{"title":"What Made a Peasantry: Theory and Historiography of Rural Labor in Byzantine Egypt","authors":"Paolo Tedesco","doi":"10.1163/18741665-12340061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nModern discussions of rural labor in Byzantine Egypt (300–700 CE) have been bedevilled by disagreement over the definition of that concept. There are three main competing conceptualizations: (i) Rural labor has been defined in terms of serfdom as a parallel outcome to the emergence of “private” (or feudal) large landowners as opposed to the decline of “public powers”; (ii) Rural labor has been described as “free” since it was based on contractual arrangements (primarily, rent tenancy) and on the payment of a public levy to the state; and (iii) Rural labor has been characterized in terms of exploitation, that is, as the instrument through which landholders (both landowners and tenants) extracted unpaid wealth from the population of producers. Building on a vast literature, this essay seeks to clarify that while the notion of feudal serfdom does not find corroborations in the Byzantine sources, the contractual, tributary, and “exploitative” characterizations of labor were not mutually exclusive, but instead describe different aspects and possible developments of the employer-employee relationships.","PeriodicalId":41016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Egyptian History","volume":"13 1","pages":"333-379"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Egyptian History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18741665-12340061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Modern discussions of rural labor in Byzantine Egypt (300–700 CE) have been bedevilled by disagreement over the definition of that concept. There are three main competing conceptualizations: (i) Rural labor has been defined in terms of serfdom as a parallel outcome to the emergence of “private” (or feudal) large landowners as opposed to the decline of “public powers”; (ii) Rural labor has been described as “free” since it was based on contractual arrangements (primarily, rent tenancy) and on the payment of a public levy to the state; and (iii) Rural labor has been characterized in terms of exploitation, that is, as the instrument through which landholders (both landowners and tenants) extracted unpaid wealth from the population of producers. Building on a vast literature, this essay seeks to clarify that while the notion of feudal serfdom does not find corroborations in the Byzantine sources, the contractual, tributary, and “exploitative” characterizations of labor were not mutually exclusive, but instead describe different aspects and possible developments of the employer-employee relationships.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Egyptian History (JEgH) aims to encourage and stimulate a focused debate on writing and interpreting Egyptian history ranging from the Neolithic foundations of Ancient Egypt to its modern reception. It covers all aspects of Ancient Egyptian history (political, social, economic, and intellectual) and of modern historiography about Ancient Egypt (methodologies, hermeneutics, interplay between historiography and other disciplines, and history of modern Egyptological historiography). The journal is open to contributions in English, German, and French.