Ancient and Modern
(1) Particular problems in studying history of ancient economy — lack of evidence,
fact that ancients themselves never studied or wrote about it — means that ‘theory’ of
one sort or another, whether used explicitly or unconsciously, becomes particularly
important. Until very recently, and still to a very great extent, dominated by two
intersecting debates: primitivism vs. modernism, and formalism vs. substantivism.
(2) ‘Modernism’ begins in mid C19 when historians like Mommsen and Meyer first
examine aspects of ancient economy: assume that there’s little difference between
ancient and modern worlds, differences in trade, industry etc. a matter of ‘quantity’
rather than ‘quality’. Restated in mid-C20 by Rostovtzeff, who ascribes achievements
of ancient civilisation to ‘bourgeoisie’. An optimistic view of achievements of
antiquity; happy to use terms like capitalism, markets, trade, entrepreneur.
(3) ‘Primitivism’ begins as reaction to modernisers: Bucher, Weber, Hasebroek. Not
major force in ancient history until Finley (influenced by Weber and Polanyi) in later
C20. Emphasis on absolute difference between ancient and modern; antiquity is
primitive, pre-modern, pre-industrial, under-developed.
(4) Views clearly rest not only on different interpretations of limited ancient
evidence, e.g. involvement of Roman senators in trade, but on different narratives
(continuity vs. fundamental break) and different ideas of our relation to ancients
(they’re just like us vs. they’re completely alien). Political overtones: assume that our
form of society (i.e. capitalism) is universal and eternal, or insist that capitalism is
historically limited.
(5) Closely related to more abstract debate. ‘Formalists’ argue that economic theory
is universally applicable, since it analyses behaviour inherent to human beings; hence
no problem in applying modern economic concepts to antiquity. Mainly associated
with modernisers, but not always; many modernisers know no economics but simply
use vocabulary unselfconsciously, while a few primitivists make use of (carefully
selected) economic theory, mainly microeconomics — arguing, for example, that we
may find economically rational behaviour at the individual level, e.g. in managing
one’s farm, but in absence of integrated market system macroeconomics is useless.
(6) ‘Substantivists’ argue that economics was developed to study modern capitalist
economy and so is useless for non-capitalist and non-western economies where
economy is ‘embedded’ in social structures (political overtones again: associated with
critique of ‘development economics’). Either reject use of theory altogether (Finley’s
approach; mainly sticks to critique rather than attempting positive account) or turn to
sociology, psychology or above all anthropology in search of alternative models of
human behaviour (see e.g. von Reden, Exchange in Ancient Greece). Increasingly
also turn to study of material and environmental context, limits on human action;
assume that medical and ecological science is universally valid, if not economics.
(7) Key issues: what’s the most appropriate comparison for antiquity — the modern
world, an African tribe, medieval Europe? What is an appropriate vocabulary for the
study of the ancient economy? How to choose between primitivism and modernism?