> 1) Ricardo contra Grantham: " Just want to make a few additional points on > the question of agricultural yields in Europe... as Cipolla > warns us, these figures (on yields per unit of seed) are "not based > on comprehensive data but on scattered information derived from a > relatively small number of cases. You can see how unreliable these numbers > are." > > Grantham has shown that seed ratios were unreliable indicators of crop > yields in the middle Ages. Yield ratios (yields per unit of seed) are not > the same as absolute yields, and the difference is often crucial. Really? Tell me more. > Information about yield ratios is fairly good for the > Middle Ages, but little is known about actual yields. A low > yield ratio can disguise high yields. For instance, 3:6 is > a lower ratio than 1:3 (harvests respectively double the > amount of seed sown and triple the amount sown) but gives > more return per acre (three units as against two). Low > yield ratios prevail on poorer soils but more acreage can > be cultivated or different rotations used and so higher > total yields can be obtained. How novel/navel. > 2) Ricardo on the mythical techological revolution in medieval Europe: "The > important point, I think, is that by 12th century (or thereabouts), > Europe's agrarian system > (mixed husbandry) was well in place. As I argued in the first 3 postings > on agriculture, this system was not in place "by the early Christian era" > as Grantham claims. To quote Lynn White "The heavy plough, the open > fields, the new integration of agriculture and herding, three field > rotation, modern horse harness, nailed horseshoes and the whipple > tree had combined into a total system of agrarian exploitation by the > year 1100 to provide a zone of peasant prosperity stretching across > Northern Europe from the Atlantic to the Dnieper" ... The key point is > that agricultural change before this century, > and after, was about the *diffusion* of these technologies. Every source I > have read, agrees that this agrarian system spread slowly throughout > Europe in the Middle Ages." Ok, so let's see what else Blaut's pamphlet says: > On Lynn White, Jr., on plows, horses, and fields (from _The Colonizer's > Model of the World_): > > Lynn White, Jr., is an American historian whose book > Medieval Technology and Social Change presents this kind of > technologically deterministic tunnel-historical argument in > perhaps its purest form. The book is an effort to show > that technological invention and innovation was the central > cause of the rise of Europe during the Middle Ages. White > lists a series of supposedly European inventions, and > shows, for each in turn, what marvelous effects it had on > European history... I take it as obvious that, even when books have major flaws, they may still have useful, even excellent, ideas > But the heavy plow in fact was not invented in Europe in > the Middle Ages. Plows pulled by teams of 24 oxen were used > in northern India before the time of Christ.125 Southern > Europe used lighter plows, because the soils were generally > lighter and drier, but the technology was not significantly > different. ..the heavy plow was either diffused into > northern Europe from elsewhere or was a local adaptation of > a widely used tool-form. So this is not a European > technological revolution. Assertions, assertions. Explain yourself. Tell us more about that Indian heavy plow, about the exact role of those oxen, and how they were harnessed. > But all of this is nonsense. Neither the technical > arguments nor the social deductions make any sense. The > Domesday Book gives household-to-plow-team ratios of > between 2:3 and 3:5.128 The open-field system seems to be > quite old and was widespread in Europe and known in Asia > and North Africa in early times.129 Northern villages, > using big teams and heavy plows, were no more cooperative > than southern villages, using light plows. Communal > ownership of fields in some societies implied greater > cooperation than that found in the European open field > system. The manorial economy was a social system, not a > technological invention. You cant talk of the open field system as an isolated thing, since this was part of the tree field system, which is the key to advances in productivity. > But the horse-collar was widespread in Eurasia from an > early date, and probably was invented for harnessing not > horses but camels.133 the issue is not harness per se, but the type of harness (shoulder collar) And the presumption that horses held > advantages over oxen in plowing and transport is widely > disputed: the horse was more efficient, but costly in > upkeep, and generally required that cropland be devoted to > feed crops. In England the horse did not replace the ox. > Village size had nothing to do with horsepower. In many > parts of the world where horses were not used, villages > were much larger than they were in northern Europe. In > countries like China, long-distance grain transport was > often by canal, much more efficient than horse-drawn > wagons. And so, again, neither the technical arguments nor > the social deductions make any sense. Nothing makes any sense to you because what you are looking for are blanket statements, slogans, but scholarly work requires patient analysis, making subtle distictions despite the surface similarities. > Finally, White attributes equally marvelous effects to > the introduction of the three-field system. Part of this > argument is familiar to every European schoolchild, who > learned that the three-field rotation was a great advance > over the older two-field system because (mainly) it reduced > the proportion of the land in fallow from roughly 1/2 to > 1/3. But White adds a cornucopia of additional blessings. > Oats could now be planted widely, hence there was greater > use of horsepower. In a section of Medieval technology and > social change labelled "The Three-Field Rotation and > Improved Nutrition," he claims that the three-field system > somehow permitted farmers now to grow legumes, and this > vastly improved the European diet, which, in turn,"goes far > towards explaining . . . the startling expansion of > population, the growth and multiplication of cities, the > rise of industrial production, the outreach of commerce, > and the new exuberance of spirits which enlivened that > age." In short, says Lynn White, Jr., "the Middle Ages were > full of beans."134 > But none of this (least of all the pun) can be taken > seriously. There is no basis for White's argument that > population was held down by an unbalanced diet (overloaded, > he says, with carbohydrates, undersupplied with proteins). > Farmers using the two-field system were not protein- > starved, because legume cultivation long antedated the > three-field system, grains also contained proteins, and > fruits, animals products, and so on, were widely consumed. How can one debate this sort of blanket assertions? Why not admit the obvious, that a three field system is far superior to a two-field system?, that it reduces the percentage of land remaining fallow?, that it allows for a greater variety of crops to be cultivated?, that it implies a better use of animal manure as fertilizers? > The three-field system was not a technological revolution. > First of all, even more intensive rotations, including > fallowless systems, were in use in many parts of the world > long before the Middle Ages. Assertion number 230. Secondly, the two-field system > was preferred, and was not supplanted, in many ecological > situations, and in areas where fallow was needed for > grazing. So did some hunter-gatherers preferred to remain hunter-gatherers despite knowing about agriculture. The picture is complex, but the generalization is > clear: the three-field system was neither a technical > revolution nor a fountainhead for social change. And it had > close relatives in other continents, so it cannot be said > to have been something uniquely European. Complex? Yes. So why do you give us mere generalizations?! > If you've read this far, you know why I generally don't bother to debate > Ricardo. To defend Weber's views on unique European rationality, Ricardo > scrapes together any old bit of undigested information that he can find, > like a pack-rat accumulating baubles. I think I already showed that you, Frank et. al. don't know anything about Weber, which is why you dont debate me.
