A Study of Roman Agriculture
Agriculture was a crucial component of the livelihood of citizens of the Roman Empire because it provided them with food. However, it was much more than that. Although trade offered Roman citizens a variety of foods, it was the agricultural staples (cereals, vines, and olives) that provided the primary means of nourishment, and comprised the basis of the socioeconomic structure of the Empire. The expansion of agricultural diversity (however limited) was affected by the expansion of Roman territory, which offered fertile lands (and by virtue of that an increase in the total area available for cultivation), technical advances in planting and harvesting (albeit limited advances), and an enhanced palette (or new agrarian products) for consumption and trade. The agricultural system in fact necessitated the expansion of territory, and so agriculture was more fundamentally linked to the Empire. Agriculture was also inextricably tied to the Roman political system; it was the basis of landownership, and the sale of agricultural staples was the cornerstone of the Roman market. Agriculture was closely tied to the Empire because it provided Roman armies with food, was the basis of the economic structure of the Empire, determined social ordering, and provided subsistence to Roman citizens across the Empire.
Agriculture was important to the Roman Empire because it provided Roman citizens with basic staples for survival. According to Braudel, the “eternal trinity” – or cereals, vines, and olives provided the basis of the traditional agricultural and dietary regimes of the Empire.[1] These staple crops also provided the basis for Roman agriculture, particularly in Italy (the main geographical focus of this paper). Although cereals were grown in every corner of the Mediterranean (due to the resilience of those crop varieties in adverse climates),[2] Roman landowners saw the cultivation of olives (originally brought from Greece) and vines as their primary agrarian task. Vines (or grapes) could be grown almost anywhere on the Italian peninsula; however, the best wines (produced from grape vines) were made in the south of Rome, in Latium and Campania.[3] This was especially the case during the latter years of the Empire, when cereal growing had largely been relinquished to the granary provinces.[4] Roman farmers also grew vegetables,[5] and a variety of new agricultural products were introduced to Italy as a byproduct of Imperial expansion (explored in detail below). Whatever their crop choice, the ability of Roman farmers to grow crops depended on a variety of geographical circumstances. “[W]ater supply, air supply, temperature, supply and availability of plant foods, presence or absence in the soil of toxic elements, and depth of soil” all affected a farmer’s productivity.[6] Agricultural knowledge was rooted in the accumulation of knowledge (although it was also heavily influenced by magic and superstition).[7]
Besides growing agricultural staples, the Romans also kept animals. As with crops, stock-raising varied according to locality, climate, and the size of a given farm unit.[8] The Roman scholar Varro, in his Res Rusticae, advised that all farms should keep stock and game (although climate played a role in determining how many and what variety of animals they might keep).[9] While animals were kept for their products (meat, milk, or wool), Oxen and cows served a technical purpose. Specifically, in an age before motors, oxen were used with a plow to till the soil.[10] Oxen were important because their use was far less expensive (and more manageable) than an equivalent labor output. Cows and mules were also used for similar labor purposes (hauling and tilling). In each case, the produced labor output but they also provided a source of enrichment for the soil. While donkeys required less food than cows, the latter were more profitable because they provided milk or meat as well as labor.[11] Likewise, swine were kept as a source of meat, but their urine and dung were used to fertilize vines.[12] Sheep were typically undesirable for farmers (especially subsistence farmers), because they had a habit of grazing on subsistence land. While sheep-herding was more desirable to later estate farmers (explored below), early Roman farmers generally opted to keep cattle.
Agriculture was inextricably tied to Roman society. Primarily this was so because it was deeply connected to the Roman economy. In fact, since most of the Empire was generally industrially inept (particularly in the provinces, but also in rural areas more generally), agriculture was often the hub of most industrial activity.[13] However, agriculture was more fundamentally connected to society. According to Tremellius Scrofa, a leading agriculturist of his time, agriculture was as much an art as a science.[14] While he was referring specifically to the choice of soils for maximizing crop output,[15] his definition spoke to the wider perception of agriculture as an important social exercise (so much so that, like art or science, it warranted quasi-philosophical contemplation). Moreover, agriculture was of great concern to the Roman state. Even as far back as the Licinian-Sextian Laws of 367 BC,[16] it was obvious that land ownership (or even land that was leased out by the state primarily for agriculture) was a crucial aspect of society.[17] Although the Laws did not limit the amount of public land that a citizen could lease, the increasing desire for land suggests that it was a commodity unto itself. Moreover, as the availability of fertile land decreased, the Empire was forced to look beyond its borders for new sources of land. In effect, agriculture was therefore one of the underlying forces behind Roman expansion (a hallmark of the Roman socioeconomic structure). Furthermore, land ownership (the basis for agricultural production) was crucial to social ordering. From time immemorial, the ownership of land (and the money spent to purchase it) had been the most convincing proof of membership of the aristocracy.[18] Agriculture was fundamental to the social organization of Roman life, and likewise it reflected the values of Roman society, especially those of the Roman elite (as agriculture was a cornerstone of their traditional value system).[19]
Perhaps more importantly to Roman citizens (and to those not overly concerned with the expansion of the Empire) agriculture offered a means of self-sufficiency – a concept that appealed particularly to poor farmers. Most rural households directly relied on agriculture; the peasant household functioned as a productive unit whose survival depended on the productivity of the land.[20] Before 200 BC, traditional small farms were typical. Some farms were as small as two jugera (approximately an acre and an eighth), and were barely able to support a family.[21] In these cases, survival strategies included tiny garden plots. While Mary Johnston claims that these farms were unable to support families without the family having access to communal lands as well, evidence suggests that small farms did in fact allow families to be self-sufficient on some level. According to ethnoarchaeologist Hamish Forbes, peasant farmers expected a “normal surplus”: two years’ supply of wheat and four years’ supply of olive oil.[22] Self-sufficiency (which included surplus) was important to peasant farmers, because the seasonal unpredictability meant that surplus years were often hard to come by. At best, a small producer could hope to produce enough food to feed his family. However, true self-sufficiency (by Roman standards) was impossible because farmers could never grow everything that they needed. Either the farmer was unable to grow what he needed due to geographical constraints (as described above), or the farmer lacked capital to invest in tools or labor to grow certain products. As a result, the peasants’ participation in the market was partially limited by his inability to grow certain products.
Nonetheless, peasant farmers were not unfamiliar with the grain market. However, for a variety of reasons peasants appear to have sold any surplus they might have produced within their community (often in kind, rather than for profit). Foremost, a peasant farm’s prosperity was not predetermined, and so the inconsistency of surpluses meant that selling to markets was often not economically viable. Alternately, peasants were often expected to give up some of his product to a creditor, landlord or tax-official, which might diminish his surplus.[23] Moreover, many peasant producers’ success (and his willingness to look to the market) was dependent on the status of his community. Since peasant farmers were more inclined to work together (and to trade goods in kind), it would only be in a community wherein all the farms generated surpluses that any one farmer might be expected to sell his produce on the market. If peasants did sell their surplus, it was done in a variety of ways. A peasant might sell his surplus directly to consumers at market, he might sell to merchants, or he might sell to other small farmers in neighboring communities.[24] Likewise, small producers (or tenant farmers, not to be confused with peasant farmers) managed to sell some of their surplus as well. While tenants in the later estate systems (latifundium – explored below) were less likely to turn a profit (as landowners attempted to tie them to the land), many poorer farmers were still able to generate some profit from their labor. In some cases, smallholders performed day-labor at harvest on their rich neighbors’ estates.[25]
Over time, subsistence and low-level farming (or peasant farming) evolved into large-scale agricultural operations (which became almost ubiquitous in the Empire). In the estate system, capital and labor (and their relationship) played a greater role in productive output. Furthermore, capital and labor contributed to changes in farming practices. As the Empire expanded, Italian farmers (or those farmers located on the peninsula) had to compete with granary provinces (most notably Egypt and Illyricum) that exported large quantities of wheat (and other grain varieties). Competition therefore forced Italian farmers to grow more profitable (and more demanding) types of crops. As such, modest subsistence farming (primarily rooted in the staples) was replaced by large-scale mixed intensive cultivation for purposes of commercial gain.[26] Moreover, the acquisition of land (which was amalgamated into large-scale agricultural operations) was driven by war. Many farmers doubled as soldiers, and might be called to a lengthy military service by the state. In times of crisis, a citizen might be expected to serve up to twenty years in the military. As such, the farms owned by these citizens fell into decay, often permanently (the land might be scorched by invading armies, the area might be diseased by malaria, or the farmer himself might be killed in battle).[27] Abandoned land was thus acquired by the state, which it passed on to large-scale landowners. These landowners amalgamated large quantities of land (or latifundia), or developed networks of medium-sized farms.[28]
Whether at the large-scale or the subsistence level, agriculture was affected by the local environment. Although many historians suggest that Roman agriculture consisted of a basic two-field system, in reality Roman farming was far more complex. Farming practices were informed primarily by the geography (including the soil conditions) and the climate (or the seasonal conditions) in any given part of the Empire. Particularly fertile areas, such as Campania, allowed farmers to crop year round. These farmers rotated between panicum, millet, and green crop (or crops typically used to feed animals).[29] However, farming practices changed based on scientific innovations inspired by regional conditions. Besides planting habits, work programmes for plough-oxen varied depending on soil conditions. It was generally argued that it was economically advantageous to use heavy ploughs as opposed to light ones.[30] Cultivation was also aided by crop-rotation and manuring, and by technical advances like the systematic selection of seeds (or those crop species that would be most conducive to any given climate).[31] In wet climates, farm land (which in many cases had previously been marsh land) was carefully drained into ditches.[32] Dry climates necessitated water conservation practices (practices which are still followed today).[33] For instance, the use of aqueducts, dams, and cisterns made land productive where it otherwise would be too dry to produce crops.[34] Thus, a farmer could increase the productivity of his land by observing and reacting to his climatic conditions. Moreover, Varro’s Res Rusticae connected profits with large-scale ranching and sheep-raising, which yielded high returns (although they required a significant injection of capital).[35]
The productivity (or profitability) of farms, and their ability to meet the needs of the populations they served, was also linked to the division of labor. According to H. Schneider, before the invention of fertilizers and combines approximately eighty percent of the population had to work the land in order to fulfill the society’s need for food and other agricultural products.[36] While studies cannot conclusively decide on the degree to which labor affected productivity, they agree that a labor force was essential to maintaining agricultural production. In order to fill demand, many large-scale operations relied on slave-labor. Estates were operated by slaves under a vilicus (a manager who was himself a slave). These managers thoroughly worked the rest of the slave-labor force, often with little compassion or concern for working conditions. A manager’s chance at freedom (a slave-owner might decide to free a slave) depended on the productivity of his outfit. As such, he managed plowmen and reapers, vinedressers and treaders of the grapes, and in some cases quarrymen and lumbermen.[37] More generally, the vilicus and his slaves managed almost everything that was produced or manufactured on the estate. They were charged with raising enough grain to feed the landowner’s family and his slaves. Women slaves managed wool and spun it into clothes under the guidance of the vilicus’ wife (vilica).[38]
However, evidence suggests that while the slave-labor force that was plentiful during the years of the Republic, it fell into sharp decline during the latter half of the Empire.[39] It appears that, in response to the shrinking slave-labor force, landowners began to develop estates (or large landholdings), where parcels were delivered to and worked by tenants (or coloni).[40] However, according to Paul Erdkamp, it is difficult to precisely define this class of workers (as their social and economic conditions might vary significantly). Erdkamp suggests that they might be described as “smallholders,” which defines those of the agrarian labor force that were directly involved in agricultural production, but were neither servile nor wealthy.[41] Many of these coloni were drawn from the impoverished peasant farming class (which produced primarily for subsistence).[42] Interestingly, however, many smallholders were forced into a form of servitude; tenants were virtually chained to the land they worked (and so had little hope of profiting from their labor). However, tenant conditions were hardly an improvement to the subsistence agricultural conditions of the peasantry. In fact, the distinction between the coloni and slave-labor was evermore blurred by the extension of rights to Roman slaves. During the latter half of the Empire, agricultural slaves were allowed a small parcel of land (for which they paid rent) and had the potential to build up a modest property (peculium).[43] Furthermore, landowners recognized the potential (in economic and political terms) of their landholdings. According to Joseph Vogt, many landholders attempted to “withdraw their estates from the fiscal administration of the cities to which they belonged, and so to create independent territorial units.”[44] The result was that conditions of tenant farmers were not unlike conditions of slave laborers.
As with labor, economic profitability (for estate owners, but potentially for tenants as well) informed many landowners’ desire to increase their landholdings. Although these large-scale operations certainly produced more food, they were surprisingly unproductive (in terms of how much each plot of land actually produced). This was largely the result of neo-classical economic theory. The amount of labor that an agricultural operation required hinged on the type of agriculture that was being undertaken. For example, a field of vegetables or flax was less labor-intensive than an equivalent sized field of cereals.[45] In either case, the productivity of the land (whether growing vegetables or cereals) is affected by the amount of labor put into it. An increase in labor will result in an increase in productivity. However, according to the law of diminishing marginal returns, labor input will only increase the output of the land to a certain extent, whereupon additional labor will not equate to an equivalent output. Thus, it might be more economically sensible to use less labor to obtain some level of output, rather than extending labor to achieve a slightly larger (but nevertheless diminished) output. While many agriculturalists advocated the former “intensive” agricultural model, most wealthy landowners opted for this “extensive” model. In the extensive model, maximum output (or a desirable surplus for the landowner) is achieved by a large acreage (or total land), rather than by increasing the production of a smaller plot of land.[46] As a result, the total output of land was never realized, which played a role in the decline in overall productivity in farms in Italy – especially as arable land became scarce.
The constant need to find more arable land likely partially explains the constant need to expand Imperial borders. Although ancient writers did not draw any connection between the decline in Italy’s grain supplies and the expansion of territory (and the seizure of arable land), many historians argue there was a connection. It is too coincidental that so much of the Roman conquest was focused on rich grain lands, namely Egypt, Sicily and Sardinia (which belonged to Carthage).[47] Whether the reason for expansion was explicitly agricultural, Imperial expansion had direct effects on the state of Roman agriculture in a number of ways. The expansion of Roman territory actually added to what was commonly cultivated on Italian farms. This process of agricultural diversification had occurred at the earliest period of the Republic. For instance, olives were originally imported from Greece, but they became a hallmark of the Roman agricultural palette. In fact, a variety of foods found their way into Italian agricultural production as a result of Roman expansion (and subsequent occupation of new territories). According to Corrie Bakels and Stefanie Jacomet, archaeobotanical (or archeological-bacterial) evidence suggests that a variety of agricultural products can be traced to Roman military installations in newly acquired territory.[48] According to the evidence, walnut, apple, pear, plum, cherries, perhaps garlic, and several herbs were taken into local cultivation, originally introduced to the Roman diet as a byproduct of Imperial expansion.[49]
Agriculture played a much larger role in Roman society than merely to provide a means of subsistence for Roman citizens. Rather, it was the hallmark of the Roman economy, and remained so even in the face of increasing trade (especially the import of grain from the provinces). Moreover, while agriculture became more diversified (by way of the rise of the estate system, but also through the diffusion of new food types by military conquest) cereals, vines, and olives remained the Roman staples. Although some historians have suggested that Roman agriculture was technically and scientifically limited, Roman farmers were adept and developed agricultural regimes out of a history of trial-and-error. Furthermore, for better or worse, agricultural practices were dictated by economic theory (but also by economic pragmatism). Finally, agriculture was inextricably connected to the Roman political system; the ownership of land was fundamental not only in defining the Roman class system, but was also crucial to the maintenance of that socio-political system (by the development of the tenant labor system).
[1]Peter Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 13.
[2]In this paper, “cereals” refers to the whole group of seed-crops, including wheat and barley (the more important cereals), but also less nutritious oats, rye, and millets, among others (the latter of which was used primarily for animals).
[3]Mary Johnston, Roman Life (Glenview: Scott, Foreman and Company, 1957), 64.
[4]Paul Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 110.
[5]Richard Mansfield Haywood, Ancient Rome (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1867), 100.
[6]K.D. White, Roman Farming (New York: Cornell University Press, 1970), 86.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid.
[9] Johnston, Roman Life, 68.
[10]Ibid.
[11] White, Roman Farming, 273.
[12]Ibid..
[13]Norman Scott Brien Gras, History of Agriculture in Europe and America (New York: F.S. Croft & Co., Publishers, 1946), 51.
[14]Varron, Economie rurale I, ed. J. Heurgon (1978), and Skydsgarrd, Varro the Scholar, 89 ff. in M. S. Spurr, Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy – c.200 B.C.-C.A.D. 100 (London: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1986), 1.
[15]While this theory generally applies to agricultural crops, cereals were grown in almost any soil conditions, including dry or remote areas, which would not be suitable for other crop or produce types (including vines, but also animal farming).
[16]The Licinian-Sextian Laws of 367 BC were designed to limit the amount of public land that an individual could rent. These laws were born out of the economic distress suffered by landless men (or the poor). The fact that laws were propagated to try to balance the wealth inherent in landholding speaks to the importance of land in the Roman Republic (and that which remained constant over the course of the Empire).
[17]Haywood, Ancient Rome, 87.
[18]Joseph Vogt, The Decline of Rome: The Metamorphosis of Ancient Civilisation (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), 21.
[19] Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, 23.
[20]Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire, 81.
[21]Johnston, Roman Life, 58.
[22]Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, 25.
[23]Ibid., 26.
[24] Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire, 134.
[25]Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire, 83.
[26]Michael Grant, History of Rome (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978), 140.
[27]Ibid., 139.
[28]Ibid., 140.
[29]White, Roman Farming, 47.
[30]Ibid.
[31]Grant, History of Rome, 140.
[32]Johnston, Roman Life, 62.
[33]Kenneth D. White, “The Efficiency of Roman Farming under the Empire,” Agricultural History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (April, 1956), 87.
[34]Johnston, Roman Life, 62.
[35]Ibid., 68.
[36]Schneider, cited in Paul Erdkamp, The grain Market in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 12.
[37]Johnston, Roman Life, 59.
[38]Ibid.
[39]Vogt, The Decline of Rome: The Metamorphosis of Ancient Civilisation, 21.
[40]Ibid.
[41]Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire, 57.
[42]Peter Garnsey, Richard P. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture (Berkley: University of California Press, 1987), 76-77.
[43]Vogt, The Decline of Rome: The Metamorphosis of Ancient Civilisation, 196.
[44]Ibid., 22.
[45]Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire, 15.
[46]M. S. Spurr, Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy – c.200 B.C.-C.A.D. 100 (London: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1986), 1.
[47]Gras, History of Agriculture in Europe and America, 70.
[48]Corrie Bakels and Stefanie Jacomet, “Access to Luxury Foods in Central Europe during the Roman Period: The Archaeobotanical Evidence,” World Archaeology, Vol. 34, No. 3, Luxury Foods (February, 2003), 556-557.
[49]Ibid., 557.
Bibliography
Bakels, Corrie and Stefanie Jacomet, “Access to Luxury Foods in Central Europe during the Roman Period: The Archaeobotanical Evidence.” In World Archaeology, Vol. 34, No. 3, Luxury Foods (February, 2003), 542-557.
Erdkamp, Paul .The Grain Market in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 110.
Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Garnsey, Peter and Richard P. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture. Berkley: University of California Press, 1987.
Grant, Michael. History of Rome. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978.
Haywood, Richard Mansfield. Ancient Rome. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1867.
Johnston, Mary. Roman Life. Glenview: Scott, Foreman and Company, 1957.
Scott Brien Gras, Norman. History of Agriculture in Europe and America. New York: F.S. Croft & Co., Publishers, 1946.
Spurr, M. S. Arable Cultivation in Roman Italy – c.200 B.C.-C.A.D. 100. London: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1986.
Vogt, Joseph. The Decline of Rome: The Metamorphosis of Ancient Civilisation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965.
White, K.D. Roman Farming. New York: Cornell University Press, 1970.
White, Kenneth D. “The Efficiency of Roman Farming under the Empire.” In Agricultural History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (April, 1956), 85-89.
—
Originally submitted to:
Professor (Dr.) Leyton-Brown
University of Regina
March 17, 2009
