> What is the Bray book? There is a 1983 book on rice, but no 1986 book > that I could find. Actually, I did not indicate the date of publication for the Bray quotes I cited below. The 1983/1992 date refers to Elvin whom I quoted and cited right after I first quoted Bray. (It is really Caroline Blunden and Mark Elvin [1983] 1992, *The Cultural Atlas of the World, CHINA*) As far as I know, Bray has two major publications: 1984. Agriculture. Part II of Vol. 6, Biology and Biological Technology (Vol. 41 overall) In Joseph Needham, ed., Science and Civilization in China. Cambridge Press. 1986. The Rice Economies: Technology and Development in Asian Societies. Oxford Press. The passages I cited below came from her 1984 book, a 700 page masterpiece on China's agricultural experience. Landes includes only Bray's *Rice Economies* in his extensive bibliography in *Wealth and Poverty*. Although Bray makes a powerful case that we should *not* rely solely on western criteria of progress, David Landes practically ignores her book, never cites her, and goes on to argue that China's otherwise sophisticated agriculture, with its superior caloric yield per acre, promoted high population densities, created cheap labor and did not encourage labor-saving innovations, "left little room for animals", and required intensive use of labor per area to achieve higher yields. "State and the society were always striving for new land and higher yields, making and using people in order to feed people...No time, then, for fun or money. Only for growing food and making children" (p24). But anyone who has made the effort to, at least, read some sections (as I did) of Bray's 1984 *Agriculture*, cannot but be impressed by the incredible labor skills that went into achieving China's yields per area; yields that England did not match even after her own land-saving/labor intensive "agricultural revolution" of the 18th century (and perhaps even through most of the mechanized revolution of the 19th century). Yet, strangely enough, Pomeranz is also rather silent about Bray. One would think a book that has made so much about China's superior land-saving innovations, would go into some details on this matter. P mentions Bray's agricultural work only two times and only in footnotes!! : 1) p33 to back claim re China's highest agricultural yields and that rice cultivation does not require as much animal power; 2) p45 only in passing in a footnote which just says "On Chinese agricultural technology generally see Bray 1984" He himself does not write/elaborate on this agricultural technology and on how these yields were achieved. I suspect, as I have been suggesting here, that an examination of China's land productivity could open the door to ecological questions that P would rather ignore. Some might say that China's agricultural achievements are known enough that P does not have to investigate how they were achieved, or the technolgies that were involved; that he also, in fact, does not write much about Europe's labor-saving innovations. Well, yes, that's his choice. But I can't help wonering why P would give, for example, 5 to 6 dense pages of critical analysis to a 20 page article by Goldstone on 'Gender, Work, and Culture', but could not do the same to Bray's 700 page book. (But you never know, I once heard a guy talking and talking about gender issues though he looked like he had never boiled an egg in his life). > > But in addition to the evidence I already forwarded from Mote (1999) > > three weeks ago, I have additional textual evidence from the great > > Francesca Bray, foremost English scholar on Chinese agriculture, > > that "sweet potatoes were in cultivation in Fukien and Yunnan by > > mid-16th" (428). Now, it so happens that, according to Marc Elvin, > > Yunnan, which is in the north-west, was one of the few areas in late > > 18th century China where productivity per area could still be > > increased using traditional technologies and "where the population > > rose from 3.1 to 6.3 million between 1775 and 1825 in response to > > opportunities in farming" (1983/1992, p147). > > > > And, here's the evidence given by Bray on *Shandong* and the > > overall significance of the potato: "The rapidity with which the > > sweet potato spread throughout China in the 17th and 18th centuries > > is, however, clear enough proof of its late introduction. The sweet > > potato had many advantages to offer: it was high yielding, > > nutritious, had a pleasant flavour, was more resistant to drough > > than the native Chinese tubers, and *grew well on poor soils*. By > > the 18th it was grown in all the Yangtze provinces and Szechwan had > > become a leading producer; by 1800 it accounted for *almost half the > > year's food supply of the poor of Shantung [Shangdon]*. The sweet > > potato did not take long to become the *third most important food > > crop in China* after rice and wheat*" (532). >
