Wellmann Imre szerk.: A Magyar Mezőgazdasági Múzeum Közleményei 1971-1972 (Budapest, 1973)

Lerche, Grith: Recent datings of Danish ploughing implements by the radiocarbon method

The suprisingly very early dates of the sole-ards are not so doubtful since we already have comparative material of the same age in the rock carvings in Sweden and North Italy; and the finds of the traces of ards under the Danish burial mounds also verify the existence of ards in the Bronze Age.

20 Some factors affect the percentage of uncertainty usually reckoned on for the final dating result so that it becomes greater than normal. Some of the objects had been at museums for a long time when the sample for the C

—14 dating was taken. Many had of course also been treated with preservatives and only a few were "fresh" finds not preserved before the sample was taken. If the plough has been previously treated with preservatives first of all the quantity sufficient for a sample is about 150 grammes, while a sample from unpreserved wood only needs to be 10—15 grammes. In case 1, the preservatives have to be extracted before the dating process starts, and the wooden sample will be split into a cellulose and lignin fraction to be dated separately. This procedure takes much longer time — often some months! Only 3 of the recently C

—14 dated ploughing implements had not been treated previously, as seen in table I. Another factor of uncertainty as mentioned before is the period of higher radioactivity, e.g. the period 1400—1700 A.D. These facts must be considered when the implement and its date is interpreted and compared with other dating evidences. The C

—14 laboratories all over the world work to refine the method itself, and try to minimize the margin of error. A margin of error in the given date up to some hundred years does not matter so much when speaking of 40 000 or 5 000 years old objects, but the nearer the present time the less reliable is the C—

14 method, and the more necessary it is to seek to use other methods for comparison. The amount of written sources, pictures and finds are more copious and will thus help a doubtful date. All such sources of potential errors are the problems of the natural scientist. Our problems are the interpretation of the exact date, which is clearly not so exact that we should give up other dating possibilities. The radiocarbon dating results should be used with the same common sense as we use other dating evidence. I have mentioned that a few of the items now C

—14 dated have been dated previously by means of pollen analysis, so the new dates were looked forward to eagerly. Besides the Toemmerby plough also the Doestrup, Vebbestrup, and Hvorslev ards were dated by the pollen analytic method. The Hvorslev ard was correctly dated to the Bronze Age. The Vebbestrup ard was dated to the early Iron Age, but according to the C

—14 dating it is late Bronze Age. The two ards are of the same type. The Doestrup ard was dated to the Early Iron Age by pollen analysis, and it is now assumed to be a little older and dated to the transitions period between Bronze Age and Iron Age. It is a principle in Copenhagen that the implements are only worth dating if we have good information about the location of the find, its later treatment and whether the dating will be of importance for further study, i.e. in connection 20SEEBERG, PETER og KRISTENSEN, H.H. Mange striber pâ kryds og tvaers (Many Criss-cross Furrows). Kuml 1964. Arhus 1965. 7—14.