difusión de innovaciones agrícolas en inglaterra moderna

8/13/2019 difusin de innovaciones agrcolas en Inglaterra moderna

1/18

The Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations in Early Modern England: Turnips and Clover inNorfolk and Suffolk, 1580-1740Author(s): Mark OvertonSource: 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 [email protected].

.

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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/621824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/621824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs


2/18

205Thediffusionf griculturalnnovationsnearlymodernngland:urnipsndclovernNorfolkndSuffolk,580-1740MARKOVERTONDepartmentfGeography,niversityfNewcastleponTyne, ewcastlepon yne, EI 7RURevised S received4April, 985ABSTRACTTurnipsnd clover ave ongbeenregardeds twoofthemost ignificantnnovationsfthe o-calledagriculturalrevolution'nEngland.his aper resentshe vidence orhe preadf hese ropsnNorfolkndSuffolkrom580to 1740using atafromome4000farmers'robatenventories.nattemptingoexplainhe imingndpatternfadoptionhe ole fthese ewfodderropswithinusbandryystemss relatedomore eneralhangesnthe gri-culturalconomynd osome f he onstraintsarmersacedf hey ishedoadopt. he preadf heseropssthenrelatedomedia f ommunicationnd he mploymentf hesemedia ydifferentocial roupsnvolvednfarming.Social tatus rovideskey, ot nly ounderstandingheway nwhichnformationas ransmitted,ut oexplaininghowfarmersighteact othatnformation.KEYWORDS:Historicaleography,griculturalevolution,ngland,odderrops,iffusion,robatenventories.

The introductionf new fodder rops,principallyturnips nd clover,has long been considered nessentialpartof the so-called agriculturalevolu-tion' n England, nd indeed n north-westuropeas a whole. Yet despite generaldiscussions f thespread f these ropsfor ome80 yearswe still aveno clear icturefthe iming,ate ndspatial atternof theiradoption.' Without such specific nfor-mation we cannotreallybegin to evaluate rivalclaimsfor n 'agriculturalevolution' ased on therole of these crops withinfarmingystems.Themeasurementf nnovationlso provides hemeansto evaluate ontemporarypinions bout the preadof new crops, o resolveconflicts verchronologyinrecentiteraturend to reassess herole ofthesecrops n agriculturalevelopment uring heearlymodernperiod.The lackofbasicdatamayalso inpart xplainwhy ofew ttempts avebeenmadetoanalysetheprocessesby whichthesecrops spreadamongstfarmers.2 uch analysis could do morethan imply ccountfor heevolution fthespatialpatternfparticularrops; t should lso be able toshed ight n themechanisms fchange n societymoregenerally,n that similar rocessesmay beinvolved nthediffusionfothernnovations.

This paperpresents heevidence forthespreadofrootcropsandgrasssubstitutes3nNorfolk ndSuffolk,upposedly heheartland fan 'agriculturalrevolution', uring he period 1580-1740. But itsmainconcernswith hediffusionrocess;with heways in which nformationboutnew cropsspreadamongstfarmers,nd with theirreactions o thisinformation.tmight e expected hattheobviousstarting ointfor study f nnovation iffusionyan historicaleographerwouldbe withgeographi-cal diffusionheory', body ofconcepts nd tech-niquesdesigned oexplain heprocesses ywhichnew deaorpracticepreads verspaceandthroughtime within some specificarea.4 The lure ofsuch an approach s understandable,orunless aphenomenonppears nstantlyver an area, diffu-sionprocess o definedmust perate.Moreover,nasocietywith relative earth f nformationhavingno 'mass media' and limitedevels of literacy)uchan approachseems all themoreattractiven thatmanyof the factors hatcomplicate he classicalmodels are not present,whichsuggests,perhaps,that he modelmayhavemoreexplanatory owerwhenappliedto thepast. Unfortunately,ven themostcursoryxaminationf geographical iffusion

Trans.nst.Br.Geogr. .S. 10: 205-221 (1985) ISSN: 0020-2754 PrintednGreatBritain

This content downloaded from 190.18.21.191 on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:15:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

206 MARKOVERTONtheory uggests tmayhave little o offer eyondtheobservation hatdistance anconstrain lows finformation,nd a tool-kit f increasinglyophisti-catedgeometricmodelswhichmayhelp npredict-ingthespreadofepidemics ut are of little elp nexplaining ther orms fdiffusion.5While the classicgeographicalmodels,derivedfrom the initial work of Higerstrand,rightlyemphasizethe communicationf ideas and infor-mation (forobviously a potentialadopter mustknowof an innovation efore e canadopt t)theyseem tomake the mplicit ssumptionhat hepro-cess of communications thesame as theprocessofinnovation iffusion.notherwords, n explanationof how informationpreads is assumed also toexplainhow innovationpreads.Differingeactionsofpotential dopters o informationbout an inno-vation are relegatedto the statusof 'resistancefactors'which are assumed to be distributedrandomly ithin population fpotential doptersand determinedn themodelby prior election fprobabilities,husassigning fundamentalartoftheadoptionprocess o chance.6n somecases thisneed notmatter; hen he item' eingdiffuseds aninfectious iseasefor xample, ut nother ases itdoes. In theadoptionofan agriculturalnnovationthereaction f potentialdopter o the nformationhe receives bout an innovationmaybe crucial oan understandingf theadoption processand thespatial atterntproduces. ven f hemodel'works',in that it ucceeds n predictinghe spreadof aninnovation,tcouldonlyconstituten explanation'for a subscriber o the positivistdoctrinethatpredictionndexplanationreequivalent.Geographers'pproaches odiffusionrebut oneamongmany esearchraditions, any f which reexplicitlyoncernedwith hebehaviour fpotentialadopters n theface of informationbout an inno-vation.7 huseconomiststress heperceived rofit-abilityof an innovationwhile ruralsociologistsrelatepotential nnovators o social groups andsocial structuresunlike the Higerstrandmodelwhere thereare only two classes; adoptersandnon-adopters). et neither conomistsnor ruralsociologists are concernedwith spatial patternsof adoption and very littletheoryhas emergedfromthe innumerablempirical tudiesby ruralsociologists except in the form of a series ofgeneralizations hichdo not constitute 'generaltheory'necessarily pplicableto a givenhistoricalsituation.8Inanycase the imitationsf thehistoricalecord

inevitablympose n element fpragmatismn anyanalysisof innovation n earlymodem England.Whiletheorymayhelp npromptinguestionst simpossible orsome of themost importanto beanswered.The approachadopted in thispaper isthereforefnecessity omething fa compromise.The first ectionpresents ome basic informationon the hronologyndpatternsfadoption nddis-cusses problemsof identifyingnd defining heprecisenature f the nnovations. he second sec-tion dvances omegeneral xplanationss towhyfarmersmight adopt these crops and discussessomegeneral onstraintsheymighthave faced nintroducinghemnto their armingystems.Whilethisgoes someway towards xplainingwhysomecategoriesffarmerdopted andthereforerovidesa limitedexplanationof the spatial patternofadoption) t cannotexplaintheway in whichtheinnovations preadover space.Thus thethird ec-tion ooks at themedia of communicationnd theemploymentf thesemediaby thedifferentocialgroups involved in farming.Considerationoffarmers'tatusprovides key,not onlyto under-standing heway inwhich nformationas trans-mitted,uttoexplaining owfarmers ight eact othatnformation.CHRONOLOGIESAND PATTERNSOFADOPTIONA chronology f nnovations an essential tartingpointfora studyof the diffusionrocess. t alsoserves o resolve omeof thecontroversyetweentheproponentsfvarious agriculturalevolutions',in so far s thesedependon the ntroductionf newcrops.Much of thedisagreementetweenKerridgeandMingay,for xample, eemsto dependon theextentof innovation t particulareriods.9UsingRogers'descriptiveategories, erridge mphasizesthe mportancef innovators'nd early dopters',whileMingay waitsfor the latemajority' eforeclaiming hat revolution as takenplace.This isnot made explicitn thedebate:a diffusionurvemight larifyhesituationt leastas far s Norfolkand Suffolkreconcerned. itherto urknowledgeof the ntroductionf newcropshas beenbased oncontemporaryiterature,lthough s Kerridgehaspointedout,thepicture his iteratureresents asbeen obscuredby the mythsof an 'agriculturalrevolution' romulgated y thefollowers f LordEmle.Forexample, hreeyears fter mrnle'snglishfarming ast and present as published n article



4/18

Agriculturalnnovation,orfolkndSuffolk,580-1740 207had shown that Turnip'Townshend was a boywhen urnips eregrown n hisestates,ongbeforeEmle saidhe introduced hem.Moreover,muchofthe ate eighteenth-centurygriculturaliteraturesinaccuraten ts discussion f thechronology f theintroductionf newcrops.'0Rootcrops, articularlyheturnip, ererecordedas a garden crop in sixteenth-centuryngland:indeed it is possible that the Romans introducedthem to Britain." Grass substitutes, articularlyclover, re firstmentionedyWeston, hough omeclovers were indigenous o the country nd mayhave beenused forfodderongbefore.12 rom he1650s writers dvocate both turnips nd selectedclovers as foddercrops, though they lay moreemphasis n cloverthanon turnipsnd imply hattheformer ere morewidelycultivated. lith, orexample, lthoughmentioning urnips,dds cloveras a main mprovemento his mprovermprovedf1652.Speed s one ofthefirstuthoritiesomentionthefeeding f turnips o animals, hough n 1675Worlidge considered, this be a plant usuallynourishtnGardens',nd it s a verygreatneglectand deficiencien ourEnglishHusbandry hat thisparticular iece is not more prosecuted 'RichardBlome's Gentleman'secreationf 1686 is represen-tative f these pinionswhen tplacesturnipsnthekitchen arden,ndclover nthefieldwith ainfoin,nonsuch nd lucern nder heheadingof Improve-ments'.13By the earlydecades of the eighteenthcenturyurnipseemto havecaught p, fnotover-taken, lover n popularity.n 1726 John awrence

considered urnipswere one of the chief reasures'of thefarmer,esponsible orgreatprofits,ndtwoyears later, Salmon's Surveyof Englandspokeenthusiasticallybout the 'new Improvements fsown grassand Tumeps' in Norfolk nd Suffolk,while Defoe reportedon High Suffolkwiththecommenthat,this art fEnglands remarkableor eing hefirstwherehe eedingndfatteningf attle,oth heep swell as black attlewith urnips,as firstractis'dnEngland.4For thepurposesof thispaperfurtheritationsfrom ontemporaryiteraturere unnecessary ndthere s little oint ntracing articularlagiarismsand contradictions.he evidencebroadly uggeststhat grass substitutes tarted o diffuse rom he1660s while urnips egantospread romhe1680s-1690s and thatboth werefound n some areas ofNorfolk nd Suffolky the 1730s. Literaryourcescannot akeus muchfurtherhanthis; heydo notreveal the exact locationsof innovations, r theextentofadoption n particulareriods.These arenotrevealed ither ymodem tudies singprimarymaterial.One of themostcomprehensiveurveysof theintroductionf fodder rops s by Kerridgewho dates the introductionf turnips o themid-seventeenth entury,nd cloverto a slightlyater

period, ollowing hegeneralhistorical'radition fdescribingenerallyhe ntroductionfthese ropswithoutmaking systematicttempt o producespecificnd detailed hronology.'5TABLE.FodderropsnNorfolknd uffolknventories,587-1729

Rootrops Grassubstitutes(1) (2) N (3) N (4) N (2) N (3) N (4) N1587-96 674 0.8 263 * 211 521 0-0 236 156 2801629-38 713 0.9 223 * 180 0.06 584 0.0 250 146 3041660-69 416 1-6 189 * 119 0.19 318 0-7 136 * 98 1731670-79 362 9.3 172 0.25 100 0-45 236 3-7 109 * 86 1331680-89 240 19.1 94 0.30 63 0.46 154 4.3 93 * 55 1051690-99 153 29.4 51 0.90 37 1.29 92 6.3 63 * 39 0.24 751700-09 272 40-2 82 0-51 71 1.25 173 11.7 111 0.04 78 0-32 1401710-19 334 47.4 137 0.87 99 1.52 217 17.4 115 0.41 95 0.32 1251720-29 380 52.7 148 0.89 120 1.81 242 23.6 144 0.60 97 1 04 171(1) Totalnumber f farmnventories(2) Percentage f nventoriesmentioninghecrop August-Decembernventoriesor ootcrops;March-Julyor rass ubstitutes)(3) Mean area hectares)(4) Mean value(f?)N Number f nventories sed* Insufficientata



5/18

208 MARKOVER ONTable I and Figure1 are the resultof such anattemptusing data extractedfrom some 4000farmers'probate inventoriespresented to theConsistoryCourt in Norwichduringthe periods1587-98, 1629-40 and 1660-1735.16 Althoughinventories ave been used extensivelyn discus-sionsofagriculturalhange,t s as welltopoint utsome specific roblems heypresent n measuringinnovation.17 Firstly,nventorieso notdate the ctof innovation: heygive the date of death of afarmerwho had been growinga particularrop.Secondly, mbiguousentries n inventoriesmightconceal thepresenceof an innovation.Grasssub-stitutes ause more problems han do root cropssincetheformerould be concealedbysuchphrasesas 'stover',fodder',hay' or 'grass'.Since natural'

meadowsdid not haveto be listed naninventorytcouldbe that omeappraisersmitted loverfrominventories,ven though ontemporaryegal textsconsideredhat he rop houldbe recorded." Rootcropsare less likely o be hidden n somegeneraldescriptionortheywere an entirely ew typeofcrop, ownand harvested t seasonsdifferentromother rops ndgrownfor heirroot' naddition otheir oliage.Thirdly,nventoriesncludeonlythecropswhichwerepresent n a farmwhena farmerdied.Thus, ncalculatinghepercentagesffarmerswith root crops only those inventoriesmadebetweenAugustand Decemberhave beenutilized,and for rass ubstituteshosemade betweenMarchandJuly. ourthly,lthough ll farmers'nventoriescan be used to calculate simple requencyount f

4Turnips

E 3 CloverIu

,, 2

/0

50-

40-

E 30-4-

20 -

AI10-

1590 1630 1670 1710 17401590 1630 1670 1710 1740FIGURE .Turnipsnd lovernNorfolknd uffolknventories



6/18

Agriculturalnnovation,orfolknd uffolk,580-1740 209adoptionfewerprovidea value and fewer till nacreageas Table I indicates. inally, robate nven-tories re more ikely o have beenmadefor armersin the higherstatus groups. In the 1670s forexample, ome2 percentof farmerseaving Con-sistoryCourt nventorynNorwichwereesquires,15 per cent were gentlemen, 1 per centyeomenand 6 per centhusbandmen. or the sameperiod,using a varietyof other sources, it has beenestimatedhat oughly percent f allfarmers ereesquires r gentlemen,8 percentyeomen nd 68percenthusbandmen,lthough he owerboundarydefininghusbandmen s a particularlyndistinctone.1

Bearingthese imitationsn mind,Figure1 andTable I give a general ndication fthechronologyof adoption n Norfolk nd Suffolk rom1585 to1734. The earliest nventory eferenceso turnipsare to two marketgardeners n Norwich n the1590s described s 'aliens',reinforcinghewidelyheld belief hatthecropwas introducedy Dutchrefugees.20Rape or cole-seed is evident from1588,predatingts upposed ntroductionyDutchdrainersn the seventeenthentury,lthough,iketurnipsthe crop was being grown by Dutch'aliens'.21 No inventorieswere consulted for1600-1629 sincetherateof nnovationn the1630swas little ifferento the 1590s. But the1630s are

*0* * AAI O** 0AA ,

"*""? " .. . .' ..*

'" ..

. . .. *.. -. . .-*. **?-**. . *.

" " ".. ? .*

.* .

.0 Roots.urnAps? . . ? . .. .

*Carrots

+ Otherns * .,.

S N n ad o p er ... *?m

0 0 0 0 0 00 000000 00 0 00 0 0 N : 000 0 %W 00 .400 40?000 041%0 00 0 000 000 00 00 0 00 w 0000??? ??0il ? ? ????? ? ? ?0t~~0 tor. ???? 0 0?0 or? ?? ?Roots?urnips0 ape ? 5?CarrotsOnionsOthers I..Aronadote 10

FIGURE 2. Root cropsmentioned n inventoriesnd the location of farmersleaving inventorieswithno root crops,1628-40



7/18

210 MARK OVERTONsignificantn that t was during his decade thatturnips irstppearas a fodder rop,rather han sa vegetable orhuman onsumption.he location fthe various root crops mentioned n inventoriesmade between1628 and 1640 is shown nFigure .Thirteenarmerseregrowing ne ormore ypes frootcropand at least seven of them eem to havebeen growing roots for fodder.22The earliestreferences for 1631 when NathanielSharpeofButleyhad one acre ofroots',but themostcertain

evidence omes from he nventory illiam ope ofBurghCastle made in 1638. The appraisers f hisinventoryecorded,nineteen owes and foure uck-ingCalves,one budd bull andone budd heifer iththehay stack nd theturneps'.23 iven thatthesefarmers ied in the 1630s theycould well haveintroduced he field ultivationfrootcrops nthe1620s (or even earlier), huspredatingKerridge's'agriculturalevolution'n High Suffolky two orthree decades.24 Figures3 and 4 completethe

A *B*~. * .I .j *.***. . .* . * .. *0%?00oo0 00 0. . *00..0:00 0*%**

#tdopter*Non adopterC * 0 D ** 0

oo*0 20 mI ___

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



8/18

Agriculturalnnovation,orfolknd uffolk,580-1740 211picture f the patial pread frootcrops which remainlyturnips) nd grass substituteswhich aremainlyclover).Figure5 summarizes 5 years ofinnovationby indicatinghe densityof adoptionfor 10 kmgridsquareswheresufficientnventoriesareextant.Also shownfor omparative urposesnFigure is thepatternfadoption f farmwaggonsas revealed y nventories.25This newevidencendicates dramaticpsurgentheadoptionof rootcrops,from rateofabout 5

percentoffarmersrom he 1580s through o the1660s,to 50 percent ffarmersy1710.Theperiodof innovation orcloverwas similiar,lthough heproportionf farmersdoptingwas smaller.n thelightof this evidencethe statements y Mingaythat, we do not know with accuracy ust whenclovers or turnipswere grown by a substantialnumber ffarmers',nd that,thepace of technicalchange n theperiod1650 to c.1850was generallyslow',26 an obviouslybe revised, t least as far s

A .. * 8

S... .. . * .W**. *Adopter*Non-adopter

* ?. * ??*** * ' .*.~~~ * *) * e. *? ??o* * ah . , * s

\*0 20mFIGURE 4. Adopters and non-adoptersof grass substitutes March-July nventories):A. 1665-1674,B. 1675-1684, C. 1705-1714, D. 1715-1724



9/18

212 MARK OVERTONNorfolk ndSuffolkre concerned.MoreoverFigure2 showsthat he nnovation earthwas not n HighSuffolk' ut nNorfolk,nd even for heperiodtowhichKerridge efers iveof theeight dopters nFigure A are nNorfolk.27INCENTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS TOADOPTIONBefore onsidering hyfarmers ight dopt thesenew fodder ropsit is importanto identifyheir

roles withinfarmingystems.The virtues f the'Norfolk our-course'fwheat, urnips,arley ndclover,whichformed hekeystone f muchnorthEuropean armingntilwell nto the twentiethen-tury re familiarnough, utwe mustnot be misledintothinkinghat hepresence fturnips r cloveron a farmmeant hat ucha rotationwas inopera-tion. Untilthe middledecades of the eighteenthcentury eitherurnipsor lover eem o have beenan essential artofcroprotations n themajorityoffarmslthough heyweregrownby a relatively

-B

SInf D

Percentages of FarmersAdoptingA B C

45.1-67 16-43 20-78

20.1-45 6.5-15.9 7-19.90.1-20.1-6.4.1-6.9S Insufficient Data

0 20kmL - -- - --FIGURE5. Densityofadoption, 660-1734: A. Rootcrops August-Decembernventories),. Grass ubstitutes,C. Waggons



10/18

Agriculturalnnovation,orfolkndSuffolk,580-1740 213largeproportionffarmers.heywerenotgrownnsufficientuantity o have mucheffect n overallfertilityndthusdo notappear ncropcombinationindices alculated rom creagesof ndividual ropsrecorded n inventories nd in manycases do notseem to havebeengrownfor heirroots' t all butfor heir reen ops.28Bythe1720s theproportionof the cropped acreage (i.e. excludingpasture,meadow,woodland andmostfallow)under urnipsinthetwo countieswas onlyabout9 percent andunder lover3-5percent.By the1850s thesepro-portionshad reached 18 percent and 20 percentrespectively.29f course omefarmers eregrow-ingquite arge creagesbythe1720s,buttheywerein a minority,ndgenerallypeaking, eitherurnipsnorcloverweregrownon a scalesufficiento havehad a great mpact n yields.Grainyieldsdid notrisedramaticallyuring heperiod1660-172030 seeTable I) andso the uggestion hat urnipsr cloverwere adopted specificallyo raise grainyields31does not seem to be a very ikely xplanation finnovation. n fact,strictlypeaking, t is an aposteriorixplanationmovingfrom ffect o cause)based on therole thecropsweretoassume fterhemid-eighteenthentury.t is afterhisperiodthatturnips ecame an essential artofrotations asedon theprinciplesftheNorfolk our-course.32Table II shows thatduring heperiodof rapidinnovationafter1660 therewas a considerableincrease n the outputof barley in Norfolk ndSuffolk,ue moreto an extension f the acreage

than o an increase nyields.33 ome of thisbarleywas destined or he malttrade, oth at homeandoverseas.From1697 malt xports eceived rebateof some14percentof their alue,butperhapsmoreimportantly nglishmerchantswere able to gainsecuremarketsduringthe early decades of theeighteenth entury. econdly,farmers ould havebeenfeeding arley o theirnimals,nd so respond-ing n a rationalway to theswing npricerelativestowards ivestock. n animal ed nbarley anreachmaturitymore rapidly hanone fed on grass,sowhile the number f animalsdid not increase erymuch he urnoverf animals ndtheoutput fmeatwould have increased. he increased rea ofbarleycame partlyfrom reduction n the area of rye,and partly rom n increase n thegrain creage-probably t theexpenseofpermanent asture ndfallow.The averageproportion f croplandunderbarley osefrom round 0 percent n the 1660s tonearly 0 percent n the1720s,while heproportionofcropland nder yefell rom 0 percent o 7 percent. nventories o not record reas of fallowper-manent asture ut as Table II shows,boththecornacreage nd the ropped creageperfarm rew.Thismightreflect n increase n averagefarm ize,butfarm izes are unlikely o have doubled, o partofthe ncreasemust ave beendue to a reductionntheextent fpasturendfallow.

One obviousexplanation or he ntroductionfnew fodder rops s the ncreasen thenumbers fanimals.Butturnipsnd cloverhad severalroles toTABLE I.Livestockumbersnd rainutput,ieldsnd creages,erivedrom orfolknd uffolknventories,587-1729

Wheat Barley(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

1587-96 94 104 58 45 73 19 73 111 134 45 93 801629-38 81 81 81 44 57 18 91 86 100 42 84 931660-69 100 100 100 100 100 29 100 100 100 37 100 1001670-79 114 125 96 100 104 21 127 242 190 50 97 1171680-89 90 83 89 71 79 22 118 129 110 39 121 1721690-99 198 174 104 82 79 11 104 294 284 51 104 1361700-09 130 131 87 93 107 19 116 275 233 54 124 771710-19 129 133 104 115 110 18 125 326 261 56 116 701720-29 195 201 101 169 160 18 141 542 383 57 151 137(1) Croppedareaperfarm (5) Areaperfarm(2) Cornareaperfarm (6) Percentage fgrain rea(3) Yield bushelsperhectare) (7) Number fbullocks erfarm(4) Output bushels erfarm) (8) Number fsheep perfarmAll figuresexcept olumns ) are means xpressed s indexnumbers1660-69 = 100). A bushel sroughly 6-37 itres.



11/18

214 MARK OVERTONplay nthe extension f the arable rea. Bothcropsprovided higheryielding ourceof fodderftheyreplaced permanent astureor a weedy fallow.Turnipswere also important s a means to thereclamation f light and.Theydid thisby takingnutrientsrom he soil up tofive imes he amountof cereal rops) nd sincetheir ootsweredeeper ntheground, rom differentevel n the soil. Thesenutrientsouldthen e recycled,ither smanure,rthrough ropresidues eft n the soil.34The chiefbenefitf clover aynotso much n andreclamationthan nnitrificationnd thereforeheraising f andproductivity.iven thesedifferentoles sprobablyof somesignificancehat urnips eremorepopularthan lover, uggestinghatnnovation asdirectedmore owardsand reclamationhan owards aisingfertilityyaddingnitrogen.Finally complementaryxplanation f the ntro-duction f fodder rops, nd indeed ofproductionchangesmoregenerally,an be basedon thenotionthatfarmers ereattemptingo reduce he evelofrisk.The late seventeenth enturymarks he lowpointof the Little ce Age' characterizedy a fallin average temperaturesnd a rise nprecipitation.The weatherwas particularlyad from he 1660sonwards,reaching nadirduringthe 1680s and1690s. There is sufficientlimatic ata to demon-strate his,but it is veryevidentfrom he trendsof bothyieldsand prices.35 aced with thisveryobviousdeterioration,armers ouldhave seennewfoddercrops, particularlyurnips, s a way ofspreadingtheir fodderportfolio, hus providingsomeinsurancegainst he failure fa haycrop. fthehay harvestwas poor,turnips ould be sownas late as August to providesome greenfodderduring hewintermonths. contemporaryorfolkweatherdiaryrecordsparticularlyad springs nthe 1660s and 1670s, while a churchwardenfHingham, omplainingf a bad haycropfollowingbad weathern1681 recorded,thewantofhaywassupplied ythegrowing fturnips'.36nincreasingemphasis n barley analso be interpreteds a wayofspreading isk incebarley ouldbe usedboth asa cash crop to be malted, r, if it failed to reachsufficientuality,s a fodder rop.The spatialdistributionfturnipsnd clovercanthus n partbe related o the distributionf thosefarmswherethis new pattern f farming ecameprevalent.Generally speakingit was the grainfarmers nd mixed farmerswho were the mostinnovative, omparedwith the livestockfarmers,as we would expectgiven the role of new crops

outlined bove.Figure shows the haracteristicsffarmnterprisesuring heearly ighteenthenturyas revealedbya cluster nalysis sing ix attributesof eachfarm;hepercentageontributionsfcattle,horses,heep,winterorn, pringorn nd fodder othe total value of cropsand stock on thefarm.37Table III indicates uite clear differencesn inno-vation ates etween hese armypes ndshowstheassociation fnewcropswithgrain arming.armersspecializingn ivestock roductiongroups ,G andI) did so becausetheyhad good supplies f grass,fromhefens,marshesnd river alleys, ndwouldhave had little ncentive o introduce ew foddercrops.The distributionf farm ypes s showninFigure7 whichthereforeoes someway towardsexplaining he adoptionpatterns evealedby thepreviousmaps.Within hisgeneralframework,armersaced anumber fconstraintsn their bility o adoptnewfodder rops. t is worth tressinghat thecapitalcosts of innovationwas not one of these, t leastamong those farmers itha survivingnventory.A B C40120

% oJ 1 2 3 4 5 6D E F

G H

J K L+n0

All Farms1. Cattle2. Horses3. Sheep4. Winter corn5. Spring corn6. Fodder

FIGURE . Percentagesf cattle, orses,heep,winterorn,springornnd odderyfarmingypes,712-1735



12/18

Agriculturalnnovation,orfolkndSuffolk,580-1740 215TABLE III. Innovationates mong arm ypes, 712-34 (percent-ages of farmersdopting)

Turnips Clover Turnips CloverA 25-0 18-8 H 27-0 16-2B 30 .8 20-5 I 12 .1 6 .1C 45.5 18.2 J 38.1 14.3D 59-7 33.3 K 11-8 14-7E 25.0 29.2 L 20-0 13.3F 5.9 2-0 M 125 -G 5-9 11-8

While, n terms f the value of crops and stock,richer armers eremore nnovative, he variancesof thedistributionsf farm aluesforbothadoptersand non-adopters re so large that there is nostatisticallyignificantifferenceetween he meanwealthof thetwogroups. uchdifferencess there

aremaybe inpart consequence f innovation smuch s a contributiono itscause,and theymightreflect relationshipetween nnovationnd someother factorwhich is correlatedwithfarmvalue.Little apitaloutlaywas required o grow a smallquantity f clover or turnipsnd the risks rom odoingwouldbeminimal.38On the otherhand, legal problems ssociatedwith ommon ropertyightsmight avepreventedsome farmersrom rowing hecrops, specially fother armers ad therightograze nimals n theirland after hegrainharvest.An associated thoughsometimes istinct) roblemwas the rulesof co-operative r communalultivation, hichmayhaveheldbacktheadventuresomearmer howished oexperiment ithnew crops.Neither f theseques-tionscan be resolvedsatisfactorily.lthoughtheconsensus mongsthistorians t the moment s tor AFARM TYPES

/[] 81712-35a(3XX 0 ODD

,O O 03 +A 1-0I# A A 0 .DA 0 oia x

a X01 C A xx [I11 licil1) T

-AAA[

"Ixx LIEU7 xo[x x ,

0 A A [] ?A I?A oc NA0 410 +l~AA oe# mi[ *OA EU? 0/ \~** *0 0",++++00~ *,c, ?

o x AA O E 0r *r +O 0+AA t lox00

EOIE8 88o O E

+ ,* ?>

? + rlDo x A++x 8 000W4 00 0 A OA;tot 0 xo8P1

toAAa x 0

4? XO0 0JA 00 0 0+ 8000xx xl?j00 I8x00 A+ Dt x

t+AAA A

0Wes 05Ua

. 6 13Km

FIGURE 7. Distribution ffarmingypes, 712-1735



13/18

216 MARKOVERTONplay down thesignificancefproperty ights s abarrierto innovation, t relies heavily on theevidence fone article hich nlyfound vidence fgrass substitutes eing grownon 'open fields'.39There s scantevidenceofturnips eing grownon'openfields'. lthoughmuch fSuffolkndparts fNorfolk ere nclosed,much fcentralndsouthernNorfolkndnorthernentral uffolk eresubjectedto the institutionf the foldcoursewhichgave amanorial ord or his lessee) theright o grazehissheepon the enants'ands, sually fter heharvest,but sometimes uring he summermonths.Writerson the field ystems f Norfolk nd Suffolkon-tradict ne another ver the ignificancefthefold-course, lthough hey reagreedthatfield ystemswereverydifferentothose nMidlandEngland ndcharacterizedy very flexible otations.40 heseissues will remain unresolvedsince inventoriescannotbe used to relategrowing ropsto specificpiecesofground.What evidencethere s suggeststhatboth turnips nd clover weremore likely ohave been grown in closes over which privatepropertyights redominatedhan nopenfields.tis difficulto relatethisfindingo the distributionof fieldsystemsfor we have no very accuratepicture f thisforNorfolk nd Suffolkn theearlymodemperiod,but udgingfrom heincidence fparliamentarynclosure in the eighteenth ndnineteenth enturies, ropertyrightswere mostlikely o have been a checkon adoption n centraland northernorfolk.41The final onstraintobe considereds thephysi-cal environment.urnipsresupposedbyhistoriansto have been suitedto lightsoils, indeedthis sone of the pointsemphasized n explainingwhythe heartland f the 'agriculturalevolution'wassupposed o havebeen n north-west orfolk.42t scertainlyrue hat urnips ereunsuited o the coldheavy claysofMidlandEngland,yet,at the otherendofthe cale, heywerenotnecessarilyuited othe ightestoils:

On a close, layeyoil aturatedith ain urnipsillnotgrow,ndon a lightandyoil,without oisture,theyannot.43Thismight elp oexplain hedelay nturnipseach-ing thearea fromwhich omehistoriansupposedtheyspread--westernNorfolkwith ts lightsoilsand low rainfall. nly whenturnipswerecarefullycultivated, ellsuppliedwithmanure ndlime, ndregularlyoed,wouldthey hriven this rea.44

MEDIA OF COMMUNICATION ANDSOCIAL STATUSThus far heanalysis f nnovation as been static,essentially iscussingwhy some farmersdoptedwhileothers idnot.Since both the constraintsnadoption and the priceenvironmentncouragingadoptiondid notchangeverymarkedlyuring heperiod rom 660to1740 andsuch hanges s thereare do notcorrelate ith he ntensityf nnovation)we must ook to other xplanationsf the pread fthe ropsbothoverspaceandthroughime.A start-ing pointfor his s the communications ediabywhich nformationpread.A potential dopter ouldhave heard bout newcrops n one of threeways:through rintediterature,hrough orrespondenceandthroughace-to-faceiscussion.There was a fairlywide rangeof books givingadvice nd nformationbout newcrops vailable othe eventeenth-centuryarmer,rovided ewishedto seek them ut.45The quality fthis nformationobviouslyvaried,but manybooks were practicaltreatises,iving xplicitnstructionss to how newcrops should be cultivated. ome seedsmen evenprepared heetsofinstructionsn cultivationech-niques.Not all the advice was accurate or evensensible;writers ave contradictorydvice andhadsome strange deas about the virtues f the newcrops.46 or the 20 years fter 660 roughly 0 percentof adopters an be classedas literatein thattheycould sign theirwill) so it is likely hat themajority fadopters ould have readthis iteratureif they wished.47 Literatefarmersmight alsohave writteno one another bout new crops, ndalthough vidence s not veryplentiful,t is clearthat farmerscorrespondedabout turnips andclover.48It is difficulto establishhow significanthesemedia ofcommunication ere, omparedwithface-to-face ontact. ertainlyt s likely hat hequalityand nature f nformationhat ould be transmittedbythesemeanswouldbe limitedncomparison ithdirect nterpersonalontact.Farmings a practicalbusiness, nd no doubtcertain spectsof the culti-vation ofnew cropscould onlybe passedsuccess-fullyfrom one farmer o anotherby practicaldemonstration.s William llisput t n1744,

It s certainhat oteachingfArtsnd ciencesomesup to thepractical ayofdoing t;and,therefore,Ocular emonstrations the uickestndbestWayofintroducingewmprovementsnHusbandry.49



14/18

Agriculturalnnovation,orfolkndSuffolk,580-1740 217Face-to-faceontact does not necessarilymplyacontagious pattern f adoption.The migration fagriculturalabourersnd farm ervants rovidedmechanism orsopreadingpecific echniques verlong distances,5 but on the whole the localneighbourhood eems to have been the source ofmostknowledge boutnewpractices.51 particularproblemwhichundoubtedly indered hespreadofclover was thedifficultyn securing eed.Writingin 1652 Blith pokeof theproblems fpurchasingreliable eed and of the considerable ifficultiesnextracting eed froma home-grown rop.52AsRobertBrownput it, Ifone could get an accountfrom launders owthey hrash heir lover here,twould be great advantagefor thepropogation fit'.53On the otherhand, urnips adbeen known sa garden ropfor considerable ime, heir ultiva-tion was not so difficultnd the extraction f seedrelatively asy. Thus thehighly ocalizedadoptionof clover nthe 1660s and 1670smaybe explainedbytheproblems armers ad inextractingeed. Onthe otherhandcloverseed was importedn somequantity,54o theremaywell be other xplanationsas to why clover cultivationwas initally oncen-trated ere.Thispart fNorfolk as oneofthemostnaturally ertilereas of thetwo counties nd hadlongbeen in thevanguard fagriculturalmprove-ment.55Moreover, s Figures and7 show,farmershere were concentratingn wintercorn (almostexclusively heat) nd wereprobablylready warethat clover s themother fcorn'.56These clover farmers f east Norfolkwere allyeomen,suggesting hattheyshareda commonsocial status within heir ommunities. yeomancame below therank fgentlemanndesquire nthesocial hierarchyf farmers,nd above the rankofhusbandmen. his classifications a contemporaryone,and seventeenth-centuryarmers ereparticu-larlyconsciousof their tatus.We can treat hesegroups s 'status roups' nthe enseusedbyWeberand more specifically y Giddens.57 n another

senseofcourse,mostof thefarmersonsidered erewere capitalistn thattheywerefarmingor andresponsive o) themarket,nd for the most partmusthavebeenemployingabourgiventhe izes oftheir nterprises."sut the moreuseful onceptual-ization n the context of thispaper is the statusgroup, nd,moreparticularly,herelationshipsothwithinnd between roups.While we have a variety f contemporaryes-criptions f these statusgroups, nd considerablediscussion f them y historians,59he subtleties ftheserelationshipsre elusive. t is a fairlytraight-forwardmatter o categorize he attributesf eachgroup n terms fmobility, ealth,iving tandards,educationand literacy, orexample,60 nd moreimaginativelyn termsof room useage and thesignificancef material tems.61 t is much moredifficulto reveal social relationships nd inter-actions.62 We can, however,venturethe ratherobviousgeneralizationshat nteraction ouldhavebeen morefrequent etweenmembers fthe samestatusgroup, nd thatmovement fan innovationwouldbe likelyobe downthe ocialhierarchy.According o Thirsk,it seemsan almost nevit-able rule that innovations n agriculturen theearlymodern eriodwere firstdoptedbywell-to-do gentry',63 hileyeomentoo, 'by all accountswerea thrustingnddynamic roup,working ardas commercialgriculturalists',64o theymight lsobe in the vanguardof innovation.By contrast,according o a contemporary,husbandmen... goafter ashion,hat s,whenthe fashions almost ut,theytake tup'.65These opinions re confirmednthis resenttudy s Table Vdemonstrates.here sa clear endencyor he doption fboth urnipsndclover o move down the ocialhierarchyver time.In particularheres a markedag of some 40 yearsbeforehusbandmentart o adopt.This trend lsohas a spatial expressionn that thepioneersof aninnovationn a particularrea tend o be ofa higherstatus, lthoughgiventhequality f theevidence

TABLE V. nnovationatesy entlemen,eomenndhusbandmen660-1734percentagesdopting)Turnips Clover

Gentlemen Yeomen Husbandmen Gentlemen Yeomen Husbandmen1660-1679 6.1 2.1 0.0 0.7 2-8 0.01680-1699 15.6 11-5 2.2 0-0 6-5 0.01700-1719 46.7 27-9 24-8 11-7 11.0 5.41720-1734 62.5 28.5 42.2 9-7 21.5 20.0



15/18

218 MARKOVERTONthis is difficulto demonstrate onclusively.t islikely,however,that the innovation ould movebetween membersof higherstatusgroups overlongerdistances hanbetween members f lowerstatusgroups. Higherstatusgroupsare likelytohave been moremobile, ndCressyhas shownthatfor heperiod1580-174098 percentofgentlemenin the diocese of Norwichwere literate omparedwith 65 per cent of yeomenand 21 per cent ofhusbandmen.66Movement down the social hier-archy, etweenmembers fdifferentroups,smorelikely o have been through ace-to-faceontacts,giving ise oa 'neighbourhoodffect'.These movements rompt peculations to thespecific ature f the relationshipsetween statusgroupswhich ncouraged ne groupto follow hepath taken by another.Obviously an illiteratehusbandman ouldhave to wait for omeone elsenearby o adoptbefore e could see how thesenewcrops ouldbe grown.He mayhavebeen mpressedby the profits hat the new crops could bring.AccordingoAubrey,

improvementsy cinquefoilclover rass)was firstusedbyNicholas all bout heyear 650. t turnedogreat rofitohim, hich athmadehisneighboursoimitateim.67On the otherhand t has alreadybeen establishedthat n themselves ew fodder ropswereunlikelyto haveraised rainyields oanygreat xtent eforethe middle decades of the eighteenth entury.Indeed t s questionable hethermostfarmersnewwhattheir rofits ere orexactlywhere hey amefrom.68 he few surviving arm ccountsbefore1740 in Norfolknd Suffolkuggest hatonlydirefinancial ircumstancesorcedfarmersntomakingsome attempts t drawingup accounts.69Somefarmersmayhave been coerced nto adoptionbytheir andlords, lthoughthe evidence on this isequivocal since no study has yet related thechronology f mproved armingo thechronologyofchanges n easecovenants. he consensus eemsthat andlords layedsafeand merely nsured hattheir enants ollowed heusualcourse fhusbandryand left the land in good heart when the leaseended.70Yet another ossibilitys that nnovationwas a processof fashionablemitation-a desireforsocial approvalor to maintain ocial position.Prestige,herefore, ayhave been as importantseconomic ain.Accordingo Arthuroungthiswasthecase in Essex wheremprovements,owed much

to thepursuit avingbecomefashionable'.71imilarresponsesmay be found n third-worldountriestoday.72 Although ashionmightxplainwhy newcropwas adoptedinitially,t cannotexplainwhycultivation ersisted. urnips nd cloverdid notgoout of fashionfor some 250 years.Thus as weapproach he crucial artof thediffusionrocess-thereactions ffarmerso innovationsn theirocialcontext-the questionswe ask become increas-inglydifficult,fnot impossible o answer,n otherthan peculativeerms.CONCLUSIONSIt shouldbe apparent hat hestudyof innovationdiffusionmust take full account of the specifichistorial ontext n which that innovation akesplace. It shouldalso be clear thatany single per-spectiveon thediffusionrocess,be it economic','geographical' r 'sociological',will at best be apartial xplanation. his paperhas tried o take abroaderview, using conceptsfrom everal inno-vationdiffusionesearch raditions.omeof thedif-ferencesnadoption ehaviour etween armersanbe explainedby the advantagesthatturnips ndcloverofferedor articulararmingystems,nd tothe extent hat hese ystems howed somespatialgrouping,hepattern fadoption s also explained.Thenature fthe innovation'tself oes notseem ohave been as historians ave portrayedt,and wasin all probabilityhanging ver time.Within hissetting armersaced rangeofeconomic, hysicaland legal constraints hichcouldhave preventedthem rom rowing he rops.This approachto theexplanation f innovationcategorizes armerss 'adopters' nd non-adopters'and comparesvarious attributes f theirfarmingenterprises. hile such an approach an be reveal-ing, t is static,gnoring he fact hatthediffusionprocess is essentially ynamic.Geographicaldif-fusiontheory'providesthe dynamic lementbyemphasizing owtheprocess f communicationanbe constrainedyspace, nd indeed t spossible orelate the spreadof new crops to the media ofcommunicationn early-modernngland.Butwhatis really mportants thenature f the nformationtransmittednd thereactions f farmerso it. Therelationshipsetween ocialgroups nvolved n theadoptionprocessprovide guideto understandingthe flows of informationetween ndividuals ndalso provide luesas to whyone group mightmi-tateanother. hus the nnovations ended o move



16/18

Agriculturalnnovation,orfolkndSuffolk,580-1740 219down the ocialhierarchyvertime,nvolving airlyshort-distance ovesbetweenmembers fdifferentsocialgroupsoverspace,while t the same time heinnovations erespreadingntonewareas,movingover comparativelyongerdistances mongmem-bers of the same statusgroups. n sucha status-conscious ociety t s likely hat ne of thereasonsfor he nitial mitation f onegroupbyanotherwassimply ashion, ut thismust emain otha specula-tive nda tentativeonclusion. ltimately,herefore,the answers o thesequestions bout thediffusionprocessthemselves ecome questions,which eadback to sometimes ntractable istorical ourceson the one hand and to contemporaryheoreticalstructuresntheother.NOTES1. GARNIER, . M. (1896) The ntroductionffoddercrops nto GreatBritain',f.R. agric. oc. 3rdSer.7: 82-97.One of themostrecent tatementssMINGAY, G. E. (1977) The agriculturalevolution:changes n English griculture650-1850 (London).For more xtensiveist eeOVERTON,M. (1977)'Computernalysisf n nconsistentata ource:hecase ofprobatenventories',.Hist.Geogr. : 325,n.52. ExceptionsreEMERY, . V. (1976) Themechanicsof innovation:lover ultivationn Wales before1750',J.Hist.Geogr. : 35-48 and MACDONALD,

S. (1979) 'The diffusion f knowledge mongNorthumberlandarmers',gric.Hist. Rev. 27: 30-9.Emeryakes is tudyoa furthertagenTHIRSK, .(1985) The agrarianhistoryf England nd Wales,Vol.V,1640-1750Cambridge)hapter(inpress)3. 'Grass ubstitutes's anungainlyerm ut s moreaccuratehan ontemporaries'artificialrasses'incetheseropswere eitherrtificialor rasses4. Recent ntroductionsre BROWN,L. A. (1981)Innovationdiffusion: new perspectiveLondon);HAGGETT, .,CLIFF,A. D. andFREY,A. (1977)Locational nalysis in Human GeographyLondon)pp. 231-58,and FOUND, W. C. (1971) A theoreticalapproachto rural land use patternsLondon) pp.138-605. BLAUT,J.M. (1977) 'Two views ofdiffusion',nn.Ass.Am.Geogr.7:343-49; LAIKIE,. (1978) Thetheory f the spatialdiffusionf innovations:spaciouscul-de-sac',rog.Hum.Geogr. : 268-956. HAGERSTRAND, T. (1953) InnovationsforloppetrkorologiskynpunktLund);BLAUT (1977) op. cit.p.343 note )7. ROGERS, .M.and HOEMAKER,. F. 1971)Com-municationf nnovations2nded.London)8. ROSENBERG,N. (ed.) (1971) Theeconomicsftech-nicalchangeLondon);JONES,G. E. (1967) 'The

adoptionnddiffusionfagriculturalractices', ldagric.Econ. ur. ociol.Abstr. : 1-34;BLAIKIE 1978)op.cit. p.278-9note )9. KERRIDGE, . (1969) The agriculturalevolutionreconsidered',gric. ist. 3: 463-76;MINGAY,G.E. (1969) Dr Kerridge'sagriculturalevolution':comment', gric. ist. 3: 477-8210. KERRIDGE1969)op. cit. note ); ERNLE, ORD(1912) English arming ast and present London);SANDERS,H. W. (1915) 'EstatemanagementtRaynhamn theyears1661-86 nd 1706',NorfolkArch. 9: 39-66;JONES, . L. (1971) EnglishndEuropeangriculturalevelopment',nHARTWELL,R. M. (ed.)The ndustrialevolutionOxford) p.51-211. GARNIER1896)op.cit. note );APPLEBAUM,.(1972)Roman ritain',nFINBERG,. P. R. ed.)Theagrarian history f England nd Wales Volume ii(Cambridge)p.115-16

12. HARTLIB,S. (1651) His legacie,ran enlargementfthehusbandrysed n Brabantnd FlandersLondon);KERRIDGE, E. (1967) The agricultural evolution(London) p.29-32, 80;LANE, . 1980)Thedevel-opmentfpasturesndmeadowsuringhe ixteenthand eventeenthenturies',gric. ist. ev. 8:24-913. BLITH,W. (1652) The mprovermprovedr a surveyof husbandryurveyedLondon); SPEED, A. (1659)Adam ut fEdenLondon) p.18-29;WORLIDGE,J. (1675) Systema griculturae,eingthemysteryfhusbandry iscoverednd layd open (London, 2nded.) pp. 42-3;BLOME,R. (1686) Thegentleman'srecreationLondon)f.20714. LAWRENCE, J. 1726) A newsystem f agriculture(London)p. 109; SALMON, N. (1728) A new urveyof England wherein the defectsof Camden aresuppliedLondon)p. 168; DEFOE, D. (1724) A tourthroughhewhole slandofGreatBritainEverymaned.,London,1962)vol. 1,p. 5815. KERRIDGE1967) p.cit. p.268-88note 2)16. For more detail of this empiricalwork seeOVERTON, M. (1980) 'Agriculturalhange inNorfolkndSuffolk580-1740',npubl.h.D. hesis,Univ. fCambridge17. Fora muchfuller iscussionee OVERTON,M.(1980) Englishrobatenventoriesndthemeasure-

ment f agriculturalhange', .A.G.Bijdragen3:205-15; ndOVERTON,M. (1984) Probatenven-tories nd thereconstructionf agriculturaland-scapes',in REED, M. (ed.) Discoveringast andscapes(London) p.167-9418. BURN, R. S. (1775) Ecclesiasticalaw (3rd ed.,London) ol. ,p.24019. CRESSY,D. A. (1972) Educationnd literacynLondon ndEastAnglia, 580-1700',npubl. h.D.thesis,niv. fCambridge,.1520. NorfolkRecordOffice, onsistory ourt nventoriesINV 12/232 and 14/42;MINGAY (1963) 'The agri-cultural evolution n Englishhistory: reconsider-



17/18

220 MARK OVERTONation',Agric.Hist. 26: 131; ALLISON, K. J. 1957)'Thesheep-cornusbandryfNorfolknthe ixteenthand seventeenth enturies', gric.Hist. Rev. 5: 27;OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 169-76 note16)21. FUSSELL,G. E. (1955) 'History fCole (Brassicap.)',Nature 76:4822. These 13 farmersome from he 912 extant farminventoriesor 628-40 butthedata nTable refer othe 10-year eriod1629-38 to ensure omparabilitywith ther ataexpressed s 10yearmeans23. INV 37/83, NV 43/210.OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 169-74 note 16)24. KERRIDGE, E. (1956) 'TurnipHusbandry n HighSuffolk',con.Hist.Rev.2ndSer. 8: 390-225. For a discussion of the adoptionof waggons seeOVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 134-5, 159-63, 168-9,178, 221-4,286-9 note16)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); BritishParliamentaryapers 854-5,LIII 1928)30. OVERTON, M. (1979) 'Estimatingropyieldsfromprobate nventories:n example fromEast Anglia,1585-1735',nl.Econ.Hist. 9: 363-7831. JONES, E. L. (1965) 'Agriculture nd economicgrowth n England1660-1750: agriculturalhange',]nl.Econ.Hist. 5: 1-1832. The points n this nd thesucceedingparagraph reelaborated nOVERTON, M. (1983) 'An agriculturalrevolution1650-17507',n Agriculturalistory:aperspresented o the EconomicHistory Society Con-ference, anterburyLeeds) 1-18 and in OVERTON,M. (1984) 'Agriculturalevolution? evelopmentofthe agrarian conomy n earlymodernEngland', nBAKER,A. R. H. and GREGORY, D. J. eds) Explo-rations in historicalgeography Cambridge) pp.124-3233. Yields are calculatedccordingo the methodnOVERTON (1979) op. cit. note30). Output ssimplycalculateds mean creage erfarmmultipliedymean ield34. KERRIDGE (1967) op. cit. pp. 272-5 (note 12);TROW-SMITH, R. (1957) A history f Britishlivestock usbandryo 1700 (London) pp. 256-7;MORGAN, R. (1978) The root crop in Englishagriculture650-1870', npubl.h.D. hesis,niv. fReading,.44435. LAMB, H. H. (1977) Climate ast presentndfutureVol. 2, climatic istorynd thefutureLondon) pp.440-73; OVERTON (1979) op. cit.pp. 371-2, 376,(note 0)36. Norfolk ecordOfficeMSS 993537. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp. 94-124,288 (note 16);OVERTON 1984) p.cit. p.184-7note 7)38. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.pp.285-7 note 16)

39. HAVINDEN, M. A. (1961) 'Agriculturalrogress nopen-fieldxfordshire',gric. ist.Rev.9: 73-8340. POSTGATE, M. R. (1973) 'Field systemsof EastAnglia', in BAKER,A. R. H. and BUTLIN, R. A.(eds) Studiesof fieldsystems n the British sles(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 agriculturalrevolution750-1880London)pp. 80-143. WHITLEY, N. (1850) 'On the climate f the BritishIsles in its effects n cultivation',1.R. agric. oc. 11:p. 42;MORGAN (1978) op. cit.pp. 7-60 note 34)44. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.p. 214 (note16)45. A summaryof this literaturemay be found inCURTLER,W. H. (1909) A shorthistoryf EnglishagricultureLondon)pp. 127-47. See also TRIBE,K.(1978) Land,abourndeconomiciscourseLondon)pp.53-79; CLARK,P. (1978) TheownershipfbooksinEngland1560-1640:theexampleofsomeKentishtownsfolk',n STONE, L. (ed.) Schoolingnd society(London) pp. 95-111; HUNTER, M. Scienceandsociety n Restorationngland Cambridge)pp. 87-112; LEVY, F. J. (1982) 'How informationpreadamong the gentry,1550-1640', J. Brit.Stud. 21:pp. 11-3446. MORDANT, J. (1761) The complete teward(London)vol. 1: 455;BLITH 1652) op. cit.pp. 177-87(note13); EMERY (1976) op. cit.pp. 39-40 (note 2);COLES, W. (1657) Adam in Edenornature's aradise(London)p. 11747. OVERTON (1980) op. cit.p. 219 (note 16); CRESSY,D. (1977) 'Levelsof lliteracynEngland1530-1730',Hist.]. 20: 548. EMERY (1976) op. cit. note 2); MITCHELL, A. R.(1974) 'Sir Richard Weston and the spread ofclover cultivation',Agric. Hist. Rev. 22: 160-1;MACDONALD (1979) op. cit. note2)49. ELLIS, W. A. (1744-5) The modern usbandmanrthepracticef farmings it is now carriedut bythemost accurate armersn several ounties f England(London,vols)Vol.1,p.12050. MACDONALD, S. (1983) 'Agriculturalmprovementand the neglected labourer',Agric.Hist. Rev. 31:81-90; ELLIS (1744-5) op. cit.Vol. 1, p. 120 (note49)51. MACDONALD (1979) op. cit.p.37 (note2)52. BLITH(1652) op. cit.pp. 178-9 note13)53. BROWN, R. (1759) Thecompleatarmerrthewholeartof husbandryLondon)p. 111; BLITH (1652) op.cit.pp. 178-9 note13)54. FUSSELL,G. E. (1959) 'The Low Countries'nfluenceonEnglish arming',ng.Hist.Rev.74: 611-2255. CAMPBELL,B. M. S. (1983) 'ArableproductivitynmedievalEngland: ome evidence fromNorfolk',nl.Econ.Hist. 3: 379-404



18/18

difusión de innovaciones agrícolas en inglaterra moderna

Documents