‘embeddedness’, as well as his methodological position that premodern economies
should be studied with analytical tools other than those derived from the study of
modern, market-oriented economies. A view different from that offered by Gledhill
and Larsen seems possible by taking into account the dialectical relationship between
the ‘state’ and the individual entrepreneur or trader. Especially Larsen’s emphasis on
private business appears to be perceived too much from the vantage point of the Old
Assyrian traders who clearly represent an exceptional case that has to be seen against
the background of the oligarchic constitution of the Old Assyrian state. In fact, the
Old Assyrian trade represents a striking example for the dependence of economic
organization on the societal structures into which it is embedded.
On the other hand, scholars in economic anthropology as well as in Ancient Near
Eastern studies have been influenced by Polanyi’s ideas and have developed them
further on the basis of a plethora of written documentation not available to Polanyi
in the early 1950 s.^2
Polanyi emphasized different forms determining the access to the daily necessities
of life – reciprocity, redistribution and market exchange. It has become necessary,
however, to investigate and describe also other forms of economic organization and
processes that are characteristic for the economy of ancient Mesopotamia. Most often,
the term ‘palace economy’ is being used. It describes a form of economy organized
by, and centred around, institutional households. It is characteristic for societies where
the economy is organized in an autocratic-monarchic state and in which a considerable
part, or even the entire, population are dependent on institutional households (temple,
palace). Such dependency can have different forms – either by direct and total
integration as dependent labourers into such household(s) or indirect dependency in
the form of tributary or service obligations towards the palace.
A somewhat different perception of the ancient Mesopotamian economy emphasizes
the importance and more decisive role of communal, individual or private economic
activities throughout the entire history of ancient Mesopotamia, clearly set apart from
the economic activities of the great institutional households. Which form of non-
institutional economy is dominant depends on the societal organization at a given
time and in a given ecological environment. This raises the question of how persons
operating in economic independence from the palace and the ruler related to the
palace and the ruler, given that in any autocratic-monarchic society the populace as
a whole is regarded as subject to the king. This could be answered in reference to
the general patrimonial system.
FORMS OF ECONOMIC ORGANIZATIONIt is a plausible assumption that in the late fifth and partly in the fourth millennium
agricultural production in lower Mesopotamia was based on common property of the
arable land by village communities. Work connected with irrigation installations
required cooperation and reciprocal help. The process of the integration of rural
communities into the patrimonial system took place over a long time. The growth
of the centrally organized irrigation networks led to a rapid integration of the rural
population into institutional households. An additional factor is a concomitant process
of social stratification, often accelerated by natural causes (bad harvest, diseases among
livestock) which led to the impoverishment of large segments of the population and
— Economy of ancient Mesopotamia —