Early Medieval Venice and Slavery: Trade and Labor Organization Polices between Archaeology and Historiography

Abstract

Medieval Venice has been defined as a mainspring for the modern colonial capitalism. It has been noticed how the Serenissima controlled the Mediterranean market through a series of political and military actions, supported by massive technical improvements (mainly for an effective mercantile fleet) and financial innovations (established credit system, mortgage infrastructure, banking tools etc.). Recent researches indicate the significance of these elements and the role they have played since the very beginning of Venetian history.   

A crucial aspect of the early medieval Venetian market system was enacted through the slave trade (McCormich, 2002). Further, the management of local labor forces (slaves, semi-slaves?) was one of the main concerns of the early medieval aristocracy. The conquest of the Mediterranean economy was possible thanks to the control of the skilled labor forces employed in crucial activities, such as ships construction, forest management and channels/ports improvements. Local historians tend to underestimate the role of slave trade in early medieval Venice, reducing it as occasional activity. Equally, for many years archaeologists’ have been inclined to read material records as proofs of a liberal market, which should reflect a “positive” historic narrative without any scope for describing the key role of forced labor in the making of the medieval emporium.

This paper shows the potential role of the archaeological perspective in considering the material evidences of the origin of the city, more closely associated with the late antique pre-capitalistic slavery system than previously argued. Equally, a Mediterranean archeological perspective helps to define the central role of commercial contacts with the first Venetians and the Islamic world, where the slave trade was likely directed. A massive medieval and modern historiography, in fact, has managed to disguise this initial phase. Scholars have concentrated on the medieval economic and social relationships between Venice and Constantinople.

An ecological/anthropological perspective provides novel approaches in the evaluation of labor provision and work organizational costs. New and old material evidences from Venetian excavations should be re-interpreted to study how the Serenissima was able to produce technologically advanced  “things” (i.e. the Venetian Galea vessel, ports, piers, or Venetian glass goblets). The labor control policies, also, could be evaluated in the topography of the antique city.

Furthermore, the paper, considering Venice as a case study, addresses to ethics within an historic perspective. Viewing slaves and labor forces as a material commodity, how is feasible to reconcile the traditional (and generally accepted) historic narratives on the Venice origins (based on the idea of freedom and democracy) with the slavery trade? How the material approach could help on focusing on the role of forced labor communities in the making of medieval Europe? Could post-classical archaeology enrich the debate on the origin of the European trade?