Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:43:10.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Agriculture in Denmark1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

E. Cecil Curwen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is perhaps no branch of archaeology of more fundamentalimportance than the study of the rise and development of agricul ture, seeing that it has been the governing factor in the Natural History of Man from the time of its introduction down to the Industrial Era. But the study of the evidence from Britain is not enough; hence Professor Hatt’s full and clear exposition of the Danish evidence is of special importance to British archaeologists, seeing that the rich discoveries preserved in the peat-bogs of Denmark can supply details that are missing in the British picture, or at least suggest to us directions in which future research may profitably be pursued. Professor Hatt’s wide knowledge and balanced judgment-not to mention his delightful personality-have won the confidence and respect of those British archaeologists who have had the privilege of knowing him, and his recent book on Danish agriculture is far too important to be left in the relative obscurity of the Danish language. Hence a brief summary of its principal contents is attempted here.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 12 , Issue 46 , June 1938 , pp. 135 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Johnson, C.P., in The Useful Plants of Great Britain, pp. 218–222, gives a full account of the uses and recent cultivation of the different varieties of olygonum.Google Scholar

3 ibid. pp. 216–7.

4 ibid. pp. 27–8.

5 ibid. p. 53.

6 ibid. pp. 22–4.

7 ibid. pp. 54–7.

8 See the article on ‘The Origin of Cultivated Plants’ by Watkins, A.E. in ANTIQUITY, 1933, 7, 73–80.Google Scholar

9 This custom is referred to in Leviticus, XIX, 19.

10 See the article on ‘Dogs’ by Max Hilzheimer in ANTIQUITY, 1932, 6, 411–9.Google Scholar See also Proc. Prehist. Soc, 1938, 469–70.Google Scholar

11 See the article on ‘Sheep’ by Max Hilzheimer in ANTIQUITY, 1936, 10, 195–206.Google Scholar

12 See ANTIQUITY, 1938, 12, 81 and photo.Google Scholar

13 In Britain the long-horned group is as characteristic of the Neolithic, as the short-horned group is of the Early Iron Age.

14 A British specimen of the same type from Kingley Vale, Sussex, is illustrated in the present writer’s Archaeology of Sussex (1937), p. 200, fig. 56.Google Scholar

15 See the article on the ‘Horse’ by Max Hilzheimer in ANTIQUITY, 1935, 9, 133–9.Google Scholar

16 The horse seems also to have been unknown to the British Neolithic A folk in southern England. It is noteworthy that it did not reach Egypt till the Hyksos period (1780–1580 B.c.).

17 See the article on ‘The Origin and Early Diffusion of the Traction-plough’ by Bishop, C.W. in ANTIQUITY, 1936, 10, 261–81.Google Scholar

18 Acta Archaeologica, 7, 244–280.Google Scholar

19 Perhaps these two types correspond to Hesiod’s ροτρον αύ τόγυον and ροτρον πηκ τόν (Works and Days, 433).

20 An amusing sidelight on the alleged antiquity of this plough is contained in the title of the original publication :‘Die älteste Pflug der Welt : in Deutschland’ (Natur und Volk, 1934, 64, 83–91.Google Scholar

21 Aarbeger for nordisk Oldkyndighed, 1936, 130–144; French summary, xviii–xix.Google Scholar

22 Antiq. Journ., 1933, 13, 455–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Seebohm, F., The English Village Community (1915), 60–6.Google Scholar

24 Acta Archaeologica, 1932, 3, 209–30.Google Scholar

25 Original description by Chr. Blinkenberg in Aarbager for nord. Oldk., 1898, 141–56.Google Scholar

26 See ANTIQUITY, 1930, 4, 184–6; 1935, IX, 64–5.Google Scholar

27 Discussed in a review in ANTIQUITY, 1934, 8, 237–9.Google Scholar

28 ANTIQUITY, 1932, 6, 393–8.Google Scholar

29 ‘Hede’, that enters into so many of these place-names, corresponds to our ‘Heath’.

30 ANTIQUITY, 1937, 11, 162–73.Google Scholar

31 See forthcoming article in ANTIQUITY.

32 ANTIQUITY, 1937, 11, 147.Google Scholar

33 Proc. Prehist. Soc., 19938.Google Scholar