For a long time, the interpretation of socio-economic issues in the Near East has remained largely pragmatic. For instance, it avoided delving into the whole debate (once central to the study of ancient history) between ‘modernists’ and ‘primitivists’ — in other words, between the supporters of a reconstruction through concepts and models taken from modern economics, and the supporters of a reconstruction based on elementary forms of socio-economic developments. In the last fifty years, however, the preference for theoretical models has become more popular. Previously, there was a period characterised by a stronger support for the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ model developed by Marx, and/or Polanyi’s ‘marketless trading’ model. They both were non-modernist models that were historical without being primitivist. Then, classical economics experienced a revival, supporting the idea of the universality of economic concepts. In all these periods, prevailing interpretative trends were highly influenced by current political affairs and ideologies.
Admittedly, the so-called ‘laws’ of economics were developed from a relatively limited set of historical evidence and for other historical contexts. In fact, they are based on concepts such as markets and currencies that are quite anachronistic when applied to the Near East. Nonetheless, Near Eastern modes of production and exchange were considerably sophisticated and not directly comparable to elementary systems of exchange. It is therefore necessary to reconstruct operational models specifically designed around the societies considered, taking into consideration their uniqueness and complexity.
Regarding modes of production, it has to be borne in mind that the Marxist model concerns a capitalistic type of economy (with its formative and transformative processes). Therefore, when it was applied to ancient economies it was through few, largely unsubstantiated, references. In fact, nineteenth century researchers only had indirect and largely irrelevant evidence on the Ancient Near East. Therefore, theories on the Asiatic mode of production and its relations to other modes (such as the slave and feudal ones) belong to the realm of Marxist studies rather than to the study of the Near East.
What remains a useful concept in the context of the Near East is the ‘mode of production’ itself. This model, though maybe out-dated for the analysis of complex economies like the current one, can provide useful insights into less complex economies. Certain aspects remain particularly important such as the identification of types of ownership of the means of production (especially in terms of land), the relationship between means of production and workforce, the size of production units, and the accumulation of surplus. It is the highly variable combination of these basic factors that characterises what Marx defined as the foundation of the economic structure of society. Within it, many ‘modes of production’ (which interact following patterns of hegemony and subordination), systems of exchange, forms of consumption (as well as accumulation, ostentation, and destruction) can be detected. Modes of production and systems of exchange are, however, only ideal constructions, mere interpretative tools. The study of the economic formation of society therefore remains a historical reconstruction, concrete and variable both in time and space.
The most influential modes of production that can be found in the Near East are the palace and the household models. The first came about through the Urban Revolution, and is characterised by the rise of the ‘great organisations’ (the temple and the palace) as centres of production, and the servile state of the producers of food towards those holding political and administrative control. Moreover, this mode of production led to the strong and dynamic specialisation of labour, a centripetal and redistributive influx of goods, and the resulting hierarchic distribution of sectors related to production. The second mode, the household, is instead residual of the Neolithic period, when the workforce and the owners of the means of production were the same people. Moreover, the household model features the absence of a full-time labour specialisation (or, better, it is still unstructured) and the relatively equal status of its members and sectors. The two models interact with each other in a clear ‘hegemony vs. subordination’ kind of dynamic, since the palace model could not exist without the household one. The latter was in fact gradually absorbed and restructured (due to its relation to the palace), thus losing its former independence and autonomy.
The establishment of these two models, and of the hegemonic character of the palace model, does not eliminate the problem of the diachronic evolution of economic development and of the existence of other (more marginal) modes of production. This issue will have to be dealt with in the following chapters. For now, it may be sufficient to mention the fact that the two models evolved through mutual influences. Moreover, regional variations and the existence of other modes of production constitute an alternative development strategy, partly influenced by the specific context in which they developed. The main developmental current of the fertile plains was influenced by factors such as urbanisation, irrigation, the cultivation of grains and the farming of sheep and goats, organised trade, palace workshops, and the religious nature of political organisation. However, there were environments and strategies for production that were more centred on the exploitation of local resources (such as metal, wood and semiprecious stones), tran-shumance, and rain-fed agriculture. These were usually managed by communal groups ruled by an elite.
The idea of ‘modes of production’ as theoretical concepts that find their concrete application in the way they interact with each other (not just in the realm of production) in a specific historical context is even truer in the case of systems of exchange. In this regard, Karl Polanyi’s view of ancient economies has strongly influenced the study of the Near East. This is due to his definition of integrative models of reciprocity, redistribution, and markets. It is quite clear that the concept of reciprocity is best suited for a household mode of production, while redistribution is closely linked to palace administration. However, a market-centred analysis continues to be unsuitable for the type of economies found in the Ancient Near East, with the exception of the relatively early emergence of certain elements related to market economies in certain areas.
Just as with modes of production, so with systems of exchange the redistributive system prevailed. This system displays an application of reciprocal relations mainly in marginal areas, with the marked exception of inter-state commercial exchanges. Nonetheless, it is clear that these models are more interpretative than descriptive. Consequently, they belong to the study of ideologies rather than the study of economies. In fact, depending on its value and purpose, the same act of exchange can belong to both the reciprocal and redistributive model. Apart from its political, administrative, ceremonial, and other purposes, which only marked the way in which it was pursued, exchange always constituted a strictly economic reality (also in terms of exchanged commodities and technologies). Unfortunately, this fundamental role can only be understood from quantitative evaluations, with regards to which our sources are far too limited and selective (except for trade in the Old Assyrian period).
In this regard, through the scientific analysis of materials found in ancient sites, the archaeological evidence is increasingly supporting the study of the materials both for issues ofproduction and exchange. This allows for a more precise establishment of their origins, their structure, and diffusion. Moreover, the analysis of paleobo-tanical and paleozoological evidence (crucial for a reliable reconstruction of agricultural and farming activities), as well as of materials (crucial for the reconstruction of technologies and trading networks), is much more common for the study of prehistoric and proto-historic phases. However, it is underestimated for historical phases, as if the availability of written sources would make scientific data less relevant. Naturally, the contrary is true: only through the comparison of the entire set of available evidence will it become possible to gain a reliable understanding of the communities considered. The analysis of sources and administrative texts remains in fact relatively abstract if we cannot find out to what they were referring. Similarly, scientific evidence becomes difficult to contextualise historically if the ancient systems used at the time cannot be recovered.
World History
