Uruk ch 3-5

Andrew Brown 004
In chapters 3 – 5 of Uruk, Liverani goes into more depth on the nature of the economy, which increased in complexity as time passed, and the eventual reduction of Uruk’s spectrum of economic dominance and cultural influence due to the collapse of the temple. Apparently, however, while this marks the end of his book, the collapse of the early system in Lower Mesopotamia was followed by a reorganization that produced at least one more period of prosperity. As to whether the second period of prosperity was driven by mercantilism and militarism, Liverani does not go into much depth.
The simplicity of the regulation of the early economy in Uruk left plenty of room for personal profit. In barley, textiles, and trade, the government usually demanded flat-rate compensation for goods moving about the state; whatever happened outside the bounds of the Fertile Crescent, or after the quota had been met, was the business of the individual. With the advent of writing, however, which was used by scribes to standardize the system of weights and measures, the movement of goods and services within the state was put under a much more watchful eye. I believe that this increase in regulation of the economy, which, most importantly, ensured that rounding benefitted the state instead of the individual, caused the incredible expansion and diversification of the Uruk economy.
The grain-production of Lower Mesopotamia was key to the stability of the state and grain turned out to be a much more useful resource to the people of peripheral lands. What the state had too much of (grain), it traded easily with peripheral peoples for timber, stone, and precious metals. In the end, however, the extent of Uruk’s influence shrunk dramatically, Liverani says, due to the collapse of the temple. As can be seen from later times, during which the more egalitarian design of Uruk was abandoned, the temple was the main force driving social accumulation and redistribution of wealth. In Lower Mesopotamia, where organized agriculture necessitated administration, the temple remained side-by-side with the palace. In other areas, where, presumably, the temple had had less influence from the beginning, the palace became the new face of secondary peripheral states. I believe the weakening of centralized authority allowed these secondary states to arise because their total purpose was no longer for the sustenance of the central city.