Case Studies - Commons - The Netherlands

The division of the the Rosengaerdermarke (1416)

   

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 (e.g. borough, street etc.)

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).

Foundation/start of institution, date or year

1416

Foundation year: is this year the confirmed year of founding or is this the year this institution is first mentioned?

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.

Description of Act of foundation

-

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.

Recognized by local government?

Yes.

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

See above,

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:

 Click for full text of case study Full text of case study

Case study composed by

Jan van Zanden (1923 - 2011), 2005.