THE LAND 103Productivity
At the basis of most discussions of the fate of the independent peasantry lies
the assumption that peasant farming was not economically viable, essentially
because of primitive farming methods and low productivity.
First, there are some misconceptions to be identifi ed and dealt with. There
is an assumption, often left unspoken, that farming to be successful must be
capital- intensive. This is linked with the further supposition that technological
progress necessarily leads to higher productivity. A sophisticated technology
is not in fact required to work much of the land in the Mediterranean basin.
Heavy machinery is unnecessary and sometimes harmful in semi- arid and
arid zones, as is being painfully discovered at the present time in regions as
far apart as south Italy, Portugal and the Middle East. On a tiny property a
hoe or mattock may be suffi cient for the purpose in hand, namely, to break
up the soil and control surface weeds; on a slightly larger estate, the animal-
drawn ard plough is suffi cient for the same purpose. The heavier mould-
board plough that turns the soil over is unnecessary, while deep ploughing
with the aid of a caterpillar tractor causes all kinds of ecological damage.
Next, misguided historical comparison has played a part in producing a
warped view of the predicament of the farmer of antiquity. The medieval-
ancient comparison is suspect, especially where the comparison being
attempted is between very different agricultural systems and physical
environments. It is futile to suggest that as English agriculture leapt ahead
with the introduction of the heavy plough, among other developments, so
Italian agriculture stayed in a depressed state for lack of it. Again, on the
subject of yields: medieval yields^24 in northern Europe (particularly in
England, which remained caught in the two- to four- fold range, that is to
say, a return of twice- to four- times seed was achieved) are no kind of marker
for ancient Mediterranean agriculture, not least because Mediterranean
farmers had the benefi t of light, warm soils which enhance germination, as
opposed to the cold, heavy germination- retarding soils of the North. In
general, we should be wary of the naive evolutionist assumption that ancient
agriculture was necessarily less productive than that which followed because
it was chronologically prior, as if we are compelled to believe in a linear
movement from antiquity to the modern period, with yields and effi ciency
in general progressing in a continuous upward curve.
The ancient- modern comparison, often implicit at least in the literature,
is particularly pointless. It has limited interest in itself and is singularly
uninformative on the subject of ancient farming standards. Little is achieved
by a statement of the obvious, that the ancients lacked high- yielding crops
such as maize and potatoes, or for that matter the improved strains of wheat
now available to farmers; or again, that they lacked modern methods of
land improvement, notably chemical fertilizers and advanced irrigation
techniques, not to mention the heavy machinery alluded to above. What
counts is the extent to which the food needs of a society are met by the