Page 248 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 248
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
probably, incomplete recording practices and records in our sample. One
might even consider the possibility that such a figure confirms a relevant
persistence of oral practices in the purchasing and selling of land and hous-
es among the Karst peasants.
3.1 Dimension and value of land and of purchase & sale
transactions
Some of the mentioned 186 transaction records do not bring complete data
about the plots, not mentioning their dimension or value. Complete records
regard 167 purchases and sales of arable and grassland plots, and these are
the ones we’re going to analyse more closely. A very clear feature that emer-
ges is the small amount of land purchased and sold in most of the transacti-
ons, the average one comprising a little over 0.1 hectares of arable land and
something less than 0.4 hectares of grassland. The average dimension of the
single sold and purchased plots was even tinier (that is why we expressed
it in square meters, too: see Table 10.1). Small transactions and small plots
then: in order to correctly understand this feature of the peasant’s land-
-market, we must bear in mind that arable surfaces on the Karst were small
in general. A further characteristic of its landscape is that arable land and
meadows were in many cases forming one unit, typically an arable plot in
the middle of a meadow or a small field with some grassland at its sides. But
besides that it is necessary to stress that many transactions regarded only
“pieces” (parts) of field or meadow, and not whole ones, which means we
are confronted with a reality where at the middle of the 18th century subdi-
visions and fragmentation were at an advanced stage.
Such an image is completed and somehow confirmed by the share of re-
claimed common-land plots in individual possession. By reclaiming com-
mons on the Karst, at this time in history (mid-18th century) only scarce ar-
able plots were obtainable, since all the reasonably good land had already
been cultivated for a couple of centuries at least. It is known, by the way,
how Karst peasants used to transport and add earth on artificially formed
plots, enclosed by stone-walls that contained the earth. This is undoubted-
ly one reason why the sold plots of former commons were mostly meadows
and also why the value of reclaimed commons was lower than that of old
arable plots (see Tables 10.2 and 10.3). The coherence with the above men-
tioned fragmentation process may be seen in the quite clear pressure on old
arable land and meadows as well as on common land, testified by the ten-
dency to its reclamation: on the one hand we have (increasingly) small plots
246
probably, incomplete recording practices and records in our sample. One
might even consider the possibility that such a figure confirms a relevant
persistence of oral practices in the purchasing and selling of land and hous-
es among the Karst peasants.
3.1 Dimension and value of land and of purchase & sale
transactions
Some of the mentioned 186 transaction records do not bring complete data
about the plots, not mentioning their dimension or value. Complete records
regard 167 purchases and sales of arable and grassland plots, and these are
the ones we’re going to analyse more closely. A very clear feature that emer-
ges is the small amount of land purchased and sold in most of the transacti-
ons, the average one comprising a little over 0.1 hectares of arable land and
something less than 0.4 hectares of grassland. The average dimension of the
single sold and purchased plots was even tinier (that is why we expressed
it in square meters, too: see Table 10.1). Small transactions and small plots
then: in order to correctly understand this feature of the peasant’s land-
-market, we must bear in mind that arable surfaces on the Karst were small
in general. A further characteristic of its landscape is that arable land and
meadows were in many cases forming one unit, typically an arable plot in
the middle of a meadow or a small field with some grassland at its sides. But
besides that it is necessary to stress that many transactions regarded only
“pieces” (parts) of field or meadow, and not whole ones, which means we
are confronted with a reality where at the middle of the 18th century subdi-
visions and fragmentation were at an advanced stage.
Such an image is completed and somehow confirmed by the share of re-
claimed common-land plots in individual possession. By reclaiming com-
mons on the Karst, at this time in history (mid-18th century) only scarce ar-
able plots were obtainable, since all the reasonably good land had already
been cultivated for a couple of centuries at least. It is known, by the way,
how Karst peasants used to transport and add earth on artificially formed
plots, enclosed by stone-walls that contained the earth. This is undoubted-
ly one reason why the sold plots of former commons were mostly meadows
and also why the value of reclaimed commons was lower than that of old
arable plots (see Tables 10.2 and 10.3). The coherence with the above men-
tioned fragmentation process may be seen in the quite clear pressure on old
arable land and meadows as well as on common land, testified by the ten-
dency to its reclamation: on the one hand we have (increasingly) small plots
246
