186 Early Agriculture
In ancient Greece, mining was mainly in the hands of licensed businessmen. As
long as the concessionaire delivered a fixed part of his output to the state, he
enjoyed ‘very extensive’ rights; he ‘was said to “buy” the mine, he organized the
working as he pleased, the ore was his, and he could cede his concession to a third
party’.^110 In Medieval Europe mining was also essentially left to private entrepre-
neurs, who, having obtained a concession from the royal or territorial authorities,
proceeded independently and mostly through craft cooperatives.^111 The mercantil-
ist governments of Europe operated some mines directly; but the majority was
managed by strictly supervised private owners.^112
All these arrangements differ profoundly from the system of government min-
ing prevailing in Pharaonic Egypt and Inca Peru. Mercantilist usage resembles in
form, but not in institutional substance, the policy pursued in certain of the more
differentiated hydraulic societies, where government operation of some mines was
combined with private, but government-licensed, handling of others.^113
Except for mining, Oriental and Occidental absolutism are less similar in the
industrial sphere than has been claimed, whereas a resemblance of sorts does exist
between hydraulic society and feudal Europe. In hydraulic society, the majority of
the not-too-many larger industrial workshops was government managed. In the
mercantilist Occident they were, under varying forms of state supervision, pre-
dominantly owned and run by private entrepreneurs. In the coastal city-states of
classical Greece the government was neither equipped nor inclined to engage in
industrial activities. The rulers of medieval Europe, faced with a different situ-
ation, proceeded differently. In their manorial workshops they employed a number
of serf-artisans, who were kept busy satisfying the needs of their masters. The feu-
dal lords also summoned serf labour for the construction of ‘big houses’ – castles.
The similarity between this manorial system of cooperative work and the hydraulic
pattern is evident. But again the functional similarity is limited by the differences
in the societal setting. The medieval kings and barons could dispose only over the
labour force of their own domains and estates, while the hydraulic rulers could
draw on the unskilled and skilled labour of large territories, and ultimately on that
of the whole country.
The decisive difference, however, between hydraulic society and the three civi-
lizations with which we compare it lies, insofar as industry is concerned, in the
sphere of construction. It is this sphere which more than any other sector of indus-
try demonstrates the organizational power of hydraulic society. And it is this sphere
which achieved results never attained by any other agrarian or mercantilist soci-
ety.
The full institutional significance of this fact becomes apparent as soon as we
connect it with the corresponding agrarian development. Government-managed
heavy waterworks place the large-scale feeding apparatus of agriculture in the
hands of the state. Government-managed construction works make the state the
undisputed master of the most comprehensive sector of large-scale industry. In the
two main spheres of production the state occupied an unrivalled position of oper-
ational leadership and organizational control.