Development of Southern Mesopotamian Economic Structure
Early Antecedents of Sumerian Economic Structure
1. Sumerian economy, its organization and codified accounting
system, had a long history in the Middle Eastern Neolithic.
2. We can trace the distribution of goods through the Levant as
early as the Natufian and PPNA periods when Red Sea Shell and Anatolian
obsidian was moved to such sites as Jericho, Beidha and Cayonu Tepesi.
3. In the PPNB and later more formal trading networks probably
appeared with Catal Huyuk (with its possible stamp seals for ownership)
controlling the Western Anatolian obsidian trade and, together such sites as
Cayonu Tepesi and Umm Dabaghiya (onager), engaging in the distribution of hides
and cereals probably being brought in to such peripheral sites as Umm
Dabaghiya.
4. Finally in the immediate pre-Sumerian periods we see the
foundations of the characteristic Mesopotamian economic pattern emerging. There was increasing “importation” of a
variety of valued materials (turquoise, lapiz lazuli, alabaster, carnelian,
obsidian) at a time when the intensity and scope of inter-settlement connection
was expanded as seen in the widespread distribution of Halaf, Hassuna,
Samarran, and Ubaid ceramics being.
5. Thus, by the Ubaid move into the southern alluvium, the
foundations of large-scale and long-distance economic interactive spheres were
already laid.
6. Also from at least 6th
millennium Halaf we see technological advances in ceramic production that
allowed for greater production. Thus
the double –chambered kiln of Halaf was followed in the Ubaid by the slow wheel
(and the Uruk fast wheel). This shows a
consistent move toward intensification of production that culminates in the
mass-production of the later Uruk period.
7. Finally, the increase of agricultural intensification,
following the Samarran and Ubaid adoption of irrigation agriculture (possibly
with its distant roots at Catal Huyuk and Cayonu Tepesi), in conjunction with
the other developments noted above, led from an extensive decentralized economy
into one that required progressively greater central organization,
intensification, and institutionalization.
Sumerian Economic Hierarchy
1. The emergence of a
stratified society in the Uruk Period involved the creation of a hierarchy of
social groups that was associated with economic activity as well as with rank
and power.
2. Thus, at the apex
were the “nobility,” comprising administrators, priests, and merchants who
owned land themselves and controlled the corporate lands of the city-states as
part of their governing duties.
3. Subordinate to the elite were the mass of the commoners who
owned garden plots but otherwise were dependent on the state for their welfare
in return for their labor.
4. A more specialized category of artisans and craftsmen worked
chiefly for the government, although some private enterprise did develop as
part of a market economy that later came to parallel the “temple economy.”
5. Finally, a body of slaves were owned by the city and employed
on corporate projects – these were captives and debt-slaves.
6. It is important to
note that there was some fluidity within these categories. Thus over time the rulers became
increasingly powerful and turned previously autonomous landowners into clients
so that by Ur III times all production, distribution, and trade were in the
hands of the King and his followers and little private economy remained. Also,
slavery appears to have been less rigid than in some other societies – people sometimes
sold themselves into slavery for specific periods for debt but were then freed,
thus moving between the categories of bonded and free commoners.
The Economic Functions of Sumer
1. The emergence of the “Temple Economy” in the Uruk Period
represented an institution that was the principal manager of the expanding
economic intensification noted above. The temple economy was above all
distributive in form with rulers managing all production, storage, movement of
valued subsistence commodities and items of elite rank.
2. The temple administrators/priests and their secondary
bureaucrats headed a temple society of craftsmen, merchants, scribes, and
agricultural workers who:
- built and maintained irrigation systems.
- constructed the temples and other administrative buildings.
-
supervised secondary agricultural communities within the city- state.
-
employed craftsmen to produce the metal, textile, ceramic, and cylinder seals required by the central
authority.
-
engaged in long-distance trade.
3. Specific developments within this economic institution
involved the creation of temple-run workshops such as the corporate smelting
facility discovered at Uruk, textile “factories” run by female workers,
stone-working workshops and ceramic workshops.
4. Trade involved distant connections with Anatolia, the Iranian
Plateau, and later the Persian Gulf region.
This resulted in the transportation of large quantities of valued
commodities. For instance the
“Limestone Temple” of Uruk is made of stone from the Central Zagros – there is
no stone in the southern alluvium.
5. The growing requirements of mass employment and
intensification led to streamlining of crafts associated directly with economic
activity. Thus small “bevel-rimmed”
bowls were mold made in great quantities throughout Mesopotamia and beyond in a
standardized size, probably to serve as the container for corporate laborers
food rations. Their capacity conforms
to the grain ration noted in early texts.
Later the fast potters wheel permitted the mass production of similar
type of bowls. Invention of the
grinding/cutting wheel and belt-driven drill allowed rapid production of stone
cylinder seals, also vital for economy.
Introduction of the plano-convex brick allowed rapid construction of the
progressively more elaborate architectural centers of political/economic
authority.
6. The period marks
conclusion of the move from carefully decorated ceramics of the Halaf/Samarran
to vessels mass-produced by mold or on the potter’s wheel for utilitarian
purposes. Pottery seen more as an
adjunct of economic and utilitarian life, so elite status craft work shifts to
stone and metal with impressive sculpture and jewelry.
Private Economic Enterprise and Ownership: “Manors” to Oikos.
1. Even though great
emphasis has always been placed on the “Temple” and later “Temple-Palace”
economies in Sumerian studies, there was always a certain amount of private
enterprise both overlapping these dominant establishments and to some extent
independent of them. This private sector emerged in the earlier periods before
the rise of powerful central governments and persisted in various forms
throughout Sumerian history. Moreover,
in the Early Dynastic period, powerful private landowners were probably major players
in the rise of the “Palace” over the earlier temple system.
2. The archaeological
expressions of private landownership can probably be traced to the T-shaped
Samarran buildings and the Ubaid/Uruk “manor houses.” These were the homes of families who combined storage and
residential functions in their houses together with at least partial
redistributive authority. In the Early
Dynastic Period this early “manor” pattern may have developed into one sector
of the oikos system. In this
system numerous households, each with its particular specialist economic
function, were integrated into unitary economic unit controlled by powerful
elite families who were able to compete with persisting temple economies, also
developing along the oikos pathway (see below). Ironically a few of the most successful of
these elite families probably created the later Early Dynastic Period
“Temple-Palace” dynastic tradition that ultimately evolved into kingship and,
by the Akkadian Period, significantly eroded private ownership.
3. At a wider level it
appears that Sumerian economy in the 5th millennium was based on the
collection of tribute. The tributary
economy involved the exaction, by a political elite, of a portion of the goods
and labor of the producers who made up the vast majority of the populace. While in the 5th millennium Ubaid
period, with the possible exception of some of the heads of “manor houses” and
temples, most people were engaged in production to some extent, these elite
establishments were able to maintain the storage facilities to house the
resulting surpluses which freed them from daily production chores and to amass
high status items not available to the general populace. The temples probably used ideological means
rather than force (offerings to the town gods and the sacred foundations) to
attract this surplus and were not themselves directly engaged in production
while the producers, when not engaged in accumulating tribute were free to act
as independent agents conducting their own small-scale subsistence farming and
craft production independently of the elite centers.
4. In the 4th
millennium Uruk period this tributary system intensified. With greater social hierarchy and larger
elite establishments, the demands on producers increased and many probably
abandoned the land in consequence of this trend. There consequently developed greater need for the expanding urban
centers to exploit a wider rural economic support area, to develop
transportation networks and labor saving technology and specialization in order
to increase efficiency. Thus inventions
like mold and wheel-made pottery, drills and cutting wheels for jewelry and
seal making, organized textile and metallurgy “factories” all appeared as means
to maintain the amount of tribute required by an increasingly stratified
society in the face of limited labor.
All of these developments encouraged the development of more intricate
managerial strategies at the level of temple and “manor.” Thus we see through the analysis of faunal
remains, seal distribution, and “art,” evidence for more unequal control of
elite items, centralized redistribution, and long-range trading networks. At the same time the burgeoning urban
population, now separated from the location of agricultural production, were
available to erect great monuments to emerging power.
5. A trend away from
tributary economy and toward a centrally controlled economy occurred in the 3rd
millennium Early Dynastic Period with the domination of the oikos system. While multiple household economic
establishments had existed to some extent since at least the Ubaid, this system
had existed side by side with the larger and more differentiated tributary
economy prior to the 3rd millennium. Whereby in the tributary economy the elite siphoned a proportion
of available labor, leaving the producing households a great deal of
independence, in the oikos, these households were attached to
multiple-household establishments that controlled sufficient farm laborers,
specialists and producers to furnish the needs of the entire oikos
community and to produce the surpluses and raw materials required to enhance
the power of the leaders. In effect
member households became attached agencies with the oikos managing both
the means of production and all redistributive authority.
6. Both temple and
private oikos establishment developed through the Early Dynastic
Period. in competition. Through time fewer, more successful
establishments incorporated others until by the late Early Dynastic single
centralized city economies emerged under dynastic elite families, heralding one
of the hallmarks of the Palace economy and Kingship.
7. In spite of this
prevailing economic evolution a parallel infra-structural market economy
emerged in the Late Uruk and early Early Dynastic periods. Here private owners sold their produce and
artisans, who were permitted to work part-time for themselves in a “cottage
industry, ”dealt their wares independently of the central economic authority. Similarly merchants who worked for the central
economic institutions were also able to trade to a minor extent on their own
behalf, again feeding the market economy.
Such independent enterprise certainly would have stimulated the growth
of greater specialization in craft production and fed the growing trend toward
stratification.