Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paolo Tedesco (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: