3 ms·
This article is somewhat surprising. It does not seem to account for variation in the intensity of work at different times, for example planting and harvest. At
by hodgesrm 7y ago
This article is somewhat surprising. It does not seem to account for variation in the intensity of work at different times, for example planting and harvest. At those times it's hard to imagine that people worked anything less than dawn to dusk to ensure they had food for the next year.
- whatshisface 7y agoThe table at the bottom is in units of hours.
- manfredo 7y ago> Manorial records from fourteenth-century England indicate an extremely short working year -- 175 days -- for servile laborers. Later evidence for farmer-miners, a group with control over their worktime, indicates they worked only 180 days a year. I think the point the above poster is making is that "working hours" logged in these sources are very vague. Does the "175 days" in the English manor mean that these people had free time for the rest of the year? Or did the go and work second or third jobs to get by? Remember, only have the manor's records.
- bsanr2 7y agoYou've never worked crunch or a holiday period?