganz rechtwinkligen Parzellen um-
fassen ca. 430–1200m² Fläche und zeigen Ähnlich-
keiten mit römischen Fluren, wie sie in den letzten
Jahren in Ostfrankreich mehrfach festgestellt werden
konnten (Goguey – Bénard 2001/2002; Georges-Leroy
et al. 2009). Zwei Sondageschnitte zeigten nun jedoch,
dass die Steinriegel auf einer Erdschicht aufliegen,
aus der einzelne römische Keramikscherben stam-
men. Im Liegenden wurde jeweils Steinbruchschutt
mit Mühlsteinbruch angetroffen. OSL-Datierungen in
einem der beiden Schnitte belegen aber, dass die Erd-
schicht, die zwischen dem Steinbruchschutt und den
Steinriegeln liegt, erst um 1300 n. Chr. abgelagert wur-
de, woraus sich für die Feldstrukturen ein terminus
post quem ergibt. Offenbar wurde hier ein altes römi-
sches Steinbruchareal im Spätmittelalter aufgefüllt
und rekultiviert (Abb. 12).
Auch bei diesem Forschungsprojekt werden unter-
schiedliche Methoden kombiniert, um damit die Ver-
sorgungsgrundlagen eines römischen Gewerbezent-
rums rekonstruieren zu können. Letztlich bietet das
Umfeld von Mayen und insbesondere das Segbachtal
eine interessante umwelthistorische Studie, da nicht
nur die räumliche Dimension der Landschaft und der
human impact sichtbar wird, sondern anhand der be-
wussten Ausgestaltung unter funktionalen wie ästheti-
schen Gesichtspunkten für die römische Zeit auch die
Wahrnehmungsdimension erfasst wird. Die Altfluren
– deren Datierungsproblematik auch hier von zent-
raler Bedeutung ist – schlagen eine Brücke zwischen
den verschiedenen Dimensionen der Umweltgeschich-
te – der Rekonstruktion, der Mensch-Umwelt-Interakti-
on und der Wahrnehmung. Gerade die Tatsache, dass
in diesem Beispiel die römische Periode entscheidend
364
351–370
war, macht deutlich, dass die Flurentwicklung des Mit-
telalters schon durch ältere Landschaftsprägungen be-
stimmt war.
3. Fazit: Perspektiven der Altflurforschung
Der Überblick über Forschungsgeschichte zeigt,
wie sich Fragestellungen und Methoden, mit denen
man Altfluren als Quellen zur Wirtschafts- und Land-
schaftsgeschichte genutzt hat, im Lauf der Zeit verän-
dert haben. Mit der Krise der historischen Geographie
seit den 1970er Jahren verlor die Flurforschung an
Attraktivität. In den vergangenen Jahren ergaben sich
neue Impulse durch moderne Methoden zur Datierung
und Prospektion. Deutlicher als bisher können die
historischen Entwicklungen der Landschaft erfasst
werden. Es zeigt sich, dass der historisch-genetische
Ansatz der Komplexität der Entwicklung kaum gerecht
wird. Viele Paradigmen zur Flurentwicklung, wie etwa
das Verständnis des Waldhufendorfes als Gründungs-
form werden in Frage gestellt. Die Verknüpfung mit
geoarchäologischen Methoden erlaubt es heute, die
Entwicklung von Flurformen in einen Kontext mit his-
torischer Landschaftsdynamik zu stellen. Daraus er-
geben sich zahlreiche weiterführende Fragestellungen,
konkret etwa nach den Zusammenhängen zwischen
der Einführung der Dreizelgenwirtschaft und damit
einhergehender Umstrukturierung der Landschaft.
Die Frage der Flurformengenese ist zwar nach wie
vor aktuell, doch steht sie heute in einem erweiterten
umwelthistorischen Kontext. Neben die klassischen
Fragen, die sie in erster Linie in Bezug zur bäuerlichen
Sozial- und Wirtschaftsstrukturen setzen, tritt nun die
ökologische Dimension, die nach der Rolle der Boden-
bearbeitung und der landwirtschaftlichen Produkti-
onspraxis für die Mensch-Umwelt-Interaktion fragt.
Für die Erforschung mittelalterlicher Siedlungsland-
schaften ist die Skalenebene des Dorfökosystems von
besonderer Bedeutung, das explizit die Akteure der
Siedlungsgemeinschaft mit ihren Sozial- und Macht-
verhältnissen einbezieht. Das Dorfökosystem bezieht
sich auf kleinere agrarisch wirtschaftende Gemein-
schaften, die typischerweise durch eine Dorfgemein-
schaft repräsentiert werden. Der Begriff des Dorfes
bezieht sich dabei nicht auf das typische spätmittel-
alterliche Dorf, sondern weiter gefasst auf agrarische
Siedlungsgemeinschaften (Schreg 2014). Als entschei-
dender Teil des Dorfökosystems trägt die interdiszi-
plinäre Analyse von Altfluren erheblich dazu bei, die
Mensch-Umwelt-Interaktion und insbesondere die Vul-
nerabilität bzw. Resilienz der physischen Landschaft
gegen Bodenerosion und kurzfristige Wetterextreme,
mittel- und langfristige Erhaltung der Bodenfruchtbar-
keit als wesentliche Faktoren der Siedlungsgeschichte
besser zu verstehen.
RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Danksagung
Vorliegender Beitrag steht in Verbindung mit meh-
reren Projekten, die mich in höchst unterschiedlichen
Landschaften mit Altflurrelikten konfrontiert haben.
Speziell zu nennen sind die Arbeiten in Würzbach, die
immer die Unterstützung durch die Denkmalpflege
im RP Karlsruhe gefunden haben und die nun durch
Katja Thode (Tübingen) mit neuen Grabungen fortge-
führt werden. Dank gilt insbesondere auch den Kol-
legen Stefan Wenzel, Markus Dotterweich und Benni
Streubel aus dem Archäologischen Institut der Univer-
sität Köln (Prof. Thomas Fischer), der GDKE Koblenz
(Axel von Berg) und der VAT/RGZM (Holger Schaaff)
getragenen DFG-Projekt „Zur Landnutzung im Umfeld
des antiken Steinbruchgebietes und Töpferzentrums
bei Mayen (Landkreis Mayen-Koblenz).
Summary
Research on fossil fields was mainly a subject of
historical geography. Both drifted into a crisis during
the 1970s. A strong typological emphasis, but particu-
larly problems in dating and surveying were some of
the major reasons. Archaeological interest in fossil
fields was tied to prehistoric and Roman ones alone.
Only when medieval archaeology was established did
this situation started to change. In northern Germany
there were stronger traditions in settlement research
than in the south.
Geographical information systems, airborne laser-
scanning, optic-stimulated luminescence, and soil
DNA analysis promise new impetus in the investiga-
tion of medieval field systems and the related agrarian
production. Today geoarchaeology offers the opportu-
nity to bring together archaeological and geographical
research traditions. Recently an applied research on
cultural landscapes as well as a growing public inter-
est in ecological questions lead to an increasing rele-
vance of ecological approaches. As agrarian fields are
at the heart of food production, the interdisciplinary
study of their remains is crucial to understand past
societies and their cultural changes.
Zusammenfassung
Die Altflurforschung ist stark von der historischen
Geographie geprägt, mit der sie seit den 1970er Jah-
ren in eine Krise geraten ist. Die starke typologische
Orientierung, vor allem aber Datierungsprobleme und
praktische Schwierigkeiten der Vermessung in bewal-
deten Arealen waren dabei wichtige Faktoren. Das ar-
chäologische Interesse war hingegen lange vorwiegend
auf vorrömische und römische Flurrelikte gerichtet.
Erst mit der Etablierung der Archäologie des Mittel-
RURALIA X
351–370
alters, die forschungsgeschichtlich in Norddeutsch-
land stärker mit der Siedlungsarchäologie verbunden
war als in Süddeutschland rückten Altfluren in den
Fokus der Archäologie.
Geographische Informationssysteme, neue Fern-
erkundungsmethoden wie das Airborne Laserscan,
neue Datierungsmethoden wie OSL sowie bodenkund-
liche Verfahren wie z.B. Boden-DNA versprechen neue
Impulse für die Erforschung von Altfluren und da-
mit verbundener Bodennutzungssystemen. Die Geo-
archäologie, die sich in den vergangenen Jahren
zunehmend etablieren konnte, bietet die Chance, ar-
chäologische und geographische Forschungstraditio-
nen zusammenzuführen. In jüngerer Zeit sorgten au-
ßerdem eine angewandte Kulturlandschaftsforschung
und das wachsende Interesse der Öffentlichkeit an
ökologischen Themen für eine wachsende Bedeutung
einer ökologischen Perspektive. Diese kann in Form
der Siedlungsökologie wesentlich zum Verständnis
früherer Gesellschaften und deren Interaktion mit ih-
ren Umwelten beitragen. Altfluren als entscheidendes
Element der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion kommt
eine Schlüsselrolle für das Verständnis früherer Ge-
sellschaften zu.
Résumé
En Allemagne, la recherche sur les champs fossiles
est principalement un objet recherche en géographie
historique. Depuis les années 1970, elle est en crise
en raison de problèmes de datation et de mesures
ainsi que d’une forte préférence donnée à la typolo-
gie. L’intérêt archéologique se limitait aux parcellaires
romains et protohistoriques. C’est seulement avec la
mise en place de l’archéologie du Moyen Âge que cette
situation a commencé à évoluer. Dans le nord de l’Alle-
magne là où il y avait une forte tradition d’archéologie
urbaine, on a respecté les structures des champs fos-
siles. En Allemagne de Sud, la situation était différente
parce qu’il y avait une forte tradition de recherche sur
les cimetières et l’intérêt pour l’étude des paysages
était limité. Les systèmes d’information géographique,
de nouvelles méthodes de télédétection telles que le
balayage laser aéroporté, de nouvelles méthodes de
datation telles que la luminescence optique stimulée
et les méthodes pédologiques tels que l’ADN des sols et
la promesse de nouvelles impulsions pour l’étude des
parcellaires anciens et pour la connaissance des sys-
tèmes d’utilisation des terres. Aujourd’hui, la géo-ar-
chéologie offre la possibilité de réunir les recherches
archéologique et géographique. Récemment, une re-
cherche appliquée sur les paysages culturels, ainsi
qu’un intérêt croissant du public pour les questions
écologiques ont conduit à une pertinence croissante
des approches écologiques. Comme les champs agri-
365
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
coles sont au cœur de la production alimentaire, leur
étude interdisciplinaire est cruciale pour comprendre
les sociétés passées et leurs changements cultu-
rels.
Bibliographie
Arnold, V. 2011:
Celtic Fields und andere urgeschichtliche Ackersysteme in
historisch alten Waldstandorten Schleswig-Holsteins aus
Laserscan-Daten, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 41,
439–455.
Bauch, M. 2014:
Die Magdalenenflut 1342 – ein unterschätztes Jahrtausend-
ereignis?, in: Mittelalter. Interdisziplinäre Forschung und Re-
zeptionsgeschichte (4.2.2014) – http://mittelalter.hypotheses.
org/3016.
Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Landwirtschaft und For-
sten 2001:
Historische Kulturlandschaft. Ländliche Entwicklung in Bay-
ern. Materialien zur ländlichen Neuordnung 39. München.
Beck, H. – Denecke, D. – Jankuhn, H. (Hrsg.) 1979:
Untersuchungen zur eisenzeitlichen und frühmittelalterli-
chen Flur in Mitteleuropa und ihrer Nutzung. Teil I. Bericht
über die Kolloquien der Kommission für die Altertumskunde
Mittel- und Nordeuropas in den Jahren 1975 und 1976, Ab-
handlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,
Phil.-Hist. Kl. 3, 115. Göttingen.
Beck, H. – Denecke, D. – Jankuhn, H. (Hrsg.) 1980:
Untersuchungen zur eisenzeitlichen und frühmittelalterli-
chen Flur in Mitteleuropa und ihrer Nutzung. Teil II. Bericht
über die Kolloquien der Kommission für die Altertumskunde
Mittel- und Nordeuropas in den Jahren 1975 und 1976, Ab-
handlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,
Phil.-Hist. Kl. 3, 116. Göttingen.
Beck, R. 2004:
Unterfinning. Ländliche Welt vor Anbruch der Moderne.
München.
Beckenbach, E. – Niethammer, U. – Seyfried, H. 2013:
Spätmittelalterliche Starkregenereignisse und ihre geomor-
phologischen Kleinformen im Schönbuch (Süddeutschland):
Erfassung mit hochauflösenden Fernerkundungsmethoden
und sedimentologische Interpretation, Jahresberichte und
Mitteilungen des Oberrheinischen Geologischen Vereins 95,
421–438.
Becker, H. 1998:
Allgemeine historische Agrargeographie. Stuttgart.
Bergmann, R. 1993:
Relikte mittelalterlicher Siedlungen und Ackerfluren in West-
falen, in: Bergmann, R. (Hrsg.), Zwischen Pflug und Fessel.
Mittelalterliches Landleben im Spiegel der Wüstungsfor-
schung. Münster/Westfalen, 35–76.
Boelcke, W. A. 1964:
Die frühmittelalterlichen Wurzeln der südwestdeutschen Ge-
366
351–370
wannflur, Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziolo-
gie 12, 131–161.
Bork, H.-R. 1983:
Die holozäne Relief- und Bodenentwicklung in Lößgebieten –
Beispiele aus dem südöstlichen Niedersachsen, in: Bork, H. R.
– Ricken, W. (Hrsg.), Bodenerosion, holozäne und pleistozäne
Bodenentwicklung. Catena Suppl., 3. Braunschweig, 1–93.
Bork, H.-R. 1988:
Mittelalterliche Relief-, Sediment- und Bodenentwicklung im
Bereich der Wüstung Drudewenshusen, Archäologisches Kor-
respondenzblatt 18, 89–95.
Bork, H.-R. – Beyer, A. – Kranz, A. 2011:
Der 1000-jährige Niederschlag des Jahres 1342 und sei-
ne Folgen in Mitteleuropa, in: Daim, F. – Gronenborn, D. –
Schreg, R. (Hrsg.), Strategien zum Überleben. Umweltkrisen
und ihre Bewältigung. RGZM-Tagungen, 11. Mainz, 231–242.
Bork, H.-R. – Kranz, A. 2008:
Die Jahrtausendflut des Jahres 1342 prägt Deutschland
– Neue Forschungsergebnisse aus dem Einzugsgebiet des
Mains, in: Jahresbericht der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft für
die gesamte Naturkunde 158, 119–129.
Born, M. 1957:
Siedlungsentwicklung am Osthang des Westerwaldes. Mar-
burger Geographische Schriften 8. Marburg.
Born, M. 1961:
Frühgeschichtliche Flurrelikte in den deutschen Mittelgebir-
gen, in: Helmfrid, S. (Hrsg.), Morphogenesis of the Agrarian
Cultural Landscape: Papers of the Vadstena Symposium at
the XIXth International Geographical Congress, Geografiska
Annaler 43, Stockholm, 17–25.
Born, M. 1967:
Langstreifenfluren in Nordhessen?, Zeitschrift für Agrarge-
schichte und Agrarsoziologie 15, 105–133.
Born, M. 1977:
Geographie der ländlichen Siedlungen I. Die Genese der
Siedlungsformen in Mitteleuropa. Stuttgart.
Born, M. 1979:
Acker- und Flurformen des Mittelalters nach Untersuchun-
gen von Flurwüstungen, in: Beck, H. – Denecke, D. – Jan-
kuhn, H. (Hrsg.), Untersuchungen zur eisenzeitlichen und
frühmittelalterlichen Flur in Mitteleuropa und ihrer Nutzung.
Teil I. Bericht über die Kolloquien der Kommission für die
Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas in den Jahren 1975
und 1976, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften
in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 3, 115, Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 3,
115. Göttingen, 310–337.
Born, M. 1980:
Formenreihen ländlicher Siedlungen, in: Born, M. (Hrsg.),
Siedlungsgenese und Kulturlandschaftsentwicklung in Mit-
teleuropa. Gesammelte Beiträge von Martin Born, Geographi-
sche Zeitschricht – Beiheft. Wiesbaden, 499–526.
Braasch, O. 1994:
Bilder von Bezgenriet, Stadt Göppingen, in: Planck, D. (Hrsg.),
Unterirdisches Baden-Württemberg. 250000 Jahre Geschich-
te und Archäologie im Luftbild. Stuttgart, 234–235.
Butzer, K. W. 1982:
Archaeology as human ecology. Cambridge.
RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Diepolder, G. 1988:
Aschheim im frühen Mittelalter II. Ortsgeschichtliche, sied-
lungs- und flurgenetische Beobachtungen im Raum Asch-
heim. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 32/2.
München.
Doneus, M. 2013:
Die hinterlassene Landschaft - Prospektion und Interpreta-
tion in der Landschaftsarchäologie. Mitteilungen der prähis-
torischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 78. Wien.
Doneus, M. – Briese, C. – Kühtreiber, T. 2008:
Flugzeuggetragenes Laserscanning als Werkzeug der archäo-
logischen Kulturlandschaftsforschung. Das Fallbeispiel
„Wüste“ bei Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, Niederösterreich,
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38, 137–156.
Dotterweich, M. 2005:
High-resolution reconstruction of a 1300 year old gully sys-
tem in northern Bavaria, Germany: a basis for modelling
long-term human-induced landscape evolution, The Holocene
15, 994–1005, http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract
/15/7/994 10.1191/0959683605hl873ra.
Eckmeier, E. – Gerlach, R. – Skjemstud, J. O. – Ehrmann, O. –
Schmidt, M. W. I. 2007:
Minor changes in soil organic carbon and charcoal concen-
tration detected in a temperate deciduous forest a year after
experimental slash-and-burn, Biogeosciences 4, 377–383.
Eckmeier, E. – Pätzold, S. – Lehndorff, E. – Gerlach, R. 2011:
Geochemische Untersuchungen von Böden zur Rekonstruk-
tion der prähistorischen Landnutzungsgeschichte, in: Bork,
H.-R. (Hrsg.), Umweltarchäologie - Naturkatastrophen und
Umweltwandel im archäologischen Befund. 3. Mitteldeut-
scher Archäologentag vom 07. bis 09. Oktober 2010. Tagun-
gen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale), 6.
Halle (Saale), 37–45.
Eisel, G. 1965:
Siedlungsgeographische Geländeforschungen im südlichen
Burgwald. Marburger Geographische Schriften 24. Marburg/
Lahn.
Entwistle, J. A. – Dodgshon, R. A. – Abrahams, P. W. 2000:
An investigation of former land-use activity through the phy-
sical and chemical analysis of soils from the Isle of Lewis,
Outer Hebrides, Archaeological Prospection 7, 171–188,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-0763(200009)7:3<171::AID-
ARP142>3.0.CO;2-G.
Evershed, R. P. 1993:
Biomolecular archaeology and lipids, World Archaeology 25,
74–93.
Ewald, K. C. 1969:
Agrarmorphologische Untersuchungen im Sundgau (Ober-
elsass) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Wölbäcker.
Inauguraldissertation Basel. Liestal.
Fingerlin, G. 1993:
Die archäologische Landesaufnahme der archäologischen
Denkmalpflege, Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 22,
55–64.
Frank, C. 1912:
Die Hochäcker. Bibliothek für Volks- und Heimatkunde, 87.
Kaufbeuren.
RURALIA X
351–370
Fries, J. C. 1995:
Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Agrartechnik auf den Britischen
Inseln und dem Kontinent. Eine vergleichende Studie. Inter-
nationale Archäologie, 26. Espelkamp.
Gebhardt, K. 1982:
Phosphatkartierung und bodenkundliche Geländeuntersu-
chungen zur Eingrenzung historischer Siedlungs- und Wirt-
schaftsflächen der Geestinsel Flögeln, Kreis Cuxhaven, Prob-
leme der Küstenforschung 14, 1–10.
Georges-Leroy, M. – Bock, J. – Dambrine, E. – Dupouey, J.-L.
2009:
Le massif forestier, objet pertinent pour la recherche arché-
ologique. L’exemple du massif forestier de Haye (Meurthe-et-
Moselle) 49 / 2–3 | 2009, Revue Géographique de l’Est 49,
http://rge.revues.org/1931.
Goguey, D. – Bénard, J. 2001/2002:
Un finage protohistorique et gallo-romain dans les forêts
communales du Châtillonnais (rive droite de la Digeanne,
Côte-d’Or) bilan de quatre années de prospection, Revue
d’archéologie de l’Est 51, 117–214.
Gradmann, R. 1913:
Siedlungs-Karte des Königreichs Württemberg. Maßstab
1:350000.
Gradmann, R. 1914:
Siedlungsgeographie des Königreichs Württemberg. Stuttgart.
Gradmann, R. 1947:
Markgenossenschaft und Gewanndorf, Berichte zur deut-
schen Landeskunde 5, 108–114.
Grootes, P. M. 2011:
Datierung von Böden und Sedimenten: Chancen und Gren-
zen, in: Bork, H.-R. (Hrsg.), Umweltarchäologie – Naturkata-
strophen und Umweltwandel im archäologischen Befund.
3. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 07. bis 09. Oktober
2010. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Hal-
le (Saale), 6. Halle (Saale), 47–56.
Grünewald, M. 2012:
Reiche Steinbruchbesitzer? Die villa in Axialhofanlage von
„Lungenkärchen“ bei Mendig (Lkr. Mayen-Koblenz) im Kon-
text der römischen Landnutzung, in: Grünewald, M. – Wen-
zel, S. (Hrsg.), Römische Landnutzung in der Eifel. Neue
Ausgrabungen und Forschungen. Tagung in Mayen, vom
3. bis zum 6. November 2011. RGZM-Tagungen, 16. Mainz,
159–179.
Grunwald, L. 2011:
Keramik für den europäischen Markt. Die römischen und
mittelalterlichen Töpfereien von Mayen/Eifel, in: Felgenhauer-
Schmiedt, S. – Hofer, N. – Kühtreiber, K. – Scharrer-Liška, G.
(Hrsg.), Keramik und Technik. Internat. Fachtagung Öster-
reichische Gesellschaft Mittelalterarchäologie Mautern 2010.
43. Internationales Symposium Keramikforschung, Beiträge
zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich, 27. Wien, 25–34.
Gunzelmann, T. 1987:
Die Erhaltung der historischen Kulturlandschaft. Angewand-
te Historische Geographie des ländlichen Raumes mit Bei-
spielen aus Franken. Bamberger Wirtschaftsgeographische
Arbeiten 4. Bamberg.
Gutmann, K. 1927:
Hochäcker bei Rastatt, Badische Fundberichte 8, 252–255.
367
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Haasis-Berner, A. 2001:
Wasserkünste, Hangkanäle und Staudämme im Mittelalter.
Eine archäologisch-historische Untersuchung zum Was-
serbau am Beispiel des Urgrabens am Kandel im mittleren
Schwarzwald. Archäologie und Geschichte, 5. Rahden/Westf.
Haversath, J.-B. 1984:
Die Agrarlandschaft im römischen Deutschland der Kaiser-
zeit (1.–4.Jh. n.Chr.). Passauer Schriften zur Geographie, 2.
Passau.
Hebsgaard, M. B. – Gilbert, M. T. P. – Arneborg, J. – Heyn, P.
– Allentoft, M. E. – Bunce, M. – Munch, K. – Schweger, C. –
Willerslev, E. 2009:
‘The Farm Beneath the Sand’ – an archaeological case study
on ancient ‘dirt’ DNA, Antiquity 83, 430–444.
Hildebrandt, H. 1980:
Studien zum Zelgenproblem. Untersuchungen über flürli-
chen Anbau aufgrund methodenkritischer Interpretationen
agrargeschichtlicher Quellen aus dem deutschsprachigen
Raum. Mainzer geographische Studien 14. Mainz.
Hildebrandt, H. (Hrsg.) 1994:
Hachenburger Beiträge zur angewandten historischen Geo-
graphie. („Kulturlandschaftsforschung im Wald“). Mainzer
geographische Studien 39. Mainz.
Historischer Verein von und für Oberbayern 1872:
Der historische Verein von und für Oberbayern hat nach-
stehende Fragen an die verschiedenen Alterthums- und Ge-
schichtsvereine gesendet und um mögliche Beantwortung
gebeten, Archiv für Geschichte und Alterthumskunde von
Oberfranken 12, 63–64.
Hömberg, A. 1935:
Die Entstehung der westdeutschen Flurformen. Blockgemen-
geflur, Streifenflur, Gewannflur. Berlin.
Hörter, F. 1999:
Alte Wege und Landwehren westlich von Mayen, Mayener Bei-
träge zur Heimatgeschichte 9, 29–42.
Jäger, H. 1978:
Der Beitrag der Historischen Geographie zur mittelalterli-
chen Archäologie, Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters
6, 7–32.
Jankuhn, H. 1957/58:
Ackerfluren der Eisenzeit und ihre Bedeutung für die frühe
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission 37/38, 148–214.
Janssen, W. 1965:
Königshagen, ein archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zur
Siedlungsgeschichte des südwestlichen Harzvorlandes. Quel-
len und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Niedersachsens 64.
Hildesheim.
Janssen, W. 1975:
Studien zur Wüstungsfrage im fränkischen Altsiedelland zwi-
schen Rhein, Mosel und Eifelnordrand. Bonner Jahrbücher,
Beiheft 35. Köln – Bonn.
Janssen, W. 1979:
Altfluren am Mittel- und Niederrhein, in: Beck, H. – Denec-
ke, D. – Jankuhn, H. (Hrsg.), Untersuchungen zur eisenzeit-
lichen und frühmittelalterlichen Flur in Mitteleuropa und
ihrer Nutzung. Teil I. Bericht über die Kolloquien der Kom-
mission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas in
368
351–370
den Jahren 1975 und 1976, Abhandlungen der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 3, 115. Göttingen,
338–375.
Jones, R. 2009:
Manure and the Medieval Social Order, in: Allen, M. J. –
Sharples, N. – O’Connor, T. (Hrsg.), Land and people. Papers
in memory of John G. Evans. Prehistoric society research pa-
per, 2. Oxford, 215–225.
Kastowsky-Priglinger, K. – Schreg, R. – Trinks, I. – Nau, E. –
Löcker, K. – Neubauer, W. 2013:
Long term integrated archaeological prospection on the Stu-
bersheimer Alb – giving meaning to a marginal landscape, in:
Neubauer, W. – Trinks, I. – Salisbury, R. B. – Einwögerer, C.
(Hrsg.), Archaeological Prospection. Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference – Vienna May 29th – June 2nd
2013. Wien, 99–100.
Keinath, W. 1951:
Orts- und Flurnamen in Württemberg. Stuttgart.
Keller, C. 1999:
Wölbackerrelikte bei Königswinter-Höneken, Archäologie im
Rheinland, 69–170.
Kern, H. 1966:
Siedlungsgeographische Geländeforschungen im Amönebur-
ger Becken und seinen Randgebieten. Ein Beitrag zur Erfor-
schung der mittelalterlichen Kulturlandschaftsentwicklung
in Nordhessen. Marburger Geographische Schriften 27. Mar-
burg/Lahn.
Krenzlin, A. – Reusch, L. 1961:
Die Entstehung der Gewannflur nach Untersuchungen im
nördlichen Unterfranken. Frankfurter Geographische Hefte,
31. Frankfurt am Main.
Landschaftsverband Rheinland – Arbeitskreis für Histori-
sche Kulturlandschaftsforschung in Mitteleuropa (ARKUM),
2005: Kulturlandschaft digital – Forschung und Anwendung.
15. Fachtagung des Umweltamtes (Landschaftsverband
Rheinland); 11. Jahrestagung der Arbeitsgruppe Angewandte
Historische Geographie. Beiträge zur Landesentwicklung 58.
Köln.
Lienemann, J. 1989:
Anthropogene Böden Nordwestdeutschlands in ihrer Bezie-
hung zu anthropogenen Bodennutzungssystemen, Probleme
der Küstenforschung 17, 77–117.
Lorch, W. 1939:
Neue Methoden der Siedlungsgeschichte, Geographische Zeit-
schrift 45, 294–305, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27815589.
McNetting, R. C. 1981:
Balancing on an Alp. Ecological change and continuity in a
Swiss mountain community. Cambridge.
Meitzen, A. 1895:
Siedlung und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen und Ostgerma-
nen, der Kelten, Römer, Finnen und Slawen. Berlin.
Morrissey, C. 2005:
Historische Kulturlandschaften in Baden-Württemberg.
Landschaften und Themen, Akteure und Probleme, in: Den-
zer, V. – Hasse, J. – Kleefeld, K.-D. – Recker, U. (Hrsg.), Kultur-
landschaft. Wahrnehmung – Inventarisation – Regionale Bei-
spiele, Fundberichte aus Hessen, Beiheft 4. Bonn, 343–360.
RURALIA X
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
Mortensen, H. – Scharlau, K. 1949:
Der siedlungskundliche Wert der Kartierung von Wüstungs-
fluren, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göt-
tingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 11, 303–331.
Müller-Wille, M. 1979:
Flursysteme der Bronze- und Eisenzeit in den Nordseegebie-
ten. Zum Stand der Forschung über ‚celtic fields‘, in: Beck, H.
– Denecke, D. – Jankuhn, H. (Hrsg.), Untersuchungen zur ei-
senzeitlichen und frühmittelalterlichen Flur in Mitteleuropa
und ihrer Nutzung. Teil I. Bericht über die Kolloquien der
Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuro-
pas in den Jahren 1975 und 1976, Abhandlungen der Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 3, 115.
Göttingen, 196–239.
Müller-Wille, W. 1944:
Langstreifenflur und Drubbel. Ein Beitrag zur Siedlungsgeo-
graphie Westgermaniens, Deutsches Archiv für Landes- und
Volksforschung, 9–44.
Nitz, H.-J. 1974:
Regelmäßige Langstreifenfluren und fränkische Staatskoloni-
sation. Eine Untersuchung ihrer Zusammenhänge im westli-
chen Oberrheingebiet und anderen deutschen Landschaften,
in: Nitz, H.-J. (Hrsg.), Historisch-genetische Siedlungsfor-
schung. Genese und Typen ländlicher Siedlungen und Flur-
formen. Wege der Forschung 300. Darmstadt, 334–360.
Nitz, H.-J. 1976:
Konvergenz und Evolution in der Entstehung ländlicher
Siedlungsformen, in: Uhlig, H. – Ehlers, E. (Hrsg.), 40. Deut-
scher Geographentag Innsbruck 1975. Tagungsbericht und
wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen. Verhandlungen des Deut-
schen Geographentags. Wiesbaden, 208–277.
Oelmann, F. 1928:
Ein gallo-römischer Bauernhof bei Mayen, Bonner Jahrbü-
cher 133, 51–140.
Ohlenschlager, F. 1882:
Ueber Alter, Herkunft und Verbreitung der Hochäcker in Bay-
ern, Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urgeschichte Bayerns 5,
293–305.
Opitz, R. S. – Cowley, D. C. 2013:
Interpreting archaeological topography. Airborne laser scan-
ning, 3D data and ground observation. Oxford.
Otremba, E. 1951:
Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Flurformen im oberdeut-
schen Altsiedelland, Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 9,
363–381.
Ranke, H. von 1892:
Ueber Hochäcker, Beiträge zur Anthropologie und Urge-
schichte Bayerns 10, 141–180.
Reinecke, P. 1911:
Zum Alter der Hochäcker in Süddeutschland, Korrespon-
denzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Eth-
nologie und Urgeschichte 42, 2–6.
Schaaff, H. 2008:
The Origin and Formation of an Industrial Landscape – the
Ancient Quarry and Mining District between the Eifel and the
Rhine, in: Bartels, C. – Küpper-Eichas, C. (Hrsg.), Cultural
Heritage and Landscapes in Europe – Landschaften – kultu-
relles Erbe in Europa. Internationale Konferenz 6.–10. Juni
RURALIA X
351–370
2007 im Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum. Veröffent-
lichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum,
161. Bochum, 499–508.
Scharlau, K. 1938:
Zur Frage des Begriffes ‚Wüstung‘, Geographische Anzeiger
39, 247–252.
Scharlau, K. 1961:
Flurrelikte und Flurformengenese in Westdeutschland. Er-
gebnisse, Probleme und allgemeine Ausblicke, in: Helmfrid, S.
(Hrsg.), Morphogenesis of the Agrarian Cultural Landscape:.
Papers of the Vadstena Symposium at the XIXth Internatio-
nal Geographical Congress (1961), Geografiska Annaler 43,
Stockholm, 264–276.
Scharlau, K. 1963:
Die Bedeutung der Wüstungskartierung für die Flurformen-
forschung, Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 31, 216–
220.
Schenk, W. 2005:
„Kulturlandschaft“ als Forschungskonzept und Planungs-
auftrag – aktuelle Themenfelder der Kulturlandschaftsförde-
rung, in: Denzer, V. – Hasse, J. – Kleefeld, K.-D. – Recker, U.
(Hrsg.), Kulturlandschaft. Wahrnehmung – Inventarisation
– Regionale Beispiele, Fundberichte aus Hessen, Beiheft 4.
Bonn, 15–33.
Schenk, W. 2011:
Historische Geographie. Darmstadt.
Schlett, J. 1832:
Ueber die Hochäcker in Altbayern. [s.l.].
Schlüter, O. 1903:
Die Siedelungen im nordöstlichen Thüringen. Berlin.
Schlüter, O. 1952:
Die Siedlungsräume Mitteleuropas in frühgeschichtlicher
Zeit. 1. Einführung in die Methodik der Altlandschaftsfor-
schung. Forschungen zur deutschen Landeskunde 63. Re-
magen.
Schreg, R. 2006a:
Dorfgenese in Südwestdeutschland. Das Renninger Becken
im Mittelalter. Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Baden-Würt-
temberg 76. Stuttgart.
Schreg, R. 2006b:
Mittelalterliche und neuzeitliche Funde vom Heidengraben,
in: Knopf, T. (Hrsg.), Der Heidengraben bei Grabenstetten.
Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Besiedlungsgeschichte.
Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorische Archäologie 141.
Bonn, 201–210.
Schreg, R. 2009:
Development and abandonment of a cultural landscape –
archaeology and environmental history of medieval settle-
ments in the northern Black Forest, Ruralia 7, Turnhout,
315–333.
Schreg, R. 2011:
Die Krisen des Späten Mittelalter – Perspektiven, Probleme,
Potentiale, in: Daim, F. – Gronenborn, D. – Schreg, R. (Hrsg.),
Strategien zum Überleben. Umweltkrisen und ihre Bewälti-
gung. RGZM-Tagungen, 11. Mainz, 195–214.
Schreg, R. 2012:
Kontinuität und Fluktuation in früh- und hochmittelalterli-
369
Schreg, Mittelalterliche Feldstrukturen in deutschen Mittelgebirgslandschaften
chen Siedlungen, in: Fey, C. – Krieb, S. (Hrsg.), Adel und Bau-
ern in der Gesellschaft des Mittelalters. Internationales Kol-
loquium zum 65. Geburtstag von Werner Rösener. Studien
und Texte zur Geistes- und Sozialgeschichte des Mittelalters,
6. Korb, 137–164.
Schreg, R. 2013:
Würzbach – ein Waldhufendorf im Nordschwarzwald, in:
Theune-Vogt, C. – Scharrer-Liška, G. – Huber, E. H. – Küh-
treiber, T. (Hrsg.), Stadt – Land – Burg. Festschrift für Sa-
bine Felgenhauer-Schmiedt zum 70. Geburtstag. Interna-
tionale Archäologie, Studia honoraria 34. Rahden, Westf,
189–202.
Schreg, R. 2014:
Ecological approaches in medieval rural archaeology, Euro-
pean Journal of Archaeology 17, 83–119.
Schröder, K. H. 1941:
Die Flurformen in Württemberg und Hohenzollern. Inaugu-
ral-Dissertation. Tübingen.
Schwarz, K. 1989:
Archäologisch-topographische Studien zur Geschichte früh-
mittelalterlicher Fernwege und Ackerfluren im Alpenvorland
zwischen Isar, Inn und Chiemsee. Materialhefte zur Bayeri-
schen Vorgeschichte A, 45. Kallmünz/Opf.
Seel, K. A. 1962:
Orts- und Flurwüstungen der Eifel. Ein Arbeitsbericht für
das Jahr 1962 zum Forschungsauftrag: ‚Die Altfelder der Ei-
fel‘, Bonner Jahrbuch 162, 455–479.
Seel, K. A. 1963a:
Römerzeitliche Fluren im Mayener Stadtwald, Bonner Jahr-
buch 163, 317–341.
Seel, K. A. 1963b:
Wüstungskartierungen und Flurformengenese im Riedesel-
land des nordöstlichen Vogelsberges. Marburger Geographi-
sche Schriften, 17. Marburg.
Seidenspinner, W. 1991:
Historische Wiesenwässerung im Teinachtal. Relikte der
Agrar- und Technikgeschichte zwischen Funktionsverlust
und Zeugniswert, Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 20,
136–144.
Sittler, B. 2004:
Revealing historical landscapes by using airborne laserscan-
ning: a 3-d model of ridge and furrow in forests near Rastatt
(Germany), in: Thies, M. (Hrsg.), Laser-Scanners for Forest
and Landscape Assessment. Proceedings of the ISPRS work-
ing group VIII/2, Freiburg, Germany, October, 3–6 2004. In-
ternational Archives of Photogrammetry, remote sensing and
spatial information sciences Vol. 36, part 8/W2. Freiburg,
258–261.
Sittler, B. – Hauger, K. 2005:
Das Laserscanning im Dienste der Kulturlandschaftsfor-
Rainer Schreg, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum (RGZM), Ernst-Ludwig Platz 2, D-55116 Mainz, Germany,
Schreg@rgzm.de
370
351–370
schung am Beispiel der unter Wald fossilierten Wölbäcker
von Rastatt, in: Denzer, V. – Hasse, J. – Kleefeld, K.-D. – Re-
cker, U. (Hrsg.), Kulturlandschaft. Wahrnehmung – Inventari-
sation – Regionale Beispiele. Fundberichte aus Hessen, Bei-
heft 4. Bonn, 229–235.
Steinbach, F. 1974:
Gewanndorf und Einzelhof, in: Nitz, H.-J. (Hrsg.), Historisch-
genetische Siedlungsforschung. Genese und Typen ländli-
cher Siedlungen und Flurformen. Wege der Forschung, 300.
Darmstadt, 42–65.
Uhlig, H. – Lienau, C. (Hrsg.) 1978:
Flur und Flurformen. Materialien zur Terminologie der Ag-
rarlandschaft, 1. Gießen.
Wagner, G. A. 2008:
Archäochronometrie: Lumineszenzdatierung, in: Haupt-
mann, A. – Pingel, V. (Hrsg.), Archäometrie. Methoden und
Anwendungsbeispiele. Stuttgart, 171–185.
Wenzel, S. 2012:
Villa und Burgus von Obermendig „im Winkel“ (Lkr. Mayen-
Koblenz) im Kontext der römischen Besiedlung des Seg-
bachtals, in: Grünewald, M. – Wenzel, S. (Hrsg.), Römische
Landnutzung in der Eifel. Tagung in Mayen, vom 3. bis zum
6. November 2011. RGZM-Tagungen, 16. Mainz, 131–158.
Wenzel, S. 2013:
Mittelalterliche bis neuzeitliche Wölbäcker bei Kottenheim.
Die Eifel 108 (2), 30–32.
Wessel, I. – Wohlfarth, C. – Gerlach, R. 2008:
Archäologische Forschungen auf der Rheinbacher Lößplatte.
Ein Projekt zur Prospektion in einem geographischen Klein-
raum. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 62. Mainz am Rhein.
Woithe, F. – Rösler, H. 2001:
Bodenkundliche Untersuchung überdünter Wölbäcker in
den Fluren von Merzdorf und Dissenchen, Tagebauvorfeld
Cottbus-Nord, Ausgrabungen im Niederlausitzer Braunkoh-
lenrevier 8, 197–202.
Zimmermann, W. H. 1979:
Untersuchungen zur Landwirtschaft während der Römi-
schen Kaiserzeit in der Siedlungskammer Flögeln, Kr. Cux-
haven, in: Beck, H. – Denecke, D. – Jankuhn, H. (Hrsg.), Un-
tersuchungen zur eisenzeitlichen und frühmittelalterlichen
Flur in Mitteleuropa und ihrer Nutzung. Teil I. Bericht über
die Kolloquien der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mit-
tel- und Nordeuropas in den Jahren 1975 und 1976, Abhand-
lungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-
Hist. Kl. 3, 115. Göttingen, 240–249.
Zückert, H. 2003:
Allmende und Allmendaufhebung. Vergleichende Studien zum
Spätmittelalter bis zu den Agrarreformen des 18./19. Jahr-
hunderts. Quellen und Forschungen zur Agrargeschichte, 47.
Stuttgart.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 371–384

Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework

of settlement and environmental archaeology.
Methods and research practice at the Stubersheimer Alb
(Swabian Alb, Southern Germany)
Perspektiven der Flurnamenanalyse in der Landschafts- und Umweltarchäologie.
Methodik und Praxis am Beispiel der Stubersheimer Alb (Schwäbische Alb)

Les perspectives de l’analyse toponymique en archéologie des paysages

et de l’environnement. Méthodologie et mise en pratique à travers l’exemple
de la Stubersheimer Alb (Jura souabe, Allemagne du Sud)

Iris Nießen

1. Introduction
For a very long time toponyms have had a role in
landscape studies as an important source of informa-
tion. Archaeologists are frequently confronted with
field names: they find them in historical maps, inven-
tory registers and other written sources. They often
find a striking correlation between field names and
archaeological sites. However, there are still only a few
archaeological studies which use toponyms as an inte-
grative source of information about past agricultural
practices and landscape change. This article reflects
on the possibilities of integrating toponyms into ar-
chaeological landscape analysis.
Toponyms refer to local characteristics of distinct
areas within the landscape. Examples from Southwest
Germany are: Bei Waasenbronnen, Schwendi, Stei-
gacker, Heiligen Acker, Mähdle, Am Rothen Rain, Gru-
ben Acker, Lange Acker, Dürre Wiesen, Untere Wiesen,
Angstmaad, Das lange Gewann, Asam, Brand, Lehlen,
Bärenlauch, Auf dem G’schwem, Holder, Schwarzäker,
Buchacker, Affallrach, Im G’meindle, Massholderacker,
Bei den Birnbäumen, Hofacker, Längenwiesen, Maada-
cker, Brombeeracker, Bernlauch, Weinhalde…
They make reference to land-use and the conditions
of the landscape at first glance. The name Heiligen
Acker for example refers to clerical possession. Mähdle
is an indication of grassland, often situated on aban-
doned agrarian fields near deserted settlements. Field
names are a rich resource especially for research on
agrarian organisation. For example Egarten means a
single field outside the farmland with ley-farming (in
German Feldgraswirtschaft). The name Längenwie-
senacker is an indication of a ridged field, which was
cultivated by a mouldboard plough (in German Beet-
pflug) (Küster 1999, 181–182). Furthermore, the name
implies a change from meadow to farmland. These ex-
amples illustrate the coexistence of different field sys-
tems, while the toponym, das lange Gewann identifies
the method of compulsory crop rotation (Küster 1999,
184).
The aim of this article is to point out the potential
of field names for archaeological issues and to demon-
strate methodsof approaching them. The methodologi-
cal background is illustrated by practical examples.
The basis for them is an on-going project at Stuber-
sheimer Alb, dealing with the Roman and medieval
landscape. The project starts with landscape archae-
ology and environmental archaeology, but aims for a
more interdisciplinary perspective. The research area
is located on the eastern Swabian Alb in Southern
Germany on 670 to 685 metres above sea level (Fig. 1).
The geological bedrock consists mostly of Jura lime-
stone, a part of the Southwest German Escarpment
Landscape. Dry valleys and karst formations are typi-
cal of the project area. Since 1960s the local teacher
and amateur archaeologist, Albert Kley has observed
construction sites and obtained a lot of archaeological
finds from Stubersheimer Alb (Schreg 2007, 84–124).
Based on his work surveys and small-scale excava-
tions started in 2003 (Schreg 2005, 181–183; 2009b,
57–84; Schreg – Behrendt 2011, 263–272) and are
now managed by the RGZM at Mayence. The research
programme aims to provide a case study of regional
settlement changes, especially the genesis of medi-
eval villages and late medieval deserted villages. Ar-
chaeological surveys, large-scale geophysical prospec-
tions, which are currently realised in cooperation with
the Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 371–384.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110477
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
Prospection and Virtual Archaeology in Vienna (Kas-
towsky – Priglinger et al. 2013), as well as an analysis
of written sources and geographical information, indi-
cate several phases of land-use. It is not the intention
of this article, to present an overview of this project,
but to use the specific example of this project to dem-
onstrate the potential and some principles of the anal-
ysis of field names within an archaeological context.
372
371–384
Fig. 1. General map, investigation area Stubers-
heimer Alb (Suabian Alb, Southern Germany)
with the villages Stubersheim, Schalkstetten
and Bräunisheim.
Base map after Schreg 2009b, 61, Fig. 29.
2. Research history
Field names in Germany have a long research histo-
ry. In 1848 Jacob Grimm (1785–1863) was one of the
first to realise the importance of field names (Sondereg-
ger 1977, 126). However, the research on field names
was initially just used as an auxiliary science for lo-
cal history, history of agriculture, history of law and
RURALIA X
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
settlement geography. In the late 19th century field
names were increasingly understood as a treasury
of lost words and were used mainly within philology.
Some examples of the oldest archive of field names
are from 1902 of the Sächsische Komission für Ge-
schichte in the Dresdner public record office (Dresd-
ner Hauptstaatsarchiv) and the large-scale collection of
field names from Edward Schröder in the year 1908
(Eichler et al. 1995, 71–72). During this time the jour-
nal Nachrichtenblatt für Flurnamenforschung was
also established (Eichler et al. 1995, 72). In the 1920s
research on the origin and change of field names de-
veloped and numerous regional studies were realised
(e.g. Dölker 1982).
Field names played an important role in many early
archaeological studies, for example Paret 1932 in con-
text of Roman sites. But in the last century research
on field names was affected by rather romantic inter-
pretations, especially concerning ethnic questions. For
example, nearly every older collection of field names
contains chapters about pagan sacred places and peo-
ple of prehistoric times (Keinath 1951, 163–179). Inter-
pretations in the light of romanticism linked names to
ruins, castles and to a remote past in general. In fact,
there are many examples, where archaeological sites
are reflected in toponyms. It proved, however, difficult
to identify them as a continued tradition and their age
remained unclear in most cases. Because of the ro-
mantic interpretation, archaeologists today seem very
reserved in their treatment of toponyms and there is
hardly any archaeological study which investigates
them. From an international perspective the volume,
published by Ronald L. Baker (1991) affords an over-
view from a linguistic position, although it is about
names on the American continent and without an
archaeological point of view. In this volume Frederic
G. Cassidy (1991, 32–43). tried to establish a general
principles of how to collect local place names.
When focussing on south-west Germany, there are
few essays about field names in archaeology, and most
of them were written decades ago (e.g. Eberl 1921; Paret
1932, 249–256). Some more work has been done in his-
torical geography using field names for the reconstruc-
tion of past cultural landscapes. For example Jürgen
C. Tesdorpf in his study on the genesis of the cultural
landscape at western lake Constance used toponyms
to reconstruct those areas where forest was cleared
during the Middle Ages (Tesdorpf 1972). Among more
recent studies dealing with toponyms and archaeology
in Southern Germany is remarkably an English article
by the anthropologist and archaeologist Matthew Leigh
Murray (2006), which illustrates the importance of to-
ponyms for archaeology using the example of Iron Age
square-ditched enclosures (Viereckschanzen in Ger-
man). These monuments are often located in places
RURALIA X
371–384
with the name An der Schanz. Realising this correla-
tion, it was possible to identify more archaeological
sites, although there were no indications for these sites
to be seen above the ground (Murray 2006, 160–162).
In general, the use of field names within archaeo-
logical research is still restricted to the identification
of specific monuments and deserted sites. They are,
however, seldom used as a source to understand past
land-use practices. Existing attempts most often focus
on specific phenomena and single sites. A methodo-
logical concept, which integrates the information tak-
en from toponyms into the broader approach of land-
scape archaeology is still lacking.
To conclude: currently toponyms gain little attention
in archaeology. However, they have many affinities to
research questions of landscape archaeology, as well as
environmental archaeology. Toponyms do not only help
to understand past land-use practices and agricultural
technologies, they also give plenty of information on
how people in the past recognised their surroundings.
As landscape archaeology and environmental archaeol-
ogy seek a holistic, interdisciplinary approach, it is cru-
cial to take place-names more and more into account
and to develop a pragmatic methodology.
3. Sources of toponyms and research
questions
There are, of course, several heuristic problems asso-
ciated with field names, which may have caused some
reservations by archaeologists against field names. It
is necessary to pay special attention to problems of
source critique and to develop some methodological
questions, which will be addressed in later sections.
Field names are known from various sources – his-
torical maps, written documents and oral tradition. Us-
ing them for purposes of landscape history requires a
thorough collection, which most often has been done
by local amateurs. Most collections of field names are
therefore not easily accessible. Most of them are only
available as paper sheets in some archives and are not
published. A very current collection was established
between 1980 and 2002 for the German Federal State
of Hessen. In addition to place- and field names, his-
torical drawings, maps and written sources are open to
the public. This collection is available via internet (Lan-
desgeschichtliches Informationssystem Hessen (LAGIS)
http://lagis.online.uni-marburg.de/de/ – last accessed
2.12.2013) and therefore enables reasonable regional
studies and stimulates a comparative approach.
There are several problems with the understanding
and the spatial reference of field names themselves,
which became relevant when we use them as a prima-
ry source.
373
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
1. The meaning of a name can change. That means
the impact can change in the course of time or modi-
fications to the name are made by people who are
unfamiliar with the regional dialect or the peculiari-
ties of past language. Examples of this difficulty are
numerous. Richmond exemplified it with the help of
the place name ‘Westerville’ in central Ohio: ‘Though at
first glance this name seems commonplace […] names
employing –ville as a generic suffix normally precede
it with a personal or a family name as a specific, and
Wester is hardly a commonplace family name. An
investigation of the history of this name shows […]
that the place was first known as Westerveldt’s, later
as Westerveldt’s PO, and just before its present form,
simply as Westerveldt, all names deriving from one
M. Westerveldt, an early Dutch settler […] The whole
process was aided […] by the phonetic similarity of the
two suffixes [-ville and –veldt] […] (Richmond 1991, 25).
How difficult it can be to get the origin of a name, also
is also demonstrated by Dorothea Fastnacht by the
example of the place name Hundshaupten, located at
the northern Franconian Alb. Fastnacht discusses the
interpretation of a pagan sacrifice place, though the
origin is from a specific topographical situation, a un-
fertile ground and a spring as well as the relation to a
magistracy (Fastnacht 2010, 87–106).
These examples illustrate that place- and field names
can be interpreted wrong at first sight. To obviate this,
it is necessary to collect all available information and
to follow the changes of the names over time. In this
case the cooperation with linguists is necessary. Cas-
sidy established criteria to record field names: it is
necessary to collect the present form of the field name,
the type of feature, other spellings the name had in
the past (with dates), the origin and explanation of the
name, a description of the feature (location, changes
and undergone), other names the feature has or has
had (with dates) and all sources, such as maps and
written sources (Cassidy 1991, 32–33). It is always es-
sential to inspect the place concerned.
The next problem is related to the spatial dimension:
2. The area with a specific name can shift its loca-
tion and extension. As a result of a modern consoli-
dation of farming, the size of field areas is growing in
general. Changes in the shape of the plots may occur,
for example from square fields to long striped fields.
Therefore many field names may have been lost; oth-
ers refer today to a bigger area than before. Occasion-
ally, it can be observed that names even change their
location. In order to approach this complex issue it is
necessary to look through all historical maps and writ-
ten sources again, as well as getting an overview of the
local economic and settlement history.
Landscape archaeologists as well as environmental
archaeologists are especially interested in reconstruct-
374
371–384
ing past landscapes at a distinct date. In this case spe-
cifically it is a major problem that:
3. Field names developed at different times. It is
still very difficult to date the origin of toponyms. This
matter is discussed further in the section below, Chro-
nology of field names.
These difficulties should not be an excuse to ignore
field names as a historical source. Instead, archae-
ologists have to find ways to deal with them and to
integrate them into the framework of their own data.
Landscape studies, no matter whether initiated by ar-
chaeologists, geographers, historians or environmen-
talists need to include all available sources. Whereas in
the past single names have been related to archaeologi-
cal sites, we need a more complex methodology for the
integration of names into a common, interdisciplinary
research. Toponyms must be analysed in comparison
of different sources, such as historic inventory regis-
ters, maps and archaeological sources.
For landscape archaeology we need to evaluate the
potential of a regional analysis of field names for the
understanding of landscapes and past environments.
Can general methods be worked out to deal with field
names in archaeology? How can field names be dated?
How can field names be integrated in a holistic perspec-
tive of the landscape? Is it possible to get more detailed
information about specific forms of agrarian land-use
practices by mapping field names? What do field names
tell us about the process of agrarian technology?
4. Methodological case studies
from the Stubersheimer Alb
Analysis of field names can be realised on a small
scale as well as on a large scale. While analysis on a
small scale investigates the meaning of a single field
name, analysis on a large scale deals with contextual
understanding, combining archaeological, written and
geographical information. For a comprehensive study
it is necessary to integrate them into one regional con-
text. Some reconsideration on these questions is best
to be done on the basis of a distinct landscape study.
Toponyms at the Stubersheimer Alb are known from
present-day, as well as from historical maps, from oral
tradition and from the early modern and medieval writ-
ten record. They have already been partially listed and
described in local publications (Dietrich 1981; 1984;
1993). In the course of the ongoing archaeological
project, field names have been recorded within a Geo-
graphical Information System. For this study the QGIS
program was used as technical background. Rainer
Schreg has already studied the meanings of some to-
ponyms and the names of deserted villages (Schreg
2009b, 58–60, 76–77; 2013a).
RURALIA X
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement 371–384

Fig. 2. Field names with references to flax production north-western of Bräunisheim, Stubersheimer Alb (Suabian Alb, Southern Germany). Field map
of the Kingdom Württemberg, first edition 1818.

4.1 Analysis on a small scale
On a small scale field names are analysed through
their meaning and linguistic changes. The name can
be used to identify specifics of economic practices, to-
pography, geology, flora and fauna as well as archaeo-
logical sites.
Examples for toponyms in the study area Stuber-
sheimer Alb referring to economic sectors are the name
Röse, indicating the processing of flax, bei den Birnbäu-
men and bei den Baumgärten for fruit-growing and
Weinhalde as proof, that, in spite of the unfavourable
climate conditions at the Swabian Alb, wine was grown,
possibly for sacramental purposes. The name Schwen-
di indicates a specific form of forest management in a
crossover between forest, field and meadow (Keinath
1951, 86). Small-scale geological situations can also be
identified. For example auf dem G’schwemm refers to
a field with wet conditions in contrast to Schwarzacker,
which names very fertile soil. A reference for fauna is
for example Schnepfenlucke, a name for a woodcock,
which prefers a marshy ground (Keinath 1951, 83, 142).
The example of flax production will be examined in
detail. References to flax on the Stubersheimer Alb can
be found northwest of Bräunisheim. There are field
names like Röse, Rösewiesen and Rösegrund, which

RURALIA X 375
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
describes the ‘Röste’, also called Röthe/Rotten, during
the flax production (Fig. 2).
The harvesting of flax takes place in August and
September in general. During the ‘Röste’ the bast fibres
are trackled from their natural bonding with the wood,
by destroying the tracky pecting through putrefaction
(Knöchel – Vogler 2001, 105). In this context the field
name Wiesenröste indicates the technique of ‘Tauröste’,
in which the flax is spread over a meadow to subject it
to the weather (Popp 1936, 310). An alternative method,
the ‘Wasserröste’ happens in pits, lakes and some-
times also in rivers. For this the flax is plunged into
the water for seven to 14 days and weighed down with
planks or stones (retting) (Knöchel – Vogler 2001, 106).
The rectangular pits, in German called ‘Flachsröstgru-
ben’, were built in a row and adapted to the shape of the
flax. There are still scores of pits in long parallel lines
in the Lower Rhine region in Germany (Krüger 1986,
523–533). The field name Rösewiesen in the northwest
of Bräunisheim indicates the technique ‘Tauröste’.
Nevertheless it cannot be ruled out that the method
of ‘Wasserröste’ was also practised, maybe at the field
Rösegrund, which is located in a natural depression.
North of the fields Röse, Rösewiesen and Rösegrund a
field revealed rectangular pits in parallel lines during
the geomagnetic surveys (Kastowsky-Priglinger et al.
2013). At first sight it seems to be obvious to interpret
them as pits for flax (‘Wasserröste’), due to the strik-
ingly short distance to the fields named above. But
it is also possible that the pits were used for torrefy-
ing. Such simple pits were not only for the roasting of
cereal, malt and fruit, but were also used during the
production of flax. After the production step ‘Röste’ it
was necessary to dry the flax to make it stiff enough
for breaking and dissolving fibre and wood (Knöchel –
Vogler 2001, 106). This specific form of drying is nec-
essary for the method ‘Tauröste’, which may be rep-
resented by the field name Wiesenröse, owing to the
seasonal changes and the accompanying wet weather
after the time-consuming process. The structures near
Bräunisheim are situated at a small hill, which is an
uncommon situation for flax roasting. Due to geologi-
cal situation, the place however may have been origi-
nally wet. Similar rows of rectangular pits like at Bräu-
nisheim are often explained as fire-pits at ritual places
of the Hallstatt period, Bronze Age and early Iron Age
(Klein 1988, 65–68; Moddermann 1986, 7–11; Planck
1990, 69–96; Röhrig 1993, 47–64; Honeck 2009). How-
ever, this phenomenon cannot be invoked at this par-
ticular location. Without an archaeological excavation
a definite interpretation of these structures is not pos-
sible, but the surrounding field names provide at least
some references for interpretation.
Taken together field names prove the processing of
flax northwest of Bräunisheim, and refer to the ques-
376
371–384
tion which techniques were used locally. The small-
scale analysis did not yield any conclusive evidence as
to when flax was produced in Bräunisheim. There is
however a rental of the hospital in the nearby town of
Geislingen, written 1524, which already mentions the
Rösengrund, providing a valuable terminus ante quem.
4.2 Analysis on a large scale
Analysis on a large scale allows the investigatation
of field names in larger regional contexts. The use of
a geographical information system is very helpful, be-
cause all relevant information can be consolidated and
illustrated very easily. A comprehensive GIS database
enables handling different research questions. All avail-
able information about field names are to be collected
after the standards established by Cassidy (1991) (see
above). They are to be compared with historical maps,
archaeological sites, aerial photos, geomagnetic and
GPR surveys, airborne laserscans as well with topog-
raphy and geology. The combination of all information
provides the basis for a wide variety of interpretations.
For a large-scale analysis it is useful to group single
field names into spatial and functional clusters. The
classification of the cluster of names depends on the
research question. For the exemple research area in
the Stubersheimer Alb the following information and
interpretations were recorded in the database:
1. Linguistic criteria, like the etymology or the
change of a name over time;
2. Superior category, which is often the radical (ex-
amples: the name Untere Wiesen [lower meadows] is
the category ‘Wiese’ or auf der gemeinen Weide [at the
common meadow] is ‘Weide’ and so on);
3. Different sources, where the field name is men-
tioned for example in written sources and historical
maps;
4. Interpretation of land-use due to field names (like
agrarian fields, grassland, meadow, forest, handcraft);
5. Interpretation of social structure (reference of
common land, manorial land, fiefdom, ecclesiastic
property). For example Brühl refers to manorial mead-
ows close to the settlement. Burrach may refer to the
location of a small castle (Burg);
6. Interpretation of topography, geology, flora and
fauna (for example Dürre Wiesen for infertile space,
references for sink holes, wetlands and dry areas);
7. Evidence of water supply (like beim Waasenbron-
nen);
8. Names with indications of archaeological sites
(like deserted villages, charcoal pile, mining). Exam-
ples are Ödenweiler, Berlingen, Wohlgradweiler;
9. Land-use of the 19th century based on historical
maps.
RURALIA X
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement 371–384

Fig. 3. Investigation area Stubersheimer Alb (Suabian Alb, Southern Germany). 1 Illustration of field names according to land-use; 2 land-use during
the 19th century. After field map of Kingdom Württemberg, first edition 1818.

This data sheet can be customised to meet the re-
quirements of specific research questions.
Regarding changes of land-use, we may map all field
names with references to farming, forest, cleared land,
grassland and meadows, wine growing, fruit-growing
or handicraft. A comparison with the situation in the
19th century, known from the first land ordnance sur-
vey in the 1830s (Fig. 3) indicates, that fruit-growing
was located only in the northern area of the village
Schalkstetten and that a lot of meadows became farm-
land prior to the 19th-century maps. The consistent
use of the large forest areas over time is also a striking
phenomenon. There is a considerable number of sites
with names of forest clearances situated between the
existing villages, which seem to indicate an expansion
of the settlement area. This is likely connected to the
development of nucleated settlements and population
growth during the High Middle Ages (Fig. 4).
Place-names also contribute to our knowledge of
the regional settlement development. A combination of
archaeological sites, analysis of 19th-century land or-
ganisation (comp. Schreg 2013a), place-names related
to deserted villages or to specific social aspects of the
land (Brühl, Burrach) (Fig. 5) allows for a complete re-
construction of the settlement structure and also gives
a rough outline of settlement changes.
These specific examples illustrate the possibilities
of GIS-analysis of field names for the study of land-
scape and settlements. It also gives some insights into
agrarian practices, which often influenced the naming
of the land, indicating a utilitarian perspective of for-
mer inhabitants on their surrounding landscape.
6. Identification of archaeological sites
Within the research area of Stubersheimer Alb there
are several field names which suggest the existence of
archaeological sites. For example in der Eisengrube in-
dicates the extraction of iron ore. Archaeological finds
from the Stubersheimer Alb include huge amounts of
slag, indicating the importance of iron smelting dur-
ing the early Middle Ages. In contrast to neighbouring
regions where there are plenty of extraction pits, none
of them is yet known from the Stubersheimer Alb.
Kohlholz indicates a charcoal kiln. Wolfsgrube refers to
a hunting pit. Beim Waasen Bronnen, Bronnenwiesen

RURALIA X 377
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
Fig. 4. Settlement development and land-use at investigation area Stubersheimer Alb (Suabian Alb, Southern Germany).
and bei Steinbronnen are valuable indications for past
water resources. As the hydrology of the study area is
complex due to the karst and some Miocene sediment,
creating small aquifers, this provides information on
the past situation. The locations of early medieval set-
tlements are completely different from the late medi-
eval villages in relation to the water. This indicates that
there may have been some changes either in the avail-
ability of water or in the human preferences for wells
in contrast to springs (Schreg 2009b, 65–66). Many
toponyms and names for forest clearances suggest de-
serted sites (Fig. 5). However, not only single names,
but also the combination of different field names may
indicate an archaeological site. For example complex-
es of field names with indications of forest clearance
and manorial land or fields, which are not integrated
in the field system of the 19th century, as for exam-
ple near Burrach south of Stubersheim (comp. Schreg
2013a). Other indications are gardens located in some
distance from the modern villages. It is also noticeable
that deserted sites are often situated in areas which
were later used as meadows.
For example, pitfalls for wolves are demonstrate the
identification of archaeological sites in more detail. At
Stubersheimer Alb the corresponding field name Wolf-
sgrube is located between the villages of Stubersheim
and Bräunisheim.
Pitfalls for wolves were used from the early middle
Ages until the 19th century (Fig. 6). Interestingly, the
knowledge of this specific hunting method is nearly
forgotten today, although it was very common. More
than 40 locations, often with several pitfalls are known
378
371–384
from Southern Germany alone. Most of them are re-
lated to field names like Wolfsgrube, Wolfsgrubenacker,
Wolfsgarten, Wolfsluder, Wolfsgraben, Grubenholz and
Wolfsloch (Nießen 2012, 48, 88–93).
Pitfalls for wolves are in general three and a half to
four metres deep. They were lined with wood or carved
out of the solid rock, depending on regional condi-
tions. Often they were built with dry masonry. The up-
per construction of the pitfall is either a simple access,
covered with brush-wood, airy branches and straw or a
turnable cover plate (Nießen 2012, 55–57). Dead or live
animals or waste from slaughter was used as bait to
lure the wolf. Because pitfalls usually have a diameter
of two and a half metres, they often resemble to wells
(Nießen 2012, 50–62). Usually, they are only noticeable
as flat depressions in the terrain and are often misin-
terpreted as bomb craters, traces of pit-mining or as
pits for the production of charcoal. The interpretation
as a pitfall for wolves is in most cases only possible
through the field name. Two archaeological excavations
of the last years confirmed this impression. One pitfall
in the Upper Palatinate in Northern Bavaria was seen
as a small depression at the wayside and could only
be identified through the field name Wolfsgrube. The
archaeological excavation and historical investigation
indicated it was a late medieval hunting place, which
was build three and half metres into the solid granite
(Nießen 2012, 27). The excavation of an early modern
construction concluded in 2014. It is a representative
site for the 16th to 18th century with at least two pit-
falls for wolves and a sweeping fence. The pitfalls were
only noticeable as flat depressions. One of them was
RURALIA X
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
used as a landfill. The impulse for the archaeologi-
cal excavation and the interpretation was once more
a field name, in this case Wolfsgarten (Nießen 2014,
180–182; 2015).
It will be a task of the ongoing prospection of the Stu-
bersheimer Alb to identify the exact find spot, as today
the toponym covers an area of around four hectares.
Concluding that the name indicates an archaeological
site is not only a result of practical experience. Fur-
RURALIA X
371–384
Fig. 5. Settlement structure, deserted sites
after archaeological and written sources as
well as field names with references for for-
est clearence at Stubersheimer Alb (Suabi-
an Alb, Southern Germany). Base map after
Schreg 2009b, 61, Fig. 29.
ther evidence of the place beeing illustrated as a small
meadow between fields in the field map of the Kingdom
Württemberg, first edition 1818. It is very likely, that
the pitfall was still visible as a clear depression in the
landscape and agriculture was not practised in that
particular spot. Today the place is levelled and fit for
agricultural use.
Field names with references to pitfalls for wolves are
quite numerous and illustrate that this form of hunt-
379
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
Fig. 6. Pitfall for wolves with a fence and a turnable cover plate, wood-
cut 1590. After Scherf 2001, 14.
ing was indeed very common. These monuments are
primarily identified through the field names and they
complete the environment-archaeological approach to
a landscape.
6. Chronology of field names
Dating field names is still one of the fundamental
problems of the analysis. There are, however, several
possibilities to date them: either by the field name and
its historical context, or by clusters of toponyms, pro-
viding at least a relative chronology.
Field names are often present in a dated written
context, which gives them a terminus ante quem. At the
Stubersheimer Alb, there are several rentals from the
15th century onwards mentioning many toponyms.
Other names refer to a specific historical situation or
practice. For example the name Das lange Gewann re-
fers to an specific field system (compulsory crop rota-
tion), which probably developed in the late Middle Ages
(Keinath 1951, 89; Küster 1999, 184). However, the
changes of field systems during the Middle Ages are
subject to many uncertainties. First of all, there is the
risk of a circular argument, as field names were in the
past an important source for historic geographers to
reconstruct the development of past field systems and
agricultural practices. There are further difficulties as
the meaning or an interpretation of a field name may
change in time.
However, there are possibilities to determine the age
of a field name. For example, we take a closer look at
380
371–384
the location Stubersheim. A lot of field names in this
area are mentioned in a rental, dated 1415 (Helfenstein-
er Salbuch), providing a terminus ante quem. Some of
the names indicate land-use, like the mittlere Wiesen
and Mülwisen, which refers to the usage as meadows.
The toponyms Aichholtz and Mittellohe term a wooded
area. In addition, the name Mittellohe means a loca-
tion at the edge of untilled ground (Keinath 1951, 77),
which describes the same situation like in the rental
from 1415. It is very interesting, that for these specific
examples, the use of the land in the 15th century and
the use which is indicated through the field name, are
identical. According to this it is very likely, that these
field names are not much older than late medieval.
Also, a consistency of wooded land is noticeable in this
area from the 15th to the 19th century. In some cases,
the dating of a field name and its chronology of land
use can specified: for example the name Angstmaad is
mentioned in the rental from 1415 as a forest and is
still used like this in the 19th century. In contrast, the
name itself terms a meadow. It can be concluded, that
the field name is older than 15th century. Maybe the
use of this area as a meadow is linked to a deserted
settlement in the immediate vicinity. In fact, Mahd is
often linked to abandoned settlements (Schreg 2013b).
Other examples are the field names Halden Asam
and Asam, which are located between Stubersheim and
Bräunisheim and indicate cleared land. Both are men-
tioned in the rental from 1415 and were, during that
time, at least partially used as a field or meadow. At
the close-by toponym Lüßhau/Seibolds Kirchle, a villa
rustica could be identified by geophysical prospection
(Kastowsky-Priglinger – Schreg – Trinks 2011, 41). So
it’s very likely, that the land was also deforested during
the Roman period. After the villa rustica was deserted,
the area became wood land and was once again cleared,
probably during the development of the nucleated vil-
lage Stubersheim in the 12th and 13th century. In that
process, the field names Halden Asam and Asam were
formed, which indicate the clearance. Also, the field
names Brand and vor dem Brand belong to this period
of forest clearance. In the 19th century, Halden Asam
and Asam were once again used as a forest. The po-
sition of this outlying area between the nucleated set-
tlements is the reason, why the fields were abandoned
first, when there was less need for fields and meadows.
These examples demonstrate possibilities to get at
least a rough chronological dating, which includes
three steps of argument:
1. Determining chronological fix points, gained from
written sources or historical maps,
2. Identifying chronological relations to deserted
sites, land-use and between field names itself,
3. Integrating the field names in the history of settle-
ment, land-use and of the landscape.
RURALIA X
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
7. Results
Toponyms provide important data for our under-
standing of pre-industrial agrarian societies. In re-
search history, field names were mainly analysed re-
garding their linguistic aspects. They have also been
used within the context of landscape studies. Most em-
phasis, however, was on aspects concerning manorial
authority, land property as well as the identification
of deserted settlements. Present article demonstrates
further perspectives in analysing field names in the
context of landscape archaeology.
The basis for the practical examples used in this ar-
ticle is a project on medieval settlement changes, cur-
rently conducted by Rainer Schreg, Römisch-Germa-
nisches Zentralmuseum Mayence. The Stubersheimer
Alb (Swabian Alb, Southern Germany) provides ideal
preconditions, because it has already been analysed in
regards to archaeological questions of landscape and
environment, by a long-lasting research project.
There are some critical points and problems in us-
ing toponyms as sources for past landscapes. Prob-
lems concerning the source field name are related to
the possibilities of changing names, changes regarding
the location and size of a specific sector and the devel-
opment of field names during different ages. Therefore
it is necessary to collect the data after a regular con-
cept, as established by Cassidy (1991). Methodological
principles for using field names in an archaeological
context still need to be elaborated.
Examples presented in this paper contribute to
possible research strategies. Two different approach-
es can be distinguished: analysis on small scale and
analysis on a large, regional scale. Analysis on a small
scale investigates the meaning of a single field name.
Analysis on a large scale deals with contextual under-
standing, combining archaeological, written and geo-
graphical information within a broader landscape and
has outstanding potential to reveal information about
land-use practices, environmental changes and the
role of authorities within rural communities. In this
context GIS-based mapping over a large area is used.
Dating field names is one of the biggest problems
for the analysis. Methodologically it is necessary to
determine some fixed dates, based on written sources
or maps, providing at least a terminus ante quem. At
least in some cases, chronological relations between
neighbouring field names can be identified as part of
the next step, giving first ideas, how field names can
be integrated into the regional history of settlement,
land-use and of the landscape. A spatial analysis of
field names in a small scale as well as in a large scale,
possibly using a GIS is crucial.
Toponyms prove to be an important source for the
RURALIA X
371–384
study of past landscapes. In fact toponyms are not only
a source for linguists. For a contextual understanding
it is rather important to work in an interdisciplinary
manner, and particularly to include archaeologists
and geographers.
Acknowledgments
Research is never the product of a single person.
Because of that, I’d like to thank all people, who sup-
ported me. Especially I’d like to mention Fabien Gries-
sel B.A. for his help with French and Jakob Seckler for
proofreading. I also thank RURALIA for the opportuni-
ty to join the conference 2013 about Agrarian technol-
ogy in the medieval landscape in Smolenice (Slovakia),
which was very interesting and gave me helpful sug-
gestions. This article is the result of my practical time
at RGZM with Dr. Rainer Schreg. Most of all Dr. Rainer
Schreg supported me. He offered me the possibility to
use his own research project, gave his time and pro-
found knowledge to support me. Sincere thanks are
given to them all.
Summary
This article deals with toponyms as a source in ar-
chaeological research. Among the use for historical lin-
guistics, field names are analysed in a regional context,
especially related to archaeological questions on land-
scapes and environment. Field names are an impor-
tant source for the investigation of agrarian societies. A
methodological basis for the analysis of field names in
an archaeological framework has yet to be developed.
Like every historical source, toponyms also have
some issues. The only way to obviate them is to collect
field names through a consistent sample. Field names
can be used for archaeology through analysis on a
small and large scale. The use of GIS is very helpful in
this context. Field names complete the understanding
of a landscape, settlement development, land-use and
subsistence strategy. References to date field names
are to be found in written sources and historical maps.
The relation between field names can provide argu-
ments for a relative chronology. This article reflects
the methodology for using field names in landscape
archaeology using distinct examples of a research pro-
ject at the Stubersheimer Alb (Swabian Alb, Southern
Germany).
Zusammenfassung
Flurnamen sind ein wichtiges Zeugnis für unser
historisches Verständnis agrarischer Produktionspro-
zesse. In der Forschung wurden Flurnamen haupt-
381
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
sächlich unter sprachhistorischen Gesichtspunkten
betrachtet. Zwar werden diese immer wieder für Fra-
gestellungen der Archäologie herangezogen, allerdings
handelt es sich dabei meist um Themen wie die Aus-
dehnung herrschaftlichen Besitzes sowie Ortsnamen-
und Wüstungsforschung. Methodische Grundlagen
zur Analyse von Flurnamen fehlen bislang weitge-
hend. Der vorliegende Artikel soll erste Ansätze zum
methodischen Umgang mit dieser Quellengattung in
der Archäologie aufzeigen. Diese werden am Beispiel
des langjährigen Forschungsprojektes auf der Stu-
bersheimer Alb (Schwäbische Alb, Süddeutschland) in
die Praxis umgesetzt.
Wie jede historische Quelle bergen auch Flurnamen
zahlreiche Probleme. Diese können nur eingedämmt
werden, indem alle zur Verfügung stehenden Daten
nach einem geregelten Muster ausgewertet werden.
Durch kleinräumige und GIS-gestützte großräumige
Analysen können Flurnamen auch für die Archäolo-
gie genutzt werden. Sie ergänzen das gewonnene Bild
einer Landschaft, der Siedlungsentwicklung sowie der
Landnutzung und Wirtschaftsweise. Für einige ar-
chäologische Quellengattungen sind sie von unschätz-
barem Wert bei der Identifizierung von Bodendenk-
mälern. Ansätze zur Datierung der Flurnamen finden
sich in Schriftquellen und auf historischen Karten,
aber auch die Beziehung von Flurnamen zueinander
kann relativchronologische Hinweise liefern.
Die methodischen Ansätze und praktischen Bei-
spiele bieten Möglichkeiten und Perspektiven zur Ana-
lyse von Flurnamen im Bezug auf landschafts- und
umweltarchäologische Fragestellungen. Damit sind
Flurnamen wichtige Bausteine in der Erforschung
von agrarischen Gesellschaften. Ihnen sollte in der
zukünftigen archäologischen Forschung ein höherer
Stellenwert eingeräumt werden.
Résumé
Les toponymes contribuent de façon importante
à notre compréhension des procédés de productions
agraires historiques. Ces noms de lieux n’ont été long-
temps contemplés que du point de vue de la linguis-
tique historique. Les résultats d’analyses de celle-ci
sont certes régulièrement utilisés pour répondre
à certaines questions de l’archéologie, mais elles
concernent le plus souvent des thèmes comme par
exemple l’étendue d’un domaine seigneurial ou bien
servent à l’analyse toponymique et la recherche d’habi-
tats et autres structures abandonnées. L’article ci-pré-
sent met en avant les différentes possibilités de l’ana-
lyse des toponymes dans des contextes plus globaux
et se concentre en particulier sur les apports qu’une
telle étude peut livrer en archéologie des paysages et
de l’environnement.
382
371–384
Comme toutes les sources primaires, les toponymes
cachent de nombreux problèmes. Ceux-ci peuvent être
endigués si toutes les données disponibles sont exploi-
tées selon un schéma organisé et régulier. Des ana-
lyses à petite et à grande échelles à l’aide d’un système
d’information géographique (SIG), peuvent rendre un
toponyme aussi utile à l’archéologie. Elles complètent
l’image obtenue d’un paysage, de l’évolution de l’habitat
et du milieu bâti ainsi que de l’utilisation du sol et du
type d’économie d’un endroit. Elles forment également
un moyen indispensable pour repérer des monuments
archéologiques. Les sources écrites et les cartes his-
toriques permettent de dater ces toponymes, mais les
relations de ces noms entre eux peuvent aussi livrer
des indices quant-à-leur succession chronologique.
Un concept méthodologique pour l’analyse des topo-
nymes n’existe pas encore. L’article ci-présent tente de
montrer comment dont l’archéologie peut se servir de
ce type de sources. Pour ce faire, on se concentrera
plus particulièrement sur le projet de recherches de
la Stubersheimer Alb (Jura souabe, en Allemagne Sud),
qui s’est déroulé pendant plusieurs années et au cours
duquel les méthodes présentées ici ont été mises en
œuvre.
Les approches méthodologiques et les exemples
concrets montrent les moyens et les perspectives de
l’analyse des toponymes en rapport avec de l’archéolo-
gie des paysages et de l’environnement. Il paraît alors
clair que les lieux-dits forment des éléments impor-
tants de l’étude des sociétés agraires et il semble que
les futures recherches archéologiques devraient leur
accorder une plus grande importance.
Bibliography
Baker, R. L. (ed.) 1991:
The study of place names. Terre Haute.
Cassidy, F. G. 1991:
How to collect local place names, in: Baker, R. L. (ed.), The
study of place names. Terre Haute, 32–43.
Dietrich, H.-E. 1981:
Waldhausen. Geschichte und Leben eines Dorfes auf der Stu-
bersheimer Alb. Weißenhorn.
Dietrich, H.-E.1984:
Streiflichter aus der Geschichte von Stubersheim. Festschrift
aus Anlaß der Kirchenrenovierung 1981–84 und des 400jäh-
rigen Kirchenbaujubiläums im Jahre 1984. Stubersheim.
Dietrich, H.-E. 1993:
Geschichte und Geschichten von Bräunisheim. Geislingen.
Dölker, H., 1982:
Flurnamen der Stadt Stuttgart. Die Namen der Innenstadt so-
wie der Stadtteile Berg, Gablenberg und Heslach, Forschun-
RURALIA X
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
gen und Berichte zur Volkskunde in Baden-Württemberg 6.
Stuttgart. – first published 1933.
Dongus, H. 1969:
Die Schwäbische Alb – Kulturlandschaft im Karstgebiet, Die
Schulwarte 22, 394–408.
Eberl, B. 1921:
Die Bedeutung der Flurnamen für die Vor- und Frühge-
schichtsforschung, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 1/2,
74–80.
Eberl, B. 1926:
Die Bayerischen Ortsnamen als Grundlage der Siedlungsge-
schichte, München.
Eichler, E. et al. (ed.) 1995:
Namensforschung: ein internationales Handbuch zur Ono-
mastik, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswis-
senschaft 11, Berlin.
Fastnacht, D. 2010:
Der Ortsname Hundshaupten/The Place Name Hundshaup-
ten, in: Eichler, E. – Hengst, K. – Kremer, D. (eds), Namen-
kundliche Informationen 98. Leipzig, 87–106.
Fuhrmann, W. – Hänse, G. 1969:
Der spätmittelalterliche Wüstungsvorgang im Lichte der
Wüstungs- und Flurnamenforschung des Kreises Weimar,
Alt-Thüringen 10, 256–271.
Grees, H. 1975:
Ländliche Unterschichten und ländliche Siedlung in Ost-
schwaben, Tübinger Geographische Studien 58. Tübingen.
Honeck, M. 2009:
Nichts als heiße Steine? Zur Deutung der Brenngruben der
späten Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit in Deutschland, Uni-
versitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 166.
Bonn.
Kastowsky-Priglinger, K. – Schreg, R. – Trinks, I. 2011:
Großflächige archäologische Landschaftsprospektion auf
der Stubersheimer Alb. Waldhausen, Stadt Geislingen, Kreis
Göppingen – Bräunisheim, Schalkstetten und Stubersheim,
Gde. Amstetten, Alb-Donau-Kreis, Archäologische Ausgra-
bungen in Baden-Württemberg 2011, 39–44.
Kastowsky-Priglinger, K. – Schreg, R. – Trinks, I. – Nau, E. –
Löcker, K. – Neubauer, W. 2013:
Long term integrated archaeological prospection on the Stu-
bersheimer Alb – giving meaning to a marginal landscape,
in: Neubauer, W. – Trinks, I. –Salisbury, R. B. et al. (eds), Ar-
chaeological Prospection. Proceedings of the 10th Interna-
tional Conference – Vienna May 29th – June 2nd 2013. Wien,
99–100.
Keinath, W. 1951:
Orts- und Flurnamen in Württemberg. Stuttgart.
Klein, F. 1988:
Vorgeschichtliche und römische Siedlungsreste in Langen-
au, Alb-Donau-Kreis, Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Ba-
den-Württemberg 1987, 65–68.
Knöchel, F. – Vogeler, U. 2001:
Mittelalterliche Flachsdarren? Spurensuche anhand neuzeit-
licher Literatur, in: Fansa, M. (ed.), Experimentelle Archäolo-
gie, Bilanz 2000, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwest-
deutschland 37. Oldenburg, 103–118.
RURALIA X
371–384
Krüger, T. 1986:
Spuren der Flachsverarbeitung in der Landschaft des linken
Niederrheins, Bonner Jahrbücher 186, 523–534.
Küster, H. 1999:
Geschichte der Landschaft in Mitteleuropa. Von der Eiszeit
bis zur Gegenwart. München.
Moddermann, P. J. R. 1986:
Eisenzeitliche Feuergruben aus Hienheim, Lkr. Kehlheim,
Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 24/25, 7–11.
Murray, M. L. 2006:
Place Names and Folk Landscapes in Southern Germany as
Archaeological Resources, in: Meier, T. (ed.), Landscape Ideo-
logies, Archeolingua 22. Budapest.
Nießen, I. 2012:
Die Wolfsgrube im Naturpark Steinwald. Archäologie, Jagd-
geschichte, Waldnutzung, Wir am Steinwald, Archäologische
Reihe 1/2012. Nürnberg.
Nießen, I. 2014:
Wolfsgruben als Bodendenkmal – Ein neuzeitlicher Wolfsgar-
ten im Bischofsgrüner Forst, Gemeinde Bischofsgrün, Land-
kreis Bayreuth, Oberfranken, in: Das archäologische Jahr in
Bayern 2013 (Darmstadt) 180-182.
Nießen, I. 2015:
Der Wolfsgarten im Bischofsgrüner Forst. Archäologie und
Geschichte zur Wolfsjagd im Fichtelgebirge, Bischofsgrüner
Schätze 10. Bayreuth.
Paret, O. 1932:
Die Siedlungen des römischen Württemberg, Die Römer in
Württemberg 3. Stuttgart.
Planck, Dieter 1990:
Die Wiederbesiedlung der Schwäbischen Alb und des Neckar-
landes durch die Alamannen, in: Nuber, H. U. – Schmid, K.
– Steuer, H. – Zotz, T. (eds), Archäologie und Geschichte des
ersten Jahrtausends in Südwestdeutschland, Freiburger
Forschungen zum ersten Jahrtausend in Südwestdeutsch-
land 1. Sigmaringen, 69–96.
Popp, O. A. 1936:
Vom Flachsanbau im Rheinland, Rheinische Heimatpflege 8
(2), 303–315.
Richmond, W. E. 1991:
The value of the study of place names, in: Baker, R. L. (ed.),
The study of place names. Terre Haute, 23–31.
Röhrig, K. H. 1993:
Feuergruben, Brandgruben- und Steindeckengräber. Nach-
grabungen in den hallstattzeitlichen Friedhöfen „Ried-Ost“
und „Ried-West“, Stadt Beilgries, Landkreis Eichstätt, in:
Schmotz, K. (ed.), Vorträge des 11. Niederbayerischen Archäo-
logentages. Deggendorf, 47–64.
Scheuermann, U. 1980:
Die sprachliche Erschließung der Dorfflur mit Hilfe von Flur-
namen, in: Beck, H. – Denecke, D. – Jankuhn, H. (eds), Un-
tersuchungen zur eisenzeitlichen und frühmittelalterlichen
Flur in Mitteleuropa und ihrer Nutzung II, Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 116, Göttingen,
323–353.
Scherf, G. 2001:
Wolfsspuren in Bayern. Kulturgeschichte eines sagenhaften
Tieres. Amberg.
383
Nießen, Perspectives of the analysis of toponyms in the framework of settlement
Schreg, R. 2005:
Grabung in einer früh- bis hochmittelalterlichen Siedlung
am Ortsrand von Schalkstetten, Gde. Amstetten, Alb-Do-
nau-Kreis, in: Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Würt-
temberg (Stuttgart) 181–183.
Schreg, R. 2007:
Albert Kley – der Archäologe, in: Currle, G. – Gruber, H. (eds),
Viele Wege und ein Ziel. Albert Kley zum 100. Geburtstag.
Geislingen/Steige, 84–125.
Schreg, R. 2009a:
Archäologische Wüstungsforschung und spätmittelalterliche
Landnutzung. Hausbau und Landnutzung des Spätmittelal-
ters in Südwestdeutschland aus archäologischer Sicht, in:
Lorenz, S – Rückert, P. (ed.), Landnutzung und Landschafts-
entwicklung im deutschen Südwesten. Zur Umweltgeschich-
te im späten Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit, Veröffent-
lichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde
in Baden-Württemberg 173. Stuttgart, 131–164.
Schreg, R. 2009b:
Die mittelalterliche Siedlungslandschaft um Geislingen –
eine umwelthistorische Perspektive, in: Gruber, H. (ed.): «in
oppido giselingen…» 1108–2008. Acht Vorträge zum 900-jäh-
rigen Jubiläum von Geislingen. Geislingen/Steige, 11–100.
Schreg, R. 2013a:
Commons, cooperatives and village communes – geographi-
Iris Nießen, University of Bamberg, Kaipershof 16, D 96047 Bamberg, i.niessen@aol.com
384
371–384
cal and archaeological perspectives on the role of rural lower
classes in settlement restructuring at the Swabian Alb pla-
teau, in: Klápště, J. (ed.), Hierarchies in rural settlements, Ru-
ralia 9. Turnhout, 101–121.
Schreg, R. 2013b:
Wüstungen im Blaubeurer Lagerbuch von 1457. Archaeolo-
gik (8.7.2013) – http://archaeologik.blogspot.de/2013/07/
wustungen-im-blaubeurer-lagerbuch-von.html.
Schreg, R. – Behrendt, S. 2011:
Phosphatanalysen in einem frühmittelalterlichen Haus in
Schalkstetten (Gde. Amstetten, Alb-Donau-Kreis), Archäologi-
sches Korrespondenzblatt 41 (2), 263–272.
Schröder, K. H. 1941:
Die Flurformen in Württemberg und Hohenzollern. Tübingen.
Sonderegger, S. 1977:
Aufgaben und Probleme der Althochdeutschen Namenkun-
de, in: Steger, H. (ed.), Probleme der Namenforschung im
deutschsprachigen Raum. Darmstadt , 126–186.
Stälin 1842:
Beschreibung des Oberamts Geislingen. Stuttgart/Tübingen.
Tesdorpf, J. C. 1972:
Zusammenhänge zwischen Flurnamen und Siedlungsge-
schichte, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 120,
53–89.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 385–394

The archaeological investigation of medieval

agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
– an overview of some rarely quoted analyses
Die archäologische Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Funde
und Befunde mit agrargeschichtlicher Bedeutung in Ungarn
– Überblick über einige wenig beachtete Analysen

L’enquête archéologique sur les outils et les techniques

agraires médiévaux en Hongrie
– Un aperçu de certaines analyses rarement cités

Miklós Takács

1. Introduction: the difficulties and

the limits of the investigation
of the given topic
The archaeological investigation of medieval agrar-
ian tools and techniques is an issue of minor interest
in Hungary, and these studies are also rarely quoted
abroad, especially in Western Europe. There are at
least three reasons for this situation:
– the linguistic barrier,
– the special structure of archaeological fieldwork in
Hungary, especially in the last 25 years,
– the frame of interpretation of the archaeological ma-
terial connected with medieval agriculture.
The first obstacle, the linguistic barrier is easily ex-
plained: the majority of the studies dealing with the
given topic, among others, the two most important
data collections of medieval agrarian tools (Balassa
1972; Müller 1982) were published in Hungarian.
The second obstacle, the special structure of ar-
chaeological fieldworks in Hungary requires further
explanation, as these conditions differ from those in
western as well from those in eastern Europe. In the
last two decades many large-scale building projects
have been carried out, with a special emphasis on the
building of roads. Numerous archaeologists in Hun-
gary have participated in the rescue activity. Many
large-scale rescue excavations have been undertaken,
and a good part of the findings are not yet analysed
and published. As a side effect of the predominance
of rescue activities, most of the analyses of medieval
agrarian tools and techniques deal with the material of
those rescue excavations: either with tools or with the
remains of features most likely used for agricultural
purposes. Another side effect of the predominance of
rescue activities is that there are only a limited num-
ber of investigations of agrarian techniques in Hun-
gary carried out by the use of non-invasive methods of
data collection or the material sampling.
Concerning the third obstacle, it is necessary to re-
fer to some basic historical data of the Middle Ages.
From AD 1000 to the mid-16th century Hungary was
part of eastern central Europe, the ‘in-between Eu-
rope’ lying between the Adriatic and Baltic Sea, from
Croatia in the south to the Baltic states in the north.
The phenomenon of ‘in-between Europe’ was first ob-
served and examined in Hungarian historiography of
the Middle Ages by Jenő Szűcs (1928–88). In his fun-
damental study also published in English and French,
he argued for the existence of a large region of eastern
central Europe with a common medieval and modern
history (Szűcs 1983; 1985; 1988). From the 11th to the
16th century AD the history of ‘in-between Europe’
was marked by the fact that the newly created monar-
chies had to survive and prosper surrounded by large
states or empires: Germany from the west, the Kievan
Rus and later the Muscovite state from the east and the
Byzantine, later Ottoman Empire from the south-east.
This specific situation did not affect the rise of a region-
al identity. The medieval history of ‘in-between Europe’
was marked by inner confrontations and the struggles
of the newly born states, trying not only to manage
some kind of a coexistence with their great neighbours
from the west, the east or the south-east, but also to
achieve various advantages by overwhelming or con-
quering the territories of their closer neighbours in the
region.

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 385–394.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110478
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
These struggles also had their late impact on the
historical and archaeological narratives of the 19th to
20th centuries. The narratives were formulated in the
various parts of the region of ‘in-between Europe’, typi-
cally in the middle third or the second half of the 19th
cemtury by the intellectuals – priests, poets, members
of the nobility, etc. – of the single nations in the state
of formation, who were generally not very familiar with
the real material culture of their forefathers. The con-
current historical narratives had largely influenced
the formation of the various national archaeologies,
the archaeological investigations of the medieval mate-
rial culture in the first place. The investigation of medi-
eval agrarian tools and techniques had acquired a spe-
cial role in this framework, as for the single national
identities the term ‘agriculture’ was a positive or nega-
tive point in the formation of a given entity. Some na-
tional movements proclaimed their entities as bound
to agriculture. This was the case of the historical nar-
ratives of various Slavonic nations. In the Hungarian
narrative the ‘nomadic roots’ became a special point of
interest and therefore, for a long period, the investiga-
tion of medieval agrarian culture was of minor interest
(Takács in press).
A critical issue for an understanding of the history
of the archaeological investigation of medieval agricul-
ture in Hungary is to see how the national historical
narrative affected the interpretation of artefacts or
features to be connected with the given topic. As men-
tioned above, the fact that Hungarian historiography
emphasised the nomadic roots caused a delay in the
archaeological investigation of medieval agriculture in
Hungary. It is very significant that the given topic was
first examined by Hungarian ethnographers and that,
consequently, from the last decades of the 19th and
the first decades of the 20th century it is mainly in the
ethnographic literature one can find data about agri-
culture in medieval Hungary (cf. Herman 1898; 1981;
1983). In Hungarian archaeology the subject of medi-
eval agriculture largely began to be researched only
after 1945 (Méri 1952; 1964; etc.). The biggest step was
made in 1982 with the publication of a thorough over-
view dealing with the development of agricultural tools
from the Iron Age to the Early Modern Period (Müller
1982).
2. The main trends of the research
and their main results
The archaeological investigation of medieval agricul-
ture in Hungary consists (or should consist) of the fol-
lowing items:
– analyses of archaeological artefacts to be connected
with the given topic,
386
385–394
– analyses of the archaeological remains of building
or features to be connected with agricultural activi-
ties,
– non-invasive investigations of the traces of medieval
agricultural fieldwork, with a special emphasis on
the traces of ploughing,
– landscape archaeology,
– archaeobotany,
– archaeozoology,
– experimental archaeology.
Two remarks are in order concerning this list. First-
ly, Hungarian archaeologists dealing with the Middle
Ages regularly use the term ‘agriculture’ in its broader
sense, which includes not only the production of cere-
als or other plants, but animal husbandry as well. The
archaeological remains of hunting and fishing are also
regularly analysed under this term. Secondly, the term
of experimental archaeology is given in italics because
of the fact that, in Hungary, this branch of research
has so far only been carried out concerning the agri-
culture of the Iron Age.
The analysis of artefacts to be connected with vari-
ous agricultural activities is the most popular branch
of analysis in the archaeological investigation of me-
dieval agriculture in Hungary. There are two different
types of context for the discovery of medieval iron ar-
tefacts connected with agriculture: they can be either
found in hoards of iron objects or as finds of single
artefacts in the remains of medieval settlements. In the
case of hoards of medieval iron artefacts the publica-
tion of the work of Róbert Müller was a turning point
in Hungarian archaeology (1982). His typological and
chronological classification of various types of tools is
still in use, despite the fact that the quoted overview
was published more than 30 years ago. A positive trend
is that there are references in the literature suggesting
that Róbert Müller is preparing a new overview, reflect-
ing on iron hoards found in the last three decades. In
the Hungarian literature there are also several publica-
tions of single hoards of iron artefacts. These publica-
tions can be divided in two parts, depending upon the
focus of their analysis. The clarification of the chronol-
ogy usually represents the most weighty problem to be
solved in the publications dealing with early medieval
artefacts – in Hungarian archaeology this term is used
for the ages earlier than 1300 – cf. the publication of
a set of tools discovered in Fonyód – Ilona-berek (Mül-
ler 1978). However, the mode of life is usually the main
question in the case of late medieval hoards of iron
artefacts, that is for research with a chronology later
than 1300 – cf. the publication of the hoard of iron ar-
tefacts from Csongrád – Bokros (Simon 1980–81). In
the case of late medieval hoards, the establishment
of a chronological frame represents a less significant
RURALIA X
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
problem due to the fact that from these centuries there
are also other source-types to be used: representations
of different types of agrarian tools, mainly ploughs ‘on
sickles’ on some of coat of arms, and even in church-
es, on some altarpieces or on pieces of stone masonry.
Another source for the analysis of medieval agrarian
tools are the artefacts used for this purpose found in ex-
cavated settlements (not only in village-like settlements,
but also in market places, towns, castles, monasteries
etc.). This type of archaeological study is usually con-
cerned with iron tools, but some stone artefacts also
belong to this group. There is a very wide range in the
number of iron tools to be found on single excavations,
but usually only few of them are dug up if this type of
RURALIA X
385–394
Fig. 1. Agrarian tools discovered in
a rich, wine-producing village, with
its medieval name: Kána (the site of
Budapest, XI. – Kõérberki út) (Terei –
Horváth 2007, fig 3).
artefacts comes to light at all. Conversely, there are also
a limited number of excavations with a rich set of iron
tools. The remains of a medieval village dug out on a
rescue excavation at Budapest – XI. Dist., Kőérberki út
was especially rich in finds from the 13th–14th centu-
ries, not only of tools for agriculture (Terei – Horváth
2007a; 2007b) (Fig. 1), but also weapons, and even
coins were found in huge quantities. The abundance
of precious types of small finds can most probably be
explained by the fact that a rich, wine-producing village
(with its medieval name Kána) was discovered here ly-
ing on a very prosperous spot in the close proximity to
a road of major importance, and near the town of Buda,
which served as a capital of the country from the sec-
ond half of the 13th century onwards.
387
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
As previously mentioned, some carved stones from
medieval excavations are also to be interpreted in the
context of agriculture. Millstones represent the most
common type of features belonging to this group. (e.g.
Méri 1964, fig. VI /1-1a; Takács 1993, 220–221; Lázár
1998, 75; Bajkai 2012, fig 9/2-3.) (Fig. 2). The first de-
scription of medieval millstones in the Hungarian lit-
erature dealing with the material culture of late me-
dieval peasants was published between the two world
wars (Szabó 1938, 23, fig. 41–45b). However, the idea
of analysing the exact material of these stones con-
cerning in order to identify their quarries arose only
subsequently (cf. the study of Rozália Bajkai in this
volume). The vast majority of the discovered millstones
are of modest size, and therefore have to be interpreted
as part of a small hand-driven mill with a shape well
known from the ethnographic material (cf. Selmeczi-
Kovács 1981, 204–232; Juhász 1991, 160–161). The
greater part of the millstones found makes it highly
probable that in medieval Hungary the majority of the
grain was ground with the use of human power. The
written sources also support the possibility that big-
ger mills, turned by wind, water or animals, most likely
only spread gradually, and that they firstly appeared
only in the vicinity of monasteries, castles and towns
(Endrei 1994, 441, with further literature.).
From one point of view, almost all remains of build-
ings or features discovered on excavations of medieval
village-like settlements in Hungary are in one way or
another to be connected with agricultural activities, es-
pecially if the term ‘agriculture’ is understood not only
as the production of grain, but also includes animal
husbandry. A good part of settlement structures are
namely connected to the storage or the processing of
388
385–394
Fig. 2. The site of Lébény – Bille-domb,
feature 614, with a millstone in situ
(photo M. Takács).
grain. Even in some Grubenhaus-type buildings there
are pits most likely used for the storage of grain.
Archaeological discoveries suggest that medieval
animal husbandry was also very common in Hungary.
Bones of animals fill most of the archaeological fea-
tures in the soil, implying not only the consumption
but also the production of meat. There are also two
types of special features in medieval villages built for
the purposes of animal husbandry. The pit hut was a
type of building used in 11th–13th century Hungary,
either for keeping the cattle or for storage or even for
both purposes. The pit huts were similar to Gruben-
haus-type houses, but they were usually bigger, of an
oblong plan, but they commonly had no oven. (The pit
of the huts is also usually deeper than the pit of the
living units, and therefore the huts are to be placed
in the group of real pit buildings, while most of the
Grubenhaus-type houses belong to the group of semi
dug-in pit buildings.) István Méri was the first to de-
scribe this type of building in 1964. His reconstruc-
tion was based on the interpretation of a feature from
Kardoskút – Hatablak with a 12th- to 13th-century
date (Méri 1964, 28–36). A new impulse to investigate
pit huts was given by Tibor Sabján (1952–2009), and
his reconstruction of the pit-huts excavated on the
site Ordacsehi – Bogaszeg (Nagy – Gallina et al. 2001,
186–218) (Fig. 3a–b). The sketches of Tibor Sabján
were based on ethnographic parallels, that is, on mod-
ern pit huts still in use at the beginning of the 20th
century in various parts of the Great Plain.
Besides pit huts, there was also another type of fea-
ture used for animal husbandry in the villages of me-
dieval Hungary: the corrals. In spite of the fact that eth-
nographical parallels were also available for this kind
RURALIA X
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
of features at the end of the 19th century (Herman
1898, 30, fig. 8; 33, fig 9; 39. fig 12, etc.; Herman 1981;
1983, 23, 141), the first reconstructions of archaeologi-
cal features of this type were only made in the early
1980s by József Laszlovszky (1982). The investigation
of the corrals in village-like settlements from the 1980s
proceeded in parallel in Hungary and Slovakia. In Slo-
vakia Matej Ruttkay (1993, 277–288) was the first to
describe the given phenomenon. According to these in-
vestigations, there are two types of corrals in the cen-
tral parts of the Carpathian basin of the 7th–13th cen-
turies: a smaller type almost always of a round shape,
and another bigger type, usually of an oblong or oval
RURALIA X
385–394
Fig. 3a. The site of Ordacsehi – Bogaszeg,
feature 351, pit-hut, ground plan (Nagy –
Gallina – Molnár – Skriba 2001, fig. 16).
shape. There is – as far as can be established from the
published material – no chronological difference be-
tween the use of the two types of corrals. There is to
a certain point a topographical dichotomy in the use
of the corrals, though there are also exceptions to be
found. The smaller corrals were usually built inside
the living area of the village-like settlements, i.e. close
to the Grubenhaus-type houses. Contrary to this, the
bigger ones stand in specified areas of the settlements,
usually at a larger distance from the habitats. One
remarkable exception from this trend was found dur-
ing the excavations of the site Lébény – Kaszás-domb,
where a huge corral of a rectangular shape most like-
Fig. 3b. The site of Ordacsehi – Bogaszeg,
feature 351, pit-hut, reconstruction (Nagy
– Gallina – Molnár – Skriba 2001, fig. 19).
389
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
Fig. 4. The site of Lébény – Kaszás-domb, system of ditches, reconstructed as a coral (Takács 1996, 378).
ly stood in the centre of a Late Avar Age settlement
(Takács 1996, 378.) (Fig. 4).
Non-invasive investigations of the traces of medi-
eval agricultural field work, with a special emphasis
on the traces of ploughing form the third archaeologi-
cal source type for the reconstruction of the medieval
agriculture of Hungary. In earlier decades, investiga-
tions of this type were mostly carried out by research-
ers involved in the project ‘Archaeological Topography
of Hungary’. In Hungary the observation, description
and interpretation of parallel ditches as furlongs in the
vicinity of the settlement Tamási (Fig. 5), carried out
by István Torma (1981), is the nicest example for a non-
invasive investigation of the traces of medieval plough-
ing. The investigation of the given spot was possible
due to the fact that deep ploughing, usual in Hungary
in 1960s, was not practised here, as the spot investigat-
ed was forested most likely in the Early Modern period.
The discussion of the literature dealing with the
traces of medieval ploughing raises the subject of
landscape archaeology. In Hungary this branch of in-
390
385–394
vestigation only has a 10–15 years long history, and
there are only few Hungarian researchers: Laszlovs-
zky József, Serlegi Gábor and Csilla Zatykó, who are
dealing with the archaeological analysis of the medi-
eval landscape as the main question of their scientific
work. But even so, landscape archaeology also has
great perspectives in Hungary. József Laszlovszky had
published the first overviews and analyses, (Laszlovs-
zky – Szabó 2003; Rácz – Laszlovszky 2005) and he
also organises this field of research as a professor of
the Central European University of Budapest. Since
the valley of the river Dráva stands at the focus of the
investigations of Csilla Zatykó, landscape archaeology
in Hungary is been mostly developed in this area, that
is in Southern Transdanubia (Zatykó 2003, 343–375;
2004, 367–431; 2010, 839–852). As the management
of fishing and especially fish pounds form a particular
part of the interest of the quoted scientist, there is also
a considerable amount of data on this topic from the
investigated area (Zatykó 2011, 399–408). The analysis
of medieval fishponds is also an important research
RURALIA X
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary 385–394

area for another Hungarian scientist, Pál Sümegi, with

the final task of the reconstruction of the history of the
natural environment. Pál Sümegi draws conclusions
from the analysis of the sediments, dated with the C-14
method. His investigation of the Bátorliget marshland
in eastern Hungary has yielded not only a bulk of data
for the analysis of the medieval natural environment
of the given area, but has also raised questions on the
animal husbandry of the 10th century (Sümegi – Gu-
lyás 2004). As in all similar cases, the judgement of the
reliability of the chronology plays a crucial role also in
the interpretation of the Bátorliget sample.
The greater part of the conclusions of Pál Sümegi
are based on the interpretation of archaeobotanical re-
mains. Besides his analyses, there are also investiga-
tions in the field of archaeobotany in a narrower sense,
with a lot of results to be used in the reconstruction of
medieval agriculture in Hungary. It is easy to gain an
overview of these results for a scientist unfamiliar with
the Hungarian language as Ferenc Gyulai recently
published a good and very detailed work on the results
of archaeobotanical analyses carried out on the sam-
pling of the fills of features excavated at various (not
only medieval) sites (Gyulay 2010). His overview con-
cerning the Middle Ages repeatedly points at the great
variety of the plants consumed. Not only the volume
of cereals and legumes was large, but a considerable
variety of fruit was also eaten, also with some sorts
only occasionally or never consumed in modern Hun-
gary or other parts of eastern central Europe, such
as the cornel. The case of grape and wine production
is especially interesting because of its impact on the
economic status of the given population. As a conse-
quence of the fact that the production and the distribu-
tion of wine was very lucrative in medieval Hungary,
it was usually the main source of income even for the
citizens of a considerable number of towns in the mid-
dle parts of medieval Hungary (Kubinyi 1996, 67–84; Fig. 5. Traces of medieval parallel ditches interpreted as furlongs in a
Gulyás 2012, 171–172). The archaeological finds point forest of the town of Tamási (Torma 1981, fig 2).
to the fact that grape was also planted in several micro-
regions of the Great Plain, where winemaking has gen-
erally not been a productive activity in modern times. studies, there are some species which can be especial-
ly well used for the reconstruction of the structure of
The conclusion concerning the great variety of spe-
animal husbandry. The percentage of pig-bones seems
cies is also valid for archaeozoology, but this fact is to
to be very indicative in the analysis of the question of
be supported with data collected from several studies
to what extent the structure of the agricultural produc-
(Bökönyi 1994, 225–233; Bartosiewicz 1995, 307–367),
tion of the excavated settlement should to be treated as
as a consequence of the circumstance that – concern-
nomadic. (Concerning the character of the agriculture
ing Hungary, and unlike archaeobotany – this branch
of 10th–11th century Hungary cf. the study of Szabina
of science possessed until no recently published gen-
eral overview. But even so, there are several single Merva in this volume),
analyses or summaries of regional investigations with As already mentioned, there is not much to say
conclusions to be used for a wide-scale approach (cf. about experimental archaeology in the context of the
Bartosiewicz 1995, fig. 22 – diagram of the percent- investigation of the agriculture of medieval Hungary.
age of bones of various sorts of animals excavated on To the author’s knowledge, no experimental cropping
medieval village-like settlements). According to these of cereals or any other type of the production of other

RURALIA X 391
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
sorts of plants has been carried out in Hungary for
the reconstruction of the medieval conditions of plant
cultivation. The only experiment of this type was car-
ried out a decade ago in the Archaeological Park Százh-
alombatta for the reconstruction of the cereal produc-
tion of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age (Torma
1999, 69–76; Bálint 2008, 165–177).
3. What to do next? Research problems
to be solved in the future
At the end of this short presentation the enumera-
tion of some questions and problems is in order. Fo-
cusing on them can hopefully further the archaeologi-
cal analysis of medieval agriculture in Hungary.
An archaeological evaluation of various types of
findings collected during the large-scale, protective ex-
cavations of the last decades.
A reinforcement of non-invasive methods for mate-
rial sampling and their evaluation.
A further affirmation of various natural scientific
methods in the archaeological research of the topic at
hand.
It stands beyond doubt that an accentual treatment
of these three problems can bring a new dynamism
not only to the archaeological analysis of medieval ag-
riculture, but also to the investigation of the material
culture of medieval Hungary in general.
Summary
The aim of the author of the present study is to sum-
marise the main characteristics and problems of the
archaeological investigation of the agriculture of the
medieval Hungarian Kingdom. It is to be pointed out,
that the author of the present study understands and
uses the term of agriculture in a broad sense, which
includes not only the production of crop, but the hor-
ticulture and the cattle breeding as well. In my study,
I am presenting the results of various archaeological
research directions of the medieval agriculture from
the analyses of single findings, i. e. the tools used for
various agricultural activities, through the analyses of
buildings, and the mapping of the traces of medieval
ploughing, till the results of the landscape archaeology.
Finally, three approaches are named, which can give a
new impetus not only to the investigations of various
themes connected with agriculture, but to the archae-
ology of the Middle Ages of Hungary in general. These
are: (1.) the evaluation of the large-scale rescue exca-
vations, (2.) a growing use of methods of non-invasive
sampling of archaeological data, and (3.) an increased
application of various methods of natural sciences for
the analysis of archaeological findings and features.
392
385–394
Zusammenfassung
Der Autor der vorliegenden Studie versucht, die
wichtigsten Merkmale und Probleme der archäologi-
schen Untersuchung der Landwirtschaft des mittelal-
terlichen ungarischen Königreichs kurz zusammen-
zufassen. Dabei ist gleich darauf hinzuweisen, dass in
der vorliegender Studie den Begriff der Landwirtschaft
in einem breiten Sinne verstanden und benutzt wird
und nicht nur Ackerbau, sondern auch Gartenbau
und Viehzucht umfasst.
In der Studie werden die Ergebnisse der verschie-
denen archäologischen Forschungsrichtungen zur
mittelalterlichen Landwirtschaft von der Analyse von
Funden, d.h. der speziell der verschiedenen landwirt-
schaftlichen Geräte, der Bautenforschung, der Auffin-
dung von Ackerrelikten, bis hin zur Umwelt- und Land-
schaftsarchäologie (‚landscape Archaeology’) dargestellt.
Schließlich werden drei Ansätze benannt, die nicht
nur der archäologischen Erforschung der mittelalter-
lichen Landwirtschaft, sondern der ganzen Mittelalter-
archäologie von Ungarn neue Impulse geben können.
Dies sind: (1.) die archäologische Auswertung der gro-
ßen Rettungsgrabungen, (2.) eine verstärkter Einsatz
nicht-invasiver Prospektionen, sowie (3.) eine verstärk-
te Nutzung der naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden in
der Auswertung archäologischer Funde und Befunde.
Résumé
Le but de l’auteur de la présente étude est de résumer
les principales caractéristiques et la problématique de la
recherche archéologique sur l’agriculture du royaume
hongrois médiéval. Il est à signaler que l’auteur com-
prend et utilise le terme « agriculture » dans un sens
large, ce qui inclut, non seulement la production de
récoltes mais aussi l’horticulture et l’élevage du bétail.
Dans cette étude, il présente les résultats des dif-
férentes recherches archéologiques de l’agriculture
médiévale, depuis les analyses de trouvailles isolées
- par ex. outils utilisés pour les différentes activités
agraires - l’analyse des bâtiments, la mise sur carte
des traces de labourage médiéval jusqu’aux résultats
de la recherche en archéologie du paysage. En dernier,
trois approches sont identifiées qui pourraient donner
un nouvel élan, non seulement aux recherches sur les
différents thèmes en relation avec l’agriculture mais à
l’archéologie de la Hongrie du Moyen Âge en général.
Ce sont 1) l’évaluation des fouilles de sauvetage de
grande ampleur ; 2) l’usage croissant des méthodes
d’échantillonnage non invasives des découvertes ar-
chéologiques et 3) une utilisation croissante des ana-
lyses en sciences naturelles des découvertes archéolo-
giques et des structures.
RURALIA X
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
Bibliography
Bajkai, R. 2012:
Egy késő avar kori település kutatási lehetőségei az Alföld
északi peremén. Hajdúnánás–Mácsi-dűlő (Research possibi-
lities of a Late Avar settlement at the northern edge of the
Great Hungarian Plain. Hajdúnánás–Mácsi-dűlő), in: Lis-
ka, A. – Szatmári, I. (eds), Sőtét idők rejtélyei. 6–11. századi
régészeti emlékek a Kárpát-medencében és környékén. Tem-
pora Obscura 3. Békéscsaba, 9–44.
Balassa, I. 1973:
Az eke és a szántás története Magyarországon. Budapest.
Bartosiewicz, L. 1995:
Archaeozoological studies from the Hahót basin, SW Hunga-
ry, in: Szőke, B. M. (ed.), Archaeology and Settlement History
in the Hahót Basin, South-West Hungary, Antaeus 22, Buda-
pest, 307–367.
Bálint, A. F. 2008:
Őskori gabonatermesztési kísérlet a százhalombattai Régé-
szeti Parkban, in: Jerem, E. – Mester, Z. – Cseh, F. (eds), Ok-
tatónapok Százhalombattán. Előadások a környezetrégészet,
az örökségvédelem és az információs technológia régészeti
alkalmazása köréből. Budapest, 165–177.
Bökönyi, S. 1994:
Magyar állattartás a honfoglalás korában, in: Kovács, L. (ed.),
Honfoglalás és régészet, A honfoglalásról sok szemmel 1, Bu-
dapest, 225–233.
Endrei, W. 1994:
Malom, in: Kristó, G. (ed.), Korai Magyar történeti lexikon
(9–14. század). Budapest, 441.
Herman, O. 1898:
Az ősfoglalkozások. Halászat és pásztorélet. Budapest.
Herman, O. 1981:
Halászélet, pásztorkodás. Válogatott néprajzi tanulmányok,
Kósa, L. (ed.), A magyar néprajz klasszikusai. Gondolat, Bu-
dapest .
Herman, O. 1983:
A pokol cséplője. Válogatta, sajtó alá rendezte az utószót írta
Erdődy Gábor Magevő kiadó Budapest.
Gulyás, L. S. 2014:
A középkori szőlőművelés és borkereskedelem információ-
történeti vizsgálatának lehetőségei. Aetas 2012-4, Szeged,
155–175.
Gyulai, F. 2010:
Archaeobotany in Hungary. Seed, Fruit, Food and Beverage
Remains in the Carpathian Basin from the Neolithic to the
Late Middle Ages. Archaeolingua, Budapest.
Juhász, A. 1991:
Malmok, molnárság, sütő- vagy pékmesterség, in: Domo-
kos, O. (ed.), Kézművesség. Magyar Néprajz III. Budapest,
157–231.
Kubinyi, A. 1996:
Weinbau und Weinhandel in den ungarischen Städten im
Spätmittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit, in: Opll, F. (ed.),
Stadt und Wein. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Städte Ostmittel-
europas 14. Linz, 67–84.
RURALIA X
385–394
Laszlovszky, J. 1982:
Karámok Árpád-kori falvainkban. Talajfoszfát-analízis alkal-
mazása az árkok szerepének meghatározásánál, Archaeológi-
ai Értesítő 109, 281–285.
Laszlovszky, J. 1986:
Einzelhofsiedlungen in der Arpadenzeit. Arpadenzeitliche
Siedlung auf der Mark von Kengyel, Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38, 227–257.
Laszlovszky, J. – Szabó, P. (ed.) 2003:
People and Nature in Historical Perspective. CEU Medieva-
lia 5. Budapest.
Lázár, S. 1998:
Kora Árpád-kori település Esztergom-Szentgyörgymezőn.
Opuscula Hungarica I. Budapest.
Méri, I. 1952:
Beszámoló a Tiszalök-rázompusztai és a Túrkeve-mórici ása-
tások eredményeiről, Archaeológiai Értesítő 81, 49–64.
Méri, I. 1964:
Árpád-kori népi építkezésünk feltárt emlékei Orosháza hatá-
rában. Régészeti Füzetek. II. 1. Budapest.
Müller, R. 1975:
Die Datierung der mittelalterlichen Eisengerätfunde in Un-
garn, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
27, 59–102.
Müller, R. 1978:
Késő népvándorláskori vaseszköz lelet Fonyód – Ilona-berek-
ből. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. 3, 5–11.
Müller, R. 1982:
A mezőgazdasági vaseszközök fejlődése Magyarországon a
késővaskortól a törökkor végéig. Zalai Gyűjtemény 19/I–II.
Zalaegerszeg.
Nagy, Á. – Gallina, Z. et al. 2001:
Késő Árpád-kori, nagyméretű, földbe mélyített építmények
Ordacsehi-Bugaszegen, in: Cseri, M. – Tárnoki, J. (eds), Népi
építészet a Kárpát-medencében a honfoglalástól a 18. száza-
dig. Szentendre – Szolnok, 187 –220.
Rácz, M. – Laszlovszky, J. 2005:
Monostorossáp egy Tisza menti középkori falu (Monostoros-
sáp, a deserted medieval village and its landscape). Disserta-
tiones Pannonicae III. 7. Budapest.
Ruttkay, M. 1993:
Žľaby na stredovekých sídliskách juhozápadného Slovenska
(Die Rigolen in den mittelalterlichen Siedlungen in der Süd-
slowakei), Archaeologia historica 18, 277–288.
Selmeczi Kovács, A. 1981:
Kézimalmok. Történeti rétegek – technikai regresszió, Eth-
nographia 92, Budapest 204–232.
Simon, K. 1980–81:
A Csongrád–bokrosi vaseszközlelet (Der Eisengerätfund von
Csongrád – Bokros). A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Értesítője, Sze-
ged, 77–90.
Sümegi, P. – Gulyás, S. (eds) 2004:
The geohistory of Bátorliget Marshland. Budapest.
Szabó, K. 1938:
Az alföldi magyar nép művelődéstörténeti emlékei (Kultur-
393
Takács, The archaeological investigation of medieval agrarian tools and techniques in Hungary
geschichtliche. Denkmäler der Ungarischen Tiefebene). Bibli-
otheca Humanitatis Historiae III. Budapest.
Szűcs, J. 1983:
Three Historical Regions of Europe. An Outline, Acta Histori-
ca Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29, 2–4.
Szűcs, J. 1985:
Les trois Europes. Essai. Traduit par Véronique Charaire,
Gábor Klaniczay et Philippe Thureau-Dangin. Préface de Fer-
nand Braudel. Domaines danubiens 2, L’Harmattan, Paris.
Szűcs, J. 1988:
The Three Historical Regions of Europe. An Outline, in:
Keane, J. (ed.), Civil Society and the State: New European Per-
spectives. London – New York, 291–332.
Takács, M. 1993:
Árpád-kori települési objektumok Kajárpéc – Pokolfa-dombon,
Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungaricae, 201–226.
Takács, M. 1996:
Die awarenzeitlichen Siedlungen von Lébény, in: Daim, F.
(ed.), Reitervölker aus dem Osten. Hunnen + Awaren. Bur-
genländische Landesausstellung. Eisenstadt 1996, 379–382.
Takács, M. 2014:
Die ungarische Staatsgründung als Modellwechsel und/oder
möglicher Akkulturatitonsprozess. Die Aussagekraft der ar-
chäologischen Funde und Befunde, in: Haertel, R. (ed.), Ak-
kulturation im Mittelalter. Vorträge und Forschungen 78.
Terei, G. – Horváth, A. 2007a:
Az Árpád-kori Kána falu vasleletei I, Communicationes Ar-
chaeologicae Hungaricae, 215–246.
Miklós Takács, MTA BTK Régészeti Intézete, takacs.miklos@btk.mta.hu
394
385–394
Terei, G. – Horváth, A. 2007b:
Az Árpád-kori Kána falu vasleletei II, Budapest Régiségei 41,
153–192.
Torma, A. 1999:
Az ásatásokból előkerült gabonamagvak azonosításának kér-
dése. A kísérleti régészet lehetőségei, in: Poroszlai, I. – Vicze,
M. (eds), Százhalombattai Oktató Napok 1998, I. Kísérleti ré-
gészet. Budapest, 63–76.
Torma, I. 1981:
Mittelalterliche Ackerfeld-Spuren im Wald von Tamási (Kom.
Tolna), Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungari-
cae 33, 245–256.
Zatykó, Cs. 2003:
Medieval Villages and Their Landscape: Methods of Reconst-
ruction, in: Laszlovszky, J. – Szabó, P. (eds), People and Natu-
re in Historical Perspective. CEU – Archaeolingua, Budapest,
343–375.
Zatykó, Cs. 2004:
Reconstruction of the Settlement Structure of the Medi-
eval Nagyszakácsi (Somogy county). Antaeus 27, Budapest,
367–431.
Zatykó, Cs. 2010:
Természeti táj – emberformálta táj: a középkori környezet
rekonstrukciójának lehetőségei, in: Benkő E. – Kovács Gy.
(eds), Középkori és újkori régészetünk legújabb eredményei
I–II. Budapest, 839–852.
Zatykó, Cs. 2011:
Aspects of fishing in medieval Hungary, Ruralia 8, 399–408.
RURALIA X
Merva, Potential Husbandry Strategies in 10th-Century Settlements in the Carpathian Basin 395–406

Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century settlements

in the Carpathian Basin.
A case study: Two early medieval sites along the River Danube1
Potentielle landwirtschaftliche Strategien in den Siedlungen
des 10. Jahrhunderts im Karpatenbecken. Eine Fallstudie:
Zwei frühmittelalterliche Fundorte an der Donau

Stratégies potentielles d’agriculture dans le Bassin des Carpates du 10e siècle.

Une étude de cas: deux sites du Haut Moyen Âge le long du Danube

Szabina Merva
1

Introduction
The present paper discusses various potential hus-
bandry strategies in the Carpathian Basin during the
10th century. It was at this time that the last step in
the migration period occurred; namely, when the An-
cient Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin at
the end of the 9th century, and the medieval Kingdom
of Hungary was founded a hundred years later.
A general overview of the Carpathian Basin is pre-
sented. The Hungarian Conquerors may have modified
the overall picture of the agriculture practised in the
new territory, with their knowledge transfer concern-
ing husbandry from the Eastern European steppe
(Balassa 1973, 248–270). Although we cannot esti-
mate the degree of their effect, there is no doubt that
the interaction between the two peoples, the surviving
inhabitants and the newcomers, may have extended
to agriculture. By presenting two early medieval set-
tlements along the Danube, this study focuses on the
detectable husbandry strategies in a brief comparative
analysis. The 10th century settlements are not easily
identified archeologically, and period itself needs to be
studied within the context of 8th and 9th-century de-
velopments across the region.
Challenges posed by the data sets
Research of early Hungarian history, i.e. principally
of the time before the Ancient Hungarians conquered
the Carpathian Basin, is generally the lifeblood of the
archaeology of the 10th-century Carpathian Basin:
1
The present paper was written within the framework of the
project “Centuries of Transformation. Settlement Structures,
Settlement Strategies in the Central Parts of the Carpathian
Basin in the 8th–11th Century” (OTKA Grant No. 104533).
there is not a single subject that could dispense with
it. The question of husbandry poses several problems
that – directly or indirectly, but undeniably – pertain
to early Hungarian history. The three main points are
the following:
Identifying the Eastern European settlement
territories of the ancient Hungarians
To understand clearly the importance of the pre-
ceding period, it is necessary to consider the role that
Khazar Khaganate had been one of the settlement ter-
ritories of the ancient Hungarians for 300 years. It
became important to search for analogues or to com-
pile comparative analyses of data from this territory
and, by association, the Saltovo-Mayatskaya culture
(Fodor 1975b), by considering graveyards (Bálint 1975;
Fodor 1973; 1975b; 1994), by analysis of specific ce-
ramics (Mesterházy 1975; Fodor 1975a; 1984; 1985;
Takács 1986), as well as researching linguistic data
(Gombocz 1960). It appeared that the influence of the
Saltovo-Mayatskaya culture had played an important
role in the changes of the ancient Hungarians’ life-
style, namely that they started to settle down, live in
pit-houses and plough the land. Several Hungarian
scholars emphasised the Eastern European influence
(Fodor 1975b; 2006; Bálint 1975; 1989; 1999 about the
research trend, the so called ’Orientpräferenz’.) Some
archeobotanical analyses also included comparisons
with the Saltovo territory (Gyulai 1998, 131). It led to
some conclusions that are no longer tenable; namely,
that the so-called Levedia cannot be localised in the
discussed territory, and the ancient Hungarians had
not even lived in the region for years (Türk 2012).

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 395–406.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110479
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
The relationships between the two populations
and their lifestyles
It is important to bear in mind that we have to re-
think the questions since there are hardly concrete an-
swers to be given, as we are dealing with a rather un-
stable system of correspondences. Several significant
studies on the lifestyles of the ancient Hungarians ex-
ist (see the next section for more details). The research
favours either the settled or the nomadic/semi-nomad-
ic lifestyle (see the emblematic scientific debate be-
tween Kristó and Takács: Kristó 1995, and the reaction:
Takács 1997). Yet it is important to emphasise that the
lifestyle of the ancient Hungarians and the lifestyle of
the late 9th-century inhabitants across the Carpathian
Basin should not be merged as one.
The question concerning social organisation within
the Basin during the 10th century is considered, with
archaeological perspectives, and must take account of
surviving late Avar populations (Dienes 1972, 22; Ist-
vánovits 2003, 442–449). It raises issues associated
with, for instance, the relationships between the ancient
Hungarians and the people who survived the 9th cen-
tury; the ratio of these two groups (Fig.1; Györffy 1963,
46–47; Kristó 1995, 144; Róna-Tas 1996, 277; Vékony
2001, 99–100; Takács 2006b); the point at which as-
similation occurred; and the time-frame from which
standardised finds, specifically standardised ceramics
occurred as “typical” 10th–11th-century pottery. Other
considerations include the degree to which surviving
populations affected the Hungarians’ lifestyle and vice
versa, and the extent to which such cultural distinc-
tions and ambivalences are witnessed in husbandry,
general overall settlement patterns and building types.
As so much of the detailed information required to an-
swer these questions remains outstanding, it remains
an area that must be approached cautiously.
Ceramics remain an area of key importance, and
when they occur in combination with graves, research-
396
395–406
Fig. 1. Rate of estimated number of
people at the end of the 9th century,
in the Carpathian Basin. After Györffy
1963, 46–47; Kristó 1995, 144; Róna-
-Tas 1996, 277; Vékony 2001, 99–100.
ers are offered excellent potential. In what is referred
to as the Subotcy find horizon, the deceased were bur-
ied in graves with a typical Tmutarakan ware jar (Bokij
–Pletnëva 1989, 88, Fig. 2:5; Fig. 2 : 9). At Korobčino,
a jug was recovered that is morphologically similar to
the grey or black Saltovo jugs, but its analogues can
also be found in the graves of the Volga region (Pri-
hodnûk – Čurilova 2002, 186–189, Fig. 4:2; Fig. 2 :
10). The site of Slobodzeâ, Grave 18, in the Dniester
region, revealed as Tankeevka type jug, showing the
strong connection between the Subotcy find horizon
and the Volga–Southern Ural region (Serbakova –Tasi
–Telnov 2008, 118, Fig. 7:3; Fig. 2 : 11). A newly pub-
lished 8th- to 9th-century cemetery at Proletarski,
Grave 1 from the Samara area in the Middle Volga re-
gion, has jugs and pots that are general types of this
era found in Eastern Europe (Iatsenko 2007, 193–195,
Fig. 3:2–3; Fig. 2 : 8). There are three examples from
the Volga–Kama–Southern Ural region, namely Bolsije
Tigani (Khalikova – Kazakov 1981; Fig. 2 : 6–7), Bol-
sije Tarhani (Kazakov – Khalikov – Chuzin 1990; Fig. 2
: 2, 4–5) and Tankeevka (Khalikova – Kazakov 1977;
Fig. 2 : 3). Like the ceramic finds of the Kushnaren-
kovskaya culture (Botalov 2012; Fig. 2 : 1), the typical
polished Saltovo jars and the Tankaeevka-type vessels
are rather representative of these sites. We can estab-
lish clearly from analysis of their formal and decora-
tion typology, and their texture and tempering, that
there are no connections with ceramic assemblages
dated from the Hungarian Conquest in the Carpathian
Basin (see Fig. 2 : 12–14). These types do not appear
in this territory, not even as unique finds. This sig-
nificant result suggests that we can reconstruct a phe-
nomenon which is generally typical of people with no-
madic husbandry, namely that they do not have their
own pottery and pottery-tradition (or only in a limited
number and low quality), but characteristically use the
pottery products of their current environment (see for
instance the Avars: Vida 1999, 175–177).
RURALIA X
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin 395–406

Fig. 2. Pottery from graves in Eastern-Europe, which are relevant from early Hungarian history. East of South-Ural: – 1. Site of Uelgi, Kushnarenko-
vskaya pottery (Botalov 2012, 140, pyc. 11.), The Volga–Kama–Southern Ural region: – 2. Site of Bolsije Tarhani, Grave 250. (Kazakov – Khalikov
– Chuzin 1990, 142, 3:12), – 3. Site of Tankeevka, Grave 623. (Kazakov – Khalikov – Chuzin 1990, 150. Taf. 6:12), – 4–5. Site of Bolsije Tarhani,
Grave 228, Grave 36. (Kazakov – Khalikov – Chuzin 1990, 138. Taf. 1: 5, 9), – 6–7. Site of Bolsije Tigani, Grave 38, Grave 28. (Khalikova-Kazakov
1981, 114, Fig. 16:33, 121, 23:23), The Samara area in the Middle Volga region: – 8. Site of Proletarski, Grave 1 (Iatsenko 2007, 193–195,
Fig. 3:2–3), Dniester region: – 9. Site of Subotcy, Tmutarakan ware (Bokij – Pletnëva 1989, 88, Fig. 2:5), – 10. Site of Korobčino, Saltovo jug (Prihod-
nûk – Čurilova 2002, 186–189. Fig. 4:2), – 11. Site of Slobodzeâ, Tankeevka type jug (Serbakova – Tasi – Telnov 2008, 118; Fig. 7:3), Carpathian
Basin: – 12. 8–9th century pottery from the Carpathian Basin (Visegrád, N-Hungary), – 13. 10–11th century pottery from the Carpathian Basin
(Visegrád, N-Hungary), – 14. 10–11th century pottery from the Carpathian Basin (Kistokaj-Homokbánya, stray find. NE-Hungary).

RURALIA X 397
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
If we assume that this also applies to the conquer-
ing Hungarians, then we can deduce the more or less
standardised settled lifestyle, husbandry, architecture
and pottery of the 10th–11th century from the settled
lifestyle, husbandry, Grubenhaus-type buildings and
pottery of the 8th–9th century. (Thanks to late Avar
settlement archaeology we can reconstruct the general
8th–9th century lifestyle. (Takács 2009, 698–703; Gy-
ulai 2010, 173–191)). Since none of the above aspects
is ethno-specific, the hypothesis cannot be refuted,
but, as this reasoning would also simplify the suppos-
edly one-time colourful picture, it would incorrect to
ignore other hypotheses. The conclusion appears to be
clear; namely that life in the Basin was not exclusively
nomadic, semi-nomadic or permanent settlement, and
that much was owed to a sense of continuity from the
8th to 9th century.
Chronological problems
It has been argued, that “the chronology of these set-
tlements is extremely uncertain. The qualification that
a settlement can be dated back to the Árpád age (or to
the 10 to 11th century) gets us nowhere if we are spe-
cifically interested in the conditions at the turn of the
9–10th century.” (Kristó 1995, 12). Two decades later, it
remains very difficult to identify Árpádian settlements
with traditional archaeological methods.
It cannot be proven that there would have been pot-
ters among the ancient Hungarians, and that they
would have brought a pottery tradition with them. We
cannot therefore define the starting point of the de-
velopment of the ceramic finds that are considered as
typical 10th- to 11th-century pottery, or know when the
standardised forms became standard (Fig. 3). I would
argue that the most possible solution lies with model 3.
398
395–406
Fig. 3. Modelling the process: the develop-
ment of the 10th- to 11th-century pottery in
the Carpathian Basin. – Model 1: I: late Ava-
rian pottery-tradition, II: the pottery-tradition
of the Old Hungarians. III: the standardised
10th- to 11th-century pottery, as the result of
the interaction of the two pottery-traditons. –
Model 2: I: late Avarian pottery tradition, II:
the pottery-tradition of the Old Hungarians.
– Model 3: I: late Avarian pottery tradition,
II: the standardised 10th- to 11th-century
pottery, transformed from the late Avarian
pottery-tradition.
Just as it remains difficult to identify 9th- to
10th-century cemeteries (Tomka 2010), it is also of
keen interest to discover settlements that survived the
Hungarian Conquest. It is even difficult to identify the
sites that started in that time, as the first settlements
of the Hungarians in the new territory. Despite a plen-
tiful corpus of pottery, the difficulty lies in the fact
that it has a broad chronology that cannot be refined
more closely than a two-hundred-year interval (that
is, the 10th to 11th century). These unsolved chrono-
logical problems can doubtlessly be attributed to the
lack of some basic research. Besides the fact that there
are only a couple of settlements from the early Árpád
age (that is, 10th to 11th century) that have been ana-
lysed exhaustively, a very important starting point of
10th-century settlement archaeology was published
recently. The study in question discusses those sites
from the given period that include excavated metal and
carved-bone artefacts of 10 to 11th-century date, since
these finds are more narrowly dateable because of
cemetery-chronology, and can serve as fixed points for
the contemporary settlements. There are however only
48 such sites that can be included in this analysis,
representing a total of 102 artefacts from the whole
Carpathian Basin (Langó 2011).
The available database, and problems
of sampling
In order to draw conclusions about the husbandry
strategies of the period based on the settlement ar-
chaeology of the early Árpád age, it is important to note
the order of magnitude of the available data, namely:
1. the number of the settlements that can be dated to
the given period; 2. the number of the analysed and
published settlements; 3. the number of sites where
RURALIA X
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
archaeobotanical and archaeozoological research has
been carried out. In this connection one is confronted
by the fact that there is not a single published early Ár-
pád age settlement where both archaeobotanical and
archaeozoological analyses have been done.
1. The number of the sites that are relatively well-
dated to the so-called early Árpád age based on metal
or carved bone finds is surprisingly low (Langó 2011).
Furthermore, most of these sites are ongoing exca-
vations and their stratigraphic information has not
been outlined, making it impossible to see how large
and what type the given settlement would have been.
Of these, there are only six agricultural tools from five
sites. (Langó 2011, 247) This assemblage of sites sits
within a larger corpus of 732–781 locations where
excavations have occurred on early Árpád age settle-
ments across the Basin within Hungary.2
2. The number of completely analysed and pub-
lished sites (with reliable dating) is also unfortunately
extraordinarily low (seeing some dominant excava-
tions: Horedt 1979, Lázár 1998; Herold 2004; Simonyi
2010). In the absence of suitably dated settlement ho-
rizons, the scientific sampling can encumber the ex-
act and proper interpretation. Sampled features and
settlements remain unanalysed and unpublished. The
only sources about their chronology are previous re-
ports, and several times their dating may have to be
reconsidered. The chronology of individual features is
also uncertain. Instead of a detailed analysis, the chro-
nology of the feature has tended to be equated with the
chronology of the site.
3. It had been estimated that only 12 sites dating
from the 9th to 12th century were subject to archaeo-
zoological and archaeobotanical analyses (Bartosie-
wicz 2008, 85). This modest number has grown in
recent years. An archaeozoological analysis was avail-
able from 17 settlements of period in 2013 (Daróczi-Sz-
abó 2013, 129, Fig. 55). Presently I have knowledge of a
further six early Árpád age settlements where archaeo-
zoological analysis has been completed at Győr-Ece,
within a 9th- to 10th-century settlement horizon
(Daróczi-Szabó 2009); at Esztergom-Szentgyörgymező,
within a 10- to 11th-century context; at Visegrád-Várk-
ert, in 8th- to 11th-century levels; at Szabolcs and
at Sály-Lator, during the10th to 11th century (Vörös
2009, 134, Fig. 2.); and at Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő, in
a 10- to 11th-century context (Bartosiewicz 1995, 374,
Fig. 22.).
There is only a single site that has had archaeobo-
tanical analysis which is dated back to either the be-
ginning of the 10th century or within the 10th century
2
Based on Miklós Takács’s lecture on the conference of “Hadak
útján”, in 2012.10.04., Visegrád, Hungary.
RURALIA X
395–406
proper, at Lébény-Billedomb (Gyulai 2010, 197; Gyulai
1998, 134). In addition, there are a further seven sites
of 10th- to 11th-century age: Kardoskút-Hatablak, Ti-
szaörvény, Endrőd, Keszthely-Halászcsárda, Eszter-
gom-Kovácsi, Visegrád-Várkert dűlő, Szabadkígyós-Pál-
liget (Gyulai 1998, 133–138). It is important to note
again that none of these sites has been fully analysed.
There is also a small assemblage of other sites men-
tioned where food, drink and other remains are doc-
umented or analysed (Gyulai 2010, Tab. 1, 394–437),
and there are some 20 sites dated to the 12th century,
where seed and fruit remains have been documented
(Gyulai 2010, Tab. 2, 438–441).
The dating issues and the very small number of
properly assessed sites caution against drawing too
many general insights from such a limited dataset.
Geographical conditions, lifestyle
and the potential husbandry strategies
Other disciplines are useful for providing insight,
including contemporary historical sources, linguisitic
data, paleoclimatologic evidence, and ethnographic in-
formation, all of which can provide useful information
to assist in a broad-based reconstruction of the pic-
ture. Several contemporary written sources survive,
and these suggest a more or less nomadic lifestyle
(see Djayhani, Ibn Rusta, Gardízi and Leo the Wise: Ko-
vács-Veszprémy 1995). For its part, the linguistic data
can be quite revealing, even if the time, place and the
circumstances of the vocabulary adaptation are uncer-
tain. There are, for instance, several plant names that
survive, along with words associated with cultivation,
and animal breeding that are Finno-Ugric, Turkish or
Slavic loan-words.
Finno-Ugric words include: köles (common millet),
kenyér (bread), csegely (wedge-shaped ploughland), fürt
(bunch), meggy (sour cherry), fű (grass), ág (twig), falu
(village), ház (house), nyomat (track), vág (cut), tér (area)
(Lakó 1967–78; Zichi 1923, 2–40).The most important
Bulgarian-Turkish words connected with farming from
before the conquest were: eke (plough), árpa (barley),
búza (bread wheat), arat (reap), sarló (sickle), bogyla
(hay stack), tarló (stubble-field), őröl (grind), gyümölcs
(fruit), alma (apple), körte (pear), mogyoró (hazelnut),
dió (walnut), kökény (sloe), galagonya (blackthorn),
som (cornel-berry), bor (wine), gyom (weed), gyertyán
(hornbeam), gyűrűfa (ringtree), kőris (ash-tree), tátorján
(a kind of flower) (Zichi 1923, 49–65; Gombocz 1960,
20–21; Ligeti 1986, 287–294). Some additional Bul-
garian-Turkish words are connected to horse breeding,
as well as other animals: nyereg (saddle), fék (curb),
eb (dog), róka (fox), nyest (mart), nyúl (rabbit), farkas
(wolf), lúd (goose), öszvér (mule), tehén (cow), ökör (ox),
borjú (calf), barom (cattle), kecske (goat), disznó (pig),
399
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
tyúk (chicken) etc., as well as: karám (sheepfold), ól
(pound), karó (post), vályú (trough) (Gombocz 1960,
5, 9; Ligeti 1986, 237–239, 244–245, 278–287; Vörös
1997, 57–58).
Environment and husbandry
One sees across part of the region a continuity of
the forest steppe, and with this (in the Transylvanian
Basin, the Partium and the Hungarian Great Plain)
the use of husbandry methods that had existed in the
greater forest steppe region to the east (Hortobágyi –
Simon 1981). But with the similarities there were also
differences. The “little climatic optimum”, which ex-
isted between 900 and 1300 AD creating the warmest
conditions in two millennia, also resulted in a much
smaller area of land suitable for pasture (Rácz 2008,
52, 56).
Lifestyle – social stratification – ethnicity?
The title of the section is provocative, especially in
view of the wider limitations, yet it only presents the
characteristic approach of former research briefly
summarized as follows. We cannot discuss the con-
cepts of nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyle within
the framework of this study, but there are many pub-
lications aimed at their clarification (see the sum-
mary by Szabadfalvi 1997). It should be emphasised
that researchers primarily build upon the Hungarian
animal-breeding of the 19th to 20th century. Most
researchers believe that extensive farming was un-
doubtedly part of the lifestyle of the ancient Hungar-
ians, or at least for the groups at the top of their social
hierarchy. The debate is about the focus within their
husbandry, as well as about the significance of culti-
vation to the life of the Hungarians arriving from the
East. Naturally, no exclusiveness is meant in the case
of nomadism either (Szabadfalvi 1997, 69–70, 73, 77).
The starting point of theoretical discussion is that
the10th-century social and/or ethnic groups – prefer-
ring different natural environments – would have pre-
ferred different husbandry strategies.
A characteristic approach of previous research was
that the conquering Hungarians were nomadic peo-
ple who had their lands tilled by Slavic people (see
the summary concerning the early ethnic interpreta-
tion of common people: Langó 2007, 88). Archaeology,
however, suggests that the reality was more complex.
Béla Szőke discussed the question in 1962: the num-
ber of the conquering Hungarians exceeded that of the
resident populations. The analysis of the graveyards
of common people, which are identified as an anthro-
pologically less homogenous common people of the
conquerors, suggests that they conducted a settled life-
400
395–406
style and engaged in farming, in contrast to the life-
styles of their lords (Szőke 1962, 101).
According to Györffy, the semi-nomadic lifestyle
could have been characteristic in the Great Plain flat-
lands, while on the forested hills and mountain ranges
small livestock farming was practised together with
slash-and-burn farming (Györffy 1977, 405).
Special attention was devoted to the correspondence
between soil types and various husbandry strategies
and social groupings. The first consideration was by
Gyula László, who argued that the late Avar and the
Hungarian settlement territory complemented each
other (László 1944, 67). He also created the so-called
“double conquest hypothesis” (László 1944, 95–101).
Németh subsequently pointed out that the graveyards
of the common people, which were more numerous,
were always found in the fertile loamy, loess grassland
and the forest soils of the Great Plain and Transdanu-
bia, and in each case close to the rivers swarming with
fish. The sandy grasslands of the Great Plain were
not occupied, people settled in fertile areas. This can
be explained by crop production (Németh 1973). With
a similar logic, Bálint showed that certain, putative
10th-century social and/or ethnic groups preferred
different trends in the field of husbandry, as the map
of the various cemetery-types suggests. According to
this observation, the super-stratum and the sub-stra-
tum lived in geologically separate territories, since the
burial sites of the elite with horses and rich enclosures
can be found in the sandy soil steppe regions (Nyírség,
Duna-Tisza region, Mezőföld, Small Plain) (Bálint 1980,
35–52).
Gyulai observed migrating livestock alongside a
limited extent of cropping and tillage in his considera-
tions of the archaeobotanical and the archaeozoologi-
cal results from Árpád-age sites. The fact that sheep
and cattle bones dominate the faunal remains, which
is quite typical for a nomadic lifestyle, does not con-
tradict the predominantly stock-farming lifestyle of
the ancient Hungarians, who arrived in the Basin with
farming and crop-producing skills (Gyulai 2010, 196).
Environmental circumstances – lifestyle?
One of the most important questions is how the
husbandry of the two groups (i.e. the surviving late
Avars and the ancient Hungarians) can be separated,
if they were separated at all. Traditionally the choice of
settlement area was thought to have been determined
by the preference for suitable geological, microclimat-
ic, hydrological, vegetational circumstances to suit a
pre-existing tradition of exploitation. However, there is
certain data that suggests an opposite phenomenon;
the surviving late Avars, for instance, as the descend-
RURALIA X
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
ants of the Hungarian Conquerors who settled down
and were assimilated to the existing circumstances
over, adapting to the natural environment, and chang-
ing their husbandry accordingly. Overall, it appears
that agriculture was nuanced west and east of the Dan-
ube, because of different environmental circumstanc-
es (see some examples in Gyulai 2010, 197–203). This
is not a specific feature of the 10th to 11th century, but
it is generally held for the whole of the Árpád age (for
instance, see: Vörös 2000).
The two main approaches show the complexity of
the question. Naturally, the two factors do not exist in-
dependently of each other and neither of them can be
excluded, even if it is hard to imagine that a generation
or two after the conquest, the descendants would have
given up the knowledge and tradition they had brought
with themselves from Eastern Europe.
It underlines the requirement for complex analyses
when excavating individual sites. To cite an example,
which is merely a tiny, worked out piece of the mo-
saic: the investigation of the geohistory of Bátorliget
marshland (Sümegi – Gulyás 2004) drew attention to
what was an unknown circumstance: an artificially
created fish pond was radiocarbon-dated to the 10th
century (Takács 2004, 268–272), immediately chal-
lenging the accepted views of early Hungarian life-
styles.
Comparative case study: the settlement of
farmers and the settlement of craftsmen
Such a lengthy introduction and discussion of the
challenges facing this line of research is necessary
to show the significance of the next short, but pub-
lished comparative analysis of the husbandry strat-
egies of two early medieval settlements, which is the
focus of this paper (Fig. 4 : 1). Fortunately, archaeo-
zoological and archaeobotanical analyses have been
partially or fully carried out in both instances, and
the present writer has been responsible for the strati-
graphic reports. As the research lies firmly within the
field of settlement archaeology, the traditional intel-
lectual framework based on the research of extensive
nomadism and nomadic buildings (yurts) has been ex-
cluded.
Győr-Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő (NW-Hungary)
– the settlement of people dealing with animal
breeding
The site is located in Győr, in Northwestern Hun-
gary. The excavated part of the early Árpád age site
is situated near the old unregulated watercourse of
the Rába River, on a longitudinal expanse of alluvium
RURALIA X
395–406
(Fig. 4 : 2). There were three excavations in the area
during the 1990s (Takács 2006, 537–538; 2006, 539;
Egry et al. 1997, 72–73). From a settlement area meas-
uring 2.5 ha in size, some 200 settlement features were
excavated, among them rectangular ditches that are
interpreted as sheepfolds and represent evidence for
intensive farming (Fig. 4 : 3). Besides the general types
of pit-houses, a special stockhut of round plan (Sab-
ján – Takács 2002) also appears at the site. The dating
of the metal finds and a coin find (1048 AD terminus
post quem) provide independent chronological insight,
which is set alongside the stratigraphic record and an
archaeomagnetic data (Márton 1996, 393, Table 1.), to
help determine the chronological phases of the set-
tlement. The archaeozoological results harmonise
with the indications that are revealed in the features.
Only 11,41 % of the bones are pig; 22,87 % caprovine;
about 12,10 % horse, and 51,57 % cattle3 (Fig. 4 : 5).
The archaeobotanical results in turn indicate the pres-
ence of a wide spectrum of cereals (comprising vari-
ous types of wheat, rye, barley, millet and some weed).
There was also some species of wild and raised fruits
(Jerem 1995, 18). The soil analysis shows that it was
rich in organic matter, which would be advantageous
for cultivation (Jerem 1995, 16–17). According to the
information from the excavations, it may have been the
settlement of a community dealing with intensive cat-
tle-breeding, and cultivation may possibly have played
a significant role.
Visegrád-Várkert dűlő – the surviving 8th- to
11th-century site and early Árpád age artisan
settlement
The site is located in North Hungary at the Dan-
ube Bend, on the slopes to the river bank in Visegrád
(Fig. 4 : 6). The slope is geographically structured by
smaller combs and gullies. The latest phase of the site
is perhaps integrally related to the early royal centre,
which was mentioned in a charter of Veszprém from
1009 AD (Györffy 1992, 52). According to the written
source the name of the centre is Vyssegrad civitates,
an undoubtedly West Slavic toponym. During the re-
searches from the 1950s (led by I. Méri and J. Koval-
ovszki), an. 0.4 ha area was excavated. In the course
of eighteen excavations, 37 houses, 11 pits, 2 outdoor
ovens and 3 features connecting with metal smelting
were investigated, along with, late Árpádian age church
and 463 graves. Half of the settlement features are ra-
diocarbon-dated to the end of the 8th century to 9th
century. The remaining evidence belongs more gener-
ally to the 8th to 10th century, or 10th to 11th century.
3
The present author wishes to thank László Bartosiewicz for
the archaeozoological results.
401
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin 395–406

Fig. 4. – 1. Map showing the location of Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő (1), and Visegrád-Várkert dűlő (2) . – 2. Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő (NW-Hungary),
the site on the First Military Mapping Survey of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1763–1785). – 3. The ground plan of a sheepfold at the site of
Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő. – 4. The typical early Árpád age vessel type, the clay cauldron, used especially for cooking meat meals, as stew, from the
the site of Ménfőcsanak – Bevásárlóközpont, Feature 559. –5. Analysis of the archaeozoological finds from the two sites. Grey: Visegrád-Várkert
dűlő (Bökönyi 1974, 431, Vörös 2009, 137, Table 5), Black: Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő (after the previous report of L. Bartosiewicz.) – 6. Visegrád-
Várkert dűlő (N-Hungary), the site on the First Military Mapping Survey of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1763–1785). – 7. Bronze-melting oven from
the site of Visegrád – Várkert dűlő (Kovalovszki 1994, 449, Fig. 2). – 8. Excavation map of the site of Visegrád-Várkert dűlő. (Kovalovszki 1986,
Appendix 3).

402 RURALIA X
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
Continuity of settlement cannot be excluded, and it is
certain that – contrary to previous research – an 8th-
or 8th- to 9th-century horizon is certainly document-
ed in the case of both this site and of Visegrád-Sibrik
domb. In contrast to other early medieval sites, it is
conspicuous that there is not a single ditch here (Ko-
valovszki 1986, 63; Fig. 4 : 8), and there are some
bronze-melting ovens as well for skilled metalworking
(Kovalovszki 1994; Fig. 4 : 7). The archaeozoological
analysis indicates a different profile to that associated
with livestock communities. Here, there were ca. 25 %
cattle, 17 % caprovine and 4% horse, but the rate of pig
bones is relatively high, ca. 28 % (Bökönyi 1974, 431,
Vörös 2009, 137, Table 5; Fig. 4 : 5), as well as the rate
of poultry is significant. The results suggest a settled
lifestyle. It is therefore entirely in keeping that the ar-
chaeobotanical remains include some garden vegeta-
bles, like the common lentil, chickling vetch, or other
seeds, like the wild pea or hemp (P. Hartyányi – Nováki
– Patay 1968, 62).
Conclusion
Generally ethnicity has not featured as a principal
observation of these two studies, but it is perhaps
worth mentioning Visegrád, that there was a continu-
ity in the toponym, suggesting that the 8th- to 9th-cen-
tury population, which were presumably West Slavic,
could have continued on site into the 10th to 11th
century. It is also important to emphasise that these
settlements cannot be associated with social classes.
The indications of a settled lifestyle at Visegrád is in
contrast to the ‘average’ early medieval settlement, and
the site clearly also lacked ditches and sheepfolds that
are otherwise connected to intensive breeding. It is
also surprising that there is not a single early example
of the typical ceramic from the period, namely the clay
cauldron (Fig. 4 : 4). This may suggest a different gas-
tronomy, compared with the diet of the community in
Ménfőcsanak. In the latter settlement, according to the
archaeozoological analysis, the predominance of cattle
is clear, which is a strong indicator for the practice of
intensive cattle breeding, and this is supported by the
presence of sheepfolds. The emblematic clay cauldron
mentioned above (Takács 1986), which is for cooking
stew, is a characteristic part of the ceramic material
on this site.
This comparative analysis has highlighted the sup-
posed mosaic-like pattern of early medieval lifestyle
and husbandry strategies in the Carpathian Basin,
and has demonstrated that a better understanding of
the kinds of relevant answers will come from a mul-
ti-disciplinary approach where archaeology is the driv-
ing force.
RURALIA X
395–406
Summary
Present paper discusses the potential husbandry
strategies in 10th-century settlements in the Car-
pathian Basin. In the first part of the article the au-
thor presents the challenges posed by the data sets,
the available database concerning the topic, as well
as the problems of sampling. Henceforth the most im-
portant points and typical research questions of the
research history are discussed. After reviewing the re-
search situation, in the focus of the paper there is a
comparative case study. The casework deals with two
early medieval settlements along the river Danube, in
the case of which archaeozoological and archaeobot-
anical analyses have been partially or fully carried out,
and the present writer has been responsible for the
stratigraphic reports. In the case of the site, which can
be dated back to the 10th–11th century, the practice
of intensive cattle breeding is observable, in contrast
to the other site, which is dated from the 8th–9th –
and maybe with continuity – to the 10th–11th century,
where the handicraft could have been the dominant ac-
tivity in the life of the settlement.
Zusammenfassung
Im Rahmen der vorliegenden Arbeit wird ein Über-
blick über die potentiellen landwirtschaftlichen Strate-
gien in den Siedlungen des 10. Jahrhunderts im Kar-
patenbecken gegeben. Der erste Teil des Artikels stellt
Forschungsprobleme und die Datenbasis der einschlä-
gigen Fundorte vor. Des Weiteren wird ein Überblick
über die Forschungsgeschichte gegeben bevor schließ-
lich die Landnutzungsstrategien im Rahmen einer
Fallstudie vergleichend dargestellt werden. Zwei Sied-
lungen an der mittleren Donau, zu denen archäozoolo-
gische und archäobotanische Auswertungen vorliegen,
werden dazu archäologisch ausgewertet. Die beiden
Siedlungen unterscheiden sich in ihren chronologi-
schen Laufzeiten, aber auch in ihren wirtschaftlichen
Grundlagen: In der ab dem 10. Jahrhundert laufen-
den Siedlung von Győr-Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő zeigt
sich die Bedeutung der Viehzucht. Die zweite Siedlung
Visegrád-Várkert dűlő bestand vom 8./9. Jahrhundert
kontinuierlich bis ins 10./11. Jahrhundert und wurde
überwiegend von Handwerkern bewohnt.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Júlia Kovalovszki (†), Péter Gróf,
Miklós Takács and Péter Tomka for giving me the
opportunity to work with the above mentioned two
sites. I wish to thank Katalin Horváth, Niall Brady and
Mark Gardiner for language revision of the English
text.
403
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
Bibliography
Balassa, I. 1973:
Az eke és a szántás története Magyarországon – Geschichte
des Pfluges und Pflügens in Ungarn. Budapest.
Bálint, Cs. 1975:
A szaltovó-majaki kultúra avar és magyar kapcsolatairól – On
the Avar and Hungarian relations of the Saltovo-Mayak cultu-
re, Archaeologiai Értesítő 112, 52–63.
Bálint, Cs. 1980:
Természeti földrajzi tényezők a honfoglaló magyarok megte-
lepedésében – Die Rolle der geographischen Gegebenheiten
(der Bodenarten) bei der Ansiedlung der landnahmenden Un-
garn, Ethnographia 91/1, 35–52.
Bálint, Cs. 1989:
Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Volga
und Donau vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Wien–Köln.
Bálint, Cs. 1999:
Zwischen Orient und Europa. Die „Steppenfixierung” in der
Frühmittelalterarchäologie, in: Henning, J. (ed.), Zwischen
Byzanz und Abendland. Pliska, der östliche Balkanraum und
Europa im Spiegel der Frühmittelalterarchäologie, Frankfurt
am Main, 13–16.
Bartosiewicz, L. 1995:
Archeozoological studies from the Hahót basin, SW-Hungary,
Antaeus, Communicationes ex Instituto Archeologico Aca-
demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22, 307–368.
Bartosiewicz, L. 2008:
A középkor régészeti állattani kutatása Magyarországon – Me-
dieval archaeozoology in Hungary, in: Kubinyi, A. – Laszlovsz-
ky, J. – Szabó, P. (eds), Gazdaság és gazdálkodás a középkori
Magyarországon: gazdaságtörténet, anyagi kultúra, régészet
– Medieval Hungarian Economic History in the Light of Ar-
chaeology and Material Culture. Budapest, 83–90.
Bokij, N. M. – Pletnëva, S. A. 1989:
Nomád harcos család 10. századi sírjai az Ingul folyó völgy-
ében – Gräber einer nomadischen Kriegerfamilie aus dem
10. Jh. im Ingul-Flußtal, Archaeologiai Értesítő 116, 86–98.
Botalov, S.,G. 2012:
Боталов, С. Г., Научный инструментарий историка. новые
аспекты и перспективы. в исследованиипроблемы „MAGNA
HUNGARIA”, in: Вестник Челябинского государственного
университета. 265. История. Вып. 50. С., 128–146.
Daróczi-Szabó, L. 2009:
Jelentés a győri Vagongyár ásatásának állatcsont anyagáról.
[Report on archaeozoological research at the site of Győr-Va-
gongyár]. Manuscript.
Daróczi-Szabó, M. 2013:
Az Árpád-kori Kána falu állatcsontjainak vizsgálata [Archaeo-
zoological research at the Árpád age site of Kána] PhD disser-
tation. Manuscript. Budapest.
Dienes, I. 1972:
Dienes István, Honfoglaló magyarok – Hungarians Cross the
Carpathians. Budapest.
M. Egry, I. – Szőnyi, E. – Tomka, P. 1997:
Győr-Ménfőcsanak, Bevásárlóközpont [The site of Győr-Mén-
főcsanak, Bevásárlóközpont], Régészeti Füzetek 1/49, 72–73.
404
395–406
Fodor, I. 1973:
Honfoglalás kori régészetünk néhány őstörténeti vonatkozá-
sáról – Über einige frühgeschichtliche Beziehungen unserer
landnahmenzeitlichen Archäologie, Folia Archaeologia 24,
159–176.
Fodor, I. 1975a:
Cserépüstjeink származása – On the origins of clay kettles
from Hungary, Archaeologiai Értesítő 102, 250–265.
Fodor, I. 1975b:
Verecke híres útján… A magyar nép őstörténete és a honfog-
lalás [On the famous road of Verecke… The early Hungarian
history and the conquest]. Budapest.
Fodor, I. 1984:
Kazárok, bolgárok, magyarok. Széljegyzetek Peter B. Golden
könyvéhez – Chasaren, Bulgaren, Ungarn. Randbemerkun-
gen zum Werk von P. B. Golden, Archaeologiai Értesítő 111,
100–109.
Fodor, I. 1985:
Honfoglalás kori bordázottnyakú edényeink származásáról –
Über den Ursprung der landnahmezeitlichen Gefäße mit ge-
ripptem Hals, Folia Archaeologia 36, 165–171.
Fodor, I. 1994:
Leletek Magna Hungáriától Etelközig [Finds from Magna
Hungaria to Etelköz], in: Kovács, L. (ed.), Honfoglalás és régé-
szet. A honfoglalásról sok szemmel 1. Budapest, 47–65.
Fodor, I. 2006:
A magyar gazdálkodás változásai a 10. században – Die Verän-
dungen der ungarischen Wirtschaft im 10. Jahrhundert, in:
Fodor, I. – Szatmári, I. (eds), A fénylő középkor. Tanulmányok
Kovalovszki Júlia tiszteletére. Budapest–Békéscsaba, 13–33.
Gombocz, Z. 1960:
Honfoglalás előtti bolgár-török jövevényszavaink – [Bulgaro-
Turkish loan-words before the Hungarian conquest]. Nyelvtu-
dományi Értekezések 24.
Gróf, P. 2011:
Árpád-kori mészégető kemence feltárása Visegrád-Várkert-
ben [Excavation of an Árpád age lime-kiln at the site of Viseg-
rád-Várkert], in: Kolozsi, B. – Szilágyi, K. A. (eds), Sötét idők
falvai 8–11. századi települések a Kárpát medencében. Tem-
pora Obscura. Debrecen, 485–497.
Györffy, Gy. 1963:
Magyarország népessége a honfoglalástól a XIV. század köze-
péig – The Population of Hungary from the Conquest until
the Middle of the 14th Century, in: Kovachich, J. (ed.), Ma-
gyarország történeti demográfiája. Magyarország népessége a
honfoglalástól 1849-ig. Budapest, 45–62.
Györffy, Gy. 1977:
István király és műve [St. Stephan and his creation]. Buda-
pest.
Györffy, Gy. (ed.) 1992:
Diplomata Hungariae Antiquissima I. Budapest.
Gyulai, F. 1998:
Archaeobotanical Sources in Investigating the Diet of Con-
quering Hungarians, in: Laszlovszky, J. (ed.), Tender Meat
under the Saddle. Customs of Eating, Drinking and Hospi-
tality among Conquering Hungarians and Nomadic Peoples,
Krems, 120–156.
RURALIA X
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
Gyulai, F. 2010:
Archaeobotany in Hungary. Seed, Fruit, Food and Beverages
Remains in the Carpathian Basin: an Archaeobotanical In-
vestigation of Plant Cultivation and Ecology from the Neolit-
hic until the Late Middle Ages. Budapest.
P. Hartyányi, B. – Nováki, Gy. – Patay, Á. 1968:
Növényi mag- és termésleletek Magyarországon az újkőkortól
a XVIII. sz.-ig. I.— Samen- und Fruchtfunde in Ungarn von
der Jungsteinzeit bis zum XVIII. Jahrhundert I. Magyar Me-
zőgazdasági Múzeum Közleményei I, 5–85.
Herold, H. 2004:
Die Frühmittelalterliche Siedlung von Örménykút 54. Varia
Archaeologica Hungarica 14. Budapest.
Horedt 1979:
Morești: Grabungen in einer vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Si-
edlung in Siebenburgen 1–2, București.
Hortobágy, T. – Simon, T. 1981:
Növényföldrajz, társulástan és ökológia [Plant geography, stu-
dy of plant communities and ecology]. Budapest.
Iatsenko 2007:
Яценко, B.B., П одкурганное захоронение VIII–IX вв. у г.
Пролетарска. — A barrow burial of the 8–9th century near
the town of Proletarsk, in: Средневековые древности Дона.
Материалы и исследования по археологии Дона. сборник
статей. — The Mediaeval Antiquities of the Don. Collected Ar-
ticles. The Don Archaeology. New Materials and its Analysis.
Москва – Иерусалим, 182–192.
Istvánovits, E. 2003:
A Rétköz honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori leletanyaga — Das
Landnahme und arpadenzeitliche Nachlassmaterial des Rét-
köz. Magyarország honfoglalás kori és kora Árpád-kori sírle-
letei 4. Kovács, L.– Révész, L. (eds), Nyíregyháza – Budapest.
Jerem, E. 1995:
Környezetrégészeti és archaeometriai módszerek alkalmazá-
sa a településtörténeti kutatásban [Adaptation of environ-
mental and archaeometrical methods in the settlement his-
torical research]. Manuscript. Budapest.
Khalikova, E. A. – Khalikov, A. H. 1981:
Altungarn an der Kama und im Ural: das Gräberfeld von
Bolschie Tigani. Régészeti Füzetek 2/21.
Khalikova, E. A. – Kazakov, E. P. 1977:
Le cimetière de Tankeevka, in: Les anciens Hongrois et les
ethnies voisines a L’Est. Publ.: István Erdélyi, Studia Archaeo-
logica 6, 21–221.
Kazakov, E. P. – Khalikov, A. Ch. – Chuzin, F. S. 1990:
Die Keramik vom Saltovo-Typ aus dem mittleren Wolgagebiet,
in: Bálint, Cs. (ed.), Die Keramik der Saltovo-Majaki Kultur
und ihrer Varianten. Budapest.
Kovács L. – Veszprémy L. 1995:
A honfoglaláskor írott forrásai [The written sources of the
Hungarian conquest time]. Budapest.
Kovalovszki, J. 1986:
A Visegrád-várkerti faluásatásról [Data on the excavation of
the early medieval settlement, Visegrád-Várkert], in: Kocsis,
Gy. (ed.), A magyar falu régésze Méri István 1911–1976. Ceg-
léd, 61–63.
RURALIA X
395–406
Kovalovszki, J. 1994:
Árpád-kori bronzolvasztó kemence Visegrádon (Méri István
ásatása) – Ein Árpádenzetlicher Bronzschmelzofen in Viseg-
rád, in: Lőrinczy, G. (ed.), A kőkortól a középkorig. Szeged,
439–447.
Kristó, Gy. 1995:
A magyar állam megszületése [The birth of the Hungarian
state]. Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 8. Szeged.
Lakó, Gy. 1967–78:
A magyar szókészlet finnugor elemei I–III. [The finno-ugric
elements of the Hungarian vocabulary]. Budapest.
Langó, P. 2007:
Amit elrejt a föld… A 10. századi magyarság anyagi kultúrájá-
nak régészeti kutatása a Kárpát-medencében [What the earth
hides… The archaeological research of the material culture of
the 10th-century Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin]. Bu-
dapest.
Langó, P. 2011:
A Kárpát-medence X–XI. századra keltezett településeinek
fém- és eszközleletei. Vázlat. [Metal and tool artefacts at
10–11th-century settlements in the Carpathian Basin. Draft],
in: Almási, T. –Révész, É. –Szabados, Gy. (eds), „Fons, skep-
sis, lex” Ünnepi tanulmányok a 70 esztendős Makk Ferenc
tiszteletére. Budapest, 234–265.
László, Gy. 1944:
A honfoglaló magyar nép élete [The life of the conquering
Hungarians]. Budapest.
Lázár, S. 1998:
Kora Árpád-kori település Esztergom-Szentgyörgymezőn –
Frühárpádenzeitliche Siedlungsgrabung in Esztergom-Szent-
györgymező. Opuscula Hungarica I. Budapest.
Ligeti, L. 1986:
A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Ár-
pád-korban [The Turkish relationship of the Hungarian lan-
guage before the Hungarian conquest and in the Árpád age].
Budapest.
Márton, P. 1996:
Archaeomagnetic directions: the Hungarian calibration
curve, in: Morris, A. – Tarling, D. H. (eds), Palaeomagnetism
and Tectonics of the Mediterranean Region. Geological Soci-
ety Special Publication 105, 385–399.
Mesterházy, K. 1975:
Honfoglalás kori kerámiánk keleti kapcsolatai – Östliche Be-
ziehungen der ungarischen landnahmenzetlichen Keramik,
Folia Archaeologia 26, 99–120.
Németh, P. 1973:
Újabb eredmények a honfoglaló magyarság települési rend-
jének kutatásában [New data on researching the settlement
pattern of the Hungarian conquerors], Szabolcs-Szatmári
Szemle 18/4, 67–69.
Prihodnûk L. N. – Čurilova O. M. 2002:
The Korobcino find (Ukraine) and some problems of the Hun-
garian ethnogenesis, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientia-
rum Hungaricae 53, 183–194.
Rácz, L.2008:
Magyarország környezettörténete az újkorig [Environmental
history of Hungary till the modern age]. Budapest.
405
Merva, Potential husbandry strategies in 10th-century cettlements in the Carpathian Basin
Róna-Tas, A. 1996:
A honfoglaló magyar nép [The conquering Hungarian peo-
ple]. Budapest.
Serbakova – Tasi – Telnov 2008:
Щербакова – Е. Ф. Тащи – Н. П. Тельнов, Кочевнические
древности Нижнего Поднестровья (По материалам раско-
пок кургана у г. Слободзея). Кишинёв.
Sabján, T. – Takács, M. 2002:
A ménfőcsanaki 147. objektum – feltárás, rekonstrukció, ér-
telmezés – Das Objekt 147 von Ménfőcsanak. Beschreibung,
Rekonstrukcion, Interpretation, in: Központok és falvak a
honfoglalás és kora Árpád-kori Magyarországon. Tatabányai
Múzeum. Tudományos füzetek 6, 95–119.
Simonyi, E. 2010:
10–13. századi települések Északkelet-Magyarországon és a
régió Árpád-kori kerámiája [10–13th-century settlements in
NE-Hungary and the Árpád age pottery of the region]. PhD
dissertation. Manuscript.
Sümegi, P. – Gulyás, S. (eds) 2004:
The geohistory of Bátorliget Marshland. Budapest.
Szabadfalvi, J. 1997:
A honfoglalás kori magyarság állattenyésztő technikája [The
animal husbandry of the Hungarian conquerors], in: Ko-
vács, L. – Paládi-Kovács, A. – Györffy, Gy. (eds), Honfoglalás
és néprajz. Honfoglalás sok szemmel IV. Budapest, 69–84.
Szőke, B. 1962:
A honfoglaló és kora Árpád-kori magyarság régészeti emlékei
[The archaeological remains of the Conquest and the Early
Árpád Periods], RégTan 1. Budapest.
Takács, M. 1986:
Die arpadenzeitlichen Tonkessel im Karpatenbecken. Varia
Archaeologica Hungarica 1. Budapest.
Takács, M. 1997:
A 10. századi magyar – szláv viszonyról és a honfoglaló ma-
gyarok életmódjáról. (Néhány megjegyzés Kristó Gyula: A ma-
gyar állam megszületése. Szeged 1995. c. könyvéről) [On the
relationship between Slavs and Hungarians in the 10th cen-
tury and the life of the conquering Hungarians (Comments
on the book of Gyula Kristó: The birth of the Hungarian sta-
te)] Századok 131/1, 168–215.
Takács, M. 2004:
On the historical and archaeological aspects of the environ-
mental history of Bátorliget marshland in the 10th century
AD, in: Sümegi, P. – Gulyás, S. (eds), The geohistory of Bátor-
liget Marshland, 268–271.
Takács, M. 2006:
A Ménfőcsanak – Szeles-dűlői lelőhelyen 1990 – 91-ben fel-
tárt Árpád-kori veremházak. – Pit-houses from the Árpád Age
found at the site of Ménfőcsanak-Szeles dűlő in 1990–1991,
in: Ünnepi kötet a 65 éves Tomka Péter tiszteletére, Arrabona
44/1, 537–565.
Takács, M. 2006b:
Három nézőpont a honfoglaló magyarokról – Three opinions
Szabina Merva, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, 1014
Budapest, Úri u. 49, Hungary, merva.szabina@btk.mta.hu
406
395–406
regarding the Hungarian conquerors. Dolgozatok az Erdélyi
Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, 1 (11). Koloszvár, 67–98.
Takács, M. 2009:
Über die Chronologie der mittelalterlichen Siedlungsgrabun-
gen in Ungarn, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 60, 223–252.
Tomka, P. 2010:
Teil eines Gräberfeldes aus der Karolingerzeit von Himod,
Flur Káposztás, Antaeus, Communicationes ex Instituto
Archeologico Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31–32,
199–224.
Türk, A. 2012:
The new archaeological research design for early Hungarian
history. Hungarian Archaeology. www.hungarianarchaeology.
huwpcontent/uploads/2012/08/eng_turk_12Ny_0827.pdf
Vékony, G. 2001:
Népesedési viszonyok az Árpád-korban [Demographic con-
ditions in the Árpád age]. Történeti demográfiai évkönyv.
81–103.
Vida, T. 1999:
Die awarenzeitliche Keramik I: Früh- und Mittelawarenzeit,
6./7. Jh. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 8. Berlin – Budapest.
Vörös, I. 1997:
A honfoglaló magyarok állatai az írott források és a régészeti
leletek tükrében [The animals of the Hungarian conquerors
in the light of the written sources and the archaeological as-
semblages], in: Makkay, J. – Kobály, J. (eds), Honfoglalás és
Árpád-kor. A Verecke híres útján tudományos konferencia
anyagai. Ungvár, 57–68.
Vörös, I. 2000:
Adatok az Árpád-kori állattartás történetéhez [Data on the his-
tory of the animal husbandry in the Árpád age], in: Bende, L.
–Lőrinczy, G. (eds), A középkori magyar agrárium. Ópuszta-
szer, 71–120.
Vörös, I. 2009:
Adatok a Dunakanyar régió Árpád-kori állattartásához – Data
on animal keeping in the Danube Bend region (Hungary) du-
ring the 11th–13th century period of the Árpád dynasty, in:
Bartosiewicz, L. – Gál, E. – Kováts, I., Csontvázak a szekrény-
ből: válogatott tanulmányok a Magyar Archaeozoológusok
Visegrádi Találkozóinak anyagából. 2002–2009. – Skeletons
from the Cupboard. Selected Studies from the Visegrád Mee-
tings of Hungarian Archaeozoologists 2002–2009. Budapest,
131–150.
Wolf, M. 2008:
A borsodi földvár. Egy államalapításkori megyeszékhelyünk
[The earthwork of Borsod. A center of a county from the time
of the Foundation of Hungarian State]. PhD dissertation. Ma-
nuscript. Szeged.
Zichi, I. 1923:
A magyarság őstörténete és műveltsége a honfoglalásig [The
early history and culture of the Hungarians until the conquest].
A Magyar Nyelvtudomány Kézikönyve I/5. Budapest.
RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 407–427

On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary.

Grinding stones and quern-stones from Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő1
Beiträge zur awarenzeitlichen Agrartechnologie in Ungarn.
Reib- und Mühlsteine aus Hajdúnás – Mácsi-dűlő

Sur la technologie agraire de la période Avar en Hongrie.

Meules et moulins à bras du site de Hajdúnánás, Mácsi-dűlő

Rozália Bajkai

No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge;

for he taketh a man’s life to pledge. (Moses Deuteronomy 24:6)
1

Introduction
Hungarian research has paid very little attention to
grinding stones and quern stones so far, even though
they, along with pottery, are one of the most common
artefacts found in Avar Period settlements of 6th to
9th century.2 On one hand, the analysis of the stone
materials is uncommon among the experts dealing
with the settlements of the era, and on the other hand
the search for archaeological signs of Avar agricultural
activity is very much in its infancy (Pető et al. 2012).
The Avars were a heterogeneous group of horse
nomads who arrived from Central Asia to the Car-
pathian Basin in 568 AD, and who incorporated dif-
ferent eastern nomadic, local Germanic, Romanised
and Slavic people into their khaganate. Although their
supremacy extended over the whole Basin, it has not
created a unified heritage. The reason for this is not to
be sought in the different ethnic groups, especially in
view of the fact that, after the early colourful picture
from the last third of the 7th century we can observe a
convergence of the material culture. For instance, the
difference between artefacts typical of Germanic and
Romanised cultures, though present initially, subse-
1
The study was supported by OTKA Grant Nr. 104533.
2
Due to the differences of the archaeological terms in Hungar-
ian and English, it is appropriate to define the use of some ex-
pressions in this study. Henceforth grinding stone (őrlőkő) will
be used generally for stone tools for grinding purposes, includ-
ing stone artefacts with a grinding surface that do not have a
central hole, and therefore cannot be identified more closely.
However, in the Hungarian literature the term malomkő (mill-
stone) is used for circular stones with a central hole or socket
in the middle, and refers to a simple, human-power driven ro-
tary grinding implement, that is termed quern-stone in this
study. Instead of the expression hand-mill, which also often
occurs in translations from Hungarian, rotary hand quern
will be used, except in the case of ethnographic parallels.
quently disappeared (Vida 2009, 114). The Danube has
been a dividing line from the Roman era; the diversity
of Pannonia and Barbaricum was present in the Avar
Period, too, and the traditions of Roman workshops
had a great influence. As for settlements, the Avar pot-
teries from Transdanubia and the Great Hungarian
Plain substantially differ from each other, and because
of the disparate geographical environment and soil
conditions, we can also find diversity within smaller
regions. The nomadic life of the Avars was replaced
by permanent settlements from the beginning of the
7th century onwards, which then remained character-
istic for the remainder of the Avar Period. However, lit-
tle is known about the economy of the settlements: how
dominant was agriculture and animal husbandry, and
what kinds of crafts were practised in a settlement?
In the publications of Avar settlements, there are
only short references to stone artefacts, but the same
is also true for Árpádian Age (10th–13th centuries) set-
tlements. Hence, we cannot judge the amount or form
of utilisation of the stone materials found in a settle-
ment, and a valuable source of information is lost.
From the Hungarian Migration Period only on a few oc-
casions has there been an evaluation of the stone mate-
rials, or of the provenance and types of the stone tools.
For the Avar Period there has been an analysis of the
stone materials of a late Avar (8th–9th century) settle-
ment from the multi-period site Kompolt-Kistér (Coun-
ty Heves) where all the stone material was examined.
From the total 444 pieces of stone only 15 pieces were
from the Avar or Late Avar Period (Fig. 1). According
to the analysis, the stone tools were solely fragments
of grinding stones and quern-stones made of grey
andesite and andesitic tuff (T. Biró 1999, 255–278).

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 407–427.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110480
 Site Chronology Context Stone tool type Size Pieces Raw material References

408
1. Eperjes – Csikós tábla Gepid Age/ from feature 2, grinding stones n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. Bálint 1991, 23.
(Csongrád County) 8th century second utilisation

2. Hajdúnánás, Mácsi- Late Avar Period from features, from quern-stones, diam.: 39–43 cm; 1038 andesite, rhyolite, Bajkai 2012, 20–22.
dűlő (Hajdú-Bihar ovens grinding stones diam. of the central sandstone, dacite?
County) hole: ca. 5 cm;
thickn.: 2–7.5 cm

3. Hajdúnánás, Fekete- Late Avar Period from features, from quern-stones, n.d.a. 99 andesite, rhyolite, unpublished
halom (Hajdú-Bihar ovens grinding stones sandstone, dacite?
County)
on the top of an oven upper stone from diam.: 36–37 cm; 1 rhyolite
of feauture 42 rotary quern thickn.: 5–5.6 cm;
diam. of centr. hole:
5–5.7 cm

4. Kompolt-Kistér (Heves Late Avar Period from ovens of feature quern-stones, diam.: 26–72 cm 15 andesite Vaday 1999,
County) 6, 34, 189 grinding stones pl. 88–91.

on the top of an oven grinding stone diam.: 38 cm 1 andesite Vaday 1999, fig. 40.
of feauture 189 (without central hole)

5. Makó, Mikócsa dűlő Late Avar Period 187 cm deep from a quern-stones diam.: 45 cm; thickn.: 2 gneiss according to the
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary

(Csongrád County) pit, on each other 7–8 cm information of

Dániel Pópity
from an oven quern-stone n.d.a. 1 dacite

6. Nagykálló – Harangod Late Avar Period n.d.a. grinding stones n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. according to the
(Szabolcs-Szatmár- information of
Bereg County) Katalin Gergely

7. Nyíregyháza – Oros Late Avar Period from the filling of quern-stones, n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. according to the
(Szabolcs-Szatmár- feature 1065, one grinding stones information of
Bereg County) from the top of the Melinda Takács, dr.
oven Eszter Istvánovits,
Szabolcs Ferencz

8. Nyírtass (Szabolcs- Late Avar Period, 9th from the filling of quern-stones, n.d.a. n.d.a. pyroxene andesite, according to the
Szatmár-Bereg century features 76, 77, 78, grinding stones piroxene dacite information of
County) 84 Melinda Takács

9. Orosháza site 13 Late Avar Period n.d.a. grinding stones n.d.a. 5 andesite, Rózsa et al. 2011,
(Békés County) sandstone, mica 120, fig. 16: 1–3.

hammerstone n.d.a. 1 sandstone

407–427

RURALIA X
Fig. 1. List of quern-stones and grinding stones found in Avar settlements from Hungary (without a claim of completeness).
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
The latest analysis of stone tools has been for the site
of Orosháza 13, which consists of 28 items (Rózsa et
al. 2011, 119–220). Altogether 19 pieces of stone frag-
ments are mentioned, most of them unidentifiable piec-
es, and the rest are fragments of grinding stones, whet-
stones, hammerstones. (Rózsa et al. 2011, fig. 16: 1).
The grinding stones are partly andesite, partly sand-
stone and mica (Fig. 1). On the basis of the compara-
tive rock samples, the source of the raw material is
presumed to be outside of present-day Hungary, possi-
bly the southern Carpathians and the Mures River Val-
ley (Rózsa et al. 2011, 120). The most comprehensively
analysed site is the 3rd- to 4th-century Sarmatian site
in Üllő (County Pest), where amongst ca. 9000 features
926 pieces of volcanic rock quern-stones and grinding
stones were found, from which 848 pieces of basaltic
andesite grinding stones were analysed petrographi-
cally and geochemically. Comparative samples were
collected from the nearby mountains of Börzsöny,
Cserhát, Mátra and Karancs, where this type of stone
occurs to determine the provenance of the raw mate-
rial. The samples were compared to data from special-
ist literature. The material was closest in its mineral
content and texture to the samples taken in Cserhát
(Péterdi et al. 2009, 43–44, 58).
The present study focuses on the stone materials of
two Late Avar settlements (8th–9th century) from the
vicinity of Hajdúnánás (County Hajdú-Bihar), from
which the first results from the site of Mácsi-dűlő will
be discussed (Fig. 2). My attention was turned to the
question of the agriculture of the Avar period due to
quern-stones and grinding stones of the two sites.
In addition to the archaeological analysis, a geolo-
gist was needed to determine the raw material of the
RURALIA X
407–427
Fig. 2. Location of the sites of Haj-
dúnánás – Fekete-halom (1) and
Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő (2).
rock, as well as the professional advice of a colleague
with experience in analysing stone tools. At the site
of Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő more than a thousand
stones were found from Late Avar features. After their
first examination more than one-tenth of them could
be defined by their function (Fig. 4; Fig. 7: 1). The ma-
jority were recognisable fragments of quern-stones
and grinding stones, but solely as pieces, and in sec-
ondary positions, as parts of the ovens or in the fill-
ings (Bajkai 2012, 20–22). At the site of Hajdúnánás
– Fekete-halom a far smaller quantity (about a hun-
dred pieces) and more fragmentary stone material
was found, however a whole upper stone was also
discovered in a secondary position, sealing off the top
of the oven in a pit-house (Fig. 1).3 The two sites are
about 10 km from each other, belong to the same pe-
riod (8th–9th century), yet there are several differences
concerning both the pottery, and settlement structure.
The analysis of the stone material is considered to be
a part and the beginning of the complex research of
the settlement which will take us closer to the matter
of agriculture too.
Agrarian technology in the Avar Period
(6th–9th century)
The Avar people changed their lifestyle to one of
sedentism in the 7th century at the latest. This is sup-
ported by their extensive settlements, diverse objects,
and the bones of animals that were found in their do-
mestic waste. The following settlement structure re-
mained characteristic throughout the entire Avar Peri-
3
The archaeological material of the site is still unpublished.
409
 Feature Stone Stone tool

410
Inv. Nr. Pieces OBJ/SNR Description Size
type material type
1. HAJ-8 1 16/16 building andesite handstone Oval stone keeping its natural form. Porous structure, burnt traces on the 28.5×15 cm;
surface. Function: handstone. max. H.: 17 cm
2. HAJ-9 1 16/16 building andesite handstone Oval stone keeping its natural form. Porous structure, burnt traces on the 20.5×13.5 cm;
surface. Function: handstone. max. H.: 14.2 cm
3. HAJ-12a+b 2 16/16 building rhyolite upper stone One-fourth of a quern-stone. Greyish-white coloured, spongy, thin, the radius: 16.5–17 cm;
from a rotary transverse-section is of rectangular shape. The grinding surface is centr. hole diam.:
quern? straight, with abrasive traces on the edge; the non-grinding surface is arc- min. 5 cm;
shaped, rough. The central hole is smooth, but not polished, and splays min. diam.: 39 cm;
upwards. Function: upper stone from a rotary quern. thickn.: 3.2–4 cm
4. HAJ-14 1 16/16 building andesite upper stone One-fourth of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, the transverse-section is radius: 18–19 cm
from a rotary convex. The used surface is straight, with abrasive traces on the edge; the without centr. hole;
quern? non-used surface is arc-shaped, rough. The central hole splays upwards. centr. hole diam.:
Function: upper stone from a rotary quern. 5 cm;
max. diam.: 43 cm;
thickn.:
2–4.8–6.5 cm
5. HAJ-17 2 16/16 building andesite upper stone Half of a quern-stone from 2 pieces. Grey coloured, slim, the transverse- radius: 17–18 cm,
from a rotary section is slightly trapezoid. The grinding surface is concave, with abra- bore-hole diam.:
quern sive traces on the edge; the non-grinding surface is rough. The central kb. 5 cm;
bore-hole is slightly polished, and splays upwards. Function: upper stone max. diam.: 41 cm;
from a rotary quern. thickn.: 3–4,6 cm
6. HAJ-19 1 16/16 building andesite upper stone One-fourth of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, slim, the transverse-section radius: 17–18 cm,
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary

from a rotary is of rectangular shape. The grinding surface is straight, with abrasive centr. hole diam.:
quern? traces on the edge; the non-grinding surface is rough, weathered. The cen- kb. 5 cm;
tral hole is slightly polished, and splays upwards. Function: upper stone max. diam.: 41 cm;
from a rotary quern. thickn.:
3.4–4.2–3.7 cm
7. HAJ-20 1 16/16 building andesite upper stone One-fourth of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, the transverse-section is trap- radius: 17–18 cm,
from a rotary ezoid. The grinding surface is concave, with abrasive traces on the edge; centr. hole diam.:
quern the non-grinding surface is rough. The central-bore hole splays upwards. kb. 5 cm;
Function: upper stone from a rotary quern. max. diam.: 41 cm;
thickn.: 3.1–5.7 cm
8. HAJ-21 1 16/16 building andesite upper stone Two-third of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, slim, the transverse-section radius: 17–18 cm,
from a rotary is trapezoid. The grinding surface is concave, with abrasive traces on centr. hole diam.:
quern the edge and beside the central hole; the non-grinding surface is rough. kb. 5 cm;
The central hole is polished. Burnt traces. Function: upper stone from a max. diam.: 41 cm;
rotary quern. thickn.: 2.6–4.6 cm
9. HAJ-24 1 16/16 building andesite fragment of Left end fragment of a grinding slab with bevelled grinding surface. The used surf.:
a grinding slab grinding surface is chipped off because of heating. The non-grinding 18×14 cm;
surface is rough, its black colour might be due to traces of organic matter. thickn.: 3.7–7.3 cm
Heavily burnt. Function: originally used for grinding, later put into the
fire/ashes and used for baking.

Fig. 3. List of the stone tool artefacts connected with the grinding process from the site of Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő.
407–427

RURALIA X
 Feature Stone Stone tool
Inv. Nr. Pieces OBJ/SNR Description Size
type material type
10. HAJ-25 1 16/16 building andesite fragment of a Left end fragment of a grinding slab. On one surface maybe a hollow used surf.:

RURALIA X
grinding slab because of the use of pestle, on the other surface black coloured traces, 22×12 cm;
maybe traces of organic matter. Burnt surface. Function: originally used thickn.: 2.5–6.3 cm
for grinding, later was put into the fire/ashes and used for baking.
11. HAJ-44 1 16/16 building andesite quern-stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, red burnt traces. The grinding 9.8×9.4 cm;
fragment surface is straight with abrasive traces to the direction of the central hole, radius: more than
which cannot be seen. The non-grinding surface is rough. 10 cm;
thickn.: 3.7–4 cm
12. HAJ-52 1 16/16 building andesite upper stone One-fifth of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, the transverse-section is of rec- radius: 18 cm
from a rotary tangular shape. The grinding surface is straight with abrasive traces on without centr.
quern? the edge; the non-grinding surface is rough, weathered. The central hole is hole; centr. hole
polished, and splays upwards. Function: upper stone from a rotary quern. diam.: min. 5 cm;
min. diam.: 41 cm;
thickn.: 5.5–6 cm
13. HAJ-60 1 16/16 building andesite quern-stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, slim, and there are burnt 12.5x15 cm;
fragment traces on the surface. It has sporous structure. The grinding surface is radius: min. 12 cm;
straight with abrasive traces. The non-grindingsurface is heavily weath- thickn.: 2.3–4 cm
ered. Function: upper stone from a rotary quern.
14. HAJ-72 1 16/16 building andesite quern-stone Grey coloured stone fragment, which might have been a millstone accord- 13×10cm;
fragment? ing to its dimensions. Both surfaces are fragmentary, rough, they are not thickn.: 2.2–4.6 cm;
used surfaces. diam.: min. 30 cm
15. HAJ-73 1 16/16 building andesite upper stone One-fifth or one-sixth of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, quite thick, the radius: 20 cm;
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary

from a rotary transverse-section is trapezoid. The grinding surface is slightly concave centr. hole diam.:
quern? with abrasive traces on the edge in concentric circle. The non-grinding 5 cm;
surface is rough. The central hole is polished. Function: upper stone from thickn.: 5.2–7.3 cm
a rotary quern.
16. HAJ-89 1 16/16 building andesite upper stone One-fourth of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, the transverse-section is radius: 18–19 cm
from a rotary of rectangular shape. The used surface is straight with abrasive traces without centr. hole;
quern? on the edge and beside the central hole. The non-used surface is quite centr. hole diam.:
straight. The central hole is polished. Function: upper millstone? 5 cm;
max. diam.: 43 cm;
thickn.:
5.4–6.6–6.8 cm
17. HAJ-90 1 16/291 ash pit andesite upper stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, burnt traces on one edge; the 10x10.7 cm;
from a rotary transverse section is trapezoid. One surface, which was flatter and with thickn.: 4.7–6.6 cm
quern abrasive traces, was the grinding surface; the non-grinding surface was
slightly rough, and slopes to the direction of the central hole. The central
hole is polished. Function: upper stone from a rotary quern, later might
have used for baking.

Fig. 3. List of the stone tool artefacts connected with the grinding process from the site of Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő.

411
407–427
 Feature Stone Stone tool
Inv. Nr. Pieces OBJ/SNR Description Size

412
type material type
18. HAJ-91 1 16/291 ash pit andesite quern-stone Fragment of a millstone. Grey coloured, slim and porous, with burnt 21x13.5 cm;
fragment traces; the transverse-section is trapezoid. The used surface is straight thickn.: 3.3–4.3 cm
with abrasive traces on the edge; the non-used surface is rough, slopes to
the direction of the central hole, which cannot be seen. Function: upper
millstone, later might have used for baking.
19. HAJ-100 1 18/233 stack of andesite upper stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, burnt, the transverse-section 9.7x6.5 cm;
stone from a rotary is trapezoid. The grinding surface is straight without abrasive traces; the centr. hole diam.:
quern? non-grinding surface is rough, slopes to the direction of the central hole. 5.5 cm;
The central hole is polished. Function: upper stone from a rotary quern, thickn.: 3–4.3 cm
later might have used for baking.
20. HAJ-101 1 18/233 stack of andesite quern-stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, porous, with burnt surface. 9.8x6 cm;
stone fragment The grinding surface is straight with abrasive traces; the non-grinding thickn.: 4.4–4.7 cm
surface is arc-shaped, rough. Function: upper stone from a rotary quern?
21. HAJ-102 1 18/233 stack of rhyolite quern-stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Greyish-white, light brown coloured, spongy, 8.6x7.9 cm;
stone fragment there are some burnt traces. The transverse section is arc-shaped. The thickn.: 4.2–6.1 cm
grinding surface is straight with abrasive traces; the non-grinding surface
is rough. Function: upper stone from a rotary quern?
22. HAJ-111 1 16/16 building rhyolite quern-stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, white on its fracture surface; grinding surf.:
fragment the surface is spongy. The used surface is straight without any abrasive 9.5x7 cm,
traces; the non-used surface is fragmentary. Function: upper stone from thickn.: 4.9–7.5 cm
a rotary quern?
23. HAJ-112 1 16/16 building rhyolite quern-stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, white on its fracture surface; grinding surf.
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary

fragment the surface is spongy, burnt traces. The grinding surface is straight with (abraded):
abrasive traces beside the central hole; the non-grinding surface is rough, 6.2x5.6 cm,
slopes to the direction of the central hole, which cannot be seen. Func- thickn.: 2.2–4.6 cm
tion: upper stone from a rotary quern?
24. HAJ-113a+b 2 16/16 building rhyolite quern-stone Fragments of a quern-stone. Grey coloured, the transverse seciton is grinding surf.:
fragments arc-shaped. The grinding surface is straight with abrasive traces; the non- bigger: 16.2x7 cm;
grinding surface is rough, convex. Function: upper stone from a rotary smaller: 7.6x6.7 cm;
quern? thickn.: 2.6–3.8 cm
25. HAJ-121 1 18/233 stack of andesite quern-stone Fragment of a quern-stone. Grey and red coloured. Both surfaces are 4.8x3.8 cm;
stone fragment quite straight, maybe one is smoother than the other. Function: upper thickn.: 4.2 cm
stone from a rotary quern?

Fig. 3. List of the stone tool artefacts connected with the grinding process from the site of Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő.
407–427

RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
od: square-shaped pit-houses with ovens; storage pits;
wells; outdoor ovens; trenches. In the Late Avar Period
the number increased of these probably self-sufficient
settlements, but their economic system, their relation-
ship with their surroundings, their sources of raw ma-
terials are still unknown to us. Research has mostly fo-
cused on the analysis of the pottery, not paying much
attention to the less spectacular stones, daub and slag
fragments. Daub informs us about house structures
(wattle and daub), and the plant and branch imprints
offer important clues about environment of the period.
The slag fragments may imply ironworking in the set-
tlements, and the stones may confirm food processing
(grinding, cooking) (Bajkai 2012, 9–23). Before dealing
with the inherent possibilities of stones, let us review
the two groups of artefacts that give us information
about the system and process of Avar farming: iron
tools and archaeobotanical artefacts.
1. Iron tool artefacts
There are hardly any known iron tool artefacts in
Hungarian Avar settlements which we can link directly
to farming. In Keszthely-Szent Miklós temető a coulter
was found in a pit in 1967; the chronology could be
determined with the help of ceramics from the Late
Migration Period (Müller 1982, 126–127). In the settle-
ment of Lébény – Kaszás-domb a sickle turned up with
Late Avar ceramics from feature 463, a round pit.4 We
can, however, find sickles in Avar graves too, where
they were put as personal objects, or against curses
(Somogyi 1982; Szabó 2003; Pető et al. 2012). Accord-
ing to ethnographic analogies, these were placed on
the chest/stomach to keep the body from bloating,
while according to another theory the sickle is put into
the grave as the symbol of reaping, asking the depart-
ed not to take the harvest.5 In his collection of more
than one hundred sickles, László Szabó observed in
2003 that most often the sickle was put on the pelvis
with the tip up (Szabó 2003, 7). Sickles may be con-
sidered indirect evidence of Avar farming. Their use
is supported by the downward curve of the blade tip
which is a characteristic of reaping hooks (sickles) to
make the gathering of ears easier. In László Szabó’s
collection, only four sickles were serrated, but we also
need to take the effects of corrosion into consideration
(Szabó 2003, 6).
The Hungarian agricultural tools, including those
from the Late Iron Age to the end of the Ottoman peri-
od, were collected by Róbert Müller. The Avar tools con-
nected to agriculture have been classified according to
4
I thank Miklós Takács for this information who led the excava-
tion with Gabriella T. Németh, Eszter T. Szőnyi, Péter Tomka.
5
Szabó 2003, 3–4 referring to: K. Kovács 1944, 84–85.
RURALIA X
407–427
this collection (Fig. 4). Undetermined pieces and ones
from unknown sites have not been included, and sick-
les have not been treated separately, as their specific
comprehensive collections have already been compiled
(Somogyi 1982; Szabó 2003).
Róbert Müller analysed the iron tools individually,
their changes of form and technology during differ-
ent periods. It is hard to select the data regarding the
Avar Period from the collected material, since we find
names like Migration Period and Late Migration Period,
where the former means a broader context, while the
latter is de facto the Avar Period. Fig. 4 shows that the
rather questionable context and the meagre amount
of data make it impossible to assess Avar farming
implements.6 There is a larger number only of sick-
les, which points to the harvest of the sown plants, so
ploughs were probably also used to cultivate the land.
However, there are very few and there are poor data to
determine this. According to some theories we should
envisage ploughs made entirely out of wood in this pe-
riod (Müller 1982, 559). In the Migration Period there
were both hand-held ploughshares and shovel-shaped
ploughshares, which presuppose a simple ard. Asym-
metric ploughshares have been used in Hungary from
the 14th century onwards (Müller 1982, 431; fig. 2). Re-
searchers agree that after the Roman Age the standard
of agriculture declined, then in the Late Migration Pe-
riod asymmetric ploughshares appeared again (Müller
1982, 429). It is not impossible, that the spade found
in wall of the grave 45 in Andocs, is actually a part of
a hand-held ploughshare and was used secondarily
as a spade. The top part of the shaft broke off (Garam
1972, 140; Müller 1982, 30, 425). Iron tools from the
Roman Age and the Middle Ages are sharply different;
pieces from the Migration Period could often be isolat-
ed only by their sizes.
Since only a few agricultural tools are available from
the period, we cannot tell whether there were substan-
tial differences of the standards between the two sides
of the Danube, but we can assume that those who set-
tled in Transdanubia switched to an agricultural life-
style earlier (Müller 1982, 559).
6
The ploughshares of Garadna were found during the rescue
excavation in 1959, from 70–105 cm depth (Salamon – Török
1960, 164, Pl. XXXII: 1–2). Róbert Müller determined their age
by the pottery decorated with bunched wavy lines that were in
the same layer as the ploughshares (Müller 1982, Kat. 236–
237). In the publication, however, we can see that there were
obviously Roman and Árpádian Age pottery fragments in the
questionable layer, only the fragments of a pot decorated with
wavy lines at its inner edge could be Avar. Its technology, how-
ever, is not known (Salamon – Török 1960, 164–166, pl. XXXI:
6–13, pl. XXXIII: 1–2).
413
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary 407–427

Müller 1982
Site Context Chronology Tooltype
Cat. Nr.

1. Andocs – Temető u. (Hungary, archaeological: from Avar Period spade? 18

Somogy County) the loess-wall of grave 45

2. Devínská Nová Ves/ archaeological: cemetery Late Migration Period hoe, sickles 109–114
Dévényújfalu (today: Slovakia)

3. Garadna – Kastélyzug archaeological: during rescue Late Migration Period ploughshare 236–237
(Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj- excavation in 1959, from a depth
Zemplén County) of 70–105 cm

4. Keszthely – Fenékpuszta questionable Late Migration Period hatchet, short 384, 429,
(Hungary, Zala County) scythe, sickle 450

archaeological: cemetery 9th century sickles 477–480

5. Keszthely – Szent Miklós archaeological: from a pit in 1967 Late Migration Period coulter 481
temető (Hungary, Zala County)

6. Keszthely – Városi temető archaeological: cemetery Migration Period? hoe 482

(Hungary, Zala County)

7. Štúrovo/Párkány (today: archaeological: cemetery Late Migration Period grubbing hoe, 765–767
Slovakia) sickles

8. Toponár – Fészer-dűlő stray find Late Avar Period ploughshare 939

(Hungary, Somogy County)

9. Zalavár – Vár (Hungary, Zala archaeological: under 11th 9th century? ploughshare 999
County) century postholes

10. Debrecen – Szepes-puszta during ploughing Late Migration Period ploughshares, 1118–1125
(Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar coulters, short
County) scythe

11. Fonyód-Ilonaberek (Hungary, during exploitation of peat Late Migration grubbing 1136–1139
Somogy County) Period/Árpádian hoes, harpoon,
Age? ploughshare

12. Moravský Svätý Ján/ during river regulation, from an Late Avar Period spade-shoes, 1226–1232
Morvaszentjános (today: iron cauldron grubbing
Slovakia) hoe, vine
pruning knife,
ploughshare

13. Palanca/Palánka (today: questionable: through purchase Late Migration ploughshares, 1284–1294
Romania) got into the Natural History Period, 9th century hoe, sickles
Museum in Vienna

14. Szarvaskő (Hungary, Heves questionable: through purchase Avar Period, 8th axe, sickle 1328–1329
County) got into the Hungarian National century
Museum in Budapest

15. Rogulje (Croatia) stray find Late Migration Period ploughshare 1618

16. Gyula (Hungary, Békés stray find Late Migration short scythe 253
County) Period/Early
Árpádian Age?

17. Keszthely – Fenékpuszta questionable Late Migration hatchet, cleaver, 376–379,

(Hungary, Zala County) Period, Avar Period ploughshare 391

18. Nagyberki – Szalacska? questionable Late Migration Period ploughshare 622

(Hungary, Somogy County)

19. Sióagárd (Hungary, Tolna questionable: from the loft of the Late Migration hoes 1324–1327
County) museum Period, 9th century

20. Csabrendek (Hungary, questionable: from collection Late Migration hoe 1424
Veszprém County) Period?

Fig. 4. List of the Avar iron agricultural tools (according to the collection of Róbert Müller).

414 RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
2. Archaeobotanical finds
Archaeobotanical finds are more informative about
the Avar farming system and agricultural processing,
though data are sparse here, too. Ferenc Gyulai iden-
tified the seed and crop finds from eighteen Avarian,
five Carolingian, and a 9th- to 10th-century Slavic set-
tlement from the Late Migration Period (Gyulai 2010,
fig. 249–252, table 1). According to the data, the most
important cereals of the Avar Period were species of
barley and wheat, besides which common millet and
oat also played important role (Pető et al. 2012, fig. 2).
There was a huge difference in the standard of farm-
ing between the people living on the Great Hungarian
Plain and in Transdanubia during the Avar Period:
while Transdanubian plant remains suggest the tradi-
tions of ancient farming system and horticulture, on
the Plain they point to a more archaic and nomadic
farming system. Wine grape seeds have been found
from Transdanubian sites, while on the Plain only one
such site has been recovered so far (Pető et al. 2012,
fig. 11: 2). The grape seeds found at Keszthely-Fenék-
puszta (6th–7th century), Balatonszentgyörgy and Za-
lavár-Vársziget (9th century) indicate a higher level of
farming culture. Millet seeds turned up in a grave at
the cemetery of Szirák, while in the settlement of Kom-
polt – Kistéri-tanya there were barley grain imprints on
the bottom of a pottery vessel. In Panyola-Ásottfok, a
Slavic settlement from the 9th–10th century, the num-
ber of plants is small despite the extensive sampling,
and only barley and small seed lentil were found (Gyu-
lai 2001, 154–162).
All the studies so far confirm the dissimilarity of the
two regions. The archaeobotanical analyses of the float-
ed soil samples taken during the extensive excavations
of the last decades are in progress or have already been
completed in many museums; with their publication
we will be able to obtain new information regarding the
farming system of the period.7 A targeted macro- and mi-
cro-archaeobotanical analysis has most recently been
carried out at the site of Hódmezővásárhely-Kopáncs
II/11, during which 43 soil samples were taken from
four types of settlement features, and the wood mate-
rial of a well was examined (Pető et al. 2012, 184–193).
Based on the analysis of the pollens, phytoliths, and
the seed and crop finds, the surroundings of the site
7
See for example a still unpublished result from the Avar settle-
ment of Debrecen-Bellegelő, Bordás-tanya. The site was exca-
vated by Barbara Kolozsi and László Szabó, and will be evaluat-
ed by Barbara Kolozsi and Rozália Bajkai. The archaeobotanical
remains from the soil samples of two settlement features have
been analysed by Ferenc Gyulai, and has mainly identified bar-
ley, but even common wheat, bread wheat, rye and oat turned
up. Besides, the seeds of two species of weed and two species
of meadow plants could be determined. (I thank the colleagues
at the Déri Museum, Debrecen for this information.)
RURALIA X
407–427
showed a diverse picture, and the people living there
utilised the possibilities of the mosaic landscape. They
used the woods of the river valley and the reed from
the lower areas for building, and they kept animals and
raised cereals on the drier grounds (Pető et al. 2012,
193). The presence of cereal is marked by phytoliths,
pollen and a few unidentifiable cereal grains: com-
mon bread wheat, emmer, barley and millet have been
found. The fact that the cereals were represented in
the pollen spectrum by a low percentage (3%) indicates
low-volume cereal production, and in the case of barley
the purpose could have been forage (Pető et al. 2012,
189, fig. 9–10). Weed seeds were found around the
ploughland and on its fringes: the most frequent weeds
were black bindweed and white goosefoot. In addition,
waterlogged apple seeds and charred wine grape seeds
represented fruits. Eight meal remains have been an-
alysed, which were remains of porridge, with the one
exception being some kind of leavened food (Pető et al.
2012, 189, fig. 11).
It is clear that with these complex analyses we ob-
tain information not only about agriculture, but also
about the former surroundings of a settlement. The
porridge meal raises the question of the preparation
and the grinding, crushing of cereal-based materials,
to which not much attention has been paid so far.
The process of grinding and its tools
Quern-stones are used to ‘pound and grind the
dry seeds of crops. Less frequently they were used to
grind salts, ore, minerals, and rocks’ (Filep 1980, 510).
Mills are classified according to the type of the driving
power; hand-mills or rotary hand-querns are rotary
implements with a pair of circular stones and are driv-
en with human power, maybe also with some form of
transmission.8 The lower stone was stationary, while
the upper runner stone rotated on a common axle. The
grinding was performed by the cutting action of the ro-
tating upper stone against the fixed lower stone. There
are many differences in the methods used to fix the
quern-stones and the details of the operating princi-
ple, as well as in their size and form. For a better fitting
the upper stone is generally slightly concave, while the
lower stone is slightly convex (Selmeczi Kovács 1999,
14, 19). There are also rimmed hand querns where the
bottom stone was bigger than the upper one and had
a rim which served to collect the grist. This rimmed
implement has antique origins. We know of a rimmed
hand quern from an Eravisci settlement in Gellérth-
egy-Tabán in Hungary (Póczy 1959, 66, fig. 10). The
8
According to some views, at first the grains were ground be-
tween the two stones with a partly rotating movement in the
one and the other direction (Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 18).
415
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
rimmed hand quern was depicted in the medieval il-
lustrations as much larger and of more varied forms at
this time, while the recent type, which can be regarded
as a regressive variant of the antique implement, was
quite uniform in shape (Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 28–29).
Various types of rotary hand querns were generally
first used during the Iron Age (end of the Hallstatt Age
– beginning of La Tène Period), and have remained in
use with some changes. In her collection Tünde Hor-
váth presented the earliest quern-stone fragment from
Hungary which was recovered from the Early and
Middle Bronze Age site of Bölcske-Vörösgyír, but the
stone does not have the dimensions of an Iron Age
quern-stone (Horváth 2000, 112, 114, fig. 14: 2). The
earliest rotary hand quern was found among the ruins
of the former port town of Lothal founded on the bank
of the Indus around 1600 BC (Selmeczi Kovács 1999,
18). Within the framework of this study I do not intend
to review the vast local ethnographic and international
literature on the research of quern-stones and rotary
hand querns. European research has mainly focused
on ancient Greek and Roman quern-stones, but sever-
al regional studies and monographs are available con-
cerning the technical history and the possible recon-
struction of the implement.9 In Hungary, research has
mainly concentrated on medieval quern-stones and
millstones in close cooperation with ethnography.10
There had been simpler stone tools for grinding and
crushing before quern-stones. The prehistoric imple-
ments have been collected by Tünde Horváth, who
gave an overview from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age.
The shape and dimension of these implements was
variable, but they were always used in pairs: grinding
slabs or stones with handstones, saddle-querns with
handstones, grinding dishes with pestle. The appear-
ance of the rotary hand-quern did not mean the dis-
appearance of these primitive grinding implements,
which have, on the contrary, kept their form and func-
tion all along. According to ethnographic data, hand-
stones and mortars turned up in peasant households
in recent past as well (Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 10; Hor-
váth 2000, 112). This can be related to the fact that
semolina was an important part of the medieval nutri-
tion, and handstones and mortars were well suited to
produce it (Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 108).
In the following the quern-stones and rotary querns
from Hungary from various periods will be summa-
rised, with a primary focus on their shape and form,
since the Avar quern-stones were determined against
this background.
9 11
See for example Nasz 1950; Moritz 1958; Beranová 1988; Bucur
1984; Hunold 2011; Wefers 2012.
10
See for example Selmeczi Kovács 1999; Földesi 2004; Simon
2011.
416
407–427
1. Rotary hand querns from La Tene and Roman
Period
The Celtic rotary querns in the Hungarian archaeo-
logical material have a heavily conical runner stone,
while the bedstone was convex. The handle needed for
moving the stones was fixed in the upper stone (Selmec-
zi Kovács 1999, 22–23, fig. 5). The Roman rotary hand
quern was widely spread from the 1st century, and re-
mained dominant till the Early Middle Ages. It was flat-
ter than the Celtic type, thus it could grind the grains
for longer and yielded flour of good quality. According
to examples from Aquincum, the upper surface of the
runner stone was concave, the grains were poured be-
tween the two stones through a wide hole (eye) in the
middle of the upper stone, and the handle was fixed
sideward in the upper stone (Pető 1977, 148–151;
Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 23, figs 6–8). On both sides of
the central hole there was a square-shaped hollow in
the rotating stone, which implies the use of a cross bar
or rynd and iron axle (Fig. 5 : 2). The bar was used to
fix the upper stone and regulate the distance between
the two stones. On the basis of a reconstruction the
lower stone was not completely pierced, but a shallow
hollow was made in the middle of stone for the rotation
of the axle (Bucur 1979, 188; Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 25),
while the Celts already had quern-stones completely
pierced in the middle (Beranová 1963, 217). On the ba-
sis of the quern-stones from archaeological context of
the Celtic site of Kiskundorozsma-Nagyszék (Csongrád
County), a rotary hand-quern has been reconstructed:
the lower stone was pierced in the middle, the up-
per stone was placed on it and the handle could have
been fixed on the side of the upper stone (Fig. 5 : 1)
(Ozsváth 2003, fig. 8).11
A total of 109 pieces of Roman quern-stones from
Zalalövő (Salla) has been examined from the archaeo-
logical and archaeometrical point of view, among them
upper and bottom stones (Szakmány – Nagy-Szabó
2011, 85–99). The grinding surface of the lower stone
was convex, some were pierced in the middle, but there
was mainly a hollow sunk into the stone for centring
with an iron axle. The upper stones had a truncated
cone shape and a biconcave transverse section; in
the middle of the upper stone a wide hole was formed
for pouring the grain, and, based on the sockets, the
handle was fixed on the side of the upper stone. Cut-
tings for the cross bar or rynd have not always been
revealed. In one case the lead socket in the central hol-
low preserved the rectangular negative of the iron axle
(Nagy-Szabó 2008, 28–71).
Attila Selmeczi Kovács suggested that the hollow on the side of
the upper stone would not always mark the handle but could
have been used for lifting the upper stone (Selmeczi Kovács
1999, 52–53).
RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary 407–427

Fig. 5. Quern-stones and rotary hand querns from different periods. – 1. Reconstruction of a Celtic rotary quern from the site of Kiskundorozs-
ma-Nagyszék (Ozsváth 2003, fig. 8). – 2. Reconstruction of a Roman rotary quern (Selmeczi Kovács 1999, fig. 7, by Bucur 1979, 186). – 3. Recon-
struction of an axle-driven rotary quern from Aquincum (Schauschek 1949, fig. 1). – 4. Reconstruction of a Hunnic age Sarmatian rotary quern from
Nagymágocs – Paptanya (Vörös 2001, fig. 9). – 5. Reconstruction of a Gepid rotary quern from Tiszaszőlős (a) and Tiszafüred (b), on the basis of
the reconstruction of the quern from Březno (c) (Cseh 1987, fig. 6; Pleinerová 1975, fig. XIII). – 6. Reconstruction of an Árpádian Age rotary quern
(Méri 1970, pl. II: B). – 7. Reconstruction of a rotary quern from Mikulčice with a wooden wedge in the central hole (Beranová 1980, pl. XXXIX). –
8. Graphic reconstruction of the grinding activity (László 1977, fig. 1). – 9. Graphic reconstruction of the grinding activity (László 1988, fig. 109).
– 10. Arab women working with a hand mill (quern) (Source: http://www.lifeintheholyland.com/women_and_work.htm).

RURALIA X 417
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
2. Rotary hand querns from the Migration Period
in Hungary
According to the excavated archaeological mate-
rial, several rotary hand quern reconstructions have
been made. From a Hunnic Age Sarmatian feature
of the site of Nagymágocs – Paptanya a pair of com-
plete quern-stones was recovered (Vörös 1985, 11–15).
The bottom stone was convex, while the top stone was
slightly concave. The stones were identical in thickness
and in diameter of the hole, and the upper stone was
2 cm larger than the lower one. On the upper face of
the runner stone there is an oval hole beside the cen-
tral hole on both sides, which could serve for feeding in
grain. The rotary quern was rotated with a handle fixed
on the side of the upper stone (Vörös 1985, 13; Vörös
2001, fig. 9; Simon 2011, Kat. 77). The quern-stones
were found on the fringes of the former settlement,
at the end of a trench system, which the archaeolo-
gist excavating the site assumes to have been a grind-
ing-roasting workshop with ovens (Vörös 1985, 14).
From the Hunnic Age settlement of the site of Sándor-
falva-Eperjes several grinding stones and quern-stones
have come to light as well (Vörös 1985, 15).
The Gepid rotary hand quern structure was recon-
structed by János Cseh on the basis of the excavated
fragments from Tiszaszőlős and Tiszafüred (Fig. 5 :
5a–b). Here the upper stone was slightly concave, and
on a fragment found in Tiszafüred a hollow could be
detected on the surface for fixing the handle (Cseh
1987, fig. 6). The lower stone in the reconstruction was
merely the product of imagination.
The precedent for the reconstruction was the rotary
quern reconstruction from the settlement of Březno,
which can be dated to the 6th–9th centuries (Fig. 5 :
5c). A cross bar between the upper and the lower stones
regulated the distance by centring them with an iron
axle. The rind can be moved with the aid of a wedge to
lift or lower the axle (Pleinerová 1975, fig. XIII, Fig. 23:
1, 2). In case of the Gepid quern-stones reconstructed
by János Cseh, there was no cutting for a cross bar.
The question of the supporting structure holding the
rotary quern cannot be answered by the archaeologi-
cal material. The Roman-type rotary querns are with-
out any traces of a central hole on the lower stone, and
thus did not need a supporting construction, just like
the rimmed hand querns, which spread from the mid-
dle of the 1st century (Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 25, 111).
In contrast to these, the iron axle projecting through
the central hole of the lower stone needed a fixed, sta-
ble structure. The existence of the cross bar is also re-
lated to the axle and the supporting structure. Several
recent examples of a simple rotary hand quern type
without any iron parts are known. In this case the rota-
ry hand quern was placed on the ground and the flour
418
407–427
was gathered on a sheet, on which the rotary hand
quern itself was also placed (Selmeczi Kovács 1999,
fig. 9–10). The rotary quern was rotated with a handle
fixed on the surface of the upper stone.
3. Quern-stones and grinding stones
from Avar settlements in Hungary
To my knowledge quern-stones have not yet been
found in situ in an Avar context. At the archaeological
site of Makó – Mikócsa-dűlő two quern-stones were ex-
cavated placed on top of each other at the bottom of a
quite deep (-187 cm) pit, which implies that they were
not used there. Dániel Pópity, the leader of the exca-
vation suggests that this was a building for economic
purposes, however, it was impossible to recover the
whole feature. Late Avar pottery was found in the fill-
ing of the feature. The two quern-stones can be regard-
ed as a pair, the lower and the upper stone: the grind-
ing surface of the lower stone is convex, while the used
face of the upper is concave. A rectangular cutting for
a cross bar is observable on both sides of the central
hole on the grinding surface of the upper stone (Pópity
2014). This form is unique in the Avar archaeological
material, it is better known from Árpádian Age rotary
querns. I will return later to the conclusions concern-
ing the construction.
The quern-stones and grinding stones from Avar
settlements were found connected to fireplaces and ov-
ens, and are fragmentary with a few exceptions. I have
also tried to collect the published and unpublished
stone tools for grinding purposes from this Period
(Fig. 1). Some 13 grinding stones are known from the
vicinity of Orosháza site 13, but the publication offers
no information about the presence of quern-stones
(Rózsa et al.. 2011, 119–20). In the Late Avar settle-
ment of Kompolt – Kistér, grinding stones and also
quern-stones from quern have been found in three
buildings, mainly in the ovens (Vaday 1999, 237, pl.
88–94). In feature 189, placed on the top of the oven,
an almost intact quern-stone turned up, without a cen-
tral hole and with a diameter of 38 cm (Vaday 1999,
237, pl. 93). There is no information about traces of
fire. An excavation was carried out at the site of Nyír-
egyháza – Oros by the András Jósa Musem in the sum-
mer of 2010, where several features of a Late Avar set-
tlement came to light. In feature 1065, an enormous
amount of stones were found, which were partly pieces
of the structure of the oven. The top of the oven was
closed with the two-thirds of a quern-stone with a
central hole, through which the smoke could leave.12
12
For the kindly information about the unpublished Late Avar
Period settlement I render thanks to Melinda Takács, and the
archaeologists who led the excavation: Dr. Eszter Istvánovits
and Szabolcs Ferencz.
RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
The same phenomenon occurs in the Late Avar settle-
ment of Hajdúnánás – Fekete-halom, where an intact
quern-stone was placed on the top of the oven of fea-
ture 42, the grinding surface of which was cracked.
This might have been the reason for not using it any-
more for its primary function. It was also quite com-
mon to close the mouth of the oven with quern-stone.
The appearance of quern-stones and grinding stones
in a secondary function in Avar settlements raises
the question whether they were used in their prima-
ry, grinding function in this age. In the settlement of
Eperjes – Csikós tábla, Gepid features have also been
excavated, and Csanád Bálint suggests concerning the
grinding stones of feature 2 that they had rather be-
longed the similar artefacts of the earlier settlement
phase than to the Avar Period (Bálint 1991, 23). In case
of the sites Kompolt – Kistér, Nyíregyháza – Oros and
Hajdúnánás – Fekete-halom, Sarmatian settlement fea-
tures and archaeological material also occurred before
the Avar phase. However, this phenomenon is not sur-
prising in the Great Hungarian Plain, as the heritage of
the two periods always appear together. Since the area
is poor in stones, the former population had to cover
long distances to access the raw material sources, and
stone tools may have been utilised even if they could
no longer fulfil their primary function: as the material
of oven structures, as baking surfaces or simply for
keeping the heat.
4. Rotary querns from the Árpádian Ages
(10th–13th century) in Hungary
Most of the relevant Hungarian research has fo-
cused on medieval quern-stones. In the recent past
two archaeological master theses were written on this
subject, and a monograph was published about the ro-
tary querns and hand-mills in the Carpathian Basin
from the ethnographic viewpoint (Földesi 2004; Simon
2011; Selmeczi Kovács 1999). Written sources and illus-
trations are also available to the researcher on medie-
val quern-stones and millstones, and the ethnographic
analogies offer guidelines for the reconstruction of the
structure and the working mechanism of quern-stone
(Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 32–47). For the sake of the
comparison of form and structure, only a short sum-
mary will be given about Árpádian Age quern-stones
The collections mentioned above included quern-
-stones from museums, archaeological excavations
and also from unknown contexts. The Árpádian Age
quern-stones had a diameter of 35–40 cm, those great-
er than 40 cm suggest driving sources other than hu-
man power. The central hole in the lower stone has a
diameter of 2–4 cm, while the hole in the upper stone
was always wider, of a 6–9 cm diameter because of the
feeding (Simon 2011, 26–27). A cross bar sunk into the
RURALIA X
407–427
rotating stone was to regulate the distance between the
quern-stones (and the quality of the flour) by centring
them with an iron axle. There are no traces of han-
dle sockets on the quern-stones of the Árpádian Age,
which suggests that they were rim-driven (Fig. 5 : 6)
(Méri 1970, pl. II: B).
István Méri assumed a building (a round reed hut)
only for grinding purposes, where the handle was fixed
to the ceiling (Méri 1970, pl. II: A). Ethnographic analo-
gies demonstrate structures with the handle fixed to
the ceiling, which suggests a fix place for the rotary
querns. In case of the rim-driven rotary quern a higher
turnover rate was available, thus less power was suffi-
cient for the same effort (Selmeczi Kovács 1999, 40, 69,
72). However, reconstructions should be treated with
caution, because apart from the quern-stones from an
archaeological context, the other elements of the whole
structure (support, handle) are not known exactly.
Against this background, let me turn to the prelimi-
nary evaluation of the quern-stones from the Late Avar
settlement of Hajdúnánás.
Case study. Quern-stones and grinding
stones from a Late Avar settlement
in NE-Hungary: Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő
According to my preliminary analysis, a total of
1038 pieces of stones were found at the settlement,
provided that every stone fragment was collected. They
originate from the filling of the features, were parts of
the structure of ovens, or came to light from fireplaces
(Fig. 6). The stone material consists of grinding stones
and quern-stones with a definite central hole, as well
as whetstones, stones with polished surface and sev-
eral stone fragments with an indefinable function
(Fig. 7 : 1). An important characteristic was the heavy
burning on the whole or just part of the surface, which
caused their porous and metamorphic structure. This
encumbered the determination of the raw material,
however according to György Szakmány all the stone
material originates from volcanic rock: andesite, rhy-
olite, dacite may also occur. The petrographical and
geochemical analyses are in progress and final results
cannot be presented yet.
First the enormous stone material of feature 18
was chosen for investigation, which has unfortunately
been packed under feature 16, however, the photos
from the excavation clearly show that they were depos-
ited in feature 18 (Fig. 7 : 5).13 Because of this, we will
13
There are more differences between the documentation and
the packed material. In the middle of feature 16 there was a
fireplace with a baking surface, under which stone fragments
were placed, but the material itself was not packed under this
stratigraphic number.
419
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary 407–427

OBJ/SNR Feature type Pieces Total examine the stone materials of the two features togeth-
er. The exact position can only be identified in case of
1. 1/1 well 9 9
stratigraphic numbers which sign the fireplace or post
2. 6/6 pit 7 7
hole. It has to be noted from an archaeological aspect
3. 16/252 oven 1 13
that the artefacts turned up in secondary positions.
16/283 post hole 2
During our work with György Szakmány, we have
16/290 fireplace 6
assigned more than 120 working numbers, and have
16/291 ash pit 4 included several fragments of one and the same stone
4. 18/18 building 137 160 tool under one number. The aim of the project is the
18/233 stack of stone 23 complete analysis of the stone material from a geologi-
5. 28/28 pit 1 1 cal and an archaeological viewpoint.
6. 32/32 building 22 45
32/53 oven 23 Description of the features with stone tools
7. 33/33 building 14 14
Feature 16 (building) (Fig. 7 : 2, 3)
8. 35/35 building 75 168
Description: A rectangular building, partially dug
35/47 fireplace 91
into the ground, a so-called pit house. In the north cor-
35/52 ash pit 2
ner there was a burnt circle, traces of a former fire-
9. 36/36 building 6 13
place (oven?): 5-cm thick burnt layer without any oven
36/67 oven 7 structure. Diameter: 0.65 m. There was a fireplace and
10. 37/37 building 55 55 an ash pit before the oven mouth. In the middle of the
11. 38/38 building 16 16 feature there was an oval fireplace with burnt surface
12. 39/39 building 11 11 on the ground. Its size: 1.50 × 0.85 m. In the middle of
13. 40/40 building 7 7 the southern side at 15 cm depth there may have been
14. 41/41 building 17 23 a stair. The roof structure was supported by post holes,
altogether 35 square, rectangular, and also round
41/114 oven 6
post holes turned up in the feature, but they might
15. 42/42 building 34 88
not have existed at the same time. Some could have
42/50 oven 54
been part of the structure of the fireplace or may have
16. 43/43 building 2 13 had a strengthening function. Their size: 15 × 23 cm
43/204 oven 11 – 30 × 40 cm; relative depth: 10–42 cm.
17. 44/44 building 2 48 Size of the feature: 4.9 × 4.52 m; relative depth:
44/48 oven 46 0.62 m
18. 47/130 building 21 30 Archaeological material: pottery (Inv. Nr.: 2009.1.6.1–
47/215 post hole 9 24.), small bronze belt fitting, grinding stones, daub,
19. 50/145 building 5 15 slag, iron knife fragments, charcoal.
50/178 oven 10
20. 52/158 building 87 87 Feature 18 (building) (Fig. 7 : 4, 5, 6)
21. 54/161 building 3 29 Description: A square-shaped building, partially dug
54/295 oven 26 into the ground, a so-called pit house. The oven, which
22. 55/162 building 7 7 had a rectangular form narrowing to the mouth, was
23. 57/165 building 24 24 placed in the NE-corner. Originally it had a vault. The
roof structure was supported by nine square or rec-
24. 58/166 building 25 25
tangular posts. Their size: 19 × 15 cm – 28 × 32 cm;
25. 60/168 building 34 34
relative depth: 6–11 cm. On the western part of the
26. 61/169 outdoor oven 6 6
southern side there are no post holes, which might
27. 62/292 building 19 73 indicate the position of the entrance. In the northern
62/349 oven 1 middle part of the building, on the ground there was a
62/350 oven 52 stack of stones on an area of 1.42 × 1.21 m. They were
62/368 post hole 1 presumably not part of the oven but depositary.
28. 63/293 building 17 17 Size of the feature: 2.95 × 2.75 m; relative depth:
Total: 1038 1038 0.54 m.
Fig. 6. List of the features with stone material from the site of Hajdú- Archaeological material: grinding stones and quern-
nánás – Mácsi-dűlő. -stones, whetstone.

420 RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary 407–427

Fig. 7. Features with stone material. – 1. Distribution of the stone material from the site of Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő. – 2. Feature 16, Hajdúnánás –
Mácsi-dűlő. – 3. Stone fragments under the baking surface of the fireplace in the middle of feature 16. – 4. Feature 18, Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő.
– 5. Section of feature 18. – 6. Picture of feature 18 during the excavation. – 7. Picture of feature 42 from the site of Hajdúnánás – Fekete-halom
during the excavation.

RURALIA X 421
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
2. Analysis of the stone tools
From features 16 and 18, quern-stones with a cen-
tral hole and other stone tools connected with grind-
ing have been excavated. As I cannot present the whole
material here, the most representative examples have
been chosen, including all quern-stone fragments.
I have tabulated all the geological and archaeological
data and their descriptions (Fig. 3).
According to my examination, almost each piece of
quern-stone was a fragment of an upper stone. The
grinding surface was flat or slightly concave, the con-
vex surface characteristic of the lower stones did not
occur (Fig. 8 : 4–6). Only in a few cases did the thick-
ness suggest a bottom stone. The non-grinding sur-
face was always more or less rough. On the grinding
surface traces of abrasive action were found, often on
the edge of the quern-stone, less frequently beside the
central hole. This is due to the structure and mecha-
nism of a rotary quern, where, because of the rotation,
towards the edge of the quern-stone the grains became
more and more refined, and finally are turned to flour.
The largest space between the two quern-stones was
at the central hole, while the least distance was at the
edge. In many cases the central hole was polished and
smooth, which can be connected to a structure with a
central axle (Fig. 8 : 3).
The dimensions of the quern-stones were similar,
their diameter changed between 39 and 43 cm. The
diameter of the central hole was around 5 cm. There
were bigger differences only in thickness, varying be-
tween 2 and 7.5 cm, and not only because of the cam-
bered shape, but simply connected with the large scale
abrasive phenomena of quern-stones (Fig. 8 : 4-6).
Two handstones, which can also be connected with
grinding, were found in the features, too. They could
be used on the grinding slabs, and according to Tünde
Horváth’s interpretation, more such fragments came
to light in Hajdúnánás (Fig. 3; Fig. 8 : 1-2).
In the case of feature 16, where the exact stratigraph-
ic position of the material can be determined, the stone
tools (fragments of upper stones from rotary querns,
and other indefinable stones) were found connected to
the oven in the northern corner, to the fireplace and
the ash pit before the oven mouth, and to the fireplace
in the middle of the feature (Fig. 7 : 3). In feature 18
upper stones from rotary querns, grinding slabs and
handstones, unworked rocks, and, of course, indefin-
able stone fragments were excavated from beside the
oven placed in the north-east corner. This may well
have been a storage supply, while the stone tools from
feature 16 prove their secondary utilisation for baking
and heating (Fig. 7 : 3, 5, 6).
422
407–427
3. Evaluation of the stone tools
Since the beginning of the investigations it has be-
come obvious that grinding stones if they had been
broken or damaged were utilised for other purposes
beyond their primary function. Based on the grinding
slabs and handstones found in the features of the set-
tlement, we have to reckon with a ‘prehistoric’ grinding
process, i.e. the crushing and grounding of the grains
for preparing porridge-like dishes. The quern-stone
fragments also prove the use of rotary hand querns,
although no fitting pair of quern-stones has been re-
covered so far.
The hypothesis of their secondary utilisation is
based on the fact that the fragments show extensive
signs of burning, with the structure of the rocks of-
ten completely transformed. This could be explained
with their explosure to long-lasting heat or with often
changing phases of warming and cooling. It is plau-
sible that they were used for baking meat or cake-like
dishes; furthermore the buildings could also be heated
with the hot stones.
4. Avar rotary hand quern
Reconstructing an Avar rotary quern is quite diffi-
cult. The quern-stones with a central hole must have
been centred with an iron axle, but cuttings for the
cross bar regulating the distance between the two
stones have only been found in one case in the Avar
stone material. This raises the question whether a
structure with a cross bar is to be assumed in every
case, or whether a simpler rotary quern without this
could also have been in use. Magdalena Beranová in-
vestigated quern-stones from the territory of Bohemia
from the 8th–10th centuries. No traces of a hollow
for the cross bar were detectable on any part of these
stones. In her opinion a wooden wedge could have
been placed into the central hole of the upper stone,
directly connected by means of what was presum-
ably wooden axle to the lower stone. She mentions the
quern-stones from Magdeburg-Salbke as an example,
where the traces of the wooden axle have been found
in the central hole (Beranová 1980, 210, fig. 70: A, 1,
2). The reconstruction of a Cerneahov-culture rotary
hand quern rests on the same principle, P. I. Chavljuk
suggested a wooden wedge because of the instabil-
ity of the upper stone (Beranová 1980, 155, fig. 54: 5,
6). A reconstruction was made from quern-stones in
Mikulčice, a wooden wedge was placed into the central
hole of the upper stone, which was driven with a han-
dle fixed on the side of its rim (Fig. 5 : 7) (Beranová
1980, 380, fig. 70: 1, pl. XXXIX). In the case of the
quern-stones from Hajdúnánás a wooden wedge, or at
least a wooden axle could be assumed because of the
RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary 407–427

Fig. 8. Stone tools connected to grinding from the site of Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő. – 1. Fragment of a grinding slab (Fig. 3: HAJ-25). – 2. Handstone
(Fig. 3: HAJ-9). – 3. Polished central hole of a quern-stone fragment (Fig. 3: HAJ-52). – 4. Fragment of the upper stone from a rotary quern (Fig. 3:
HAJ-73). – 5. Fragment of the upper stone from a rotary quern (Fig. 3: HAJ-12). – 6. Fragment of the upper stone from a rotary quern (Fig. 3: HAJ-21).

RURALIA X 423
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
smooth, polished inner surface of the central hole. The
temporary shifting of the wooden wedge or axle could
have caused such traces.
Since there is no stone in the material of the Late
Avar settlement of Hajdúnánás that could unambigu-
ously be determined as the lower stone, two possibili-
ties are equally conceivable:
1) If the axle went through both stones, this sug-
gests a structure with a fixed place. We do not have any
information about the support.
2) If the lower stone was not pierced, then only a hol-
low was formed in the middle of the grinding surface,
in which the axle was placed. In this case the structure
was moveable and could have been used anywhere.
Ethnographic analogues exist for both possibili-
ties. The first presumes a standing activity, while the
second sitting work. For example rotary querns were
used in Turkey even in the 20th century placed on a
sheet on the ground, rotated by the sitting women. Ar-
chaeological reconstructions also present the grinding
activity in many cases as a sitting activity (Fig. 5 : 8, 9,
10) (László 1977, fig. 1; László 1988, fig. 199; Selmeczi
Kovács 1999, fig. 9, 10).
There were no traces of a handle socket, either on
the side or on the surface of the upper stone on the
studied quern-stones of Hajdúnánás.14 This raises
the question whether a rim-driven use should be as-
sumed, like in the Árpádian Age, or the axle-driven ro-
tary quern, like the example from Aquincum (Fig. 5 :
3, 6) (Schauschek 1949, fig. 1). In the latter case the
implement could have been rotated with the help of
an iron axle with a wooden handle fixed into the cross
bar (Schauschek 1949, 59–60). The problem with
this is only a question of the rotation, as such a mill
could definitely only be moved in one direction and
back again, not in circle (Balázs 2003, 116). In connec-
tion with a pair of quern-stones from Kocsér, Kálmán
Szabó also suggested a non-circle rotation on the basis
of the abrasive traces (Szabó 1938, pl. 44–45). Howev-
er, György Balázs argued that these are two different
quern-stones, not a pair (Balázs 2003, 116).15 In his
opinion, the efficiency of a rotary quern depends on
the rotating movement itself, which is only plausible
in the case of a non-axle-driven, square-shaped imple-
ment (Balázs 2003, 116–18).
Axle-driven rotary querns are also known from Hun-
garian ethnography in the case of hand mills with a
14
The possibility that the hollows on the surface were connec-
tion points of the handle only presents itself in the case of
the intact upper stone from Hajdúnánás – Fekete-halom. The
pitted surface may, however, only be due to the rock material
itself (rhyolite).
15
The two stones had a diameter of 26 and 35 cm. A pair of
quern-stones must have similar dimensions for an efficient
grinding; with a maximum difference of 1–2 cm.
424
407–427
hopper. The axle overhangs the quern-stones upwards
and downwards as well, and rotates together with the
upper stone through the cross bar fixed to it. In this
case, the axle does is not stuck into the pierced lower
stone, and the structure stands on a support.
I suggest the use of a wooden wedge for the quern-
-stones of Hajdúnánás, where no traces of a cross bar
has been found and the central hole of the upper stone
had a polished surface. The implement was probably
rotated with a handle fixed to the side of the rim. As
we are dealing with fragments, naturally we cannot ex-
clude the possibility of fixing the handle into the sur-
face of the upper stone.
Forthcoming investigations
Avar quern-stones raise further questions, and it is
a task for future complex analyses to examine these
issues:
1. the analysis of the rock material and the tool type
2. quarries
3. phytolith analysis
4. archaeobotanical analysis concerning the seeds
and imprints
5. analysis of the geological profile and soil sam-
ples, pollen analysis
One of the most important tasks is the determi-
nation of the geological material, because the Great
Hungarian Plain is quite poor in stones. The closest
source area could be the North Hungarian Mountains,
at least regarding the site of Hajdúnánás, but in the
case of other settlements from the Great Plain Zakar-
pattia Oblast and the Southern Carpathian are also po-
tential territories. The analyses of the stone tools from
Hajdúnánás are in progress; our purpose is to obtain
information about the provenance. This could bring
us closer to the question of quarries, and the prefer-
ence for specific rock materials (T. Biró – Péterdi 2011,
530–31). It could, furthermore, reveal the favoured
stone source territories, the relation of settlements to
the landscape and the connection between the regions
(Wefers 2012, 147–166).
The grinding function of quern-stones can be proved
by the analysis of phytoliths stuck on their surface. In
the case of the 9th- to 10th-century settlements of Keme-
nespálfa – Zsombékos and Celldömölk – Vulkánfürdő,
traces of common wheat could be identified (Persaits
et al. 2010, 215–223). However, the results of such an
analysis should be treated with caution, especially con-
cerning the question whether they really refer to our
period. The archaeobotanical analysis may therefore
serve as a reference, and it is also essential for the in-
vestigation of the agriculture of a settlement.
RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
The archaeozoological analyses have been complet-
ed for both sites from Hajdúnánás yielding different
pictures. In the case of Fekete-halom, the rate of cat-
tle is dominant with over 60% against caprines, pigs,
horses and dogs. By contrast, in Mácsi-dűlő cattle and
caprines together make up over 60% of the whole ma-
terial. These results could be related to the differing
farming systems of the two settlements located 10 km
away from each other. The reconstruction of the for-
mer environment and climate will also be a significant
part of the research.
Summary
Hungarian research has paid very little attention to
grinding stones and quern-stones so far, even though
they, along with pottery, are one of the most common
artefacts found in Avar Period settlements. The first
part of the study gives a short summary about the
recent state of the research concerning the Avar Age
agrarian technology. The case study focuses on the
first results of the preliminary analysis of quern-stones
and grinding stones from Late Avar settlement Hajdú-
nánás-Mácsi-dűlő. The petrographical analyses will be
done by György Szakmány (Eötvös Loránd University,
Department of Petrology and Geochemistry, Budapest),
the investigations are in progress. The aim of the pro-
ject is the determination of the raw material, moreover
the complete geological and archaeological evaluation
of the stone material. Reconstructing an Avar rotary
quern is quite difficult; the analysed quern-stone frag-
ments give us some information about their structure.
Zusammenfassung
Reib- und Mühlsteine sind neben Keramikscher-
ben einige der häufigsten Funde aus awarenzeitlichen
Siedlungen. In der Forschung wurde diese Fundgrup-
pe aber wenig beachtet. Der erste Teil des Beitrages
skizziert den aktuellen Forschungsstand zur awaren-
zeitlichen Wirtschaft unter besonderer Berücksich-
tigung der Landwirtschaft. Eine Fallstudie analysiert
das Steinmaterial aus der spätawarenzeitlichen Sied-
lung Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő und präsentiert erste
Ergebnisse zu den Reib- und Mühlsteinen. Die geolo-
gischen Untersuchungen durch Dr. György Szakmány
laufen derzeit noch. Derzeit ist eine Rekonstruktion
der awarenzeitlichen Handdrehmühlen noch nicht
möglich, doch ergeben sich aus den analysierten Mühl-
steinfragmenten erste Ansatzpunkte.
Résumé
La recherche en Hongrie s’est peu préoccupée des
meules et moulins à bras jusqu’à présent, même si,
RURALIA X
407–427
comme la céramique, il s’agit des artefacts les plus
communs de la période « Avar ». La première par-
tie de l’étude fournit un court résumé sur l’état de la
recherche concernant les techniques agraires à l’Âge
Avar. Le cas étudié ici se concentre sur les premiers
résultats de l’analyse préliminaire des moulins à bras
et des meules de l’habitat du Bas Avartardif Hajdúná-
nás – Mácsi-dülö. Les analyses pétrographiques seront
faites par György Szakmány (Université Eötvos Lorand,
Département de Pétrologie et Géochimie, Budapest),
elles sont en cours. Le but du projet est l’identification
du matériel retrouvé et surtout, l’évaluation complète,
géologique et archéologique de la pierre utilisée. Resti-
tuer un moulin à bras de la période Avar est très dif-
ficile, les fragments de moulins à bras analysés nous
donnent toutefois quelques informations quant à leur
structure.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Dr. György Szakmány for the prelim-
inary geological informations about the raw material
of the stone tools. I would also like to thank Dr. Tünde
Horváth, who helped a lot in the determination of the
stone tools from Hajdúnánás, for all the information
and advice. I wish to render my thanks to Szilvia Földe-
si, Irén Simon, László Szabó and Tibor Nagy-Szabó
for allowing me access to their master thesis. I would
like to thank Borbála Bajkai for translating part of the
study and Katalin Horváth for proofreading the Eng-
lish version.
Bibliography
Bajkai, R. 2012:
Egy késő avar kori település kutatási lehetőségei az Alföld
északi peremén. Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő. – Research pos-
sibilities of a Late Avar settlement at the northern edge of the
Great Hungarian Plain. Hajdúnánás – Mácsi-dűlő, in: Lis-
ka, A. – Szatmári, I. (eds), Sötét idők rejtélyei. 6–11. századi
régészeti emlékek a Kárpát-medencében és környékén. Tem-
pora Obscura 3. Békéscsaba, 9–44.
Balázs, Gy. 2003:
Merre forognak a malomkövek? [In which direction do mills-
tones turn?], in: S. Laczkovits, E. – Viga, Gy. (eds), Kéve. Ün-
nepi kötet a 60 esztendős Selmeczi Kovács Attila tiszteletére.
Debrecen – Veszprém, 113–122.
Bálint, Cs. 1991:
Die spätawarenzeitliche Siedlung von Eperjes (Kom. Csong-
rád). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica IV. Budapest.
Beranová, M. 1963:
Pravěké žernovy v Československu, Vznik a počátky Slovanů
4, Praha, 181–219.
Beranová, M. 1980:
Zemědělstvi starých Slovanů. Praha.
425
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
Beranová, M. 1988:
Manual rotation grain mills on Czechoslovak territory up
to the incipient 2nd Millenium AD, Ethnologia Slavica XIX,
15–43.
Bucur, C. 1979:
Die Wassermühle aus Römisch-Dazien im Lichte archäolo-
gischer Funde. Cibinium 1974–1978, 183–198.
Bucur, C. 1984:
Die Handmühle in der Geschichte der technischen Zivilisa-
tion des rumänischen Volkes. Cibinium 1979–1983, 63–69.
Cseh, J. 1987:
Megjegyzések egy Tisza-menti gepida településről. [Remarks
on a Gepid settlement along the River Tisza.] Múzeumi Leve-
lek 55–56, 3–27.
Filep, A. 1980:
Malom. [Mill.], in: Ortutay, Gy. (ed.), Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon
III. Budapest, 510–513.
Földesi, Sz. 2004:
Kézimalmok a középkorban. [Rotary hand querns in the Mid-
dle Ages.] Szakdolgozat. [Master thesis]
Garam, É. 1972:
Avar kori temetők Andocson. – Avar period cemeteries in An-
docs. Folia Archaeologica XXIII, 129–182.
Gyulai, F. 2001:
Archaeobotanika. A kultúrnövények története a Kárpát-me-
dencében a régészeti-növénytani vizsgálatok alapján. – Archa-
eobotany. The history of cultivated plants in the Carpathian
Basin based on archaeobotanical examinations. Budapest.
Gyulai, F. 2010:
Archaeobotany in Hungary. Seed, fruit, food and beverage re-
mains in the Carpathian Basin from the Neolithic to the Late
Middle Ages. Budapest.
Horváth, T. 2000:
Az őrlés folyamata és szerszámai az őskor időszakában Ma-
gyarországon. – The process and the tools of grinding in the
prehistorical times in Hungary, in: Ilon, G. (ed.), Panniculus
Ser. B. No. 5. Szombathely, 101–143.
Hunold, A. 2011:
Das Erbe des Vulkans. Eine Reise in die Erd- und Technik-
geschichte zwischen Eifel und Rhein. Regensburg – Mainz.
K. Kovács, L. 1944:
A kolozsvári hóstátiak temetkezése [The burials of the Hostati
from Cluj]. Kolozsvár.
László, Gy. 1977:
Régészeti tanulmányok [Archaeological studies]. Budapest.
László, Gy. 1988:
Árpád népe [People of Árpád]. Budapest.
Méri, I. 1970:
Árpád-kori falusi gabonaőrlő és kenyérsütő berendezések.
(Rekonstrukciós kísérlet kiállítási makett készítéséhez.) –
Einrichtungen zum Getreidemahlen und Brotbacken aus
dem X-XIII. Jh. in Ungarn (Rekonstruktionsversuche zur An-
fertigung von Ausstellungsmacketten). A Magyar Mezőgazda-
sági Múzeum Közleményei 1969–1970, 69–84.
Moritz, L. A. 1958:
Grain-Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity. Oxford.
426
407–427
Müller, R. 1982:
A mezőgazdasági vaseszközök fejlődése Magyarországon a
késővaskortól a törökkor végéig. – Die Entwicklung der ei-
sernen Agrargeräte in Ungarn von der Späteisenzeit bis zum
Ende der Türkenherrschaft. Zalai Gyűjtemény 19. Zalaeger-
szeg.
Nagy-Szabó, T. 2008:
A kenyérsütés emlékei Pannoniában (Zalalövői malomkövek)
[Bread baking in Pannonia]. Szakdolgozat. [Master thesis] Bu-
dapest.
Nasz, A. 1950:
Żarna wczesnodziejowe. Warszawa – Wroclaw.
Ozsváth, G. D. 2003:
A régészeti malomleletek feldolgozásának buktatói [Pitfalls of
the analysis of archaeological millstone findings], Múzeumi
Kutatások Csongrád megyében 2002. Szeged, 5-23.
Persaits, Á. – Farkas, Cs. – Pap, I. K. 2010:
Késő vaskori (kelta), koraközépkori és kora-Árpád-kori őrlő-
kövek fitolitelemzése (Vas megye, Magyarország) – Phytolith
analysis of grinding stones from the Iron Age, Early Middle
and Arpadian Ages (Vas County, Hungary), Archeometriai
Műhely 2010/3, 215–225.
Pető, M. 1977:
Az élelmiszer-feldolgozás emlékanyaga Aquincumban [The
record of food-processing from Aquincum], Agrártörténeti
Szemle XIX, 14–153.
Pető, Á. – Kenéz, Á. – Herendi, O. – Gyulai, F. 2012:
A késő avar kor növényhasznosítási és tájgazdálkodási poten-
ciáljának értékelése egy dél-alföldi telepen végzett mikro- és
makro-archaeobotanikai vizsgálat tükrében. – Assessment
of potential plant exploitation and land use of the Late Avar
period int he light of micro- and macro-archaeobotanical
analyses of an archaeological site in Southeastern Hun-
gary, in: Kreiter, A. – Pető, Á. – Tugya, B. (eds), Környezet–
Ember–Kultúra: Az alkalmazott természettudományok és a
régészet párbeszéde. – Environment–Human–Culture. Dia-
logue between applied sciences and archaeology. Budapest,
181–194.
Péterdi, B. – Szakmány, Gy. – Judik, K. – Dobosi, G. 2009:
Bazaltos andezit nyersanyagú szarmata szerszámkövek kő-
zettani és geokémiai vizsgálata (Üllő 5. lelőhely) [Petrographi-
cal and geochemical analyses on Sarmatian basaltic andesite
grinding stones (Üllő, site 5)], Archeometriai Műhely 2009/2,
43–60.
Pleinerová, I. 1975:
Březno. Vesnice prvních Slovanů v severozápadních Čechách.
– Březno, ein Dorf der frühesten Slawen in Nordwestböhmen.
Praha.
Póczy, K. 1959:
A Gellérthegy-tabáni eraviszkusz telep topográfiájához [On
the topography of the Eravisci settlement of Gellérthegy-Ta-
bán], Archaeologiai Értesítő 36, 62–68.
Pópity, D. 2014:
Késő avar kori szállás nyomai Makó, Mikócsa nevű határában
[Traces of a Late Avar settlement in the Mikócsa outskirts of
Makó], Poster presentation at the conference ‘Sötét idők túl-
élői’. Debrecen 5th–7th February 2014.
RURALIA X
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary
Rózsa, Z. – T. Biró, K. – Tugya, B. 2011:
Avar kori teleprészlet Orosháza határában (Oh. 13. lelőhely
– Békés megye) [Avar settlement in the vicinity of Orosháza
(Oh. site 13 – Békés County)], in: Kolozsi, B. – Szilágyi, K. A.
(eds), Sötét idők falvai. 2006-ban Debrecenben megrendezett
konferencia 1. kötete. Tempora Obscura. Debrecen, 93–146.
Salamon. Á. – Török, Gy. 1960:
Funde von NO-Ungarn aus der Römerzeit. II. Garadna, Folia
Archaeologica XII, 160–171.
Schauschek, J. 1949:
Adatok az ipari technikához Aquincumban, [Data to the in-
dustrial technics in Aquincum], Archaeologiai Értesítő 76,
59–62.
Selmeczi Kovács, A. 1999:
Kézimalmok a Kárpát-medencében – Hand-mills in the Car-
pathian Basin. Budapest.
Simon, I. 2011:
Árpád-kori kézimalmok [Rotary hand querns from the Árpá-
dian Age] Szakdolgozat. [Master thesis] Szeged.
Somogyi, P. 1982:
A Kárpát-medencei sarlós temetkezési szokás eredete – Ur-
sprung des Bestattungsbrauches mit Sichel im Karpatenbec-
ken, Archeológiai Értesítő 109, 191–200.
Szabó, K. 1938:
Az alföldi magyar nép művelődéstörténeti emlékei (Kecske-
méth. Város múzeumának ásatásai) – Kulturgeschichtliche
Denkmäler der ungarischen Tiefebene. Budapest.
Szabó, L. 2003:
Az avar kori sarlós temetkezések a Kárpát-medencében [Avar
sickle burials from the Carpathian Basin] Szakdolgozat.
[Master thesis] Szeged.
Szakmány, Gy. – Nagy-Szabó, T. 2011:
Zalalövőről származó római kori malomkövek archeometriai
vizsgálati eredményei – Results of archaeometrical analysis
of Roman millstones from Zalalövő, Archeometriai Műhely
2011/1, 85–99.
T. Biró, K. 1999:
A kőanyag értékelése [The evaluation of the stone material],
in: Petercsák, T. – Szabó, J. J. (eds), Kompolt-Kistér. Újkőko-
Rozália Bajkai, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Archaeological Institute, Buda-
pest, Úri u. 49. H-1014; bajkai.rozalia@btk.mta.hu
RURALIA X
407–427
ri, bronzkori, szarmata és avar lelőhely. Leletmentő ásatás az
M3-as autópálya nyomvonalán – A Neolithic, Bronze Age, Sar-
matian and Avar site. Rescue excavation at the M3 motorway.
Heves Megyei Régészeti Közlemények. Eger, 255–278.
T. Biró, K. – Péterdi, B. 2011:
Domoszló-Pipis: Őrlőkő és malomkőkészítő műhely a Mát-
rában – Domoszló-Pipis: Exploitation site and workshop for
the production of quernstones and millstones in the Mátra
Mts., in: Tóth, E. – Vida, I. (eds), Corolla museologica. Tibor
Kovács dedicata. Libelli Archaeologici. Ser. Nov. No. IV. Buda-
pest, 523–533.
Vaday, A. 1999:
Az avar kori telep [The Avar Period settlement], in: Peter-
csák, T. – Szabó, J. J. (eds), Kompolt-Kistér. Újkőkori, bronz-
kori, szarmata és avar lelőhely. Leletmentő ásatás az M3-as
autópálya nyomvonalán – A Neolithic, Bronze Age, Sarmatian
and Avar site. Rescue excavation at the M3 motorway. Heves
Megyei Régészeti Közlemények. Eger, 233–253.
Vida, T. 2009:
„…kérték, hogy Pannoniában lakhassanak” Az avarok letele-
pedése. [„…they asked to live in Pannonia”. The settling of the
Avars.], in: Anders, A. – Szabó, M. – Raczky, P. (eds), Régészeti
dimenziók. Tanulmányok az ELTE BTK Régészettudományi
Intézetének tudományos műhelyéből. Bibliotheca Archaeolo-
gica. Budapest, 105–122.
Vörös, G. 1985:
Hunkori kézi őrlőkő Nagymágocsról [Hunnic Age rotary hand
quern from Nagymágocs] Múzeumi kutatások Csongrád me-
gyében 1985, 11–16.
Vörös, G. 2001:
Gondolatok a régészetről és egy római kori népről, a szarma-
tákról [Thougths on archaeology and the Sarmatians of the
Roman Age], in: Labádi, L. (ed.), Tanulmányok Szentes város
történetéből. Szentes, 15–48.
Wefers, S. 2012:
Laténezeitliche Mühlen aus dem Gebiet zwischen den Stein-
bruchrevieren Mayen und Lovosice. Monographien des Rö-
misch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Band 95. zugleich
Vulkanpark-Forschungen, Untersuchungen zur Landschafts-
und Kulturgeschichte 9. Mainz.
427
Bajkai, On the agrarian technology of the Avar Period in Hungary 407–427

428 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus 429–441

Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten

und Landwirtschaftsgeräte dem Kalender nach.
Archäologische Funde aus mittelalterlichen Ortswüstungen
im Vergleich mit bildlichen Quellen und ethnographischen Belegen1
The farmer’s year from the Middle Ages until Modern Times – Work in the fields
and agricultural implement according to the calendar.
Archaeological finds from medieval deserted villages in comparison
with iconography and ethnographic collections

L‘année d‘un fermier du Moyen Âge au Temps modernes.

Travail dans les champs et outils selon le calendrier.
Trouvailles archéologiques provenant des villages désertés médiévaux
comparées avec l‘iconographie et les collections ethnographiques

Zdeňka Měchurová
1

Bemerkungen zur Quellenlage

Der vorliegende Beitrag basiert auf der Gelegenheit,
die ethnographischen Sammlungen des Ethnographi-
schen Instituts des Mährischen Landesmuseums, ins-
besondere die Sammlung zu Schmiedehandwerk und
Landwirtschaft für einen konkreten Vergleich mit ar-
chäologischen Funden mittelalterlicher Gerätschaften
zu nutzen.2 Bekanntermaßen haben sich insbesonde-
re die grundlegenden Geräte des Ackerbaus und der
Feldarbeit vom Mittelalter bis zur Neuzeit und zur Ge-
genwart nicht allzu sehr geändert, da sie schon immer
möglichst funktional waren. Trotzdem vermag diese
quasi schwarz auf weiß zur Kenntnis genommene Tat-
sache jedoch zu überraschen.
Bildliche Quellen stellen eine wichtige Grundlage
für die Datierung mittelalterlicher Funde dar. Sie prä-
zisieren die Chronologie und zeigen die Geräte im Ge-
brauch. Für die Periode des Hochmittelalters sind die
Möglichkeiten in dieser Richtung ziemlich beschränkt,
da immer wieder dieselben Quellen herangezogen wer-
den (siehe unten). Es ist außergewöhnlich, wenn eine
neue Quelle entdeckt wird, die sich darüber hinaus
1
Der vorliegende Artikel entstand mit finanzieller Unterstüt-
zung des Kulturministeriums der Tschechischen Republik
im Rahmen der institutionellen Finanzierung der langfristi-
gen konzeptionellen Entwickung der Forschungsinstitution
(Mährisches Landesmuseum, MK000094862).
2
Für diese Möglichkeit danke ich PhDr. Jarmila Pechová, Ku-
ratorin der Sammlung Handwerk und landwirtschaftliche
Geräte im Ethnographischen Institut des Mährischen Landes-
museums.
auf den mitteleuropäischen oder sogar tschechischen
Kulturbereich bezieht.
Zu Kenntnissen der historischen Archäologie über
die mittelalterliche Wirtschaft tragen neben der Ikono-
graphie oder Kunstgeschichte in gleichem Maße auch
die Ethnologie und Ethnographie bei.3 Sie helfen bei
der Bestimmung und Interpretation der gefundenen
und heute üblicherweise nicht mehr gebräuchlichen
Gegenstände wie etwa Gespann und Wagen oder zahl-
reiche spezielle Geräte und Werkzeuge. Die Archäolo-
gen konsultieren sie zur Komplettierung fragmentari-
scher archäologischer Funde, ihrer Rekonstruktion,
Ergänzung und schließlich für die Interpretation. Die
Archäologie wäre ohne die Möglichkeit des ethnogra-
phischen Vergleichs bei der Ergänzung und Rekonst-
ruktion von Gegenständen oder ihrer Teile aus orga-
nischen Materialien wie etwa Holz, Textilien und Leder
völlig hilflos. Die Ethnographie dient der Achäologie
auch als terminologische Stütze. Damit Archäologen
Gerätschaften und Werkzeuge korrekt benennen kön-
nen, müssen sie sich auf die Terminologie der Eth-
nographie stützen, die allerdings sehr variantenreich
und mit Lokalkolorit verbunden ist.
3
Der Begriff Ethnologie wird meistens übergreifgender be-
nutzt, während der Schwerpunkt der Ethnographie (früher
Volkskunde) die einzelne Region bildet. Ansonsten sieht sich
das Fachgebiet mit denselben theoretischen Definitionsproble-
men konfrontiert, Bezeichnung wie die Kulturanthropologie,
Kulturgeschichte, Archäologie und Urgeschichte.

Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 429–441.
FHG 10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110481
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

Abb. 1. a) Spatenbeschlag aus Bystřec. Foto S. Doleželová. – b) Arbeit mit dem Spaten, Brevier aus dem St. Georgskloster in Prag, um 1400. Nach
Homo faber 1967, Abb. 30. – c) Holzspaten mit Metallschneide – von links mit Verbindungsbolzen, mit Verbindungsbolzen und Quetschverbindung
und nur mit Quetschverbindung. Sammlungen des EI / MLM. Bemerkung: Falls nicht anders angegeben sind die Gegenstände Bestandteil der
Sammlungen des Archäologischen und des Ethnographischen Instituts des Mährischen Landesmuseums, Fotos von der Verfasserin.

Gerade das Dorf des ländlichen Raums hat dank
einer starken Verbundenheit mit Boden und Natur
manche Elemente der mittelalterlichen Lebensweise
bewahrt. Diese Tradition ergänzt unsere Kenntnis-
se der Siedlungsform des Dorfes, vom Aussehen des
Bauernhauses draußen sowie drinnen und sie hilft die
materielle Kultur der Alltagsgegenstände und damit
die Geschichte des Alltags zu verstehen. Wichtige Ver-
treter dieser interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit sind
z.B. Václav Frolec (dreiteiliges Haus und seine Entwick-
lung seit dem Mittelalter), Ludvík Skružný (Innenein-
richtung des Hauses und vor allem Entwicklung der
Beheizung) oder Jiří Pajer (Töpferei und Übergang von
der mittelalterlichen zur neuzeitlichen Keramik, bzw.
Volkskeramik).
Ein ganzer Zweig der Ethnographie als Wissen-
schaftsdisziplin widmet sich dem Studium von Feld-
arbeiten und dem damit zusammenhängenden Land-
wirtschaftsgerät. Mit dieser Problematik befassten
sich viele Ethnologen – Karel Chotek, Josef Jančář,
Ríša Suk, Jaroslav Kramařík, Vlastimil Vondruška
oder jüngstens Miroslav Válka. Mittelalterarchäologen
wie z.B. Magdalena Beranová, Miroslav Richter, Rudolf
Krajíc, Vladimír Nekuda, Ludvík Belcredi, Belo Polla,
Michal Slivka wurden bei ihren Forschungen ganz
zwangsläufig mit diesem weiten Problemfeld konfron-
tiert.
Im Folgenden werden wir dem Lauf des Agrarjahres
vom Frühjahr bis zum Herbst folgend registrieren, wel-
che Geräte für die Bodenbearbeitung benutzt wurden.
Zunächst werden wir uns dem Ackerbau und der Auf-
lockerung des Bodens widmen, dann dem Mähen und
Ernten, und schließlich den Arbeiten auf dem Hof,
vor allem dem Dreschen. Dazu werden archäologische
Funde (überwiegend aus mährischen Fundstellen) mit
ethnographischen Sammlungsbeständen verglichen
und mit Hilfe der oben erwähnten ikonographischen
Quellen betrachtet.
Wie der Boden kultiviert (umgewendet)
wurde
Die grundlegende Bearbeitung des Bodens besteht
aus seinem Umwenden, seiner Zerkleinerung und
Auflockerung. Die ältesten Gerätschaften für diese Tä-
tigkeiten (in archäologischen Belegen schon seit der
Vorgeschichte bekannt) sind Hacken, sowie Spaten,
Haken und komplexere Pflüge.
Spaten
In ethnographischen Sammlungen finden sich Spa-
ten, deren Blatt vollständig aus Metall besteht, erhal-
ten sind aber auch Exemplare mit Holzblatt und Me-

430 RURALIA X
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

tallschneide, die altertümlicher sind und sich offenbar

von mittelalterlichen Vorläufern ableiten. Mittelalter-
liche Spaten waren meistens aus Holz, mit zungen-
förmiger Metallschneide versehen (Abb. 1a). Drei voll-
ständige und sehr gut erhaltene Exemplare werden im
Magazin des Ethnographischen Instituts MLM aufbe-
wahrt (Abb. 1c). Eines ist nur mit zwei Verbindungs-
bolzen versehen, einn zweites weist eine Quetsch-
verbindung auf und das letzte Exemplar kombiniert
beides. Die Metallschneide ist beim ersten Stück mit
zwei Blechbolzen befestigt, die sich zur Quetschver-
bindung richten. Leider stammen sie aus alten Samm-
lungsbeständen, bei denen die Fundumstände nur
ausnahmsweise bekannt sind. Die Archäologie hin-
gegen dokumentiert zwar genau die Fundstellen, ent-
deckt aber meistens nur formal kaum ansprechbare
Bruchstücke des Spatenbeschlags, deren Interpreta-
tion und genaue Bestimmung daher oft sehr proble-
matisch sind. Den Archäologen bieten die kontextlosen
ethnographischen Exemplare willkommene Analogien.
Sehr nützlich können auch zeitnahe bildliche Darstel-
lungen sein. Holzspaten mit Metallschneide sind in
der Velislaus-Bibel aus dem Jahre 1341 (z.B. Belcredi
2006, 356, Abb. 231) oder im Brevier aus dem St. Ge-
orgs-Kloster in Prag aus dem Jahre 1400 abgebildet
(Abb. 1b, z.B. Beranová 1980, Tab. LI:2). Die Variabilität
der Formen und der Art und Weise des Beschlags des
hölzernen Spatenblatts wird schön durch die Auswahl
aus ikonographischen Vorlagen in der klassischen
Publikation Durdík – Drobná – Wagner 1956 (Teil XI,
Tab. 3) aufgezeigt.
Die meisten archäologischen Belege mittelalterli-
chen Landwirtschaftsgeräts stammen natürlich aus
mittelalterlichen Ortswüstungen. Eine sehr gut er-
haltene Spatenschneide wurde in Bystřec entdeckt
(Abb. 1a; Belcredi 2006, 358, Tab. XXXIX:5). Ihre zun-
genförmige Schneide ist im Unterschied zu einem tor- Abb. 2. Vergleich der Sechmesser, (links) aus Haus Nr. 5 in Konůvky,
sohaften Fragment aus Pfaffenschlag (Nekuda 1975, 14.– Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts; (rechts) aus den Sammlungen des
140, Abb. 134:1) vollständig. Aus Sezimovo Ústí sind EI / MLM, Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts. Foto S. Doleželová.

sogar dreizehn solcher Beschläge in verschiedenem

Erhaltungszustand bekannt, jedoch sind nur vier da-
von wirklich zu rekonstruieren (Krajíc 2003, 138–139).
Auch ein Fund aus Posádka pri Gajaroch ist stark kor-
rodiert (Polla 1962, 123, Abb. 11:9).
Pflüge
Verschiedene Pflugarten mit Eisenschar, gegebe-
nenfalls mit Sechmesser ermöglichen ein effektive-
res Ackern größerer Flächen. Ihrer Unterscheidung
und Klassifikation widmeten sich viele Ethnographen.
Nicht allein ihre Typologie ist komplex, sondern auch
die Terminologie, da sie durch viele regionale Begriffe
und Dialektausdrücke sehr mannigfaltig ist. Die Ter-
minologie einzelner Holzteile der Ackergeräte werden
wir nicht erörtern, wir wollen nur ein einfaches Sche-
ma skizzieren.
Allgemein werden Ackergeräte folgendermaßen
klassifiziert: Arlpflüge (für symmetrisches Zerfurchen
sowie für Umwenden des Bodens mit Hilfe einer sym-
metrischen Schar ohne Sechmesser), die mit einer
Gleitschiene versehen werden, z.B. Haken mit Rad-
vorgestell, Sohlenhaken. Gleitschiene, anders gesagt
auch Sohle, ist eine selbständige trapezförmige Un-
terlage mit Schaft zur Befestigung der Schar. Solches
Ackergerät kann auch ohne Gleitschiene sein, sog.
Haken (z.B. Erzgebirger Haken, Wallachischer Haken),
bei welchen die Schar direkt auf dem Hakenkörper
(Hakenwelle) aufgesetzt ist (Suk 1966, 194–198). Das

RURALIA X 431
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte
Abb. 3. a) Paddelförmige Pflugschar aus Mstěnice, 11. Jahrhundert. Nach Nekuda 2000, 243, Abb. 309. – b) Reparierte Pflugschar aus Konůvky,
14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts. Foto S. Doleželová. – c) Asymmetrische Pflugschar aus Pfaffenschlag, 14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts. Nach
Nekuda 1975, 138, Abb. 131, 132.
vollkommenste Ackergerät ist dann der Beetpflug (ei-
gentlich ein einfacher Sturzpflug mit asymmetrischer
Schar und Sechmesser), der den Boden umkippt, die
Unterschicht des Ackerbodens nach oben und die
Oberschicht mit Pflanzenresten, eventuell Mist nach
unten bringt (Tempír 2007, 745–747).
Kehren wir jedoch ins Mittelalter zurück. Die Wand-
malerei in der Kirche von Slavětín nad Ohří aus der
zweiten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts zeigt das Ackern
mit dem sog. Beetpflug (Abb. 4e). Vom Ende des 14. Jahr-
hunderts stammt der Kodex von Jan von Jenštejn mit
der Abbildung eines Pflugs mit drei angespannten Pfer-
den (Abb. 4d; Beranová 1980, Tab. XLIX:1, 2).
In der Sammlung des Ethnographischen Instituts
gibt es einen berühmten, altertümlichen sog. Walla-
chischen Haken (Abb. 4c) mit blattförmig ausgeschnit-
tener, herzförmiger symmetrischer Schar, die mittels
einer massiven Schelle befestigt ist; der Holzteil ist na-
türlich hakenförmig gestaltet (z.B. Suk 1966, 194–195).
Nach unserer Klassifizierung geht es also um einen
symmetrischen Arl ohne Gleitschiene oder Krümmer
aus der Region von Rožnov (Fundstelle Hutisko). Eine
gleiche symmetrische Schar mit verstärkten Rän-
dern, beschädigter und reparierter Mitte stammt aus
dem mittelalterlichen Dorf Konůvky. Sie hat aber kei-
ne Schelle mit Nieten, sondern nur eine flache Tülle,
mittels welcher sie auf den Holzkörper des Ackerge-
räts „aufgeschlagen“ wurde (Abb. 3b). Andere Scha-
ren sind an der Gleitschiene mit einem langen Dorn
befestigt (Abb. 4b), welchen auch die sog. Paddelschar
aus Mstěnice aufweist (Abb. 3a; Nekuda 2000, 96, 243,
Abb. 309), die einem noch älteren Siedlungshorizont
des Dorfes angehört.
Den fortschrittlichsten Typ von Ackergeräten stellt
der Beetpflug mit asymmetrischer Schar und Sech-
messer dar (Abb. 4a). Selbstverständlich sind in der
ethnographischen Sammlung die massiven Eisenteile
432
429–441
wie auch einige vollständige Pflüge vertreten; sie sind
jedoch auch aus archäologischen Funden bekannt
(Abb. 4a), wenn auch nicht allzu häufig. Solche wertvol-
len Eisenteile wurden wiederverwendet: Das erwähnte
Exemplar aus Konůvky wurde nach einer Beschädi-
gung umgeschmiedet. Eine sehr gut erhaltene asym-
metrische Schar stammt aus Pfaffenschlag (Abb. 3c;
Nekuda 1975, Tab. LXIII); weitere wurden auf der Burg
von Batňovice gefunden (Beranová 1980, Tab. XLV:2)
oder liegen im Altbestands des Museums Tábor (Fonds
Sezimovo Ústí); von den letzt erwähnten Sammlungen
kommt auch ein Sech (Krajíc 2003, 132–133). Ein eben-
falls gut erhaltenes massives Sechmesser aus Konůvky
(Haus Nr. 5; z.B. Měchurová 1997, 87, 227, Tab. LXX:12)
und ein weiteres aus Mstěnice (Nekuda, R. – Nekuda, V.
1997, 89, Abb. 142) sind in ihrer Form fast identisch
mit Exemplaren aus dem Ende des 19. oder Anfang
des 20. Jahrhunderts in der Sammlung des Ethnogra-
phischen Instituts (Abb. 2). Sie unterscheiden sich nur
durch das Dekor mit Ästchenornament auf dem Exem-
plar aus der ethnographischen Sammlung. Die deko-
rative, schlichte Ährchenverzierung ist wohl ein sehr
traditionelles, auch im Mittelalter benutztes Motiv. Es
findet sich auch auf der Rodehacke aus Konůvky und
ist bei weitem nicht vereinzelt (siehe unten).
Hacken
Hacken als Geräte zur Bodenlockerung gibt es in ver-
schiedenen Formen, von der schmalen massiven Rode-
hacke, die als Spitzhacke beim Entfernen von Baum-
stümpfen diente, bis zur Kratzhacke mit breitem Blatt
zum Behacken von Zeilen oder zum Grübchenabteufen
(Abb. 5a; Jančář 1966, 11). Ein schön erhaltenes Exem-
plar einer herzförmigen Hacke stammt aus Mstěnice
(Obj. 312, Abb. 5a rechts); sogar vier Stück wurden in
einem Eisenhortfund in Hradišťko bei Davle gefunden
RURALIA X
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

Abb. 4. a) Rekonstruktion eines Beetpfluges unter Verwendung der archäologischen Funde eiserner Teile, asymmetrischer Pflugschar und des
Sechmessers in der Dauerausstellung des Mährischen Landesmuseums Brünn. Foto S. Doleželová. – b) Analogie der paddelförmigen Pflugschar
aus den Sammlungen des EI /MLM. – c) Sog. Wallachischer Haken, Hutisko, Region um Rožnov, aus dem alten Bestand der Sammlungen des EI /
MLM, Länge 197 cm. – d) Von drei Pferden gezogener schwerer Kehrpflug, Kodex von Erzbischof Jan von Jenštejn, 1396–1397.Nach Homo faber
1967, Abb. 6. – e) Ackerbau mit einem Beetpflug, Slavětín nad Ohří, Kirchenwandmalerei, zweite Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts. Nach Homo faber
1967, Abb. 3.

RURALIA X 433
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

Abb. 5. a) Archäologische Funde: Rodehacke aus Konůvky und herzförmige Kratzhacke aus Mstěnice, 14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts. Foto
S. Doleželová. – b) Rodehacke aus Podolí bei Brno, EI / MLM (oben links); Rodehacke und Kratzhacke aus dem alten Bestand des EI / MLM. –
c) Arbeit mit der Hacke. Brevier aus dem St. Georgskloster in Prag, um 1400. Nach Homo faber 1967, Abb. 41.

(Richter 1982, 167, 169-Abb. 1–3). Im Brevier aus dem
St. Georgskloster in Prag, um 1400, hält der Bauer, der
auf dem Feld arbeitet, eine solche Hacke (Abb. 5c). Inte-
ressant ist der Vergleich der massiven Rodehacke aus
Konůvky, die sich in Richtung Schneide leicht erwei-
tert (Abb. 5a links; Měchurová 1997, 88, Tab. LXX:13),
mit einem Exemplar der ethnographischen Sammlung
aus Podolí u Brna (Abb. 5b links oben). Diese Hacke
ähnelt durch die Verjüngung des Körpers zwischen der
Schneide und der Schaftsöffnung mehr einer hammer-
förmigen Spitzhacke. Beide tragen aber die oben er-
wähnte Verzierung oder Marke in Form eines Ästchens
(Weinrebe?) auf der gleichen Stelle, gerade auf dem
Körper, an der Innenseite in der Blickrichtung dessen,
der die Hacke hält. Das Motiv ist nicht ganz identisch,
aber in den beiden Fällen handelt es sich technologisch
um die Kombination von Grübchen und Rillen, die
ein Ästchenmuster bilden. Bei dem ethnographischen
Exemplar sind Grübchen in Dreiergruppen gegenein-
ander auf dem Ästchen – der Rille situiert, bei der Ro-
dehacke aus Konůvky sind die Dreiergruppen hinterei-
nander gereiht. Ein anderes mittelalterliches Stück mit
leicht abgerundeter Schneide stammt aus Krásná nad
Hornádom (Polla 1986, XVIII:7) und ein weiteres aus
der ungarischen Ortswüstung Sarvaly (Holl – Parádi
1982, Abb. 110:5). Das ungarische Exemplar ist eben-
falls verziert – auf der Innenseite sowie auf der Tül-
lenseite gibt es Reihen schräger Rillen. Weitere mittel-
alterliche Analogien aus archäologischen Grabungen
in Sezimovo Ústí (Krajíc 2003, 136–137, tab. 111, 112;
Richter – Smetánka – Špaček 1964, 703, Abb. 214) und
in der Burg von Semonice (Huml 1967, Tab. II:3, 9) sind
schon glatt und leicht fächerförmig.
Wie gemäht wurde – Sicheln, Sensen,
Kurzsensen
Die Getreideernte stellte den Höhepunkt des Agrar-
jahres dar. Mit der relativ komplizierten Problematik
des Mähgeräts befassten sich mehrere bedeutende Eth-
nographen, besonders K. Chotek (1959), in Reaktion auf
ihn J. Kramařík (1960; 1969) und später V. Vondruška
(1982, 1989), M. Válka (2006) či M. Mlynka (2007). Aus
archäologischer Perspektive widmete sich diesem The-
ma vor allem M. Beranová (1980). Grundlegende Ernte-
geräte waren ab der Urzeit Sicheln. Mittelalterliche Ge-
treidesicheln waren sägeartig, oft leicht gewölbt, eher

434 RURALIA X
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

Abb. 6. a) Sense aus dem Haus Nr. 2 in Konůvky und aus dem Haus Nr. 4 in Bystřec, 14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts. Foto S. Doleželová. –
b) Grasmäher mit der Sense. Brevier aus dem St. Georgskloster in Prag, um 1400. Nach Homo faber 1967, Abb. 28. – c) Sensen aus den Samm-
lungen des EI / MLM: left Rechensense, bzw. Reffsense; right Bogensense.

RURALIA X 435
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

Abb. 7. a) Archäologische Funde von Sicheln aus Bystřec und Tetčice. 14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts. Foto S. Doleželová. – b) Sicheln aus den
Sammlungen des EI / MLM: oben – für Getreide; unten – für Gras. – c) Getreideernte mit einer Sichel, Brevier des Kreuzherrengroßmeisters Lev
aus dem Jahr 1356. Nach Homo faber 1967, Abb. 17.

mit gezogener Spitze, die manchmal abgestumpft war;
sie eigneten sich gut zur Getreideabnahme. Sie stellen
geläufige archäologische Funde aus Ortswüstungen
dar (Konůvky, Mstěnice, Bystřec, Abb. 7a), obwohl sie
selten vollständig erhalten sind; deren Fragmente im
metallenen Inventar sind jedoch zahlreich. Sicheln in
der ethnographischen Sammlung sind zweierlei: säge-
artig – Getreidesicheln zum Abschneiden der Halme,
und Grassicheln mit breiter und scharfer Schneide
(Abb. 7b). Sägeartige Sicheln zeugen von der Mähtech-
nik, die eher im Abschneiden der Ähren im oberen
Drittel des Halms beruhte. Auf hohen Stoppeln konn-
te noch Vieh weiden und die so gedüngte und urbar
gemachte Weide wurde später geackert. Eine moderne-
re Technik war das tatsächliche Mähen der Halme am
Boden, wozu eine breitere und vor allem schärfere Si-
chel diente (z.B. Chotek 1959, 277–285; Kramařík 1969,
54–59). Mit dem Einsatz der Sense bei der Ernte im
Mittelalter ging man automatisch zur zweiten Mähart
– Mähen niedrig am Boden über. Die Sicheln wurden
dann zur Domäne der Frauen, die sie beim Abnehmen
von Getreide vor dessen Binden in Garben oder beim
Nachmähen benutzten (Kramařík 1969, 56).
In der Ikonographie kommt die Sichel bei der Ernte
häufig zum Vorschein, die damit verknüpften Arbeiten
symbolisieren in Kalendern den Monat Juli. Bei dem
Vergleich der Gerätform, der Höhe der Stoppeln, der
Körperhaltung des Mähers bei der Arbeit und seines
Geschlechts kommt man zu weiteren bemerkenswer-
ten, wenn auch nicht so offensichtlichen Feststellun-
gen. Im 14. Jahrhundert werden bei Feldarbeiten mit
der Sichel ausschließlich Männer abgebildet. In Velis-
laus-Bibel aus der Zeit um 1340 ( Homo faber 1967,
Abb. 11) ist die Beteiligung des ganzen männlichen
Teils der Familie an der Ernte zu sehen, der Vater
und der Sohn mähen Getreide fast kniend mit sicht-
bar sägeartigen schmalen und gebeugten Sicheln;
glaubt man der realistischen Abbildung, dann wurden
die Halme etwa in der Mitte abgeschnitten, obwohl
Autoren der inzwischen schon klassischen Publika-
tion Homo faber die Stoppeln als niedrig schätzen. Im
Brevier des Großmeisters Lev aus dem Jahre 1356
(Abb. 7c; Homo faber 1967, Abb. 17) hält der gebeug-
te Mann – der Mäher eine massive breite Sichel und
mäht das Getreide niedrig am Boden, im Unterschied
zum Brevier aus der St. Georgskloster aus der Zeit um

436 RURALIA X
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte
1400 (Homo faber 1967, Abb. 16; Beranová 1980, Tab.
L:2, LII:1, LI:1), wo das Getreide schon eine gebeugte
Frau mäht, wohl mit einer schmäleren Sichel mit gezo-
gener Spitze. Die interessante Olmützer Bibel aus dem
Jahre 1417 (Homo faber 1967, Abb. 13) zeigt eine ganze
Familie bei der Ernte; in der Hand des Mannes sowie
der Frau sind gezähnte Sicheln zu sehen.
In allen diesen ikonographischen Quellen (wohl mit
der Ausnahme des Breviers des Großmeisters Lev)
ist die Höhe der Stoppeln schwer zu bewerten, man
könnte sogar den Autoren von Homo faber widerspre-
chen und sie nach der Ernte mit sägeartigen Sicheln
als relativ hoch bezeichnen, was die oben angeführte
Ansicht der Volkskundler über das Mähen knapp über
dem Boden mit einer scharfen breiten Sichel und spä-
ter einer Sense untermauern würde. Es ist nicht aus-
zuschließen, dass die Technik und Art und Weise der
Getreideernte mehrere Faktoren beeinflussen konnten
– regionale Gewohnheiten, Gliederung des Terrains,
Seehöhe.
Die Sense erscheint im Zusammenhang mit Ge-
treidemähen erst im 14. Jahrhundert, Ethnographen
verschieben ihr Auftreten erst in das 16. Jahrhun-
dert (Vondruška 1982, 86; Mlynka 2007, 45–46, Abb.
auf S. 55 rechts in linker Oberecke). Die Autoren von
Homo faber sprechen von dem ersten Vorkommen der
Getreidesense im 15. Jahrhundert, aber definitiv setz-
te sich dieses Gerät bei der Getreideernte erst gegen
Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts durch (Homo faber 1967,
41). Dem entsprechen auch Ansichten in der gegen-
wärtigen Literatur, der massenhafte Einsatz der Sense
Abb. 8. a) Sog. Kurzsensen aus dem alten Bestand der Sammlungen des EI / MLM. – b) Getreidemäher, im vorne möglicherweise mit Kurzsense.
Abbildung in der Bibel Wenzeslas IV. (1389–1400). Nach Homo faber 1967, Abb.19.
RURALIA X
429–441
wird sogar im 19. Jahrhundert erwogen (Brot und Wein
2013, 124). Bis dann existierte nur die Grassense,
mit welcher aber wohl auch Sommergetreide und be-
sonders Hafer, also Getreide mit kurzen Halmen und
Korn, das aus Ähren nicht herausfiel, gemäht werden
konnte (Kramařík 1969, 57; Vondruška 1982, 86). Der
Einsatz von Sensen in Getreideernte benötigte auch
eine andere Arbeitsteilung zwischen Mann und Frau,
denn bei der Arbeit mit der Sense im Getreide (mit auf-
gerichteter Körperhaltung) war männliche physische
Kraft notwendig.
Im ethnographischen Material sind neben dem Me-
tallblatt der Sense auch ihre organischen Bestandtei-
le erhalten – Sensestiel und weitere Elemente: bei der
Rechensense oder Reffsense sog. Sensengestelle und
der Bogen mit der Textil- oder Drahtausfüllung der Bo-
gensense (Abb. 6c). Die letztgenannte kenne ich noch
aus Autopsie. Archäologische Funde von Sensen sind
relativ häufig (drei Exemplare stammen aus Sezimovo
Ústí, Krajíc 2003, 141–142, Tab. 118), meistens sind
sie aber schlecht erhalten und deshalb müssen ihre
Fragmente nicht immer erkannt werden: Bruchstücke
sind aus Pfaffenschlag (Nekuda 1975, 139, Abb. 133:4),
Posádka pri Gajaroch (Polla 1962, 123, Abb. 11:8), aus
der Ortswüstung Bizovo (Drenko 1994, 146, Abb. 21:1)
bekannt, schöne Exemplare lieferten auch Fundstel-
len Bystřec und Konůvky (Abb. 6a; Měchurová 1997,
84; Belcredi 2006, 358, Tab. XXXIX:1).
Die Rolle der Kurzsense (Abb. 8a) ist weder durch
Archäologen noch Ethnographen vollkommen erklärt,
ihr Vorkommen im ethnographischen Material ist nicht
437
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

beweiskräftig (Chotek 1959, 286–287). V. Vondruška
(1982, 86) erwähnt die sog. Rübensichel, eine gerade
Sichel zum Abschneiden des Rübenkrauts. Aus der
ethnographischen Literatur ist der Begriff kosák be-
kannt, der in verschiedenen (vor allem mährischen
und slowakischen) Dialekten aber nur allgemein Si-
cheln bezeichnet (Chotek 1959, 283). Daher ist die Ab-
bildung der Mäher aus der Bibel Wenzeslaus IV. inte-
ressant, die in den Händen des vorderen Mannes ein
nur wenig gebogenes Mähgerät zeigt, das der Kurzsen-
se sehr ähnlich ist (Abb. 8b; Homo faber 1967, Abb. 19).
Wie geerntet wurde – Gabeln
Bei Feldarbeiten wurden mehrere Gabeltypen ver-
wendet: sie können entweder nach dem Material, aus
welchem ihr Funktionsteil hergestellt ist, oder nach
der Zahl der Zinken klassifiziert werden. Zur Heuernte
(aber auch zur Getreideernte) dienten ganzmetallene
Heugabeln mit zwei Zinken, die aus archäologischen
Quellen z.B. aus Sezimovo Ústí (Krajíc 2003, 143) und
aus Bystřec bekannt sind (Abb. 9c; Belcredi 2006, 358,
Tab. XXXIX:4). Die Arbeit mit diesen Gabeln wird in
einer Abbildung in der Velislaus-Bibel aus dem Jah-
re 1431 dargestellt (Abb. 9d; Belcredi 2006, 357, Abb.
232). Vollständig aus Holz gefertigte Gabeln stellten
jedoch keine Ausnahme dar. Eine einmalige archäolo-
gische Entdeckung erfolgte im feuchten Milieu einer
Latrine in Pilsen, in dem sich eine solche hölzerne Ga-
bel jahrhundertelang einschließlich des Holzkörpers
und eines Stielteils erhalten hat (nach der Mitteilung
von F. Frýda; Orna 2001, D2-29890). Im alten Bestand
der ethnographischen Sammlung befindet sich eine
Holzgabel mit drei metallenen Aufsteckspitzen (Suk
1966, 201, Abb. 1), die 1921 erworben wurde (Abb. 9a)
und die völlig jener gleicht, die in Konůvky, Haus Nr. 2
gefunden wurde (Abb. 9b; Měchurová 1997, 85, Tab.
LII:12–14). Diese Aufsteckspitzen sind z.B. auch aus
Mstěnice (Nekuda 1985, 126, 127, Abb. 184) und Pfaf-
fenschlag (Nekuda 1975, 135, 141, Abb. 135:1) bekannt.
Diese spezifische kantige Gabelform, aus einzelnen
Holzstiften oder Stangen zusammengestellt ist, wird in
dem Manuskript des Strassburger Vergil dargestellt,
das in das Jahr 1502 datiert ist (Belcredi 2006, 378,
Abb. 233) und verschiedene Feldarbeiten zeigt. Auch
die eisernen Mistgabeln, die in der Landwirtschaft als
Mehrzweckgerät dienten, hatten ebenfalls drei oder
mehr Zinken (Suk 1966, 201, Abb. 2).

Abb. 9. a) Hölzerne Reichgabel mit Metallaufsteckspitzen aus dem alten Bestand der Sammlungen des EI / MLM. – b) Eiserne Gabelaufsteckspitzen
aus Haus 2 in Konůvky, 14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts. Foto Archiv des Archäol. Inst. des Mähr. Landesmuseums. – c) Eiserne Reichgabel aus
Bystřec. Foto S. Doleželová. – d) Getreidelagerung. Abbildung aus der Velislaus Bibel, um 1340. Nach Homo faber 1967, Abb. 24.

438 RURALIA X
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

Abb. 10. a) Auswahl von Dreschflegeln aus den Sammlungen des EI / MLM, ganz links – mit Eisenschelle auf dem Klöppel, b) – Detail der Verbin-
dung ganz aus Leder. – c) Dreschflegelbeschlag (?) aus Pfaffenschlag, 14. – Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts. Nach Nekuda 1975, 140, Abb. 134:5.
– d) Getreidedreschen mit Dreschflegel, Brevier des Kreuzherrengroßmeisters Lev aus dem Jahr 1356. Nach Homo faber 1967, Abb. 23.

RURALIA X 439
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte
Wie gedroschen wurde – Dreschflegel
Dreschflegel waren bis vor kurzem das einzige Mit-
tel, um die Körner aus dem Getreide zu lösen. Aus ar-
chäologischen Funden in Mähren ist ein einziger so
bestimmter Gegenstand bekannt, und zwar aus Pfaf-
fenschlag (Abb. 10c; Nekuda 1975, 140, Abb. 134:5). Es
handelt sich um zwei Beschläge abgerundeter Form, die
mittels eines Rings verknüpft sind. Weitere Exemplare
stammen aus Sezimovo Ústí (Krajíc 2003,142, Tab. 108)
und der Burg Vizmburk (Lochman 1983, 251–266).
Bei Dreschflegeln aus ethnographischen Sammlungen
kommt jedoch in keinem einzigen Fall dieser metalle-
ne Bestandteil vor (Abb. 10a,b). Meistens ist die Verbin-
dung zwischen Klöppel und Stiel aus Lederriemchen
(Abb. 10b), in einigen Fällen weisen sie metallene Be-
schläge auf (oder mindestens einen Beschlag auf dem
Stiel/ Griff des Dreschflegels), aber immer ist die Ver-
bindung der beiden Teile aus Leder. Der Klöppel (biják,
cepec) musste mit einer flexiblen, also ledernen Schel-
le (sog. ohlav – Kappe) versehen werden, damit sein
Körper, mit Nägeln des Metallbeschlags durchgeschla-
gen, beim Dreschen nicht aufplatzte. Weniger war bei
der Arbeit der Griff – sog. hůlka – beansprucht. Sicht-
bare Risse auf dem Klöppel wurden oft mit Eisenschel-
len festgebunden (Abb. 10a links). Daraus kann man
schließen, dass der Fund des Beschlags aus Pfaffen-
schlag (und auch aus den erwähnten tschechischen
Fundstellen) bereits zu einem hussitischen Kampf-
dreschflegel gehört haben könnte und später wieder-
aufbereitet wurde. Dreschen wird in ikonographischen
Quellen dargestellt – im Brevier des Kreuzherrengroß-
meisters Lev aus dem Jahre 1356 (Abb. 10d; Nekuda
2000, 102, Abb. 148) oder in der Bibel des Hl. Wenzel
Liber depictus aus der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhun-
derts, wo der junge Hl. Wenzel Getreide drischt (Trkovs-
ká 1963, 265).
Zusammenfassung
Die Analyse von Gegenständen alltäglichen Ge-
brauchs benötigt unbedingt die Zusammenarbeit der
Ethnographie und der Archäologie bei der Komplettie-
rung und Interpretation archäologischer Funde. Oft
ist die Hilfe der Ethnographie auch auf dem Gebiet der
Terminologie notwendig. Es ist klar, dass Archäologen
bei Ethnographen Rat suchen müssen, um Geräte
und deren Bestandteile korrekt zu benennen. Beson-
ders wichtig ist dies bei landwirtschaftlichen Geräten.
Für die Rekonstruktion des Alltagslebens im Mittel-
alter (aber sicherlich auch in anderen Epochen der
Menschheitsgeschichte) ist die Kenntnis der Ikonogra-
phie von Bedeutung, welche uns die Kunstgeschichte
bietet. Nur ausnahmsweise wird eine neue Quelle ent-
deckt. Der Beitrag von Ethnographie und Ethnologie,
untermauert durch bildliche Quellen, ist besonders
für die Mittelalterarchäologie ganz wesentlich und un-
440
429–441
entbehrlich. Trotz der bekannten Tatsache, daß die
grundlegenden Ackerbaugeräte ihre zweckmäßigste
funktionelle Form bereits in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit
entwickelt haben, kann durch den Vergleich archäo-
logischer Funde mit ethnographischen Sammlungen
unter Zuhilfenahme der Ikonographie deutlich und
restlos belegt werden, dass sich in der Spanne von
vier- bis fünfhundert Jahren vom Mittelalter bis zur
Neuzeit praktisch überhaupt nichts geändert hatte.
Deutsch von Pavla Seitlová
Summary
It was taken the opportunity to look into the collec-
tions of the Ethnographic Institute of the Moravian
Museum Brno and compare the items held there with
basic medieval tools for work in the fields. Let us start
with spring and see what tools people used to work
the soil throughout the agricultural year, from spring
to autumn. They would start with ploughing and dig-
ging (hoes, wooden spades with metal blades), conti-
nue with reaping and harvesting (sickles, scythes, half-
scythes – the chronological and social relationships
between them – wooden forks). Work in the yard came
last, especially threshing (flails). Ethnography helps ar-
chaeology not only in terms of comparisons but also
as a support for terminology. Basic agricultural tools
acquired their most effective functional shapes as ear-
ly as in the prehistory. A comparison between archaeo-
logical finds and ethnographic collections, with the
help of iconographic sources, confirms that the tools
remained virtually unchanged for four or five centu-
ries, from the Middle Ages until modern times.
Résumé
Il nous a été donné l’opportunité de consulter les
collections de l’Institut Ethnographique du Musée
Brno de Moravie et de comparer les objets des collec-
tions avec les outils de base médiévaux de travail dans
les champs. Voyons quels outils ont été utilisé pour
travailler le sol durant l’année agraire, en commençant
par le printemps, jusqu’à l’automne. On commençait
par labourer et bêcher (houes, bêches en bois avec
lames en métal). Ensuite on moissonnait et récoltait
(faucilles, faux, demi-faux (y compris les connexions
culturelles et sociales entre elles), fourches en bois.
Le travail en extérieur se terminait avec, en particu-
lier, le battage (fléaux). L’ethnographie aide l’archéolo-
gie, non seulement en termes de comparaisons mais
aussi comme support à la terminologie. Les outils
agraires de base ont acquis leur forme fonctionnelle dès
la Préhistoire. Une comparaison entre les découvertes
archéologiques et les collections ethnographiques, avec
l’aide des sources iconographiques, confirme que les
outils sont restés inchangés pendant quatre ou cinq
siècles, du Moyen Âge aux Temps modernes.
RURALIA X
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

Literaturverzeichnis Nekuda, V. 1975:

Belcredi, L. 2006:
Bystřec. O založení, životě a zániku středověké vsi. Archeo-
logický výzkum zaniklé středověké vsi Bystřece 1975–2005.
Brno.
Beranová, M. 1980:
Zemědělství starých Slovanů. Praha.
Brot – Wein 2013:
Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesausstellung „Brot
und Wein“, 27. April bis 3. November 2013, Asparn.
Drenko, Z. 1994:
Zaniknutá stredoveká dedina Bizovo, Zborník Slovenského
národného múzea, Archeológia 88, 129–152.
Durdík, J. – Drobná, Z. – Wagner, E. 1956:
Kroje, zbroj a zbraně doby husitské a předhusitské. Praha.
Holl, I. – Parádi, N. 1982:
Das mittelalterliche Dorf Sarvaly. Fontes archaeologici Hun-
gariae. Budapest.
Huml, V. 1967:
Zaniklá tvrz Semonice. Fontes Musei Reginaehradecensis.
Supplementum 2. Hradec Králové.
Homo faber 1967:
Husa, V. – Petráň, J. – Šubrtová, A. 1967: Homo faber. Pra-
covní motivy ve starých vyobrazeních. Praha.
Chotek, K. 1959:
Staré způsoby práce v československém zemědělství, Česko-
slovenská etnografie 7, 275–290.
Jančář, J. 1966–1967:
Tradiční zemědělské nářadí na jihovýchodní Moravě, Slovác-
ko 8/9, 9–28.
Krajíc, R. 2003:
Sezimovo Ústí. Archeologie středověkého poddanského měs-
ta, vol. 3. Kovárna v Sezimově Ústí a analýza výrobků ze že-
leza, 1/2, Praha – Sezimovo Ústí – Tábor.
Kramařík, J. 1959:
Dřevěné rýče se železným okutím v českých zemích. Česko-
slovenská etnografie 7, 244–266.
Kramařík, J. 1960:
Několik poznámek k článku prof. K. Chotka „Staré způsoby
práce v československém zemědělství. Žatva srpem“, Česko-
slovenská etnografie 8, 87–91.
Kramařík, J. 1969:
Žena a muž při sklizni obilí, Český lid 56, 53–63.
Lochman, Z. 1983:
Kovový inventář hradu Vizmburka, Krkonoše – Podkrkonoší
7, Trutnov, 223–250.
Měchurová, Z. 1997:
Konůvky – zaniklá středověká ves ve Ždánickém lese. Studie
AÚ AV ČR v Brně 17/1. Brno.
Mlynka, M. 2007:
Ikonografické pramene k štúdiu slovenského poľnohospo-
dárstva, in: Válka, M. et al., Agrární kultura. Brno, 43–62.
Pfaffenschlag. Zaniklá středověká ves u Slavonic. Brno.
Nekuda, V. 1985:
Mstěnice. Zaniklá středověká ves u Hrotovic, vol. 1. Hrádek –
tvrz – dvůr – předsunutá opevnění. Brno.
Nekuda, V. 2000:
Mstěnice. Zaniklá středověká ves, vol. 3. Raně středověké
sídliště. Brno.
Nekuda, R. – Nekuda, V. 1997:
Mstěnice. Zaniklá středověká ves u Hrotovic, vol. 2. Dům
a dvůr ve středověké vesnici. Brno.
Orna, J. 2001:
Nálezy středověkých dřevěných předmětů v Plzni. CD ROM.
Západočeské muzeum v Plzni.
Polla, B. 1962:
Pamiatky hmotnej kultúry 15. storočia z Posádky pri Gaja-
roch. Sborník Slovenského národného múzea 56, História 2,
107–140.
Polla, B 1986:
Košice-Krásna. K stredovekým dejinám Krásnej nad Horná-
dom. Bratislava.
Richter, M. 1982:
Hradišťko u Davle, městečko ostrovského kláštera. Praha.
Richter, M. – Smetánka, Z. – Špaček, L. 1964:
Výzkum v Sezimově Ústí v r. 1962 a 1963, Archeologické
rozhledy 16, 691–715.
Slivka, M. 1981:
Stredoveké hutníctvo a kováčstvo na východnom Slovensku
(3), Historica Carpatica 12, 211–276.
Suk, R. 1966:
Tradiční zemědělské nářadí a nástroje, Muzejní a vlastivědná
práce 4, 193–201.
Tempír, Z. 2007:
Pluh, in: Brouček, S. – Jeřábek, R. (eds), Lidová kultura. Náro-
dopisná encyklopedie Čech, Moravy a Slezska, vol. 3, Praha,
745–747.
Trkovská , V. 1963:
Iluminace v rukopisech 11.–17. století jako národopisné pra-
meny, Český lid 50, 257–269.
Válka, M. 2006:
K ikonografii středověké vesnice. První poznatky z etnolo-
gické analýzy nástěnných maleb v Porta Aquila v jihotyrol-
ském Tridentu, in: Křížová, A. – Válka, M. (eds), Středověké
a novověké zdroje tradiční kultury. Sborník příspěvků ze
semináře konaného 30. listopadu 2005 v Ústavu evropské
etnologie, Brno, 29–44.
Vondruška, V. 1982:
Tradiční žňové nástroje, Muzejní a vlastivědná práce 20, 83–
92.
Vondruška, V. 1989:
Slovník starého zemědělského nářadí, nástrojů a strojů
(1750–1914), vol. 1/2. Roztoky u Prahy

Zdeňka Měchurová, Moravské zemské muzeum, Zelný trh 6, CZ 659 37 Brno, zmechurova@mzm.cz

RURALIA X 441
Měchurová, Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten und Landwirtschaftsgeräte 429–441

442 RURALIA X
Eiroa, Fortified Granaries in Southeastern al-Andalus
On the meaning of agrarian tools from a Czech perspective
De la signification des outils agraires vu de la perspective tchèque
Zur Bedeutung landwirtschaftlicher Geräte aus tschechischer Perspektive
Jan Klápště
The conference in Smolenice had been planned inter
alia to discuss the issues of the artefacts used in the
study of medieval agrarian technologies in the areas of
Slovakia and the Czech Republic. An important con-
tribution to this topic was presented by Z. Měchurová
(2016). This discussion paper seeks to provide at least
some further information. Attention in the mentioned
lands should be paid first of all to the archaeology of
tillage tools, which is based on the finds of their iron
parts, in particular shares and coulters. For the ear-
ly Middle Ages, large parts of Europe have produced
only a few finds, whereas Moravia and Slovakia have
provided relatively rich collections of finds of the
8th–10th centuries. For the later Middle Ages, such
concentrations of finds are lacking and research relies
on a relatively small number of scattered finds (Gring-
muth-Dallmer 1982; Bartošková 1986; Henning 1987;
Fries 1995; Reigniez 2002, 77–87; Beranová 2006). The
study of shares and coulters has traditionally focused
on their morphology while leaving their weight aside
and recording it only exceptionally. Nevertheless, the
weight of the artefacts is an important indicator of
their former work efficiency.
The essential information on early medieval tillage
irons may be provided by finds from the stronghold in
Mikulčice (South Moravia), dated to the 8th–9th/10th
centuries. Their thorough publication (Poláček 2003)
records eleven shares, five of which allow closer evalu-
ation (Tab. 1), and seven coulters (Tab. 2). The follow-
ing conclusions arise from these finds:
(1) The common occurrence of shares and coulters
implies their joint use within the same tillage tools. For
instance the set of iron artefacts placed in the interior
of Church VIII included amongst others two shares
and two coulters (Tab. 1 : 1, 2; Tab. 2 : 2, 3; Fig. 1 : 1–4);
another hoard (no. 1237) comprised, among other ar-
tefacts, one share and two coulters (Tab. 1 : 5; Tab.
2 : 6, 7; Fig. 1 : 5 – 7).
(2) Shares differed considerably in their weight,
but asymmetrical shares are usually lighter than the
symmetrical ones. The lightest of the shares from
Mikulčice is asymmetrical and weighs 200 g. The
biggest and heaviest share known from the 8th–9th
Agrarian technology in the medieval landscape, ed. by Jan Klápště, Ruralia, X (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), Pp. 443–448.
FHG
443–448
centuries in Moravia is symmetrical. It comes from
hoards from Brankovice (South Moravia); it is 38 cm
long, 20 cm wide and it weighs 1,930 g. Coulters tend
to be substantially heavier than shares. When found
together, coulters are three to six times as heavy as
shares.
(3) Asymmetrical shares and symmetrical shares
with one side reinforced demonstrate asymmetrical
tillage. Further evidence of that could be provided by
metallographic analyses, which are only exceptionally
performed for shares, because shares were not among
technologically demanding products rarely attracting
metallographic attention. An exception is an analysis
of a symmetrical share of a weight of 178 g coming
from Ivanovice (South Moravia) (Tab. 1 : 6; Fig. 1 : 8). Its
working side was formed by a hard steel plate, whereas
the opposite side made do with soft iron (Pleiner 1967,
86). The morphologically symmetrical share was defi-
nitely used for asymmetrical tillage.
There are some connections with earlier traditions
of East-Central Europe for asymmetrical tillage, with
evidence particularly from South Moravia of the 9th
century. These are likely to have been mostly light one-
sided ploughs with heavy coulters, enabling tillage of
pasture and newly cultivated areas. Therefore, these
tillage tools tend to be considered as an ‘important
sign of the beginnings of systematic agriculture’ (al-
ready Balassa 1971, 423).
The history of tillage tools is l’histoire de la longue
durée, which makes absolute conclusions about the in-
dividual stages problematic. A valuable key to informa-
tion lies in a comparison of early medieval tillage irons
with tools of the later Middle Ages. In the Czech lands,
several archaeological finds are available for compari-
son; very valuable evidence is provided by iconogra-
phy. The most important of later sets comes from the
village of Semonice (East Bohemia) from around 1300
(Fig. 1 : 9, 10; Huml 1967). Based on their morpholo-
gy, two shares from Semonice were placed under the
same type as some shares from the 8th–9th centuries
(Fries 1995, 44, Taf. 18). Nevertheless, such categori-
sation is misleading, because it does not say anything
about their working efficiency and demands on pulling
10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110482
Klápště, On the meaning of agrarian tools from a Czech perspective 443–448

No. Share Fig. Context Description Length Width Weight

1 Mikulčice 87/61 1:1 Church VIII (hoard I) Symmetrical 23.5 cm 11.4 cm 610 g
2 Mikulčice 88/61 1:2 Church VIII (hoard I) Asymmetrical 17.9 cm 8.8 cm 470 g
left side strengthened
3 Mikulčice 413/72 Asymmetrical 17.5 cm 8.4 cm 560 g
4 Mikulčice 40007/87 Asymmetrical 11.9 cm 7.2 cm 210 g
5 Mikulčice 2781/88 1:5 Hoard 1237 Asymmetrical 13.9 cm 7.6 cm 200 g
left side strengthened
6 Ivanovice 1:8 Symmetrical 10,2 cm 6,2 cm 178 g
7 Semonice 1:9 Asymmetrical 38.5 cm 25 cm 2,921 g

Tab. 1. Shares mentioned in the discussion, basic data.

No. Coulter Fig. Context Length Blade length Weight

1 Mikulčice 7217/59 41 cm 14.2 cm 1,600 g
2 Mikulčice 85/61 1:3 Church VIII (hoard I) 42.8 cm 16.5 cm 1,805 g
3 Mikulčice 86/61 1:4 Church VIII (hoard I) 39.5 cm 15 cm unknown
4 Mikulčice 412/72 41 cm 15.5 cm 845 g
5 Mikulčice 5987/80 38.4 cm 12.1 cm 835 g
6 Mikulčice 2785/88 1:6 Hoard 1237 41.4 cm 14.6 cm 1,245 g
7 Mikulčice 2786/88 1:7 Hoard 1237 39.1 cm 10.9 cm 1,120 g
8 Semonice 1:10 51 cm 25 cm 2,757 g

Tab. 2. Coulters mentioned in the discussion, basic data.

strength and on the method of harnessing. Coulters
from Semonice are substantially heavier than earlier
finds, but the weight of shares increased much more,
reaching almost 3 kg. These massive irons are already
comparable to heavy mouldboard ploughs, which ap-
pear in medieval iconography, pulled by up to two
pairs of horses or oxen (Měchurová 2016, Abb. 4). From
the 19th century, it was these ploughs that became the
symbol of advanced medieval agriculture. Although
no substantially earlier comparison is available in Eu-
ropean archaeology for the tillage tools represented
by finds from Semonice, their history is undoubtedly
much longer. The earliest reliable evidence can be seen
in calendar depictions from the British Library (Cot-
ton MSS Julius A VI and Tiberius B V), dated to the
10th–11th centuries.
Tillage tools with iron parts from Semonice were
considerably different from those indicated by finds
from Mikulčice. In both cases, the soil was turned by
tillage, but the question of when the plough was cre-
ated is misleading in and of itself, because an answer
relying exclusively on the morphology of tillage metal-
work does not distinguish between one-sided ploughs
and heavy mouldboard ploughs (different perspective
e. g. Larsen 2016). This objection in no way diminish-
es the essential importance of the abandonment of
ideas of the general backwardness of early medieval
agriculture (e.g. Henning 2004; 2007; 2014), but the
beginnings of heavy mouldboard ploughs are a spe-
cial theme. In the later Middle Ages, various soils and
diverse actions required different tillage tools, and the
heavy mouldboard plough was used on heavy soils.
The same techno-complex included another two tools,
unknown from the earlier context. Amongst the set
from Semonice were two mud scrapers, necessary to
clean shares in the tillage of heavy soils (Fig. 1 : 11).
Another type discovered are 24 iron spikes 17–22 cm
long (Fig. 1 : 12), which used to be put in a wooden har-
row frame. Without this implement, which placed very
high demands on pulling strength, the cultivation of
heavy soils would have been impossible.
A special chapter concerns spade cultivation, which
is indicated by iron shoes in archaeological finds. The
appearance of a wooden spade with an iron shoe did
not change in East-Central Europe between the La
Tène period and the early Modern Period. Evidence
from the early Middle Ages is represented by two finds
from Mikulčice, coming from the central part of the
stronghold (Poláček 2003, 606–607). Another exam-
ple comes from the hoard from Moravský Svätý Ján
(West Slovakia). The set, dated to the 8th century, in-
cludes a small symmetrical share, iron shoes of two
spades and three vintner’s knives (Bartošková 1986,
33–36). The spades were undoubtedly used for work
in gardens and vineyards. A counterpart from the later
Middle Ages is again offered by finds from Semonice,
including an iron shoe for a wooden spade and along
with it three hoes of various shapes (Fig. 1 : 13 and 14;

444 RURALIA X
Klápště, On the meaning of agrarian tools from a Czech perspective 443–448

Fig. 1. Early medieval shares and coulters from two hoards unearthed during excavations in Mikulčice stronghold (1–7) and one of the shares from
the Ivanovice hoard (8), 8th–9th centuries, Moravia. – Later medieval iron parts of cultivation tools from Semonice (9–14), around 1300 AD, Bohe-
mia (9 share, 10 coulter, 11 mud scraper, 12 harrow spikes, 13 shoe of a spade, 14 hoes).

RURALIA VI
X 445
Klápště, On the meaning of agrarian tools from a Czech perspective
Huml 1967). These implements are supposed to have
been used for work in the gardens. This intensive form
of agriculture was particularly effective and, for the en-
tire Middle Ages, it was quite significant. The archaeo-
logical find context in East-Central Europe proves that
one cannot think of only small farmers who ‘were too
poor to own draught animals or ploughs’ (Myrdal –
Sapoznik 2016, 203, 213).
A valuable view of the world of medieval work is
provided by the history of the scythe. In the early Mid-
dle Ages, grass was cut using short scythes. Several
dozen (nine of which complete or almost complete)
come from Mikulčice alone. They were 30–35 cm
long; the wooden snath was attached to the blade of
the scythe by a tang at an obtuse angle to the blade
(Poláček 2003, 614). Apart from these scythes, an ex-
ceptional item has been found in the Czech lands –
a scythe unearthed during an archaeological excava-
tion of the Němětice stronghold (South Bohemia) and
dated between the end of the 9th and the beginning of
the 10th century. With the manner of its attachment,
it resembles long scythes, but it is relatively short,
reaching the length of only 51 cm (Michálek – Lutovský
2000, 41–42, 208, Tab. 159). Based on archaeological
evidence and iconography, really long scythes were
used in the Czech lands in the 13th–14th centuries,
but also short scythes were employed along with them.
An example of a ‘truly long scythe’ is an artefact from
the deserted village of Konůvky, 94 cm long and dated
to the 15th century (Měchurová 2016, Abb. 6). A wider
European comparison, focused mainly on the second
half of the first millennium, is important here again.
The existence of long scythes from the 9th century
is captured in iconography; their sporadic evidence
is recorded even in archaeology, which, however, still
lacks a critical catalogue of finds with sufficient infor-
mation (cf. Henning 1991; 2004). For the entire Mid-
dle Ages, scythes were used for haymaking, sickles
for grain harvest (Beranová 1991; 2005). Considera-
tions on the use of scythes by the 14th century during
grain harvest for instance (e.g. Belcredi 1990, 46–47)
should be approached very carefully – in iconography,
on which these considerations rely, it is impossible
to distinguish between the harvest of ripe and un-
ripe grain. It is known from written sources from the
14th–15th centuries that roasted immature grain was
among important foodstuffs (Beranová 1995). Ripe
grain harvest with a scythe required a change in the
technological process; to prevent grain losses, it was
necessary to harvest grain before full ripeness and
then to dry it.
Each of the technological items (the heavy plough,
the spade as well as the long scythe) is accompanied
by specific problems. If we limit ourselves to East-Cen-
tral Europe, it may be assumed according to current
446
443–448
knowledge that systematic application of the heavy
plough and the long scythe was connected with the
complex of changes falling in the 13th century (Klápště
2012). Every such consideration based on archaeology
is accompanied by the issue of the representativeness
of information. The development of archaeological
knowledge can lead to substantial changes in conclu-
sions that are likely now. Yet attention is not focused
on the very beginnings of things, but on their systemic
application. In the given cases, this may be associat-
ed with the systematic tillage of heavy soils and with
an increased need for hay, conditioned by livestock
housing, hence with demands typical of the late Mid-
dle Ages. The connection to simple implements had its
unquestionable significance – it simplified the spread
of, for instance, the heavy plough and the long scythe.
Nevertheless, what was essential was the character of
the economic system, on which the expansion of the
considered implements depended. The wooden spade
with the iron edge introduces another context. Work
with spade also had a significant tradition in East-
Central Europe; the appearance of this implement did
not change much in the later Middle Ages. Its expan-
sion in the later Middle Ages was connected with the
development of garden and vineyard cultivation. Each
of the three artefacts had its specific history, which,
however, is not separable from the broader context of
agrarian technologies and the history of the medieval
landscape.
Summary
The discussion paper primarily deals with the ar-
chaeology of tillage tools. Finds from the 8th–9th cen-
turies from the area of the Czech Republic demon-
strate asymmetrical tillage with light tools, equipped
with relatively large coulters. These light one-sided
ploughs were essentially different from heavy mould-
board ploughs with much bigger iron parts, known
from archaeological finds from around 1300. These
tools were effective for the cultivation of heavy soils,
but they placed high demands on pulling strength
and on the method of harnessing. The second part of
the text is devoted to spade cultivation. It infers from
the context of archaeological finds that spades were
intended mainly for work in gardens and vineyards.
The third tool discussed is the scythe, used for hay-
making throughout the Middle Ages. In the earlier Mid-
dle Ages in East-Central Europe, the short scythe has
been proved; the long scythe is known from as late as
the later Middle Ages. The article emphasises the im-
portance of the broader context of agrarian technolo-
gies and associates the effective application of each of
the agrarian tools with systemic demands of a certain
techno-complex.
RURALIA X
Klápště, On the meaning of agrarian tools from a Czech perspective
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Diskussionsbeitrag konzentriert sich vor
allem auf Geräte der Bodenbearbeitung. Funde des
8./9. Jahrhunderts aus der Tschechischen Republik
belegen leichte Pflüge mit asymmetrischer Pflugschar
und einem relativ großen Sechmesser. Diese leichten
Pflüge waren grundsätzlich anders, als die schweren
Wendepflüge mit wesentlich größeren Eisenteilen, wie
sie aus archäologischen Funden der Zeit um 1300 be-
kannt sind. Diese Pflüge waren für die Bearbeitung
schwerer Böden geeignet, erforderten aber eine hohe
Zugkraft und stellten besondere Anforderungen an
die Einspannung. Der zweite Teil des Beitrags behan-
delt den Spatenbau. Aus dem Kontext archäologischer
Funde ergibt sich, dass dieser überwiegend in Gärten
und Weinbergen üblich war. Das dritte Gerät, das an-
gesprochen wird, ist die Sense, die während des Mit-
telalters zum Heumachen benutzt wurde. Im frühen
Mittelalter des östlichen Mitteleuropa lässt sich eine
kurze Sense belegen, während eine lange Sense erst
aus dem Spätmittelalter bekannt ist. Der Beitrag betont
den weiteren Kontext der Agrartechnik und bringt die
Nutzung der besprochenen landwirtschaftlichen Gerä-
te mit den systemischen Anforderungen bestimmter
Wirtschaftsweisen in Verbindung.
Résumé
La présente étude traite principalement de l’archéo-
logie des outils de travail du sol. Les trouvailles des
8e–9e siècles de la République tchèque montrent un
labour asymétrique avec des outils légers, équipés de
coutres relativement grands. Ces charrues légères à
un côté étaient essentiellement différentes des char-
rues à soc lourd avec des pièces de fer beaucoup plus
grandes, connues par des découvertes archéologiques
datées d’environ 1300. Ces outils sont efficaces pour
la culture des sols lourds mais nécessitent une force
de traction puissante et un harnachement précis. La
deuxième partie du texte est consacrée à la culture à la
bêche. Il ressort du contexte des découvertes archéolo-
giques que les bêches étaient utilisées principalement
pour le travail dans les jardins et les vignes. Le troi-
sième outil abordé est la faux, utilisée pour la fenaison
pendant tout le Moyen Âge. Durant le Haut Moyen Âge
en Europe centrale et orientale, la faux courte a été uti-
lisée; la longue faux est connue au plus tôt à partir du
Moyen Âge tardif. L’article souligne l’importance d’un
contexte plus large des technologies agraires et asso-
cie l’application effective de chacun des outils agraires
avec ses exigences techniques.
RURALIA X
443–448
Bibliography
Balassa, I. 1971:
The appearance of the onesided plough in the Carpathian Ba-
sin, Acta ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
20, 411–437.
Bartošková, A. 1986:
Slovanské depoty železných předmětů v Československu (Sla-
wische Hortfunde von Eisengegenständen in der Tschecho-
slowakei). Praha.
Belcredi, L. 1990:
Přínos ikonografie k poznání inventáře a všedního života na
středověké vsi (Der Beitrag der Ikonographie zur Kenntnis
des Inventars und des täglichen Lebens im mittelalterlichen
Dorf), Archaeologia historica 15, 43–55.
Beranová, M. 1991:
Slavic harvest and harvesting implements until the begin-
ning of the 15th century, Ethnologia slavica 23, 7–34.
Beranová, M. 1995:
Die Ernte von unreifem Getreide im böhmischen Mittelalter,
in: Kroll, H. – Pasternak, R. (eds), Res archaeobotanicae, In-
ternational Workgroup for Palaeoethnobotany. Proceedings of
the 9th Symposium Kiel 1992. Kiel 17–24.
Beranová, M. 2005:
Historie senoseče v Čechách podle archeologie (An archaeolo-
gical history of haymaking in Bohemia), Archeologie ve střed-
ních Čechách 9, 9–65.
Beranová, M. 2006:
Způsoby obdělávání polí od pravěku do středověku (Field ma-
nagement from prehistory to the Middle Ages), Archeologie ve
středních Čechách 10, 11–110.
Fries, J. C. 1995:
Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Agrartechnik auf den Britischen
Inseln und dem Kontinent. Eine vergleichende Studie. Espel-
kamp.
Gringmuth-Dallmer, E. 1982:
Pfluggeräte des frühen Mittelalters im germanischen Raum –
Funde und Befunde, Zeitschrift für Archäologie 16, 177–184.
Henning, J. 1987:
Südosteuropa zwischen Antike und Mittelalter. Archäolo-
gische Beiträge zur Landwirtschaft des 1. Jahrhunderts u. Z.
Berlin.
Henning, J. 1991:
Fortleben und Weiterentwicklung spätrömischer Agrargeräte-
traditionen in Nordgallien. Eine Mähsense der Merowinger-
zeit aus Kerkhove (Belgien), Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia
30, 49–59.
Henning, J. 2004:
Germanisch-romanische Agrarkontinutät und –diskonti-
nuität im nordalpinen Kontinentaleuropa – Teile eines Sys-
temwandels? Beobachtungen aus archäologischer Sicht, in:
Hägermann, D. – Haubrichs, W. – Jarnut, J. (eds), Akkultura-
tion. Probleme einer germanisch-romanischen Kultursynthe-
se in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter, Berlin – New York,
396–435.
Henning, J. 2007:
Early European towns. The development of the economy in
447
Klápště, On the meaning of agrarian tools from a Czech perspective
the Frankish realm between dynamism and deceleration
AD 500–1100, in: Henning, J. (ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade
and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. vol. 1. The Heirs of
the Roman West. Berlin – New York, 3–40.
Henning, J. 2014:
Did the „agricultural revolution“ go east with Carolingian
conquest? Some reflections on early medieval rural econo-
mics of the Baiuvarii and Thuringi, in: Fries-Knoblach, J. –
Steuer, H. – Hines, J. (eds), Baiuvarii and Thuringi. An Ethno-
graphic Perspective, Woodbridge –Rochester, 331–360.
Huml, V. 1967:
Zaniklá tvrz Semonice (Die untergegangene Festung in Semo-
nice). Hradec Králové.
Klápště, J. 2012:
The Czech lands in medieval transformation. Leiden – Bos-
ton.
Larsen, L. A. 2016:
The mouldboard plough in the Danish area 200–1500 AD,
Ruralia 10, 225–236.
Měchurová, Z. 2016:
Das Bauernjahr vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit – Feldarbeiten
und Landwirtschaftsgeräte dem Kalender nach. Archäolo-
Jan Klápště, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, náměstí Jana Palacha 2, CZ-116
38 Praha 1, klapste@arup.cas.cz, jan.klapste@ff.cuni.cz
448
443–448
gische Funde aus mittelalterlichen Ortswüstungen im Ver-
gleich mit bildlichen Quellen und ethnographischen Belegen,
Ruralia 10, 439–451.
Michálek, J. – Lutovský, M. 2000:
Hradec u Nemětic. Sídlo halštatské a raně středověké nobility
v česko-bavorském kontaktním prostoru (Hradec bei Němě-
tice. Ein Herrensitz der Hallstattzeit und des frühen Mittel-
alters in böhmisch-bayerischen Kontaktraum). Strakonice
– Praha.
Myrdal, J. – Sapoznik, A 2016:
Spade cultivation and intensification of land use 1000–
1300: written sources, archeology and images, Ruralia 10,
203–223.
Pleiner, R. 1967:
Die Technologie des Schmiedes in der großmährischen Kul-
tur, Slovenská archeológia 15, 77–88.
Poláček, L. 2003:
Landwirtschaftliche Geräte aus Mikulčice, in: Poláček, L.
(ed.), Studien zum Burgwall von Mikulčice 5. Brno, 591–709.
Reigniez, P. 2002:
L’outil agricole en France au Moyen Âge. Paris 2002.
RURALIA X