141
tische blokverkavelingen tegenover de van gemeenschappelijk overleg getui
gende strokenverkaveling.
Hiertegenover verdedigt Homburg (1935) de zeker onhoudbare stelling,
dat de morphologische verscheidenheid der verschillende landschappen, ver
scheidenheid van ploegvorm met zich brengt en dat hierop het onderscheid
tussen ..Blockflur" en ,,Streifenflur" terug te voeren zou zijn.
De Belg Verlinden (1936) betoogt in een bespreking van Hömburgs werk,
dat men evenmin een technisch als een ethnisch determinisme (zoals Meitzen
dat stelde) kan aanvaarden. De werkelijkheid is volgens deze auteur inge
wikkelder: men moet rekening houden met tal van factoren, te weten geo
grafische, economische, juridische en sociale.
Dat laatste nu kunnen wij geheel onderschrijven. In Nederland komen de
verschillende perceelstypen dikwijls over kleine afstand naast elkaar voor,
zodat verschil van ploeg of van bevolking of van beide, geen oplossing biedt.
Het samengaan van landschappelijke, sociale, economische en juridische fac
toren leidde tot het ontstaan van een agrarisch systeem, zoals zich dat in de
perceelsvormen weerspiegelt.
Summary
Amongst the systems of land division 4 main types can be distinguished
in the Netherlands, viz.
I Block division (a. Blockflur, b. celtic fields, c. individual enclosures in
the commons).
II Strip division without farm houses sited on the strips (a. "essen"
open fields, b. "maden" and "slagen" meadows).
III Strip division with farm houses sited on the strips (line-village system).
IV Modern rational land division.
The distribution of these types is sketched on the chart (fig. 1). In
explaining the origin of these types, which often show considerable varia
tion, up to the present the attention has been mainly focused upon juridical
and geographical factors. We are of the opinion that in addition parti
cularly the social factors must also be emphasized.
In the old german epoch, society had a genealogical foundation, the social
organization was built upon a basis of real or assumed kinship (tribes, clans,
etc.), with result that kinship group, social, economic and political unit
coincided. Gradually this situation changed and the genealogical organi
zation based on kinship was substituted by a territorial organization in
villages, which means that one's residence henceforth was decisive in
determining the social group one belonged to.
With this gradual social development an alteration in the landed rights
was closely interwoven.
In a society built upon genealogical foundation the kinship group as a
whole is entitled to the use of the land belonging to its defined area. Any
separate family as a member of the kinship group was entitled to a share in
the rights of cultivation and consequently no distinction between participants
and others did exist. On the other hand, the system did not represent
agrarian communism: any member enjoyed rights on waste land and could
exercise certain rights of ownership on land reclaimed by him. In the period
of transition from the genealogical to the territorial community ever more
outsiders settled amongst the original kinship group with the effect that in
