The Evolution of the Central Administration Driven by the Economy

One of Liverani's main claims is that economic developments precede and drive social developments. His discussions on barley and wool give some solid evidence supporting this claim, though clearly some social developments also necessarily influenced economic developments. Liverani's logic of economic restraints necessitating the systems of barley and wool harvesting, makes sense considering the limitations of the region and how essential these were to the central administration's success. However, each of these economic developments also presuppose certain social developments occurring concurrently or previously such as a system of semi-standardized measurements and at least some form of justice system to enforce them.

The cycles of barley and wool are effectively shown to be the natural resources for developing a system of payment and trade because of their intrinsic properties and the challenges the people of southern Mesopotamia faced due to their region. Liverani makes a great case for barley as the basis for payment; it is easy to grow there because of its suitability to the region's climate and seasons, it is easy to store and exchange, it intrinsically has value as food (unlike the dollar), and it is able to produce a surplus concentrated by the central administration because of how it is raised and harvested. One can imagine several systems of bartering going on initially at local level, but the barley system prevailed and was adopted by the central administration because of the very reasons Liverani describes, making it the most suitable currency at the time. Wool is not as clearly outlined, but it also does make sense to have evolved in the hands of the central administration to have become a major resource for trade. Liverani points out the need to supply clothes for laborers, the benefits of raising sheep as profitable for shepherds, the technology of the loom facilitating development of textile industry, as well as the means through slave labor and a division of labor. This is good evidence for the way the wool industry functioned, and the development to trade of this valuable product is not far fetched. However, both the barley and wool cycles alone could not have transformed themselves into currency and trade without some social developments along to help. For barley to have become a currency, there must have also been a system of measuring how much barely ones wages were. It also follows that there must be a system of regulation/enforcement. Similarly, there must have been a system to judge how to distribute the resources back for wool production. Liverani implies one, but neglects to elaborate.