The Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations in Early Modern England: Turnips and Clover in Norfolk and Suffolk, 1580-1740 Author(s):

Mark Overton Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1985), pp. 205-221 Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/621824 . Accessed: 15/01/2014 18:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

205

Thediffusion innovations in ofagricultural modern andclover in early England: turnips andSuffolk, 1580-1740 Norfolk
MARK OVERTON Newcastle ofGeography, University ofNewcastle Department uponTyne, uponTyne, NEI 7RU Revised MS received 14 April, 1985
ABSTRACT andclover havelongbeenregarded as two ofthemostsignificant innovations oftheso-called Turnips 'agricultural inEngland. revolution' Thispaper for ofthese inNorfolk andSuffolk from 1580 theevidence thespread presents crops datafrom some4000 farmers' In attempting inventories. andpattern to 1740using of to explain thetiming probate newfodder is related in theagritheroleofthese within to more adoption husbandry systems crops general changes andto someoftheconstraints ifthey farmers faced wished Thespread ofthese isthen cultural economy to adopt. crops related ofcommunication andtheemployment ofthese media social involved infarming. to media bydifferent groups Social a key, information wastransmitted, status notonly to understanding thewayinwhich provides buttoexplaining howfarmers information. react tothat might KEYWORDS:Historical Fodder Probate inventories. revolution, Diffusion, geography, Agricultural England, crops, The introduction of new foddercrops,principally This paper presentsthe evidenceforthe spread in Norfolk and turnipsand clover, has long been consideredan of root cropsand grass substitutes3 essentialpart of the so-called 'agricultural revolu- Suffolk, of an 'agricultural supposedlythe heartland tion' in England,and indeed in north-west Europe revolution', duringthe period 1580-1740. But its as a whole. Yet despitegeneraldiscussionsof the mainconcern is withthediffusion process;withthe about new crops spread spreadof thesecropsforsome 80 yearswe stillhave ways in whichinformation no clearpicture ofthetiming, rateand spatialpattern amongst farmers, and with theirreactionsto this of their adoption.' Without such specificinfor- information. It mightbe expectedthatthe obvious mation we cannot really begin to evaluate rival starting diffusion pointfora studyof innovation by claimsforan 'agricultural revolution' based on the an historical would be with'geographigeographer role of these crops withinfarming a body of conceptsand techsystems.The cal diffusion theory', measurement of innovation also providesthemeans niquesdesignedto explaintheprocessesby whicha to evaluatecontemporary opinionsabout thespread new idea or practice spreadsover space and through of new crops,to resolve conflicts over chronology time within some specific area.4 The lure of in recent literature and to reassessthe role of these such an approach is understandable, for unless a over an area,a diffucrops in agricultural development duringthe early phenomenon appearsinstantly modernperiod.The lack of basic data may also in sion processso defined mustoperate. in a Moreover, have beenmade to societywitha relative dearth ofinformation partexplainwhyso fewattempts (having levels of literacy) analysethe processesby whichthese crops spread no 'mass media' and limited such Such analysis could do more an approach seems all the more attractive in that amongst farmers.2 thansimply accountforthe evolutionof the spatial many of the factorsthat complicatethe classical of particular which suggests,perhaps, pattern crops;it shouldalso be able to models are not present, shed lighton the mechanisms of change in society thatthe model may have more explanatory power more generally, in that similarprocesses may be when applied to the past. Unfortunately, even the involvedin thediffusion ofotherinnovations. mostcursory examination of 'geographical diffusion
Trans. Inst.Br.Geogr. N.S. 10: 205-221 (1985) ISSN: 0020-2754 in GreatBritain Printed

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

206

MARKOVERTON

on any of pragmatism beyond inevitably theorysuggestsit may have littleto offer imposean element flowsof analysis of innovationin early modem England. thatdistancecan constrain theobservation it is and a tool-kit of increasingly information, may help in prompting questions sophisti- While theory to be modelswhichmay help in predict- impossiblefor some of the most important cated geometric but are of little ing the spreadof epidemics help in answered.The approachadopted in this paper is of a compromise. of necessity therefore forms ofdiffusion.5 other something explaining section presentssome basic information While the classic geographicalmodels, derived The first ofadoptionand disand patterns from the initial work of Higerstrand,rightly on thechronology and definingthe of cusses ideas and inforcommunication of the identifying problems emphasize The second secmation (for obviously a potential adopter must precisenatureof the innovations. as to why he can adopt it) they tionadvancessome generalexplanations before knowof an innovation discusses and these farmers that the seem to make the implicit crops might adopt proassumption is the same as theprocessof some generalconstraints cess of communication theymighthave facedin While In otherwords,an explanation introducing theminto their diffusion. innovation systems. farming towards assumed also to is some this of how information why some way explaining spreads goes reactions therefore innovation farmer how of (and Differing provides spreads. adopted explain categories about an inno- a limited explanation of the spatial patternof of potential adoptersto information vation are relegated to the status of 'resistance adoption)it cannotexplain the way in which the secfactors' which are assumed to be distributed innovations spreadover space. Thus the third and the communication media of of potential looks at the a population within tion randomly adopters social of thesemedia by the different in the model by priorselectionof employment and determined thus assigninga fundamental part of groups involved in farming.Consideration of probabilities, statusprovidesa key,not only to undertheadoptionprocessto chance.6In some cases this farmers' was transis an standingthe way in whichinformation whenthe'item'beingdiffused need not matter; reactto how farmers butto explaining disease forexample,but in othercases it mitted, infectious might innovation thatinformation. does. In the adoptionof an agricultural to theinformation ofa potential thereaction adopter he receivesabout an innovation may be crucialto CHRONOLOGIES AND PATTERNSOF of the adoptionprocess and the an understanding ADOPTION Evenifthemodel'works', it pattern produces. spatial is an essentialstarting of innovation the spread of an A chronology in that-itsucceeds in predicting an 'explanation' point for a studyof the diffusion it could only constitute process.It also innovation, between of the some to resolve serves that doctrine controversy for a subscriberto the positivist various of the revolutions', are and 'agricultural proponents prediction explanation equivalent. ofnew are butone in so faras thesedependon theintroduction to diffusion approaches Geographers' betweenKerridge traditions, manyof whichare crops.Much of thedisagreement amongmanyresearch of potential and Mingay,forexample,seems to depend on the withthebehaviour concerned explicitly an inno- extentof innovationat particular about information in face of the periods.9Using adopters stress theperceived Thuseconomists vation.7 Kerridge emphasizes categories, profit- Rogers'descriptive and 'earlyadopters', of 'innovators' ability of an innovationwhile rural sociologists the importance before relate potentialinnovatorsto social groups and while Mingay waits for the 'late majority' has takenplace. This is thata revolution social structures (unlike the Higerstrandmodel claiming curve where there are only two classes; adopters and not made explicitin the debate: a diffusion far as Norfolk as least at situation the rural nor economists neither Yet mightclarify non-adopters). our knowledge Hitherto are concerned. sociologists are concerned with spatial patterns and Suffolk of new cropshas been based on of adoption and very little theoryhas emerged of theintroduction literature, from the innumerable althoughas Kerridgehas empiricalstudies by rural contemporary has literature this the of a series form of in the out, presents picture pointed sociologists except a 'general been obscured by the mythsof an 'agricultural whichdo not constitute generalizations of Lord by the followers promulgated theory'necessarily applicableto a given historical revolution' English situation.8 Emle. For example,threeyearsafter Emrnle's was publishedan article record farming of thehistorical past and present In any case thelimitations

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Suffolk, 1580-1740 innovation, Norfolk Agricultural

207

were one of the 'chieftreasures' had shown that 'Turnip' Townshend was a boy consideredturnips and two forgreatprofits, whenturnips weregrownon hisestates, responsible long before of thefarmer, them.Moreover,muchof years later, Salmon's Survey of England spoke Emle said he introduced of about the 'new Improvements literature is enthusiastically the late eighteenth-century agricultural in its discussion of thechronology of the sown grass and Tumeps' in Norfolkand Suffolk, inaccurate with the while Defoe reportedon High Suffolk introduction ofnew crops.'0 wererecorded comment Root crops,particularly theturnip, that, as a garden crop in sixteenth-century England: forbeingthefirst is remarkable thispartof England indeed it is possible that the Romans introduced as andfattening ofcattle, where sheep feeding the both them to Britain." Grass substitutes, particularly wellas blackcattle was first in with practis'd turnips, are first mentioned clover, by Weston,thoughsome England. 14 clovers were indigenousto the countryand may have been used forfodderlong before.12 Fromthe citations For the purposes of this paper further and are unnecessary literature 1650s writers and selected fromcontemporary advocate both turnips clovers as fodder crops, though they lay more thereis littlepoint in tracing plagiarisms particular The evidencebroadlysuggests and implythat and contradictions. emphasison cloverthanon turnips fromthe startedto diffuse the former were more widely cultivated. for that grass substitutes Blith, the1680sadds clover 1660s whileturnips began to spreadfrom example,althoughmentioning turnips, as a mainimprovement to his Improver of 1690s and thatboth were foundin some areas of improved sources and Suffolk 1652. Speed is one of thefirst authorities to mention Norfolk by the 1730s. Literary thanthis;theydo not the feedingof turnips to animals,thoughin 1675 cannottakeus muchfurther or the Worlidge considered, 'this be a plant usually reveal the exact locations of innovations, These are in Gardens', and 'it is a verygreatneglect extentof adoptionin particular nourisht periods. in our EnglishHusbandry and deficiencie that this not revealedeither by modemstudies usingprimary One of the most comprehensive surveys particular piece is not more prosecuted!'Richard material. of foddercrops is by Kerridge Blome's Gentleman's Recreation of 1686 is represen- of the introduction of turnips to the midtativeof theseopinionswhenit places turnips in the who dates the introduction kitchen and cloverin thefield later withsainfoin, seventeenth and clover to a slightly century, garden, nonsuchand lucern undertheheadingof 'Improve- period, tradition of thegeneral'historical' following these the introduction of ments'.13By the early decades of the eighteenth describing crops generally seemto have caughtup, ifnot over- withoutmakinga systematic to producea century turnips attempt In 1726 John Lawrence specific and detailedchronology.'5 taken,cloverin popularity.
TABLE inNorfolk andSuffolk 1587-1729 I. Fodder inventories, crops Root crops
N N 521 0.06 0.19 0-45 0.46 1.29 1.25 1.52 1.81 584 318 236 154 92 173 217 242 N 236 250 136 109 93 63 111 115 144 * * * * 0.04 0.41 0.60

Grass substitutes
(3) N (4) N 280 304 173 133 105 75 140 125 171

(1) 1587-96 1629-38 1660-69 1670-79 1680-89 1690-99 1700-09 1710-19 1720-29 674 713 416 362 240 153 272 334 380

(2) 0.8 0.9 1-6 9.3 19.1 29.4 40-2 47.4 52.7

N 263 223 189 172 94 51 82 137 148

(3) * *

(4)

(2) 0-0 0.0 0-7 3-7 4.3 6.3 11.7 17.4 23.6

211 180 119 100 63 37 71 99 120

156 146 98 86 55 39 78 95 97

* 0.25 0.30 0.90 0-51 0.87 0.89

0.24 0-32 0.32 1 04

of farm inventories (1) Total number ofinventories thecrop (August-Decemberinventories forroot crops;March-July forgrasssubstitutes) (2) Percentage mentioning (3) Mean area (hectares) (4) Mean value (f?) N Numberof inventories used * Insufficient data

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

208

MARKOVER TON meadowsdid nothave to be listedin an inventory it omitted could be thatsome appraisers cloverfrom even thoughcontemporary inventories, legal texts thatthecropshouldbe recorded." Root considered crops are less likelyto be hiddenin some general fortheywere an entirely new type of description at seasons different from crop,sown and harvested othercropsand grownfortheir 'root'in addition to theirfoliage.Thirdly, inventories includeonly the on a farm when a farmer cropswhichwere present offarmers died. Thus,in calculating thepercentages with root crops only those inventoriesmade betweenAugustand Decemberhave been utilized, and forgrasssubstitutes thosemadebetweenMarch and July. all farmers' inventories Fourthly, although a simplefrequency can be used to calculate countof

Table I and Figure 1 are the resultof such an attempt using data extracted from some 4000 farmers'probate inventories presented to the ConsistoryCourt in Norwich duringthe periods 1587-98, 1629-40 and 1660-1735.16 Although in discushave been used extensively inventories it is as well to pointout sionsofagricultural change, some specific problemsthey presentin measuring innovation.17 Firstly, do not date theact inventories of innovation:they give the date of death of a who had been growing a particular farmer crop. Secondly,ambiguousentriesin inventories might Grass subconceal the presenceof an innovation. stitutescause more problemsthan do root crops couldbe concealedby suchphrases sincetheformer as 'stover','fodder', 'hay' or 'grass'. Since 'natural'

Turnips E
Iu

Clover

,,

/
0

50-

40-

E
4-

30-

20 -

AI
10-

1590 1590

1630 1630

1670 1670

1710 1710

1740 1740

andSuffolk inventories inNorfolk andclover 1.Turnips FIGURE

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andSuffolk, 1580-1740 innovation, 209 Agricultural Norfolk in mind,Figure 1 and adoption fewerprovide a value and fewerstillan Bearingthese limitations of the chronology Finally, acreage as Table I indicates. probateinven- Table I give a generalindication toriesare morelikely to have been made forfarmers of adoption in Norfolkand Suffolk from1585 to in the higher status groups. In the 1670s for 1734. The earliestinventory references to turnips example,some 2 per centof farmers leavinga Con- are to two marketgardenersin Norwich in the in Norwichwere esquires, 1590s describedas 'aliens',reinforcing the widely sistoryCourt inventory 15 per cent were gentlemen, 41 per cent yeomen held beliefthatthe crop was introduced by Dutch and 6 per cent husbandmen. For the same period, refugees.20Rape or cole-seed is evident from itssupposedintroduction using a variety of other sources, it has been 1588, predating by Dutch estimated 4 percentofall farmers thatroughly were drainers in the seventeenth like century, although, 28 per centyeomenand 68 turnips the crop was being grown by Dutch esquiresor gentlemen, thelowerboundary 'aliens'.21 No inventories were consulted for percenthusbandmen, although indistinct 1600-1629 sincetherateof innovation in the 1630s defininghusbandmenis a particularly one.1 was littledifferent to the 1590s. But the 1630s are

*0* *
"*""? " I .. O** .

AA
0AA .' .. * '" , ..

. ..
-**.

A Turnips 0 Rape Carrots Onions + Others Nonadote

Carrots

0 00 000 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 00 0 0000 w ?? t ? ? til ?0 ?? ?? t? ???? ?0??0 t~~0 . . 0 tor ???? 0? or? ?? ? 0 Roots?
0 Roots . . " " . ". ? . .

0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 0 00 0 00 ! N :.. 40? %W 00 .40 0 41% 0TurnAps? . 0 . ? . A 0 . .

-. .-*.
*
.

*..

**?

* *.

I..Ar
* . ,.

? 5? ?

10 k

+ Otherns

S No n-ado pter

...

-? * m

FIGURE 2. Root crops mentionedin inventories and the location of farmers with no root crops, leaving inventories 1628-40

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

210

MARK OVERTON

in that it was duringthis decade that significant first thanas turnips appear as a foddercrop,rather a vegetableforhuman The location of consumption. the various root crops mentionedin inventories made between1628 and 1640 is shownin Figure2. farmers Thirteen weregrowing one or moretypesof root crop and at least seven of themseem to have been growing roots for fodder.22The earliest reference is for 1631 when Nathaniel Sharpe of 'one acre of roots',but the mostcertain had Butley

evidencecomesfrom theinventory William Pope of of his BurghCastle made in 1638. The appraisers 'nineteen cowes and foure suckrecorded, inventory with ing Calves,one budd bull and one budd heifer the hay stackand the turneps'.23 Given thatthese farmers died in the 1630s they could well have introduced the fieldcultivation of root crops in the thus predating 1620s (or even earlier), Kerridge's in High Suffolk revolution' by two or 'agricultural three decades.24 Figures 3 and 4 complete the

**. . .*

*B 0%? 00 oo 0 00 *0* 0 0 0 0 ..o.0:00 . . 0 ** 000. 0 *%* 0*

*~. * .I .j . * .* * .. * Adopter #t
*Non adopter

C * 0 0* D 0
I ___ oo*

0 20 km
FIGURE 3. Adopters and non-adoptersof root crops (August-December inventories):A. 1665-1674, B. 1675-1684, C. 1705-1714, D. 1715-1724

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andSuffolk, 1580-1740 innovation, Norfolk Agricultural of thespatialspreadof rootcrops(which are picture and are substitutes (which mainly turnips) grass mainlyclover). Figure 5 summarizes75 years of innovationby indicating the densityof adoption for 10 km grid squareswheresufficient inventories are extant. Also shownforcomparative purposesin of adoptionof farm Figure5 is thepattern waggons as revealedby inventories.25 This new evidenceindicates a dramatic in upsurge the adoptionof root crops,from a rate of about 5

211

from the 1580s through to the per cent of farmers 1710. The 1660s,to 50 percentoffarmers by period of innovation forcloverwas similiar, althoughthe of farmers In the proportion adoptingwas smaller. by Mingay light of this evidence the statements that,'we do not know with accuracyjust when clovers or turnipswere grown by a substantial number of farmers', and that,'the pace of technical changein the period 1650 to c.1850 was generally at least as faras slow',26can obviouslybe revised,

..

A**. A: W
S...

*
.. . * .

.. ?

***

* .~~~ *

*) * e. *?

h.

?? a o* Adopter * , . *Non-adopter

??

'

.*

\*0

km 20

FIGURE 4. Adopters and non-adopters of grass substitutes(March-Julyinventories):A. 1665-1674, B. 1675-1684, C. 1705-1714, D. 1715-1724

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

212

MARK OVERTON

roles withinfarming systems.The virtuesof the four-course' of wheat,turnips, 'Norfolk barleyand the keystoneof muchnorth clover,whichformed untilwell intothe twentieth cenEuropeanfarming are familiar butwe mustnot be misled tury enough, or clover thatthe presenceof turnips into thinking was in operameantthatsucha rotation on a farm INCENTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS TO tion. Until the middle decades of the eighteenth ADOPTION norcloverseemto have been neither century turnips on the majority Beforeconsidering why farmers mightadopt these an essentialpartof crop rotations to identify their of farms new foddercrops it is important were grownby a relatively althoughthey

Norfolk and Suffolk are concerned. MoreoverFigure 2 showsthattheinnovation hearth was notin 'High Suffolk' but in Norfolk, and even forthe periodto whichKerridge refers fiveof the eightadoptersin 3A arein Norfolk.27 Figure

-B

SInf

Percentages of Farmers Adopting

A
45.1-67

B
16-43

C
20-78

20.1-45

6.5-15.9

7-19.9

0.1-6.9 0.1-6.4 0.1-20

S Insufficient Data

0 L - -- - --20km
B. Grasssubstitutes, inventories), FIGURE 5. Densityofadoption,1660-1734: A. Root crops(August-December C. Waggons

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Suffolk, 1580-1740 innovation, Norfolk Agricultural

213

offarmers. Theywerenotgrownin largeproportion sufficient on overall quantityto have much effect and thusdo not appearin cropcombination fertility indicescalculated from acreagesof individual crops recordedin inventories and in many cases do not seem to have been grownfortheir 'roots'at all but fortheir greentops.28By the 1720s theproportion of the cropped acreage (i.e. excluding pasture, meadow,woodland and most fallow)underturnips in the two countieswas only about 9 per cent and underclover3-5 per cent.By the 1850s theseproportionshad reached18 per cent and 20 per cent Of coursesome farmers were growrespectively.29 ing quitelargeacreagesby the1720s,buttheywere ina minority, and generally neither speaking, turnips nor cloverwere grownon a scale sufficient to have had a greatimpacton yields.Grainyieldsdid not risedramatically theperiod1660-172030(see during Table II) and so thesuggestion thatturnips or clover were adopted specifically to raise grain yields31 does not seem to be a very likelyexplanationof innovation.In fact, strictly speaking,it is an a effect to cause) posteriori explanation (movingfrom based on therolethecropswereto assumeafter the It is after this period that century. mid-eighteenth became an essentialpartof rotations based turnips on theprinciples of theNorfolk four-course.32 Table II shows that duringthe period of rapid innovationafter 1660 there was a considerable increase in the output of barley in Norfolkand due more to an extensionof the acreage Suffolk,

thanto an increasein yields.33 Some of thisbarley was destinedforthe malttrade,both at home and overseas.From1697 maltexportsreceiveda rebate of some 14 percentoftheir more value,butperhaps were able to gain importantly Englishmerchants secure marketsduring the early decades of the could have century. Secondly,farmers eighteenth been feeding to their and so respondanimals, barley way to the swingin pricerelatives ing in a rational towards livestock. An animal fedon barley can reach more rapidlythan one fed on grass, so maturity while the number of animalsdid not increasevery muchtheturnover ofanimals and theoutput ofmeat would have increased. The increased area of barley came partlyfroma reductionin the area of rye, and partly froman increasein the grainacreageprobablyat the expense of permanent pastureand fallow.The average proportion of croplandunder around40 per centin the 1660s to barleyrose from 60 percentinthe1720s,whiletheproportion nearly of cropland underryefellfrom 20 per centto 7 per cent.Inventories do not recordareas of fallowpermanent butas Table II shows,boththecorn pasture acreageand thecroppedacreageperfarm grew.This an increasein average farmsize, but mightreflect farmsizes are unlikely to have doubled,so partof theincrease must have been due to a reduction inthe extent ofpasture and fallow. One obvious explanation forthe introduction of new foddercrops is the increasein thenumbers of animals.But turnips and cloverhad severalrolesto

TABLE II. Livestock numbers and andacreages, andSuffolk 1587-1729 derived inventories, from Norfolk grain yields output, Wheat
(1) 1587-96 1629-38 1660-69 1670-79 1680-89 1690-99 1700-09 1710-19 1720-29 94 81 100 114 90 198 130 129 195 (2) 104 81 100 125 83 174 131 133 201 (3) 58 81 100 96 89 104 87 104 101 (4) 45 44 100 100 71 82 93 115 169 (5) 73 57 100 104 79 79 107 110 160 (6) 19 18 29 21 22 11 19 18 18 (3) 73 91 100 127 118 104 116 125 141

Barley
(4) 111 86 100 242 129 294 275 326 542 (5) 134 100 100 190 110 284 233 261 383 (6) 45 42 37 50 39 51 54 56 57 (7) 93 84 100 97 121 104 124 116 151 (8) 80 93 100 117 172 136 77 70 137

(1) Cropped area per farm (5) Area per farm of grainarea (2) Corn area per farm (6) Percentage (3) Yield (bushelsper hectare) (7) Numberofbullocksper farm (4) Output (bushelsper farm) (8) Numberof sheep perfarm All figures 36-37 litres. (exceptcolumns6) are meansexpressedas indexnumbers (1660-69 = 100). A bushelis roughly

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

214

MARK OVERTON

of the arablearea. Both crops outlined above. Figure 6 showsthecharacteristics of play in the extension if they farm theearlyeighteenth yieldingsourceof fodder century provideda higher during enterprises analysis usingsix attributes replaced permanentpasture or a weedy fallow. as revealedby a cluster a of each the contributions of cattle, also as means to the were farm; percentage important Turnips to reclamation of lightland. They did thisby taking horses, corn, cornand fodder sheep,winter spring from the soil (up to fivetimestheamount the total value of crops and stock on the farm.37 nutrients in innorootswere deeperin Table III indicatesquite clear differences of cerealcrops)and sincetheir a different betweenthesefarm from level in the soil. These vationrates the ground, typesand showsthe Farmers ofnew cropswithgrain either as manure, or association be recycled, could then nutrients farming. in livestock (groupsF, G and production through crop residuesleftin the soil.34 The chief specializing ofcloverlay not so muchin landreclamation I) did so because theyhad good suppliesof grass, benefit and would and river thefens, marshes theraising of land from and therefore thanin nitrification valleys, new fodder to introduce rolesis probably have had littleincentive Given thesedifferent productivity. of farmtypes is shown in weremorepopular crops. The distribution thatturnips of some significance therefore 7 which innovation directed that was thanclover, goes some way towards Figure suggesting revealed by the thantowardsraising explainingthe adoption patterns land reclamation moretowards maps. previous fertility by addingnitrogen. farmers faced a Withinthis generalframework, of theintroa complementary Finally explanation on their to adopt new of constraints ductionof foddercrops,and indeed of production number ability thatthe capital can be based on thenotion foddercrops. It is worthstressing changesmoregenerally, was not one of these,at least to reducethe level of costs of innovation were attempting thatfarmers with a surviving marksthe low among those farmers risk.The late seventeenth inventory. century a fall Ice characterized of the 'Little by Age' point and a rise in precipitation. in average temperatures bad fromthe 1660s The weatherwas particularly A B C 401 onwards,reachinga nadir duringthe 1680s and data to demonclimatic 1690s. There is sufficient 20 stratethis,but it is very evidentfromthe trends % oJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 of both yields and prices.35Faced with this very F E D farmers wouldhave seen new obviousdeterioration, fodder crops, particularly turnips,as a way of spreading their fodder portfolio,thus providing of a hay crop. If some insurance againstthe failure could be sown the hay harvestwas poor, turnips H G as late as August to provide some green fodder Norfolk A contemporary months. thewinter during bad springsin weatherdiary recordsparticularly of the 1660s and 1670s, while a churchwarden L J K of a bad hay crop following +n0 complaining Hingham, 'thewantof hay was in 1681 recorded, bad weather An increasing of the by growing turnips'.36 supplied as a way on barleycan also be interpreted emphasis risksincebarleycould be used bothas of spreading a cash crop to be malted,or, if it failedto reach as a fodder sufficient crop. quality, and clovercan of turnips The spatialdistribution All Farms of those 1. Cattle thusin partbe relatedto the distribution 2. Horses became farmswhere this new patternof farming 3. Sheep 4. Winter corn the it grain 5. Spring corn prevalent.Generally speaking was 6. Fodder who were the most and mixed farmers farmers innovative,comparedwith the livestockfarmers, FIGURE6. Percentages corn, of cattle, horses, sheep,winter 1712-1735 andfodder corn byfarming as we would expect given the role of new crops spring types,

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1580-1740 andSuffolk, innovation, Agricultural Norfolk

adopting) ages of farmers 1712-34 (percentratesamongfarmtypes, TABLE III. Innovation

215

A B C D E F G

Turnips Clover
25-0 30 .8 45.5 59-7 25.0 5.9 5-9 18-8 20-5 18.2 33.3 29.2 2-0 11-8

H I J K L M

Turnips Clover
27-0 12 .1 38.1 11-8 20-0 125 16-2 6 .1 14.3 14-7 13.3 -

While, in termsof the value of crops and stock, richer the variances farmers were more innovative, of farm of thedistributions valuesforbothadopters and non-adoptersare so large that there is no difference betweenthe mean statistically significant wealthof the two groups.Such differences as there

as are may be in parta consequenceof innovation to its cause,and theymight muchas a contribution and some betweeninnovation a relationship reflect with farmvalue. other factorwhich is correlated Littlecapital outlay was requiredto grow a small and the risksfrom so of cloveror turnips quantity doingwouldbe minimal.38 On the other hand, legal problemsassociated have prevented withcommon rights might property from some farmers growingthe crops,especiallyif had theright to grazeanimals on their otherfarmers An associated(though the grainharvest. land after sometimesdistinct) problemwas the rules of coor communal whichmayhave cultivation, operative held back theadventuresome farmer who wishedto of thesequeswith new Neither experiment crops. tions can be resolved satisfactorily. Althoughthe at the momentis to consensusamongsthistorians
r
AFARM 81712-35

TYPES

/[] [

X X (3
O ,O

0
0 A 3 +A

ODD
1-

D A 0
#

0I

'7 ) T
0

o[x

AA[

oia x x 11 licil x 1
A 0 . X01 C IA xx

[I

l~AA

r? ",++++00~ *,c, ++x EOI E8

~** A A mi[ t 00 W4 ;tot 88o 4? JA

A A oe# [] ?A
0 A

-A

8 Do

oc 000 lox O r0+ A xo8P1 J0 o 0 *r + x 0 0 0J0+ 00 XO 000 ~xx 00 I8x 0

A0 *0 , I?A *OA

"Ix
NA0

LIEU, + A

410
x A

? + rl

xl?j
OA 8
000 0

EU? 0/

toAA

00 A + Dtt ,* t+
x
+

>

AA

AA

. Km 6
Wes 0

13
5Ua 0

FIGURE 7. Distribution of farming types,1712-1735

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216

MARKOVERTON

of property as a MEDIA OF COMMUNICATION AND rights play down the significance barrierto innovation,it relies heavily on the SOCIAL STATUS whichonlyfound evidenceof evidenceofone article Thus farthe analysisof innovation has been static, grass substitutes being grown on 'open fields'.39 some farmers why essentially discussing adopted on There is scantevidenceof turnips being grown whileothersdid not. Since both the constraints on and of much of Suffolk fields'. Although parts 'open and the environment encouraging price and southern adoption muchofcentral Norfolk wereenclosed, duringthe central and northern Suffolk were subjected adoptiondid not changeverymarkedly Norfolk 1660 to 1740 (and suchchangesas there of the foldcourse which gave a periodfrom to the institution ofinnovation) withtheintensity manoriallord (or his lessee) the rightto graze his aredo notcorrelate must look to other of thespreadof we explanations after theharvest, lands, usually sheepon thetenants' A startthe both over and time. through crops space Writers months. but sometimes duringthe summer media by con- ing point forthisis the communications on the fieldsystemsof Norfolkand Suffolk A potential spread. adoptercould over thesignificance of thefold- whichinformation tradict one another in have one of threeways: heard about new crops course,althoughtheyare agreed thatfieldsystems literature, through through correspondence printed in and to those MidlandEngland wereverydifferent face-to-face discussion. These and through characterized by very flexiblerotations.40 a There was wide fairly range of books giving issues will remain unresolved since inventories and information about new cropsavailableto advice cannotbe used to relategrowingcrops to specific theseventeenth-century farmer, providedhe wished there What evidence is of suggests pieces ground. to seek them The qualityof thisinformation out.45 and clover were more likelyto that both turnips but books were practical varied, many obviously have been grown in closes over which private instructions as to how new treatises, giving explicit It than in fields. open rights predominated property Some seedsmeneven to the distribution crops should be cultivated. is difficult to relatethisfinding techon cultivation of field systems for we have no very accurate preparedsheetsof instructions all accurate or even Not the advice was niques. in the early and Suffolk of thisforNorfolk picture advice and had writers sensible; contradictory gave incidence of from the but modem period, judging enclosure in the eighteenthand some strangeideas about 'the virtuesof the new parliamentary 70 per For the20 yearsafter 1660 roughly nineteenth centuries, propertyrightswere most crops.46 can as that of be classed literate cent (in adopters in likelyto have been a checkon adoption central they could sign theirwill) so it is likelythat the Norfolk.41 and northern of adopterscould have read thisliterature is thephysi- majority to be considered The final constraint if they wished.47 Literate farmersmight also are supposedby historians cal environment. Turnips have to one anotherabout new crops,and written this is indeed to to have been suited light soils, it is clear one of the points emphasizedin explainingwhy althoughevidence is not very plentiful, about that farmers turnips and corresponded revolution'was the heartlandof the 'agricultural clover.48 Norfolk.42 It is supposedto have been in north-west these It is difficult to establishhow significant to thecold wereunsuited truethatturnips certainly withfacemediaof communication were, compared at the other Midland of yet, heavy clays England, it is likely thatthequality contact. Certainly suitedto to-face end of thescale,theywerenot necessarily that could be transmitted and nature of information soils: thelightest in comparison with by thesemeanswouldbe limited a is contact. direct Farming practical interpersonal rain will soilsaturated with On a close, clayey turnips and no doubt certain aspectsof the cultiwithout andon a light notgrow, moisture, business, soil, sandy vationof new crops could only be passed successcannot.43 they fully from one farmerto another by practical As William Ellisputitin 1744, demonstration. reachThismight helpto explainthedelayin turnips historians some which supposed ing the area from Norfolkwith its light soils andSciences comes they spread--western ofArts no teaching Itis certain that were carefully up to the practical and low rainfall. Only when turnips way of doingit; and,therefore, and lime,and andbestWayof is thequickest well suppliedwithmanure Demonstration Ocular cultivated, inHusbandry.49 newImprovements in thisarea.44 introducing hoed,would theythrive regularly

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andSuffolk, 1580-1740 innovation, Norfolk Agricultural

217

contactdoes not necessarily mostof thefarmers considered here Face-to-face implya sense of course, of were capitalist in thatthey were farming for (and contagiouspatternof adoption. The migration and farm servants labourers and for the most part provideda responsiveto) the market, agricultural for sopreading labourgiventhesizes of mechanism specifictechniquesover musthave been employing But the moreusefulconceptuallong distances,5 but on the whole the local their enterprises."s seems to have been the source of ization in the contextof this paper is the status neighbourhood A particular group,and,moreparticularly, aboutnew practices.51 mostknowledge therelationships both whichundoubtedly hindered the spreadof within and betweengroups. problem in securingseed. Writing clover was the difficulty desWhile we have a varietyof contemporary in 1652 Blithspoke of the problemsof purchasing criptions of these statusgroups,and considerable difficulties in discussion reliableseed and of the considerable thesubtleties of of themby historians,59 seed from a home-growncrop.52 As theserelationships are elusive.It is a fairly extracting straightRobertBrownput it, 'If one could get an account forward of each matter to categorizethe attributes from Flaunders how theythrash their cloverthere, it groupin terms of mobility, standards, wealth, living would be great advantage forthe propogationof education and literacy, for example,60and more had been knownas imaginatively in termsof room useage and the it'.53On theotherhand,turnips a gardencrop fora considerable cultiva- significance of materialitems.61It is much more time,their and the extraction tion was not so difficult of seed difficult and interto reveal social relationships relatively easy. Thus the highlylocalized adoption actions.62 We can, however, venturethe rather of cloverin the 1660s and 1670s may be explained obvious generalizations thatinteraction would have farmers had in extracting seed. On been more frequent betweenmembers of the same by theproblems the otherhand clover seed was imported in some statusgroup,and thatmovement of an innovation so there to be down thesocialhierarchy. maywell be otherexplanations wouldbe likely quantity,54 as to why clover cultivation was initally concen'it seems an almostinevitAccordingto Thirsk, trated here.ThispartofNorfolk was one ofthemost able rule that innovationsin agriculture in the fertile areas of the two countiesand had earlymodernperiodwere first naturally adopted by well-towhile yeomen too, 'by all accounts long been in the vanguardof agricultural improve- do gentry',63 6 and 7 show,farmers were a thrusting as Figures and dynamic hard ment.55 Moreover, group,working here were concentrating on wintercorn (almost as commercial so also agriculturalists',64theymight wheat)and wereprobably exclusively alreadyaware be in the vanguard of innovation.By contrast, that'cloveris themother ofcorn'.56 'husbandmen... go accordingto a contemporary, These clover farmers of east Norfolkwere all after thatis,whenthe fashion is almostout, fashion, in yeomen, suggestingthat they shared a common theytakeit up'.65 These opinionsare confirmed social statuswithintheircommunities. A yeoman thispresent as Table IV demonstrates. Thereis study camebelow therank ofgentleman and esquirein the a cleartendency fortheadoptionofbothturnips and social hierarchy of farmers, and above the rankof cloverto move down thesocialhierarchy over time. husbandmen. This classification is a contemporary In particular thereis a marked lag of some 40 years farmers were particu- beforehusbandmen startto adopt. This trendalso one, and seventeenth-century larlyconscious of theirstatus.We can treatthese has a spatialexpressionin thatthe pioneersof an in a particular area tendto be of a higher groupsas 'status groups'in thesenseused by Weber innovation and more specifically by Giddens.57 In another status,althoughgiven the qualityof the evidence
TABLE IV.Innovation rates andhusbandmen 1660-1734 by gentlemen, yeomen (percentages adopting)

Turnips
Gentlemen Yeomen
1660-1679 1680-1699 1700-1719 1720-1734 6.1 15.6 46.7 62.5 2.1 11-5 27-9 28.5

Clover
Husbandmen
0.0 2.2 24-8 42.2

Gentlemen Yeomen
0.7 0-0 11-7 9-7 2-8 6-5 11.0 21.5

Husbandmen
0.0 0.0 5.4 20.0

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

218

MARKOVERTON to thepursuit Similar havingbecomefashionable'.71 countries responsesmay be found in third-world fashion today.72 Although might explainwhya new it cannot explain why crop was adopted initially, cultivation and cloverdid not go persisted. Turnips out of fashionfor some 250 years. Thus as we approachthecrucial partof the diffusion processthereactions offarmers to innovations in their social context-the questions we ask become increasifnot impossible to answer, in other inglydifficult, thanspeculative terms. CONCLUSIONS

this is difficult to demonstrate It is conclusively. likely,however,that the innovationcould move between membersof higher status groups over longer distancesthan between membersof lower status groups. Higher status groups are likelyto have been moremobile,and Cressyhas shownthat fortheperiod 1580-1740 98 per centof gentlemen in the diocese of Norwichwere literate compared with 65 per cent of yeomen and 21 per cent of husbandmen.66 Movement down the social hierbetweenmembers ofdifferent is more archy, groups, contacts, likelyto have been throughface-to-face effect'. givingriseto a 'neighbourhood These movements as to the promptspeculation natureof the relationships between status specific groupswhichencouragedone group to followthe path taken by another. Obviously an illiterate husbandman would have to wait forsomeone else he could see how thesenew to adopt before nearby cropscouldbe grown.He mayhave been impressed by the profitsthat the new crops could bring. to Aubrey, According

It shouldbe apparent thatthe studyof innovation diffusion must take full account of the specific historialcontext in which that innovationtakes place. It should also be clear that any single perprocess,be it 'economic', spectiveon the diffusion 'geographical'or 'sociological',will at best be a This paper has triedto take a partialexplanation. broader view, using concepts fromseveral innoresearch traditions. vationdiffusion Some of thediffarmers can ferences in behaviour between was first (clover by cinquefoil grass) adoption improvements Hallabout to be explainedby the advantages that turnipsand theyear1650.Itturned usedbyNicholas which hath madehisneighbours to cloveroffered to him, and to forparticular great profit systems, farming him.67 imitate the extentthatthesesystems showed some spatial thepattern of adoptionis also explained. grouping, On the otherhand it has alreadybeen established The nature itself does notseemto ofthe'innovation' thatin themselves new foddercrops were unlikely have been as historians have portrayed it,and was to have raisedgrain before in all probability yieldsto anygreatextent changingover time.Withinthis the middle decades of the eighteenthcentury. setting faceda rangeof economic, farmers physical Indeeditis questionable whether mostfarmers knew and legal constraints which could have prevented were or exactlywheretheycame themfrom whattheir thecrops. profits growing The few survivingfarmaccounts before of innovation This approachto the explanation from.68 and Suffolk 1740 in Norfolk farmers as 'adopters'and 'non-adopters' suggestthatonly dire categorizes circumstances forcedfarmers financial into making and compares various attributes of theirfarming some attemptsat drawing up accounts.69Some enterprises. While such an approachcan be revealfarmers the factthatthe diffusion may have been coerced into adoption by ing, it is static, ignoring theirlandlords, althoughthe evidence on this is process is essentially dynamic.'Geographicaldifequivocal since no study has yet related the fusion theory'provides the dynamicelementby of improved to thechronology emphasizing can how theprocessofcommunication farming chronology The consensusseems be constrained of changesin lease covenants. by space,and indeedit is possibleto ensuredthat relate the spread of new crops to the media of thatlandlords played safe and merely tenants followed theusualcourseofhusbandry communication their in early-modern England.But what and left the land in good heart when the lease is reallyimportant is the natureof the information is thatinnovation transmitted to it. The ended.70Yet another of farmers and the reactions possibility imitation-a desire relationships was a process of fashionable betweensocial groupsinvolvedin the social position. adoptionprocessprovidea guide to understanding for social approval or to maintain and between individuals as the flows of information therefore, may have been as important Prestige, to Arthur economic imiYoung thiswas also provideclues as to why one groupmight gain.According tendedto move Thus the innovations 'owed much tate another. thecase in Essex whereimprovements,

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Suffolk, 1580-1740 innovation, Agricultural Norfolk

219

anddiffusion ofagricultural down thesocialhierarchy over time, adoption fairly practices', Wld involving 9: 1-34; BLAIKIE (1978) Abstr. short-distance moves betweenmembers of different agric.Econ.rur.Sociol. 5) op. cit. pp.278-9(note social groupsover space,whileat thesame timethe 9. E. 'The agricultural revolution KERRIDGE, (1969) into innovations were spreading new areas,moving Hist. 43: 463-76;MINGAY,G. reconsidered', Agric. over comparatively distances memlonger among E. (1969) 'Dr Kerridge's revolution': a 'agricultural bers of the same statusgroups.In such a statusHist.43: 477-82 comment', Agric. conscioussocietyit is likely thatone of the reasons 10. KERRIDGE LORD (1969) op. cit.(note9); ERNLE, fortheinitial imitation of one groupby another was (1912) Englishfarming past and present(London); but thismustremain botha speculafashion, simply at SANDERS, H. W. (1915) 'Estatemanagement conclusion. in theyears1661-86and 1706',Norfolk tiveand a tentative therefore, Ultimately, Raynham Arch.19: 39-66;JONES, E. L. (1971) 'English the answersto these questionsabout the diffusion and in HARTWELL, become questions,which lead agricultural European development', process themselves R. M. (ed.) Theindustrial revolution (Oxford)pp. 51-2 back to sometimesintractable historicalsources S. (1896)op. cit.(note1); APPLEBAUM, on the one hand and to contemporary theoretical 11. GARNIER 'Roman in H. P. R. The Britain', FINBERG, (1972) (ed.) structures on theother.
agrarian history of Englandand Wales VolumeIii

NOTES

12. HARTLIB, S. (1651) His legacie, or an enlargement of the husbandry used in Brabant and Flanders (London); 1. GARNIER, R. M. (1896)'Theintroduction offodder revolution KERRIDGE, E. (1967) The agricultural revolution: MINGAY, G. E. (1977) The agricultural 1650-1850 (London). 13. BLITH, W. (1652) The improver or a survey changesin Englishagriculture improved Fora more extensive listsee OVERTON,M. (1977) of husbandry (London); SPEED, A. (1659) surveyed

(Cambridge) pp.115-16

R. agric. Soc. 3rd Ser. cropsintoGreatBritain', Jf. 7: 82-97. One of the most recentstatements is

C. (1980)'Thedevel280;LANE, (London) pp.29-32, ofpastures andmeadows thesixteenth opment during andseventeenth Hist. Rev. 28: 24-9 centuries', Agric.

2. Exceptions F. V. (1976)'Themechanics areEMERY, in Wales before of innovation: clovercultivation 1750', J.Hist. Geogr.2: 35-48 and MACDONALD, of knowledgeamong 14. S. (1979) 'The diffusion
Northumberland farmers', Agric.Hist. Rev. 27: 30-9. (1985)

case ofprobateinventories', 3: 325, n. 5 J.Hist.Geogr.

ofan inconsistent datasource: the analysis 'Computer

AdamoutofEden (London) pp. 18-29;WORLIDGE,

J. (1675) Systemaagriculturae, beingthe mystery of discovered and layd open (London, 2nd husbandry

inTHIRSK, takes hisstudy toa further J. Emery stage

The agrarianhistory of Englandand Wales,

Hum.Geogr. 2: 268-95 18. BURN, R. S. (1775) Ecclesiastical law (3rd ed., Prog. spaciouscul-de-sac', 6. HAGERSTRAND, T. (1953) Innovationsforloppet ur vol.4,p. 240 London) (Lund); BLAUT (1977) op. cit. p. 19. CRESSY,D. A. (1972) 'Education and literacy in korologisk synpunkt

2 (inpress) Vol.V,1640-1750 (Cambridge) Chapter 3. 'Grasssubstitutes' is an ungainly term but is more accurate than 'artificial since 15. KERRIDGE (1967)op.cit. grasses' (note contemporaries' 12) pp.268-88 these were neither norgrasses artificial 16. For more detail of this empirical work see crops 4. Recentintroductions are BROWN, L. A. (1981) OVERTON, M. (1980) 'Agricultural change in Innovationdiffusion: a new perspective Norfolk andSuffolk (London); Ph.D.thesis, 1580-1740', unpubl. A. D. and FREY,A. (1977) HAGGETT,P., CLIFF, Univ. ofCambridge Locationalanalysis in Human Geography discussion see OVERTON, M. (London) 17. For a muchfuller inventories andthemeasure(1980)'English pp. 231-58, and FOUND, W. C. (1971) A theoretical probate mentof agricultural A.A.G. Bijdragen 23: approach to rural land use patterns(London) pp. change', 138-60 inven205-15;and OVERTON,M. (1984)'Probate 5. BLAUT, J.M. (1977) 'Two views of diffusion', Ann. toriesand the reconstruction of agricultural landAss.Am.Geogr. 67: 343-49; P. (1978)'The BLAIKIE, scapes', in REED, M. (ed.) Discovering past landscapes of the spatialdiffusion of innovations: a theory (London) pp.167-94

recreation (London)f.207 LAWRENCE, J. (1726) A new system of agriculture (London) p. 109; SALMON, N. (1728) A newsurvey of England wherein the defectsof Camden are (London) p. 168; DEFOE, D. (1724) A tour supplied the wholeislandof Great Britain through (Everyman ed., London,1962) vol. 1, p. 58

ed.) pp. 42-3; BLOME, R. (1686) Thegentleman's

343 (note 5) 7. ROGERS, E. M. andSHOEMAKER, F.F. (1971)Com-

munication (2nd ed. London) ofinnovations 20. Norfolk RecordOffice, Courtinventories Consistory 8. ROSENBERG, N. (ed.) (1971) The economics of techINV 12/232 and 14/42; MINGAY (1963) 'The agrinicalchange (London); JONES,G. E. (1967) 'The culturalrevolutionin Englishhistory:a reconsider-

London andEastAnglia, Ph.D. 1580-1700', Unpubl. Univ. ofCambridge, thesis, p. 15

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

220

MARK OVERTON 39. HAVINDEN, M. A. (1961) 'Agricultural progressin Hist.Rev.9: 73-83 Oxfordshire', Agric. open-field 40. POSTGATE, M. R. (1973) 'Field systems of East Anglia', in BAKER, A. R. H. and BUTLIN, R. A. (eds) Studies of field systemsin the BritishIsles (Cambridge)pp. 281-324; ALLISON (1957) op. cit. pp. 27-8 (note20) 41. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 209-12 (note 16) 42. ERNLE (1912) op. cit.p. 160 (note 10); CHAMBERS, J. D. and MINGAY, G. E. (1966) The agricultural 1750-1880 revolution (London)pp. 80-1 43. WHITLEY, N. (1850) 'On the climateof the British R. agric.Soc. 11: on cultivation', Isles in its effects J1. p. 42; MORGAN (1978) op. cit.pp. 7-60 (note34) 44. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.p. 214 (note 16) 45. A summaryof this literaturemay be found in CURTLER, W. H. (1909) A shorthistory of English (London) pp. 127-47. See also TRIBE, K. agriculture ofbooks pp. 53-79; CLARK,P. (1978) 'The ownership in England1560-1640: the exampleof some Kentish in STONE, L. (ed.) Schooling and society townsfolk', (London) pp. 95-111; HUNTER, M. Science and England(Cambridge) pp. 87societyin Restoration 112; LEVY, F. J. (1982) 'How information spread among the gentry,1550-1640', J. Brit. Stud. 21: pp. 11-34

ation', Agric.Hist. 26: 131; ALLISON, K. J. (1957) in thesixteenth 'The sheep-corn ofNorfolk husbandry and seventeenthcenturies', Agric.Hist. Rev. 5: 27; OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 169-76 (note 16) 21. FUSSELL, G. E. (1955) 'History of Cole (Brassica sp.)', 176: 48 Nature come fromthe 912 extant farm 22. These 13 farmers for1628-40butthedata in Table I refer inventories to the 10-yearperiod 1629-38 to ensurecomparability withotherdata expressedas 10 yearmeans 23. INV 37/83, INV 43/210. OVERTON (1980) op. cit. pp. 169-74 (note 16) 24. KERRIDGE, E. (1956) 'Turnip Husbandryin High Econ. Hist.Rev.2nd Ser.8: 390-2 Suffolk', 25. For a discussion of the adoption of waggons see OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 134-5, 159-63, 168-9, 178, 221-4,286-9 (note 16) 26. MINGAY (1977) op. cit.pp. 5,4 (note 1) 27. KERRIDGE (1956) op. cit.(note24); ALLISON (1957) op. cit.p. 27 n. 3 (note20) 28. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.p. 275 (note 16) 29. OVERTON (1980) op. cit. p. 280 (note 16); British 1854-5,LIII (1928) Parliamentary Papers 30. OVERTON, M. (1979) 'Estimating crop yieldsfrom an example fromEast Anglia, probate inventories: Hist.39: 363-78 1585-1735',]nl. Econ. 31. JONES, E. L. (1965) 'Agricultureand economic growthin England 1660-1750: agricultural change', Hist.25: 1-18 ]nl. Econ. 32. The pointsin thisand the succeedingparagraph are elaboratedin OVERTON, M. (1983) 'An agricultural revolution1650-17507', in Agricultural history: papers presentedto the Economic History Society Con(Leeds) 1-18 and in OVERTON, ference, Canterbury M. (1984) 'Agricultural revolution? Developmentof the agrarianeconomy in early modernEngland',in BAKER, A. R. H. and GREGORY, D. J.(eds) Explorations in historicalgeography (Cambridge) pp. 124-32

and economic discourse labour (London) (1978) Land,

(London)vol. 1: 455; BLITH (1652) op. cit.pp. 177-87 (note 13); EMERY (1976) op. cit. pp. 39-40 (note 2); COLES, W. (1657) Adam in Edenor nature's paradise (London)p. 117 47. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.p. 219 (note 16); CRESSY, in England1530-1730', D. (1977) 'Levels of illiteracy Hist.]. 20: 5 48. EMERY (1976) op. cit. (note 2); MITCHELL, A. R. (1974) 'Sir Richard Weston and the spread of clover cultivation',Agric. Hist. Rev. 22: 160-1; MACDONALD (1979) op. cit.(note2) in 49. ELLIS, W. A. (1744-5) The modern 33. Yields are calculated to the method or husbandman according OVERTON (1979) op. cit.(note30). Outputis simply out by the as it is now carried thepractice of farming as meanacreageper farm calculated in severalcounties most accurate by of England farmers multiplied

Steward 46. MORDANT, J. (1761) The complete

34. KERRIDGE (1967) op. cit. pp. 272-5 (note 12); 50. MACDONALD, S. (1983) 'Agricultural improvement and the neglected labourer',Agric. Hist. Rev. 31: TROW-SMITH, R. (1957) A historyof British to 1700 (London) pp. 256-7; livestock 81-90; ELLIS (1744-5) op. cit. Vol. 1, p. 120 (note husbandry MORGAN, R. (1978) The root crop in English 49) Ph.D.thesis, Univ. of 51. MACDONALD (1979) op. cit.p. 37 (note2) 1650-1870', agriculture Unpubl. 52. BLITH (1652) op. cit.pp. 178-9 (note 13) Reading, p. 444 or thewhole and future 53. BROWN, R. (1759) The compleat 35. LAMB, H. H. (1977) Climatepast present farmer and thefuture Vol. 2, climatic artof husbandry (London) pp. (London) p. 111; BLITH (1652) op. history cit.pp. 178-9 (note 13) 440-73; OVERTON (1979) op. cit. pp. 371-2, 376, influence 54. FUSSELL, G. E. (1959) 'The Low Countries' (note 30) 36. Norfolk RecordOffice MSS 9935 on English Eng.Hist.Rev.74: 611-22 farming', in 37. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 94-124, 288 (note 16); 55. CAMPBELL, B. M. S. (1983) 'Arableproductivity OVERTON(1984)op.cit. medievalEngland:some evidencefrom Norfolk', (note 17) pp.184-7 ]nl. Hist.43: 379-404 Econ. 38. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 285-7 (note 16)

mean yield

8 vols)Vol.1,p. 120 (London,

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andSuffolk, 1580-1740 innovation, Agricultural Norfolk

56. BLITH (1652) op. cit. pp. 184-5 (note 13); ELLIS to William (1744-5) op. cit.p. 32 (note 49). According 'A smallenclosure nearAyleshamis shown Marshall, as the first piece of land which bore clover in this MARSHALL, W. (1787) The ruraleconomy district', (London)Vol. 1: 302-3 ofNorfolk 57. GIDDENS, A. (1973) The class structure of the advanced societies (London)p. 109 58. TRIBE, K. (1981) The genealogiesof capitalism (London) pp. 35-100, discussesthe natureof agrarian capitalism

221

61. GARRARD, R. (1980) 'Englishprobate inventories and their use in studyingthe significance of the domestic interior,1550-1700' A.A.G. Bijdragen 3: 56-60 62. An attemptis made by WRIGHTSON, K. (1982) 1580-1680 (London)pp. 17-65 English society 63. THIRSK, J. (1974) 'New crops and theirdiffusion: tobacco growingin seventeenth-century England',in CHALKLIN, C. W. and HAVINDEN, M. A. (eds) CRESSY, (1980) op. cit.p. 125 (note60) John Aubrey's words reprintedin THIRSK and COOPER (1972) op. cit.pp. 170-1 (note59) CRESSY (1977) op. cit.p. 5 (note47) Quoted in THIRSK and COOPER (1972) op. cit. p. 178 (note59) MACDONALD (1979) op. cit.p. 30 (note2) For example, FarmRecordsCollection, ReadingUniv. Lib.,NORF 14/1Acc. No. 493 landedsociety in the MINGAY, G. E. (1963) English (London) pp. 170-1; STANES, R. eighteenth century and tenant and husbandry covenants (1981) 'Landlord in eighteenth Devon', in MINCHINTON, W. century

64. 59. FURNIVALL, F. J.(ed.) (1877) Harrison's 65. description of EnglandNew ShakespeareSociety 6th ser. no.1; THIRSK, J. and COOPER, J. P. (eds) (1972) Seven- 66. teenth economic documents (Oxford) pp. 67. century thesocial order 780-1; CRESSY, D. (1976) 'Describing of Elizabethan and Stuart England', Literature and 68. History 3: 29-44; MINGAY, G. E. (1976) The 69. (London); CAMPBELL, M. (1942) The English gentry under Elizabeth andthe Stuarts 70. yeoman early 60. CLARK, P. (1979) 'Migrationin Englandduringthe late seventeenth and earlyeighteenth Past centuries', and Present 83: 57-90, OVERTON (1980) op. cit. p. 24 (note 16); MARSHALL, J.D. (1980) 'Agrarian wealthand social structure in pre-industrial Cumbria', Econ. Hist. Rev. 2nd ser. 33: 503-21; HAVINDEN, 71.

Rural andurban (London) change growth p. 97

modern (Exeter) pp. 41-64 1700-1815 Quoted in BROWN, A. F. J.Essexat work, M. A. (ed.) (1965) Household and farminventories (Chelmsford) p. 31 in Oxfordshire 1550-90 Oxford Record Soc. 44, and 72. For example FLIEGEL, F. L., KILVIN, J. E. and HistoricalManuscriptsCommissionJointPubl. 10 SEKHON, G. S. (1968) 'A cross-national comparison of farmers' and of innovations (London) pp. 27-34; CRESSY, D. (1980) Literacy as relatedto perceptions the socialorder Rur.Soc.33: 445-6 (Cambridge) pp. 118-41 adoptionbehaviour',

E. (ed.)

medieval and Agricultural improvement:

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions