Oldtidsagre - Genstandskundskab

Nr. 1 167
VAN GIFFEN has also found remnants of prehistoric cultivations beneath an
Iron Age dwelling site and grave mound at Rhee, near Zeyen. No field-divisions
were seen here, but distinct traces of ploughing, running in two directions, perpendicular
to each other (Nieuwe Drentsche Volksalmanak 1940, p. 19, Afb. 17 and 19),
just as beneath the Jutland sites Alrum and Nørre Fjande (HATT 1941). VAN GIFFEN
is undoubtedly right in his opinion, that these plough-furrows were produced by a
primitive plough (“HakenpIlug"). Here as in Jutland, ploughing was done with an
arð in two directions. It is evident that this system of ploughing implies broad fields.
It is still more interesting that VAN GIFFEN has found similar P-l()llgll-1`llI`l`()\\'S
beneath a grave-mound from the Late Stone Age (c. 1600 B.C.) at Gasteren in Anloo
parish, northeast of Assen (VAN (IIFFEN 1941, p. 30 and Afb. 31). 'l`his proves that
ploughing with arð in two directions was done already in the Late Stone Age.
Finally it should be mentioned that VAN (in-*F15N has found similar pIough-furrows
beneath a grave-mound in Zwaagdijk in \VerVershoof parish in the province
of Noord Holland (VAN GIFFEN 1944, p. 123 and 132, Afb. 9).
In his publication from 1944, VAN GIFFEN compares the Dutch finds with the
Jutland finds, and he observes that the oldest instances (Gasteren amt \\'erVershool`
in Holland, Vesterlund in Jutland) have less continuous furrows, while the younger
instances (Rhee in Holland, Alrum and Nørre Fjande in Jutland) have more continuous
and heavier furrows. From this, he draws the conclusion that the older furrows
were made with a comparatively primitive arð of the digging-stick type, the
younger furrows with an arð of more advanced type (Van GIFFEN 1944, p.160).
Strangely, no ancient fields of the “Celtic field"-type have been found in North
\Vestern Germany, although the natural conditions remind of \Vest Jutland. I have
searched for “()ldtidsagre“ in Lüneburger Heide, with a negative result. Deserted
fields of the “Hochäcker"-type are very common in Lüneburger Heide; ancient fields
of the “Celtic field"-type are apparently absent. A British expert has also looked in
Vain for “Celtic fields" in the Lüneburger Heide (BARGER 1938, p. 403, note 3).
As a set-off, a very considerable age has been ascribed to the “Hochacker" in
North \Vestern Germany. However, the proofs advanced by HANS MULLER-BRAUEL
(MANNUS 1926, p. 184-189), dating certain “Hochäcker” between Elbe and \Veser to
Late Stone Age, seem to be doubtful or insufficient. However, BARGER relates that
German archaeologists have been able to date certain prehistoric strip-fields at Hodorfan-der-Stör,
east of the estuary of the Elbe, to the latest La Tène period (BARGER
1938, p. 399).
Deserted “Hochäcker” are also found in other parts of Germany, and in some
cases a considerable age has been ascribed to them. Especially, certain “Hochäcker"
in Southern Bavaria have been much discussed. Cf. BIANNUS 1911, p. 344. The later
investigations of Bavarian “Hochäcker" are mentioned by BARGER (1938, p. 400).
A Bronze Age date cannot be established for these fields. Apparently, they belong
to the Germanic period; Pre-Roman or Roman objects, found in connection with the
“Hochäcker“, antedate these in almost every case.
22*