The physical environment of the Mediterranean has only recently entered considerations of the ancient countryside. Palaeo-environmental and ecological studies have transformed this situation. In particular, studies of recent peasant societies in Greece and Italy (ethnoarchaeology) have generated data and theories which have deepened appreciation of the complexity of past socio-economic practices, especially agricultural regimes (H. Forbes 1992).
The climate and physical landscape of the Mediterranean are highly distinctive. Two key characteristics include: (a) highly fragmented topography and (b) low, seasonally and annually variable rainfall (there is no evidence of significant difference from modern climate and environment, Grove and Rackham 2001). Ethnoarchaeo-logical studies identify a range of general cultural responses to this ecosystem. In particular, risk-avoidance strategies were of central importance and have had a profound impact on studies of the ancient countryside. All agricultural societies are vulnerable to unexpected variation in their ecosystem, but a defining characteristic of the Mediterranean is the variability of its landscape and climate. To mitigate the associated risks, societies developed strategies to ensure their survival. For example, specialization in any single crop was hazardous; a dry winter or a late frost could destroy an entire harvest. As a result, farmers spread the risk by diversifying production, including the Mediterranean “triad” of cereals, olives, and vines, but also legumes, figs, and other crops. Another strategy was the fragmentation of landholdings, facilitating access to varied ecological niches and minimizing the risk of losing whole harvests to localized hazards. In turn, the diversification of crops and the fragmentation of landholding had implications for broader social and economic organization.
Such ecological approaches have been criticized as environmentally deterministic, historically insensitive and for the implication that societies applied rational thinking to agricultural regimes and even social structures (Isager and Skydsgaard 1992). However, environment did not limit human agency absolutely, and strategies and technologies were developed to exceed these limits - for example, extending agriculture into the Libyan pre-desert (Barker 1996). Generally, responses to environment were historically contingent and drew upon tradition rather than rational planning (Garnsey 2002). A more pressing criticism concerns the relevance of models derived from studies of nineteenth - and twentieth-century societies. Is it valid to assume basic continuities over three millennia, especially if recent peasantries have been enmeshed in modern global economies? Similarly, though environment and technology remained broadly similar throughout antiquity, labor is an important variable. For example, ethnoarchaeological evidence for low seed : yield ratios, which correspond well with Columella’s figures, may significantly underestimate the productivity of ancient agriculture because of the higher yields possible through laborintensive “gardening” (Osborne 1987). Such issues do not invalidate ecological insights, but suggest caution in their application (further on ecology, Sallares,
World History
