What are the criteria by which we can distinguish market economies in the past?There are two things above all, totally interlinked that we need to
consider. The first is money, which is a nice hard piece of evidence
for archaeologists to consider. Money is the crucial means of exchange
by which markets function. It is of course possible to have money without
markets - money was used after all in Soviet Russia, but it was not
allowed to have any effect in the economy. Similarly it may be possible
to have something approaching money exchange without having formal sorts
of money: we shall consider this when we come to Egypt, but I believe
this to be rare. Much of our discussion must be based on what money
is, how it is functioning and whether it is allowed to perform its role
making choices and steering the direction to which society should go. Secondly we must look at the very structure of the city. What is at
the centre? If the centre is a palace surrounded by its storerooms and
often metalworkers, then one suspects one is dealing with a Barbarism.
If however the centre is a market place – a forum or agora - the
one suspects one is dealing with a civilised market economy. And there is a third aspect that goes with this: success. Market societies are constantly flexible, innovative and constantly looking for new directions and when they find them adopting them . This is what gives the system its great power. It is a success that underlies the expansion of Greece and Rome and which underlay the expansion of the Anglosphere and the whole western world in the industrial revolution and which is now beginning to drive the whole world today. And it is this third characteristic of economic success and its accompanying features of freedom and indeed what is meant by democracy that we need to look for in our quest for the distinction between barbarism and civilisation
On to Barbarism and Civilisation 2nd May 2005, First draft, revised 5th April 2006 |