In week 4 we're going to be considering some heavy hitting economic theories about how medieval Europe worked. In particular, we're going to be comparing the theories of these two historians:
 |
| R.H.C. Davis |
 |
| Henri Pirenne |
Remember, the first assessment task is also coming up next week. There will be an in-class test in the second lecture hour on Monday 19th March (unless you have already agreed an alternate arrangement with Clare and myself).
And just because I can't leave a whole blog post with no pretty pictures except photos of eminent old men, here's a completely gratuitous picture of Merton College, Oxford, where Davis worked for a time. It has, in my opinion, the most beautiful sounding bells in the world (or maybe they just make me nostalgic). You can hear them here.
 |
| Merton College, Oxford (Image by J. Gollner) |
10 comments:
After completeing this weeks reading, I am finding the concept of Demesne Land and Tributary Lands a little difficult to wrap my head around. Anybody else having the same trouble?
I am too, or at least I am half understanding it. The concept of Tributary Land makes sense, as it (on paper at least) sounds like it would have worked well; have this land, 'rent' it out, but on condition that the tenant cultivate the land, and then pay rent via the produce grown and harvested. Win-win for the landowner really (but maybe not so much for the tenant). I wonder though, who is harvesting and cultivating the significantly larger amounts of Demesne Land? Is a rent system applying here also, or are the workers serfs and/or slaves? Also, as pointed out in the text, what are the Abbeys doing with all this produce?? A likely guess would be that they would then sell/trade/exchange with other Abbeys which can provide other regional-specific produce, which they themselves are unable to cultivate. So again, great for the landowners, but maybe not so profitable for the workers of the land...
The Abbeys were considered incredibly rich and well off - maybe this wasn't just to do with the assets that they had, including the architecture, land and produce, but maybe they were also rich in terms of monetary value? Does that make sense? As in they probably had a lot of money and coin as well as everything else.
I like the comparison between Davis and PIrenne. Pirenne more or less chose the facts that fit his theory, whereas it seems David built his theory based more solidly on the facts.
The expanding freedoms experienced by servants in relation to Tributary land is interesting. This week's readings provide that from the third century onwards the concept of the 'hutted slave' became more prevalent to the extent that in some cases, hutted slaves could lead relatively normal lives cultivating the land as tenants for their respective lords.
It seems likely that the practice of acquiring hutted slaves would be viewed as an ideal way of life by the wider slave population. Surely slaves working in non-agrarian environments did not experience, with the same regularity, the luxury of being tenants of property and land?
I think of it not so much in terms of who tends the land, but in terms of whose profit it relates to. My understanding is that Demesne land was farmed by tenants for the lord's direct use or profit, whereas Tributary land was the land the tenants got to farm for themselves in exchange for their labour on the demesne, although they may also have had to pay taxes, tributes etc. out of the proceeds.
Hi emily,
I'm not sure about the cash reserves of an abbey... I think I've always assumed that their wealth was in things like golden book covers and chalices for the mass, etc., rather than money per se. How could we find out for sure?
I'm sure you're right that urban slaves would have led a very different existence in the late antique period from agrarian labourers in medieval times. But remember, there were degrees of owning land: some were truly independent, with their own labourers and so on; others were more like 'slaves in fields'.
But the bigger issue for the group is, do you guys think we can assume that the freedom to tend your own land was necessarily what everyone wanted? Some people probably did, but I think Davis points out it also came with lots of burdensome obligations, and not everyone could meet them. Freedom was costly, which is a kind of difficult concept to reconcile with our ideals today. Can you explain why anyone would have wanted to become a serf?
The vast economic differences between the East and West which Davis explored are most interesting; especially in relation to last week where we were mostly exploring the positive influences that Charlemagne was having on the West. When in truth these developments were probably minimal in contrast with what was happening in the East. Whilst it seemed the West were experiencing an ‘economy of no outlets’ the East were prosperous. With the production of fine silks and paper; even developing an extensive system of banking.
A clear sign that these times hold a lasting impact on later Western society was how the standardized monetary system which Charlemagne created still operated as the pound sterling system in England till 1970. Just another point that these times still can hold relevance in today’s society.
I feel I benefited most from reading the comparison between Davis and PIrenne and gaining an understanding of how historical theories and interpretations can be refuted, edited, and/or built upon. It was interesting to actually stop and consider the questions Davis was posing in order to attempt to establish my own understanding of events and to accept that Pirenne's view, though a 'seductive ... theory', as Davis states, can and should be deeply analysed and explored in order to test its potential inaccuracy. For me the reading provided insight on the necessity of a vast number of people contributing ideas and beliefs about certain historical events, in order to hopefully achieve a likely truth through collaboration and group effort.
While it is obvious that the primary concern of a first year history subject is to give us a fundamental understanding of a given culture(s) at a particular point in time, I have found being introduced to both Pirenne and Davis' accounts of the decline of economics in Western Europe has been beneficial in understanding that studying medieval european history (especially around the dark ages) is highly speculative as there were limited records kept. I found that Davis' questioning Pirenne's unjustified account of Islamic Pirates to be a simple yet interesting point that exemplifies how important it is within the academic realm to have constructive and intelligible criticism of peers works. I also found the weeks readings to be a healthy reminder of how subjective the study of history really is.
Post a Comment