Draft:Ancient Economy

Ancient economy refers to the way early civilisations managed the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It was mostly based on agriculture, trade, and manual labor. Economic life was closely tied to social structures, religion, and politics. Each ancient society developed its own economic practices depending on its environment and cultural values.

The term ancient economy refers to a comprehensive field of inquiry that explores the diverse economic practices and institutions of early civilisations, encompassing the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Far from being primitive or static, ancient economies were dynamic systems deeply embedded in the cultural, political, religious, and ecological frameworks of their respective societies. Fundamental economic elements—such as agriculture, trade, labor, money, and property ownership—played central roles, but their organization and significance varied greatly across time and geography. Prominent civilisations like Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Mesopotamia developed distinct economic structures that reflected their unique social hierarchies, belief systems, and environmental conditions. Rather than functioning as isolated systems, these economies were intricately connected to broader patterns of governance, legal traditions, technological development, and interregional exchange. Studying ancient economies thus offers valuable insights not only into material life but also into the values, institutions, and power relations that shaped the foundations of human civilisation.

1. Aristotle (384–322 BCE)

Definition/Interpretation:
Aristotle viewed the economy as the management of the household (oikonomia), focusing on the ethical and purposeful use of resources within the family or city-state.

Quote (Paraphrased):
“The art of wealth-getting is different from household management; the former is a means to an end, while the latter concerns the proper use of goods.”

2. Xenophon (c. 430–354 BCE) Definition/Interpretation:Xenophon defined economy (oikonomia) as the effective administration of a household, emphasizing planning, discipline, and utility in managing property and people.

Quote (Paraphrased):“Good management consists in increasing the value of one’s possessions and ensuring that everything serves its purpose.”

3. Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) Definition/Interpretation:Plato explored economic roles within the context of justice and the ideal society, arguing that each person should perform the task they are naturally suited for, including economic roles.

Quote (Paraphrased):“A just society is one where each class performs its appropriate role — farmers, artisans, and rulers each contributing to the harmony of the state.”

4. Cato the Elder (234–149 BCE) Definition/Interpretation:Cato emphasized agriculture as the most moral and stable source of wealth, portraying economic success through simplicity, hard work, and land management.

Quote (Paraphrased):“The farmer is the most honorable man; his work is stable, pious, and good for the Republic.”

5. Cicero (106–43 BCE) Definition/Interpretation:Cicero believed that economic activities must align with moral and social responsibilities, and that commerce should serve the common good without greed.

Quote (Paraphrased):“Commerce, when conducted fairly and without deceit, can be a respectable and necessary part of civic life.”

The Dual Revolutions in Economic History: From Agriculture to Industry

Economic history is shaped by two major revolutions that redefined humanity’s relationship with nature, labor, and society: the Agricultural Revolution, which began around 8000 BCE, and the Industrial Revolution, which emerged in the 18th century. These pivotal transformations mark fundamental shifts not only in production methods but also in social structures, economic institutions, and the ways in which communities organised themselves.

The Agricultural Revolution signified the transition from nomadic hunting-gathering to settled agrarian life.In regions such as Mesopotamia and the Nile Valley, favourable environmental conditions—fertile land, temperate climate, and access to water—enabled early humans to cultivate crops and domesticate animals. This transition ensured a more consistent food supply, which in turn supported population growth and the emergence of permanent settlements.

With the establishment of agricultural communities, societies began to accumulate surplus resources, which allowed for labor specialisation and the development of hierarchical social structures. The control of land became the primary indicator of wealth and status, leading to the formation of distinct social classes such as landowning elites, tenant farmers, artisans, and slaves.In these early civilisations, such as those in Sumer and Egypt, state institutions often played a central role in regulating agricultural production and overseeing the redistribution of surplus, particularly through temple economies. The rise of city-states and eventually larger empires during the ancient period further institutionalised these hierarchical structures. Early political formations such as those in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and later in Greece and Rome, were often city-based. Over time, dominant city-states expanded to form early empires, incorporating rural and urban populations under centralised governance. These empires depended heavily on the agrarian economy, with aristocracies maintaining control over land and commanding political power. As a result, the economy remained relatively static, with limited incentives for innovation or class mobility.

Despite the emergence of trade networks and urban markets in certain regions, these societies continued to revolve around land-based wealth. Political power was largely held by monarchies and aristocratic elites whose legitimacy was reinforced by religious institutions.This interdependence between landownership, political authority, and religious justification created rigid social orders in which the economic potential of emerging classes—such as merchants and artisans—was constrained.

The dominance of traditional and religious status groups during the ancient and medieval periods thus delayed the evolution of a dynamic economic system. While conflict occasionally arose between social groups (e.g., between nobles and merchants or between landlords and peasants), the overall structure favoured continuity over transformation. The institutional frameworks of these societies, rooted in custom, kinship, and religious belief, inhibited the development of market-driven economies. As a result, economic activities were embedded in social and moral norms rather than governed by impersonal laws of supply and demand.

It was not until the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century that a profound reconfiguration of economic life occurred. Originating in Great Britain, this revolution introduced mechanised production, steam power, and factory systems that dramatically increased productivity and altered the relationship between labor and capital. Industrialisation catalysed the shift from agrarian economies to industrial ones, and with it, a new social order began to emerge.

A key feature of industrial society was the diversification and specialisation of labor. Unlike agrarian economies, which offered limited occupational mobility, industrial economies demanded a wide range of new skills and professions.Engineers, machinists, accountants, managers, and clerks became essential to the functioning of modern enterprises. Professional identity began to decouple from inherited status, and instead came to be defined by technical knowledge and economic contribution.

The rise of wage labor, coupled with the decline of feudal obligations, allowed individuals to participate in the economy on new terms. Urbanisation accelerated as people migrated from rural areas to cities in search of employment, reshaping demographic patterns and concentrating economic activity in industrial centers. The expansion of transportation infrastructure—railroads, canals, and later steamships—enabled regional and global markets to flourish, further integrating economies.

This economic transformation also laid the groundwork for new theoretical frameworks. Thinkers like Adam Smith advocated for free markets and individual enterprise, while Karl Marx critiqued the exploitative nature of industrial capitalism and predicted class conflict. Weber, meanwhile, explored the role of cultural and religious values—particularly Protestant ethics—in shaping capitalist behavior. These intellectual currents formed the basis for modern disciplines such as economics, sociology, and political science. Institutionally, the industrial age saw the emergence of nation-states that began to regulate economic activity more systematically. Labor laws, banking systems, trade regulations, and public education became essential components of modern governance. Unlike in ancient economies, where the state’s economic role was often religious or redistributive, industrial states developed bureaucratic apparatuses aimed at managing economic growth, labor relations, and infrastructure development.

Yet even amidst these rapid transformations, historical continuities persisted. In both ancient and industrial societies, economic systems were shaped by underlying social structures. In ancient Egypt, for instance, the pharaoh and the priestly class held not only political but also economic authority, managing land, labor, and trade through temple institutions. Similarly, in Mesopotamia, temple economies functioned as central hubs for resource management and distribution. These models reflect how deeply embedded economic life has always been in the broader fabric of social and political relations.

Thus, while technological innovation and material necessity are central to understanding economic history, they are inseparable from the social and cultural contexts in which they occur.Economic systems do not evolve in a vacuum; they reflect the values, beliefs, and power dynamics of the societies that produce them.

In conclusion, the trajectory from the Agricultural Revolution to the Industrial Revolution represents more than a sequence of technological advancements—it encapsulates the complex interplay between material conditions, social organization, and ideological frameworks.From the communal farming practices of ancient Mesopotamia to the machine-driven factories of 19th-century Manchester, the story of human economic development is one of adaptation, conflict, and continuous transformation. Recognising the influence of both institutional constraints and human agency in this process is essential for understanding the roots of modern economic systems and the challenges they continue to pose.

Basic Economic Structures

In the ancient world, economic structures were largely based on agriculture and were shaped according to the balance of local production and consumption. Unlike modern market economies, ancient economies generally operated on the basis of self-sufficiency (subsistence); that is, production was largely directed at meeting the needs of direct producers. However, this structure became more complex over time with population growth, urbanization, expansion of trade, and the formation of political centers. Three main areas of production stand out in ancient economies: agriculture, craftsmanship, and trade. These activities were usually carried out within local communities, but during the period of empires, they also became organized regionally and internationally. Production relations were largely shaped around elements such as land ownership, use of labor (free or slave), and state control.In most ancient societies, the household (oikos) was at the center of the economic structure. While the household functioned as a unit of production and consumption, it was also the cornerstone of the social structure. In ancient Greece, the oikos was an economic unit that included not only the nuclear family, but also slaves, animals, and means of production. In Rome, the domus structure similarly served as the main area where economic activities were carried out.In ancient societies, economic activities were closely linked to class structure. While aristocratic classes generally owned large lands, peasants, tenants, free workers and slaves were the groups that carried out the majority of production. The economic structure was also intertwined with the political structure; especially in Roman and Greek societies, citizenship rights were directly related to property and economic activities. In many ancient societies, economic decisions were made based on social stability, tradition and religious rules rather than individual profit. For this reason, ancient economies have been described by some historians as "land-based and static", and thinkers such as Max Weber and Moses Finley argued that these economies were not based on a rational market in the modern capitalist sense. According to Finley, in the ancient world, the economy was not a separate "area" in the modern sense, but a part of the social order, and social status took precedence over economic activity.However, some researchers argue that, especially in large political formations such as the Hellenistic Period and the Roman Empire, economic structures became more institutionalized, diversified and integrated with regional networks. In this context, elements such as taxation, public expenditures, transportation infrastructure and trade routes increased the complexity of the economic structure.

Trade and Commerce

Land trade and maritime trade routes enabled products to be transported to large regions. For example, the Silk Road was a route with high economic contribution, carrying luxury goods (silk, spices, precious stones) from China to the Mediterranean. Similarly, the Mediterranean Phoenicians and the Aegean Greek city-states played active roles in maritime trade, expanding their trade networks by establishing colonies throughout the Aegean and Mediterranean. The main goods that enabled the development of trade included grain, olives, olive oil, wine, metals, textiles and luxury, rare goods. These goods gained value by being transported from the regions where they were produced to regions where they were scarce. For example, Egypt's grain was of vital importance to Rome, and for this reason the state kept the grain trade under direct control. Trade affected not only the economy but also cultures and was a means of cultural interaction. Along with the transportation of goods, ideas, religions, technologies and languages ​​also spread between societies. In this respect, ancient trade is considered to be the engine of both economic and socio-cultural transformations.

Currency and Taxation

In ancient economies, the use of money and taxation were of central importance in terms of the state's economic organization and administrative power. Although the barter system was widely used in early civilizations, the invention and use of money, especially from the 7th century BC onwards, created a major transformation in economic relations. The first examples of metal money were developed by the Lydian civilization in Anatolia. Over time, large political formations such as the Greek city-states, the Persians and the Roman Empire strengthened both economic control and political legitimacy by minting money in their own mints. The Roman Empire had a complex and advanced monetary system. A multi-layered and diverse system consisting of various metal coins such as gold (aureus), silver (denarius), bronze (as) and copper (sestertius) was used. These currencies were minted with the emperor's symbol and served both trade, propaganda and power symbols. Bank-like structures and credit systems also developed in cities during the Roman period. Taxation was the basis of the state's source of income and material power. Direct taxes (e.g. land tax) and indirect taxes (e.g. customs duties, sales taxes) were applied in different ways in different regions. In Rome, the tax called "tributum" referred to the revenues collected from conquered provinces, while in Egypt, taxes on agricultural production were delivered to public warehouses as products. These systems were largely carried out by local administrators and collectors.

Agriculture and Land Ownership

The economy in the ancient world was largely based on agriculture. Agricultural production was the basis of both rural and urban life, and was also central to social hierarchy, political power, and sources of wealth. Food production was based on staples such as grain (wheat, barley), olive oil, grapes, and wine. In addition, production based on animal husbandry, fishing, and irrigation systems supported the agricultural economy. While agriculture was mostly done on a small scale family farm, large scale land ownership became widespread in large empires. These large lands were usually controlled by aristocrats, temples, or the state. Especially in the Roman Empire, large farms called latifundium were operated based on slave labor and were organized to meet the grain needs of the cities. Land ownership was one of the main determinants of social status and political power. In Greek city-states, citizenship rights were generally linked to land ownership. In the Roman Republic, military service was exclusive to citizens who owned a certain amount of land. In some ancient societies, such as Ancient Egypt, most of the land was owned either by the pharaohs or by temples. These lands were worked by tenants, and payments were made to the state or religious institutions in the form of product taxes or rents in kind. These systems made it easier for the central authority to control agricultural products. Agricultural production also formed the basis of local trade, grain markets and taxation systems. While agricultural surplus provided food for the cities, the surplus shaped the regional economy by being subject to trade. Agricultural technology included irrigation systems, ploughs, granaries and crop rotation, but yields were often low by modern standards.

Urban Economy and Markets

In the ancient world, cities and states were not only political and cultural centers, but also focal points of economic activity. The urban economy had a special place in the economic structure of ancient societies as an area where non-agricultural production, craftsmanship, trade and service activities were concentrated. In cities with increasing populations and increasing complexity, a systematic economic organization was needed to meet the needs. Public areas such as the Agora in Greek cities and the Forum in Roman cities were the main places where market activities were carried out. Food products, textiles, ceramics, metalwork products, slaves and other goods were bought and sold in these areas. Markets were usually open weekly or continuously and were often supervised by local governments or temple authorities. Price controls, standard units of measurement and commercial regulations were implemented to ensure economic security. Craftsmanship and workshop work were another basic component of the urban economy. Specialized businesses in areas such as pottery, blacksmithing, textile weaving, leatherwork and construction produced in cities for both domestic consumption and export. In some large cities, these production centers were concentrated in certain neighborhoods. For example, in Pompeii, certain streets were used by bakers, tanneries or dyers. Infrastructure systems (roads, aqueducts, ports, warehouses) and population density were decisive in the development of the urban economy. Cities located at the crossroads of trade routes (e.g. Rome, Athens, Ephesus, Babylon) had great economic advantages. These centers were points where not only products but also labor and financial services were concentrated. During the Roman Empire, fixed market areas called "macellum" were established in cities. In addition, trade and financial transactions could be carried out in rented shops (tabernae) and public buildings. The monetary system, lease agreements and credit mechanisms were also among the institutional elements that supported the development of the city economy. Economic activities in cities also created an area of ​​interaction between social classes. Rich merchants, artisans, workers, slaves and women participated in economic life to different degrees. Some women ran their own shops or worked as artisans, as documented by inscriptions and excavation data.

Economic Roles of Woman

In ancient societies, women's economic roles varied greatly according to their social status, marital status, and class. Although women were often excluded from the public economy, they were a part of economic life in various areas, from domestic production to craftsmanship, from marketing to property ownership. A significant portion of ancient economies, which can be described as "invisible labor," was carried out by women. Domestic production stood out as the most common economic activity of women. Activities such as weaving, textile production, food preparation, child care, and small-scale animal husbandry were carried out in the home and generally maintained the household economy. These activities were for consumption rather than commercial purposes, but could also contribute to the market economy, especially in cases of surplus production. In the Greek world, especially in Athens, women were largely excluded from economic life by law. However, archaeological findings and inscriptions show that some women sold products in the market, ran small shops, or worked as textile workers. It is also known that some wealthy women employed slaves, served in temples, and managed property through foundations. In Roman society, women, although under the guardianship of their male relatives, gained more economic independence, especially during the imperial period. In Rome, women could own property, make wills, and conduct business in their own names. Inscriptions and tombstones show that women were bakers, merchants, restaurant owners, midwives, or professionals involved in textile production. Freed female slaves (libertae) in particular played active roles in urban economic life. In some ancient societies, such as Ancient Egypt, women had relatively more rights. In Egypt, women could own land, inherit, and carry out legal transactions in their own names. This allowed women to assume more visible economic roles, especially in areas such as agriculture and property management. Women's roles in the economy were also shaped by class differences. Aristocratic women often exercised indirect economic power as property owners, while lower-class women worked in markets, served as servants, or participated directly in production.

Labor and Slavery

The economic effects of slavery in the ancient world were far-reaching. In ancient societies, especially in the Roman Empire, slavery was one of the cornerstones of the economy. Slaves worked in almost every field in the large agricultural enterprises and mansions of rich landowners in the Roman Empire. Slaves were used in agricultural production, construction, domestic service, mining, and even administrative work, a critical factor in ensuring the sustainability of Rome's vast economy. Slaves were often prisoners of war or people enslaved due to debt, and their economic contributions were a major factor in increasing Rome's wealth. While this form of labor allowed for increased production, it also provided a great economic advantage to the upper classes of society. However, it also led to deep inequalities among the lower classes. Much of the economy was controlled by a very small number of landowners and wealthy elites. The cultural effects of slavery in Rome were also significant. Many slaves were brought from regions outside Rome, which increased cultural diversity in Rome. However, the life of slaves in Rome was difficult. Slaves lived under constant psychological pressure due to their lack of freedom. Freed slaves were known as "libertus" and often maintained a strong attachment to their former masters. This was a dynamic that affected the social hierarchy in Rome.

Slavery as a Social Reality in Ancient Societies

One of the most defining characteristics of ancient societies was the widespread presence of slavery as a fundamental social institution. In every ancient civilization, slaves represented the lowest social class. The economic production of antiquity was largely based on slave labor. In Athens, although the total population during this period is estimated to have been around 400,000, only about 30,000 individuals held full political rights as native citizens. The rest of the population consisted of non-citizen residents known as metics, and a large majority were slaves.

In Rome, society was divided into three main groups: patricians (citizens with political rights), foreigners without citizenship, and slaves. Economic activities such as trade and manual labor were typically relegated to non-citizens and slaves, while the aristocracy and political classes avoided such work. Mining and other forms of hard labor were almost entirely performed by slaves.

While slavery was present across most ancient societies, the conditions and perception of slaves varied depending on the time and place. Although the legal status of slavery remained relatively consistent, the philosophical and intellectual interpretations of slavery differed significantly even within the same society or period.

Aristotle, for instance, accepted slavery as a natural and necessary part of Greek society, viewing the slave as the property of the master. According to Aristotle, production was a base activity and therefore best suited for slaves. For this reason, unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle showed little interest in labor or the concept of a labor market. He compared slaves to tools—some animate, some inanimate. In his view, a slave was a living tool, created specifically for servitude.

However, by the end of the 5th century BCE, the Sophists began to challenge thinkers like Aristotle. As advocates of free thought and individual dignity, the Sophists rejected rigid class distinctions and denied the inherent superiority of the aristocracy. They refused to accept the divide between free people and slaves, openly opposing slavery as an institution.

As these debates reveal, slavery in antiquity was a complex and multifaceted institution. The persistence of slavery well beyond the ancient era severely limited the development of labor markets—and by extension, broader market economies. The nature of slavery varied greatly among societies: in some, slaves were regarded as subhuman; in others, they could possess limited autonomy, own property, or live with a degree of independence. In Rome, as in other ancient civilisations, the legal status of slavery was carefully defined and deeply institutionalised. According to Roman law, a free person could be enslaved, and a citizen could lose their political rights. Slaves were not entitled to property or family rights, and legal marriage did not exist among them. Gender-based relationships among slaves were treated as equivalent to those of animals. While incest was a punishable offence among free citizens, it was not considered a legal violation among slaves.

Interestingly, Roman slaves, while legally classified as property, were also recognized as having limited legal capacity. They could engage in legal acts and transactions, though they lacked full legal standing or rights.

In Roman law, slaves were not considered legal agents in their own right; they could only conduct transactions on behalf of their masters. A slave could gain freedom only through a formal legal act initiated by their owner. However, even after manumission, former slaves held fewer rights compared to individuals born free. In Rome, manumitted slaves had the possibility of becoming citizens if their master held Roman citizenship. In contrast, many forms of slavery in Greece did not offer this same potential for upward mobility. Throughout antiquity, the institution of slavery was never abolished—it continued through war, slave trade, and hereditary enslavement, consistently acting as an obstacle to the development of labor markets.

Outside a few professions such as artisan trades, the broader economic structure was one of interdependence, driven by and reinforcing the small scale of the market. This limited market, in turn, inhibited economic growth. The aristocracy held a deeply rooted belief that wealth was to be gained through force or seizure. Thus, politics and military conquest were seen as the legitimate paths to wealth.Political power was concentrated in the hands of the elite, who thereby acquired vast landholdings. Unable to cultivate these estates themselves, they became increasingly dependent on slave labor. In the absence of a functioning labor market, slavery became essential to the continuation of agricultural production.

From domestic service to agriculture, mining, and even public construction, the demand for labor in antiquity far exceeded what the ruling elite could supply themselves. As with other resources acquired through conquest, slaves represented a source of unpaid labor obtained primarily through warfare. In addition, slaves were imported and purchased to meet labor demands. However, not all dependent labor came from slavery alone. Debt bondage also played a role, resulting in a labor force that included slaves, freed slaves, and free workers—each with varying degrees of rights and social status.

Urban economic development led to a more dynamic labor market in which the transfer and sale of slaves became more frequent. Nevertheless, the availability of slaves fell short of meeting the market’s growing demand for skilled free labor. Although the slave-based economy dominated, there were areas where slaves were seldom employed. Skilled trades and artisan work were typically carried out by free individuals, as legal frameworks denied slaves the right to hold property or establish independent businesses. Public works and the construction of sacred spaces also relied on free labor, as specialized skills and craftsmanship were essential to achieving high architectural standards. Additionally, involving citizen-artisans in urban projects helped distribute economic benefits within the city.

Despite their essential economic contributions, the free laborers, freed slaves, and slave workers of antiquity never enjoyed high social status. Manual labor was consistently regarded as inferior to political and military pursuits. Even the deities associated with productive labor were often overshadowed by the gods of war and statecraft.

Slavery, Social Hierarchies, and Labor Structures in Ancient Societies

Ancient civilisations, particularly Greece and Rome, were shaped by rigid social structures and institutions that deeply influenced their economic systems. While there were variations across regions and eras, these societies largely functioned on traditional and, to a lesser extent, religious foundations. Social status was formalised, and key institutions such as slavery, nobility, and centralised authority played dominant roles in both daily life and economic organization.

Slavery was a pervasive institution in nearly all ancient societies, serving as the economic foundation of production. In Athens, out of an estimated population of 400,000, only about 30,000 were full citizens with political rights. The remainder included foreign residents (metics) and, in large part, slaves. Similarly, Roman society was stratified into citizens, non-citizens, and slaves. Economic activities such as trade, craftsmanship, and heavy labor were typically reserved for non-citizens or enslaved individuals. Mining, agriculture, and other demanding tasks were carried out primarily by slaves.

Although slavery's legal structure remained fairly stable, philosophical views about it varied within and across societies. Aristotle, for instance, regarded slavery as a natural institution and considered slaves to be the living tools of their masters. In contrast, the Sophists challenged this view, promoting individual liberty and rejecting both class distinctions and the legitimacy of slavery.

Slaves in Rome had limited legal agency; they could perform legal acts only on behalf of their masters. Manumission, the process of freeing a slave, was permitted through a legal declaration. Freed individuals, however, held fewer rights than those born free. While some freed Roman slaves could become citizens, this opportunity was rarely extended to enslaved individuals in Greece. Slavery persisted throughout antiquity, fuelled by warfare, slave trade, and hereditary servitude. It continually restricted the development of labor markets and hindered economic diversification.

The economy outside artisan professions functioned on mutual dependency. The limited scale of the market and its underdevelopment created an environment where aristocrats viewed wealth not as something to be earned through labor or commerce, but seized through conquest.Political power, monopolised by the elite, allowed them to accumulate vast estates. Lacking the manpower to work these lands themselves, they depended on slave labor. In the absence of a formal labor market, slavery remained central to economic sustainability.

With growing labor demands, slaves were acquired through conquest, purchase, and import. War remained the primary source of unpaid labor. However, economic dependence was not exclusive to slaves—debt bondage also contributed to a stratified labor force composed of slaves, freedmen, and free workers. As cities expanded, slave transfers increased, yet the supply of enslaved labor remained insufficient to meet the demand for skilled workers. Certain fields, such as artisan crafts and public architecture, required expertise and therefore relied on free labor. Since slaves were denied legal personhood, they were generally excluded from trade guilds and skilled professions. Despite their vital role in production, labourers—whether free, manumitted, or enslaved—occupied a low social status. Manual work was never seen as prestigious, and even the deities associated with labor were overshadowed by those of war and statecraft.

Religious traditions in both Greece and Rome further reflected these cultural values. Prior to Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, Roman deities were largely equivalent to their Greek counterparts. Zeus, for instance, was known as Jupiter in Rome, Poseidon as Neptune, Hera as Juno, and Aphrodite as Venus. Deities associated with craftsmanship and labor, like Hephaestus (Vulcan in Rome), were generally considered less important than those representing power and governance.

Toward the end of antiquity, the status of slavery began to evolve. Rome, which stood as the last stronghold of ancient civilisation in Western Europe, gradually altered the role of enslaved individuals. Large landowners started transforming slaves into tenant farmers bound to the land. As Rome's military dominance declined, so too did its ability to replenish its slave population through conquest. Consequently, the rising cost of acquiring slaves led to a shift in labor practices.

At the same time, migration from rural areas to cities reduced the taxable population in the countryside. To maintain tax revenues, Roman authorities enacted policies that tied peasants to their land, giving rise to a new class of contract-bound labourer’s. These tenants, though legally free, were prohibited from leaving the land and became subject to increasing legal restrictions. The colonus system, which prohibited relocation for 30 years, effectively turned free peasants into land-bound workers. Over time, their personal freedoms were further curtailed. Laws were introduced limiting their right to marry outside their estate, especially with free women or individuals from other regions.

Paradoxically, as free peasants lost rights, some slaves experienced a relative rise in status. The distinction between free and enslaved labourer’s diminished, paving the way for the emergence of medieval serfdom.Thus, a late Roman adaptation of labor relations laid the foundation for the feudal labor systems that followed. In this way, ancient Rome shaped not only its own society, but also the social and economic structures of medieval Europe.

Nobility in Antiquity

In ancient societies, peasants did not own the land they cultivated. Land was typically held by large estate owners, aristocrats, military elites, or, as seen in the East, by the state itself. In pre-market societies, land ownership was the primary indicator of a person’s wealth and social status. Peasants worked the land as tenants or sharecroppers. Therefore, in antiquity, the concept of nobility was largely associated with land ownership. In the ancient civilizations of the era, property rights over land were privileges granted to the noble class. These societies, through traditions and customs, formed a land-based aristocracy. Because land was considered the possession of the ruling class, the idea of taxing land was often met with strong resistance. A powerful land-owning aristocracy consistently opposed taxation of land. However, as ancient states sought more stable revenue sources, they eventually introduced land taxation, which caused discontent among the nobility.

In Eastern civilizations like those in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where agriculture was prioritized over trade, land taxation became a fundamental source of state income. While Western civilizations of antiquity placed heavy emphasis on land-based nobility, in the East, aristocratic status did not rely solely on land ownership. In Egypt and Mesopotamia, where political and religious authority were deeply intertwined, elite titles and privileges could be obtained even without owning land. In Mesopotamian city-states, rulers were known as “Lugal,” and in some cases held titles like “en,” “ensi,” or “patesi.” These titles, particularly “ensi” and “patesi,” also carried religious significance. The abundance of titles and ranks in the Mesopotamian political system stemmed from the fusion of religious and political power in the hands of the ruling elite.Similarly, in ancient Egypt, noble status was not strictly tied to landownership but was closely linked to religious hierarchy. Egypt’s aristocracy emerged within a framework of spiritual leadership and religious authority.

In summary, throughout antiquity, nobility in all societies was established either through strong ties to land ownership or through deep connections with religious power. These elite groups exercised political and economic control by dominating the primary sources of livelihood. The importance of land and agriculture persisted through the end of the medieval era, and nobility remained a powerful class throughout this time. However, following the 15th century, the rise of commerce gradually diminished the economic dominance of the aristocracy, while the merchant class accumulated wealth through trade. As a result, nobles were eventually forced to share economic power with merchants. Nevertheless, merchants did not gain significant political influence until the French Revolution in 1789.

Because land and agriculture were more valuable than trade in ancient civilizations, the landowning elite maintained control over markets. The small scale of ancient markets, the weak position of artisans, and the limited development of trade all contributed to this dominance. As a result, land overshadowed trade, labor (through slavery), and capital. The production factors failed to evolve fully, and thus the market remained small and underdeveloped.

Social Statutes And Institutions Affecting The Economic Structure In Ancient Economies

Although the economic institutions and social statuses of ancient societies varied from one civilization to another, ancient economies were generally shaped by tradition and, to a lesser extent, religion. Slavery, for instance, was a universal status across ancient societies, though its conditions differed—being harsher in some societies and relatively milder in others. Nobility, while strongly associated with republican systems and the senate in societies like Ancient Rome and Greece, also existed as a distinct status in monarchies and tyrannies alike.

The economic role of the state was more limited in Western societies and more pronounced in Eastern ones. Nonetheless, despite these regional differences, ancient states tended to exercise authoritarian control over economic life. Thus, although institutions and social roles varied across time and cultures, ancient civilizations—being predominantly traditional and partly religious in nature—shared many common features in terms of social structure, institutions, and economic perception.

One of the defining characteristics of ancient economies was the absence of a formal labor market. In fact, this was not unique to antiquity; signs of a functioning labor market are scarcely found until the modern era. In Greek, Roman, and medieval societies, control over landownership also meant control over labor. Since the landowning aristocracy typically lacked sufficient manpower to cultivate their lands, they had to maintain control over labor resources.

As a result, until the end of antiquity, different forms of servitude existed—ranging from slaves to semi-free peasants. Peasants were often viewed as part of the land itself, inseparable from it. For the aristocracy, the lack of a product market and the absence of a labor market provided justification for treating labor not as a commodity but as an attached, dependent class. These circumstances turned labor into a form of servitude—workers who did not own land, lived upon it, and worked for the benefit of the wealthy.

In ancient times, the laws of war regarded both land and its inhabitants as the property of the conquering power. As a result, the workforce often consisted of imported slaves or peasants relegated to the lowest social strata. The slave-based economy of the ancient world was ultimately built upon this class of laborers, whose freedom had been stripped away. Another defining feature of ancient societies was the absence of capital accumulation. In antiquity, agricultural capital was largely concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy. Due to the limited scope of the economy and the short-range nature of trade, profits from industry and commerce remained modest. These earnings were not sufficient to generate significant wealth, as land ownership—an essential source of wealth—was monopolized by a small, elite noble class. Consequently, capital accumulation in agriculture, industry, and commerce did not occur during either the ancient or medieval periods.

These societies also shared a common trait in their technological stagnation. Ancient civilizations made only minimal technological advancements over time. There was little difference between the technologies used at the beginning of antiquity and those at its end. Moreover, there was almost no attempt to adapt known technologies to productive use. As a result, no industrial or commercial advantages emerged from technology. Since technological progress did not reduce the need for slave labor, a working class failed to develop, and the institution of slavery persisted.

Markets in antiquity were limited, and the lack of advanced transportation technologies prevented long-distance trade. On land, reliance on animal power restricted trade to nearby regions. At sea, the use of human-powered vessels meant that maritime trade was also limited to short distances. Only in the medieval period, with the introduction of technologies such as the three-masted ship, the compass, and navigational maps, did seafaring gain some economic significance. Therefore, both ancient and medieval technologies remained at a low level, dependent primarily on human and animal labor.

Due to technological backwardness and limited transportation, markets did not expand, and trade remained stagnant. Economic activities were largely self-sufficient, and as a result, ancient and medieval societies were unable to enter a phase of wealth generation.These societies did not pursue wealth through hard work, increased production, or trade—as later modern societies would. Instead, wealth was sought through military conquest and political dominance. Economic growth through effort and entrepreneurship was not a widely accepted concept. The prevailing belief was that wealth could be acquired through seizure and force.

This mindset persisted well into the medieval era. For instance, Alexander the Great marched on Babylon not to learn how its wealth was produced, but to seize and redistribute it among the Greeks. Similarly, Rome’s conquest of grain-rich regions like Anatolia and Egypt was aimed at appropriating their wealth for the Roman state. Political dominance meant control over land, taxes, tribute, and slaves. Consequently, the ruling aristocratic classes of ancient and medieval states focused primarily on warfare and politics. They viewed commerce as a lowly activity and looked down upon the pursuit of wealth through trade or hard work. Instead, they glorified governance and military service as noble contributions to society.

Religion and Its Economic Determinants

The polytheistic religions of antiquity—with the exception of Hinduism—did not develop distinct economic principles or attitudes regarding production, entrepreneurship, consumption, property, or trade. Hinduism is particularly notable for its emphasis on class distinctions. In this tradition, priests and scholars occupied the highest social stratum. It was believed that lower classes could only succeed under the patronage of the upper classes. Thus, due to the hierarchical division of labor, religious leaders—at the top of the class structure—played a significant role in economic activities. The economic practices of the Hindu religion were shaped by its class-based structure. Furthermore, the belief in karma and reincarnation reinforced this class system, embedding religious meaning into social status.

Other polytheistic religions, including those of Ancient Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, although they developed religious hierarchies, did not formulate clear economic doctrines. In this regard, the period of polytheistic religions in antiquity was a time when religion had minimal influence over economic practices. These religions, shaped by local customs and tradition, were considered local or national religions. Émile Durkheim explained this by suggesting that religion is a reflection of social experience, rooted in society itself. In local religions, tradition had a greater impact than religion; even in national religions, traditions often determined religious beliefs. For example, Confucianism, emerging between 551–479 BCE, accepted the feudal order of its time, showing the dominant influence of tradition. Respect for ancestors was considered the highest virtue in Confucianism, further increasing the impact of traditional values. Confucius, by emphasising that power stemmed from the mandate of heaven, reinforced loyalty to the emperor and aligned himself closely with tradition.

The monotheistic religions of antiquity that were not based on revelation lacked universally accepted sacred texts. Consequently, they were difficult to understand and remained confined within local or national boundaries, offering primarily moral advice rather than having broader influence over social or economic life. They remained in harmony with tradition.

With the emergence of the era of revealed monotheistic religions, religious doctrines began to influence economic behavior. In order to sustain the religious bureaucracy or promote religious life, these faiths prescribed specific lifestyles and behavioural norms. However, these early monotheistic religions had minimal political influence at the time, so their economic teachings could not evolve into binding rules. Instead, they sought to shape ethical norms through moral exhortations.

In the ancient Western world (Greece and Rome) and the Eastern world (Egypt and Mesopotamia), both polytheistic and national religions remained largely outside the realms of politics and economics. Even in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where politics had a theocratic tone, the religions failed to develop distinct economic approaches. Later, the monotheistic revealed religions began to influence economic behavior through moral teachings, particularly through concepts such as reward and punishment (sin and virtue), though their influence in the ancient era never reached the level seen in the Middle Ages. The expansion of religious influence from the social to the political and economic spheres in the Middle Ages is a historical exception. The earliest of the revealed religions, Judaism, and later Christianity, contained no direct doctrines concerning modern systems such as capitalism or socialism in their sacred texts, nor did they address contemporary economic issues. These scriptures generally promoted values such as honesty, justice, and righteousness , which nevertheless had an indirect impact on economic behavior. For instance, while some religions viewed trade as sinful, discouraging participation, others regarded it as a worldly yet legitimate activity and encouraged engagement in it. Factors such as climate, politics, education, and broader environment can also shape economic behavior. Yet the economic system, which is more than a mere instinctual response, should be understood as one of society's core functional systems. The embedding of a worldview and moral understanding into people's consciousness, forming a long-lasting ethical perspective, is essential to understanding economic life.

Religion contributes to this mindset through its extensive teachings—not only on belief and worship but also on critical matters of worldly life. These religious attitudes influence how believers interact with nature, family, work, profession, and economic life. As seen in Judaism, religious laws related to labor and slavery directly shaped individual economic behaviours. This demonstrates that religion can decisively shape a person's approach to economic life.

In Jewish tradition, there is a belief that "a working servant worships God". As the first revealed religion of antiquity, Judaism possessed sacred texts such as the Torah and Psalms. These texts later formed the foundation of the Old Testament and were incorporated into Christianity’s Bible. The Old Testament emphasised a strong sense of national identity and drew a sharp distinction between Jews and non-Jews. One of its most prominent internal norms was the prohibition of charging interest and enslaving fellow Jews. However, these rules did not apply to non-Jews. Charging interest to non-Jews was seen as a form of divine punishment for those who did not believe in Yahweh. While Christians were strictly forbidden from charging interest, Jews—whose economic activities were restricted—were permitted to do so, based on these religious distinctions. This made Judaism more aligned with market principles and reflected a proto-capitalist mentality.

Christianity, another revealed religion of antiquity, incorporated the Old Testament but also introduced new teachings in the New Testament. In revealed religions, when a new revelation comes, previous laws are considered abrogated. However, since each religion sees itself as the final revelation, all persist in their traditions. Christianity spread beyond Asia through the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. However, in the ancient world, Christianity had limited economic influence. In the Roman Empire, it was even seen as a threat and suppressed. Only after Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity in 311 CE did the religion gain prominence. At a time when the idea of separation between religion and state did not exist, the emperor’s conversion led to widespread Christianisation of the empire. Rome thus came to be associated with Christianity.

With state support, Christianity spread rapidly in both Eastern and Western regions and began to exert greater social, political, and economic influence. Although Christianity institutionalised and grew during the Roman Empire, it never surpassed Roman political authority in antiquity. Yet under the Roman umbrella, it flourished, and theological development accelerated. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, Christianity remained strong and even grew in influence. As feudal kingdoms in the Middle Ages were weaker than Rome, the Church’s organised bureaucracy became more dominant. Consequently, Christianity’s influence on economic life became much more pronounced during the medieval period. In the post-Roman turmoil, religion and religious institutions were the only stable structures that remained.

Conclusion

In antiquity, social statuses and hierarchical layers of society persisted strongly under the protective framework of tradition. The prevailing economic mentality did not possess the transformative power to challenge or reshape these entrenched traditional structures.

Established customs controlled the development of markets, thereby preventing the emergence of new social classes based on property ownership and income generation. As a result, economic mobility was severely constrained. The continued dominance of traditional and religious statuses throughout the ancient world delayed major social, political, and economic transformations. The absence of a mature capitalist merchant class—an economic class inherently tied to wealth and private property—meant that profound societal change driven by economic forces only began in the modern era. In both antiquity and the Middle Ages, the pace and direction of economic change were largely determined by status-based bonds, particularly those tied to aristocracy. The ruling elites who held political and economic power had little interest in expanding traditional economic activities or developing new ones. This was primarily because they already controlled the core economic resources and privileges of their time.

Elites, particularly the nobility, remained indifferent to non-agricultural activities such as trade. Their secure access to wealth and control over land eliminated the need for innovation or diversification in economic pursuits. This monopolization of rights and privileges not only reinforced traditional hierarchies but also led to a highly unequal distribution of property, often at the expense of the laboring classes. The dominance of privileged social statuses over economic life produced a deep-seated dissatisfaction among the lower strata of society.

Because these privileged groups had no compelling need to seek out new economic models, ancient economies remained anchored in static social structures. As a result, the economic systems of antiquity and the medieval period did not evolve toward market economies but instead maintained a relatively stable, if stagnant, character. By managing the economy through tradition and religion, these status-based societies preserved their existing structures and actively suppressed the rise of independent economic classes.

Ultimately, whether polytheistic or monotheistic, religions in the ancient world failed to override tradition or establish binding rules in the realm of economic life. The customary practices that shaped social and economic interactions persisted well into the end of antiquity. Economic norms largely remained outside the domain of rational evaluation and were instead shaped by the value systems of traditional authorities. While monotheistic religions introduced certain moral principles, their influence on individual economic preferences and systemic change remained minimal. Despite the emergence of sacred texts, religious doctrines were insufficient in challenging the dominance of traditional socio-economic norms.