Hajatalud ja külad Põhja-Liivimaal 17. sajandil.
Dispersed Farmsteads and Villages in Northern Livonia in the 17th Century.
DHPh Graduation thesis, discussed at the Department of History of Tartu
University in 2000.
New political and economic conditions developed in Estonia at the
end of the 16th and at the beginning of the 17th century. The political
disunion, a conseuence of the Livonian War (1558-1583) ended with gradual
integration under the Swedish administration. A longer peaceful period
began, interrupted only by the war between Sweden and Russia (1658-1661).
Large number of manors emerged as a result of extensive enfeoffment and
they played a major role in economy based on grain crop cultivation, starting
corn exportation to the world market.
The changes that took place reflected also in settlement. Both the Livonian and the Polish-Swedish War (1601-1629) together with accompanying outbreaks of epidemics and famine caused a considerable recession. The number of population reduced, many farmsteads were deserted and fields remained unultivated. After the end of the wars a new rise began during which peasant population started to grow, old empty farmhouses were settled and new farms were set up; as a consequence, the area of cultivated land expanded. The pattern of settlement, as it had formed by the 1680s, reflected the peak of settlement of the century. The rise was broken by the Great Famine (1695-1697). In addition, both the Northern War (1700-1721), which ended with the incorporation of the whole Estonian territory into the Russian Empire, and the 1710 plague decreased the population considerably.
The period of decline, however, was not so deep as in the 16th and at the beginning of the 17th century and therefore the settlement pattern was preserved during the next two centuries until land consolidation in the second half of the 19th century. Thus, studying the 17th century settlement is essential not only for comprehending the circumstances of that period but also for understanding the future developing processes.
Estonia has long-term traditions in surveying the development of settlement as well as economic and social relationships. Profound research in the history of settlement began in 1920s and is associated with Paul Johansen’s name.
This dissertation is focused on the development of settlement of the contiental area of northern Livonia in the 17th century, with special reference to the role of dispersed farmsteads. Village has been the main form of settlement on Estonian territory, but beside villages dispersed farmsteads have existed there throughout time. Researchers have usually considered dispersed farmsteads as organic part of settlement without attributing them an independent role. To present a differentiated picture about the development of settlement, it is necssary to observe thoroughly the dispersed farmsteads as part of a whole. In addition, attention has been paid to differences occurring in dispersed farmsteads’ and villages’ economic life. The pattern of 17th century enables to analyse develpment of settlement both in growth and decline as well as to describe the ways of overcoming the crisis and progressive tendencies during prosperity.
For the research, sources from the Estonian Historical Archives and the National Archives of Sweden were used. Studying the first half of the century land revisions of 1601, 1624/27 and 1638 are of particular significance. Related to the subject, various source materials on single manors have been taken info account, among them mainly the so-called socage registers. There are abundant source materials from the 1680s that originated in connection with estate reduction. More important kinds of sources are land surveys’ data (maps and map descriptions) and the material on the inventories of 1688 (inquisition, socage registers).
Determining dispersed farmsteads is possible by comprising materials of various kinds of sources. For distinguishing villages and dispersed farmsteads, maps and their descriptions are more reliable than the materials of land revision. Owing to irregularity of source materials, the data of land surveys and revisions are to be integrated. However, it is easier in case of particular individual issues since the materials of these two sources have limited compatibility.
In Estonia, village has generally been the backbone of settlement. The village was a compact settlement with unity of landholdings. Each farmstead’s lots were scattered in the village field so that each farmstead’s patches, plots or strips were separated from one another by those of other farms. In case of open-field system, farmstead’s buildings and yard did not form a territorial unity with the fields. The centre of the village consisted of buildings forming a group or a row, with fields and pastures surrounding them. Such system of stripfields was dominating and widespread land division all over medieval Europe.
The land possession linked the peasants into a village community. Since the fields of each farmstead were scattered on the village territory, the fieldwork had to be done simultaneously: sowing and harvesting, transportation of the crops from fields, etc. Everything had to be done in due time as thereafter the cattle were loosened in the fields. The land and forest beyond the village were common. Every farm could pasture there its cattle and use the wooden material for its household.
Dispersed farmsteads were located outside the village, either nearby or deep in forests or in the middle of bogs. A dispersed farmstead is a secluded farm, which lands, especially fields, formed mainly a compact area. It was unity of the lands that principally distinguished dispersed farmsteads from the village farms. Dispersed farmsteads were often situated on a village territory and they had the right to use common lands of the village and were thus to some extent associated with the village community.
The criteria for distinguishing dispersed farmsteads and villages have changed in the course of time. Both in historical sources and in folk tradition their distinction has never been very significant. There are several ways for defining a dispersed farmstead. Traditionally, in Estonia a village is a group consisting of at least three farmsteads since it enables to determine the type of the village (compact, linear, dispersed village, etc.) based on their position. In accordance to this, an isolated farmstead and a group of two farmsteads that have originated from one divided farm are considered to be dispersed farmsteads.
The present research is based on a different point of view. Since the main and significant characteristic feature of a village is an open-field system, it is also the basis of distinction between dispersed farmsteads and villages. Dispersed farmsteads’ lands form a mainly compact territory. Groups of farmsteads with open-field system, on the other hand, were regarded as villages. According to this, a dispersed farmstead is an isolated farm. The author has included a group of two farmsteads into villages, in case they used the open-field system and into dispersed farmsteads, if their fields were situated separately.
Distinctive features emerged also in the economic life of dispersed and village farmsteads. Although under different economic and social conditions, it has been observed that at the beginning of the 19th century dispersed farmsteads had certain advantages in comparison with village farmsteads. By that time in many European countries land consolidation had been carried out and the advantages of dispersed farmsteads were apparent besides the system of stripfields in villages. Also in Estonia, the land consolidation in the second half of the 19th century substantially turned most of the farms into dispersed farmsteads. There-fore, a question arises: how and to which degree these positive characteristic features of dispersed farmsteads did become evident in social and economic conditions of the 17th century?
The chapter - Dispersed Farmsteads and Villages During the Period of Decline (1601-1638) first describes the situation which had developed by the beginning of the 17th century. Attention has been paid to freeholders and üksjalad (literally - one-foot meni- or peasants with a small amount of land) since these categories of peasantry were closely connected with dispersed settlement. Single dispersed farmsteads had continuously existed for a very long time. Some of them were former households of üksjalad that had been situated in woods and pastures. The others had developed from cottagers’ plots, situated on the verge of villages.
At the beginning of the 17th century the war between Poland and Sweden brought along famine, plague as well as desertion of numerous villages and dispersed farmsteads. Especially the latter were badly struck by the setback because empty dispersed farms often disappeared while empty villages were resettled in a course of time. Thus, a significant difference appears between dispersed farmsteads and villages: if during hard times a village became empty, it could be revived again, but dispersed farmsteads, on the contrary, were more unstable and they did not develop a well-marked network.
In 1620s, the continental part of northern Livonia was sparsely populated. Both the population density and concentration were low in a consequence of deserted farmsteads and whole villages. Many of them became overgrown with brushwood and their former position was unknown even to local peasants. In the years 1624-1627 the inhabited dispersed farmsteads made up 14 per cent of all farms, although a large number had become empty. During the war, however, such secluded dispersed farmsteads offered more protection and safety than villages near main connecting routes. The location in the middle of forests and bogs was apparently one of the main reasons for survival of dispersed farmsteads, notwithstanding hard times.
Apart from village farmsteads, at the beginning of the 17th century many dispersed farmsteads had their special names. In Estonia a farmstead was usually called by its holder’s surname and first name. The special name of a dispersed farmstead was permanent and associated with a certain locality, since a dispersed farmstead was a territorial unity. In case of villages, households were named after the head of the household because a village farmstead was not a territorial entity. Therefore, it is possible, to a certain extent, to compare the names of dispersed farmsteads with the names of villages - both of them designated to definite territorial whole. During the 17th century many of such special names, attributed to dispersed farmsteads, disappeared from records and new dispersed farmsteads were registered after the holder’s surname and first name.
After the ravage, the population restored slowly. The village farmsteads were populated a little quicker than dispersed farmsteads, since villages were usually located closer to fertile and arable lands. However, there were areas where the establishment of dispersed farms was more intensive (the Pärnu stronghold benefice, for example). As numerous old farmsteads had been unpopulated for decades and the buildings were in ruins or overgrown with brushwood, then in parallel with re-settling old dispersed farmsteads new ones were established. Obviously the governing principle was that every peasant had the right to cultivate land for his own needs; therefore new farmsteads were erected on the old slash-and-burn fields and suitable meadows.
Owing to the war and accompanying epidemics and famine the mobility of peasants increased at the beginning of the 17th century. When peace was established, the peasants continued to move from one place to another with a noticeable intensity. From the areas of denser population peasants moved to the regions formerly ravished by famine, epidemics and war. Numerous immigrants from Estonia as well as territories of Russia, Finland, Latvia and elsewhere came to Northern Livonia. Most of them settled down in villages, relatively few stayed on dispersed farmsteads.
Establishment of manors considerably influenced the pattern of settlement. New manors were usually set up on sites of old villages. The lands of smaller villages and dispersed farmsteads were linked to manorial fields and large dairy farms, attached to manors, were established there. As a result of setting up manors the population expanded and became more dispersed since the inhabitants of the farmsteads taken over by manors were forced to settle empty farmsteads in other villages or build up new households.
The chapter - Dispersed Farmsteads and Villages in the Period of Growth (1638-1690) first observes the development of settlement from 1638 up to the 1680s. The settlement expansion varied in different regions of southern Estonia. Also on prevailingly village-based areas the size of villages increased and new dispersed farmsteads were founded. On the areas with earlier numerous dispersed farmsteads, the old sites gave rise to new villages and besides new dispersed households were established. On the areas with dispersed settlement the number of dispersed farmsteads was growing even more.
Beginning with the 1660s, the settlement expanded mainly due to establishment of new dispersed farmsteads. New households were born inside villages mainly by division of old farmsteads. As villages were approaching their optimal size and it was complicated to change their system of field division, the population began to expand outside villages.
By 1680s, northern Livonia was densely populated. Dispersed farmsteads made up about 22 to 29 per cent of all households. The distribution of dispersed farmsteads was irregular, mainly owing to natural conditions. Flat and fertile lands suited well for villages and therefore there were few dispersed farmsteads. In places with poorer soil, in forests and bogs as well as on hilly areas dispersed farmsteads were more numerous. Even in the boundaries of one parish considerable variation could be observed: there were manors in which territory dispersed farmsteads formed the majority of all farms, and manors in which territory the proportion of dispersed farmsteads was insignificant. The south-eastern corner of northern Livonia was an uncommon region where dispersed farmsteads were predominating.
However, in peasant society there were always empty farms, even at good times. Desertion was usually temporary and the farmstead that had been left behind was usually later taken into use again. In 1688 only 1.7 per cent of dispersed farmsteads were empty while in villages 3.4 per cent of farms were deserted. The main reasons for leaving behind a farmstead were disease of the holder, impoverishment, getting into debt as well as flight. Dispersed farmsteads were discarded mainly because of poor quality of soil.
Comparing the size of village farms and dispersed farmsteads in plough-lands, it appears that the latter were smaller than the farms in villages. On the other hand, among dispersed farmsteads there were more tiny (below 1/8 of a ploughland) or huge (over 1/4 of a ploughland) households, in comparison with village farms. As a rule, very small farms had recently been set up and they did not much differ from cottagers’ farmsteads. Very big farmsteads were mostly situated in the south-eastern corner of Northern Livonia where the phenome non of partnership had widely spread, meaning that the farmstead was managed by several farmers together. Usually common possession was shared by two peasants, exceptionally three, but in the area of Vastseliina a farmstead could often be jointly managed by four or five brothers. It was obviously an influence of an earlier tradition of joint families.
The structure of the household on village and dispersed farms was different. On dispersed farmsteads the proportion of men was greater and that of children smaller than in village farms. Dispersed farmsteads were usually provided better with labour force than village farmsteads. Many capable men were needed for breaking fresh ground and expanding the fields.
The fields of dispersed farmsteads were usually smaller than those of village farmsteads. While dispersed farmsteads possessed in the 1680s on an average 11.8 barrellands (1 barrelland = 0.52 ha) of permanent fields, village farmsteads possessed 14.3 barrellands. Dispersed farmsteads, on the other hand, possessed larger temporary scrub fields gained by the method of slash-and-burn and burn-beating. The majority of scrub fields were used in the southern part of Northern Livonia where the soil layer was thicker. The scrub fields were typical to dispersed farmsteads that situated on well-wooded areas and, on the other hand, the pos sibilities of slash-and-burn were smaller on boggy and over-moist areas and there they were used seldom.
Animal husbandry was slightly more important on dispersed farmsteads than in villages. In villages oxen were main draught animals, on dispersed farms horses became important. The people of dispersed farmsteads lived far from villages and the manor. The landscape where the fields of dispersed farms were located was often undulated and not suitable for oxen as draught animals. Like-wise, the fields of dispersed farmsteads were smaller and there cattle were bigger; hence, the fields were better fertilised in comparison with village farms.
Labour productivity was higher in dispersed than in village farmsteads. The farmers did not need to cover such long distances while working in their fields. They were saved all the troubles brought about by the system of field compulsion and working on narrow strips. In the fields of dispersed farmsteads farmers could plough across the field, impossible in the village fields. On dispersed farmsteads no land was wasted on balks and headlands, as was the case in villages.
The amount of imposts depended on the size of a farm in ploughlands. Therefore there was no remarkable difference between the imposts of the farmers either in villages or on dispersed farms. In the 17th century, imposts consisted of corvée, rents paid in farm produces or in cash. A significant difference lies in the fact that many dispersed farms had redeemed their corvée with money or paid so-called freigeld. Only few village farms managed that.
Paying freigeld or redeeming the corvée was spread only on few manors and used by few and obviously wealthier farmers. Both redeeming the corvée and paying freigeld were more spread on the manors which fields were relatively small and which had many peasants. Paying freigeld was more common around Tartu and closer to the Russian border, in the Vastseliina region. It indicates that the transition to paying freigeld was favoured by the neighbourhood of economically livelier centres where peasants could sell their scanty products. Paying freigeld and redeeming the corvée gave the farmers considerable liberty in managing their economic life.
The advantages of dispersed farmsteads came into force partly already in the 17th century. The difference between individual and collective labour became apparent. The integrity of the lands belonging to dispersed farmsteads enabled to organise work better and as a result, labour productivity increased. Dispersed farmsteads also found it feasible to redeem the corvée or transfer to paying freigeld. Negative aspects of the dispersed farmsteads include poorer quality of lands and bad connections both with settlement centres and manors as well as with the market. Positive characteristic features of dispersed farmsteads were not able to carry weight during the 17th century because of low standard of agro-technology, levelling influence of manors and limited market relations.