The main economic resources of the Early Dynastic period continued to be the cultivation of the alluvial plain and the farming of animals, since both craftsmanship and trade depended on the first two. On their part, the great organisations had a significant impact on both agriculture and farming. This happened
Figure 6.5 Mesopotamian seal impressions of the Early Dynastic II and III. 1—2: Para style; 3: style of the Royal Cemetery at Ur (‘Meskalamdug phase’); 4: style of the First Dynasty of Ur and the Lagash dynasty (‘Mesannepadda-Lugalanda phase’).
Through the development of an administration aimed at the optimisation of production. However, this was a long process, which would only reach its zenith towards the end of the third millennium bc, with the Third Dynasty of Ur. The Early Dynastic period provides numerous administrative texts, allowing, together with archaeological and paleo-ecologic evidence, a more detailed reconstruction of agricultural and other activities pursued in Mesopotamia in the second quarter of the third millennium bc.
However, a satisfactory reconstruction of the agricultural landscape of the time remains difficult. Archaeological data have shown that the Mesopotamian landscape was a mixture of lands cultivated through
Intensive agriculture and irrigation, and marginal territories rich in other resources (steppes and marshes). The layout of individual fields along the irrigation canals can already be seen (through sales texts and land registries) as developing along the same lines as the ones characterising the following periods.
Fields were usually long rectangles of land facing the canal from the shorter side, and were ploughed and irrigated along the longer side. This layout was typical of irrigation agriculture, which aimed at maximising the number of fields along a given canal, creating a row of fields on each side. Fields generally bordered with non-irrigated steppes, un-drained marshes, or even other fields linked to other canals. The areas closest to the canals were generally left for vegetables (garlic, onions and legumes), or trees (such as date-palms), while the largest part of the fields were used for grains, such as barley, wheat and emmer. These three cereals provided different yields, and were different both in terms quality and resistance. In the south, irrigated lands, which were at a high risk of salinisation, were mostly used for barley (in a ratio of 5:1 and above). This grain was used to feed humans and animals alike, as well as for the production of beer. Wheat and emmer were less widespread in the area, thus becoming in a way luxury products. On the contrary, in the north, where rainfall levels were higher, the proportion between the three was more balanced.
Fields were not cultivated all at once. In fact, there is evidence for biennial rotation, a practice requiring a field to be cultivated with grains one year, and then left fallow the following one. Yields remained quite high (with a ratio of 20:1 or 30:1 between seeds and harvest), since many of the degrading factors that would affect Mesopotamian agriculture in the following centuries had not yet arisen. Summer cultivations, such as sesame, were still not widespread. In fact, the agricultural cycle and the system of rotations would be intensified later on, in the second millennium bc, leading to a rapid decline of soil quality. With yields this high, unprecedented not only in the area, but worldwide (for the time), the accumulation of surplus for the maintenance of specialists and the administrative and priestly elite was not difficult. In fact, the largest portion of the harvest (something like two thirds) was sent to the temple or palace storehouses. The rest was put aside to be planted the following year and distributed among the farmers working on the fields.
Just like during the first urbanisation, the availability of surplus kick-started a series of redistributive mechanisms. However, there were marked differences, partly due to the nature of the available evidence (mostly archaeological for Uruk, and textual for the Early Dynastic period). The redistributive system of the Uruk period largely consisted in the direct distribution of food rations. During the Early Dynastic period, food rations were still provided to the seasonal staff (corvee farmers), while redistribution for permanent workers took place through other means. These were, among others, the provision of shares of the harvest to the farmers, and plots of land (with farmers) to the specialised workers living in the cities.
Therefore, the system had evolved to become more stable, although this newly acquired stability was to the advantage of the workers. In fact, the temple’s lands were divided into lots, which were initially assigned on a temporary basis and in exchange for a service, but eventually began to be inherited. Therefore, the personalised redistributive system of the palace influenced the nature of family properties, while the system of inheritance used by families began to have an impact on the public sector.
Archaeological evidence shows that cities in this period produced artefacts of a very high quality, undoubtedly due to the increased availability of materials through long distance trade. Jewellery, weaponry, refined artefacts to be dedicated as offerings in temples, and musical instruments indicate the increased availability of precious materials and a high level of technical expertise. This expertise clearly reached its peak in Lower Mesopotamia by the Early Dynastic III period. The furniture found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur is the highest example of this development. On the contrary, lower classes produced a much more modest and widespread type of material culture. Administrative texts also provide information on the crafts, their techniques, the terminology of the materials, objects and metal alloys, confirming the supremacy of the palace and the temple in the supervision of these specialised sectors.
Consequently, cities experienced a higher concentration of the workforce, especially in two central sectors of the economy of the time. The first one was the milling of grains. In the absence of a technology able to exploit natural forces, the production of flour was a long and painful process, mostly pursued by women with simple stone grinders — a legacy of the Neolithic period. This kind of work, which was already difficult on a family level, required a large number of women when done within the larger redistributive system of the temple and the palace.
Another sector with a high concentration of workers (mostly women and children) was textile production. Again, the equipment used for spinning and weaving was fundamentally Neolithic, namely, a distaff, a spindle and a horizontal loom. The large quantities ofwool arriving in the urban centres were transformed into fabrics, both for internal needs and for trade (textiles were the typical material used for trading), in large workshops. The process required thousands of working days of women reduced to a servile state. These sectors with a high concentration of workers required little skilled knowledge. This was in marked contrast to other sectors, from metalworking to the carving of semiprecious stones, left in the hands of small groups of specialised craftsmen.
World History
