Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:34:15.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Expansion in Central Greece in the Eleventh Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Alan Harvey
Alan Harvey*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A familiar orthodoxy in Byzantine history is that the empire’s economy began to stagnate in the eleventh century. It was a turning-point marked by the development of large estates at the expense of independent peasants and the onset of demographic decline. The demographic trend has been much discussed and generally pessimistic conclusions have been reached. Recently, Lemerle has asserted that the labour force was less plentiful than land.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 8 , 1983 , pp. 21 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The classic statement of this view is Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State, 2nd English ed. (Oxford, 1968), pp. 320ff.Google Scholar

2. Antoniadis-Bibicou, H., ‘Démographie, salaires et prix à Byzance au Xle siècle’, Annales ESC, XXVII (1972), 217–22 Google Scholar. Svoronos, N., ‘Société et organisation interieure dans l’empire byzantin au Xle siècle; les principaux problèmes’, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 1966 (Oxford, 1967), 384–5 Google Scholar; but see his modified comments, ‘Remarques sur les structures économiques de l’empire byzantin au Xle siècle’, TM, VI (1976), 62–3, where he places the onset of demographic decline later in the eleventh century. See also Charanis, P., ‘Observations on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire’, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress, 459–61 Google Scholar, who postulates demographic growth in the Balkans until the end of the twelfth century without substantiating his argument with firm evidence. See the criticisms of Jacoby, D., ‘Une classe fiscale à Byzance et en Romanie latine: les inconnus du fisc, éleuthères ou étrangers’, Actes du XIVe congrés international des études byzantins, Bucharest 1971, II (Bucharest, 1975), 142 Google Scholar note 17, who reaffirms the old view of population decline in the eleventh century.

3. Lemerle, P., The Agrarian History of Byzantium from the Origins to the Twelfth Century (Galway, 1979), p. 246.Google Scholar

4. Lefort, J., ‘Une grande fortune foncière aux Xe-XIIIe siècles: les biens du monastère d’Iviron’, Structures féodales et féodalisme dans l’ occident méditerranéen (X-XIIIe siècles). Bilan et perspectives de recherches. Collection de l’ école française de Rome, 44 (Rome, 1980), 727–42.Google Scholar

5. The tax-register consists of a list of current and previous landowners and the taxes which were owed to the state. It was revised at regular intervals, probably every thirty years, and signs of change can be discerned. The register is concerned with the region between Thebes and Chalkis. For the edition and a long commentary, see Svoronos, N. G., ‘Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et la fiscalité aux XIe et XIIe siècles: le cadastre de Thèbes’, BCH, LXXXIII (1959), 1–145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Lemerle, , Agrarian History, pp. 193–9.Google Scholar

6. A similar conclusion has been obtained from changes in ecclesiastical administration in this region by Herrin, J., ‘The Ecclesiastical Organisation of Central Greece at the Time of Michael Choniates: New Evidence from the Codex Atheniensis 1371’, Actes du XVe congrès international d’études byzantines. Athènes. Septembre 1976, IV (Athens, 1980), 131–7.Google Scholar

7. The absence of proasteia in the text, except in one instance, does not mean that they did not exist in the region, simply that they were not recorded in the tax-register or at least the surviving part of it. See Lemerle, Agrarian History, p. 195 note 1.

8. Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 145.

9. Ostrogorsky, G., ‘La commune rurale byzantine. Loi agraire — Traité fiscal — Cadastre de Thèbes’, B, XXXII (1962), 158–66 Google Scholar. See also Svoronos, , ‘Société et organisation intérieure’, 375–7.Google Scholar

10. Lemerle, Agrarian History, p. 199.

11. Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 142 note 4. He also claims that most of the tax-payers holding their land by ekdosis were probably direct cultivators, ibid., 142 note 7.

12. Ostrogorsky, ‘La commune rurale’, 159–60, has emphasised that the titles and functions of the landowners in the tax-register were relatively modest, well below the upper levels of the hierarchy of the state.

13. Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 18, ll. 66–70. For the Leobachoi, see Nesbitt, J. and Wiita, J., ‘A Confraternity of the Comnenian Era’, BZ, LXVIII (1975), 373–4.Google Scholar

14. Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 15, ll. 4–9; 16, ll. 31–6; 17, ll. 51–5.

15. Ibid., 18–19, ll. 72–85. Peter was the son of Kosmas Gerasdes. In the first entry of the tax-register another Gerasdes appears as a prominent local figure of the previous generation, ibid., 11, ll. 1–2.

16. Antoniadis-Bibicou, ‘Démographie, salaires et prix’, 221–2.

17. Dölger, F., Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1927), p. 116, 1–23.Google Scholar

18. For the technicalities of this procedure, see Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 44–6, 52–3.

19. For a different interpretation, see Lemerle, Agrarian History, pp. 195–6. Land which had been abandoned by its cultivators and had received a sympatheia did not always remain unproductive. The state was entitled to lease it temporarily to other cultivators until the return of the original cultivators. See Karayannopulos, J., ‘Fragmente aus dem Vademecum eines byzantinischen Finanzbeamten’, Polychronion. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag (Heidelberg, 1966), p. 321, 1–8.Google Scholar

20. Oikonomides, N., ‘L’évolution de l’organisation administrative de l’empire byzantin au XIe siècle (1025–1118)’, TM, VI (1976), 137 Google Scholar. For tenth-century prices, see Lemerle, P., Svoronos, N., Guillou, A., Papachryssanthou, D., Actes de Lavra. Première partie. Des origines à 1204 (Paris, 1970), N. 2, 3 Google Scholar. Bompaire, J., Actes de Xéropotamou (Paris, 1964), N. 1.Google Scholar

21. For the libellikon demosion, see Dölger, Beiträge, p. 120, 12–16; p. 123, 15–22. It was clearly not imposed on the properties in the tax-register. In some cases the payments were too large to have been a libellikon; see, for instance, Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 13, ll. 42–43, where a tax of more than one nomisma was imposed on a part of a peasant stasis. A libellikon demosion of this amount would have been exacted from a very large estate. For another instance where the standard land-tax was imposed on klasmatic land in the late eleventh century, see Actes de Lavra, N. 44. However, it should be noted that the libellikon continued to exist in this period, Actes de Lavra, N. 58, 62–3.

22. For the imposition of this rate on land of the second quality see Lefort, J., Actes d’Esphigménou (Paris, 1973), N. 5 Google Scholar. For good quality land the rate of taxation was higher; see Actes de Lavra, N. 44, which involves a rate of epibole of about 75 modioi to the nomisma. Both documents are of the late eleventh century, about the time of the final revision of the tax-register. The extremely low rate of payment for Lavra’s estates has no relevance to this question because the monastery was exceptionally privileged, Actes de Lavra, N. 58.

23. Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 14, ll. 68–77.

24. Ibid., 17–18, ll. 39–60 involve entries which all contain more than one peasant holding. Consequently, the tax-payment gives an exaggerated impression of their size; yet in all six cases the payment was less than 1/4 nomisma.

25. Ibid., 11, ll. 1–2, 12–13.

26. Ibid., 11–19. Using Svoronos’s notation, the relevant entries are 1cl, 2cl, 4al, 5bl, 5fl, 5fll, which all paid at least one nomisma, and 2dl, 5el, 5f12, 6al, which all paid 1/2 nomisma or more.

27. For the equation of just over ten modioi with the hectare, see Schilbach, E., Byzantinische Metrologie (Munich, 1970), pp. 58–70.Google Scholar

28. Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 18, ll. 66–70.

29. For the various supplementary taxes, see Dölger, , Beiträge, pp. 59–60 Google Scholar; Svoronos, ‘Cadastre’, 81–3.

30. On inheritance customs, see Laiou-Thomadakis, A. E., Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire. A Social and Demographic Study (Princeton, N.J., 1977), pp. 186 ff.Google Scholar

31. Theban silk manufactures were used by the state as diplomatic gifts. See Van Dieten, J. A. (ed.), Nicetae Choniatae Historia (CFHB, 1975), p. 461.Google Scholar

32. I would like to thank Prof. A. A. M. Bryer, Dr. J. F. Haldon, and Mrs. P. Karlin-Hayter for their helpful criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper.