什么造就了农民:拜占庭埃及农村劳动的理论与史学

IF 0.3 Q2 HISTORY
Paolo Tedesco
{"title":"什么造就了农民:拜占庭埃及农村劳动的理论与史学","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

关于拜占庭埃及(公元300-700年)农村劳动力的现代讨论一直被对这一概念定义的分歧所困扰。有三种主要的相互竞争的概念:(i)农奴制将农村劳动力定义为“私人”(或封建)大地主出现的平行结果,而不是“公共权力”的衰落;农村劳动力被描述为“免费”,因为它是基于合同安排(主要是租赁)和向国家支付公共征费;(三)农村劳动力的特点是剥削,也就是说,作为土地所有者(土地所有者和佃户)从生产者人口中榨取无偿财富的工具。在大量文献的基础上,本文试图澄清,虽然封建农奴制的概念在拜占庭文献中找不到佐证,但劳动的契约性、朝贡性和“剥削性”特征并非相互排斥,而是描述了雇主-雇员关系的不同方面和可能的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Made a Peasantry: Theory and Historiography of Rural Labor in Byzantine Egypt
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
42.90%
发文量
5
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信