The study of the implements of Greek agriculture presents a number of difficulties. No doubt this has contributed to a limited interest in this area. Most implements were manufactured wholly or partly from wood, for which reason few physical remains have been discovered. Whereas bronze is reasonably well preserved, iron is not very durable; for this reason there are cases where we know less about the implements of the historical period than of those that hail from the Bronze Age. In Greek art, pictures of agricultural work are often preserved, but it is obvious that, for example, the Attic vase painters did not see it as their purpose to deliver a workshop drawing of the implements but merely to suggest their presence.
Their contemporaries knew of course what was involved. Certain implements that were part of a ritual ceremony are frequently depicted, but often in an emblematic context that does not make it possible for us to see their function. In the literary tradition the difficulty lies in determining precisely which implement is referred to. Frequently the same tool seems to have several names, in the same way that we also assign more than one name to tools for which the Greeks had only one name. It is, however, not very practical to use the same term for the sickle as well as for the assortment of curved knives used for grafting and pruning, and so on. Only the curvature of the blades is a common feature whereas the work carried out by means of these tools is very different. To the contemporary users it was a different matter because naturally they knew precisely which tool was to be used in every specific case.
The agricultural implements can be studied by comparison if you look at modern parallels from non-industrialized agricultures, or a philological and archaeological method can be applied by which the literary evidence is studied in connection with archaeological sources. A combination of these two methods, as far as Roman agrarian history is concerned, will be found in K.D. White, Agricultural Implements of the Roman World (1967b), where one author controls the literary and the archaeological material, at the same time having a wide practical knowledge of the use to which such implements were put. A study like this is still a desideratum for the study of Greek but in Archaeologia Homerica Vol. II. H, Die Landw irtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter (1968), there is a brief chapter by Wolfgang Schiering, ‘Die Landwirtschaftliche Geräte’, with a thorough discussion of the individual tools mentioned in the poems and a comprehensive set of notes with references to the archaeological material.
This study is indispensable for anyone who needs an exhaustive reference to the extensive archaeological literature. M.-C. Amouretti’s treatment (1986) is far more ethnographic in its aim. The starting-point is the question, what is functional? There are references to the literary and archaeological sources, but these are not always discussed too thoroughly – perhaps because, in the author’s opinion, little new information would be obtained as most implements are mentioned en passant. On the other hand, the inclusion of an ethnographic analysis of implements from non-industrialized modern agriculture is often of considerable interest.
In the Index of Greek words, K.D. White lists terms for agricultural implements, but a closer examination will show that most of them are terms from late lexicographic writings. Here, as in an investigation of Byzantine agricultural implements undertaken by Antony Bryer (1986), we are faced with the problem whether the implements have undergone essential changes since the Classical period. In particular, there is a problem as to whether the more advanced agricultural technology of the Romans left its traces in Greece. This can only be determined by means of a comparison between implements that have in fact survived; and as we have mentioned, such specimens are preserved only in a very limited quantity. Thus it becomes a question of an overall interpretation of agricultural history, and a question of the extent to which later material may be introduced.
As far as the recent past is concerned, a series of investigations of traditionally employed implements in Greece is available. We shall confine ourselves to a reference to an excellent catalogue, Traditional Methods of Cultivation, from an exhibit in the Benaki Museum in Athens, 1977–8, by Psarraki-Belesióte, where a vast amount of material has been presented. In many cases one should be inspired by modern implements in order to form an impression as to how those of antiquity may have looked, but it would be a jump into the relatively unknown if we were to identify, with any feeling of certainty, ancient terms for implements from specific modern tools. The possibility of local variants is always present. This applies specifically to a number of simple tools which the farmer made from wood in accordance with his own needs and preferences.
Finally, we are faced with the problem of a precise dating of the time when a particular implement was introduced; for we cannot in any way be sure that one and all of the implements known have been in existence from the very moment when agriculture began. Here the difficulty is that an archaeological discovery of, or the reference to, an implement gives us no more than a terminus ante quem. We are not likely to arrive at a closer dating of what may have been a technological innovation within the limits of the tradition of our sources.
It is not our intention, in the present study, to discuss all the aforementioned aspects in each individual case. It must suffice to account for the most important implements and their functions. It would seem reasonable to group the individual implements that have to do with improvement of the soil and preparation of the soil for sowing. We shall then follow the agricultural year and the individual tasks as we did before.
THE PLOUGH
This double function has been admirably described by H.A. Forbes (1976a), who also emphasizes the effect of moisture retention following the tilling of the soil. As described by Hesiod, the ard consists of the following parts: the beam (gye) is a curved piece of wood connecting the sole (elyma) with a drawbar (histoboe) on to which the draught-animals are hitched with a yoke (zygon). A stilt, equipped with a handlebar (echetle), may be attached to the sole. In front, the sole may be equipped with a ploughshare made of bronze or iron (hynis). The ploughshare is not mentioned in the poem, but it is apparently known by Homer (Il. 23.834 ff.).
Archaeologically it is attested in bronze as well as iron. Hesiod recommends that you should have two ploughs, the composite version and the non-composite version, the autogyon aratron. The latter may be difficult to interpret, but it is possible that sole and beam consist of one piece of curved wood to which the drawbar is attached directly. Amouretti is undoubtedly right in assuming that we are not dealing with two types of ploughs but with variants of the same implement, depending on the material available: Hesiod has his farmer go to the forest in order to find suitable wood. As draught animals Hesiod recommends 9-year-old oxen, and the ploughman should be an experienced man of 40 years of age, someone who does not look towards his fellow ploughmen but is able to plough in a straight line.
In the great epic ploughing is frequently used in similes. The fact that the work is strenuous to the oxen as well as to the ploughman is mentioned (Il. 13.702 ff. and Od. 13.31); and the challenge offered by Odysseus to Eurymachos (Od. 18.371 ff.) shows that steering a straight course for the furrow is equally difficult. In one case, ploughing with a team of mules is mentioned; these move faster (Il. 10.351). The most famous portrayal of ploughing is the description of the shield of Achilles (Il. 18.541 ff.). As we have mentioned, depictions of the plough occur frequently. We show a wellknown terracotta statuette from Boeotia, now in the Louvre. Here all the parts of the plough mentioned by Hesiod are to be found.
It may without reservation be compared with a modern ard photographed on Mykonos in 1978 where it was still in use. From among vase paintings we reproduce a black-figure kylix showing a series of agricultural activities, among them two scenes illustrating ploughing, one employing oxen, one mules. It may be noted that here, as frequently, ploughing is associated with sowing. We choose to interpret this as an artistic convention that emphasizes that autumn ploughing and sowing are closely associated in time.
It may further be noted that here both ploughmen seem to stand with one leg on the sole. Alternatively, it is possible that they are in fact walking beside the ard – that is, behind it, as seen from the point of view of the spectator. This lends a considerable movement to the representation. In the well-known vase-painting of ploughing by Nikosthenes, the ploughman stands behind the ard holding a long stick with which he steers the oxen.
According to Hesiod there are three ploughings, one in spring, one in summer and finally one in autumn immediately preceding sowing. This, of course, presupposes that we are concerned with a fallow-field system. As we have seen, the biennial system seems to have been the usual procedure. There is, in fact, a verb (neao) which is used specifically for the ploughing of a fallow field.
HOE AND SPADE
The fact is that we cannot with certainty find any Greek word as a term for the spade, whereas it does occur in Latin. This may be fortuitous, but it is a circumstance that merits some afterthought. Nor are there any safely identifiable remains of spades from the Greek area. However, this may be just as much a coincidence as the fact that the word does not occur in any clear context. It is possible that a wooden spade, perhaps with its blade reinforced by an iron shoe, may have been in use, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.
As for the hoe, the case is different. It is most often known as makele, makella and dikella, the latter – according to the name – the two-pronged hoe. Both tools are used for a thorough tillage of the soil, and Theophrastus maintains that the dikella is better than the ard in breaking up the weeds from the fallow field (CP 3.20.8). It is probably an implement like this that Xenophon has in mind when describing the treatment of the fallow (Oeconomicus 16.15), and not a spade, although the expression ei skaptontes ten neon poioien is applied. In a simile Homer describes a man leading water through a water conduit to trees and a garden with a makella in his hand (Il. 21.257 ff.); it is probably a broad-bladed hoe that is meant here, but the hoe shown on the Louvre vase has the appearance of being much more pointed.
These two implements could, of course, have been known under the same name. The two-pronged hoe is known from few examples in Archaic or Classical art. In vase paintings showing scenes from a palaistra we often observe the pickaxe, and Schiering is undoubtedly right in assuming that it may have been used to smooth out the field if the side of it is used for levelling.
In addition, there is the term sminye which also denotes a hoe but it is difficult to determine the possible difference between these two terms, or whether they are perhaps synonyms denoting one and the same tool. It is certain that hoes must have existed in many variants and of different weights in order to serve various purposes. When, for instance, Hesiod prescribes for a boy to hoe down the seed with a makele immediately after the sowing (Works 470), there is obviously no reason to assume that a heavy hoe, suitable to break up the fallow, is involved. This would be a waste of effort.
Likewise, weeding and hoeing of the cornfields must have been undertaken with a very light hoe, perhaps of the kind that Xenophon calls a skalis (Oec. 17.15), also found elsewhere in our literary sources. The same tool was probably used for that weeding of the grain recommended by Theophrastus, skalsis, but exactly what it looked like we do not know.
SOWING IMPLEMENTS
Vase paintings show clearly that this part of the work required merely a sack or a basket with a strap round the neck so that scattering was done by hand. As far as we know, a harrow was not used, but the seed could always be put down by means of a small hoe, as mentioned above.
The standard tool for harvesting was the sickle (drepanon, drepane or arpe as Hesiod calls it, Works l. 473). In Homer, it is also used for haymaking (Od. 18.366 ff.), there with the epitheton eukampes (that is, ‘well-’ or ‘beautifully bent’). The large hay-scythe is an invention that belongs to a later period in antiquity; presumably by then fodder was required in much greater quantity than in earlier times for horses of the heavy cavalry. The most authentic portrayal of the harvesting of grain is found in the description of the shield of Achilles (Il. 18.550 ff.) where not only the mowers but also the binders of the sheaves are mentioned. The large-scale farming suggested in this context may presumably be attributed to the general drift of the epic. As far as the mowing per se is concerned, it bears comparison with Xenophon’s description in Oec. 18.1 ff., where the technique is clearly accounted for with no mention of the sickle at all.
Sickles are found frequently in archaeological contexts; as, for example, in a considerable collection in Perachora where Dunbabin (1940) feels that, like spits (obeloi), they may have been used as media of exchange in a pre-monetary economy. There is a similar hoard from the Rheneia tombs, and some from Corinth and Olynthos. They have often been published designated as sickles and sometimes catalogued as pruning- or gardeners’ knives. From the fragments preserved it is often difficult to determine whether it is one implement or the other which deserves the identical term, but it is not easy to trace a well-preserved specimen of the grain sickle.
The curved knife is known primarily from a series of Spartan victory inscriptions from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia where a bill hook has been fixed on top. Here, in any case, one is not left in doubt with regard to its purpose and function in agriculture, nor were the contemporaries when they were about to use the tools in practice. What was meant by the representation remains uncertain. With regard to the harvest sickle it cannot be determined whether it was usually serrated as it is known from elsewhere; there are but few indications which point in that direction.
THRESHING-FLOOR
The threshing floor (aloe) is mentioned frequently and has been so ever since Homer, but we are told very little about its structure or form. Here we are forced to consider analogies with well-known modern threshing-floors which, nowadays, are seldom used. They are circular and usually have a hole in the centre; into this is fixed a pole which can be turned. The draught-animals are hitched to the pole so that they keep the right distance; this, of course, can be varied. The threshing-sledge is not mentioned in the Classical period and is perhaps a later invention. The kernels were trodden out by the draught-animals.
Occasionally, ancient threshing-floors have been discovered in situ. As an example let us mention that near the so-called ‘Princess Tower’ at Sounion in Attica, archaeologists have observed a terraced and carefully paved circular platform nearly twenty meters in diameter, encircled at the east by a low rim of stones, at the west by a careful cutting in the native rock... The circular platform is certainly an ancient threshing-floor. A corresponding structure has been found not far from there near the ‘Cliff Tower’ and in other contexts as well. Although we cannot be quite certain about the dating of them, it does seem that everything points in the direction of ancient relics.
Liknon is the winnowing basket by means of which the grain is winnowed when grain is thrown from the basket upwards and caught when it falls down. When larger quantities are involved, the grain is thrown against the wind with a shovel (ptyon) so that the chaff will be blown away. This is described in a couple of Homeric similes (Il. 5.499 ff. and 13.588 ff.), the latter passage dealing with the threshing of pulse. The winnowing basket, as well as the threshing shovel, are discussed in a famous article by Jane Harrison (1903, 1904) dealing with the entire process of threshing as being closely connected with the cult of Demeter.
OTHER IMPLEMENTS
A number of other tools may be added to this somewhat limited list. Hesiod mentions the mortar with its pestle, olmos and hyperon, both made from wood, and a waggon mostly manufactured by the farmer himself (Works, 423 ff.). The mortar is shown on vas e paintings, but this is not the place to enter into a discussion concerning the Greek waggon. It is enough to note that much transport took place on the backs of mules or donkeys, a circumstance that has the distinct advantage of not depending on a carefully laid out system of roads. In addition, there are tools made from wickerwork and clay, baskets designed to collect grapes and olives and large storage vessels for the preservation of grain and olives. From the time of the Geometric style we possess a number of intricate vases that have been interpreted as models of storage vessels for grain, a type of silo.
These have been well described in archaeological literature, but it may be difficult to envisage exactly how they corresponded to functions in actual peasant life. Naturally, the farmer also had for domestic use saw, hammer, axe and other hand-tools, some of which served him for the felling of trees; these could also be used for the pruning of fruit trees. If we are right in assuming that grafting was widespread, this industry would also require special tools, particularly very sharp grafting knives and corresponding whetstones. All these tools, however interesting they may be, we shall disregard in this connection because in many ways they may be said to be of marginal interest for the understanding of agriculture as such.
It remains for us to accept that Greek agriculture seems to have been relatively poor with regard to implements. In a poem from the Anthology (6.104), Lysixenos hangs his tools in a sacred place, to wit, the seed bag, the hammer (sphyra) by means of which lumps of earth are broken, the curved harvesting sickles, the plough, the histoboe as well as the plough itself and the ploughshare, the stilt and the three-horned wooden pitchfork. The only implement which points towards a post-Classical era is the threshing sledge, tribolos. With this we may compare the very brief inventory which we find among the poor peasants who have moved to an outlying place in Euboea (Dio Chrysostom, 7.42).
By Signe Isager and Jens Erik Skydsgaard in the book "Ancient Greek Agriculture - An Introduction",Routledge, London & New York, 1995, excerpts p.44-56. Adapted and illustrated to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments...