92 REVIEWS

OTTAR RCINNESETH, Gard und Einfriedigung: Entwicklungsphasen der Agrarlandschaft Jaerens (Stockholm : Meddelanden fran Kulturgeografiska institutionen vid Stockholms Universitet, 1974. Pp. 263)

In an unusually adventurous and sweeping work, Ottar Ronneseth deals with the evolu- tion of the agricultural landscape of south-west Norway between the birth of Christ and the present day. Three phases are distinguished, each marked by particular develop- ments in the history of farm and field patterns within the study area. During the first phase, covering the six hundred years until approximately A.D. 600, the first farms based partly on arable cultivation appeared. Relatively dry moraine rises were sought out for use as habitation sites and for the first cultivated fields, which were surrounded by fences; beyond the fences lay meadows and grazing lands connected to the farmsteads by cattle- paths. No splitting up of farms occurred during this first phase: population pressure was accommodated by colonization of mountain areas and, eventually, by cultivation of the grazing land beyond the first fenced fields. At about A.D. 600 the second phase was initiated, during which there was first a decline in cultivation-though without any break in the continuity of occupance of habitation sites-and then a renewal, with increased vigour. The reason behind the initial decline is uncertain, but Riinneseth believes that a breakdown of large family units and a change to private distribution of land may have been causes. When intensive cultivation was again resumed, the arable area was extended and the old system of fences was abandoned. At some time during the Middle Ages-probably after the twelfth century-a third phase of development began. The prehistoric farms were abandoned and the so-called “historical farm” appeared. The cultivated area decreased to some extent, but was more intensively used, particularly the arable around the farmsteads; animal husbandry increased in importance, a trend which was reflected in the landscape by long fences around the meadows and by cattle-paths leading out to the pastures. Ronneseth believes that the firm establishment of property boundaries took place during this phase and that farms were first registered within a framework for collection of public revenue. There emerged the beginnings of units resem- bling villages, the mangbolte tun, where all the parties had a part in a nucleus of arable land; in these nuclei developed the strips which we meet in later maps. Behind develop- ments in this third phase Ronneseth sees a desire by the main holders of land to organize the countryside for their own ends.

The medieval agrarian landscape of north-west Norway was radically altered during the nineteenth century, but traces of it survived, to be obliterated in many cases since the 1950s when Riinneseth’s surveys were made; the results of his fieldwork have therefore become valuable documents in themselves. Riinneseth has completed a major study without being attached to any institution, although his earlier work in West Germany has influenced his thinking and research methods in several ways. His review of the literature is not wholly up-to-date and the debates mentioned are largely those of the 1950s. Moreover, Riinneseth’s review of the research front fits rather awkwardly to the main part of this book.

Rijnneseth is without doubt at his weakest when dealing with the prehistoric period. In places, his treatment of field evidence is not fully developed and some doubts could well be raised about his absolute (and relative) datings of field remains. His interpretations of the transitions between the phases whose delimitation is the central point of his thesis may well be challenged. For example, it may well be that his first phase was preceded and influenced by earlier prehistoric agricultural activities. Again, in the transition between his second and third phases, the suggested interpretations may be doubted. Certainly, settlements were restructured, but whether or not the restructuring took place in the way in which Riinneseth imagines-through centralized instructions and the language of force-is open to question. These changes could equally well have occurred as a result of decisions among the farmers themselves, taken for economic reasons. The author himself points to a more intensive animal husbandry and a growing sense of private ownership during this transition.

The historical section is undoubtedly the high point of this work. Ronneseth brings

REVIEWS

forward fiscal evidence as well as field material; this, together with his sensitive use of the evidence of oral traditions, and his great sense of local knowledge, provides a thorough description of how the historical farm developed, of how the mangbolte fun were first farmed and of the genesis of field boundaries which still remained in the nineteenth century.

This work may perhaps be faulted for its lack of stringency, for its descriptive emphasis and for occasional failure to verify evidence. Positive impressions are of a fundamental work which will stimulate further research through its challenging findings and of an exceptional effort to bring together into a single story agricultural developments taking place over a very long period of time. It cannot be by-passed in future interpretations of the history of the Norwegian landscape. Moreover, many interesting parallels emerge for the consideration of those interested in the evolution of farmland in northern and western Europe, particularly for those concerned with the construction of stone boun- daries and the genesis of the historical farm.

University of Stockholm ULF SPORRONG

JOHN SHEAIL, Nature in Trust: The History of Nature Conservation in Britain (Glasgow and London : Blackie, 1976. Pp. xiv+270. E5.95)

John Sheail’s new study inevitably recalls another geographer’s similarly titled work still in print, Sir L. D. Stamp’s Nature Conservation in Britain, posthumously published in 1969 as his last book. Re-reading Stamp’s work is a delightful experience. It is a lucid and highly readable synthesis in the true tradition of the man, written by one who put life into his words in a style which earned him a wide and devoted readership embracing both the scholar and the man-in-the-street. Stamp always resisted the temptation io include everything he knew or thought because he understood clearly the absolute neces- sity of leaving things out. His book is lavishly illustrated with beautiful plates and provided with a full index. Its quality of production upholds the very high standards of Collins’s ‘New Naturalist’ series. It seems almost incredible that this volume was originally priced at the equivalent of 51.80.

John Sheail’s achievement is to pioneer in a new genre by filling out Stamp’s brief sketch of the history of British nature conservation into the first full panoramic survey of the movement. It is a good sweep across the field (or, more aptly perhaps, the muniment room). The task presents special difficulties. No similar study has hitherto been attempted and Sheail has inevitably found some aspects more intractable than others. His strengths lie in the stirring he has given to papers in the government archive: this is his real belvedere, not the breezy common, or the edge of marsh or woodland. The general impression left in one’s mind is of a skilful sifting of material, some of it on the rather dry side, into a clearer appreciation of the role of central government in scientific progress. It is perhaps regrettable that Sheail allowed his main sources to take such command of his purpose that the story he tells stops in the 1950s (when government had little real achievement behind it and much lack of vision and of scientific purpose) after which date documents in the public archives are not yet open to inspection. The book’s title should properly have recognized this more limited scope.

It is the attention given to government sources which forms the main attraction of the book but Sheail also enhances his study by dipping, rather selectively, into private archives, notably those of Lord Gage of East Sussex. He has also deployed to his advan- tage the records of various bodies dedicated to progress in conservation. For an assessment of the influence of individual conservationists he has very little space to offer. The role of the great pioneer plant ecologist, Sir A. G. Tansley, is adequately recognized but that of Vaughan Cornish, a life-long supporter of the movement (whose only mention is on p. 132) is not, and such persons as G. M. Trevelyan and L. D. Stamp go quite unmentioned. Sir L. D. Stamp’s polymathic knowledge of conservation and the