Glimpse into 1654

The year 1654 is not very remarkable, at least according to a Google search and my Timetables of History book. But, sometimes non-remarkable years allow focus on the more mundane and ordinary aspects of life. Being a rather low-key, mundane, not to mention average, person, I tend to think mundane can be good. Not all strive to dominate headlines. Much of history is written about the dramatic, when in fact most of the work gets done by those who make no headline and go about their daily, ordinary lives in a manner newsmakers would consider non-remarkable. This blogpost will be about some ancestors of mine and some of their faming activities in 1654. 

A glimpse into 1654 is possible due to the Berni Rula, a census of communities, housing, trades and occupations. Accomplished mainly for taxation purposes there, due to the rural nature of Bohemia, there was concentration on area of arable land and livestock. Area was calculated from sow rates, but it is thought some of those sow rates were over 100 years old and not highly reliable. Farm livestock and draft animals are also listed, which are important to gain knowledge of diversification. From this, we can get an idea of what farming was accomplished in Southern Bohemia in the mid-17th century.

Part of Img 308 Berni Rula, shows village of Malovice
 with Trobl and Havel Vrbsky (aka Kavan) Ancestors

1654 only six years after the end of the Thirty Years War, it was also one hundred years into what is referred to as the second serfdom. The second serfdom is important to how our ancestors lived at this time. The second serfdom involved extraction of money from rents, required labor services, heavy burdens on new economic activities, intensified market monopolies, and imposition of heavier constraints on their serf's economic and demographic decisions. Demesne farming, or the use of serf free labor, is often associated with the "existence and use of high labour rents" (ie free labor) (Cerman, 2011, p. 240). Serfs had to provide free labor and goods to the domain in exchange for some land to farm and a house to live.  If one were a good farmer that land could stay in the family. Our ancestors did not own land as we know it, but had more like a long-term lease. While Cernam says there is not full agreement on what led to demesne farming, most scholars agree that lower population and higher grain prices during the sixteenth century were factors. Of course, the Thirty Years War, in the 17th century, contributed to the population shortage. The Berni Rula, verified by land registers, shows almost whole communities having been burned and abandoned. We saw that with the village of Hlavatce. The Simon Saubar holding, which was acquired by our ancestors, the Jodl familly, in 1720 was burned in 1626 and remained abandoned until 1662. 

Portion of Hlavatce in Berni Rula (1654)
All the bottom holdings are vacant.
Relative Slama is first listed

This is the situation in which our Bohemian ancestors found themselves. 1654 could not compete with the years 1618 to 1648 (Thirty Years War), and it was a difficult to obtain good grain harvests on the generally poor soils of southern Bohemia. Our ancestors needed to provide for themselves and also provide free labor, and goods to the domain. Of course, nothing is really common or mundane about farming. Animals, crops and people are all subject to disease, weather, and other conditions that affect one's livelihood and way of life. Many of our ancestors lived a life of quiet desperation. Poor weather of temperatures, drought, or too much rain, could easily affect the already on-the-edge living conditions of  of our ancestors. Of interest is that the second serfdom, which is said to have run from 1550 to 1781 (1781 saw partial emancipation of the serfs by the Empire) corresponds so well with a period often referred to as the Little Ice Age, which ran two hundred years from 1550 to 1750. Grain prices could easily have risen due to effects of the Little Ice Age. 

Livelihood for the ancestors discussed here was pretty much dependent on farming. Those that were smaller farmers would have had to engage in a secondary occupation. Tailor, weaver, or carpenter were common secondary occupations. A village often had its own blacksmith, and a sheepherder, ,meaning it was less likely of a person to engage in either of those as a secondary occupation. Some villages had expert fishermen, who would raise fish in the pond of the village. Vavřinec Fištmistr, and 8th great grandfather in the Stieka line, was a fish master before taking on a farm in Libejovice. At times we can find the secondary occupation identified in a Seigniorial or parish record. The Havel family, for example were weavers, and Jakub Span, who also had Tesar or Zimmerman as a surname, indicates carpentry as a side occupation. Many of our ancestors were generally subsistence farmers. However, there were a few that were large farmers (50 or more acres) and some research indicates such farms may actually have had a "marked commercial orientation" (Cerman, 2011, p. 244). Large holdings likely had paid day laborer to assist in farm operations.

Author Compilation of Berni Rula of Ancestors
part 1. Yellow line are ancestors with 75 to 99% confidence
Lavender line 99.9 to 100% confidence as ancestors

While the Berni Rula provides an indication of area of a farm in arable land, we know that is not fully accurate, given later data. However, while not accurate as to area, I think the levels provided are still accurate for comparison purposes--for example a farm of six strich in arable area, was smaller than one identified as 12 strich. 

Part 2, Author Compilation

Looking at the area calculation used, that is strich, the seventeen farms (or holdings), from fourteen villages, for which I so far have information, the arable land ranged in size from 6 strich (about 4.2 acres) to 54 strich (about 37.8 acres).  The average area of all seventeen farms was about 22.36 acres. While the time frame is over a century later, extrapolating from William Wright we can see about 15 acres of quality arable land was required for a farm family to maintain payments and fees and eek out a out a living. Not a very good living, but they may have been able to survive in good times. Five of the seventeen holdings were less than 15 acres in area. That assumes good quality land, which was in short supply in southern Bohemia. A farm of about 20 acres, Wright indicates could produce a fairly comfortable living. Hence, about five acres was the difference between subsistence and being somewhat comfortable. Some of our ancestors were on the edge, where a bad year of weather, or some other catastrophe, could make the difference between life and death. Of the farms, six of the seventeen were noted as having arable land holdings of 48 strich  (33.6 acres), per the Berni Rula. The five holdings represented at 48 strich is the mode, while the median is 30 strich. 

Hence, from this research we can divide the ancestral farms into categories which I will call Unsustainable (not likely to produce a living for the family without another occupation) and Sustainable (likely to provide a living). I will use 22 strich (about 15 acres) as the cutoff. In this case of the 17 farms examined for my ancestors five were under 22 strich, meaning 12 were above. However, two additional farms are at 24 strich meaning they were at the edge and with unreliability of the strich in this instance, may well have been smaller farms. 

Part 3, Author Compilation

The effect of living on edge can produce severe consequences for a family, when tragedy strikes. A second tragic event can be catastrophic. We see this in the case of Sebastian Hauser, who purchased the holding of Jan Fisar in 1654 which was 12 strich, or 8.4 acres and saw the farm burn down twice within a three year period, (1672 and 1675), leaving him destitute and absconding from his family, which you can read about here. 

In all but two cases the small farms had all types of livestock recorded--cows, heifers, sheep and swine. One case that did not was  Matous Fucik who only had two cows and three heifers, and Fisar/Fencl holding only had cows and heifers--no swine or sheep. In all other cases, the small farms showed diversification of animals, likely to help meet the food needs of the household. As Cerman points out , larger farms may have been involved in the market, but the smaller farms most crops and animals were for the family, and what they had to provide to the domain.  Yet, two out of five is still 40% so rather significant,. These small farms would have had to rely on other sources for some of their sustenance. Only one of the sustainable farms did not have all of the livestock and that was the Havel Vrbsky, which is the Kavan farm, that did not produce any sheep. 

All of the farms practiced conservation in terms of having about one-third of the area not under cultivation every year, that is one-third of the arable land was fallow. I suspect they also practiced crop rotation. We know from records a century later that the oats, rye and wheat were the main grains grown. The Berni Rula does record what area was sown in spring compared to fall. The seventeen holdings together sowed 155 strich in the spring compared to 139 in the fall.  It was also common for each house to have a garden.

Grain was produced by sowing on the turned fields. The beast of burden of choice were oxen rather than horses. Settlers travelling on the Oregon trail tended to use oxen due to reliability, less likely to be stolen, content to forage on grass at the road edge, ability to handle more difficult and muddy terrain, and generally stronger. This may well have applied to our Bohemian ancestors, too. Only two farms owned any horses, while all farm holdings owned at least two oxen. Of the holdings, 63 total oxen were held, or an average of 3.7 oxen per holding, with nine farms owning two or three (4 or 6) pair of oxen. Lacking horses, foot was the method of travel for the bulk of our ancestors, and later research indicates into the 19th century. All of the 17 farms had at least one pair of oxen, although ten had two pair, one had three oxen, and two farms had three pair. 

Oxen may have been the choice for beast of burden, but generally, the farms were diversified in terms of animals, although that is not to say that some farms seemed to have some specialization in 1654. For example, we see that Joachim Fitzl in Dolni Chrastany had four cows, eight sheep and three swine. However, he seemed to be moving more to dairy as he was reported to have ten heifers. Havel Vavruska of Nestanice, while having twice as much arable land, had five cows and heifers, but ten sheep and 17 swine. The Trobl farm, the same reported area as Vavruska, had 12 sheep, four cows, three heifers, and four swine, along with their four oxen. Adam Slama, is reported as 54 strich of arable land, and he had six cows and heifers, but 18 sheep and three swine. Slama had the largest of all the farms identified in the Berni Rula for 1654.

From available information, it can be concluded that many of our ancestors (mainly Kamen and Jodl lines) possessed sufficient arable acreage on which to produce a living.   Nine of the 17 holdings appear to have provided at or near 20 acres or greater of arable land meaning they were able to live somewhat comfortably. Yet, as we know, soil and weather were variable, and even the best farms were to struggle in years too dry or two wet. The conditions of the second serfdom would have meant that our peasant (serf) ancestors had to provide labor first to the domain and then to their own farm. The more arable land the more labor typically required. Yet, their standard of living was more like that of the middle ages than that of the late 19th century. They led ordinary and mundane lives working to provide for their domain and their family. The 1654 Berni Rula provides a glimpse into the farm type and conditions of our ancestors. 

Sources:

Cerman, Markus, 2011 "Demesne Lordship and Rural Society in early Modern East Central and Eastern Europe: Comparative Perspectives." Agricultural Historical Review, British Agricultural History Society vol 2.

Haas, Dr Antonin. 1954, 1654 Bernia Rula 27, Prachensky

Klein, Alexander and Sheilagh Ogilvie 2016, "Occupational Structure in the Czech lands under the second serfdom." Economic History Review, vol 69.