Page 256 - 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. 256
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
77, esp. 76). Turning back to the Karst, overt or covert credits and loans (for
example hidden behind apparent purchase and sale transactions) among
peasants will have to be further investigated, although they are very likely
to be found.
A conclusion that can be proposed based on the presented data is con-
nected to the dimensions of holdings and plots. The prevailing small farm-
steads and the micro-size of their arable land in particular (90% of farms
in our sample had up to 1.1 ha of arable land only), leave virtually no doubt
about their incompatibility with alimentary self-sufficiency.8 This was very
likely not even on the economic horizon of most Karst peasants, since fur-
ther farm and land fragmentation was in progress – although family re-
lations clearly worked in the opposite sense, in what seems to have been a
permanent struggle between dividing and reassembling the assets. Never-
theless we face a holding structure that could only be home to an integrat-
ed peasant economy.
The other side of the question regarding the size of holdings and their
land is represented by the meadows and the reclaimed plots of common
land. The strong prevalence of meadows within the farms clearly disclos-
es the importance of animal breeding.9 Apart from individually owned
grasslands, the commons were huge and still covered most of the agrari-
an surface, despite the reclamations encountered in the transaction regis-
trations. They were used for grazing too, of course. We may conclude that
animal breeding played an important role among the income integration
sources.
The interpretation of the reclamation of commons is uncertain at this
stage of research, especially because we do not have a clear picture of the
economic dynamics in the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries, which is
exactly the period in between the two sources we used. The reading of this
8 It is possible to calculate (based on data from Šorn, 44) that in this period and area
the net wheat harvest (that is diminished for the seeds to be sown in the next year)
of 1 hectare of arable land could feed a five-member-family for about half a year; but
detracted the landlord’s duties, what remained to the peasant family amounted to
less than that. This means that only two in our sample of 25 farmsteads (8%) would
have been able to produce enough grain to feed their households with grain for the
whole year or longer.
9 On the whole, in Karst in 1830, there were (rounded down) 37,000 sheep, 7,000 oxen,
4,500 cows with 500 veal, 3,500 pigs, and 800 horses, mules and donkeys, totalling
approximately 54,000 animals on about 48,000 ha of grazing surfaces (50 % bare pas-
ture, 9.5 % bare meadow, 16 % meadow with trees, 13.8 % pasture with trees, 10.7 %
coppice wood; Panjek 2015b, 94, 98–9).
254
77, esp. 76). Turning back to the Karst, overt or covert credits and loans (for
example hidden behind apparent purchase and sale transactions) among
peasants will have to be further investigated, although they are very likely
to be found.
A conclusion that can be proposed based on the presented data is con-
nected to the dimensions of holdings and plots. The prevailing small farm-
steads and the micro-size of their arable land in particular (90% of farms
in our sample had up to 1.1 ha of arable land only), leave virtually no doubt
about their incompatibility with alimentary self-sufficiency.8 This was very
likely not even on the economic horizon of most Karst peasants, since fur-
ther farm and land fragmentation was in progress – although family re-
lations clearly worked in the opposite sense, in what seems to have been a
permanent struggle between dividing and reassembling the assets. Never-
theless we face a holding structure that could only be home to an integrat-
ed peasant economy.
The other side of the question regarding the size of holdings and their
land is represented by the meadows and the reclaimed plots of common
land. The strong prevalence of meadows within the farms clearly disclos-
es the importance of animal breeding.9 Apart from individually owned
grasslands, the commons were huge and still covered most of the agrari-
an surface, despite the reclamations encountered in the transaction regis-
trations. They were used for grazing too, of course. We may conclude that
animal breeding played an important role among the income integration
sources.
The interpretation of the reclamation of commons is uncertain at this
stage of research, especially because we do not have a clear picture of the
economic dynamics in the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries, which is
exactly the period in between the two sources we used. The reading of this
8 It is possible to calculate (based on data from Šorn, 44) that in this period and area
the net wheat harvest (that is diminished for the seeds to be sown in the next year)
of 1 hectare of arable land could feed a five-member-family for about half a year; but
detracted the landlord’s duties, what remained to the peasant family amounted to
less than that. This means that only two in our sample of 25 farmsteads (8%) would
have been able to produce enough grain to feed their households with grain for the
whole year or longer.
9 On the whole, in Karst in 1830, there were (rounded down) 37,000 sheep, 7,000 oxen,
4,500 cows with 500 veal, 3,500 pigs, and 800 horses, mules and donkeys, totalling
approximately 54,000 animals on about 48,000 ha of grazing surfaces (50 % bare pas-
ture, 9.5 % bare meadow, 16 % meadow with trees, 13.8 % pasture with trees, 10.7 %
coppice wood; Panjek 2015b, 94, 98–9).
254
