The domestic economy

Many of the cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia are concerned with the movement of commodities of various kinds, and it is self-evident that in a society with clearly defined urban and rural sectors some mechanisms are needed to achieve the distribution of food, raw materials and finished products to their consumers. The exchange of commodities in early societies has often been classified by economic historians and anthropologists under three broad headings or ‘modes’ of exchange: reciprocal, redistributive and commercial. ³¹⁷ At its simplest, the reciprocal mode sees goods exchanged between two parties who are alike consumer and producer, on a basis of reciprocal obligation which is deeply embedded in society. A transfer in one direction is not usually reciprocated on the spot, but creates an acknowledged social relationship which will eventually lead to a transfer in the opposite direction. In time, such a relationship may be institutionalized, and form a dependable part of the two economic systems. The redistributive mode is associated in the ancient Near East with the temples and palaces, which are seen as gathering to themselves large reserves and distributing these to their dependants: the scale of such operations enables part of a population to be employed on maximizing food production, and another part to specialize in crafts or administration. They are therefore important in the process of state formation, but it would be dangerous to assume that this is the only route to civilization. The commercial mode is the nearest to most modern societies, with the paramount influence of supply and demand creating a market (whether physically present in a ‘market square’ or not) where goods can be exchanged between strangers in accordance with a freely varying price structure. Its role in the ancient Near East remains a source of controversy, and its undeniable existence among the merchants of Babylonia and Assur does not mean that the same forces applied throughout contemporary society. While one mode may seem more ‘primitive’ and another more ‘developed’, they are not mutually exclusive, and one of the complexities of early Mesopotamian society is precisely the co-existence of these three modes and their variations.