Talk:Three-field system

Definition in lead

I altered the lead as it did not actually say what threefield rotation actually is. But I'm now not sure I got the definition right, particularly whether it takes three years for a full rotation. I will not alter it further, but hope someone who knows more can take a look. LastDodo (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay so as it stands the lead is correct. The only useful additional piece of information the definition could benefit from is the fact that in medieval Europe at least, the crop was first a winter crop, then a crop sown in the spring (then left fallow in the third year). I do not know whether this was universal or not, so have not added it. LastDodo (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to state which order a particular field cycles. Is it fallow, beans, wheat or wheat, beans, fallow. ... 178.51.201.86 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Three Field System in China

Joseph Needham in his book Science and Civilisation in China (1984, Needham and Bray - also published in China Quarterly) only speaks of different forms of rotation systems, but not specifically of a Three Field System.--213.142.96.106 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Needham refers to a "two- and three-course crop rotations similar to those of medieval Europe" by the Eastern Zhou. A google search turns up nothing for three-course crop rotation, so unless there is another form of three-field system existent during the medieval period, then this is likely what Needham is referring to. Qiushufang (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing is not good, in the page 150 of the cited text regarding the three-field system during the zhou era there is nothing that clearly demonstrates the supposed fact. It merely says that there are reasons to suggests that a given field was used up to three times before abandon it, according to some scholars. This is because some Chinese characters that apparently mean: "one year fields" "two years fields" and "three years fields". The context of the page is not even related to crop rotation systems, which is a topic touched upon in much later chapters of the book. Instead it is discussing the transition from spade-and-hue and human traction ploughing into animal force ploughing, by means of oxen, apparently because iron became more common and made the instruments too heavy for humans to use, and many other reasons cited. It seems it is doing a retrospective on various hypothesis made on the topic, it is not even proposing a thesis positively in this section. That supposed fact about the Zhou dynasty should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31021-4 (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)