The role of money, credit and surplusSilver money played a limited role in the economy of ancient Mesopotamia. Credit
as a monetary instrument enabling investment for productive purposes is absent.
Pierro Scraffa’s ( 1960 ) theory of producing commodities by means of commodities
has been applied to the economy of Ur III Mesopotamia by Kurz ( 2000 : 101 – 104 ).
He speaks of a ‘corn-model’ since the basic commodity in Mesopotamia was corn
(barley). In respect to this model, two different situations regarding agricultural
productivity have to be considered. The first concerns subsistence economy that just
permits the material reproduction of those producing the agricultural product, thus
sustaining a society as a whole. Subsistence economy of this type applies to agricultural
regimes with a seed–yield ratio of 1 : 2 to approximately 1 : 6. A yield on such low
levels leaves practically nothing as a surplus after accounting for next year’s seed and
the consumptive needs of those working the land. In contrast, Mesopotamian agrarian
economy produced seed–yield ratios ranging from 1 : 16 to about 1 : 24 and thus
achieved a substantial surplus whose exact amount may vary according to actual
harvest figures and the demographic situation (Renger 1994 a). Such surplus was
produced by only part of the populace. Thus only a part of the workforce, including
managerial personnel, produced more than was needed for their reproduction. The
surplus could therefore be used to feed other segments of society, for instance large
numbers of workers in weaving establishments. They produced, in a very time-
consuming process, textiles of extraordinary quality which were not only used for
internal prestige purposes but also as a very much sought-after export commodity.
In exchange, other luxury goods, but also commodities such as silver, gold or strategic
goods such as copper and tin for bronze production, or timber were brought back to
Mesopotamia. This surplus generated by production of commodities (textiles) by
means of commodities (corn/barley) served exclusively ostentatious and prestige
purposes. It was not ‘invested’ to generate economic surplus.
Despite its enormous achievements in quantitative as well as qualitative terms the
economy of ancient Mesopotamia was, for inherent and systemic reasons, a stagnant
economy, an economy without measurable growth. It provided just for the daily
requirements of the majority of the populace and plenty for the elite.
NOTES1 Silver 1985 , see the critique in Renger 1994 b refuting emphatically Silver’s assumptions.
2 Janssen, 1975 ; Liverani, 1990 : 19 – 21 ; Renger 1994 b; Robertson 1993 ; Zaccagnini 1983.
3 E.g. the messenger household é.sukkal headed by the sukkal-mah
̆
.
4 Minimum size ca. 6 ha.
5 This system has been labelled in Mesopotamian terms asilku.
6 Renger 1990 b: animals.
7 Classical Attica 1 : 7 ; Apulia 1 : 10 , medieval central Europe 1 : 3.
8 The organization of animal husbandry shows a very complex system of herding. Documents
from the beginning of the third millennium through the eighteenth century BCattest expected
goals for the managers of a flock (Kraus 1966 ). They were obliged to report a growth rate of
a herd of 80 animals per 100 mother sheep (Renger in Hrouda: 190 – 193 ; Renger 1991 ; for
cattle (Rinder) Nissen 1990 : 139 – 146 ). Whenever a herdsman had a surplus, the animals went
into his own, private herd.
— Economy of ancient Mesopotamia —