Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T10:12:35.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Origin and Early Diffusion of the Traction-plough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Carl Whiting Bishop
Carl Whiting Bishop*
Affiliation:
Freer Gallery of Art, Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The earlier efforts of mankind to assure an abundance of food consisted largely in the performance of magical ceremonies, frequently orgiastic in character. It is sometimes forgotten that such methods, even after regular cultivation had come into being, long continued to survive in close association with what we should consider more rational procedures. Yet this is a fact which we need to keep steadily in mind while we try to work out the early history of the traction-plough, which here refers to ploughs drawn by animals, especially those of the ox-kind,

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 10 , Issue 39 , September 1936 , pp. 261 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1936

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

1 Cecil Cunven, E. ‘Agriculture and the Flint Sickle in Palestine’, ANTIQUIT, 1935 1x9 62.Google Scholar

2 In the Mkms. SOCR. oyale des Antiquaires du Nord, 1902, Sophus Muller, ‘Charrue, joug, et mors’, p. 39, points out that the earlier Egyptian hoes differ more from the contemporary ploughs than do later ones. Berthold, Laufer, fade, 1912 p.48, andGoogle Scholar Paul, Leser, Entstehung und Verbreitung des Pfluges, 1931 p.558, and note 29, both regard the hoe and the plough as possessing different histories.Google Scholar

3 Gordon Childe, V. The Dawn of European Civilization, 1925, pp.66and 172; cf. the lower example in fig. 77, p. 172; see alsoGoogle Scholar Gordon Childe, V. The Danube in Prehistcry, 1929, pp.40, 45.Google Scholar

4 4For an account of the Peruvian taclla, see the Smithsonian Report, 1918 (publ. 1920): Cook, O.F., ‘Foot-plough Agriculture in Peru’, pp.487–91.Google Scholar In view of the striking similarity of the taclla to certain western European implements, it may have been introduced into South America by the Spanish, as we know was the case with the traction-plough itself. For information regarding the Irish lafdh and its use I am much indebted to Dr E. Cecil Curwen. The practice in vogue among the ancient Chinese is often mentioned in their classical books; for information concerning its modern survival I have to thank Dr. A.W. Hummel, of the Library of Congress, whose observations in the field confirm my own. The mode of using the Peruvian taclla is fully described in the paper by O.F. Cook cited above.

5 Wundt, W.M. Elements of Folk Psychology (trans. by E. L. Schaub, undated), p.291.Google Scholar

6 PèreLicent, E. Collections Néolithiques du Musée Hoang ho Pai ho, 1932, I,12.Google Scholar

7 This question is well discussed by Wundt, op. cit., pp. 290 sq.

8 Illustr. London News, Dec. 10, 1932, pp. 928 ff., and Man, Aug., 1933,. no. 134. For early contacts of Cyprus with the mainland of Anatolia and Syria, see Sir Arthur Evans, J. Scripta Minoa, 1909, p.68.Google Scholar

9 For a recent instance see Biddulph, Major J. Tribes of the Hindoo Koosh, 1880, p.128.Google Scholar

10 See Harold Peake, J. and Fleure, H.J. The Steppe and the Sown, 1928, p.7.Google Scholar

11 For this citation I am indebted to Dr Leon Legrain, who tells me that the dating See Ur Excavations (Joint Exped. British Mus. and is still not quite certain. Univ. of Pennsylvania), 11, ‘The Royal Cemetery’, p. 336, no. 12, and plate 192, no. 12.

12 Dr Speiser, E.A. ‘The Ethnic Background of the Early Civilizations of the Near East’, Amer. Journ. Archaeol., 1933, p.465.Google Scholar

13 Cf. FIG. 5, representing a late Cassite ploughing scene, obviously ritual in character ; the difference in the position of the animals' heads emphasizes the absence of a yoke.

14 Ward, W.B. The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, 1910, p.132, nos. 369, 371.Google Scholar

15 For a modern instance see Festschrift : publication d’hommage offerte au P.W. Schmidt, 1928: Paul, Leser ‘Westöstliche Landwirtschaft’ 1910, p.434, fig. 32.Google Scholar

16 See FIG. 5, p. 270.

17 Leser, Entstehung, p. 247 and note 53. Ploughshares were among the iron objects found in Sargon’s palace. Some are now in the Louvre.

18 For an example from a monument of Esarhaddon, cf. Pinches, O.T. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1902, plate xiii, opp. p. 288.Google Scholar

19 Ward, op. cit., pp. 132, 133.

20 For plough irons at Gerar about the 12th century B.C. cf. ANTIQUITY, 1936: Wainwright, G.A. ‘The Coming of Iron’ p.19.Google Scholar

21 For the scene thus wrongly explained, see Hilprecht, H.V. The Babyloniaz Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, 1893 vol.1, plate XVI, p.88; also Ward, op. cit., p. 30, no. 55. Dr Legrain has confirmed my own suspicions in regard to the true purport of this carving.Google Scholar

22 On mrd Dynasty ploughs, see Flinders Petrie, W.M. Medum, 1892, ‘Tomb of Nefermat’.Google Scholar

23 Heinrich, Schaefer Priestergräber … vom Totentempel des Ne-user-rê, 1908, p.17.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Fernande, Hartmann L’Agriculture duns l’ancienne égypte, 1923, p.79, fig. 10;Google Scholar alsoMorgan, Jacques de Prehistoric Man, 1924, p.172.Google Scholar

25 See Schaefer, op. cit. p. 168.

26 Cf. ANTIQUITY, 1934, rx, 456, referring to the Papyrus of Kumara. The ox-carts of the Asiatic foes of Rameses in have neck-yokes.

27 Cf. Burkitt, M.C. Our Early Ancestors, 1926, p.54, note 1. On the other hand, Dr. E. A. Speiser informs me that the mention of ‘coulters’ in 1 Sam. xn, 20 and 21, is an anachronism due to a mistranslation.Google Scholar

28 Tylor, J.J. and Griffith, F.L1. The Tomb of Paheri at El Kab (Egypt Explor. Fund, i Ith Mem., London, 1894, vol.1, p.13 and plate III.Google Scholar

29 Richard, Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegyptien und Aethiopien, vol.III, plate 10–a.Google Scholar

30 Sidney, Smith, History of Assyria to 1000 B.C., 1928, pp.164 ff.Google Scholar

31 For hieroglyphic representations of the ancient Cretan plough, cf, Evans, Scripta Minoa, pp. 190 ff, and fig. 102 (Table XIII), no. 27.

32 Gordon Childe, V. The Bronze Age, 1930, p.49;Google Scholar also Leser, Entstehung, p. 550.

33 Childe, The Aryans, 1926, pp.185 ff.Google Scholar

34 Regarding the intrusive elements, apparently deriving from southern Russia, which appear in Danubian 11, cf. Childe, Dawn of European Civilization, 1925, p.177;Google Scholar on p. 179 of the same work, Danubian II is dated c. 2500-2200 B.C.

35 Works and Days, pp.427–436.Google ScholarPubMed

36 Randall, MacIver Italy before the Romans, 1928, p.41.Google Scholar

37 Randall, MacIver op. cit., pp.35, 36.Google Scholar

38 For an account of these see Burkitt, M.C. ‘Rock Carvings in the Italian Alps’, ANTIQUITY, 1929, 111, 155–164.Google Scholar

39 This form seems to have been the forerunner of the Roman aratrum simplex, comparable to Hesiod’s aúTóyvov äpoTpov

40 The πηKTòv äporpov.

41 SeeHuntingford, G.W.B. ‘Ancient Agriculture’, ANTIQUITY, 1932, VI, 328.Google Scholar

42 For a brief discussion of these as they relate to Spain, SeeGeorg, Kraft ‘The Origin of the Kelts’, ANTIQUITY, 1929, 111, 33 passim.Google Scholar

43 For a representation of a Celtiberian plough on a coin, SeeDaremberg-Saglio, Diet. des Antiq., I, ANTIQUITY, 354 fig. 434.Google Scholar

44 Cambr. Anc. Hist., I, 36.

45 Oric Bates, Eastern Libyans, 1914, p.98.Google ScholarPubMed

46 Coons, C.S. Tribes of the Rif (Harvard African Studies, vol. IX, 1931), pp.49ff.Google Scholar

47 De re rustica, I, i, 13.

48 Cecil Cunven, E. ‘Prehistoric Agriculture in Britain’, ANTIQUITY, 1927, I, 287.Google Scholar

49 Peake, Harold J. Early Steps in Human Progress p.122.Google Scholar

50 Cf.Curwen, l.C., ANTIQUITY, 1927, I, 280 ff.Google Scholar

51 Natur und Volk, vol. Lxiv, 1934: Google Scholar Dr.Friesen, Jacob ‘Die älteste Pflug der Welt’, pp.83–91.Google Scholar See also Upplands Fornminnesförenings Tidskrift, vol. XLV, no. 1, pp.1–19.Google Scholar Ragner, Jirlow ‘Plogkroken från Svarvarbo och några förhistoriske plogar’ (with summary in German). For calling my attention to the latter paper, I am indebted to the Editor.Google Scholar

52 Natur und Volk, Jacob, Friesen, Z.C., p.84.Google Scholar

53 Sophus, Müller Urgeschichte Europas p.147.Google Scholar

54 The Døstrop plough is shown in Méms. SOc. SOCR. oyale des Antiquaires du Nord, 1902, p.21, fig. I, in connexion with the article by Sophus Miiller cited in footnote 2.Google Scholar

55 The Scandinavian Iron Age appears to have begun not very far from 600 B.C.

56 Sayce, R.U. Primitive Arts and Crafts, 1933 p.115.Google Scholar

57 SirMarshall, John Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization, 1931, I, 27; II, 456 and note I.Google Scholar

58 Cambr. Hist. India, I, 99. For additional information on this matter I am indebted to Dr. Franklin Edgerton, of Yale University.

59 Raphael, Pumpelly, Explorations in Turkestan, 1908, II, 472.Google Scholar Dr. Hubert Schmidt’s dating (id., I, 486) of the earlier settlements at Anau as being of the third millennium B.C. appears to have received general acceptance.

60 Peake, and Fleure, The Horse and the Sword, 1933, p.138.Google Scholar That the Indo-Europeans as a whole had the plough prior to their dispersion seems less certain.

61 For a discussion of this question see Peake, and Hudson, G.F. Europe and China, 1931.Google Scholar

62 Dr.Erich, Diehl, ‘Bosporanische Munzen aus der Dschungarei’, Blätter für Münzfreunde, 1923, pp.441–9.Google Scholar

63 Zeitschr. für induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre, Suppl.1 Leipzig, 1928:Google Scholar Vavilov, N.I. ‘Geographische Genzentren unserer Kulturpflanzen’ p.352 and map on P. 353.Google Scholar For a discussion of Vavilov’s views, see Watkins, A.E. ‘The Origin of Cultivated Plants’, ANTIQUIT 1933, VII, 73–80.Google Scholar

64 The Chinese Bronze Age lasted from the former half of the second millennium until the latter part of the first before our era.

65 For this citation I am indebted to Dr.Hummel., A.W. Google Scholar

66 Ch’in was the state destined about a century later to establish the first centralized and bureaucratic Chinese empire; from its name comes ours of ‘China’.

67 The sea-route to the Far East only came into use around or perhaps very shortly before our era, when Western ships began to appear in southern Chinese waters.

68 The importance of this ‘back-door’ to China has never received the recognition which it deserves; yet through it have come many important elements of the Chinese civilization, from prehistoric times down to the present day.

69 Dr.Hummel., A.W. Google Scholar has very kindly brought to my attention Chinese paintings of that period in the Library of Congress which illustrate the point involved.

70 On this unity see Leser, Entstehung, p. 545; also his paper in Festschrift Schmidt cited in footnote 15.