Page 368 - 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. 368
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
tivities. In this way, Markun gives us insight into the range of possibilities
that the peasants had to diversify their income; the range of possibilities
for parallel economic activity. Markun had thus documented the following
economic activities of peasants: canvas making, hat making, straw plait-
ing, tailoring, production of fur clothing, butchery, tanning, shoemaking,
joinery, carpentry, wheelwrighting, saddlery, cooperage, milling, key cut-
ting, bucket coopering, sieve making, toothpick production, production of
baskets, rakes and pitchforks, production of dormouse fur hats, sawmill-
ing, smithing, mob cap making, lime production, masonry, charcoal burn-
ing, tree tapping, potash production, production of clothes hangers, basket
weaving, production of toys and dolls, production of musical instruments,
clogs, rope and brushes. Among trade activities, Markun lists mixed goods
trading, peddling, selling at fairs, trading in wild birds, forest fruits, herbs,
dormouse fur, treen, and, last but not least, smuggling.
Markun remains at the level of detailed ethnographic description that
is somehow on the surface, and is not interested in the issues of operating
a farm as a complete economic unit. In spite of this, he notes that peasants
felt it natural to engage in all activities listed above, though usually not con-
tinuously but rather, in parallel to agricultural activities. Markun paints a
picture of a village and farm management in the Velike Lašče area (south of
Ljubljana), dominated by fragmented land holdings, as a multidisciplinary
economic space where the chosen type of economic activity parallel to ag-
riculture is dictated by necessity and the expected benefits. In the back-
ground of his description, one sees an idea of farming households in which
peasants pragmatically take up different activities to increase and diversify
their income, wherein they are willing not only to work and learn but also
to intervene in sales organisation. That is, the peasants are trying to at least
partly manage their position by reducing the distance between production
and consumption. However, Markun goes a step further. His descriptions
of individual craft and trade activities indicate that the very concept of the
peasant’s world already includes the dynamics of change. Markun thus re-
cords the ascent and decline of individual handicrafts practised by peas-
ants as determined by the broader social and economic context over a long
period of time.
In order to understand the comprehensiveness of the context of in-
come diversification in farming households, we should add that in the in-
terwar period (and before), the income from handicraft activities was un-
taxed, provided that these were being pursued only by family members, i.e.
366
tivities. In this way, Markun gives us insight into the range of possibilities
that the peasants had to diversify their income; the range of possibilities
for parallel economic activity. Markun had thus documented the following
economic activities of peasants: canvas making, hat making, straw plait-
ing, tailoring, production of fur clothing, butchery, tanning, shoemaking,
joinery, carpentry, wheelwrighting, saddlery, cooperage, milling, key cut-
ting, bucket coopering, sieve making, toothpick production, production of
baskets, rakes and pitchforks, production of dormouse fur hats, sawmill-
ing, smithing, mob cap making, lime production, masonry, charcoal burn-
ing, tree tapping, potash production, production of clothes hangers, basket
weaving, production of toys and dolls, production of musical instruments,
clogs, rope and brushes. Among trade activities, Markun lists mixed goods
trading, peddling, selling at fairs, trading in wild birds, forest fruits, herbs,
dormouse fur, treen, and, last but not least, smuggling.
Markun remains at the level of detailed ethnographic description that
is somehow on the surface, and is not interested in the issues of operating
a farm as a complete economic unit. In spite of this, he notes that peasants
felt it natural to engage in all activities listed above, though usually not con-
tinuously but rather, in parallel to agricultural activities. Markun paints a
picture of a village and farm management in the Velike Lašče area (south of
Ljubljana), dominated by fragmented land holdings, as a multidisciplinary
economic space where the chosen type of economic activity parallel to ag-
riculture is dictated by necessity and the expected benefits. In the back-
ground of his description, one sees an idea of farming households in which
peasants pragmatically take up different activities to increase and diversify
their income, wherein they are willing not only to work and learn but also
to intervene in sales organisation. That is, the peasants are trying to at least
partly manage their position by reducing the distance between production
and consumption. However, Markun goes a step further. His descriptions
of individual craft and trade activities indicate that the very concept of the
peasant’s world already includes the dynamics of change. Markun thus re-
cords the ascent and decline of individual handicrafts practised by peas-
ants as determined by the broader social and economic context over a long
period of time.
In order to understand the comprehensiveness of the context of in-
come diversification in farming households, we should add that in the in-
terwar period (and before), the income from handicraft activities was un-
taxed, provided that these were being pursued only by family members, i.e.
366
