Page 11 - Mocarelli, Luca, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2020. Maize to the People! Cultivation, Consumption and Trade in the North-Eastern Mediterranean (Sixteenth-Nineteenth Century). Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 11
maize in the north-eastern mediterranean: new insights and researches
seem to be linked to the prevailing climate and, especially, to the amount
of rainfall (Alfani 2010). On the contrary, territories where rainfall was
scarce, such as most of southern Italy, seem unfavourable for maize diffu-
sion (Venturi 1987, 237-238). Even more important for explaining the great-
er (or lesser) success of maize are land ownership patterns and the types of
agrarian production relations and contracts. This is a really crucial issue
since there is evidence that not all forms of land ownership and types of
contracts favoured the introduction of maize cultivation. Thus, for exam-
ple, in central Italy the predominance of a sharecropping system would ap-
pear to have made the adoption of maize more problematic than in north-
ern Italy (Mocarelli, Vaquero Piñeiro 2018). Moreover, equally relevant in
order to explain the ways in which the diffusion of maize took place seems
to be the cultural dimension, that is to say the attitude of peasants with re-
gard to this new crop (Gentilcore 2017). This will be illustrated with two
different examples. It is well known that the introduction of the potato
in the Italian Peninsula encountered more problems than that of maize
(Gentilcore 2012, 36-63). On the other hand, a relevant role may have been
played by the existing tradition in local agriculture, because the diffusion
of maize seems also linked to the availability or, inversely, lack of other
foodstuffs that could feed peasants easily (Lazarevic in this volume).
A third relevant issue deals with the supposed dichotomy between
self-consumption and market. Usually scholars think of maize as a cere-
al destined above all for self-consumption, even though there is a large
amount of evidence regarding the marketed sale of maize. This is a crucial
point since not many studies deal with how wheat and maize interacted on
the grain markets and in what way their prices might have been correlat-
ed. In particular, it would be of great interest to get a reading on the differ-
ent kinds of consumer behaviour in ‘normal’ years as compared to years
of scarcity. Were there shifts in consumption from wheat to maize and, if
so, in what way did they influence prices (Mocarelli 2015, 58-63)? Another
telltale regarding prices could be comparing the prices of maize with oth-
er cereals, since maize was prevalently a food for the common people; in
this sense it was not so much in direct competition with wheat, but more so
with rye, millet, buckwheat and the like, depending on local circumstances
(comprising ecological factors, production relations and perhaps even the
cooking tradition).
Self-consumption and the market both relate to the final important
topic, that is nutrition and demographic impact. The impact of maize on
9
seem to be linked to the prevailing climate and, especially, to the amount
of rainfall (Alfani 2010). On the contrary, territories where rainfall was
scarce, such as most of southern Italy, seem unfavourable for maize diffu-
sion (Venturi 1987, 237-238). Even more important for explaining the great-
er (or lesser) success of maize are land ownership patterns and the types of
agrarian production relations and contracts. This is a really crucial issue
since there is evidence that not all forms of land ownership and types of
contracts favoured the introduction of maize cultivation. Thus, for exam-
ple, in central Italy the predominance of a sharecropping system would ap-
pear to have made the adoption of maize more problematic than in north-
ern Italy (Mocarelli, Vaquero Piñeiro 2018). Moreover, equally relevant in
order to explain the ways in which the diffusion of maize took place seems
to be the cultural dimension, that is to say the attitude of peasants with re-
gard to this new crop (Gentilcore 2017). This will be illustrated with two
different examples. It is well known that the introduction of the potato
in the Italian Peninsula encountered more problems than that of maize
(Gentilcore 2012, 36-63). On the other hand, a relevant role may have been
played by the existing tradition in local agriculture, because the diffusion
of maize seems also linked to the availability or, inversely, lack of other
foodstuffs that could feed peasants easily (Lazarevic in this volume).
A third relevant issue deals with the supposed dichotomy between
self-consumption and market. Usually scholars think of maize as a cere-
al destined above all for self-consumption, even though there is a large
amount of evidence regarding the marketed sale of maize. This is a crucial
point since not many studies deal with how wheat and maize interacted on
the grain markets and in what way their prices might have been correlat-
ed. In particular, it would be of great interest to get a reading on the differ-
ent kinds of consumer behaviour in ‘normal’ years as compared to years
of scarcity. Were there shifts in consumption from wheat to maize and, if
so, in what way did they influence prices (Mocarelli 2015, 58-63)? Another
telltale regarding prices could be comparing the prices of maize with oth-
er cereals, since maize was prevalently a food for the common people; in
this sense it was not so much in direct competition with wheat, but more so
with rye, millet, buckwheat and the like, depending on local circumstances
(comprising ecological factors, production relations and perhaps even the
cooking tradition).
Self-consumption and the market both relate to the final important
topic, that is nutrition and demographic impact. The impact of maize on
9
