Commons – The Netherlands and Belgium - Social Enterprises and Institutions for Collective Action

Mark Berkum (Overijssel, Netherlands), (bef.?) 1300 - 1994

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common
Name/description institution: Mark Berkum
Country: The Netherlands
Region: Province of Overijssel
Name of city or specified area: Former hamlet of Berkum, now belonging to the municipal area of the city of Zwolle
Further specification location: The hamlet of Berkum, and subsequently the mark of Berkum, was situated just east of the city of Zwolle. Although the exact location of the common land of the mark of Berkum is not mentioned in the markenboek, the mentioned estates and the fact that the regulation of the mark shows that animals were grazed on both sides of the river Vecht, the common land was probably situated just northeast of the hamlet of Berkum, which is confirmed by the map, drawn by Beekman (1920).
Surface area and boundaries: The borders of this mark are not explicitly mentioned in the markenboek. Van Engelen van der Veen (1924, 84) mentions that the mark of Berkum was surrounded by the respective marks of Dieze, Zalne, Herften, Emmen, Rozengaarde, Haarst, and Langerholte; he assumed the boundaries of the mark of Berkum more or less followed the boundaries of the communities in 1924.
Recognized by local government: Yes.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Probably before 1300.
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: The first (probably incomplete) set of rules dates back to 1300 and is only known from a later transcription of those rules. Given the range of subjects mentioned in this oldest set of rules, it appears that the regulation of 1300 either was an integral copy of a previous set, or the first recording of rules, formerly known by heart by all commoners and practiced in the manner of customary law.
Foundation act present: No. The content of the oldest set of rules preserved (see also above) does suggest that, before the regulation was put on paper, an unwritten form of customary law already was in use among the users of the common land of Berkum.
Year of termination of institution: 1994
Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Confirmed.
Act regarding termination present: Yes.
Description Act of termination: In 1994, the lady chairman of the assembly of the mark, Mrs. Crommelin-Slichterman – although the appointment of the chairman of the assembly in the case of the mark of Berkum was determined by election, subsequent generations of the Slichterman family seemingly succeeded each other –, decided to donate the remaining funds of the mark to the Prins Bernhard Foundation. This donation, together with the donation of the remaining funds of another mark, the mark of Streukel, formed the basis for the current ‘Marke van Streukel / Marke van Berkum-fonds’, which is administered by the Prins Bernhard Foundation and endorses three provincial cultural institutions.
Reason for termination: Although, just like in many other marks, many of the common and uncultivated lands were sold in the middle of the nineteenth century, the mark of Berkum actually continued to exist much longer. Later on, after the sale of the major part of the uncultivated lands, it appeared that some land still remained undivided. In the course of the second half of the nineteenth century and also in the twentieth century, these remaining land wasf sold. The money earned by this sale of land was invested, the revenues of which investments befell to the mark. In 1994, the formal decision was taken to terminate the mark as an institution (see also above).

Concise history of institution

Although some sources mention that the small village of Berkum, located just east of the city of Zwolle, has not been mentioned before the beginning of the seventeenth century, the markenboeken however indicate a far earlier existence of the mark Berkum. Even more, the mark of Berkum, in the late Middle Ages also known as Bercmede or Berkman, has one of the oldest regulations preserved within the Northern Netherlands, dating back to 1300.

Over the years, the mark of Berkum was subject to several divisions. The first big division was in 1630. According to Van Engelen van der Veen (1924, 84), the lands of Broeck and Ooyte were divided among the owners of, in total, 838.5 shares. A second division took place only 23 years later, when, in 1653, the Berckmerbergen and Nemelervelden as well as the Berckmervelden near Dambrugge were divided among the owners of 390.5 shares. A third division is mentioned in 1819, when it was decided to divide the mark of Berkum into a southern and a northern part, each part to be regarded as an individual entity.

The mark of Berkum is one of the few examples of marks that survived until the late twentieth century. After the sale of all the land belonging to the mark, the mark as institution formally still remained in existence, investing the money gained by the sale of land and administering the revenues of these investments. In 1994, however, the transfer of the assets of the mark into the ‘Marke van Streukel / Marke van Berkum-fonds’ also marked the final dissolution of the mark as such.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

1300: oldest (preserved) set of rules regarding the use of the mark of Berkum.
1630: Division of parts of the area of the mark (the lands of Broeck and Ooyte) among shareholders.
1653: Division of the Berckmerbergen and Nemelervelden as well as the Berckmervelden near Dambrugge among the shareholders.
1819: Division of the mark of Berkum into a southern and a northern part, each part to be regarded as an individual entity.
mid-19th century – 1994: Sale of parts of the mark; the money gained from selling these parts was invested, the revenues of these investments befalling to the mark.
1994: Formal end date of the mark of Berkum, donation of remaining funds of the mark to ‘De Marke van Streukel / Marke van Berkum-fonds’, administered by the Prins Bernhard Foundation.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

On the evening of February 21, 1492, it was recorded in the markenboek which number of shares (waren) and how many plots of land destined for the grazing of cattle (scharen) were owned by the respective shareholders. This overview is headed in the markenboek by the statement that each waar entitled the owner the use of 9 scharen: 3 scharen in the area called Broek, 3 scharen in the area called the Ooyte, 1 schaar in the area of Savelt, 1 schaar in the area of the Bergen and 1 schaar on the so-called Nemelerveld.

In total, according to the overview of February 1492, all 33 shareholders together owned just over 37 waren and an additional 829.5 scharen. This concurs with the number of waren of 838.5 for the year 1630, mentioned by Van Engelen van der Veen (1924, 84), regarding the sale of the land belonging to the respective areas of the Broek and the Ooyte among all shareholders.

From the overview, it shows that three specific locations for the plots of land were mentioned within the overview:

the fields located ‘on this side of the river Vecht’;
the fields located ‘at the other side of the river Vecht’;
the fields belonging to the estate called Ordel.

It also shows that waren only were assigned for the land ‘on this side of the River Vecht’.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Membership was dependent on the owning of shares (waren) and/or grazing land (scharen). Since the phrase “now owned by” appears several times within the overview, it seems that those rights were transferrable.

The overview also shows that the amount of waren and additional grazing land was also dependent on the location the cattle was grazed. For example, as the picture underneath shows, member Muler (who was owner of the estate of the Ordel (Van Engelen van der Veen 1924, 84)) was allowed to use 65.75 scharen when grazing them on the lands near the Vecht, while he was only allowed to use 54.25 scharen when grazing his animals on the land belonging to the estate of Ordel. The rest of the entries also show considerable differences in grazing rights between at one hand the fields ‘on this side’ and the fields located ‘at the other side’ of the river Vecht.

Although the assembly of the mark of Berkum was formally headed by an elected chairman, the elected chairman (or chairwoman) however mostly originated from the Slichterman-family, hence giving this position a kind of hereditary character.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

The regulation of the mark of Berkum does not state any revoking of rights. However, from the preamble to the overview of waren of 1492, it shows that those users who already had extended their number of used scharen without authorization, were sanctioned by decreasing the number of scharen they were entitled to by three scharen per waar.

Advantages of membership?

The main advantage for all entitled users was the right to use the natural resources of the mark (within the prescribed limits). In the mark of Berkum, this mainly was the use of grazing rights for the cattle.

Obligations of members?

Whereas a major part of the regulations of other marks (such as those of Exel and Raalterwoold) was related to the use and potentional abuse of (scarce) natural resources, the regulations of the mark of Berkum only deal with this issue in a minor way. Instead, the focus within the regulations of mark Berkum is for the major part on the proper maintenance of the dykes of the mark and, subsequently, of the monitoring of such maintenance. The location and the natural surroundings of the mark explain this difference: since the common land was situated at both sides of the river Vecht, it was mostly used for grazing animals and, of course, had to be protected from flooding at both sides of the river.

Literature on case study

Beekman, A.A., 1920. Geschiedkundige Atlas van Nederland, III, Kaarten, VI, De marken van Drente, Groningen, Overijsel en Gelderland. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Van Engelen van der Veen, G.A.J., 1924. Marken in Overijssel. Geschiedkundige Atlas van Nederland IV-VI.2. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Archief Familie Sichterman, met marken Berkum en Streukel en Overijsselsche Kanalisatie Maatschappij : Inleiding (available online at http://www.historischcentrumoverijssel.nl) [Accessed march 2012]

Sources on case study

Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Zwolle:
- Archief Marken in Overijssel (nr. 0157), inv.nrs. 148-156.
- Archief Familie Sichterman, met marken Berkum en Streukel en Overijsselsche Kanalisatie Maatschappij (nr. 1321), inv.nrs. 153-183.

Case study composed by René van Weeren.

Mark Diepenheim (Overijssel, Netherlands), unknown - 1861

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common
Name/description institution: Marke Diepenheim
Country: The Netherlands
Region: Province of Overijssel
Name of city or specified area: The area of the marke surrounded the small town of Diepenheim (also known by it’s nickname ‘Stedeke’ [‘small city’]), situated in the Twente area of the province of Overijssel.
Surface area and boundaries: As registration was lacking (see further on), we only have figures for the second half of the nineteenth century. After corrections based on the cadastral registration of 1832-1835, in 1835 the marke Diepenheim consisted of slightly over 575 hectares of land, mainly consisting of heath land and meadows with only minor plots of woodland. In the case of this marke, there seem to have been no boundary markers like stones or poles, as was the case in many other marks, but there were monumental trees or ditches as markers on some sides.
Recognized by local government: Although the archival documents contain no ‘bill of rights’, the minutes from the assembly meetings show that the local mayor [burgemeester] attended all meetings of the marke and participated in its committees; the local government thus recognized the markegenootschap of Diepenheim as a legal instition.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Unclear, maybe twelfth or thirteenth century.
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Apart from archival documents on the dissolution process, there are few other archival sources on the history of this marke. The first more extensive documents on this marke date from the second half of the eighteenth century. Even in the dissolution process in the nineteenth century no reference was ever made to a foundation year/age, locally there was no oral tradition on the origin of the marke.
Foundation act present: No, see also above.
Year of termination of institution: 21 February 1861.
Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Confirmed.
Act regarding termination present: De jure, the final meeting of the assembly of the marke Diepenheim was held on 21 February 1861 (which – not accidentally – happened to be the 67th birthday of the chairman of the assembly of the marke). This meeting concluded a process of dividing the possessions of the marke and the dissolution of the marke as an institution, started at the meeting of the marke assembly on 31 July 1852, at which meeting the decision to dissolve the marke was taken, followed by the act of 27 June 1854 whereby the common grounds were divided, and the marke de facto came to an end.
Description Act of termination: The minutes of the meeting of the assembly of the marke of 21 February 1861 state the final dissolution of the marke and the abolition of the function of chairman of the assembly of the marke.
Reason for termination: Just like the other marks, the marke Diepenheim was subject to the legislation of 1810 that sought to divide the uncultivated lands. However, until the 1840s the assembly of the marke decided not to start any dissolution process, due to the resistance of smaller claimants : division would result in a lot of small plots of land, each plot being too small to graze cattle on. As the marke had a positive financial balance, there was no immediate financial need to divide the marke, as was the case for many other marken. In 1852 however, an advisory committee of the marke advised to divide the lands of the marke, as the marke as institution had only limited judicial and financial means left to defend it’s property rights, whereas individual ownership seemed to hold better means of defending ownership. This proposal was now accepted by the assembly of the marke, as the large landowners sought to re-strengthen their social position (partly weakened by the loss of old manorial rights), farmers owning large plots of land sought ways of gaining more profit from the land (in combination with increasing food prices), and small landowners now mostly lived in the city and could be compensated by financial means. Although the judicial effectuation of these measures took almost a decade (1852-1861), de facto the process already was completed in 1854.

Concise history of institution

Due to a lack of historical sources, we know little about the origins of the marke Diepenheim as an institution: the earliest minutes in the markenboek date from 1765. Part of the sources may have been destroyed by the fire of 1605, but it is also likely that some documents we would find in other marken simply never have existed in the marke Diepenheim. A probable cause for this may have been the major influence of the five large estate-owners around the marke.Their position was strongly based in medieval times. The chair specific history of the management of this marke, which was strongly based on its medieval hierarchy. The management of the marke was in the hands of one of those five so-called ‘borgmannen‘ [translated: guarantors; the function of guarantor dates back until the twelfth century, when the lord of the Diepenheim mansion appointed guarantors to help him in times of need and to safeguard his properties]. As this system had been in force for centuries, there may have been no need for the participants of the marke to formalize this well-known structure in writing.

In the third quarter of the eighteenth century, the assembly of the marke conferred for the first time about dividing the marke, the outcome of this discussion however was that the marke should not sell major plots of land or divide the land among the commoners as. In 1810, the Royal Decree seeking to divide uncultivated land was discussed within the assembly of the mark and a committee was established to look into the effects for the marke Diepenheim. Strangely enough, the markenboek – although there seem to be no pages missing – holds no records of any meetings between 1810 and 1819; the findings of the aforesaid committee therefore are unknown to us. In 1837-1839 a second committee investigated the effects of the newly issued tax and legislation on common land and concluded that implementation of the proposed actions would leave far too little plots of land to offer the entitled commoners for grazing their livestock. A third committee issued its recommendations in May 1852, stating that division of the land of the marke would be more beneficial, as individual ownership of land would hold better judicial and financial means to defend that ownership than the reduced legal and financial means that would be to the disposal of the marke as an institution. After the advise of the committee was accepted, the implementation of this decision took two years; and then the financial liquidation took another seven years, resulting in the final formal abolition of the marke Diepenheim on 21 February 1861.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

1177: first mentioning of the Diepenheim mansion, destroyed in battle, rebuilt in 1180.
1224: the chapel of the Diepenheim mansion was promoted to parish church and obtined its own parish jurisdiction.
1767: first markenboek was introduced; it also contains the minutes of a prior meeting from 1765.
1810: Royal Decree seeks to divide uncultivated lands; effect on marke Diepenheim unknown as minutes of meetings lack for 1810-1819.
1837-1839: investigation on the effects new tax regulation and legislation would have on the marke; it was concluded that division of the marke would not be beneficial to the entitled users, as division would only create a large number of small plots of land, each plot being insufficiently large to graze livestock.
1852: advisory committee advises to divide the lands of the marke, as individual ownership would offer better legal and financial protection for the land owners over ownership in common.
1854: Act of 27 June 1854 whereby the common grounds were divided, and the marke de facto came to an end.
1852-1861: implementation of the division and dissolution of the marke.
21 February 1861: formal dissolution of the marke Diepenheim.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

It is very hard to determine the number of entitled users over the years, as the financial records of the marke were not available in writing before 1765. But even then, the consecutive financial officers in charge of keeping the books of the marke appeared to be incapable of producing adequate financial records: the preserved financial records show that it often took more than a decade (and in some cases even several decades!) to produce any financial overview. Only documents related to the final dissolution of the marke show the number of people involved: next to the lists of entitled users from the estates (the five so-called ‘borgmannen‘) and farms (but only the farmers who held private ownership of their fields), which lists were established in the mid-nineteenth century, the official acts on the division of the the lands of the marke show that these plots were divided among over 330 claimants, some of which were institutional participants (like the city of Deventer).

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Although we only have archival documents over a limited time frame (1765-1861), the minutes show that the common land could only be used by holders of landed property in the area; some inhabitants of the small town also had certain limited rights. Nine old farms (the so-called ‘Negenhuizen’ [‘Nine Houses’]) also had ancient use rights in the adjacent marke Stokkum, including the right to dig peat and to cut ’50 axes of wood’.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

The regulation of the marke does not state any revoking of rights. However, the marke acted severely against trespassers from outside, and against members who dug more peat or kept more cattle than they were entitled to, or who secretely added marke-land to their private property.

Advantages of membership?

The main advantage for all entitled users was the right to use the natural resources of the marke (within the prescribed limits), which mainly consisted of grazing livestock and digging peat, sods, and heath.

Obligations of members?

All members had to comply with the regulation, recorded in the markenboek, which regulation prescribed:

to not harvest resources beyond specified amounts;
the amount of animals allowed to be kept and the way in which these animals should be kept (regarding location and timeframe, but also containing prescriptions about how animals ought to be kept: members were obliged to brand their cattle and to ring the noses of their pigs, before they were allowed to graze them on the common);
the penning in of animals gone astray or animals that were put on the common illegally.

Literature on case study

Van Soest, J., 2013. Het einde van de marke van Diepenheim. s.l. [Diepenheim]: Historische vereniging Old Deep’n.

Sources on case study

Historisch Centrum Overijssel
- Archief Marken in Overijssel (nr. 0157), Marke Diepenheim, inv.nrs. 231-252.

Links to further information on case study:

> http://www.regiocanons.nl/overijssel/twente/hof-van-twente/borgmannnen

Also the information by the Oudheidkamer Twente on the Gericht Diepenheim contains useful background info, but contains some errors regarding the situation on the marke Diepenheim; for the remarks by Jaap van Soest on this publication click here.

Case study composed by René van Weeren/Jaap van Soest, based on Jaap van Soest’s Het einde van de marke van Diepenheim.

Dunsborger Hattemer mark (Gelderland, Netherlands), (bef.?) 1553 - 1847

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common
Name/description institution: Dunsborger Hattemer mark
Country: The Netherlands
Region: Province of Gelderland
Name of city or specified area: The Dunsborgermark is one of the rare cases in which the boundaries of the mark did not coincide with the boundaries of the parish jurisdiction (kerspel). This mark belonged to the jurisdictions of both the parish of Hengelo and the parish of Zelhem.
Further specification of location: For the location on Google Maps of the hamlets that ressorted under the Dunsborger Hattemer mark, click here.
Surface area and boundaries: As the map by Beekman (1920; see underneath) shows, the Dunsborger Hattemer mark (on the map indicated only by the name Dunsborger mark) covered quite a large area. The mark was bordered by the mark of Hengelo in the north, while the parish boundary of Zelhem formed the southwestern border. Four hamlets were located within this mark: Dunsborg and Het Gooi (both resorting under the jurisdiction of the parish of Hengelo), and Oosterwijk and Veltswijck (resorting under the jurisdiction of the parish of Zelhem).
Recognized by local government: Yes. Since the area of the mark fell under the jurisdiction of two separate parishes, this meant, among other things, that the commoners of the Dunsborger and Hattemermark were held to communicate their decisions and convocations not only at the church of Hengelo, but also at the church of Zelhem.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: (Before) 1553.
Confirmed year of founding first mention: The first regulations of the Dunsborger and Hattemermark date back to 1553. The preamble of this set of regulations indicate that this set is the first set of regulations ever written down, while it also implies that customary law applied long before that: ‘’The members of the mark of Hattem have always possessed the customs and rights mentioned underneath from immemorial times, have used and possessed these under every lord, without these [customs and rights] being hindered or damaged by anyone’ (Menkveld and Renema, p. 3).
Foundation act present: No. The preamble of the oldest set of rules preserved (see also above) does suggest that, before the regulation was put on paper, an unwritten form of customary law was already in use among the users of the Dunsborger and Hattemermark.
Description of Act of foundation: N/a, see also above.
Year of termination of institution: Around 1847.
Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Estimated.
Act regarding termination present: No.
Reason for termination: In the first half of the nineteenth century, the percentage of common and uncultivated lands within the mark diminished. This was partly due to the consequences of the Royal Decree of 1810, but this proces appears to have started already earlier on within this mark, since the regulations of August 4, 1801, already state that ‘all inheritants of the mark are allowed to dig up an additional 1,000 rods to each estate’ (Menkveld and Rekema, 180). Even a solution for those whose lands did not offer enough room for 1,000 rods of digging was provisioned: they were allowed ‘to dig elsewhere (…) on locations that were best fit’, on the provision that they ‘did not dig on any other man’s land and left the roads intact’ (Menkveld and Renema, 180). From 1822 on, the dissolution of the Dunsborgermark was being arranged in a more structural way by appointing a committee in charge of the division of the remainder of lands being uncultivated and undivided. This last phase of the existence of the Dunsborgermark lasted until about 1847.

Concise history of institution

The Dunsborgermark was formerly known as Hattemermark. However, since another mark belonging to the adjacent village of Zelhem was also called Hattemermark, the name Dunsborgermark was more commonly used.

The first regulations of the Dunsborger and Hattemermark date back to 1553. The preamble of this set of regulations indicatesf that this set is the first set of regulations ever written down, while it also implies that customary law applied long before that: ‘’The members of the mark of Hattem have always possessed the costumes and rights mentioned underneath from immemorial times, have used and possessed these under every lord, without these [costumes and rights] being hindered or damaged by anyone’ (Menkveld and Renema, 3). The assembly of the mark was chaired by first one, later on by two elected chairmen.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, the area designated as common and uncultivated land within the mark diminished. This was partly due to the consequences of the Royal Decree of 1810, but this process appears to have started already earlier on within this mark, since the regulations of August 4, 1801, already state that ‘all inheritants of the mark are allowed to dig up an additional 1,000 rods to each estate’ (Menkveld and Renema, 180). Even a solution for those whose land did not offer enough room for 1,000 rods of digging was provisioned: they were allowed ‘to dig elsewhere (…) on locations that were best fit’, on the provision that they ‘did not dig on any other man’s land and left the roads intact’ (Menkveld and Renema, 180).

From 1822 on, the dissolution of the Dunsborgermark was being arranged in a more structural way by appointing a committee in charge of the division of the remainder of lands being uncultivated and undivided. This last phase of the existence of the Dunsborgermark lasted until about 1847.

Fragment of map, drawn by Beekman (1920), indicating the location and boundaries of the Dunsboreger Hattemer mark (on this map only indicated by the name Dunsborger Mark; ellips added by composer of this case study).

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

1553: Oldest (preserved) set of rules regarding the use of the mark of Berkum.
1801: Shareholders are allowed to dig up an extra 1,000 rods of land.
1822: A committee in charge of the division of the remainder of lands being uncultivated and undivided was appointed.
1822-1847: Sale of uncultivated / undivided pieces of land.
1847: Final sale of land and dissolution of common.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The number of shares was divided almost equally among both parish jurisdictions: the Hengelo part of the mark had 44 shares, divided among 42 estates, while the Zelhem part divided 46.5 shares among 44 estates.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

The regulation of the Dunsborger Hattemer mark does not mention any formal requirements to become a member / shareholder. However, it is to be expected that the ownership of shares, just like in other marks, will have been related to the ownership of specified estates (gewaarde erven).

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Although the regulation does not state any full banishment from the common, user rights could be temporarily revoked. In case the shareholder failed to attend the meeting of the assembly of the mark he was summoned to attend, his tenant farmers would only be entitled to use the common again after a fine of 3 guilders had been paid. A similar case was the destruction of pathways along the peat bogs: the culpable member had to pay a fine of 2.5 guilders in order to be allowed to dig peat again.

Advantages of membership?

The main advantage for all entitled users was the right to use the natural resources of the mark (within the prescribed limits). Also, all transactions regarding this land and the products thereof were to be exempt from tithes.

Obligations of members?

Next to the regular obligations, such as attending the meetings of the assembly, maintaining infrastructure properly and penning-up stray animals, the regulation of the Dunsborger and Hattemermark especially emphasizes (as compared to the regulations of other marks in that area of The Netherlands) the active role of members of the mark in discovering offences and executing the related sanctioning.

Literature on case study

Beekman, A.A., 1920. Geschiedkundige Atlas van Nederland, III, Kaarten, VI, De marken van Drente, Groningen, Overijsel en Gelderland. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Menkveld, A. and Renema, J., s.a. Markeboek van de Dunsborger en Hattemer Marke, 1553-1810. S.l..

Sources on case study

Gelders Archief
- Archief Marken en Maalschappen (nr. 0366), inv.nrs. 37-38: archival documents on Dunsborger Hattemer Mark
- Archief Gedeputeerde Staten (nr. 0039), inv.nr. 1022: docuemnts regarding the Dunsborger Hattemer Mark
Transcribed sources
- Menkveld, A. and Renema, J., s.a. Markeboek van de Dunsborger en Hattemer Marke, 1553-1810. S.l..
- Menkveld, A. and Renema, J., s.a. Markeboek van de Dunsborger en Hattemer Marke, 1810-1837. S.l..

Case study composed by René van Weeren.

Mark Exel (Gelderland, Netherlands, 1616 - 1852

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common
Name/description institution: Mark Exel
Country: The Netherlands
Region: Province of Gelderland
Name of city or specified area: The former hamlet of Exel, in 1852 incorporated into the larger community of Laren, which in its own turn was incorporated by the community of Lochem in 1971.
Further specification location: The original hamlet of Exel (als known in 1392 as Eghesloe) was situated slightly west of the current village centre of Exel and consisted of about ten farms surrounding an area of common land, known as the Ekselse or Exelse Enk. For location on Google Maps, click here.
Surface area and boundaries: An investigation of historical maps of that area show that, although some parts were not fit for any use (the so-called ‘onland’), the geographical limits of the hamlet were quite sharp due to the clearly set boundaries of the surrounding estates: to the southeast the Ampsen estate, to the northwest the estate of Verwolde was situated, while the possessions of the smaller estate of the Nijenhuis set the boundaries of the hamlet at the most western side. Although the boundaries at the eastern side of Exel were – as it seems – less clearly demarcated, the boundary was, as it were, marked out by natural difference: while the Exelse Enk consisted mainly of (pieces of) land suitable for agricultural use, the adjacent area on the eastern boundary consisted of mainly heathland of very poor agricultural quality.
Recognized by local government: Yes.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Probably May 2nd, 1616.
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: The earliest preserved regulation of the mark Exel dates back to May 2nd, 1616. Based on the content of this regulation (a.o. a description of the division of shares, the numbers of animals several groups of users were allowed to keep, and indications where not to dig any resources) one may assume this date forms also the foundation date of the mark.
Foundation act present: No, see also above.
Year of termination of institution: 1852.
Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Confirmed.
Act regarding termination present: The notes and resolutions of the assembly of the mark contain several remarks and decisions regarding the need to sell several peasant farms of the mark, in order to solve the debts owed by the mark. In 1852, finally, the last remaining pieces of land were divided and the mark Exel ceased to exist. The area of Exel was then added to the larger community of Laren (Gelderland).
Description Act of termination: The archive of the estate of Ampsen contains an Act of the division of the parts of the mark of Exel that were not yet divided by then, dating from the year 1852.
Reason for termination: Just like the other marks, the mark of Exel was subject to the legislation of 1810 that sought to divide the uncultivated lands. From that year on, the tax burden on the mark increased year after year. In 1852, when several plots of land already had been sold to solve the debts of the mark, the remaining parts of the mark not yet divided were also sold. Later on, the village and former common land of Exel was incorporated into the larger community of Laren.

Concise history of institution

The hamlet of Exel was first mentioned in 1356; in 1392 it was known as Eghesloe. The original hamlet was situated slightly west of the current village centre of Exel and consisted of about ten farms surrounding an area of common land, known as the Ekselse or Exelse Enk. Earlier forms of informal co-operation may have existed before the foundation of the mark of Exel in 1616: not only was the collection of farms surrounding the Exelse Enk already mentioned as hamlet in 1356, 1392, and 1494, but also the content of the first regulation does seem to indicate that this regulation was meant to record in writing pre-existing agreements concernign the use of the common land.

Although the archival sources do not mention an explicit reason for the creation of the markenboek in 1616, it is likely that external events may have been the incentive. Spanish army a few years earlier, destroying a.o. the old buildings of the Ampsen estate (Harenberg 1999). In the years to follow this ransacking, the lord of Ampsen, Joost Nagell tot Ampsen, restored the estate of Ampsen. An other, even more likely incentive may have been the large town fire at Lochem 0f 1615, in which fire the church of Lochem was destroyed. To collect enough money for rebuilding this church, it was required that the surrounding marks and villages would also contribute; the contribution to be made by the mark of Exel is one of the very first items that were recorded in the markenboek of 1616 (Beuzel 1990, 13-4.). These events may have convicted the members of the mark of Exel not to rely solely on ‘the wisdom and the memory of its inheritors’ (Beuzel 1990, 18) anymore, but (also) to record these regulation and rules in writing, thus creating lasting evidence of the agreements made at the meetings of the inheritors.

The family Nagell tot Ampsen, belonging to the old noble families, maintained in more than one way close relations to the mark of Exel and its commoners. Not only was the lord of Ampsen owner of the estate and lands adjacent to the mark of Exel, the respective lords of the estate were also more than once elected as chairman of the assembly of the mark (‘markenrichter‘). This was already the case at the presumably first meeting in May 1616.

The size of the hamlet of Exel, and subsequently of the common land of Exel, remained quite small throughout the centuries: from the original ten farms surrounding the Exelse Enk, the number of inhabitants rose to 280 registered inhabitants, living in 38 houses, in 1840, just 12 years before the formal dissolution of the mark Exel. Nowadays, the village of Exel is still rather small and mainly agricultural: of its current 700 inhabitants (living in 300 houses), only 150 are living in the town centre, situated just a small distance east of the former mark Exel. The other 550 inhabitants are living in the rural area around the village centre of Exel, comprising a surface of 6.5 by 1.5 kilometers.

Detail of map, drawn by Beekman (1920). The map shows the mark of Exel at the east (ellips added by composer case study), covering a considerable surface area. The content of the markenboek however mainly concerns the western and central parts of the area indicated by Beekman; the boundaries therefore may have been less far stretching to the east.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

1616: earliest preserved regulation of the mark Exelin. Possibly this was also the moment the mark of Exel was formally founded.
1810: Royal Decree seeks to divide uncultivated lands.
1810-1852: increasing tax burdens and subsequently, increasing number of land sales to cover the increasing debts of the mark.
1852: sale of remaining uncultivated land, final dissolution of the mark, area added to the larger community of Laren.
1971: community of Laren incorporated by the larger community of Lochem.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The markenboek of Exel contains, at least for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries no lists of gewaarde erven just as such. Indications about the number of gewaarde erven can be derived from, e.g. a tax recording of 1707 (mentioning about 40 users of the area of Exel, of which at least some 20 seem to have been gewaarde erven), or the list of invited attendants to the meeting of June 18, 1810, mentioning the names of 15 gewaarde erven.

What we can derive from these lists and the content of the regulation, is that the size of the hamlet of Exel, and subsequently of the common land of Exel, remained quite small. From the original ten farms surrounding the Exelse Enk, the number of inhabitants rose to 280 registered inhabitants, living in 38 houses, in 1840, just 12 years before the formal dissolution of the mark Exel.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

The membership was directly linked to the ownership of one of the estates surrounding the Exelse Enk, the so-called gewaarde erven.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

See also above. The regulation states that new owners of gewaarde erven (either purchased or inherited) were obliged to make of a donation of a barrel of beer at the forthcoming meeting of the assembly. Since these gewaarde erven sometimes were sold in parts, it was decided that:

the ownership of the estate and subsequently the user rights on the common land directly connected to that ownership would belong to the owner of that part of the estate the main house of the estate was built on;
that in case of a shared purchase, all of the new owners were obliged to donate a barrel of beer at the next meeting.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

The regulation of the mark Exel does not state any revoking of rights.

Advantages of membership?

The main advantage for all entitled users was the right to use the natural resources of the mark (within the prescribed limits).

Obligations of members?

All members had to comply with the regulation, recorded in the markenboek, which regulation prescribed:

proper maintenance of dikes and waterways;
the amount of animals allowed to be kept and the way in which these animals should be kept (regarding location and timeframe, but also containing prescriptions about how animals ought to be kept: members were obliged to brand their horses and to ring the noses of their pigs, before they were allowed to graze them on the common);
the penning in of animals gone astray or animals that were put on the common illegally;
the obligation to accept the function one was appointed to and to fulfil the tasks belonging to this function properly, and so on.

In the mark of Exel, particular attention was paid to the amount of peat that users were allowed to dig peat; the specifications of the amounts of peat, the ways in which to dig, as well as the time limits within which users were allowed to dig, became more and more specified throughout the years.

Literature on case study

Beekman, A.A., 1920. Geschiedkundige Atlas van Nederland, III, Kaarten, VI, De marken van Drente, Groningen, Overijsel en Gelderland. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Beuzel, Gerrit Jan, 1990. De Erfgenamen van Exel. Het verhaal van een Marke. S.l.: Belangenvereniging Exel en Omstreken.
Beuzel, Gerrit Jan, 1988. Markeboek van de marke Exel (1616-1837). S.l.: s.n..
Harenberg, Jan, 1999. Eens bolwerk van de adel: kastelen en landhuizen in de Achterhoek en Liemers. S.l.: Canaletto / Repro-Holland.
Martens van Sevenhoven, A.H. 1925. Marken in Gelderland. Geschiedkundige Atlas van Nederland, IV-VI.3. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.f

Sources on case study

Gelders Archief
- Archief Marken en Maalschappen (nr. 0366), inv.nr. 54: Markeboek, 1616-1837
- Archief Huis Ampsen 1 (nr. 0373), inv.nr. 248: documents regarding the mark of Exel, 1602-1836
Transcribed sources
- Beuzel, Gerrit Jan, 1988. Markeboek van de marke Exel (1616-1837). S.l.: s.n..

Links to further information on case study:

> http://www.plaatsengids.nl/exel

> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exel_(dorp)

> http://www.overijsselinkaart.nl, search for 1236_OIK_000527

Case study composed by René van Weeren.

Mark Raalterwoold (Overijssel, Netherlands), (bef.?) 1445 - 1843

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common
Name/description institution: Raalterwoold
Country: The Netherlands
Region: Province of Overijssel
Name of city or specified area: Raalte
Further specification location: The mark Raalterwoold was one of the five marks ressorting under the schoutambt of Raalte; the other marks were those of Luttenberg, Heeten, Pleegst, and Ramele. The mark consisted of the church village of Raalte and five surrounding hamlets (Tij, Rade, Linderthe, Boetele, and Luttenberg; the latter one would later become a part of the mark Luttenberg, as this mark was split off from the mark Raalterwoold). It was the only mark of the five marks mentioned above that bwas owned in common by the inhabitants of several hamlets. For the approximate location of the mark of Raalterwoold on Google Maps, click here.
Surface area and boundaries: In 1832, the mark Raalterwoold was one of the largest marks of Overijssel, covering a surface of about 55 square kilometers. Before the sixteenth century, the mark was even larger: just before the start of the seventeenth century, the mark Luttenberg was split off from the Raalterwoold to become a separate mark. The primary boundaries of the Raalterwoold seem to be determined by natural boundaries: to the north, the sand ridge of the Velthoek, to the southeast the heathlands of the Boetelerveld and the Schoonheterheide, to the west extensive marshlands and the extensive swamps of Hellendoorn to the northeast (Spek et al. 2010, 30).
Recognized by local government: Yes.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Before August 22, 1445.
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: First regulation preserved dates from August 22, 1445 (be it in a transcribed form, the transcription dating from 1615).
Foundation act present: From the first known regulation, dating from 1445 (although only preserved in a transcription dating from 1615) we know that even earlier written regulations must have existed, since the preamble to the regulations of 1445 states that ‘the inheritants of the hamlets of Tij, Rade, Linderthe, Boetele and Luttenbarge have transferred all the regulation described underneath’ (Hannink 1992, 1).
Description of Act of foundation: This first set of rules is quite extensive, containing 45 articles, not only describing the division of user rights, the rights and duties of the several groups within the mark, and the do’s and don’ts regarding the collecting of resources, but also directions on the way decisions and convocations should be communicated. Given the content and size of this set of regulations, we may assume the year 1445 was in one way or another a significant year for the mark, causing the need for drawing up a renewed and extensive set of regulations. This cause is, however, not explicitly mentioned in the preamble (or may have been lost in transcription).
Year of termination of institution: 1843.
Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Confirmed.
Act regarding termination present: The markenboek states that in 1841, after several pieces of land already had been sold to solve the debts of the mark, it was decided to sell most of the remaining uncultivated land. Only a small area would still remain to be used for common pasture, but this use was also terminated in 1843.
Reason for termination: Just like the other marks, Raalterwoold was subject to the legislation of 1810 that sought to divide the uncultivated lands. In 1825, the chairman of the assembly of the mark, together with some commissioned members of the assembly of the mark, refused to accept a proposal by some inheritants to implement the division as suggested by the Royal Decree of 1810. Their main argument was that most of the uncultivated lands had already been developed or had been used for the construction of roads and so on; division of the remaining lands among the owners of shares would result in less than half a hectare (bunder) per share, an amount they considered as being ‘never a reasonable compensation for the [loss of] existing rights of mowing and grazing’ (Hannink 1992, 163). The tax burden on the mark, however, increased year after year, causing increasing deficits to a level at which these deficits could no longer – as had been customary practice – be resolved by the tax collector of the mark by paying this out of his own resources. After several pieces of land already had been sold to solve the debts of the mark, it was decided in 1841 to sell most of the remaining uncultivated land. Only a small area would still remain to be used for common pasture, but this use was also terminated in 1843.

Concise history of institution

In early medieval times, the area of Raalterwoold has been one of the largest uncultivated areas in the eastern part of the Netherlands (Spek et al. 2010, 27). Research results from other areas (Slicher von Bath 1944, also mentioned in Spek et al 2010, 26) indicate that from the thirteenth century on, large areas of uncultivated land have been developed. One may assume that, regarding the use and maintenance of these newly developed common landf, mutual agreements must have existed even before the first (preserved) written regulation: not only does the text of the oldest regulation preserved seem to imply the existence of previous agreements, according to Spek et al. (2010, 26) also the straight lines of the historical boundaries of the mark Raalterwoold seem to indicate that these boundaries originate from (unrecorded) agreements about the boundaries with the owners and users of the adjacent marks, rather than from natural ‘markers’.

About 1600, the area of the mark of Luttenberg was split of from the Raalterwoold to become a separate mark (the status of this new mark as being an independent mark however was contested way into the seventeenth century (Spek et al. 2010, 30)). After this, the surface area of the mark Raalterwoold remained more or less the same, let alone some minor border conflicts with users of adjacent marks and some sales of land to cover existing debts from the mark.

Just like the other marks, Raalterwoold was subject to the legislation of 1810 that sought to divide the uncultivated lands. Although some inheritors requested the implementation of the Royal Decree of 1810, the chairman of the assembly of the mark, together with some commissioned members of the assembly of the mark, refused to do so, arguing that there would be too little land left to compensate the members’ loss of rights (see also text above about dissolution of the mark). The increasing tax burden, however, in the end made it inevitable to sell the remaining uncultivated areas, ultimately leading to the final dissolution of the mark in 1843.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

1445: oldest (preserved) mentioning of mark Raalterwoold in regulation of August 22, 1445 (transcribed in 1615).
c. 1600: part called Luttenberg was split off to become the mark Luttenberg (oldest markenboek of this mark dates from 1604).
1600-1632: status of mark Luttenberg as being an independent mark contested by authorities of mark Raalterwoold.
1810: Royal Decree seeks to divide uncultivated lands.
1825: chairman assembly mark and commissioned members assembly mark refuse proposal to divide uncultivated lands as prescribed by Royal Decree of 1810, for reasons of ‘insufficient compensation for shareholders’.
1825-1841: increasing tax burdens and subsequently, increasing number of land sales to cover the increasing debts of the mark.
1841: major part of the common land sold, only small area of common land remaining, intended to be used for common pasture.
1843: sale of remaining common pasture, final dissolution of the mark.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Unfortunately, the older sections of the markenboek contain no lists of share-owners, hence the amount of share-owners is unknown for most of the time period the mark existed. The first full list of share-owners (gewaarden) dates from September 15, 1840 (Hannink 1992, 187-9), so from the final stage of the existence of the mark Raalterwoold. From this list, it shows that there were at that time 65 gewaarden owning at least half a share. The total number of shares was 55.5: 46 full shares and 19 half shares. Of these 55.5, 10 shares belonged to (inhabitants of) the hamlet (buurschap) Boethele, 22.5 to the hamlet of Thijenraan, and 23 shares to inhabitants of Linderte (Hannink 1992, 187-9).

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Although the regulation of the mark Raalterwoold does not contain a very explicit description of the admission requirements, from the content of the regulation it shows that full membership (i.e. with the right to vote and participate in decisions regarding the use of the common land) was based on the ownership of shares (waardelen). The regulation states explicitly that the ownership of a share was reserved exclusively for the owner of the piece of land the estate was built on. Those who would obtain (either through purchase or through inheritance) an estate that was connected to a share (these estates being called the gewaarde erven), would have to donate a barrel of beer at the first forthcoming meeting of the assembly of the mark.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

The regulation of the mark Raalterwoold does not state any revoking of rights.

Advantages of membership?

The main advantage for all entitled users was the right to use the natural resources of the mark (within the prescribed limits).

Obligations of members?

All members had to comply with the regulation, recorded in the markenboek, which regulation prescribed:

proper maintenance of dikes and waterways
the amount of animals allowed to be kept and the way in which these animals should be kept (regarding location and timeframe, but also containing prescriptions about how animals ought to be kept: members were obliged to brand their horses and to ring the noses of their pigs, before they were allowed to graze them on the common)
the penning in of animals gone astray or animals that were put on the common illegally
the obligation to accept the function one was appointed to and to fulfil the tasks belonging to this function properly
the obligation to turn lands dug up into arable land within 18 monts after the initial digging
the attending of the regular annual meetings of the members of the common
the timely payment of tenancy fees

Literature on case study

Spek, Theo, Van der Velde, Henk, Hannink, Herman, and Terlouw, Bert, 2010. Mens en land in het hart van Salland. Bewonings- en landschapsgeschiedenis van het kerspel Raalte. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Matrijs.
Hannink, Geert, 1992. Het markeboek van de marke Raalterwoold. S.l. : s.n. Also available online at: http://grotenhuis.natuurlijk.nl/documents/Markeboek%20van%20Raalterwoold.pdf.

Sources on case study

Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Zwolle
- Archief Marke Raalterwoold (no. 13572).
Transcribed sources
- Hannink, Geert, 1992. Het markeboek van de marke Raalterwoold. S.l. : s.n. Also available online at: http://grotenhuis.natuurlijk.nl/documents/Markeboek%20van%20Raalterwoold.pdf.

Case study composed by René van Weeren.

Mark Rozengaarde (Overijssel, Netherlands), (bef.?) 1416 - 1866

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common
Name/description institution: Rosengaerdermarke
Country: The Netherlands
Region: Overijssel
Name of city or specified area: Dalfsen
Further specification location: The ‘oude Rosengaerde‘ (old Rosengaerde) was originally a small field, located north of the former Rosengaerde Steghe (current name: Hessenweg) and west of Ankummerweg. To the east later on the ‘nye Rosengaerde‘ (new Rosengaerde) was created. The fields of both the old and the new Rosengaerde later on became a part of the larger Rosengaerdermarke.
Surface area and boundaries: The estimated final size of the large Rosengaerdermarke was 7 km x 7 km (ab. 5,000 hectares), its boundary situated near the former Benykens grave (now being part of the Dedemsvaart).
Recognized by local government: Yes

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1416
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: First mentioning of the Rosengaerdermarke. The division was probably partly based on an earlier division of which no record has been found.
Foundation act present: No. Transcripts of the decisions of 1416 however have been preserved, since they were copied into documents of later dates.
Year of termination of institution: July 26, 1866
Year of termination: estimated or confirmed: Confirmed.
Act regarding termination present: Yes.
Description Act of termination: Decision of remaining owners of the common to dissolve the common.
Reason for termination: Since allmost all former tasks of the inheritants had been taken over by other authorities (e.g., municipal services, waterboards), a separate governing body regarding the marke was no longer required.

Concise history of institution

Based on documents regarding disputes about the contribution of tithes for newly developed lands to the Bishop of Utrecht, it seems that before the division of 1416 some parts of the Rosengaerdermarke had already been divided and developed.

In 1416 the complete division of the Rosengaerdermarke has been recorded. However, the original records of this division have not been preserved but in the transcripts of these original incorporated in markeboeken form later on. The division of 1416 seems to be connected to the digging of two new leats in the same year.

The area of the Rosengaerdermarke was divided into nine large areas; the boundaries of these areas were determined by already existing roads or leats. Seven of these nine subareas were divided into 38 or even 76 lots of land, 76 being also the total number of shares owned by the inheritants. The two other remaining subareas belonged to the the Bishop of Utrecht and were not te be split up into smaller lots of land.

The assignment of the pieces of land of the seven divided subareas was done by lot. As a result of this way of dividing the land, each inheritant owned several separated pieces of land. The scattered nature of the division of property within the Rosengaerdermarke inhibited (or prevented?) the creation of new farms.

In 1434 the Bishop of Utrecht decides to transfer some pieces of land from the Rosengaerdermarke to the jurisdiction of the parish of Zwolle. Possibly this transfer of land by the Bishop of Utrecht was meant to be a gratification to the magistrates of the city of Zwolle, who had supported the Bishop in his disputes with the count of Holland and the duke of Gelre.

During the fifteenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century, the marke was flooded several times. Only from 1804 on, however, management of dikes and waterways was organized on a more structural base.

In the eigteenth and nineteenth centuries, land consolidations led to an ever increasing number of remaining land owners. Since many of the original tasks of the mark (e.g., water management, collecting of taxes, firefighting) had been taken over by municipal authorities, the remaining inheritants decided in 1866 to dissolve the mark, transferring all tasks to the municipality of Dalfsen.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

A significant part of the owners of lands in the Rosengaerdermarke belonged to the local elite (e.g., dignitaries and clergymen of the city of Zwolle, landlords from Dalfsen c.a.). This was especially the case after 1434, the year in which the Bishop of Utrecht decided to re-allocate some pieces of land out of gratitude to the magistrates of the city of Zwolle.

Flooding of parts of the marke caused serious problems until 1804, after which year water the water management of the mark was taken on in a more structural way.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The case study does not give exact numbers. However, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, land consolidation caused the number of inhertitants to decrease further and further, until only a handful of land owners remained.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Membership was only attainable for the owners of lands within the Rosengaerder marke. Since large-scale landownership was very common in this area in 1416, the number of members, i.e. owners of land, of the Rosengaerder marke has never been very large.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

None mentioned in this case study

Advantages of membership?

Tithes (received by Bishop of Utrecht), collecting rent from tenants

Obligations of members?

A.o.: Firefighting, collection of taxes, water management, maintenance of infrastructure.

Literature on case study

De Cleen, Marcel en Marie Claire Lejeune. 1999. Compendium van rituele planten in Europa: botanisch: volksnamen, vindplaats, beschrijving: cultureel: rituelen, mythologie, symboliek, magie, volksgebruiken, volksgeloof, sprookjes, sagen, legenden: gebruik: kruidengeneeskunde, volksremedies, cosmetica, landbouw, industrie, ambachten, huis, tuin en keuken. Gent : Stichting Mens en Kultuur.
Beek, R. van. 1983. ‘Burcht en bezit’ in J.G.N. Renaud et al, Het kasteel Voorst. Macht en val van een Overijsselse burcht circa 1280 – 1362 naar aanleiding van een opgraving, Vereeniging tot beoefening van Overijssels Regt en Geschiedenis, 36, pp. 144-60. Zwolle : Waanders.
Beek, R. van. 1976. ‘Meten in de marke. Het verhaal van een marke die niet bestond’in Vereeniging tot beoefening van Overijssels Regt en Geschiedenis, Verslagen en mededelingen, 91, pp. 8-27.
Gijsbers, Wilhelmina Maria. 1999. Kapitale ossen. De internationale handel in slachtvee in Noordwest-Europa (1330 – 1750). Hilversum : Verloren.
Hattum, Burchard Joan van. 1767 (reprint; 1975). Geschiedenissen der stad Zwolle, behelsende een verhaal van haar eerste beginselen, verheffinge tot een stad, en de merkwaardigste gebeurtenissen aldaar van ouds her, to na by dese tyden toe, voorgevallen: uit stads boeken, egte stukken en oude chronyken bij een vergadert en beschreven, I. Zwolle : Waanders.

Sources on case study

Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Toegang 157, inv.nrs. 1110, 1112-1114, Markenboeken Marke Rozegaarde. Click here for photo’s of these sources.

Links to further information on case study:

Full text of case study

Case study composed by Jan van Zanden (1923 – 2011), 2005.

Wijkerzand (Noord-Brabant, Netherlands), (bef.?) 1440 - present

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common
Name/description institution: Wijkerzand
Country: The Netherlands
Region: Land van Heusden, prov. Noord-Brabant
Name of city or specified area: Wijk & Aalburg
Further specification location: The size and location is currently still the same as it was in 1442, ‘Eenen uyterweert groot ende alsoe cleyn gelege is in den Banne van Wyck, buyten dycks, geheeten, Wijckerzant tusschen die dyckeaulinge ende Roekweert aen d’een zijde, en de die Maze aen d’andere zijde, streckende van Nieuwen Weert ende van de Koren Zande totter Wyckser Molen toe‘
[Transl.: ‘A piece of washland, called Wijckerzant, as it is situated outside the dikes within the jurisdiction of Wijk, boardered at one side by the foot of the dike and Roekweert, at the other side by the Maas river, stretching from the Nieuwen Weert and the Koren Zande up until the mill of Wijck’] (Wijkerzand 2011)
For location on Google Maps, click here.
Surface area and boundaries: Surface is about 70 hectares (Hoppenbrouwer 2002, 108). For boundaries: see above.
Recognized by local government: Yes.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Between c. 1440-1443. After becoming private property of the landlord in 1459 (see underneath), it appears that by the year 1724 the actual and subsequently the formal property of this piece of land once again had befallen to the commoners of Wijk.
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: The starting period can be determined with great accuracy, as Hoppenbrouwers (1993) has demonstrated, based upon known historical events and circumstances. It is known that around 1440, the owner of the Wijkerzand, lord Dirk van der Merwede, due to his financial problems, had to mortgage the Wijkerzand to some well-to-do neighbors of Wijck. Since Dirk van der Merwede is mentioned in the preserved documents as acting only on his own behalf (and not on behalf of his subjects, one may assume he already transferred / sold his rights to this property to the common neighbors of Wijk before his death in 1443. An extensive analysis regarding the early history of this common is to be found in the work of Hoppenbrouwers (1993).
Foundation act present: See also above. There is no document preserved stating the actual foundation of this piece of land as common property.
Year of termination of institution: Although the formal use of this piece of land as common ended on March 14, 1459, the land has in practice always remained to be used as common land (see for more detailed information underneath). The formal reinstatement as a common dates from June 3, 1817 (see underneath). From the year 1724 on, however, it appears that the de facto status as common land had been reached much earlier already.
Act regarding termination present: Yes, regarding the formal ending in 1459.
Description Act of termination: Deed of March 14, 1459, containing:
- The formal decision to transfer the ownership from the neighbors of Wijk to the landlord (the duke of Burgundy)
- The ‘three liberties’ of the neighbors of Wijk
- The ruling on the letting out of stints / shares. For more detailed information, see underneath (Advantages of Membership)
Reason for termination: The deed of 1459 does not mention the explicit reason for the tranfer of this property. The conditions of the sale as well as the practical use of this piece of land after the formal transfer fof ownership to the landlord, seem to implicate that this transfer of ownership has been very much to the advantage of the neigbors of Wijk. However, it may not be excluded that by buying this piece of land (amongst other pieces of land located along the river Maas), the landlord of Holland tried to make very clear to the rulers of Guelders who was in charge of the riverbanks along the border river (Hoppenbrouwers 1993, 53-4). A third reason might have been the fact that the neighbors did not want to be involved anymore in the legal struggles related to the ownership of the land (see underneath).

Concise history of institution

The history of the Wijkerzand has been extensively described by Hoppenbrouwers (1993; 2002; 2007). The existence of the Wijkerzand dates back until at least the 1390s: in 1392 and 1396, the ‘sant mit aenworpe‘ [the alluvial sands along the river Meuse] was sold in two parts to Hugeman van Strijen, lord of Zevenbergen and Heesbeen. The fact that the former owners, Bertout Louwe Pietrs zoon and Klaas Spierink Jans zoon van Aalburg (the latter one being the bailiff [drost] of Heusden) held this land on a long lease, seems to imply the history of this washland dates back even further than the 1390s.

During the second quarter of the fifteenth century, several parties claimed to be entitled to the property of the Wijkerzand, like this piece of alluvial land was called from 1442 on. These claims led to several legal battles. Around 1440-1443 (see also above), Dirk van der Merwede, the viscount of Heusden, had to mortgage this part of his property to some of the well-to-do neigbors of Wijck, represented by Jan Spierink van Well Dirks zoon. Since he only partially succeeded in paying off his debts, these neighbors – succesfully – executed the mortgage and claimed the possession of the mortgaged property.

After the death of the former owner Dirk van der Merwede in 1443, the legal battles regarding the possession and use of the Wijkerzand continued, the parties involved being on the one hand the former creditors of Dirk van der Merwede (among whom some neighbors of Wijk) and on the other hand the inheritants of Dirk van der Merwede. The legal battle culminated in 1453 in the assassination of Willem Spierink van Well, son of the aformentioned Jan Spierink and the legal representative of the assemblee of neighbors from Wijk, for which crime the inheritants of Dirk van der Merwede were apprehended and punished. In 1458, the neighbors of Wijk decided to sell the Wijkerzand, which transaction was completed in Brussels on March 14, 1459. At this sale, the neigbors of Wijk obtained their ‘3 liberties’, mentioned underneath.

Little is known about the use and ownership of the Wijkerzand for the period 1553 – 1724. Around 1724, the government of the Dutch Republic decided to sell the property rights of numerous titles, rights, and goods, aquired by the government during The Eighty Years’ War, among which the shire [ambachtsheerlijkheid] of Wijk.

Although the Wijkerzand in 1724 was private property in the formal sense, documents from the eighteenth century indicate that the level of self-governance of the actual users of the Wijkerzand was remarkably high. The deed of transfer from 1724 indicates that the shire of Wijk had 3 mayors, 7 aldermen [schepenen], 4 officials in charge of registrating the shares [schaarmeesters], 4 officials in charge of penning in animals [zetters], 3 officials in charge of counting the animals [telders] and 2 vergers. The involvement of the de jure proprietors was limited to the formal appointment of officials and the reception of the collected payments. So, although the Wijkerzand was de jure private property, de facto it was treated as common land. It is tempting to think this situation was the cause for the remarkable preservation of the ancient property rights during the French régime in stead of these rights being usurpated by the local of national government.

In 1816, the government [Gedeputeerde Staten] of the province of Noord-Brabant, however, decided that the Wijkerzand should be regarded as municipal property, by argueing that the rights to this property had always belonged to all inhabitants of Wijk and therefore the municipal government, as being the legal representative of its community of inhabitants, should be regarded as the legal proprietor of the Wijkerzand from then on. Although the mayor of Wijk initially protested gainst this decision, this ruling was implemented in May 1816, causing many small farmers, but also non-farmers, letting out their shares, to lose part of all of their sources of income. After legal proceedings, the local justice of the peace dedides on June 3, 1817, that the property rights of the Wijkerzand belong to all finhabitants of Wijk, based upon their de facto ownership in years past.

After vain attempts by some inhabitants of Wijk to gain legal possession of the Wijkerzand, around 1850 malfunctioning of the officials responsible for registrating the rights of grazing [schaarmeesters] once again threaten the survival of the Wijkerzand as a common. Under the guidance of mayor Pullen of Wijk, in 1852 a new regulation for the use of the Wijkerzand has been drawn up, which regulation still applies for a great deal in the current situation (click here for the actual text of the regulation (in Dutch).

Nowadays, the shares for the use of the Wijkerzand are still being let out. The revenues of letting out these shares are distributed among all heads of households living inf Wijk, who own a chimney, still in accordance with the regulation from 1852.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

1390s: First (unnamed) mentioning of this area in deeds.
1442: Wijkerzand first mentioned by this name in deed regarding transfer of property.
c. 1440-1443: Property rights befall to (a.o.) some neighbors of Wijk, rights however are contested by the inheritants of former owner Dirk van der Merwede.
1453: legal battles on the property rights of Wijkerzand lead to assassination of legal representative of the neigbors of Wijk by the inheritants of Dirk van der Merwede.
1459: Sale of property rights by neighbors of Wijk to the landlord of Holland and Zealand (duke of Burgundy); neighbors remain in possession of some liberties.
16th/17th century: Government of Dutch Republic gains possession of shire [ambachtsheerlijkheid] of Wijk
1724: Sale of shire [ambachtsheerlijkheid] of Wijk to Maarten Vlaardingerwout.
1724-1816: Increasing self-governance of the neighbors of Wijk regarding the Wijkerzand; de facto functioning as a common.
1816: Provincial government declares the Wijkerzand to be property of the municipality of Wijk, annihilating almost all existing rights of the actual users.
1817, June 3: Justice of the peace decides that, based upon the de facto use of the Wijkerzand by the neighbors of Wijk, the previous rights of ownership should be re-instated for the inhabitants of Wijk and that those affected by the municipal annexation of land of 1816 should receive compensation for their losses.
c. 1850: Malfunctioning of the officials in charge of administring the shares regarding the Wijkerzand poses a serious threat to the survival of the Wijkerzand as a common.
1852: A new regulation (nowadays still in effect) is drawn up.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

From the literature and sources consulted we can only deduct historical figures for the year 1852, in which year 52 owners of shares signed the new regulation for the use of the Wijkerzand. Further research of literature and / or archival source should most probably enable us to retrieve more data on the number of members throughout time.

In 2002, the total number of heads of households, entitled to use the common Wijkerzand, was about 560 (Hoppenbrouwers 2002, 108).

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

In the first period of being a common de jure (c. 1440 – 1459), it appears that the lease and use of parts of the common was reserved to the local élite: members of local noble families and some well-to-do citizens of Wijk and surrounding towns.

The regulation from 1852 describes in detail who are and who are not entitled to participate in the division of shares (see underneath).

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

There is no information available on the admission criteria for the fifteenth century. The regulation from 1852, however, describes in detail who are and who are not entitled to participate in the division of shares:

The shares will be divided among only the heads of households who were born in Wijk or migrated from elsewehere to Wijk . The number of households per house is irrelevant (Art. 12).
Orphans of minor age are entitled to the share of their deceased parents, as long as they stay within the household. Leaving the household means losing the right to the share they commonly owed with the other children of the household (Art. 14).
Heads of households living in Wijk, though not born there, will be entitled to participate in the annual division of shares on the condition that they will effectively live within Wijk before May 4th of each year and will have notified this to the officials in charge of administering teh shares [schaarmeesters] before April 16th of each year (Art. 15).
Widows or widowers who have acquired the right to participate in tyhe annual division of shares through marriage (i.e. not having been born in Wijk themselves) will remain to be entitled to participate in this division. Remarrying to someone from outside of Wijk will terminate their right to participate (Art. 12).
In case somebody leaves Wijk temporarily during the period for which he will have been granted a share, will be obliged to hand in his share immediately, this share to be divided among the other commoners. In case they return to Wijk and want their right to a share to be reinstated, they will have to request this explicitly from the officials in charge of administering teh shares [schaarfmeesters] before April 16th of the year concerned, on the additional condition they will effectively have returned before May 4th of that year. Failing to do so will result in losing their right to a share (Art. 11).
In case there will be ten persons or more who are euqally entitled to a share, but not enough shares for all of them, the available shares will be assigned by lot (Art.18).

The full text (in Dutch) of the regulation of 1852 can be found here.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Although there are no explicit articles regarding banning members, art. 17 of the regulation of 1852 implicitly refers to the possibility of revoking the rights of members, by stating that every native inhabitant of Wijk will have perpetual rights and claims on the division of shares, just as long as he follows the regulation completely.

Advantages of membership?

Although the composition of the group of fifteenth-century users of the Wijkerzand differs significantly from the group of users since 1816, the benefits for both groups are very much alike. In fact, there are two main ways both goups benefitted (and still benefit!) from the Wijkerzand:

the right of grazing animals on the Wijkerzand;
the revenues of letting out the right to graze animals on the Wijkerzand.

The fifteenth-century owners however enjoyed additional benefits, resulting from the conditions set at the property transfer to the landlord (the duke of Burgundy) in 1459. These benefits are also known as ‘the three benefits of Wijk’ (Hoppenbrouwers 1993):

The exemption from paying toll on transports of products from Wijk at all toll locations in Holland and Zeeland;
The perpetual exemption of tax for the inhabitants of Wijk (see remark underneath);
The promise by the landlord never to use the Wijkerzand as arable land, nor to graze more than 180 shares of animals on the Wijkerzand; in addition, the shares related to the Wijkerzand were to be sold first and foremost to the inhabitants of Wijk at a fixed (relatively) low prize; only after the 15th of April of each year, the remaining shares could be sold to other candidates.

The perpetual exemption from taxes (the second benefit) sounds more lucrative than it really was: it appeared that letting out and leasing land offered the landlord far more and more structural income than incidental taxes would ever do (Hoppenbrouwer 1993, 55-8).

Obligations of members?

The regulation of 1852 contains rules about:

The kind of animals that should be kept (Art. 16; 19), how they should be kept as well as the maximum number of horses that are allowed to be kept (Art. 8). Remarkably, neither in the Regulation of 1852, nor in previous documents the exact size of a share has been mentioned. Probably this size was known by heart by those living in Wijk (see also Hoppenbrouwer 1993, 44).
Prohibitions preventing outsiders to benefit from the use of the Wijkerzand (Art. 9; 10).
Obligation to comply with the orders of the administrators of the shares [schaarmeesters] (Art. 6; 7).

Literature on case study

Hoppenbrouwers, P.C.M., 1993. Een meent en haar mythen; De vroegste geschiedenis van het Wijkerzand (15de-16de eeuw). In: Stichting Historische Reeks Land van Heusden en Altena (ed.), Historische Reeks Land van Heusden en Altena, Vol. 3., Liber Amicorum C.G. Boender, Burgemeester van Aalburg 1978-1993 (Heusden: Stichting Historische Reeks Land van Heusden en Altena), pp. 41-63.
Hoppenbrouwers, P.C.M., 2002. The use and management of commons in The Netherlands. An overview. In: M. De Moor, P. Sharpe, and L. Shaw-Taylor (eds.), The management of common land in north west Europe, c. 1500 – 1850 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 87-112 (esp. 108-10).f
Hoppenbrouwers, P.C.M., 2007. ‘Meer mythen rond twee meenten. De latere geschiedenis van het Wijkerzand te Wijk en de Ebbe te Aalburg (18e-20e eeuw)’. In: Stichting Historische Reeks Land van Heusden en Altena (ed.), Historische Reeks Land van Heusden en Altena, Vol. 16 (Heusden: Stichting Historische Reeks Land van Heusden en Altena), pp. 99-134.
Website Vrienden van het Wijkerzand, http://www.wijkerzand.nl [updated Nov. 2011, accessed 27-01-2012]

Sources on case study

National Archives, The Hague:
- Archief van de Graven van Holland
  - inv.nr. 226, fo. 323v
  - inv.nr. 228, fo. 53v; 227v
  - inv.nr. 238, fo. 151v-152; 183v-184;
- Archief van de Rekenkamer van Holland
  - Registers, no. 3, fo. 20v; no. 6, fo. 46-57; no. 152, fo. 98v-100; no. 153, fo. 227v; no 155, fo. 49v-51; no. 156, fo. 43v-45; no. 156, fo. 287v-290
  - Rekeningen, no. 163, fo. 4v; no. 490, fo. 64; no. 575, fo. 39; no. 575, fo. 50 v; no. 575, fo. 576; no. 2708; no. 2732, fo. 17; no. 4848
- Archief van het Hof van Holland
  - Memorialen, no. 1, fo. 141-142; no. 1, 198v; no. 2, fo. 13; no.20, fo. 53-54; no. 20, 120-126; no. 20, fo. 127
  - Sententiën en Appoinctementen, no. 464, fo. 228v-229; no. 465, fo. 147-149; no. 483, nrs. 131-135

N.B. The sources mentioned are the ones mentioned in the article of Hoppenbrouwers (1993).

Links to further information on case study:

Website Vrienden van het Wijkerzand [in Dutch], http://www.wijkerzand.nl.

Case study composed by René van Weeren, mainly based upon the article of Hoppenbrouwers (1993).

Gemene en Loweiden (West-Vlaanderen, Belgium), (bef.?) 14th century - present

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common (Gemene gronden)
Name/description institution: Gemene en Loweiden
Country: Belgium
Region: Flanders, Province of West-Vlaanderen
Name of city or specified area: Assebroek and Oedelem
Further specification location: Pieces of common land, located between the villages of Assebroek and Oedelem, east of Bruges. According to the oldest body of regulations still preserved, the common land (gemene weide) of Assebroek was situated ‘near Bruges within the parish of Assebroek, adjacent to [the land of] Fernane Couteberch at one side, at the other side bordered by the Brugse Leie, running between the church of Assebroek and the Cloister of Saint Trudo, all belonging to the seigniory of Sijsele’ (transcription in De Moor and Debbaut 2002, 11).
Surface area and boundaries: Approximately 80 hectares. It consisted out of a collection of meadows and hayfields. For boundaries: see further specification location above.
Recognized by local government?
Yes. Although the land was formally owned by the Lord of Sijsele, having the ‘final ownership’ (altum dominium), an assembly of men was elected to take care of the every-day management (hoofdmannen), and was entitled to take care of most of the executive tasks, with the obligation of reporting regularly to the local government. In case of any legal disputes, these cases were brought before the local bailiff. Until the end of the eighteenth century, the person who was in charge of receiving the fines and taxes of the Gemene Weide, also had to present a triannual account to the Lord of Sijsele.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: (before?) 14th century
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: First mentioning of the Gemene en Loweiden in official deeds. The origin of the institution lies, as it was said, in ‘immemorable times’ (‘immemoriale tijden‘). The oldest regulations regarding the Gemene and Loweiden still preserved date back from June 23, 1514: ‘Costumen ende Ordonnantien vande Ghemeene weede van Assebrouck‘.
Foundation act present: No, see above.
Year of termination of institution: Still existing today.

Concise history of institution

The Gemene Weide of Assebroek is already mentioned in charters dating from the fourteenth century. It is assumed however that the institution existed even long before the first mentioning in charters; tradition has it that the history of this common dates back to ‘immemorable times’ (‘immemoriale tijden‘). This assumption is supported by the fact that the oldest registration of the rights, privileges and ordinances of the common, dating from June 23, 1514, states that this registration contained ‘the old customs, ordinances, statutes, liberties, preeminences and rights of the common land of Assebrouck… as well as the old letters of privilege and confirmation, issued by the formidable Count of Flanders, already having been read out loud and declared at the meeting of the members of the common’ (‘oude costumen, ordonnantien, statuijten, vrijhede, preheminentien ende rechten vande vrijheden van(de) ghemeene weide van assenbrouck… alzoo d’oude letteren van privilegeien ende confirmatien ons gheduchts heeren den Grave van Vlaenderen daerof breeder verclaers twelcke al ghelesen ende verclaerst waeren ter vergaderijn(ge) vanden Amborteghe [another term for the members, equivalent to the term aanborger]’) (transcription in De Moor and Debbaut 2002, 11).

The right of use for this common was exclusively for the members (aanborgers), although some exceptions have been found in eighteenth-century accounts. The status of aanborger could only be obtained by birth: only the children of existing aanborgers could obtain this status. By maarying to a descendant of an entitled family, husbands of aanborgers enjoyed the right of use during the period of marriage, because of the status of their spouse, but once the wife died, the widower immediately lost his rights of use on the common. The management of the common was and is carried out by management officials (hoofdmannen), elected triannually by the general assembly of the commoners.

The most important change during the first half of the nineteenth century was introduced by the commoners themselves in the 1840s, as they replaced the system of paying a fee for each horse or cow grazed (‘schatgeld‘) by a system of land lease. The common hence became de facto privatized, but remained de jure still a common, owned and governed by the commoners.

In the long run, however, things did change for many other commons. Since the commoners had little or no say anymore on the sale of land (due to the transfer of property rights to the municipal governments, as demanded through the Reclamation Law of 1847), a great deal of the common land was eventually sold by the local governments, in many cases subsequently followed by the final and total privatization of the former commons. Although the local governments also attempted to take over the control of the Gemeene and Loweiden of Assebroek and Oedelem, in this case the government did not succeed. Thanks to the resistance of the commoners, supported by the local canon J.O. Andries, after a lengthy trial, the management powers, that were administered by a sequestrator during the litigations (1868-82), were returned to the managing officials (hoofdmannen) of the common in 1882.

Nowadays, the institution of the Gemene en Loweiden of Assebroek and Oedelem still exists: new aanborgers are still entered into the Hoofdboeken, current aanborgers still enjoy the use rights and receive part of the revenues of the common, and every third year new hoofdmannen are being elected at the general assembly of all aanborgers. The cultural importance of the common as such has diminished, the common itself however is still cherished as an important cultural heritage.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

14th century: First mentioning of the Gemene weide of Assebroek in charters.
June 23, 1514: Reconfirmation of rights, privileges and ordinances of common (oldest source preserved).
1840: Aanborgers themselves moved from the system of ‘schatgeld‘ (paying a fee per cow or horse grazed) to a system of land lease. De facto privatized, de jure still a common.
1868 – 1882: Legal disputes between national and local governments at one hand, the members of the common (aanborgers) at the other, resulting in a temporary devolution of the management powers to a sequestrator.
1882: Legal dispute settled in favor of aanborgers, management powers were returned to management officials (hoofdmannen) of the common.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The number of members has been registered systematically from 1622 on, see table beneath. The oldest Hoofdboek also states the number of members for 1515 (37) and 1525 (250). Due to the fact that these numbers actually have been written down in 1622 (as a transcription of the older sources), it remains however uncertain whether these figures either actually concern all the members of the common in the respective years and/or refer to the number of members newly entered in the Hoofdboek.

Period	Total # of registrations	Average # of registrations for the years in which registrations were recorded
1625-1699	753	14.49
1700-1749	112	4.15
1750-1799	271	5.99
1800-1849	278	5.56
1850-1899	486	17.35
1900-1965	1519	47.47

Source: De Moor and Debbaut 2002, 12.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

The status of aanborger could (and can) only be obtained by birth: only the descendants of a registered aanborger could become aanborgers themselves. In case the descendance of a supposed aanborger was doubted, the aanborger had to show proof of his descendance by the testimony (within 40 days) of at least 3 registered aanborgers, who could state under oath to the hoofdman that the aanborger concerned actually was the descendant of a registered aanborger. Although some women were recorded as being an aanborger (in most cases this concerned widows, in a few cases however it also referred to younger women), due to the legal status of women at that time (not being entitled to perform legal acts), the aanborgerschap was mainly meant for the male descendants.

A temporary status as aanborger could be obtained by marriage. The partner who had no rights of aanborgerschap based on descendance, nonetheless enjoyed the privileges of the aanborgerschap for as long as the wife lived, if she was a descendant of an aanborger herself. Once the wife died, the widower immediately lost his or her privileges of aanborger. In some cases, the remaining widower however was entitled to use the common for a certain period. The children born out of a marriage between a descendant of an aanborger and a non-descendant could claim membership, form birth onwards.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Next to the condition of descendance (see above), the aanborgers had to pay a small registration fee to the keeper of the Hoofdboeken (first kept by the priest of Assebroek, later on by the hoofdmannen).

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Since the status of aanborger was based on descendance, banning members was hardly the case. In case the behavior of managing officials harmed the interests of the common and the commoners, the managing official (hoofdman) could be excluded from the common (e.g. De Moor and Debbaut 2002, 14).

Advantages of membership?

Every member of the common had the right to use the resources of the common and also received a part of the revenues of the common.

Obligations of members?

All members had to comply to the ordinances, drawn up at the general assembly of the commoners. This regulations concerned the use of resources, the time of year cattle could be grazed, et cetera.

Literature on case study

Andries, J.O. 1879. ‘Recueil de documents tendant à resoudre la questioon de propriété des gemeene et looweiden situées à Assebrouck et Oedelem les Bruges’, in: Annales de la Société d’Emulation des Bruges 5-10, pp. 141-86.
Andries, J.O. 1881-2. ‘Procès et jugement du tribunal civil de Bruges concernant les Gemeene- en Looweiden, situées à Assebroeck et à Oedelem les Bruges’, in: Annales de la Société d’Emulation des Bruges 4-9, pp. 317-57.
Andries, J.O. 1878. Lettres des confirmation, par le comte de Flandre en 1475, des coutumes et privilèges en faveur des usagers des terres communales, situées à Assebrouck-les-Bruges, et environs. Bruges : De Zuttere.
Andries, J.O. and Rotsaert, R. 1987. ‘Verzameling van documenten in verband met het eigendomsrecht van de Gemene en Loweiden’. Arsbroek (4), pp. 34-69.
Bruyneel, G. 1994. ‘Dispuut om een gevelde lindeboom bij de herberg De Lelie’. Arsbroek 11, pp. 55-63.
Bruyneel, G. 1996. ‘Het ontstaan van herberg De Lelie’. Arsbroek 13, pp. 93-100.
Cafmeyer, M. 1952. ‘De Gemene Weiden op het ‘Sijseelsche”. Biekorf, pp. 27-33.
Cafmeyer, M. 1980. ‘De Gemene Weidestraat op het Sijseelse vanaf de vroege Middeleeuwen’, in: Annales de la Société d’Emulation des Bruges CXVII, pp. 77-103.
D’Hondt, J. 1995. ‘Felix Dujardin, een negentiende eeuwse Brugse bankier en zijn onroerend bezit in Assebroek’. Arsbroek 12, pp. 89-98.
D’Hondt, W. 1987. ‘De Gemeene Weede. De aanborghers te Assebroek van 1515 tot 1730’. Arsbroek 4, pp. 78-87.
De Clerck, G. 1992. ‘Het aamborgerschap van de Gemene weide’. Arsbroek 9, pp. 42-4.
De Clerck, G. 1990. ‘Fragment uit de geschiedenis van de Gemene Weide – Assebroek’. Arsbroek 7, pp. 66-7.
De Moor, M. and Debbaut, R. 2002. Aanborgers van de Gemene en Loweiden in Assebroek & Oedelem (1515 – 1965). Brugge : Uitgeverij Van de Wiele.
De Moor, T. 2010. ‘Participating is more important than winning: the impact of socio-economic change on commoners’ particpation in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Flanders’. Continuity and Change 25 (3), pp. 405-33.
De Moor, T. 2009. ‘Avoiding tragedies: a Flemish common and its commoners under the pressure of social and economic change during the eighteenth century’. Economic History Review 62 (1), pp. 1-22.
Debbaut, R. 1994. ‘Carel Huys en de pacht van de Mattemeers’. Arsbroek 11, pp. 49-54.
Degrande, V. 1987. ‘Laatste episode in het proces van de gemene en Loweiden: oorzaak van spanningen tussen Oedelem en Assebroek (1888)’. Arsbroek 4, pp. 69-77.
Dombrecht, A. 1987. ‘De Gemene en loweiden, een geschiedkundige schets’. Arsbroek 4, pp. 56-68.
Geldhof, P. 1981. De ghemeene en de loode Weede, Assebroek, Oedelem, Sint Andries Brugge.
Geldhof, P. 1981. ‘Landschapsbeeld en landschappelijke waarde van de Gemene Weide’. Brugs Ommeland 21, pp. 227-34.
Rolly, A. 1981. ‘Het “handtbouck” of hoofdboek van de aanborgers’. Brugs Ommeland 21, pp. 219-22.
Rolly, A. 1981. ‘Grasduinend in de rekeningen van de Gemene en Loweiden’. Brugs Ommeland 21, pp. 223-6.
Rolly, A. 1982. ‘De gemeene ende loode weede Assebroek-Oedelem’. Volkskundig Jaarboek ‘t Beertje 4, pp. 251-3.
Stalpaert, H. 1981. ‘De Gemene en Loweiden te Assebroek-Oedelem’. Brugs Ommeland 21, pp. 206-14.

More general information on Belgian commons is to be found in:

Behets, J. 1975. ‘Het gebruik van de gemene weiden en de andere gemene gronden in de wijsdommen van het graafschap Loon’. Bulletin de la commission royale pour la publication des anciennes lois de Belgique XXVI, pp. 147-92.
Errera, P. 1891. Les masuïrs, rechreches historiques et juridiques sur quelques vestiges des formes anciennes de la propriété en Belgique. Brussels.
Godding, P. 1987. Le droit privé dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux du 12e au 18e siècle. Brussels.
Lindemans, P. 1994. Geschiedenis van de landbouw in België. Antwerpen-Borgerhout.
Recht, P. 1950. Les biens communaux du namurois et leur partage sur la fin du XVIIIe siècle. Contribution sur l’étude de l’histoire agraire et du droit rural de la Belgique accompagnée d’une description des classes rurales à la fin de l’Ancien Régime. Brussels.

Sources on case study

Municipal archive at Bruges (Stadsarchief Brugge)
- Gemene en Loweiden Archief
  - Costumen ende Ordonnantien van de Ghemeene weede van Assebrouck, June 23, 1514
  - Hoofdboek, 1718-67 (in copy)
  - Hoofdboek, 1767-1889
  - Hoofdboek, 1890-196
State archive at Bruges (Rijksarchief Brugge),
- Archief heerlijkheid Sijsele
  - Reg.nr. 225: Costumen ende Ordonnantien van de Ghemeene weede van Assebrouck, June 23, 1514 (copy of the record kept at the municipal archive of Bruges).
- Fonds aanwinsten:
  - inv.nr. 720 (oud nr. 1984): Hoofdboek, 1515-25; 1622-1703.

A full transcription of the hoofdboeken is to be found in: M. De Moor and R. Debbaut, Aanborgers van de Gemene en Loweiden in Assebroek & Oedelem, 1515-1965 (Assebroek, 2002, pp. 24-148)

Case study composed by Tine De Moor

Heirnismeersen (Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium), 1199 - c. 1930

Typification

Type of institution for collective action: Common (Gemene gronden)
Name/description institution: Heirnismeersen
Country: Belgium
Region: Flanders, Province of Oost-Vlaanderen
Name of city or specified area: Ghent
Further specification location: The Heirnis was an area of marshland located just east of the city of Ghent. The most western border was formed by the path currently known as Achtervisserij (Ghent), while the eastern border was formed by the boundary between Sint-Amandsberg and Destelbergen. To the north, the area stretched until the elevated areas with sandy soil in the area of the current Wolterslaan and Nekkervijverstraat; the Wolterslaan is built on a vaulted part of a trench that formed the northern border of the marshland. The hill that was to be found in this area of sandy soil was known as Klink; from the sixteenth until the eighteenth centuries, it was also known as Heernesberg. To the northwest, the Heirnis stretched until the Oude Vest of the Sint-Baafsdorp; to the south, the Heirnis was bordered by the river Scheldt. The so-called Voorweede or Voordreve (a trapezium-shaped plot of land, surrounded by a trench and located near the current Toekomststraat), as well as the so-called Heirnisgat were also regarded to be part of the Heirnis. From an act of 1575, it seems that there was also another plot of land called Voorwede; this second plot of land stretched until the river Scheldt and was connected to the other Voorwede by a small strip of land.
Surface area and boundaries: In 1575, a land surveyor by the name of Buck, who was appointed by the city council of Ghent, recorded a total surface area of 22 bunders and 878 roeden (ab. 30.72 hectares) for the Heirnis of Sint-Baafsdorp, including both Voorweden. Berten (1904; cited by Lindemans 1952, 336) estimated the Heirnis to have been about 360 roeden long (approx. 1,388 meters) and 40 to 60 roeden wide (approx. 154.2 to 231.25 meters). The surface area varied throughout time due to land transactions and (both intentional and non-intentional) floodings. The largest change in surface was caused by the construction of the Coupure (better known as Rommelwater or Visserijkanaal) in 1752, which consumed a large part of the area called Binnen-Heirnis (see also underneath).The Heirnis generally was regarded as consisting of two separate parts, although the way in which it was divided varied from time to time. First, there was the division into two parts by the respective names of Grote Heirnis (translated ‘Large Heirnis’) and Kleine Heirnis (‘Small Heirnis’) The latter name was used for the small strip of land of the Heirnis bordering the river Scheldt; the name of Groot-Herinis was used for the rest of the area of the Heirnis. A second, less frequently used division was the division into two parts called the Binnen- and Buiten-Heirnis (translated as respectively ‘Inner-Heirnis’ and ‘Outer-Heirnis’). This division referred to the result of the construction of a city wall between the southern moat of the Spanish Castle (located near the current Ossenstraat) and the banks of the river Scheldt near the current Kreeftstraat. The part of the Heirnis located inside this city wall (west of this wall) was called Binnen-Heirnis, the part east if this wall was named Buiten-Heirnis. However, after the construction of the Visserijkanaal in 1752, Grote Heirnis was from then on named Kleine Heirnis and vice versa.
Recognized by local government: Yes. The act from 1519 explicitly confirms the exemption from land tax, granted to the owners of land on the Heirnis, as compensation for the right of pasture they on their turn had granted to the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp. In 1769, the tax exemption was unsuccesfully contested by the Raad van Vlaanderen (‘Council of Flanders’).

The area of the Heirnis belonged to the jurisdiction of the seigniory of the abbey of Saint-Bavo. The general assembly of the commoners had an important say in the daily management of the Heirnis, official decisions however had to be confirmed by the Seigniory of Saint-Bavo.

Foundation – termination

Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Probably 1199.
Confirmed year of founding or first mention: According to Berten (1904), the first mentioning of the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp as a group was in a charter from 1199, recording the pasture rights obtained by those inhabitants from the abbot of the abbey of Saint-Bavo and the owners of plots of lands on the Heirnis.
Foundation act present: Unknown. Berten (1904) mentions the alleged existence of a charter from 1199, stating the original pasture rights of the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp; whether this charter still exists, is unknown. Several documents confirm the existence of ancient pasture rights (see underneath). In the legal procedures of 1769 (see underneath), the landowners of the Heirnis also referred to the charter of 1199. The earliest recording explicitly confirming the status of the Heirnis as pasture land now available to us is a charter dating from January 14, 1519.
Description of Act of foundation: See also above. A charter from 1352 arranges the servitude in favour of the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp, determining the days to which the right of pasture applied. The result of arbitration was recorded in a charter from August 1408, which specified which animals were allowed to graze on the Heirnis. The act from 1519 does not specify the rights of users and owners in detail; it only confirms the tax exemption, which was granted to the landowners as a compensation for the pasture right they had granted to the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp.
Year of termination of institution: c. 1930
Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Estimated.
Act regarding termination present: No.
Reason for termination: Combination of land transactions and urbanization.

Concise history of institution

The history of the grazing rights on the Heirnis date back until at least 1199. Although the charter of 1199 has not been preserved, an ordinance of 1352 confirms the grazing rights on the Heirnis were obtained by the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp in 1199. These inhabitants were used to graze their animals on uncultivated plots of land surrounding their village. During the twelfth century, land consolidation and the construction of the abbey farm of Nieuwhof nearby increasingly diminished the area available for the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp for grazing their animals. In 1199, the new owners of the parts of the Heirnis brought into cultivation granted the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp alternating grazing rights on the Heirnis. This alternating system meant that the landowners would leave one part of their land to be grazed bij the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp, while they used the other part of their land for growing crops and grain; after some years, the agricultural part would be used for grazing and the grazing part would be used for growing crops. To compensate the new owners for their limited use of their land, they on their turn were exempted from land tax. This kind of arrangement is quite unique for this area and period. Although this arrangement was contested several times throughout the ages, the arrangement would remain effective until at least 1769, when the government (unsuccessfully) tried to annulled this arrangement.

From 1533 on, distinction regarding the grazing rights on the Heirnis was made between on the one hand the inborn inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp and, on the other hand, the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp who were not born in the village. An arbitral decision of that year stated that the inborn inhabitants would be granted preferential grazing rights for six consecutive years, thereafter the inhabitants not born in Sint-Baafsdorp would have preferential use rights for three consecutive years. Those who had married an inborn inhabitant of Sint-Baafsdorp were to be regarded as if they were inborn inhabitants, In 1575, the specific agreements between owners and users were officially recorded, specifying that the inhabitants’ grazing rights would alternate between the Grote and the Kleine Heirnis every two years.

The fortification works of the city of Ghent of 1577-78 severely affected the options for the users of the Heirnis to graze their animals: some grazing areas were used to build the fortifications on, while other grazing areas became hardly accessible, due to the demolition of bridges. The ordinances dating from that period indicate that a substantial part of the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp had to leave the village. The troubles caused by the fortifications for the users of the Heirnis lasted until at least 1592, when the users living in the Visserij asked the heirnismeesters to be granted grazing rights on the Binnenheirnis, since their grazing areas on the Buitenheirnis had become inaccessible; their request was granted, on the condition they would pay an annual contribution of 20 groten to the heirnismeesters. Only three years later, the same heirnismeesters decided to let out parts of the Binnenheirnis, causing protest from the inhabitants of the Visserij; this was solved by allowing the inhabitants of the Visserij to compete in the bid for the grazing rights and stating that their bids could be 4 groten lower than other candidates.

The return of some of the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp that moved due to the fortifications of 1577-78 may have been the actual reason for drwaing up the ordinance of March 31, 1592, regulating the access rights on the Heirnis. This ordinance states that preferential use rights were granted to those ‘free inhabitants’ (‘vrije insetenen‘) who at that moment had stayed in or returned to Sint-Baafsdorp. If their use rights would expire, these would then subsequently be granted to those who either had stayed in Sint-Baafsdorp during the demolitions of 1577-78 or who where connected to the area through kinship, descendance, or property. Later on, use rights would be limited to those owning a house or property in Sint-Baafsdorp and those who had obtained their use rights through blood relationship or marriage; they were called ‘Bavenaars vrij van bloede ofte goede‘ (transl.: ‘Villagers of Sint-Baafsdorp, free by blood or by property’).

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the first detailed regulations appear, containing rules about how to use and manage the Heirnis. The ordinance of 1702 (almost integrally repeated in 1705 and 1707) for instance states that:

those who want to execute their grazing rights for the forthcoming year, should file a request to the heirnismeesters between specified dates;
the heirnismeesters are in charge of indicating the locations the animals may be grazed;
people living within in the same household could not accumulate their indivdual grazing rights, but would be limited to the use rights granted to the hosuehold;
no authorized user should either let out his rights to non-entitled users or use the products of his cattle for any other purpose than the subsistence of his own household;
grazing animals at night is prohibited;
no one should argue with the heirnismeesters, offences to be fined at 2 schellingen and the forfeit of the grazing rights for the next two years.

In 1752, the Estates of Flanders (Staten van Vlaanderen) ordered the construction of the Visserijkanaal to improve the accessibility of the city of Ghent by water. The consequences of the construction of the Visserijkanaal for the amounts of land available for grazing on the Heirnis were huge, even resulting in a switch of names between both parts of the area: from then on, the Grote Heirnis (Large Heirnis) would be referred to asf the Kleine Heirnis (Small Heirnis) and vice versa.

In 1769, the Council of Flanders (Raad van Vlaanderen) unsuccesfully tried to annull the tax exemption of the landowners of the Heirnis. The heirnismeesters however succeeded to fight this attempt by referring to the charter of 1199, the tax exemption granted, and the consecutive affirmations of the agreement between the users and the owners of the Heirnis regarding the grazing of animals.

The French occupation of the Southern Netherlands in 1795 lead to the incorporation of the Heirnis by the city of Ghent. What actual effects this incorporation had on the functioning and the management of the Heirnis still has to be researched, although it is certain the function of heirnismeester survived at least until 1868, when they were in charge of selling parts of the Heirnis to new owners. Maps of the area dating from the 1860s show an increasing urbanisation on the Heirnis; whether the grazing rights still existed and / or were used at this time, is unclear and has to be investigated. From the 1870s on – and especially after the construction of the railroad in 1871 – the area of the Heirnis would become increasingly urbanized.

The overall management of the Heirnis was in the hands of four elected heirnismeesters. This function was first mentioned in an ordinance of 1484, but may have existed well before that year. One of the heirnismeesters should be elected from the burghers, another one should be elected from the traders, whereas the other two should be lected from the community of weavers (who formed the largest part of the population). Up until 1589, this prescrined division was annulled and reinstated several times. The ordinance of April 4, 1589, finally states that this division (reinstated in 1586) should not be maintained any longer. From then on, the community annually had to appoint four electors, who were ordered to compose a list of eight eligible men. The aldermen of Sint-Baafsdorp subsequently selected four out of these eight to become the next heirnismeesters.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

1199: Alleged year of instating the arrangement between the users and the owners of the plots of land on the Heirnis
1336: The part called De Keukenbucht no longer participates in the agreement on granting grazing rights; De Keukenbucht was the only part of the Heirnis that did not belong to the jurisdiction of the abbey of Saint-Bavo
1352: Issue of ordinance arranging the servitute of the Heirnis and stating the dates to which the grazing rights of the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp apply
1519: Re-confirmation of the exemption from land tax for the owners of land on the Heirnis who will grant the alternating right of pasture to the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp
1533: Distinction made between the grazing rights for inborn inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp and those not born in this village
1577-1578: Building of new fortifications by the city of Ghent severely affect the grazing areas of the Heirnis
1577-1580: A substantial number of inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp has to leave the village because of the new fortifiacations, effectively resulting in relocating the entire village; the southwestern part of the old village would be known as the Visserij from then on
1592: Specification of hierarchy in the granting of use rights; the use rights would be limited further later on
1592: The Buitenheernis had become almost inaccessible to the inhabitants of the Visserij, causing them to file a request for grazing rights on the Binnenheernis; this request was granted for an annual contrbution of 20 groten to the heirnismeesters
1595: The grazing rights for parts of the Binnenheernis were let out; the inhabitants of the Visserij who only three years earlier had obtained their grazing rights on the Binnenheernis were allowed to compete in the bid at a reduced rate
1702: First detailed regulation on the way the Heirnis may and may not be used; those wanting to execute their grazing rights have to file an application within a specified period to the heirnismeesters. Regulation is repeated with minor adjustments in 1705 and 1707.
1752: construction of the Visserijkanaal; name switch between Grote en Kleine Heernis as a result of the effect the construction had on the amount of land that remained available for grazing
1769: Unsuccessfull attempt by the Council of Flanders to annull the tax exemption of the owners of land on the Heirnis
1795: Area of the Heirnis incorporated by the city of Ghent
mid-19th century: Increasing urbanization of the area of the Heirnis
1868: Sale of parts of the Heirnis area by the heirnismeesters to private owners
1871: Construction of railroad
1870s-1930s: Ever increasing urbanization of the area
May 20, 1972: The area of Sint-Amandsberg is no longer part of the municipality of Oostakker, but becomes a part of the city of Ghent; subsequently, the area of the Heirnis also becomes property of the municipality of Ghent

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Due to the formal registration of landownership, we have ample data on the number of landowners. Most of the plots of land were owned by the abbey of Saint-Bavo (Sint-Baafsabdij) or by institutions directly related to this abbey. At this stage of the research, we have as yet far less data on the number of users. Only an undated inventory of entitled users (presumably dating from the late seventeenth century) mentiones exact figures: 75 households of Sint-Baafsdorp (counting a total of 247 inhabitants, children included) were entitled to garze their animals on the Heirnis. We do know however the maximum amount of animals that could be grazed. According to Berten (1904, 123 and 125), the area of the Heirnis covered 142.5 so-called ‘coe-gersen’ (lit. ‘cow grasses’, i.e. the surface area required per year to feed one cow in an agricultural good year). With the 17 coe-gersen of the so-called ‘voorweiden’ (lit.: ‘pre-meadows’), the total amount of cows that could be grazed on the Heirnis was 159.5, of which 1 or 2 coe-gersen were reserved for the cowherd. The construction of the fortifications in 1577-78 resulted in the loss of about 17 coe-gersen, bringing the maximum amount of cows to be grazed on the Heirnis to 142.5 (including the ‘voorweiden’).

The letting out of some parts of the Binnenheirnis in 1592 (see above) and a summary of the main rules by the heirnismeesters in 1637 (confirming the right of the heirnismeesters to let out unused pieces of lands to the highest bidder, in order to decrease the general expenses) are indications that not all entitled users actually did use their grazing rights and the number of cows actually grazed may have been well under the maximum allowed to be grazed. The fact that the letting out of land has not been mentioned in archival sources from the beginning of the eighteenth century on, seems to indicate that the entitled users from then on used the heirnis to (almost) full capacity, although this has not yet been confirmed by actual data.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

The use of the Heirnis for grazing was reserved to the individual landowners, the abbey of Sint-Baafsdorp (which abbey owned the major part of the Heirnis), and the inhabitants of both Sint-Baafsdorp and the Visserij. Whereas the right of pasture of the Visserij never was contested nor was restricted in any way, the right of pasture to the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp was restricted (see underneath).

From 1533 on, a distinction was made regarding the grazing rights of inborn inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp and of those who had moved to Sint-Baafsdorp from elsewhere. The inborn inhabitants were granted six consecutive years of grazing rights, whereas the ‘incoming’ inhabitants were granted three consecutive years of grazing rights, these three years following those of the inborn inhabitants. Those who married an inborn inhabitant would be granted the same use rights as any other inborn inhabitant.

Probably due to the return of former inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp (who moved outside of the village due to the demolitions caused by the fortifications constructed in 1577-78), in 1592 a form of hierarchy was introduced for the granting of use rights. Preferential grazing rights were granted to the inhabitants who resided in Sint-Baafsdorp at that moment; if the rights of some of these users would expire, these rights would subsequently be granted to those users, closely connect to the area.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

For the inhabitants of the area called Visserij, no further specific conditions were mentioned for exercizing their use rights on the Heirnis. For the inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp, several ordinances mention the condition that one should be a ‘free inhabitant’ of Sint-Baafsdorp (‘vrije insetene’ or ‘vrije Bavenaer’) in order to obtain any use rights. The exact specifications which would classify an inhabitant as being a free inhabitant have as yet not been retrieved within the archival sources.

The ordinance of 1592 stressed the importance of the connection of the individual user to the village; they should be connected to the area through kinship, marriage, or property (‘Bavenaer van vrije bloede ofte goede’). Later on, the use rights would even be further limited to those actually owning a house or land in Sint-Baafsdorp and to those who were blood-related or married to one of the inborn inhabitants.

The ordinance of May 9, 1767, states that unmarried persons would not be entitled to any grazing rights; it is, however, unclear, whether this would also apply to mature singles and / or widow(er)s.

Initially, to be eligible as heirnismeester (this function was first mentioned in an ordinance of July 12, 1484, but may have existed weel before that time), one had to be an inborn and free inhabitant of Sint-Baafsdorp. The ordinance of April 19, 1548, however states that those who were not inborn inhabitants of Sint-Baafsdorp (but had purchased their possessions on the Heirnis) would be eligible as heirnismeester in case they either had lived for six consecutive years in Sint-Baafsdorp or were married to an inborn inhabitant of Sint-Baafsdorp. The same ordinance also states the mandatory acceptance of the election by the elected. In 1707, a new division was introduced: two heirnismeesters should be elected from the inhabitants living inside the walls and the other two should be elected from the inhabitants living outside the walls of Sint-Baafsdorp.

To have the right to vote (to elect the electors), one either had to be a free (inborn) inhabitant of Sint-Baafsdorp, or to have lived there for six consecutive years, or to have married an inborn (female) inhabitant of Sint-Baafsdorp.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Although there is no actual mentioning of banning entitled users, users could however temporarily use their pasture rights. An explicit reference is made in the ordinance of 1702 (repeated in 1705 and 1707), which imposes a fine of 2 schellingen and the forfeit of grazing rights for the next two years for those who would argue with the heirnismeesters.

Advantages of membership?

The users had the advantage of being able to graze their animals. The products from these animals should however be used for their own subsistence only.
Those who had been elected heirnismeester would be granted a certain wage and the use of one coe-gers for the duration of their appointment.

Obligations of members?

All members had to comply to the ordinances, drawn up at the general assembly of the commoners. This regulations concerned the time of year cattle could be grazed, the way in which the grazing locations would be indicated, et cetera.
All users had to pay an annual fee of eight groten per coe-gers. Sometimes users were allowed to replace the monetary fee by a contribution of eight barrels of oat.
The Lord of Herlegem – as landowner – was obliged to provide a good bull for the cows that were grazed on the Kleine Heirnis; the landowners who were leaseholders of the Nieuwhof had to do the same on the Grote Heirnis.
Almost all users were only allowed to graze cows which already had calved and hence would be producing milk.

Literature on case study

Berten, D., 1907. Coutumes de la Seigneurie de Saint Bavon-lez-Gand. Brussels: J. Goemaere.
Anonymus (ed.), 1988. Van wei tot wijk. Honderd jaar Heirnis (1888-1988). Gent; Drukkerij Het Volk.
Poelman, R., 1976. Oostakker in de 19e eeuw. Oostakker: Gemeentebestuur.

For an extensive bibliography, please consult the original case study [in Dutch], click here (PDF).

Sources on case study

For an extensive description of available sources and literature, please consult the original case study [in Dutch].

This case study is integrally based on a more extensive case study, composed bij Indra Van Sande. This shorter version has been composed and translated by René van Weeren, Utrecht University.