Summary 289 • ancient usage was normally not claimed m disputes over entire farms, but rather in conflicts over boundaries or smaller plots of land, such as an arable field, a meadow, a wood etc. (see table 6:2); • disputes involving claims of ancient usage became more frequent as the century progressecf (see table 6:3); • more than 50 per cent of these disputes were immediately settled in favour of the party claiming ancient usage; towards the end of the century, however, judges tended to be more hesitant to make an immediate decision, preferring to have the contested area surveyed before reaching a final verdict (see table 6:4). When ancient usage was claimed, the other party would often argue that the opponent had laid hands on the land during a period when the bereaved farmstead had lain vacant and no one had been able to defend the premises against invasion. Through this strategy, the person who woulcf lose if the claim of ancient usage were upheld attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of that claim. There are even examples of people in the seventeenth century telling stories about their oppc^nent’s ancestors having usurpecf deserted lancf when the country was ravaged by the Black Death (around the middle of the 14th century). Whether this was true or not is impossible to tell, but it shows that such stories based on memt:)ry and oral tradition were still highly relevant to the outcome of disputes. On the other hand, some disputes reveal that allegedly ‘ancient’ possessic^n could be of surprisingly recent origin. It seems as if the ancient usage argument tended to become so popular that it was used (though not always successfully) even in situations where it was hardly applicable. This was true not only of legal disputes, but also m political life. Because of the great authority commanded by everything old, people were prone to invent traditic'ms (to use the phrase of Eric Hcabsbawm) and to describe relatively new phenomena as ‘ancient’ or springing from‘time out of mind’. Ancient usage was never strictly defined mterms of the number of years that had to have elapsed. Old members of the local commumty had virtually unlimited power to say whether or not a contested area was the subject of ancient usage by one of the parties. As a consequence, nc^ landholder coulcH tell when his land had definitely been in his possession for sea long that no claims against
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=